Review: Warcraft: The Beginning

Video games and movies have never seemed to go hand-in-hand. However 2016 could well the year we finally see some successful films that are based off video games. While Assassin's Creed is out at the end of the year, we get to see what Warcraft is like on the big screen.

With the source material definitely there to give something entertaining, the hype is clearly there. What is also adding to the pressure of making sure it is good, is that Duncan Jones is the director. With his previous work of Moon and Source Code being some of the best films of the last ten years, Jones was certainly a pleasing choice with its loyal fans.

With video game movies not faring well, and that I have never played the game nor seen the trailers, I had no idea what to expect from this film. I ending up having a great time and I am already stoked for where they go next.

One thing that struck me early on was that there was going to be a lot to cover in its 2 hour duration. Whilst getting to grips with this world and trying to understand the history of it, I was dazzled by the general look of it.
As the film went on, I was certainly hooked and got invested into this story. For the rest of the film, I was just enjoying the hell out of it and felt pretty satisfied with the epic finale that leaves us open for a many sequels to come.

For someone who has never played the games, it is hard to know where to start. I must say that it looked stunning. The designs of the various landscapes and the creatures looked amazing. It is hard to impress someone with visual effects these days as we seem to take them for granted. But this film manage to use the CGI to their advantage.
One thing that I was not expecting was the haunting imagery, especially with the part of the film that involved magic and mythology. There were certain characters and moments that really spooked me and that made me see this film in a totally different way.

I also noticed that there was very little exposition, which is always great to see. Props to Duncan Jones and his team for making us figure it out for ourselves. They structured the story out really well and I was remembering various characters names well and understanding the laws of this world. There are a lot of characters to remember and I think they did a great job to introducing them.

As for the performances, some were live-action and some motion-captured. Overall, I enjoyed them and felt emotionally attached to pretty much all of them. Despite being the lead, I felt Travis Fimmel to not be that captivating as Anduin Lothar. He was ok, but certainly did not feel like the poster boy he is being billed as.
Paula Patton was pretty bad-ass as the female lead Garona. I saw her potential in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, and this further confirms how much of a physical performer she is. Ben Foster was pretty good as this mysterious wizard-like character called Medivh. Dominic Cooper felt mis-cast to me as Llane Wrynn. Ben Schnetzer was a mixed bag. At times he worked well. Other times felt as if he was more of a TV actor rather than a movie actor.
However, the stars seemed to be the motion captured performers. Lead by Toby Kebell who has had previous motion-capture work in the Planet Of The Apes franchise as Koba. He continues to shine in that line of work as Durotan. Daniel Wu was so haunting and chilling as the scary looking Gul'dan. Also have to credit to the motion-capture performances of Robert Kazinsky, Clancy Brown and Anna Galvin.

As said before, the creature designs and visual effects are its strongest positive. The heavy detail is great to look at and is up there with films like Avatar, the Planet Of The Apes franchise and The Jungle Book. The film would have been a completely different experience if the CGI was as standard as most blockbusters are. It also has possibly the best use of magic in any film, and I am including Harry Potter in this.

My only major negative was that moments of the final act felt rushed to me. It looked like some scenes were cut and we were missing some development.
Some parts that could have been improved for me were the performances and possibly the character development. But I will let the latter off, as I can tell they a lot to cover in this one to get the general films fans on-board.

I most certainly had a fun time watching a film that has a lot of things riding on this. Duncan Jones and his team have dona a great job in making non-gamers like me understand the movie whilst also pleasing the hardcore fans of this successful gaming franchise.

I am really interested to see the hate from the critics. Well for me they can do one, as they are so wrong about this one. If you love fantasy like me, then you should like it, as it reeks of it. Also, if you are unsure as its based on a video game, I would still give this a chance. It's heart is in the right place and they give it an exciting tone and it goes along at a romping pace. Coming from someone who has never played the game, I understood what was going on and felt immersed into the universe by the end of it. The characters are interesting, the visuals are absolutely fantastic, the action is exciting, there is so many haunting images that truly terrified me and its sets us up beautifully for a sequel. You will definitely see me on opening day for the next installment. I am officially a convert.

Rating: 7/10

Review: Money Monster

While Jodie Foster is well known for her acting work in highly acclaimed films such as Taxi Driver, Bugsy Malone, The Silence Of The Lambs, Contact and Inside Man. I even liked her role in Nim's Island. She is still in early development of being a successful director.

I was certainly interested after seeing the trailer. It looked like the type of thriller that we do not see that often. So with a pretty solid cast and premise, that was more than enough to give this a chance and the deserved box office.

However, I feared that I had seen pretty much the film in the trailer as it seemed to leave little to the imagination. Thankfully, I was wrong.

It is a lot more suspenseful then I thought it would be. I was impressed with Foster's directing as they were really invested in the story and its characters. Also, it definitely relates to current topics that we can definitely be interested in.  It even makes great use of modern technology and entertainment which certainly surprised me and even made me laugh out loud.
There was one particular scene towards the end that made me gasp, which I was not expecting to do in this film.

The performances were pretty good and they drove the film to become the fun watch that it is. George Clooney was a good lead and played a character that developed really well throughout.
Jack O'Connell was a strong supporting role. He really pulled his New York accent brilliantly well. You would never know that he was originally from Derby. He continues to impress me in anything that he does, and I cannot wait for his next project.
However for me, Julia Roberts was the big stand-out. It has been a while since I have seen a good Roberts performance, and this ended up being a big scene stealer as the main supporting role.

Lots of other positives to talk about. The script had a bit of everything. It was entertaining, it kept me gripped and even had me laughing at times especially one scene towards the end.
I also liked was the snappy duration. In an age where big films feel like they need to be around 2hrs 30mins to get their point across. It is rare that we see a 90 minute film that cuts to the chase, and gets out at the right time. Whilst it did not seem to drag at all. It did not feel like the duration that it was officially given.

I am happy to see Jodie Foster make her first critically successful film as director in what is certainly her most expensive and accessible movie as director to date.
It is certainly one of these types of films that we do not see that often and it would be great if this at least got a respectable box office taking.

It has clear similarities to Inside Man with also subtle hints of Dog Day Afternoon, Network and even one scene that is very much like the final scene in The Truman Show. However, the Spike Lee film felt better executed with much more interesting characters. That being said, this is still a fun film with good performances and is refreshing to see something that we were used to seeing in the 90's.

Rating: 7/10

Review: Alice Through The Looking Glass

I had mixed emotions when this was announced. Tim Burton's 2010 re-make that was actually a sequel was a disappointment and had problems. But I still had a fairly good time watching it.

While it got mixed reviews, it still made a ton of money. It seems weird that it took six years for a sequel to be made. Usually by movie standards these days, if something sells they make a sequel straight away. The lack of a story idea was probably the problem. This is because, if they do a straight adaptation of the novel, then it would pretty much be a copy of the 1951 version.

However with Through The Looking Glass, we don't have Burton and there is not that much hype or care for it. The director for this latest installment is James Bobin who has directed the last two Muppets films. That alone gave me some hope of enjoyment as Bobin seems able to do successful family films.

Sadly for me, it did work for me and the whole felt unnecessary. The first half does have interesting ideas in its main plots and sub-plots, the performances and writing just was not intriguing enough for the most part.
I was liking the use of time travel though. With the tone of the film looking to suite younger kids, I can see them enjoying that part of the film as I know some other films like to complicate time travel.
By the end of it, it was a by-the-numbers finale that has one cool looking moment. However, it was pretty simple and predictable in the end.

Some films can be highly enjoyable whilst still being predictable. However, Through The Looking Glass was doing enough for me.

The acting on a whole was like watching a pantomime without the crowd participation. Mia Wasikowska was fine as the heroine that is Alice. I would happily jump on the bandwagon for Johnny Depp being annoying in this particular film as Mad Hatter.
Anne Hathaway was the most annoying. I know this particular actress is well hated. However, this is the only film that I have seen that in. Sacha Baren Cohen was fine as Time and definitely suited the tone well. However, his costume looked a bit too outrageous.
Stephen Fry as Cheshire Cat was still great to see. He was my big highlight of the first one and everything still worked for me in this one.
Alan Rickman is back as Absolem in what his final ever performance and give a fitting tribute in the end credits. None of the other performance were particularly memorable, not even Helena Bonham Carter.

My main positives to come out of this were the amazing visual effects, flashy costumes and romping score. They were pleasing eye-candy, but enough to distract me from the uninteresting story.
One scene I did like was involving a tea party involving the usual people Mad Hatter, March Hare and Dormouse. It was a nice nostalgic moment that I felt to look more the tea party in the animated original rather than the gloomy 2010 version.

In conclusion, the movie for me had a hard time prove that this sequel needed to exist. The story was just not either interesting nor executed well. It was pretty basic stuff and it did not grip me that much. A good comparison would be Oz The Great And Powerful. It has potential and you can see it on screen. Sadly the tone was more suited for younger kids and there is little for the adults to get involved with.
Like I said, I did like the use of the time travel aspect of the story and the visuals and costume nice to look at. But a lot of the problems from the previous one have returned in the sequel. While it does look really nice and bright, there is just too much green screen. It would look more impressive if they the gave some physicality.

It felt silly to every character that we all know an origins and a story arch. Do we really need to know what Tweedledee and Tweedledum were like as kids, or how the Mad Hatter became a hatter, mad, what is upbringing was and his relationship with his parents?
The only one that seem interesting was the history with the White Queen and the Red Queen. Sadly that is not the main part of the story and is mainly a sub-plot in the second half of the film.

It was always going to be an uphill struggle. I was not expecting it to be like a novel as the animated Alice In Wonderland pretty much had all the main stories from Trough The Looking Glass in that adaptation. So I think with they did out of it, it was ok. But I think the budget would have been spent better and something else.

Rating: 6/10

Nostalgic Review: Alice In Wonderland (2010)

I remember the amount of buzz this film was getting up to its release in the summer of 2010. I certainly remember hyping it up.

The main reason was that Tim Burton was directing it, and his style seemed almost too perfect for this type of story.

With an all-star cast and amazingly looking visuals, there was little chance that this could disappoint us.

Well, I cannot deny that I was disappointed and the story does take a while to warm to. But I still felt it to be a pretty solid watch. Also, despite the trailer suggesting a re-make. The story actually turns out being a clear a follow-up from the events of the fantastic 1951 animated classic.
The tone was certainly more depressing then I expected. There is little wonder and amazement in this Wonderland, that is actually known by another name in this version which confused many people that saw this.

The cast on the whole I felt was good. Mia Wasikowska was a perfectly fine Alice. However, Johnny Depp's character of the Mad Hatter seemed to be given a much bigger story then you think. He seemed to be a much more important and influential character than any of us would have ever thought. He even has an origins scene and was given a random Scottish accent at times. I don't know if it was because Depp was cast and they had to make him the lead, or that the books do actually have him in an important role.

Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen was as good as you would expect. As for other roles, Anne Hathaway as solid as the White Queen. It was great to see Crispin Glover back on the big screen as the Knave Of Hearts. Other notable voice performances that worked well was Matt Lucas as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, Barbara Windsor as Dormouse and Alan Rickman as Absolem.

The use of Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter felt a bit too safe and obvious for many people with Burton directing. I  was fine with both. But I can definitely see why, and casting someone else would have been a more refreshing approach.

The big highlight performance for me was Stephen Fry as the voice of the Cheshire Cat. It was probably the only character that exceeded my expectations. It had that perfect mix of the character from the animated version and Burton's vision of it.

The main problems I had with it was the story and using too much green screen. The story did not grip me enough. I had me confused more than anything else. An Alice In Wonderland film should entertain and amaze you. There was definitely too much green screen. I felt it needed more physicality that could mix in with the CGI landscape.
There are also some really random moments that totally take you out of the film. Most notably, a freaky looking dance by Depp's character towards the end. I understood why they did it. But the execution of it felt separate to everything we had just seen.

There are definitely a series of Burton films that are making him look like a pastiche of himself, and I would probably include this one. We've had others like Planet Of The Apes, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (which I thought was pretty solid) and Dark Shadows.

I definitely don't hate it as much as the majority. There is stuff in here that I liked. I like the general look of it, the design of the characters was impressive to look at, especially the Cheshire Cat and the Queen's Playing Card and I like the performances as a whole and I love the score by Danny Elfman. But it is first and foremost, a disappointment.

Rating: 7/10

Review: X-Men: Apocalypse

It is hard to imagine that this is the ninth X-Men film. This franchise seems to have set the trends for superhero films to come. For many, this was the first of the modern superhero films. They do did the first sequel, and the first spin-off in the form of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

I do feel that director Bryan Singer does not get the credit that he deserves. He has given us so many enjoyable films within this franchise and most importantly, he cast Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and pretty much broke him into the movie business. I find it hard to believe that some groups of film fans want this to be owned by Marvel instead of Fox.

I was definitely nervous going into this due to the high amount of characters involved. As we all know, the history of superhero films with too many characters does not fare well. However, there are some good ones out there, and I would add this one to that list.

The first half was slow, but was still building up nicely with some nice moments. But as the longer the film went, the higher my enjoyment levels were and by the end of it I was having a lot of fun like you should have with any summer blockbuster.
It has some ambition and risk to its story which the X-Men films have done in the past. But I think on the whole, it worked for me and I think it will with the fans of the franchise.

I think it goes without saying that if you have not caught up with the X-Men films or do not care for them, then do not bother wasting your money on this.
I'm saying this as there are some scenes in the final act that may alienate the general audience. But for people who have seen all the films within this franchise and have a basic understanding of this world, then it will be an entertaining climax.

There are issues with it. The story-telling can get slow, scattered and does feel it like we have missed some development as our characters seem to have changed dramatically since the last time we saw them on screen. Also, it does seem unsure about the main story that we have to concentrate on. It seems in the end to be a whole of bunch of sub-plots. That has been a minor problem in past X-Men films. There is a lot of ground to cover. But I feel the film would feel more held together if they concentrated more on one idea and maybe hint at some others, instead of trying to cram everything in to get its point across.

The performances overall definitely exceeded by expectations. There is a lot to get through, so bare with me. James McAvoy was great as always as Charles Xavier. He brings so much to the role and I believed in his character all the way through.
Michael Fassbender is gives great moments in the first half and seemed side-lined in the second half which I was fine with, due to the high amount of characters. When he was in the centre of the moment, Fassbender is as great as we know he can be.
Oscar Isaac as Apocalypse was a mixed bag for me. It does take a while to warm to his character. But eventually you really feel his threat and the added pitch on his voice sounds really sinister.
I am not sure what to make of Jennifer Lawrence's character. She did not really feature that heavily in the story and her character in this seemed more like her role from The Hunger Games.
Evan Peters as Quicksilver gives great comedic moments and has another fantastic scene-stealing moment. I did not think that they would manage to top that scene from Days Of Future Past. But they definitely kick it up a notch and it was great to watch. Props to the team that constructed that moment.
There are so many minor roles to speak of. They all did a great job, especially the newbies such as Sophie Turner as Jean Grey, Tye Sheridan as Cyclops, Kodi Smit-McPhee as Nightcrawler and Alexandra Shipp as Storm, who is looking like a better cast choice than Halle Berry. I would have liked to have seen more of Ben Hardy as Angel and Lana Condor as Jubilee. As for Olivia Munn as Psylocke. It was nice to see that character. But Munn was rightly given very little to say and did what she really is, be eye-candy.

Despite some narrative problems, I had so much fun with this. It is one of the those few films that I felt got better the longer it went. Most films usually peak too soon and it comes to a disappointing final act. This managed to peak at the right times. So if you feel you are not enjoying the opening 30 mins or so. I ask you to be patient, give it time and I reckon you will have a fun time by the end of it. I was enjoying it pretty much all the way through. But I was definitely getting into it a lot by the end of it.

It is probably the most action filled X-Men film. When you think about it, you do forget that these films do like to talk about its ideas rather than resort to everyone fighting at the end like most action films do. Doing that keeps them focused on the story at hand, instead of them throwing it out the window and do some visual eye-candy to sell the film to the casual movie-goers.

A good comparison would be that a lot of this film reminded me of Avengers: Age Of Ultron, but in a better light. A lot of characters with a big villain from the comics that does not quite get the development that it needed for the general audience to fully understand. But X-Men: Apocalypse managed to be more entertaining and the villain seemed almost as threatening as he does in the comics.

I like the tie-ins they made to try and connect all the other X-Men films that Singer has made in the past, along with Matthew Vaughn's X-Men: First Class. But I know that when you properly break it down, there are a stupid amount of plot holes. But if you enjoy watching these. Then you can let a few minor faults go, as it still entertains you.

People my generation would probably remember watching a lot of the animated series. I am happy to say that there are definitely parts of the film that had a look of the animated series. If that is purposefully done, then I cannot wait to see what they do next. This is because apparently it will be set in the 90's, which is when the animated series was released. I would love it if they gave us a bit of that awesome animated theme in the score somewhere.
Speaking of the score, John Ottman is as good as ever. I'll never forget that feeling of joy in Days Of Future Past when we finally got to hear the original X-Men theme again, and Apocalypse does it again.

As usual with these types of films, I intentionally did not watch any of the trailers. I have heard that some trailers give a lot a way in terms of the story and big action set-pieces. I am so happy that I have been doing this as that reaction of seeing it for the first time in a theatre is the best possible feeling to have. Not seeing it on a computer, laptop or phone as part of a trailer. You shouldn't go into it already knowing that scene is coming up and the reaction will down-grade your overall enjoyment of the film.

I am surprised at the early mixed reviews on a whole from critics and fans alike. If you are not caught up or don't care for these films, then I can see it being slated. But even if that is the case, this still feels like a fun summer blockbuster. It might not challenge the art of story-telling. But Singer and his team have given us another well-made fun action packed superhero film that I would rank fairly high compared to the other X-Men films. To be precise, I would rank it fourth behind X-Men 2, Deadpool and X-Men: First Class.

There is a post-credits scene. It hints at something that I vaguely remember from the animated series. It will be interesting to see how they set that up in Gambit and The Wolverine 3 before the next X-Men extravaganza.

Rating: 7/10

Nostalgic Review: The Wolverine

I remember choosing not to go and see this at the cinemas. The trailer did not inspire me enough and I was not interested in another Wolverine solo movie.

But when I eventually bought it on DVD, there was some parts of it that I was not expecting and was interested to see develop throughout the movie.
Sadly, for the most part it is what I was expecting. It was fine to watch. It just was not that memorable.

Hugh Jackman is great as usual. He does keep you interested in watching the rest of this, especially with his comedic moments. The rest of the performances are not anything spectacular. But they do the job well and it was to see some of Japan's biggest stars involved in a superhero film. The part of the film that I was not expecting did feature a returning character that I was happy to see. I won't spoil it as I don't think it was in any of the trailers.

I could be harsh and say that this was a pointless movie and I think it truly is in the end. You struggle to care for the characters outside of Wolverine. I would not say it is the weakest in the franchise. But for me, it is certainly the least enjoyable. The film is not bad. It does everything you expect it to a satisfactory standard. If you go into this film with as low expectations as I did, then you would probably get the most enjoyment possible.

There is a mid-credits, and it is a pretty cool one and easily the best part of the film. However, when you add the events from the franchise into it, it pretty much does not make sense as to how this connects with everything else we have seen.

Rating: 7/10

Review: Sing Street

I had not seen much of Carney's work. I have only seen Once, and I completed loved it. After seeing this, you can definitely feel that music shows Carney's best work when it comes to film-making.

So naturally I was unsure whether to see this or not. But after hearing nothing but high praise for this when it got released at the Sundance Film Festival, I definitely was assured that I was ready for a good time at the movies.

Well, I most certainly did and it could well be one of the best of the year. It is not often a film can get me constantly hooked and laughing at regular intervals till the very end.
While the rest of the screening was laughing as much as I was, the pay-off was totally satisfying and ended a wonderful viewing experience.
It is a wonderful throwback to those teen movies of the 80's. When it was done right, coming-of-age films from that decade were some of the best from that time period.

All the performances were extremely good on the whole. Especially by the young fairly unknown actors. Ferdia Walsh-Peelo was tremendous as the main character. That great mix of charm and sympathy worked so well. Also, his on-screen relationship with Lucy Boynton's character was really nice to see. Jack Reynor was a real scene stealer as the main supportive role, and the rest of the young actors such as Ben Carolan, Mark McKenna, Percy Chamburuka, Conor Hamilton, Karl Rice and Ian Kenny just added to the enjoyment. It was a nice surprise to Don Wycherley play a minor role as I associate the most for his appearances in Father Ted as the dim-witted Father Cyril McDuff.

Despite all this high praise, the most impressive part of the film that I feel should get an Oscar nomination, was the soundtrack. Not only were all the many songs in the film catchy and memorable, they were original. That deserves some recognition in the form of awards. One of the songs played is also stunningly used in a scene that could well be my favourite scene of the year. We will have to wait and see if it ends up like that.

This is such a feel good film that I feel everyone needs to see. Its heart is in the right place, it is so so funny and has so much charm. It has that same feeling that you get with films like The Commitments, School Of Rock, Billy Elliott and The Full Monty. It is a lovely story told in such an inspiring way with  emotional results. I hope many creative teenagers get to see this and this should be there film. They need to experience this. I can definitely see some award nominations, especially at the BAFTA's.

Rating: 8/10

Nostalgic Review: X-Men: First Class

I find Matthew Vaughn an exciting director and am always highly interested in what project he is taking on next. In 2011, he is going for his take on re-booting the X-Men franchise. Despite only The Last Stand for being a disappointment. That and Origins: Wolverine seemed to slow down its success and re-boot seemed the right choice.

I remember being unsure of this decision. But any new X-Men film is welcomed.

From the very start and throughout, I was utterly compelled and completely overwhelmed by what Vaughn and his team have made. I don't usually go nuts over summer blockbusters. But this one seemed to hit the right spots for me and ended up being in my top 10 films of 2011.

I was so surprised at how much I was enjoying it, amazed at some of the angles it went down and shocked at how interesting the script ended up being.

With all that amount of positivity, that does mean there are some good performances as well to speak of. The big draws are James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as a younger Professor X and Magneto compared to the versions played by Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan. The relationship between them is great. The dialogue that McAvoy is given has so much depth and breaks down the use of the mutants powers so well that it becomes a short of its own within the main plot. Fassbender was the perfect casting choice and shows real threat when needed.
I was really not expecting much from Kevin Bacon as the main villain. But he managed to probably be one of the best villains from any Marvel movie.
Every minor role was done really well, especially by the younger actors. But the few exceptions that I would like to mention is Jennifer Lawrence and January Jones. Lawrence was good as Mystique and I loved the use of a cheeky cameo by the original and best portrayal of Mystique, Rebecca Romijn. As for Jones, being both super sexy and a bad-ass as the deadly Emma Frost was a great choice of casting.

From a technical standpoint, the 60's setting is great and the events in that time period really mix in well with the main characters. Also the costume design was like watching a Sean Connery James Bond film at times, especially with the outfits Fassbender's character was wearing in the early part. Even some of the visual effects looked 60's inspired. The score by Henry Jackman is terrific and one of the best from the Marvel films. I still listen to it every now and again to this day.

I rarely show so much love for not just a superhero film, but a film aimed for the summer market. Vaughn and his team have given us a constantly exciting blockbuster that is so much fun to watch. I just love the story and how everyone's path begins.
There are so many great individual scenes. My personal favourites are the one in Argentina is so tense and is always a delight to watch, and one towards the end involving Fassbender's character and a submarine.

For me, this the best Marvel film to date. It goes at a romping pace, it is pure entertainment, the very definition of a summer blockbuster and was the perfect re-boot to give this franchise the new energy that it needed.

It also contains what I think is the greatest cameo of all-time. Be sure to check that moment out if you haven't seen this.

Rating: 8/10

Nostalgic Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

With the X-Men franchise being seen by many as the franchise that begun the superhero genre. They also were the first to do spin-off origin stories. In this one, we see how Logan became Wolverine.

Now I know universally this is seen as not that good. However, I thought it was pretty decent.

The first half gives us an interesting premise and introduces to mutants we have not seen before. As the film went on, it was developing well and I felt the final act was a good pay off.

I think the performances on a whole were decent. Hugh Jackman is as good as he alwways is Wolverine. Lieb Schreiber was pretty good and played the villain well as Victor Creed. Danny Huston was solid as Colonel William Stryker. However, Brian Cox will always be the best Stryker. Taylor Kitsch plays a character we have all been waiting for, Gambit. It might not have been the perfect resemblance to this popular mutant. But Kitsch certainly has its moments in the film that are a particular highlight of mine. I even thought Will.i.am had a nice minor role.

Once character that definitely has a lot of negativity was Ryan Reynolds' character of Wade Wilson. The comic book fans will know him as Deadpool. It was not Reynolds' performance that was the problem. It was how his character ended up. Now I know a lot of people feel the portrayal of Deadpool quite insulting, especially in the final act. However, I liked it. Everyone agrees that Ryan Reynolds was the right casting choice. But I felt his transformation at the end to be quite haunting even though it is not the Deadpool we know from the comics.

I do some negatives with it. As previously mentioned, the portrayal for Gambit was definitely not as good as it could have been. But thankfully, it was not bad. The majority of the negative is on the technical side. Most of the visual effects is either dated or ropy. It certainly look like the budget did not concentrate on the CGI. Also, the script could have been better.

I would say ignore the critics and general bad vibes and check it out yourself. The action scenes are pretty cool to watch, it connects into the franchise really well with lots of nice goodies to find throughout the film. There are some really good individual scenes including one centered on Dominic Monaghan's character.

I definitely had fun with this and I wish I had seen this on the big screen as I feel it would have been worth the price of admission.

I really like post-credits scene as well. Even though there won't be a sequel to this. It gives you something to be excited for.

Rating: 7/10

Nostalgic Review: X-Men: The Last Stand

With the X-Men franchise getting better and better, the hype for the third installment was quite big at the time. So much so, that this was one of my few visits to the cinema at this point in my life.

Sadly, Bryan Singer was not directing this one as he was busy doing Superman Returns. Instead, we get Brett Ratner who was most well known for doing the Rush Hour films. After the brilliant X-Men 2, everything was building up nicely to an all-mighty finale.

I have to say that it is massively inferior to the first installments and my main reaction was disappointment. It is definitely not terrible. Pretty much all of it is perfectly fine. But the good stuff just is not as strong as the content we got from Singer's.

To be fair, this third part of the franchise does go down ballsy paths which I was pleasantly surprised to see. The execution of some of them was a big highlight, the others not as well done.
I think the main problem with this, is undeveloped characters and the dialogue not being that interesting. Also with a lot of ground to cover, the duration does not seem to be long enough and a lot of scenes end up looking rushed.

However, there are some good moments that I remember loving when I saw it at the cinema. There are moments that made me gasp, smile and be on the edge of my seat. Ratner and his team does cover the right things that should be in an X-Men film. But I just did not feel the passion compared to Singer.

While it is hugely disappointing. It does have its few good moments and you can have some fun with this for the most part. Sadly, the good stuff does not seem to draw you in a way the first two did and I cannot ignore the problems that it has. The whole story just not seem to be executed well. They seemed to kill off the wrong characters and not develop the new ones that well. But like I said, there are some good moments that are worth watching. But if I had sum up this film in one word, it would be, let-down.

There is also a random post-credits scene that in my opinion was badly explained and just seemed like their way of escaping their main ballsy twist. I think pretty much everyone discovered this scene when buying it on DVD as this was the first post-credits scene in any superhero film. Yes, even before Iron Man.

Rating: 7/10

Nostalgic Review: X-Men 2

With superhero films now becoming the norm, the sequels are beginning to be released.

After what was a pretty good beginning to this franchise, director Bryan Singer returns and gives us his vision and where he is taking these characters.

Right from the brilliant opening scene you can already tell that this is going to be something special.

I can only imagine how hard it is for film-makers of this particular genre of stuff in there that can please bot hardcore fans of the source material and casual fans. This one does it so well that even when re-watching this, I managed to find some nice easter eggs that will please the passionate fan-base.

They have definitely improved on the general production and look of it. The action scenes are much more impressive and exciting and there is a steady amount throughout. Even the final act paid off and gave this film a well-rounded story that can make this stand on its own.

Hugh Jackman is back and more bad-ass then he has ever been as Wolverine. We get to know more about Famke Janssen's character in this one. She has a much more interesting story-line and the execution is done really well.
Brian Cox really shined as the main villain. He felt a real threat throughout and is probably one of the best villainous performance from any Marvel film.
Sir Ian McKellan plays Magneto so well as usual, and remains a haunting screen-presence. As ever assisted by Mystique played Rebecca Romijn, she seems to have given more screen time, and it is great to watch every time.
Alan Cummings was a great addition as Nightcrawler and all the other returning characters still deliver.

While the movie does what everyone expects a superhero film to be, give us entertainment, show our favourite comic book characters on screen. However, the story has a real depth to it and is much more interesting then its predecessor. We get introduced to more mutants and they make great use of their powers during the action scenes. Despite the high amount of characters it knows when to conecntrate on its main ones and develop them into the story well.

At that moment in time, this was considered the best superhero movie since probably Batman returns in 1992. I still rank it as one of the best films based from Marvel comics and the second best X-Men film. Not many people say that, which is such a shame. I hope people re-visit this hugely entertaining sequel to see how good it truly is.

Rating: 8/10

Nostalgic Review: X-Men

The year is 2000, and the superhero genre was in its infancy. When people my age thought of superhero films, you instantly think of Christopher Reeve's Superman films or the good Batman films by Tim Burton and the not so good Batman films by Joel Schumacher.

But that was all DC based. There was little for Marvel to shout about except on TV with their terrific animated series of their various franchises, including the X-Men.

I remember being hugely excited for the release of this as I loved the X-Men animated series, that I feel still holds up today and is much better then any of the other superhero animated series around right now.

The opening certainly hits the ground running in terms of what ideas it is covering. It is certainly the most ideal plot to cover to see mutants and humans can co-exist and make it feel a war on racism.
The rest of the first half is introducing us to the mutant world really nicely and fans of the animated series like me are certainly having a nice moment of nostalgia.

The second half does have its exciting action set-pieces. However, the story is a bit generic and sort out forgets the ideas it had in the first half. It still remains a solid action film and don't forget it has been a while since we have seen a good superhero film.

The cast was pretty big and had that great mix of old and new talent. Anna Paquin was really good as Rogue. She has shown great promise with her supporting role in The Piano and I felt she was perfect to play this troublesome character. Having Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellan as Charles Xavier and Magneto was a stroke of genius. They play the roles so effortlessly.
This is also the film that gave birth of Hugh Jackman as a major film star. Before this role, he was more known for his work on the stage whilst also doing a small amount of TV roles. But as soon as you see him, he looks like Wolverine and fits the characters personality so well it's as if Logan himself has jumped out of a comic book.
Rebecca Romijn was most definitely the scene stealer as Mystique. Her characters power was put to good to use and the action scenes she was involved with were crowd-pleasing and then some. As for other minor roles, James Marsden was the right choice for Cyclops. His banter with Jackman's character definitely caused the biggest laughs. Halle Berry and Famke Janssen were pretty solid as Storm and Jean Grey also. It was nice to see Ray Park play an actual character (Toad) instead of doing stunt-work which is most well known for.
It was great to see Shawn Ashmore play a minor role as Iceman as I remember him well from the TV series Animorphs. If you remember Animorphs, then you were brought up in the right era.

I think the only major negative is the story. It does feel weak, especially when you look back on it and can now compare it to the many other superhero films that go more complex.

This was a pretty good adaptation of the X-Men, especially in an era where CGI was still not being totally invested by film-makers. But you can tell that there is more that can be done. I really liked the tone Bryan Singer and his team were going for. You can tell that he is a fan of the source material and wants to make the best movie adaptation possible. The story was solid, the performances were pretty on the whole and you can feel that this can go to some really interesting places.

For many people, this was the beginning of the Marvel films even though it properly began with Blade a couple of year earlier. As we all know, the rest is history and the birth of the modern superhero genre has now begun.

Rating: 7/10

Review: Knight Of Cups

Despite being in the business for almost 50 years, director Terrence Malick really takes time when making his films. This latest project will only be his seventh feature film as director.

His dream-like filming style certainly divides people, and yet always intrigues. Only The Thin Red Line managed to completely overwhelm me. I was impressed with The New World. But for the rest, they are very interesting but not always hitting the right notes for me.

In Knight Of Cups, the stellar cast and beautiful looking trailer definitely got me interested and wanting to see this on the big screen despite the mainly negative reviews for it.

It is really to hard sum up this one. I must mention that apparently the actors began with no script. They just started shooting and see what happens. I can see why. It does not seem to have a structure. But more like a collection of memories and moments. It actually ended up being a fascinating watch.

It shows Los Angeles and Les Vegas in an interesting and lovely way. While you see the rich constantly go to parties and spending stupid amounts on pointless things. You see are main character in the middle of it searching for himself and wandering about like he is in that hazy place between awake and dreaming.
The second half can get a bit long as it is more of the same and there is only so much you can take of it.

Despite it looking disjointed,the images are so strong and gorgeous to look at. It might look good as something to put on in the background at a party for creative people. That is most certainly not an insult. I just feel that its strongest point is just looking at it.
I was pleased to see that after watching it, the cinematography was done by Emmanuel Lubezki who has won the Oscar for Best Cinematography for the last three years. I love his work, he is the best cinematographer around, and I can see why I liked watching the images on screen.

There is not much to talk about the performances. There is little on-screen dialogue to talk about. Like with most Malick films, it is all about the thoughts of the characters that we can hear rather than what they are actually saying. Christian Bale seemed the right choice for me as the leading character. His presence seems to fit the tone of the film. There was also a nice cameo from Antonio Banderas.

The score is very dreamy as well and fits into what you are seeing perfectly.  It is almost like watching a live-action version of Fantasia. But not as dramatic.

I think one word to sump up this film would be poetic. It felt like a 2-hour meditation class. If you can lose, absorb and immerse yourself into it. Then it can feel like an outer-body experience. Try not to get into it to hard. Just let yourself go.
A lot of people will see this as pretentious nonsense, especially if you are not 'au feit' with Malick's style of film-making. But if you are always interested to see what he comes up with despite not always being won over by it. Then I think it is worth a try.

Rating: 7/10

Review: Everybody Wants Some!!

For me, any upcoming Richard Linklater film instantly gets me interested. Especially when this particular film is being billed as the "spiritual sequel" to Dazed And Confused. The 1993 coming-of-age comedy put Linklater on the map. Since then, he has wonderful films such as School Of Rock, Boyhood and my favourite modern romance films Before Sunrise, Before Sunset and Before Midnight.

With Dazed And Confused being set on the last day of high school in the 1970's, Everybody Wants Some seems to set at the start of college in the 1980's. I may not have been a student in the 80's. But the entire vibe brought it all back for me, and made me miss the student life even more.

It does have that Dazed And Confused vibe. But also, has a bit of Animal House to it as well as it is set in college. From the opening scene that begins the awesome soundtrack to the satisfying ending, I had a big smile on my face throughout. It is everything that you would expect from Linklater.

The Texan director is known for not having many big names in the cast, and this is no exception. I knew none of the cast involved and they all have bright futures ahead. Dazed And Confused certainly launched the careers of Milla Jovovich, Adam Goldberg, Renee Zellweger, Ben Affleck, Park Posey and of course Matthew McConaughey.

The main cast's comradery was spot on and you could tell that they all got along well. Also, they were all memorable and in the end I could easily tell them apart. You might not be able to identify all of them by name. But you can certainly give them your own name, such as the leader, the cool one, the smooth talker, the dumb one, the freaky one, the cocky one, the one that is always high and the gullible one. The character that the film centres on is played by Blake Jenner, who apparantly is well known for his work on Glee. He fitted the role well and felt totally believable in the way he was reacting to certain situations.
As for the large amount of support cast, it was hard to a find stand-out as they all had their moment, and the execution of all of them was great. However, one managed to make an impression on me and I am sure others will see it as well. I am talking about the performance by Glen Powell. His moments on screen was certainly the strongest out of anyone and his character I felt he was given the best dialogue as well.

When you break it down, there is not that much of a main plot. Just a lot of sub-plots. But that is what you get with a lot of Linklater's films. He is so good at just showing life, moments in time, and showing people talk about every-day stuff. A lot of his films makes you reminisce and remember the good people that you have met in your life.

The film is just one big party and Linklater has invited everyone to jump back into the 80's and go back to your own days as a student in college/university.
I love the message that it was going for. It felt incredibly relatable, and has that universal appeal. The level of realism Linklater has in his previous films is here for all to see in his latest project.

In a nutshell, you could say it is well-crafted nostalgia. It is a great coming of age films that gives you important life lessons, while watching many great characters. The casts togetherness and sense of humor is great to watch. This film definitely has something for everyone.

Rating: 8/10

Review: Florence Foster Jenkins

I was umming and ahing for quite some time whether to see this or not after first hearing about it, and once I saw the first trailer. But as it was directed by Stephen Frears, I felt that was enough to give it a go. Also, anything starring Meryl Streep is worth thinking about seeing at least. Also, the trailers seemed to purposefully hide her voice as that is the main part of the story. That was good marketing as I feel it will attract to hear how bad her voice really is.

Some of you may have already seen a film earlier this year with the same story called Marguerite. Sadly, I did not. But it is always a fascinating thing when two films are released pretty close to each other talking about the same thing. One recent example was when Snow White And The Hunstman, and Mirror Mirror: The Untold Adventures Of Snow White were released in 2012 a couple of months apart. I don't know how these things happen, but it always a nice topic to discuss.

It is not often that I see a film at the cinema that gives me a lot of laughs as most straight-out comedies do not appeal to me. But I can now add this one to the small list.
I have been fascinated by this true story since I heard about this and Marguerite being made. The film does explain that in parts. But I think it is comedy that was winning me over early on. For the rest of the film, I had a big smile of my face and was pretty satisfied with how everything ended in the end.

I really liked the old fashioned feel to it and I can see it being a big winner with the elderly cinema-goers. Also, the production design of the time period was great to look at. It is set in 1940's New York and it felt great to look at with the steam flying off the street and the style of cars was a delight to witness.

Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant are wonderful together and are the biggest draw out of the other performances. I appreciate Streep's performances more than love them. However, I really liked this particular leading role. It is probably because the performances reminded me so much of the character of Hyacinth Bucket from the sitcom, Keeping Up Appearances. Hugh Grant was great and made me forget how good an actor he is, especially in comedies. His posh British voice fitted into the time period perfectly and you can feel that Grant was born into the wrong era.
Simon Helberg was a real crowd-pleaser as the main supporting role. I was really happy to see Rebecca Ferguson back on the big screen. She was brilliant in Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, and I am glad to see she her getting noticed.

The only negatives worth mentioning was probably some of the running gags in the film felt like they were running out of steam towards the end. Also, there was a small part to Streep's character that I did not like about. So there was a part of the film where I could not sympathize to root for the character.

But all in all, I had a very good time. It was certainly a good decision to go and see it in the end. It was a lot funner then I thought it would be and the strong performances of Streep and Grant certainly helped that.
It does have a sitcom style of approach to the story and I think that will work the audience and will do well in the box office. However, I still don't feel that they explained how the main character became so popular or why she is much loved.
But I will still recommend this, especially if you are in the mood for a few laughs.

Rating: 7/10