barryweir Reviews

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

It's.....OK.

[6/10 · 28 May 2018]

I'll just caveat this review from the start by saying I came at this movie agenda free. I was not part of the audience/Star Wars fandom who went into this movie holding a grudge over The Last Jedi, a movie I did not think was particularly bad despite the huge fan backlash it received. I have no interest in boycotting any Star Wars product right now and have generally found the Disney Star Wars output serviceable to date. However, for me this is where the shine began to wear off.

Quite simply this movie should not have been made. The Han Solo of the original Star Wars relied very much on the charisma of Harrison Ford. We knew he was a hot shot pilot and a scoundrel. We knew he was a legend for the "Kessel Run". That was it. That was his character. The rest was entirely down to Ford taking that one dimensional background and creating an entertaining character out of it. Quite simply you take him out of the picture and you lose a good 60-70% of the Han Solo character. Because of the amount of Han Solo that was Ford, Alden Ehrenreich is unrecognisable as the character. He just comes across as a generic 20 something American actor. While I would never expect an impression of Ford, you at least expected to be reminded of the character, in the same way as you could believe Ewan McGregor was Obi-Wan Kenobi. But here I did not recognise the character at all. That proves how Ford is irreplaceable because it shows how much the character relied on Ford. It is also unfortunate that the movie comes only two and a half years after Ford last played the role. So right from the off the movie has a key problem.

Given that there is little back story to Han Solo you'd think there is a bit of scope for an interesting story. But what we get is the most predictable series of events any Star Wars fan could predict. The Kessel Run. Han meeting Chewbacca. Han winning the Millennium Falcon from Lando Calrissian. All the greatest hits from Star Wars legend. So, again, the movie has another disadvantage. If you are familiar with Star Wars and Han Solo you know what you're going to get before you sit down - and sadly on top of that the mystery and intrigue of these talked about events goes immediately if not done well, a problem suffered by the George Lucas prequel films as well. So, what's the draw to see this movie if you know what you're going to get? Each of these events are played out and, with the possible exception of the Kessel Run, are done so in generally average manner. Afterwards you sit there and ask yourself "was it worth it"? Sadly I don't think it was.

Average, in fact, is a very apt word for the movie. Add in words like "competent, bland , pedestrian, safe" in place of words like "great, stunning, huge fun". Frankly I was bored for many scenes. This will be in no small part a result of the widely known directorial change. While Ron Howard is a competent director who has in the past given us classics like Parenthood and Apollo 13, here his task is to finish someone else's movie, with specific instructions to stick closely to the script. It shows. There is no personal touch to this movie. It feels like a product, not a director's vision - and how could it not when all of the preproduction and the direction was decided by someone else? Frankly the original directors, Lord & Miller, should have been retained if for no other reason than to give the picture some sort of identity.

Then there is the simply fact that you have Disney relying too much on nostalgia for their Star Wars movies by repeatedly going back to the well of original trilogy content. Star Wars is a huge universe, but Disney is making it a small one. When you do that and, worse still, you do it in quick succession, people start to get tired. Disney wants another Marvel style mega franchise , but more thought needs to go in to what made Star Wars special in the first place if they are going to come close. We need an huge, expansive universe instead of just building around the original three movies otherwise over-saturation will be here soon enough. Indeed, as of the time of writing this the box office suggests it may already be here.

Is the film flat out bad? No, it isn't. Like I say, average is the key word here. The score is okay, but not Star Wars level epic. The action is fine, but nothing we haven't really seen before. The SFX if as good as previous SW entries. The supporting cast are all competent. The score is good but not great. But nothing truly quite hits the heights required of a SW movie. The humour is just okay. The drama is serviceable. The pacing is largely okay. It just lacks those special wow moments you'd expect from events talked about for forty years, Harrison Ford present or otherwise.

For me the movie is instantly forgettable and the weakest of the Disney Star Wars movies. It is casual Sunday afternoon DVD entertainment rather than a blockbuster must see. Disney needs to rethink its strategy if the series is to survive, let alone prosper.

Get Out (I) (2017)

Not as smart as people would have you believe.

[6/10 · 9 May 2017]

I'll caveat this review by immediately saying that as an immigration lawyer and a political centrist I am in no way some sort of conservative crybaby who is going to dislike this movie because it assesses racism in America.

The fact is that there are great elements to this film. The direction is good. The editing is good. The performances are good. The script feels like an extended X Files episode, but, hey, X Files at it's best was damn good...and yes, the movie does provide an interesting view of the African-American experience in the US.

The conceit of this movie is that that it shows the experience of life in America for African-Americans in dealing with whites. Well, I'm neither American or black, and while I have both White (or otherwise) American and African-American friends I cannot claim to know what it is to grow up African-American. But I do know that there are a great deal more social problems for black Americans than what this movie offers. However, that isn't really my complaint. Doing what I do for a living, I have travelled the world over and having been, like the lead character, in a multicultural relationship as a minority I was in an ideal position to try and sympathise with the lead character. And I did, up until Peele made the mistake of portraying white people as bigots and only bigots, who judge blacks superficially. Sure, there is a horror (or more accurately a sci-fi) framing, but it is inescapable that the movie relies on a stereotype of white people as shallow and inherently racist. Now, I don't give a crap about all the luvvies and critics calling this accurate social commentary, it is only accurate to the extent that it identifies an attitude among SOME whites, but it undermines those of us who are white and think the complete opposite. I am white, educated and no I don't judge black people or anyone else on the supposedly less obvious basis the whites do in this film. Why? Because I am intelligent. Peele makes a movie about racism by using a racial stereotype. It is offensive to any truly educated person because it offers up a stereotype of whites as shallow bigots who cannot see beyond the modern zeitgeist social construct. As a white man who has fought tireless against that it rely annoyed me and ruined the movie for me.

This movie fails threefold: - 1) It feeds into the American racial divide, especially for the black community, why is irresponsible; 2) It stereotypes white people so reinforces said racial divide; 3) it marginalises those of us who are white and who have worked tirelessly against latent racism.

I have contemplated whether or not Peele making the TSA agent white would have gotten around this problem. I think it would have, because it would provide a contrast to the stereotype. But then, of course, had he done that I have no doubt that some of the many African-Americans lauding this picture would have immediately complained that a white man was depicted as a hero, just as Samuel L Jackson had the audacity to make a bigoted remark about the lead in this picture being a British actor who "couldn't understand" the African-American experience. SO I feel that Peele was probably handcuffed, through social pressure, as to the type of movie he could make even if he wanted to.

Perhaps, as a Briton who follows American politics and social feeling, this movie is a great indicator of how the American racial divide is still far from resolved. It is perhaps ironic that the director offers up the idea of white people celebrating black people from afar (in this case Obama), when he makes a movie that suggests his experience with white people is almost inherently racist in some way or another. I find that deeply sad. Sad for the state of American society, Sad that an African American in the modern age cannot offer commentary on racism without promoting a reverse stereotype.

Here's my deal. I'm not interested in liberal or white guilt. I am a human being who happens to have white skin pigmentation. I am no different from a black person in anything other than social construct and different pigmentation. So if you're going to laud Peele for his efforts on this picture, then ask yourself why a movie based around that social construct couldn't at least include a counter balance to highlight he absurdity of racism? But is doesn't. Why? I don't know. Maybe, like I say, Peele was petrified of angering the African American community. Maybe he just doesn't see what he's inadvertently done. I don't know. But one thing is for sure, this movie intentionally or unintentionally stereotypes white Americans, and white privilege or not, when you do that, you just create more divide. I don't think Peele set out do that. But I think for any educated man/woman, that's what he unfortunately offered.

Quite simply, society gets no closer to solving the issue of racism with you stereotype the persecutors. Why? Because you just increase the divide. Is that a message to African-Americans to stay silent? No way!. Just fight the cause without being a mirror for prejudice and division. In my opinion Peele dropped the ball in this regard.

Silence (I) (2016)

I don't think Scorsese and I are on the same page, however....

[8/10 · 14 March 2017]

...as an atheist I still found great value in this picture.

At the very end of the movie, between the end scene and the credit, is a tribute to the persecuted Japanese Catholics and their pastors. It was that tribute that made me feel a bit like this was Scorsese's own religious convictions breaking the fourth wall. That this was, in a way, his Schindler's List.

As an atheist I find the general idea of religion to be preposterous, illogical and rightly questioned. However, I feel that for me this movie helped to illustrate something very important. Firstly that you cannot kill an idea if someone truly believes in it, and secondly that our actions and our morality are not defined by the superficial....the greatest irony coming out of this being that the movie does, if anything, question religion as much as it seemingly advocates it with it's dedication.

I have read that the movie is said to demonise Buddhism. I did not find this to be so. I found it to be very respectful of it. Indeed, the movie helps to illustrate how people claim to follow peaceful faiths, but are in reality scared of ideas and the loss of control. Perhaps another irony that Scorsese maybe did not mean to present, given his own Catholicism, and give the history of the Catholic church, is that he makes a very good case against the proselytizing carried out by pretty much every major religion of today, including his own. He also makes a good case for demonstrating that religion is, and always has been, simply an idea, and that it is one's belief and loyalty in that idea that makes them who they are. That faith in anything, but a religious idea, or a belief in fundamental human rights and civil liberties, should be one that is ultimately determined by the individual in heart and mind.

My only complaint is that I found the movie somewhat simplistic. It was obvious from a third of the way in how the movie was going to end, and I say that while not being familiar with the original source material. But this is perhaps not as a great a criticism as maybe it could be because the movie gives plenty to think about throughout. Many have called the movie overlong and boring. On this I couldn't disagree more. It is very refreshing to watch a movie driven by thought and contemplation, rather than style, clichés and breakneck speed.

Recommended.

Nine Lives (I) (2016)

No sure why this is getting so many bad reviews

[6/10 · 27 October 2016]

OK, I agree that this is no Citizen Kane, but I was amazed at the critical reviews and low IMDb score.

I think perhaps to appreciate this you need to be particularly fond of cats and/or been a cat owner. But if you are then this film is a perfectly serviceable slice of family entertainment, and frankly there are much, much worse films out there. Kevin Spacey and Chris Walken are dependable as always and I think there is plenty about this that kids will enjoy. Worth a look as a Sunday afternoon family film in my opinion, or perhaps as something you can put on to keep the kids amused.

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

Not the worst thing ever, but not great.

[4/10 · 10 October 2016]

First, I think everyone needs to ignore the online reviews that give this movie one star or nine or ten stars. The majority are from those determined to hate it and their counterparts. In reality this is neither the worst or the best movie ever.

This is not as good as the original. Those who say it is do not appreciate what was special about the original. The humour was more dry and the film wasn't an out and out comedy, instead mixing in elements of drama, sci-fi, horror and fantasy. It was unique and couldn't be pigeon-holed, which is the secret of it's success and enduring fandom. I'd say this picture probably lies alongside 1989's Ghostbusters II in terms of quality.

What of the main drama? Femmebusters? Well, I have to say that I never had an issue with female Ghostbusters. I do however have an issue with how this played out. For one I don't care for the two main casting choices. Wiig, and especially McCarthy, are Feig's go to choices. I'm sorry but I just don't think they are that talented, especially the latter. When McCarthy is on screen she is just the same as in all her other movies and the site of her in the Ghostbusters costume felt like I was watching a middle aged housewife playing "let's pretend". I know the SNL link, but I would've preferred more skilled actresses in the two main roles rather than Feig's usual go to people. Jones and McKinnon are okay, albeit I found McKinnon as time ticked on.

The biggest problem IMO is the overt laziness in the construction of the film. Feig admits that the movie did not grow organically. Rather he wanted the gimmick of four women and the rest would then be built around it. It shows. The plot is a lazy rehash of the first movie. The team, three white scientists and a black blue collar worker - check. Library ghost that establishes ghosts are real - check. Secretary with glasses - check. First major bust a green ghost in a public venue - check. A big white ghost walking through Manhattan - check. Crossing the streams - check. Ectomobnile - check. Slimer - check. Proton packs, etc - check. Similar uniforms - check. Imagine for a second this wasn't an all female cast and that aspect wasn't dominating the headlines. What are you left with? One of the laziest remakes in recent history. Hell, Feig even said he rebooted it because he was too lazy to address the notion of a world already familiar with ghosts.

Then there's the misandry. Paul Feig said in an interview a while back that the reason he makes female centric films is because he likes women more than men. This, he says, stems from being bullied by boys when at school. Feig claims his movies are nonetheless about female equality. Well I call bull. The man clearly hasn't got over his childhood and this is his way of sticking it to those he hated as a boy. Every male character in this picture is an idiot. The script is littered with sly digs at men (the angry ghosts being "mostly dudes", to give one example). Then there's the deliberate poking at the fans of the franchise by stereotyping "fanboys" as virginity harbouring, basement dwelling losers. Hell even the main villain is depicted as an angry nerd. I had a real problem with this as in real life I know three such people, ranging from 30s to 60s and in all three cases they suffer from deep lying mental health issues, be it anxiety, depression or deep insecurity. People are like that for a reason and it is often not something to be mocked and ridiculed because it can be due to their upbringing, bullying, health or whatever else. That Feig trivialises such things while playing out his own childhood grudges is particularly offensive and laced with irony. I was unaware that promoting women involved degrading men, as Feig seems to think.

So, is there anything good about the movie? I didn't find the humour my kind of humour, but overall I'm sure some would laugh. It wasn't "groan out loud" terrible. Plus, while still present, Feig managed to tone down the crass humour from his previous efforts. Also, with the exception of the end movie villain, I found the ghost effects well done. I think many of the ghost effects afforded the film a credibility that was otherwise lacking. Finally, if you can overlook at lot of the complaints I have highlighted above then the movie is reasonably well paced and does have enough entertaining moments that it's passable as Sunday afternoon entertainment.

However, this movie had two objectives. One was to restart the franchise, the other to make a statement about strong women. It fails on both counts. It has upset long term fans, while undermining it's female leads with a lazy remake and unnecessary misandry. I can't help feel a sense of irony that the movie has a cameo from one of the earliest modern era tough girls in Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver). There's an example of a strong female role model done right. Plus, even in the modern era, franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek show us that you can have strong female leads without massive controversy. Quite simply, the whole sexism row has become an excuse not to have to examine why this project ultimately comes up short. The irony is that because of that row, the only way to truly have a view of this project is to watch it yourself and form your own opinion.

Spy (2015)

Another example of the destruction of creativity.

[1/10 · 28 September 2015]

Much as people want to watch their sci-fi dumbed down in the form of Michael Bay's Transformers it seems that the modern cinema going audience, at least in America anyhow, are content with Paul Feig's fecal offerings. I'm astonished to see this movie running at 7.2/10 at the time I'm typing this.

I can only assume that movie is made for twenty and thirty somethings who have failed to grow up, are generally sheltered from life and are intellectually limited. I thought Bridesmaids was bad enough. By it seems that Feig has gone full out on Seth MacFarlane's vulgarity style, but with even less subtlety than MacFarlane himself.

Watching this you think you're in for an entertaining James Bond spoof. Sure enough, the first five minutes sets that up nicely. It what follows is a disgrace. In short, this has the potential to be entertaining. But it is ruined by a constant barrage of vulgarity. The thing is that unlike movies of the past that have had vulgar elements in them (say, Blazing Saddles) the vulgarity is delivered without comic timing and without any level of subtlety. Quite simply we see things like (the normally wonderful) Alison Janney saying the F word constantly and then hear her utter words like "thunderc***" and we're told it's funny, because, hey, it's a swear word! This goes on throughout the picture, from the initial scene with Statham to a plane exchange between McCarthy and Rose Byrne, where the F word is literally uttered in every possible sentence. I'm not a prude, I swear like a trooper and potty humour is funny to me most of the time. But when it gets to the gratuitous and unsubtle extent to which the film presents it I feel that my intelligence is being insulted.

Then there are, it seems, the other requisite elements to American comedies these days, namely fart, poo, vomit and sex jokes. The whole scene with the faked, erect penis, which we needed to see not just once, but at least five times for it to be clear to us that we are meant to laugh, just made my cringe like I have never cringed before. Then you have vermin crapping on a chocolate cake.....because har har har, isn't it funny to see a background character eat a fecal laden treat! When not being vulgar, the picture goes to every length to denigrate the appearance of McCarthy and Miranda Hart, with routine jokes about how they aren't that attractive or how McCarthy's weight is a reason for her character's undesirable place on the social and professional ladder. To think that Feig has the audacity to claim he makes these films to support women and that anyone who disagrees is a sexist. Unreal.

If you could get rid of the above then there is the bones of a half decent comedy. There are still a few funny scenes, most of which don't rely on the shock and vulgarity factor. But it seems that Feig can't help himself and just can't take a measured approach. I shudder to think what he will do to a beloved property like Ghostbusters. Slimer with a rubber dick and poo jokes no doubt. Well, based on his offerings so far I won't be going to see it. But the real tragedy here is the amount of cinema-goers who now seem to think this one brain cell trite is fine entertainment. It is ultimately not the likes of Feig or Michael Bay who are the death of intelligent, creative movies. It's the morons who line up to lap it up...and frankly they should be ashamed.

Star Trek: Renegades (2015–2017)

The best Trek fan film yet, but....

[5/10 · 24 August 2015]

...the problem is that makers of efforts like these are missing the point of Trek and are missing that good production values aren't what makes Trek so great.

Take the classic Doctor Who. The production values were truly embarrassing, but when it had great stories to tell. That is what won out the day and gave the show 52 years of life. It didn't matter that the sets were made of cardboard if the story was great and stuck to what the concept of Doctor Who was about.

I've been a Trek fans for forty years and the problem with this production and the JJ Abrams films, and where I suspect it will lie with Axanar, is that they have lost site of what made TRek so good. What made it stand the test of time. It wasn't space battles or fancy SFX. It was the stories that explored the human condition, social & political issues and questions of morality. IT was the boldly going and the seeking out of new worlds and new civilisations. Renegades, much like the Abrams reboot, is trying to sell itself as fresh and different. Well, that's all very well, but when you have taken the spirit of Trek away then all you have is just another sci-fi action film that has the Trek name slapped on it.

In terms of production values, this is definitely the best Trek fan production I have seen. The score, the sets, the SFX were all pretty good (the costumes not so much). The acting and sound mixing was certainly a improvement on other fan films. But the script was terrible and the fact is that this was meant to be a pilot for a show. Should it be? No way in hell. Frankly Tim Russ, Bob Picardo and especially Walter Koenig should know what Star Trek is about by now.

I felt like this film was trying to pander to the superficial audience members of today. The Transformers crowd. Where action is all you need to have something good. This film, irrespective of it's production values or the quality of it's acting, didn't further the legacy of Roddenberry. It had nothing to say and that it why it fails as proper Star Trek, just as the Abrams films do. I fear now that Trek with a cerebral edge is now gone.

Oh, and just as an aside, it was irresponsible allowing Edward Furlong to work on this when the man clear still has issues with addiction. He could barely stand still in the scenes he was in. Definitely signs of ongoing trauma for the poor man.

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2015)

Delightful

[8/10 · 23 June 2015]

I don't have an extensive review record on here, but one film I did review was the original Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. It had such a positive impact on me that I rushed on here to review it. Accordingly I felt duty bound to review the sequel.

Is the sequel as good as the first? No, if I am honest it isn't. But how many sequels are? Probably the biggest gap is the missing Tom Wilkinson. Instead we get Richard Gere, who, despite his Hollywood profile, is a rather weak replacement. I have to say that I thought it would've been a wonderful role for someone like DeNiro. We also have Tasmin Grieg, who is rather let down by her role, which is a shame for such a talented actress. But overall these are minor complaints. Maggie Smith, Judi Dench and Bill Nighy are on top form as usual, and the other returnees also acquit themselves well. A special mention should probably go to the Indian cast involved (and I don't mean Dev Patel), who do a great job, especially the "friends" of Dench and Celia Imrie's characters. All is topped off with a great score my Thomas Newman.

But the real pleasures about the first movie were the loving portrayal of India, the uplifting spirit and the reminder that age isn't a barrier to anything. The original movie gave us this wonderfully. The sequel doesn't let us down either. The funny thing is that these movies are so simple, but so effective. They allow you to feel sad and happy all at once, and they end with you wanting to carry on living, no matter the problems you face, yet they also can get a tear out of you. Such things are so refreshing in an age where Hollywood is obsessed with dark and gritty, and characters with "issues", and society is a selfish dog eat dog environment. I heartily recommended the first movie and I have no hesitation in recommending the sequel. If there is a Third Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, then I will look forward to it very much indeed and will probably be first in line to see it.

The Local Stigmatic (1990)

Al Pacino's nightmare

[1/10 · 8 January 2015]

Well, so I finally got to see this after years of looking.

Much like a reviewer above, I'm British. Worse still I'm a Londoner. Quite simply the performances in this movies are a disaster. It's not so much the quality of the acting per se, but rather accents so atrocious to the extent that it provides a constant distraction and, worse still, for this Londoner, quite simply alien and difficult to understand. Both performers offer intelligible dialogue, but it's Pacino that, frankly, truly needs subtitles to understand. I genuinely couldn't understand anyone but the "famous actor" who appears about 60% through, sporting an upper class but not entirely inaccurate accent (played by Irishman Joe Maher). But Pacino, dear oh dear, his accent switches between his natural Italian American accent and bizarre strains of what sounds like a mix of Australian, garbled Liverpudlian and a strange attempt at Cockney that sounds like someone trying to do a parody of Dick Van Dyke's accent from Mary Poppins. The closest it comes to being British would be to describe it as a cross between Michael Corleone and Harry H. Corbett from Steptoe & Son, who Brits will know for having a rather ridiculous comedy accent. To add insult to injury, aside from some occasional shots and props, the picture is clearly shot in America, almost lazily so. Even the background sounds of the city includes America horns and sirens and, curiously, continental ones. I could have handled these elements had the accents been remotely tolerable, but with them being so damned awful, the lack of English aesthetics just felt like insult added to injury.

I would say that if you are British this is one to avoid unless you are a Pacino completest and are curious. If you are American or otherwise, I will leave you to form your own judgement. But, I'm sorry to say for Al, but this is, whether knew or knows it or not, to him what the Star Wars Holiday Special is to George Lucas, Harrison Ford & Co. It certainly throws into question the often mentioned accolade Pacino receives of being the greatest cinema actor, especially considering this project was apparently subject to substantial rehearsal. I couldn't help but feel that other American actors would've given a more convincing turn, even other Italian Americans such as DeNiro.

The irony of all this is that I had so much difficulty understanding the picture that I didn't assimilate or contemplate Heathcote Williams' original work but, as a result of that, I am now minded to go and check out the play just so I know what on Earth the characters were actually saying! One to avoid. Pacino should have kept it in his private collection. He is capable of so much better.

The Expendables 3 (2014)

A perfectly adequate entry to the series

[7/10 · 10 September 2014]

I don't get that hate this movie has seemingly generated. It has been portrayed as falling outside the mold of it's predecessors. Much is made of the fact that it reduces the violence of other movies and therefore it's lost it's link to it's 80s inspiration. Well, for those of us who actually grew up in the eighties and remember many of the movies it's based on there were quite a few that were actioners but didn't feature grossly over the top blood and gore. How many remember pool after pool of blood in, say, Lethal Weapon or Commando? Hell, when you consider how absurd the latter is in terms of body count you'd think you'd be watching through a red lense, yet there is very little gore in Commando and it's the perfect template for these Expendables films. Hell, while on the subject of Arnie, take Terminator 2, another example of a film that gets a long just fine in the genre without piles of gore. So I take issue with the complaints leveled at this offering.

This movie does what it says on the tin. It gives you Indiana Jones working with The Terminator to kick butt. It gives you Mad Max facing off against Rambo. It gives you guns and explosions and grand set pieces. It gives you one liners and crappy jokes. I see no great departure from the previous movies save for the reduction in gore. It is nostalgic, mindless fluff and provides a more than serviceable two hours of entertainment when you just want something light and fun to relax with after a long day of work.

Check it out.

God's Not Dead (2014)

Pure Evil on Celluloid

[1/10 · 31 July 2014]

I heard about this movie elsewhere and wanted to check it out to see what all the fuss was about. Well, the fuss is justified. Quite possibly this is the most abhorrent thing I have ever watched.

Make no mistake, this movie is an out and out example of hate and bigotry. All the atheists are portrayed as morally corrupt, Muslims are portrayed as purveyors of domestic violence and Christians are perverted into divine agents of God with a mission to convert the heathens. The movie has zero respect for the concept of tolerance, instead pursuing a sick mission to remind the viewer that everybody other then true believing Christians are people who are sick in the head.

I find myself in an interesting position when it comes to faith. I am an agnostic who grew up of mixed Jewish and Christian heritage. I was also in a relationship for many years with a non-practicing Muslim woman. My mother is a staunch atheist. So I have been exposed to all of the major faiths and arguments one way or another. In each I have seen the tolerant and the intolerant. It is intolerance that gives rise to the evils of this world. Terrorism, violence, racism and so on are all borne out of it, and it really doesn't matter what faith or background you have, once you stereotype another you are a purveyor of hate. That is exactly who the makers of this movie are. Love thy neighbour is an alien concept to them. Demonise and convert thy neighbour is their motto, and I know full well from my own Christian friends that true Christians are peaceful and tolerant of others. Those people claiming to be Christians who are writing glowing reviews of this utter dross might spare some time to stop and think about that.

I am a tolerant person so I believe in the rights of all to express themselves, however abhorrent I find their views. But make no mistake, this movie is a sick and twisted abuse of that right and is a nasty attack on non-Christians the world over.

Her (2013)

Not as intelligent as it would have us try and believe

[6/10 · 21 July 2014]

You know, I am beginning to think that a great deal of critics, both professional and amateur, really have no self determination. I truly believe that there is a large chunk of them who jump on the "it's great" bandwagon because that's the cool thing to do. This has been a year for trumping up underwhelming fare from Hollywood. From the "slavery is bad" unsubtle baseball bat blow that was 12 Years a Slave to the excruciatingly underwhelming Casino-lite dross that was American Hustle, we have seen a year where the best and most creative movies get pushed aside for those that manage to generate hype and acclaim like a rock tumbling down a hill picking up moss. Her is very much along these lines.

Now, don't get me wrong. This is not a bad film per se. But it's not one that deserves the praise it is getting....and I think a lot of that praise comes from the self anointed intelligentsia who watch it and convince themselves that there is more to see than there actually is. No there aren't layers upon layers of subtle meaning here, and there are a great many movies that offer just that, and more, that are just ignored or lost to time.

I think my biggest problem here was finding a connection with the piece. When I started to watch it I felt like I was going to have a real connection with this character because I not too long ago had a similar breakup to the one Theodore goes through in flashback. Therefore I assumed that I could see myself looking to fill the void left behind after a core and valuable part of one's life is lost. But as the movie went on and Theodore's relationship developed beyond filling a gap I began to detach from the story.

Let's be honest here. The picture can be summed up thusly, what if Apple's Siri had sentience? There really isn't more to it than that and it's a story told many times before in cinema and science fiction, and told much more effectively than this. The movie is a contrived attempt to cleverly predict the near future and our advancing technological dependence - but if people are looking for subtle nuances, there really isn't anything beyond that...and, again, predicting the advance of technology is hardly a new idea. Once you get past these gimmicks you realise that the story is astonishingly basic and, frankly, unrealistic. Banal dialogue, crude sex scenes, delivered with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, and a ludicrous attempt to portray a smartphone as a person. I mean that's really what we're watching, two hours of a guy going on dates and having sex with his smartphone. What's the major payoff? Well, none. He gets dumped, which then rather bizarrely, leads him to write a letter to his ex-wife apologising for past mistakes. How being dumped by a smartphone causes a person to write a grovelling letter to his ex-wife is beyond me, especially since the flashbacks show us that his marriage ended because of a problematic relationship, which suggests faults on both sides.

Don't get me wrong. There are redeeming features to this movie. The use of location shooting is executed deftly. The direction is skilled, the production design lovely and the cast do their best with the material, especially the always reliable Phoenix. But the movie really is style over substance and I think it's appearance, sound and acting talent cosmetically mask what is otherwise not only a story that has been done before in different forms, but a rather basic and underdeveloped one at that.

This was my last of the best picture nominees to watch, and I had waited until the end because of the reviews and because I felt like it would be exactly the kind of film I would enjoy. Well, sorry Mr. Jonze and your bandwagon followers, but I am disappointed.

Date Movie (2006)

An erudite analysis of contemporary feline culture

[10/10 · 16 May 2014]

In an age where cinema is bogged down with lighthearted fare like 12 Years a Slave and The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, comes a refreshingly original exploration of what it means to be one of the feline species. I feel sincerely that the director and writers should be extremely proud of taking on such a difficult topic with such aplomb, to say nothing of the fantastic cast, who breathe rich life into such well rounded characters.

But really, the star of this piece is Jinxers. For too long have felines been forced to live in the shadow of their canine cousins. Often portrayed as ruthless, evil creatures hellbent on world domination. Finally, thanks to a shrewd script we witness the true side of the cat world. Intelligence, creativity and sexual prowess.

To say that the feline defecation scene exemplifies cinematic art at it's finest would be an understatement. Creatively shot, it carefully depicts the skill and mental ability that cats bring to this world. With deft scripting we are able to witness a side of the feline not previously shown on celluloid. For too long have bigots trodden the cat name into the ground with falsehoods about litter boxes and small piles of faeces in the gardens of fellow neighbours. Finally the truth is revealed.

At a time when Oscar nominations are going to such hacks as Robert De Niro, Jinxers executes his role perfectly. With subtle movement and flare he conveys the emotional trauma of cat crappery. People have dared to suggest to me that Jinxers is, in fact, animatronic. How offensive. Such a skilled performance could only be accomplished by such a fine thespian and people should miss his work at their peril.

This movie is an unrequited masterpiece and I am appalled that this ever shallow world of low brows and Daniel Day Lewises more people are unable to recognise such fine artistry.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Star Trek is dead.

[1/10 · 31 March 2014]

"Space, The Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. It's continuing mission to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilisations. To boldly go where no man has gone before".

The Star Trek motto. Abrams didn't need to watch all of Trek's back catalog to understand the basic concept. He just needed to read that. It's a shame he hasn't. Star Trek Into Darkness is completely and utterly void of any of the elements that have made Star Trek what it is. A positive hopeful future, furthered through the exploration of space and one's own humanity. In two movies we have seen only one new planet explored, and even then only for a five minute teaser. Otherwise it's been nothing but explosions, plot rehashes and fan winks.

I've been a lifelong fan of the franchise. But this movie has killed it for me, so much so that I will not look forward to any new films in the future while this team is still in control. I found the whole experience deeply insulting. The writers, particularly supposed fans like Robert Orci, really should know better. In fact I don't think any of them are as big a fan as some of them claim. Gratuitous reuse of iconic villains such as Khan (a poor shadow of the wonderful Montalban original, despite Cumberbatch's best efforts)and scenes from the classic Wrath of Khan directly lifted and reused. Characters pointlessly squeezed in to remind us that the writers supposed know their Trek (Carol Marcus being the chief offender). Convenient plot contrivances that insult anyone with half a brain (Khan beaming to the Klingon homeworld). Basic physics disregarded, when the shows and classic movies went to great lengths to formulate scientific logic. Kirk a petulant child. Spock still overly emotional. McCoy relegated to a bit-part character. Ugh.

This movie doesn't get why Star Trek inspired people and stood the test of time for nearly half a century. This movie doesn't understand how to explore the human condition. This movie does not explore anything, either figuratively or literally. This movie doesn't get why McCoy was an essential part of the emotion vs logic triumvirate. This movie contains no social commentary, either by allegory or otherwise. This movie does not make you feel positive about the future.

This movie is not Star Trek. It is unintelligent schlock make for low brows who get their satisfaction from endless action and violence.

RIP Star Trek.

Man of Steel (2013)

Not enough to surpass 1978's Superman: The Movie

[6/10 · 9 July 2013]

Man of Steel and it's popularity help to illustrate why the JJ Abrams era of Star Trek and the Michael Bay actioners of today make so much money. It's what the public wants, quick and fast action.

For the same reason I never came to Star Trek because of cool ships and action, I never came to Superman for it either. It's probably why am not much a general genre fan. I like these franchises for different reasons. Superman, for me, is as much a character for hope as he is for powers. It's the hope element that attracted me to the character, not how many cars he can lift. I felt that was lacking in this movie.

I felt that Cavill filled the tights much better than Brandon Routh but I walked out of the movie feeling that I didn't know who this Superman was, a feeling I have not had before, even in the days of Kirk Alyn and George Reeves. I was disgusted that he learns to fly and become Superman in the course of just a few minutes. It's an insult to the volumes of comic books that have been written to show the challenge it was for him to adapt, and it's even more frustrating when, as a child, he is shown to be having trouble, lending less credibility to the idea that he can learn the rest in a few mins.

Also, the origin story heavily borrowed from the Donnerverse, even down to some of the lines.However, it all felt far less emotional and epic than the Donner counterparts. Numerous scenes come to mind, such as the brief and casual nature that Jor-El strolls in to the Kryptonian council and announces the world will end, totally lacking the gravitas of the Brando scenes. Or the criminally abused Zod, who is given very little development and the great actor that is Michael Shannon is left to give stock deliveries of his lines that hide in the shadow of Terence Stamp. Worse still, I just couldn't get to grips with the notion that Superman managed to beat an entire legion of Kryptonians, who all are as strong as he is, on his first day on the job!

While perhaps overused, one of the great things about Lex Luthor is that it's not brawn v brawn. He's a human who relies on his mind to fight Superman. This movie didn't require the use of the mind, it just required stuff to be destroyed.

Don't get me wrong. The action was great. It was a joy to see Superman's flight and powers finally realised in the majesty that they represent. I thoroughly enjoyed all the flight scenes, my favourite being the first scene where he puts on the suit because I didn't feel he was just one of the Kryptonian numbers, rather the focus was just on him. But the man barely has any lines in the entire picture! Who is this Superman???? So annoyingly underdeveloped. It's easy for existing fans to go in and declare this great, but this is both because an actiony Superman has been missed on screen for decades, and because they know the character already. But I just didn't walk out feeling I was familiar with the Cavill incarnation.

I find myself looking more fondly on Superman Returns. It had more heart. What it lacked was action. But, in striving for the "anti-Returns" Snyder has gone in the opposite direction. Sacrificing character for action. Perry White & Lois? I just didn't engage with them at all. They could've easily been someone else, such was their lack of behavioral recognisability. Same with Ma Kent. What about Jor-El's consciousness,just quickly deleted by Zod. Forgettable. Only Costner stood out. I wish that I could have taken Cavill and the action from this and put together with the heart from Returns. The attempt to redo the origin is excruciatingly inferior to the Donner version, in part because the modern audience need movies to be loud and fast paced. The numbers for blockbusters like Transformers illustrate this.

The reason 1978's Superman was such a benchmark is that it wasn't just about action, it was about quality movie making all round. A quality the modern audience doesn't care for or recognise. I found myself believing the Donner version more than this, despite it's age.

The only scenes in this entire film that brought a smile to me face (aside from the aforementioned first flying scene) were the glasses scene and the Costner scene at the very end. Those were the moments I felt I was watching Superman. That just didn't feel like enough to me, with much of the rest feeling dark and depressive. I don't understand why Superman has to be a character with melancholy like everything these days. Has the world really grown out of hope? As for the score, I thought it was awful. Instantly forgettable and way behind it's bombastic and uplifting forerunner.

A Superman for the action to order generation I think. Not awful for me, but arguably average.

John Carter (2012)

Criminally underrated

[7/10 · 24 September 2012]

I am pleased to see so many positive user reviews of this movie on here. Why this movie was a box office failure is really beyond. Perhaps it is the cost of an ignorant movie going public who have no idea of the roots of John Carter and it's influence on not just the big movies of today like Avatar and Star Wars, but the science fiction of days gone by like Flash Gordon, so they write this off as a rip off of other movies. On the contrary, the John Carter books were the stories that started them all, just as Jules Verne started the science fiction themes that would one day give rise to the likes of Star Trek and Back to the Future.

The film provides a god and faithful adaption of A Princess of Mars, the first of the John Carter books from Edwin Rice Burroughs. The direction is skilled, the special effects masterful, the score fantastic and, most importantly, it has the entertainment factor in spades (I forbid anyone not to fall in love with Woola!).

Baffled as to why this was not a commercial success. Like many movies, I suspect that this may generate a cult following as years go by. I hope that Disney take the opportunity to read the user reviews on here and take note of the potential for this to get a long term following (and one more deserving of cult status than the likes of Avatar). A sequel of the same quality or better would be very much on this movie goer's list of must sees.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

Utterly refreshing in an age of misery

[8/10 · 21 July 2012]

It has been a while since I sat down and enjoyed a movie for what movies were created for - to entertain. I laughed, I cried and I felt satisfied when the end credits rolled. I felt I had been fulfilled. I can't remember the last time a movie ended and I felt like this.

A lot has been made of the fact that this cast is in their 60s and 70s, and that somehow indicates that it is for a certain generation. On the contrary, I found the movie can appeal to any age. I, myself, an 34 years old. I find time beginning to creep for me, but in now way feel that I cannot accomplish things in life. Yet, even with my relatively limited lifespan compared to the lead characters, I found the performances and script able to perfectly translate to me the emotions and feels of these individuals, and the frustrations of life not quite panning out as we would like. This movie is not just one about age. If anything it is not about age really at all, it is more about how you live you life. How you manage love. How much you allow the past to constrict you. Indeed, in Tom Wilkinson's finale scene I couldn't help deeply feeling the character's sense of release as he feels love again for someone he has been kept away from for so long (having been in a similar position myself).

I won't bother to talk of the cast. You know when you see this list of names that you are going to get assured performances. But it is not just the older cast members who are good, Dev Patel gives a great performance and is the source of a great many laughs. A perfect vehicle with which to show that he is an actor with range beyond Slumdog Millionaire.

There have been some comments so far criticising the treatment of India in this movie, suggesting that it is portrayed as dirty and backward. The movie doesn't really do that if viewers keep their eyes open. Indian is both modern and traditional, with people of both persuasions riddled through society. What is portrayed here is not against the norm. But, really, it's the vibrant colours and wonderful vistas that make India and welcome star and not a ramshackle, dirty place. You do not leave this movie feeling that it's place to avoid, rather the other way around, that you are reminded that it is a place of magic and wonder to be explored.

If I had one criticism, it's that some of the story lines lines were a little underdeveloped, most notably Maggie Smith's character, who undergoes a change of personality a little too quickly in my opinion. By these are minor complaints because most of the time your mind is busy considering the issues the movie raises so you don't really spend too much time worryring about an less believable bits.

Anyhow, I could go on forever, but then life is to be lived so I better get out there and start doing it. Watch this movie and you will feel the same way.

Tyrannosaur (2011)

Dark, depressing.....and simply stunning.

[8/10 · 21 February 2012]

I don't feel the need to drone on at length as some other users have effectively summarised the film's core plot and themes. However, I felt that this film was such a work of art I could not help myself but come on here and add my voice to the chorus of compliments this film has been receiving.

I like nothing better in a movie than something that is thought provoking and gripping. I get so bored with some of the formulaic nonsense churned out by filmmakers these days, particularly from Hollywood. If I sit down to watch a film and I find myself utterly absorbed then that's usually a sign that the piece is something special. This was one such film and it was over before it had even started, such did it hold my attention that I had no concept of the passage of time.

The script, written by director Paddy Considine, isn't anything out of this world. It's fairly basic and, in plenty of instances, predictable. It is actually the direction and masterclass acting performances that serve to make this movie what it is. It is abundantly clear what the script sets out to do. Had the cast been average, or simply not the correct casting choices, this movie would've been instantly forgettable. However, all three of the principle cast are absolutely amazing. Peter Mullan's good hearted tortured soul of a man is played to perfection as he lives a daily battle with the rage and anger that has become his demon and undoing in life. Eddie Marsan's ability to communicate the sheer evilness of the abusive husband is gripping, especially considering the contrast he represents to other characters in the picture in that his character was more evil and nasty than fighting inner demons or pressure.

However, the major shout out of this film is Olivia Coleman's performance. It is truly astounding. I have been following her work ever since she appeared in a guest role in The Office. She just gets better and better. She expertly channels pressure of trying to keep one's self together despite having to live an intolerable and hidden existence. Despite her inevitable descent into the more during the course of the picture Coleman manages to continue having the audience feel nothing but sympathy and compassion for her character. An unfortunate victim of a world in which cruelty and evil is all too real and all to effecting should we come face to face with it in our lives.

I am not sure whether or not this picture has been released too late, but I was astounded to see Coleman not getting a best actress/best supporting actress nomination at the Academy Awards. I'm amazed how a performance like this gets overlooked, yet an actress from Bridsmaids gets the nod. It beggar's belief.

For those wanted a thought provoking film this is not to be missed. It is arguably the best British film of the year. For aspiring actors and actresses I would say this is a must watch.

Sling Blade (1996)

Good, but a little overrated.

[7/10 · 11 January 2012]

I missed this movie when it came out and happened across it while reading an article about Billy Bob Thornton. When I saw the it had scored 8.0 on IMDb I figured I would rush out to see it.

Perhaps, rather stupidly, I sat down to watch a masterpiece. I was therefore a little disappointed when the credits rolled at the end of the picture that I felt underwhelmed.

Now, don't get me wrong. This is a good movie without question. I felt parts of it were utterly brilliant, but I also felt that parts of it were really rather weak.

The Good Without question the standout element of the picture is the performance of Billy Bob Thorton. So good was he that I had a hard time believing it was even Thorton himself! His performance as Karl is a masterclass. Subtle, careful and quiet, yet able to convey the many emotions bubbling under the character's surface. The opening monologue is outstanding.

A shout out must also go to then teenage actor Lucas Black, whose performance as the young lad Frank is worthy of almost any adult actor in Holdwood today. I thought he was excellent.

I thought the score fit the movie perfectly, and, far from it being a slow movie, found the pacing just right....and tribute to THorton's talents as a director.

The Not So Good.

I was surprised to find out that the script won and academy award. Frankly I find it the weakest part of the movie. After the first third of the movie I had worked out the conclusion and that left me feeling disappointed. By third of the way it it was clear the the character of Karl was not going to undergo any particular major changes in the movie, and once Dwight Yokam's Doyle character showed up the writing was on the wall.

To be honest, I am not entirely sure what message Thorton is trying to convey with his script, beyond the obvious, that he can't cope or fit in on his own so works out a way to return himself to the mental hospital, but understands basic good and evil, if not the wrong doing of murder. I know people with learning difficulties and I found the way the Karl character switches from seeming understanding and lucidity at times to otherwise total inability to function a bit inconsistent, but, like I say, this is a script issue, rather than one of performance.

I also felt some of the supporting characters added little to the story, particularly those of JT Walsh's sex offender and Robert Duvall's father (who I really had hoped to learn more about), which is a shame because they really are fine and talented actors.

Conclusion The picture could have been a masterpiece, but for it's obvious predictability. Quite simply I did not find that I had to think too much to understand the movie and so for that reason alone I can't treat it as being a 10/10. I therefore give it a 7.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

A pathetic end to the worst franchise in history

[1/10 · 1 October 2011]

I was disappointed by the first Transformers movie. It was too far away from the Generation One characters I had grown up with as a child. I then sat down for Revenge of the Fallen, which I hoped would be moving more towards the routes of the toy franchise. Alas, that did not happen. I will not fill this up with reviews of those films, but suffice it to say that I had been told that this was an improvement. All I can say is, what liars!

I am amazed Michael Bay gets to make movies after so many awful films. I am ever more amazed he gets to make big budget movies after so many awful efforts. I am even, even more amazed that our cinema audiences are so moronic that they go on their droves to lap this rubbish up in lieu of the well made cinema of days gone by.....meaning that they are the chief reason that a franchise with no quality whatsoever manages to get to three installments.

This movie is bad on every level imaginable. Maybe I am biased, but to me two and half hours of CGI does not get me excited. I like real effects. Sure I know this is difficult with something like the Transformers concept, but what insults me here is that the studio, and Bay, think this film can rely on good CGI as it's driving force. Sure, the CGI is good by itself, but after three movies of robots just bashing each other up in CGI it all gets a bit "ho-hum". If animations were enough,why do Pixar films only succeed once they also include good scripts and music? This movie was an absolute joke. Consider the following:-

• We learn nothing much about this Sential Prime. He's just "bad guy for rent". Shame on you Leonard Nimoy, I know you are related to Bay, but even so, do you want your last outing to be a total turd?

• There is no character development for the transformers themselves AT ALL. Hell, Megatron only appears in the movie to get killed at the end. Worse still, he is turned away from Sentinel Prime's evil plan by Shia's love interest. That's right a dumb blonde walks up to a huge evil robot and convinces him to help with one line. Oh...dear.....god.

• The great Optimus, who, for those who remember the great 1987 animated film, usually shows mercy, kills both Sentinel Prime and Megatron in cold blood....just like that.....and once they are dead the movie...just ends!

• None of the human characters really have any kind of an arc, even Shia. The highlight of Shia's appearance is when he is taken over by a Decepticon wristwatch (yep, a watch), which exists there to spy on the Autobots.....oh but when the autobots fake an explosion, the watch just gives up. WTF?. Shia's parents are there for no reason at all and serve no purpose. John Turtorro shows up again but actually, well, does nothing. The great talents of Frances McDormand and John Malkovich are criminally wasted, especially the latter, who completely vanishes half way through the film when Shia tells him to leave a room.

• 20 foot Bumblebeee seems to be able to walk through small doors into apartments

• Washington DC is apparently also Chicago.

• The Megan Fox replacement is simply a blonde for hire whose first appearance is in the form of her panty wearing backside

• We are treated to more insufferable pro-American nonsense. The Autobot Transformers are, it seems, American agents because, well, America is the best dontcha know.....this extends to them attacking a supposedly "illegal" Middle Eastern Nuclear Plant (complete with Iranian flags - determined as illegal by, um, who? Americans?) and swarming into Chernobyl to discover evil ex-Soviets hiding transformer technically and working with the Decepticons. Yes, that's right. Ex-Soviets are Decepticon agents. Those dirty Reds!

I could go on and on, but I think I have already indicated how bad the picture is. All I'll add is that together with all the problems above the movie really has no logical and worthwhile script whatsoever.

This movie is a criminal indictment of the modern state of Hollywood. An industry driven by pumping out mindless drivel in place of good quality artistry on the sole premise that it might sell more tickets. Bay himself should be ashamed that, as a filmmaker, rather than a studio executive, he is helping to prop this up.

Crossing Over (2009)

Extremely underrated

[8/10 · 26 April 2011]

I am an immigration lawyer, albeit an English one. I started my career dealing with asylum cases, family reunions and illegal immigrants. Over the years I have gone on to act for students, entertainers, high net worth individuals and corporate clients. There is little in this field I have not witnessed, from bigotry, to desperation, to the rich trying to take advantage, from immigration officials acting to corruption in my very own profession.

I have to say that this movie explores the issues surrounding immigration extremely well. Forced removal, failed attempts to cheat the system, the motivations for naturalisation (which, as the movie suggests, are not always for the joy of becoming a new citizen) and the general drive of some people to find a better life for their family. I also used to be engaged to an Iranian so I was quite impressed with the portrayal of the Iranian family. I do not mean honour killings, that is not a common thing in wealthy Iranian families, but what often can be is the concept of how one appears to others in the culture and the effect of negative gossip on the reputation of the senior members of the family.

Also, a lot has been made about the 9/11 "sympathiser" storyline. Indeed, there is one reviewer on here who refers to it as disgusting. How laughable. It is perhaps a shame that audiences, particularly American ones it seems, do not actually listening to the dialog. What the character of Taslima says is that she does not agree what they did but she understood the motivation. The movie then cleverly goes on to show the conclusion jumping nature of some Americans, in this instance the immigration official. At the end of the day Taslima's possible terrorist sympathies are left ambiguous, neither confirmed or disproved, and that is why I think a lot of less intelligent viewers jump to the same conclusion that the fictional official does by filling in the blanks that they desire to see because they do not wish to have a dialog about a difficult subject.

The only disappointing part of the movie for me was the Harrison Ford storyline. I didn't feel that any part of it explored any particular immigration related issue until the penultimate scene and I couldn't understand the motivation behind Ford's character. However, that aside I couldn't fault this picture, either in it's script, it's acting or it's direction.

Babel (I) (2006)

Outstanding cinema

[10/10 · 21 July 2009]

I rewatched this film for the second time the other night. First time I had seen it since leaving the cinema.

There have been few movies that have kept me gripped as much as this movie....and even fewer than those that have managed to so do a second time around.

As both an immigration lawyer and a white Briton married to an Iranian I am very familiar with the difficulties on language, cultural and social communication. I thought this movie captured wonderfully the difficulties so many people in this world face every day of their lives. It is gripping, emotional, informative and heartrendering. I thoroughly recommend it.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

A good piece of cinema

[7/10 · 21 July 2009]

A Harry Potter film is never going to win Oscars. But that is not to say Rowling's material cannot be adapted into satisfying cinema. In my opinion that is what happened here.

I have lead a busy life in recent years and Half-Blood Prince was the first book in the series that I had not read before seeing the movie. As such I came to the movie with a fresh opinion, and great anticipation for the first of the Potter stories that I didn't know the plot for.

Now, die hard fans may be crying hell over the changes from the book to the film, but frankly what I am reading on here reminds me of Star Wars fan boys complaining about whether or not Han shot first. What many fans don't realise is that simply because a book is a rip-roaring roller-coaster of a tome, it doesn't mean that it will translate well onto the screen. Take the Da Vinci Code. A terribly cheesy, but fun book to read that is unquestionably a page turner. Once a movie it turned into a bit of stinker, despite its faithfulness to Brown's original book.

From what I understand from the changes between book and film, much of what is left is exposition, such as Tom Riddle flashbacks. As it is, watching the film the first hour is very "talky" and makes for a different type of Potter film from the others. I feel that had the movie included all of the scenes from the book note only would it have been nearly 4 hours long but it would have become, frankly, a little boring after a while. In contrast what we had was a well paced, dark and adequately emotional build up to Deathly Hallows.....and I left the cinema eagerly looking forward to the final installments, and even frustrated that I have to wait until 2011 for the finale. Rowling succeeded in writing a good book when she sat down to prepare Half-Blood Prince, but Yates hasn't brought us a good book on screen. He's brought us a good movie, and that has to be his only task as a movie director.

I very much enjoyed this movie and, if anything, it has prompted me to go and catch up with the books.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Superior cinema

[9/10 · 25 October 2007]

I need not repeat so many of the spot on comments about this movie, but I thought I would use this as one of the rare occasions I have posted a comment on IMDb so register my love of this film. I have so far seen it twice and only really upon the second viewing did I fully appreciate what a wonderful picture this is. It has so many hidden layers and it's analysis of everyday life, woven into the kooky world of this family, is one of the most realistic I have seen in a long time, despite it being a comedy.

I laughed at the pure simplicity and idiocy of scenes like the malfunctioning horn and the policeman with the porn magazines and equally shed a tear when the family comes together in the end to share the grandfather's philosophy on life.

All of the performances were spot on in this movie, particularly Steve Carrell, who very much surprised me with the versatility he showed(Steve, Evan Almighty? Come on you're better than that rubbish).

Also worth mentioning is the fantastic score and superior cinematography, which I thought complimented the quality of the performances and script.

Most importantly though about this picture is that it is a movie that makes you think about life and, for all it's gloom and sadness, leaves you at the end feeling totally uplifted without the needs for the usual crass Hollywood style moralising or schmaltz.

Highly recommended.

9/11 (2002 TV Movie)

A dose of reality

[6 September 2003]

Too many of us feast off of the world Hollywood feeds us and we convince ourselves in our comfortable western world that we are safe and secure and have a right to a privileged life.

9/11 is a film everyone should see. It hits home the reality of the world that we live in. It shows us what humanity is capable of, that is the capability to be both devastatingly evil and selflessly charitable. The film shows us the very definition of the good people of our world, the bad, the innocent and the guilty.

New York holds a special place in my heart. I travel there whenever I can. I have had good times there. The last time I was at the WTC was a mere 5 months before the attack. I remember standing on the roof and enjoying the view of the Hudson River on a beautiful sunny afternoon. Whenever I watch 9/11 on DVD I sometimes find it difficult to accept that the very same place is shown falling apart and in flames.

I had a cousin in the WTC of the day of the attacks. He was on the 92nd floor. Suffice it to say he did not survive. I was foolish enough not to see him the last time I was at the WTC. I will regret not doing so until he day I die.

I forced myself to watch this documentary on the anniversary last year. I shall do so again on the second anniversary this coming Thursday. For me watching the events take place in this film really drives home for me the tragedy that happened that day to my cousin's family, my family, the city that I love, the United States, and even my own country, which was deeply affected. To me it it reminded me of why we must make the most of what we have in life because the are others in he world who have been less fortunate and we don't frankly know whether or not tomorrow will be our last day.

Six months after the attacks I returned to Ground Zero. As emotional an experience as it was it did not affect me as much as this film. This is a must see film. It is a film about everyday people. It is a film about the strength of human spirit in those people. It is a film that will make you feel sick, make you cry and leave you silent when it ends. However, it will also make you appreciate the value of life.