ollie1939-97-957994 Reviews

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

A disappointing biopic, undeserving of Freddie Mercury's extraordinary talent

[2/10 · 23 January 2019]

Honestly, I'm sure most people who read this review have probably seen the film by now. It's made huge box office results, split critics but loved by audiences, as evidenced by its (current) place on the IMDB top 250. It recently got Oscar nominations and Golden Globe wins, showing that this review is not going to stop people from seeing it. However, it's frankly underwhelming, far below the standards set by the larger than life band. That's not to say there aren't positives about the film: 1)- Rami Malek is fantastic as the lead part. Despite being a huge fan of his work in 'The Pacific' and 'Mr Robot', I was unsure about how well he would do as Freddie Mercury. However, he truly knocked it out of the park with this one. He makes the frontman seem far more complex and interesting than the film's script ever does. 2)- The Live Aid sequence is great (although it does suffer from some rather dodgy CGI crowd scenes). It gets every little nuance of the performance down to the tee and reminds you how Freddie Mercury and Queen were like no other band ever. 3) Obviously, the soundtrack is fantastic. Honestly, I think Queen's music is likely the reason why this film scored so highly on IMDB. A great soundtrack can cloud people's judgements about a film, since those songs will stay in the hearts and minds of people for years to come.

The big problem that the film suffers from is the script. There's just nothing particularly interesting about it, considering its exceptional star. The first 40 minutes of the film is easily the worst aspect of the film. We never know why or how Freddie became a singer or how he became such a great singer. He and the band hardly seem to struggle at all before they get signed by a manager and become a mega-success. It seems more like a Wikipedia summary rather than a full-fledged, structured script, that features a horrendously embarrassing cameo from Mike Myers ( with the most unsubtle in-joke ever featured in a film).

Freddie's relationships with the other characters are also incredibly weak. Despite the controversy beforehand, I can't say I took too much of an issue with how they deal with Freddie's sexuality. However, it does seem a little odd that Freddie's biggest relationship with his female partner Mary. Whilst it does feature more of Freddie's sexuality later in the film, it does seem strange that he never really has an impactful relationship with anyone other than Mary. Even still, her character is so weak that we never really get a sense of what she meant to Freddie. One minute, they're in love and the next minute, Freddie admits his sexuality and leaves her. It's rather odd that the film didn't attempt to expand on this. Furthermore, I felt sorry for John Deacon (not a producer on the film) , considering Brian May and Roger Taylor (both producers) seem to get most of the credit for the band's success. They get the most screen time in the film besides Freddie, most likely due to their involvement with the film's production. Mind you, all the characters are pretty two-dimensional besides Freddie. I wouldn't have been able to distinguish any of the band member's if it wasn't for their already well-known status (and their wigs). Take away Queen's music and you get a cookie-cutter portrayal of a man struggling with his fame. Nobody would even be talking about this film if they hadn't licenced the music from Queen. It honestly reminded me a lot of Clint Eastwood's 'Jersey Boys' in terms of how the film was structured. It's just one event after another. They make hits without ease, with some melodramatic squabbling thrown in. Like that film, I never understood why Freddie falls out with the band. One minute, they're getting along and making hits and the next, he decides to leave them. I didn't hate this film. I was singing along to all of Queen's songs and the band has certainly dominated my Spotify listening since watching it. The film just never arises above what could've been a fantastic movie. Queen deserved better than this!

Gods and Monsters (1998)

An average biopic saved by a brilliant performance from Ian McKellen

[5/10 · 22 January 2019]

Gods and Monsters offers a potentially interesting look into the life of Hollywood director James Whale but instead sacrifices it for a melodrama, that relies too much on fiction than its real-life counterpart. The big problem the movie suffers from is that it puts too much emphasis on a fictional friendship between Whale (Ian McKellen) and his gardener Clayton (Brendan Fraser). Despite director Bill Condon trying to make this the warm centre of the film, I felt somewhat cold as a result. Whilst Fraser is fine in the part, Condon mistakenly mixes fact and fiction, meaning that we don't care much for his character at all. It's hard to get invested in his character, especially compared to the far more interesting Whale. I get that Fraser is meant to be the audience, discovering the more complicated life that Whale lived rather than just being a flamboyant individual, but it didn't emotionally engage me like it should've. The movie's saving grace is Ian McKellen who is constantly engaging throughout the film. He makes Whale more sympathetic and complex than the ever tries to. The film could've worked better if it had perhaps a more traditional structure, focusing on Whale's childhood, his experience in war and Hollywood before his final days. This isn't a bad film but perhaps needed another rewrite to make it more emotionally interesting. McKellen is fantastic but sadly, the film he's in doesn't offer the same engaging depth that he provides.

Filmworker (2017)

A solid documentary about the man behind the world's greatest filmmaker.

[7/10 · 27 November 2018]

Filmworker is a wonderful tribute and reminder of the tireless effort that goes into the process of filmmaking. Focusing on Stanley Kubrick's assistant Leon Vitali who worked with him from Barry Lyndon onwards, it reminds you how dedicated to the craft you must be in order to make it in the industry.

Looking at Vitali, you get the sense of who he is. Tired and worn out but also undeniably enthusiastic and holding great affection to the maestro of Kubrick. He is filled with wonderful stories and it's both heart-breaking and reaffirming that he dedicated so much of his life to an extraordinary but also difficult individual. I would argue that Kubrick was not only the greatest director to who have ever lived but one of the greatest artists ever, equivalent to film what Shakespeare was to theatre. However, as with all great artists, Kubrick asked for an unbelievable amount from the people surrounding him and there is no clearer example that Vitali.

Interviewing Vitali as well as many of Kubrick's collaborators, the documentary really gives a peek into the strange world of Kubrick. Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures gives a more definitive biography of the man but Filmworker gives a great sense of what it was like to work for him or on any film set for that matter.

Whilst I would've liked to have seen more about Vitali's and Kubrick's personal lives, it's a great account for anyone interested in the making of Kubrick's last few films as well as the undeniably important legacy that he had.

The Conversation (1974)

A paranoid masterpiece from Francis Ford Coppola that remains relevant today.

[10/10 · 24 November 2018]

'The Conversation' is often the forgotten treasure of Francis Ford Coppola's 1970s reign. Sandwiched between the first two Godfathers and 5 years before the release of 'Apocalypse Now', the topics discussed in The Conversation are ever more relevant today.

The plot involves a man (Gene Hackman) working as private surveillance. When he is asked by a client to detail a conversation between a couple, he finds himself in a web of intrigue.

The Conversation works so well for two fundamental reasons. One is the fact that it's a great mystery. Flawlessly edited, we become intrigued by the mysteries and consequences that this conversation sets out to bring. However, it is also an intense character study of an incredibly lonely and isolated individual.

Gene Hackman's performance is so brilliant I sometimes wonder why he didn't take more roles like this. Unlike his bravado performances in 'The French Connection' and 'The Royal Tenenbaums', Hackman plays the role with such quiet sincerity that I could barely tell it was him playing him, a mark of a true performer!

The movie goes into the depths of the moral repercussions that go into the art of surveillance. As the world is often split on issues like Snowden and Wikileaks, the film asks whether it is the right thing to go into other's businesses to uncover truths or whether we should stay out of it for our own good.

As a director, Coppola often got a lot of flak for selling out after the disaster of 'One from the Heart'. However, the movie is so flawlessly put together from a technical and storytelling point of view that you remind yourself why Coppola was and is the master that he is. Whilst this may not have the memorable and operatic set pieces of 'The Godfather' and 'Apocalypse Now', 'The Conversation' deserves to be held in the same breath as both films.

First Reformed (2017)

Hawke and Schrader deliver the best work of both of their careers.

[10/10 · 2 June 2018]

First Reformed is one of the most effective character studies that I can think of in recent memory. Schrader has both gone back to his roots delivering a Taxi Driver like protagonist at its centre whilst also using modern political and social issues to keep the material relevant. The story deals with a priest and former veteran coming to grips with his own faith when a young woman comes seeking his help and guidance. Schrader relies primarily on atmosphere and the performances to tell his story. Hawke's Priest Toller is a loner that struggles with alcohol and his past, in the same vein that many of Schrader's characters have often done. The movie is often uncomfortable and is certainly pretty humourless overall, but it draws you that you completely forget about these elements. As a fan of many of Ethan Hawke's performances, I can honestly say without a doubt this is the best performance of his career. Much of the intensity that comes from the film comes from his performance, whether he is eventually going to break. Hawke completely morphs into the character, believing him at almost every step of the way. The supporting cast, including Amanda Seyfried and Cedric the Entertainer also deliver extremely potent and effective performances. The movie is also beautifully shot, with the 1.37:1 aspect ratio helping to display Toller's mentally claustrophobic mentality. The shots of factories and rural American towns add to the film's atmosphere. It's a slow burn and may not be to everyone's liking but it's an effective character study that use a great actor and director to their full potential.

Ready Player One (2018)

Good Spielbergian fun, even if slightly unremarkable

[7/10 · 6 April 2018]

As with many, Spielberg is one of my idols in filmmaking. I defend him against many of his detractors as he has consistently made some of the great "popcorn munchers" and some wonderful historical dramas that have truly stood the test of time. That being said, it has been a while since I loved a Spielberg film (his double whammy of Catch Me if You Can and Minority Report in 2002 being his most recent greats). His films since then have been relegated to "good" or simply "passable". Even films like Lincoln haven't really stayed with me as much as Spielberg's earlier works. Sadly, Reader Player One has fallen into that category. That's not to say it's a bad film. In fact, I enjoyed it quite a bit. However, it's a flawed film in which many of its elements could've been drastically improved upon. As someone who read the source material, the many changes to the book didn't bother me too much. The novel did give me mixed feelings overall anyway. On one hand, the child in me enjoyed reading references to pop culture that I love. On the other, it suffers from an overabundance of "nostalgia porn". Those who enjoyed the novel might be disappointed that so much has been changed. Those who didn't might enjoy the film more. For me, I did appreciate the changes as it made it more exciting for someone who has already read the book. The biggest problem with the film are the characters. None of them are bad but they don't stick with you at all. All the actors do good enough jobs, but we never really feel their plight enough because they're very poorly developed. Without spoiling anything, there's a moment in which the protagonist Wade suffers a terrible loss. Yet, we don't feel anything because we don't care about him enough. The characters are mainly a catalyst to get to the next exciting set piece. Since we don't care about them though, it makes the action less exciting. Halliday is the most interesting character, but Mark Rylance is underused. His relationship with Morrow (Simon Pegg) is one of the most compelling but we don't see enough of it to get invested. The movie suffers from an insane amount of exposition in the first half an hour. Whilst it is nice knowing how the Oasis works, this time could've been better spent developing the characters, especially Wade. On a side note, Simon Pegg also suffers from the same syndrome that Benedict Cumberbatch suffered in Doctor Strange, that of "Iknowyourebritishsojustbebritishdonttrytobeamerican" syndrome. However, the film is an absolute visual treat. I would've liked to have seen the Oasis have a seedier side more akin to Spielberg's A.I but the world does look amazing. All the set pieces are well crafted, with one standing out as Spielberg's finest since Minority Report. Despite my issues with the characters, after the exposition heavy first act, the pace for the film really picks up and its 2hour20 minute runtime speeds by in a flash. Despite my issues with the pop culture heavy centre of the novel, I did enjoy seeing many of the references to past pop culture icons, especially how they were used in the final battle. And even the typical, Spielbergian schmaltzy ending did tug at my heartstrings, delivering a positive message for this technology-based generation.

And finally, a question for Spielberg? Spielberg, or at least his films. He delivered both the highest grossing film and film franchise of that decade in the form of E.T and Indiana Jones. Yet, Spielberg was already a well-established director before this. Is the need to adapt something so based around 80s pop culture a way of Spielberg attempting to revisit and capture what made his previous films so adored by millions? Is this Spielberg's attempt to become relevant again? I am unsure, but it seems as if he is returning to his roots as a "popcorn" director rather than the historical, "Oscar baity" filmmaker that he has become recently.

Hard Eight (1996)

An outstanding debut from Paul Thomas Anderson

[8/10 · 9 January 2018]

As a directorial debut from one of America's finest living directors, Hard Eight is an excellent film that demonstrated Paul Thomas Anderson's skills as a filmmaker. With a simple plot focusing on Sydney (Phillip Baker Hall), an elderly gambler deciding to teach the tricks of the Las Vegas trade to the young and naive John (John C. Reilly). Whilst the film is known as the debut of its director, the movie is certainly the quietest and lowkey out of all his films. Like all of Anderson's films though, he certainly gets the very best out of his actors, particularly Phillip Baker Hall. He plays the role with a quiet and straight-laced intensity that almost seems like this is just one small story in Sydney's life. It's almost a shame that Hall didn't get as juicy of a role as this prior but it's good to see that he became a great character actor. Fantastic turns from both Reilly and Gwyneth Paltrow (the object of John's desires) make this an utterly compelling and interesting character study. To quote Stephen Holden, "it is not a movie that wants to an make a grand statement". It's a film about its characters, with less of the showy cinematic traits and themes that would mark some of Anderson's later films. It certainly lacks the depths and emotional intensity of his future films but as a small, simple thriller, it showed Anderson was already a talent to behold.

Lucky (I) (2017)

A wonderful swan song to the amazing career of Harry Dean Stanton

[8/10 · 13 October 2017]

In terms of actors, there were very few like Harry Dean Stanton. He could bring emotion and eccentricity to a role like few others. Whether it being a "space trucker" in Alien, Molly Ringwald's father in Pretty in Pink or any one of his collaborations with David Lynch, Stanton was a icon of cinema. His presence though always felt like seeing an old friend, a sense of comfort seeing his withered, story driven face. Other than Paris Texas, Stanton was only litigated to supporting and minor roles in films. Appropriately, for one of his final performances, Stanton was given the chance in the spotlight again.

Lucky isn't a film about much. Directed by John Carroll Lynch (another great character actor) in his directorial debut, it simply follows the everyday routine of Lucky (played by Stanton) and the interactions he has with many of the local townsfolk. Lucky seemed like the role that Harry Dean was always born to play. It could almost be considered a companion piece to the 2013 documentary on Stanton, Partly Fiction. It incorporates much of Stanton's real-life philosophy, dry wit and even his musical ability into the final product as well. It feels like Lucky is just an extension of Stanton's personality which is absolutely wonderful. He was born to play this role and it would be a crime to see anyone else play Lucky. There's wonderful cameos from many different great actors including Ron Livingston, Tom Skerritt, Ed Begley Jr and of course his long-time collaborator David Lynch. All of them bring a wonderful warmth to their performance, despite their brief screen time (Lynch in particular, has a wonderful monologue about his lost tortoise 'President Roosevelt').

This is very much a character piece over a narrative piece which may put some viewers off. However, to anyone that enjoys these types of movies with philosophical contemplation with wonderful characters and dialogue, this is certainly a movie for you. It serves as a great ending to Hollywood's best character actor.

Love & Mercy (2014)

An engaging, focused narrative and great performances definitely make Love and Mercy worth a watch.

[9/10 · 27 September 2017]

To all Hollywood directors out there trying to make a biopic of a person's life, this is certainly the way to do it. Bill Pohlad's emotionally engaging biopic of Beach Boys frontman Brian Wilson is extremely effective with great cinematography, wonderful acting by the leads and is heart wrenching well written. Unlike most biopics that tried to cover the entirety of a person's life, Love and Mercy instead keeps its focus on two areas of Brian Wilson's life. First, when the younger Wilson (Paul Dano) is making the iconic Pet Sounds album in the 1960s and dealing with the aftermath of the album's release. Secondly, it deals with an older Wilson's (John Cusack) deteriorating mental state in the 1980s as he attempts to find love with a local car dealer (Elizabeth Banks), whilst also being emotionally abused by his psychiatrist Dr Landy (Paul Giamatti). By doing this, Pohlad creates a more focused narrative that doesn't confuse the audience by trying to cram in too many of Wilson's life into one two-hour movie. The movie also succeeds in the way in which it transitions seamlessly between the two different time periods. Unlike most biopics, it doesn't present the events chronologically. Instead, it goes back and forth between Dano and Cusack's Wilson. However, it never feels like two different movies, as both sections of the film complement each other and add more depth to the scenes that come prior and after. The acting is all around top notch for the film as well. Dano probably gives the best performance of his career, acting like the mad genius that Wilson was. He perfectly depicts the ever worsening mental state of Wilson and it's shameful that he wasn't even nominated for an Oscar. Cusack also gives one of his best performance in years. Whilst he doesn't quite have as much to do as Dano does, he still delivers a quiet and reserved performance that reminds audiences of why people so adored him in the 90s. Elizabeth Banks is also great in her role as the emphatic love interest of Wilson. Arguably, some might dislike the fact that Bank's character does probably have a larger role in these sections than Cusack but she never feels forced in. Wilson is seen primarily through Dano's eyes and Banks is the voice of reason that is trying to bring him back to reality. If I had to criticise any performance in the film, I would be inclined to say Paul Giamatti. Whilst his performance is by no means awful, I did think he occasionally went slightly too over the top in some parts of the film. When compared to the subtle performances by all the other main actors, I felt his performance became occasionally too cartoonish (although Wilson himself said that his performance reminded him of the real Dr Landy, so maybe I'm in the wrong on this one). Love and Mercy is a film that everyone should watch, regardless of whether they're a Beach Boys fan or not. It delivers an interesting perspective into one of the 20th century's greatest musicians but feels more focused and more engaging than some of the music biopics that have preceded it (e.g. Ray, Walk the Line etc). It's a film that deserves a gander and I can't recommend it enough.

Twin Peaks: Part 8 (2017) Season 1, Episode 8

An hour of television to remember for the ages.

[10/10 · 26 June 2017]

Well, wow! After a return to what seemed like a normal episode by Twin Peaks standards last week, Lynch seemed to deliberately punished the audience this week by delivering a wholly surreal experience, derived from some of the director's earlier work such as Eraserhead. Reviewing an episode of a show is extremely difficult for me to do. Whilst I have rated individual episodes of TV on IMDb before, I have never properly reviewed one before. Its hard to review an episode of a show as it is only a small fragment of the bigger picture. However, this episode was something completely out of this world that will likely alienate some but will captivate those who enjoy completely surreal trips (think the ending of 2001). My 10/10 rating comes primarily as Lynch correctly predicted, that television is the new art-house. It may not offer the intense narrative that something like Breaking Bad's Ozzymandies or GOT's Battle of the Bastards might have but this was an utterly enthralling hour of television that comes across as one of the most original and thrilling spectacles that even top some recent cinematic experiences. The only way I can describe this episode without spoiling it is imagine what David Lynch's version of the creation sequence from the Tree of Life would look like. Completely horrific and beautiful all at the same time.

I have seen some negative ratings from users who seem to give every episode of this show a 1/10. My response to this is if you don't like it, don't watch it. Lynch has always been well known for delivering bizarre and abstract art so I don't see why people who are fans of Lynch's work are so hostile to this new show when it is simply a continuation of everything that he has done thus far. In terms of surrealism though, this may top both Eraserhead and Inland Empire.

How this episode will ultimately tie in to the rest of the series remains a mystery (although it certainly does give vague hints). This episode only delivers further proof that this is certainly not the same Twin Peaks from 1990-1991. It's Lynch's baby and it's one that is so bizarre, that it might be genius! Bravo to Showtime for allowing Lynch to have total creative control and I look forward to seeing what comes next.

Twin Peaks (2017)

A show like no other!

[10/10 · 22 May 2017]

Wow, what an absolute ride! 25 years after the critically acclaimed Twin Peaks was abruptly cancelled by ABC, Showtime's 2017 revival is going to baffle and enrage many people including new viewers and fans. And that is exactly what TV needs right now. I'm a big fan of the original show as well as the majority of David Lynch's work. However, even I did not expect the type of show that this has ultimately turned out to be. In short, Lynch has created something wholly unique and original that doesn't abide to the normal conventions of most television. It's abstract and many will find its pace far too slow but it helps in giving that Lynchian atmosphere that his dearest fans so love. Already, I predict that many of the images both from the iconic Red Room as well as some of the new imagery will satisfy die-hard Lynch fans and will leave an impression for years to come.

From these first four episodes/hours, Lynch and Frost aren't answering many of the original show's most burning questions. The first two hours almost seem like a series of vignettes (much like Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire)in which many plot lines are introduced, yet you still question how they will ultimately connect. Whilst the town of Twin Peaks does feature heavily, much of the new season so far has been set in a variety of new locations. Episode three is incredibly abstract almost feeling like something out of Eraserhead whilst episode 4 is probably the most similar to the original series out of the episodes released so far.

The acting is also superb. This is probably the best work I've seen from Kyle Maclachlan (Special Agent Dale Cooper). Without giving away too much, this is not the same Cooper that so many of the fans are used to seeing. This is a man who has been affected by what has happened during this bizarre 25 year gap and Maclachlan is incredible at channelling this. Without spoiling which original characters appear in these episodes, it's nice to see that many of them have not lost their charming touch. I'm also optimistic about some of the new cast. Whilst the most memorable characters are of course ones from the original show, I am interested to see where many of their plot lines take us.

One thing that is missing so far is perhaps is a sense of a central mystery that became so important to the original show. So far, there is no "who killed Laura Palmer" mystery that hangs over the show.

In conclusion, the new series of Twin Peaks is unlike most shows on TV. Even as a hardcore fan, it may take some time getting used to the new mood, atmosphere and characters. However, so far I'm utterly hooked and I cannot wait to see where this journey Lynch and Frost have started will ultimately take us.

De Palma (2015)

"Holy Mackerel"

[8/10 · 9 February 2017]

In this film, Noah Baumbach and Jake Paltrow interview one of Hollywood's most polarizing directors in Brian De Palma. De Palma has been praised for his innovative camera techniques and his suspenseful stories but has been criticised for misogyny in his films as well as seemingly ripping of many "Hitchcockian" traits. I am familiar with De Palma's work, although I haven't seen too many of his films apart from his most well known ones (Scarface, Untouchables, Carlito's Way etc.) but this documentary certainly wants me to explore more of his movies. The film is mainly just one shot of De Palma talking to the camera intercut with scenes from many of his movies. He goes into extreme detail about every single one of his movies, whilst occasionally talking about aspects of his personal life.

De Palma is a very interesting character. He's eccentric and funny but also can be arrogant sometimes. However, as a director he is a great storyteller and talks about most of his movies in extremely intricate and interesting detail e.g. how he performed certain shots to how he dealt with many of the different egos on his set. If you're someone who isn't particularly interested in film, you'll probably not find too much enjoyment in this documentary. It really is a documentary for cinephiles (such as myself) or at least people who have some interest in the art of film making. I do sometimes wish the documentary would perhaps tap into more aspects of De Palma's personal life such as his childhood or his relationship with his peers (Scorsese, Spielberg etc.). There are moments when De Palma talks about his childhood and refers to incidents that impacted his voyeuristic style but I wish the movie tapped into more moments like these. One other criticism I also have is perhaps De Palma does tend to talk about certain movies more than other ones. I would've liked for him to go into more detail about some of his more notable failures like Mission to Mars and Passion but De Palma generally just skips over these particular films.

However, if you're a movie fan or Brian De Palma fan( hell, even a detractor) you'll find great enjoyment out of this fascinating documentary about one of Hollywood's most prolific directors.

Sully (2016)

An entertaining watch from Eastwood and Hanks

[7/10 · 12 December 2016]

Much like with his last film, American Sniper, Eastwood is trying to portray the everyman. However, Sully is no Chris Kyle. He's someone who doesn't hunt for danger but rather an ordinary man who found himself in the worst of situations, that made him have 155 people's lives in his hand. Half the film is dedicated to the actual "Miracle on the Hudson" and the other half documents the media representation and the inquiry from the National Safety Transportation Board.

As always, Eastwood gets the best out of his performers. Tom Hanks is brilliant as always, both calm but also engaging in his delivery (his final speech. There's very few actors who can portray people like this but Hanks is one of them. Its a welcome return for the actor after the godawful Inferno. The other standout is Aaron Eckhart as Sully's first officer who delivers most of the comedic relief Some of the supporting characters I did feel were not developed enough fully such as Sully' wife (Laura Linney) who seem slightly shoved in, without a lot of depth to be had to them. But as a film called Sully, is there much more that needs to be added to any of the other characters when the film needs to dedicate time to its title character.

The movie is a very short sit at just 90 minutes long, which some may feel is too brief but I think it works in the film's benefit. Primarily, a story like this could've dragged on too long but Eastwood keeps it concise and interesting The film's biggest flaw is perhaps through its editing. I almost think the film would've worked better as a traditional, chronological narrative rather than focusing on flashbacks. Some scenes also feel slightly out of place, especially the ones that focus on Sully's younger, flying days. The movie is not something I would sit through again, perhaps as there's not much to be rediscovered but it does deliver an interesting and engaging enough story to make it worth a watch.

Bloodline (2015–2017)

Thrilling, intense, one of Netflix's best yet!

[28 July 2015]

Since it started releasing original content with House of Cards, Netflix has proved itself as being one of the best producers of television content, along with HBO. They keep outdoing themselves time and time again and Bloodline is no exception. Along with House of Cards and Daredevil, this is up there as one of their best yet. The story focuses on a typical "American family" that seem to be fairly perfect in every way. However, that all changes when their black sheep of a brother Danny (Ben Mendelsohn)returns. As a result of his return, secrets about the family are revealed which ultimately provides for a thrilling narrative that always makes the viewer wonder where the story will ultimately conclude.

I won't say too much about how the story progression but the story develops effectively and the show has some of the best character development that I've personally seen in recent memory. The acting also has to be mentioned as it's superb. Kyle Chandler is great as always, Linda Cardellini is great as the sister and Sissy Spacek is fantastic as the patriarch of the family. However, Mendelssohn is one of the strongest parts about the show. He brings intensity to his character that ultimately helps the show come to life as well as bringing unpredictability to Danny. The show is also beautifully shot with beauty seen within the Florida Keys but, it also shows off the grittiness and the darker side which is seen around those areas.

I only have two complaints about the show that don't effect the show's quality but they do need to be mentioned. For some, the show might be a little too slow. For me, that worked perfectly as it built tension but it could be considered a turn off for some. The other is that the season does have a rather forced cliffhanger. Honestly, if you changed the ending slightly, this could've been a miniseries. However, this cliffhanger alone has forced it to become a series which does seem like a bit of "money grabbing" from Netflix to try and squeeze out another season from the writers.

Overall though, this is one of Netflix's best and I would give an enormous amount of recommendation to anyone who loves crime dramas with a lot of depth. It's well acted, superbly written and wonderfully shot that this is one show that you shouldn't miss.

Whiplash (2014)

One of the most powerful and intense movies ever made.

[10/10 · 26 January 2015]

There are very few movies that can generate such a mixture of emotions whilst you're watching it. Whiplash is one of these exceptions. It's an edge of your seat thriller/ drama with one of the most unique relationships ever portrayed on film. The story that focuses on a young drummer (Miles Tellar) trying to impress his brutal and abusive teacher (J.K Simmons) is perhaps one of the best examples of a student- teacher relationship. The performances by Miles Tellar and J.K Simmons are nothing short of amazing. Tellar's performance is great as his character grows a huge amount in the film. Whilst drumming is a prime target for him, it becomes his obsession and he's determined to do anything he must to prove himself. Simmons delivers probably the best on screen performance I've seen in a long time. I mainly remember Simmons for comedic work such as Spiderman and Juno as well as his voice work in Portal 2. However, here you both love and hate the man. He's very reminiscent of R.Lee Ermey's drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket, however 10 times better. Every scene he's in, you're biting your nails as he is an incredibly unpredictable character and he deserves every bit of praise that he's getting The movie also has one of the most exciting and thrilling finales I've seen in a long time.

I can't say much more about this film, then to go out and see it. It's definitely my favorite film of 2014 and possibly one of my favorite films ever. It's intense screenplay, amazing performances from its two leads and the music score all help to make this one of the greatest movies I've ever watched.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Was this really the end that the fans really deserved?

[6/10 · 14 December 2014]

I am going to start off by saying that this movie is a disappointment. Whilst I'm not a hardcore fan, I do really like Lord of the Rings and enjoyed the first two Hobbit movies throughly. However, many people had problems with the other two Hobbit movies and this one highlights them a lot. First off, without spoiling anything, the first 15-20 minutes of this movie could've been the last 15 minutes of the last Hobbit movie. It feels very out of place. All of the events of these first couple of minutes happen before the title for the movie even appears so it just seems like a very out of place intro. It ruins the great, nail biting cliffhanger that the Desolation of Smaug had. The movie also suffers from a massive tonal in balance. The Lord of the Rings films were dark with elements of humor. The first two Hobbits were more light hearted with elements of darkness. However, this one can't decide what it wants to be. It tries to be dark but there's so many stupid scenes that completely ruin the world that it's trying to create. I understand that it's a movie but when there's a scene of Legolas jumping across the fallen parts of a broken bridge, you can't extend your disbelief that much. Also, the acting was surprisingly a mixed bag. Whilst returning actors like Martin Freeman and Ian Mckellen are very good, other actors like Richard Armitage and Evangelie Lily are terrible. Also, actors like Stephen Fry, Hugo Weaving and Benedict Cumberbatch are also greatly underused. It focuses far too much on Thorin Oakenshield. In a movie franchise called the Hobbit. This wouldn't be as bad if Thorin was an interesting character. Instead, we get a lot of moping from Thorin which really doesn't help the movie. Why could it not be about Martin Freeman. Not only is he a good actor, but it's a movie named after his character?. Peter Jackson clearly was running out of steam when he started making this one.

Okay, I've talked about the negatives. There are some positives and despite my bashing, it's by no means a terrible film. The first hour of the movie is very good and actually looked like it was going to be the best out of the trilogy. The action is also good near the start of the battle which nearly made me think that the battle was going to be as good as Return of the King. The last scene was also good as it led directly into the Fellowship of the Ring. The music score was of course excellent and the cinematography is still amazing.

Overall, the Hobbit isn't a bad film. It just suffers from a massive tonal in balance and focusing far too much on a character that I don't really care about it. It certainly is the weakest Middle Earth film and I expected a lot more from a franchise beloved by many. Go see it if you're a Middle Earth fan and if you enjoyed the others, but you're in no rush to see this one.

Fargo (2014–2024)

Aw jeeze, this is a pretty great TV series Lester

[10/10 · 23 October 2014]

When first hearing of a Fargo TV series, I did express doubt. The original movie is considered by many as one of the best films of the 1990s. And with none of the original cast returning and the Coen Brothers only coming back as executive producers, I wasn't sure about what they were going to do with this show. Thankfully, Fargo along with True Detective are the two best TV series to debut this year.

The show makes the bright decision of straying away from the plot of the movie, with only a few small tie ins to the original movie. The plot is hard to explain without revealing any spoilers. But it involves a psychotic hit-man ( Billy Bob Thornton), a timid businessman with dark secrets of his own ( Martin Freeman) and two bright, up and comers in the police force (Allison Tolman and Colin Hanks). The acting is amazing in this show. Everyone does a superb job at conveying this "small town" American attitude. It takes influences from other Coen Brothers movies and even takes elements of its quirkiness from Twin Peaks. Without giving too much away, Martin Freeman is sort of the Walter White of the show. Someone who is fairly innocent who is changed by the events that happen around him. Freeman does a great job as does the rest of the cast but Billy Bob Thornton steals every scene he's in. There's just an unease about his character and is one of the most unpredictable characters to come out of TV in a long while. The plot is incredibly engaging and whilst the show does slow down a bit in the middle , the 2nd half of this first season is some of the best TV I've ever watched.

I also have to mention the cinematography as well. It might be the most beautifully filmed series I've ever seen. It does help that every shot outside does feature snow which makes everything look beautiful. But, everything looks amazing. If you have the option, buy the series on Blu-Ray. It'll make everything look so much nicer.

Overall, this is a must watch series and I highly recommend you to watch it. If you love the original movie or any Coen Brothers movie, you're going to love it. If you like crime dramas, you're going to love it. If you like dark comedies, you're going to love it. I cannot recommend this show enough.

Jersey Boys (2014)

An entertaining and fun biopic about the Four seasons

[8/10 · 20 October 2014]

Jersey Boys is quite possibly my favorite musical off all time. I saw it on Broadway and adored every second of it. It does help that I'm a big fan of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons as well. So I was surprised to hear that Clint Eastwood of all people was directing a musical, albeit with a mob themed element. Thankfully, the movie is very good, if flawed in some cases.

One thing that you have to compliment Eastwood on is how he mainly used actors from the stage. Sure, actors like Christopher Walken and Boardwalk Empire's Vincent Piazza do have roles in it. But the majority of the main cast are actors from the musical. As a result, the performances are great as they are all familiar with their roles. Piazza and Walken do chew a lot of scenery but not to a point where it becomes annoying or over the top. John Lloyd Young who won a Tony award for playing Frankie Valli on stage continues to shine as Valli. He has the voice, charisma and looks of the singer so his performance is incredibly believable and awesome to watch. The production design is also great. Eastwood is always very good at making the audience feel like they're in a different time period. The music is of course amazing and the story is just as entertaining as it was on stage.

My two biggest gripes with the film are the following. The movie is far too long. Eastwood tries to adapt every scene from the play but it doesn't necessarily work. Some scenes, particularly the ones involving Valli and his daughter drag on for far too long. At 2 hours and 15 minutes, there could've been some things they cut down.Also, the movie less feels like a musical and more like a biopic about the Four Seasons. With the exception of the final scene, there's no big song or dance number which could disappoint people. The music is still brilliant though. I just wish it felt more like a musical rather than a biopic like Ray or Beyond the Sea were.

Overall, Eastwood does a good job of bringing the play from the stage to the screen. It is over long but it is saved by its music, story and acting.

Wish I Was Here (2014)

A surprisingly deep and poignant movie with a lot of heart.

[18 October 2014]

Don't listen to the critics. Zach Braff's new movie is actually very good with a lot of heart and emotion to it. In some ways, it surpasses Braff's other movie Garden State. You can tell this is a movie that he wanted to make for a long time. Whilst Garden state was a more autobiographical movie, this is more of Braff making you go on an experience . It somewhat reminds me of Lost in translation. There's not really a plot of kinds but is like going on some sort of experience. It's really about the relationship between the character of Aidan Bloom (Braff) and his family and not much else. Also, like Lost in Translation it has many comic moments due to the comedic talent of its two main stars. Throw in some entertaining cameos from Braff's Scrubs co star Donald Faison and Jim Parsons and you have a well rounded movie. If there's one "indie" film you have to see this year, go see Wish I was here. By the end of it, you'll be glad you were there.

American Hustle (2013)

One of the funniest and smartly written movies I've seen in a long time

[19 January 2014]

American hustle is just purely entertaining. Something that a lot of movies struggle with now. It's well written, very well acted, laugh out loud hilarious and you'll just have a good time whilst watching it. American Hustle's tone is very similar to Martin Scorsese movies. It's very real and sometimes is over the top but it finds the right balance between the two. The performances are fantastic all around. Christian Bale is great as the good hearted but troubled con man. Amy Adams ( who in my opinion delivers the best performance of the movie) is great as Bale's associate. Bradley Cooper is good as the naive Fbi agent. Jeremy Renner and Jennifer Lawrence are also very good and I would've liked to have seen them get more screen time. Even Louis C:k is great as Bradley Cooper's cynical FBI supervisor. Overall American Hustle is a great movie with lots of quotable lines and memorable scenes. It's a movie you won't want to miss and you'll remember it for a long time.

The World's End (2013)

A fantastic conclusion to the Cornetto trilogy.

[9/10 · 19 July 2013]

I didn't think this trilogy could get any better. However it somehow exceeded by expectations. With fantastic direction from Edgar Wright,smart writing from Wright and Simon Pegg and hilarious performances from Pegg, Nick Frost and everyone else the World's end is a great way to end the trilogy. The story focuses on a group of childhood friends who go back to their hometown in order to repeat a legendary pub crawl that ends with a pub known as the World's End. However they realize that their whole town has been taken over by robots and it's up to them to stop them from taking over the world. I will admit that my only criticism of the film is that it does start off a little slowly. The jokes felt a little stiff at times with their execution and most of the humor was coming from Pegg's character. However once the robots come in the movie does pick up the pace and lives up to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz The performances are very funny with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost actually switching roles. Pegg is more of the bumbling idiot whereas Frost is the straight man. The other performance are also good with Martin Freeman,Paddy Considine, Rosamund Pike and Eddie Marsan. I also loved the ending which has probably the best ending out of any of the Cornetto trilogy movies Overall the movie is incredibly funny despite having a slow start. It's a perfect mix of comedy and science fiction. I hope there's more to come from these very funny and talented guys.

Pacific Rim (2013)

Get ready to become a 11 year old again

[6/10 · 17 July 2013]

Pacific Rim is a movie that could possibly lower your IQ as well as anger people expecting the next Pan's Labryinth from Guillermo Del Toro. However it's an entertaining film that hasn't been the disappointment that some of the other blockbusters have been this year. Pacific Rim is essentially a mixture of Transformers, Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots and Godzilla movies. The basic plot for the movie is that giant monsters called Kaiju have come from another dimension deep in the earth's core. As a result humans build giant robots called Jaegers to stop the Kaiju attack. As you can see the story is paper thin with very little character development or background to the film. It is also filled with clichéd characters and more action than Transformers or the Avengers had. If you can get past this you will be transported to the mind of a 11 year old excited at the prospect of seeing giant robots and aliens fighting it out. The action and the CGI are the main reasons and the best parts about the movie. There isn't a lot of shaky cam in the fight sequences which is a good thing. The CGI is incredibly detailed with you actually seeing parts of the Jaegar's body flying off its body. The Kaiju also look very realistic. Despite the weak character development the actors do a good job with what they're giving. Charlie Hunnam(from Sons of Anarchy) and Rinko Kikuchi do a fine job as our main hero's. Charlie Day( from It's always Sunny in Philadelphia) and Burn Gorman do good jobs as the comedic relief for the movie. Ron Perlman and Idris Elba are the two stand out performances just because these two guys are the biggest bad asses in the whole of the movie( with the exception of the giant robots. Overall the movie is good despite its weak character development and paper thin story. It makes you feel like an 11 year old again and it will probably be the most entertaining action film of the whole summer.

Goodfellas (1990)

What makes me so F***ing funny

[10/10 · 1 June 2013]

Goodfellas is quite possibly the coolest movie ever made. It has the coolest clothes, cars, actors and a terrific storyline. This is Martin Scorsese's masterpiece. Featuring a terrific set of performances from Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro and of course Joe Pesci this movie is one of the all-time classics.

Based on a true story the storyline of the movie takes place between the years 1955 and 1980 we follow the storyline of Henry Hill(Ray Liotta) a small time crook that finds himself being wound up in the mafia. The story also focuses on his relationship with Jimmy Conway(Robert De Niro, the psychotic Tommy Devito( Joe Pesci)and his relationship with his wife Karen ( Lorraine Branco.

There is so many good things about this movie and it's hard to talk about everything in one review. I think the acting and writing particularly stand out. Liotta does a fantastic job as you're never sure if you want to like the guy or hate his guts. He's the perfect antihero and Liotta performs this perfectly. De Niro is fantastic as Hill's mentor but the icing on the cake is Joe PesciI ( who picked up the film's only Oscar). Playing the ultimate psychopath he's one of the most unpredictable characters ever in film. You never know what he's going to do and Pesci plays this perfectly.

The rest of the cast is also excellent. Lorraine Branco is very good as the wife of Henry Hill ( the only normal person in the entire movie". Paul Sorvino is also great as one of the capos. There's also a few famous faces before they became famous e.g. Samuel L Jackson as well as about two dozen people from the Sopranos such as Michael Imperoli, Tony Sirico and Frank Vincent.

The directing and camera-work is superb from Scorsese and the writing is excellent with many quotable lines. Overall Goodfellas is a masterpiece of cinema and should be remembered as one of the all time greats of cinema. It was fantastic 23 years ago and it is still fantastic now.

Bringing Out the Dead (1999)

A very under looked film

[10/10 · 11 February 2012]

Bringing out the Dead is the most underrated film ever done by Martin Scorsese. It is one of the most well made films I've ever seen and is one of my favorite dramas of all time.

The film focuses on a paramedic called Frank played by Nicolas Cage. The film focuses on 48 hours of Frank's life as a paramedic and all the horrific things he has seen. As well as that Frank is also haunted by spirits of people who he couldn't save, befriends a young women called Mary played by Patricia Arquette and a whole range of strange partners.

The actors that Scorsese has chosen are a weird bunch as they're not really in Scorsese's other films and they're not really big name actors. As well as Nicolas Cage there's also supporting roles from people like John Goodman, Ving Rhames and Tom Siezmore. Everyone does a fantastic jobs even the actors who have much smaller roles than others.

This is much more surreal film than most other Scorsese films as we go into Frank's mind.

The reasons why this films succeeds is just that you really care about this characters and while the film dosen't really have much of a story it grips you the whole way through.

It also has a great soundtrack which includes artists like Van Morrison, R.E.M and the Who.

Overall the film is quite different to what you're usually expecting but it grips who the whole way though and it gets a full 5 star rating form me.

Batman (1989)

One of the best Summer Blockbusters ever

[10/10 · 2 November 2011]

Batman is my favorite superhero film next to the Dark Knight( another Batman film). Batman has always been my favorite superhero and this films proves it. Michael Keaton is my all time favorite Batman and Jack Nicholson makes a fantastic Joker as well.

Tim Burton is one of my favorite directors and this film shows of his style. Gotham City looks old and dusty but beautiful at the same time. It looks like a futuristic 1950s if that makes any sense. There's not too much to say about this film except the one important thing. Go watch it!!! It's a very different film from the Dark Knight but you have to except that. There's some things better than this film and some things are better about the Dark Knight e.g Michael Keaton makes a better Batman film that Christian Bale and Heath Ledger makes a better than Jack Nicholson. Great film but very different from the Dark Knight