Mohican15 Reviews

Juarez (1939)

An Overdramatic, Overlooked Gem of Classic Cinema!

[7/10 · 18 February 2023]

I have to say, this came as a really nice surprise. After enduring 1954's abysmal DÉSIRÉE, I thought a movie about the Hapsburg Empire's dalliances in French Mexico would be absolute cheese... but I was really rather impressed by the levels of detail and research that went into the making of this movie. Warner Bros was clearly trying to make as accurate a movie as possible and despite the odd bit of fiction (like Miguel Lopez's role in the fall of Querétaro, who betrayed the imperialists for a large payment of gold and not out of some misplaced desire to see Maximilian spared), they achieve that pretty well. Most of the important events of the French intervention are addressed: the staged plebiscite, Maximilian's hushed-up contraction of syphilis, the Black Decree, the capture of Porfirio Díaz, the first (and last) Crown Prince of Mexico, the madness of Carlotta and the actual execution of Emperor Maximilian. Being a "Golden Age" movie, they're all shown in a typically "Hollywood" short of fashion (with bland battle scenes and far too much of a score) but for a film made in 1939, I'm really impressed by the attention paid to the facts, in the story as well as the casting...

I've never been a Bette Davis fan and this film does nothing to change my opinion of her as an actress, as she stares around the room like a demented aye-aye! Brian Aherne turns in a beautifully restrained performance as the misplaced monarch but, for me, there were really two standouts to this film: Claude Rains as Napoleon III and Paul Muni as the titular statesman and founding father of Mexican independence. Rains lends a delicious little bit of Shakespearean villainy to what is virtually a cameo appearance as the great man's pretentious, scheming nephew, while Muni- a Ukrainian Jew- tackles the role of Mexican Lincoln with mirror image-level precision, mastering the perfect Spanish accent and painting himself up to look like a wise old tortoise (in short, exactly like the real Juarez) as he counterbalances the pomp and circumstance of the imperial court with slow, simple speeches about liberty and justice. It's a terrific performance and one that should've received at least a nomination from the Academy. But even the minor roles were treated with sincerity and respect, like that of the martyred general, Tomás Mejía (a Mexican imperialist of Otomi heritage), who is portrayed with silent dignity by Oaklahoman Native American actor, William Wilkerson.

With so many bad historical epics of classical cinema out there, it's nice to come across one that- instead of the nauseatingly over-romanticised and agonisingly over-fictionalised DÉSIRÉE- at least tries to get it right.

War and Peace (1965)

THE REAL 1812 OVERTURE

[9/10 · 13 December 2022]

This film is living proof that only the Russians can truly do Tolstoy justice. Growing up, I thought the 1956 Hollywood adaptation to be the definitive take on his magnum opus chronicling the disastrous Napoleonic invasion of Russia...

But it doesn't come anywhere close to achieving the heights set by Director (and star) Sergei Bondarchuk's glorious 1966 adaptation that cost around 10 million dollars to make and has a running time of over five hours! This is a true masterpiece and (I believe) cements Bondarchuk's legacy as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, definitive in not only its portrayal of the battle scenes (specifically, the great slaughter at Borodino: a 30-minute-long marvel which required over 14,000 extras and was filmed with a series of cameras suspended above the battlefield on telegraph lines) but of the characters as well. 1970's Waterloo proved just how fine an action director Bondarchuk was but this is a far more delicate, sensitive piece, constructed with real care and consideration towards its source material (adapting the greatest novel of all time, Sergei? No pressure! Seriously, this film nearly killed the guy but he kept going and finished it with the help of his darling wife, Irina). The soirées, the music, the female narrative, the cinematography... it's a love letter to not only Tolstoy, but to Russia as a country. This is a real piece of art and it captures the unspoken poetry and mental anguish of Tolstoy's work as no one else has (thus far) been able to. Not one shred of detail is CGI'd and it truly pays off: when the horses are tripped at Borodino as the cannons go off, I nearly cried because it was all so beautiful!

Seriously though, adapting what is considered by many to be the greatest novel of all time is no mean feat but having read a great part of the book myself, I have to say that although he may have dropped a few elements (that the much-loved 2016 BBC adaptation) for the sake of state censorship, Bondarchuk's adaptation hits the nail right on the head:

Pierre Bezukhov is just as he should be: a fat bumbler.

Andrei Bolkonsky is just as he should be: a moody git.

Natasha Rostov is just as she should be: a silly girl.

But the journeys that all these characters go on are just so wonderful and if the man himself could see what Bondarchuk did to his novel, I think he'd clap him on the back and say: "that's my boy!" If I have one criticism, it's that the ending could've been expanded on... as it was was the 2016 adaptatin. It would've been nice to see Bondarchuk's Pierre and Savelyeva's Natasha as the happily married couple that they become... But that's just me!

It's difficult to weight this one up with all the other excellent adaptations (I still love the 1956 version, though Fonda is perhaps a little miscast but still good; 2016 was good fun; don't even get me started on the Anthony Hopkins adaptation... The Count would be spinning in his grave!), but here are the performances I consider to be the definitive standouts in the War & Peace cinematic universe:

Best Pierre- Sergei Bondarchuk

Best Andrei- James Norton (though I personally think Leslie Howard would've made the perfect Andrei)

Best Natasha- Ludmila Savelyeva

Best Maria- Jess Buckley

Best Helene- Irina Skobtseva (or "Mrs. Bondarchuk")

Best Anatole- Vittorio Gassman

Best Dolokhov- Tom Burke

Best Nikolai- Jack Lowden

Best Kutuzov- Oskar Homolka

Best Napoleon- Herbert Lom (for War & Peace, that is... For Napoleon? Steiger will NEVER be surpassed!)

1966's War & Peace remains a true classic of European cinema that (I hope) will bring more people round to not only the works of Leo Tolstoy, but of Sergei Bondarchuk as well. Witness one of the greats adapting one of the greats!

Medieval (2022)

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED???

[5/10 · 18 November 2022]

Jan Zizka was one of the great military commanders that history has ever known. He defeated the armoured knights of the Holy Roman Empire with a handful of peasants armed with flails and pitchforks. His armoured wagons (or "wagonburgs") laid the foundations for what we now call "the tank". He was a legend, freeing the Czech people from the tyrannical popery of Rome. However, he was also a deeply complex individual- the original "amazing grace" story. Hacking out a living as a highwayman/mercenary, Zizka's eyes were opened by the gospel of Jan Hus, who taught him how to "fight the good fight of faith" before he was tragically martyred. Today, he is perceived as an enduring symbol of Czech nationalism (I nation of which I am fortunate enough to be a member) and his passionate devotion God is overlooked. MEDIEVAL does nothing to mend this one-sided view, with its gratuitous violence, poor dialogue and derivative plot. Zizka become just another gruff-voiced tough guy, unwisely blending his Russel Crowe antics with half-hearted attempts at religious motivation. Director Petr Jakl chose to make a film about Zizka's youth and that's perfectly fine, but Zizka only came to the Lord when he was an old man and had already made most of his mistakes. Forcing the Christian message into this picture feels... awkward. Showing a young man who did terrible things to survive until he was shown a better way ("amazing grace that saved a wretch like me") would've surely made a far more powerful and profound story. Instead, Foster (who, though a fine actor, is woefully miscast and woefully misused, trying to deliver a Braveheart performance when kitted out with a Ninja Turtles script) ends up stumbling his way through a GOT version of the Robin Hood myth. This was supposed to be the most expensive film that Czech has ever made but the battle scenes felt surprisingly cheap and disappointingly small-scale, especially considering the fact that during his youth, Zizka allegedly took part (and lost his eye in) the Battle of Grunwald- one of the biggest and bloodiest battles in medieval history. Seeing his mighty wagonburgs and hearing choruses of "Ye Who are Warriors of God" (the Hussite battle hymn that struck terror into the hearts of Emperor Sigismund's mercenary crusaders) were pleasant diversions from this hackneyed, melodramatic mess.

The story of Jan Zizka is a story of faith moving mountains and of a wolf becoming a sheep. As this movie's dedication reads, it is also story about people fighting for their freedom. So, it is sad to see such an inspiring story go the way of the straight-to-DVD release but who knows? With a more native cast (Ondrej Vetchy, one of our most beloved actors makes an appearance amounting to that of a cameo... when I think he could've been and should've been the best Zizka) and a new director (I'm thinking... Mel Gibson, perhaps?), the legend of Jan Zizka may make a glorious return to the screen someday. For now, I just hope Jakl doesn't try to defile his legacy any further.

The Batman (2022)

THE DARK KNIGHT... RETURNS?

[8/10 · 26 October 2022]

THE BATMAN is a film of mixed goods but overall, I'm thrilled that the character's back! With the gritty, nihilistic narrative of Alan Moore's WATCHMEN and the gritty, Neo-Gothic visual style of 2011's DRIVE, THE BATMAN is a far darker take on the character than anything we've had before, more like a blend of THE LONG HALLOWEEN and GOTHAM BY GASLIGHT than any of the previous DC offerings, although in this day and age, perhaps we should be asking ourselves wether or not a movie about serial killers is really what the public needs... However, this being a Batman film, one would hope that Pattinson and Reeves would do the character some level justice, right? Wrong.

The cast for this film was simply sublime and there were so many standouts that it's difficult to scrutinise just four; the disturbingly captivating "Penguin", portrayed by Colin Farrell as a warped blend of Robert de Niro's Al Capone and Family Guy's Peter Griffin; Dano's Riddler makes for a wonderfully creepy main villain, though his weird screaming fits were far more awkward than scary; Catwoman is both the best and worst thing about this movie's cast because in the midst of a Batman movie, she commits grand theft cinematica... and that brings us to the leading man's part- Pattinson's Batman. I have nothing against Robert Pattinson and I think he's decent actor but coming off the backs of Affleck and Bale, his take on the caped crusader comes off as very "lightweight". Maybe that's what Reeves was going for- a more complex, more psychological take on the character... All I can say is that, put next to the fiery, dynamic personality of Kravitz's Catwoman, it doesn't pay off and although an engaging protagonist, The Batman loses the limelight of his own movie. But Kravitz is just so good that you end up not really caring...

As for the rest of the film? Don't go into it expecting the razor-sharp intensity of Nolan's DARK KNIGHT. This film is undoubtably a "slow burner", but with a well-executed plot (aside from the lacklustre script and occasional logical inconsistency), the three-hour runtime should FLY past. It does have its hangups, though; the score is pretty much just a guy beating a drum over and over again; BATMAN V. SUPERMAN (though an overly terrible feature) set the bar for fight scenes and THE DARK KNIGHT set the bar for chase sequences- neither are surpassed here.

However, when all's said and done, Reeve's THE BATMAN remains a fresh and riveting take on the already-bloated Batman canon and though by no means perfect, I, for one, can't wait to see what comes next...

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power: A Shadow of the Past (2022) Season 1, Episode 1

A Long-Expected Party

[8/10 · 3 September 2022]

Honestly, I feel like I've been away from family members for a really long time and now we've all met up and are just picking up where we left off, lol!

I had my apprehensions, but The Rings of Power is a fresh, gripping and respectful new addition to the LOTR franchise and one I'm sure the Professor would be extremely proud of. Beautiful visuals, mostly decent acting (Lenny Henry is a terrible actor!), a gripping plot, compelling characters (Morfydd Clark does a beautiful job of portraying a young Galadriel and I can't wait to see where her journey takes her!) and a poetical script that could've been written by Tolkien himself! For me, it will always be impossible to recapture the magic of the great Peter Jackson's original movies but this opening instalment has done a pretty good job!

A great start. Wether it'll maintain that level of quality as the show goes on remains to be seen, but the future, like the sun-kissed shores of magical Valinor, looks bright. I look forward to reviewing the rest of this show...

1883 (2021–2022)

"Play it again, Sam!"

[10/10 · 2 August 2022]

During the opening sequence of this great series, a young woman awakens during a raid on a wagon train by Sioux Indians. She stumbles away from burning wagons and slaughtered settlers, scrambling for any kind of weapon as a Comanche buck takes off after her. Finding a Colt revolver tucked into the breeches of a dead pioneer, she makes her stand against the raiders. Taking an arrow through the liver, she marches onwards, blasting away- a roaring lioness of the Plains. Gripped enough?

Taylor Sheridan is great fan of reinventing the western to fit a modern setting: 2016's Hell or High Water, 2017's Wind River, the Sicario trilogy and (of course) Yellowstone. I am currently working my way through Season 3 of Yellowstone and have become quite a fan but honestly? It's no substitution for the original format and this series proves that once again, as we follow the ancestors of the Dutton Family as they embark upon a savage exodus (though still pretty tame in comparison to the real thing) from the barren plains of Texas to the green valleys of Montana. Sheridan creates a true American odyssey, in the style of Dances with Wolves, Open Range, Red Dead Redemption (honestly, it was like RDR2 multiplied by ten!), The Undefeated and Lonesome Dove. Hey! If you're gonna copy, copy from the best! But 1883 is so much more than that, crafting bold characters full of depth and poetry and a story that is as simple as it is powerful. Flashbacks aren't just flashbacks, tragic and brutal. Conversations about morality, love and death aren't packed full of clichéd Hollywood sentiments. It's as real as they get, full of human character and human naivety. It's a journey through the untamed heart of America, but more than that, it's a journey through life itself, and everything that it entails...

Sam Elliott usually carries whatever film or series he is in singlehandedly, but I'm happy to say that his turn in 1883 as the weary old warrior of the wilderness is just one in a whole cast of brilliant performances: real life husband and wife team (there are two of those- look out for Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson!) Tim McGraw and Faith Hill, LaMonica Garrett, Gratiela Brancusi, even Taylor Sheridan himself and of course, Isabel May. Though a relative newcomer (fans of Young Sheldon may recognise the Dutton daughter), May carries this production just as much as Elliott, punching out a performance far above her years. Hers is a true coming-of-age story (pulling off in just ten episodes what it took The Clone Wars' Ahsoka Tano seven seasons to accomplish), filled with all of the discoveries and mistakes that we must make if we are ever to grow and mature in life, delivered with a touchingly poetical narrative reminiscent of John Wayne's "Why I Love Her".

As a hardcore western fan, I'm thrilled that 1883 was brought to the small screen because it's helping to keep alive a dying breed (that is, "The Western") but the series itself is by no means your regular cowboy romp: a woman killed by a rattlesnake (whilst going to the toilet!), a river crossing set to Beethoven's haunting "Moonlight Sonata" and of course, that jaw-dropping opening sequence. This will go down in TV history (I believe) as one of the greats and I hope it will bring more people round to the genre, but be warned: 1883 is not for the faint-hearted. Over the course of ten episodes, Sheridan and his arsenal of great writers deliver gut punch after gut punch, killing off major characters that we come to care for, deeply. And worst of all, he kills off the series' lead protagonist- a death that myself and my father are still recovering from, but delivered with the all beauty and poetry (and in virtually the same manner) of Gus McCrae's death in Lonesome Dove.

1883 is full of many things: the unforgiving brutality of the Great Plains, the innocence of youth and the search for meaning. It is full of beauty and tragedy. But perhaps the greatest tragedy of all is that we won't be getting a second season, since Sheridan has announced plans for a further prequel titled "1923". Alas, we bid a sad farewell to the Dutton pioneers of 1883- gone but never, ever forgotten. A bold, beautiful piece of television, worthy of anyone's time, thoughts... and tears.

Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)

This ain't Apocalypse Now...

[5/10 · 25 May 2022]

I don't pretend to be an expert on German cinema, so don't quote me, but is this the best they can do??? Artful cinematography is one thing, but what is achieved by staring at either a mountain or a tree or a river in silence for a whole minute? Character development? HOW???

I've always been fascinated by the Spanish conquest of the Americas and on top of that, this was my first taste of Werner Herzog. I wanted to be moved, excited and perhaps a little bit frightened... Instead, taking into account the occasional instances of gratuitous violence and half-hearted dialogue, I was nearly bored out of my wits. Madness and mayhem in the jungle- this film had so much potential and yet Herzog completely wastes his subject material, filling most of the runtime with either pointless chatter or shots of trees. Klaus Kinski plays the title role of Aguirre- known as "The Wrath of God" or "El Loco" ("The Mad"- ironic, considering the fact that he played "Loco" in 1968's The Great Silence), and is totally wasted. Honestly, he made more of an impact in the few minutes of screentime he shared with the great Lee Van Cleef in For A Few Dollars More than he does in a whole movie- stumbling his way through the scenery and staring at the trees like a demented chameleon, though he's neither maddening nor frightening when he does so.

However, perhaps the film's biggest fault is its core story's sheer failure to grip. When I read up about the real Lope de Aguirre, I got quite a shock: leading his men into the jungle on the hunt for El Dorado, Lope went mad and proclaimed himself "The Wrath of God" before murdering his own daughter. In fact, the real Aguirre was so evil that he was eventually betrayed and murdered by his own men. Sound's like quite a guy? Herzog's version of events is about as dull as it is possible to get- during the film's climax, Aguirre's company is randomly ambushed whilst going down the river by Indians and filled full of arrows (à la Apocalypse Now), with only Kinski left alive to continue to do what he does best in this film: shuffle around the deck, talk babble and quietly stare at the trees, with what could've been a real journey into the mind of a murderous madman like Aguirre de Lope reduced to an underwhelming artist statement.

Want to watch a soldier taking a river boat upstream and going mad in the jungle, on a journey that grips, haunts and dazzles the mind? Watch Apocalypse Now instead- you won't be disappointed. I can't say the same about myself and Aguirre, the Wrath of God...

The King's Man (2021)

Utter Garbage!

[5/10 · 11 March 2022]

This film can perhaps be best described as one big missed opportunity.

A film of tremendous potential with a brilliant premise (a secret organisation of gentlemen spies coming together to save the world, right wrongs, try out all of the latest 20th century tech and uncover the many real life conspiracies that underpinned the First World War). A film with two really great standout acts (the feisty Ms. Wilkins and the steadfast Shola, who are sadly only underdeveloped minor characters) and a poignant epitaph to all the of the lads lost to the Great War (in the form of the senseless death of young Conrad). A tribute to both of the previous Kingsman outings as well as a standalone movie meant to break new ground for the franchise. Alas, The King's Man proves to be a film that tries to be too many things to too many people...

Due to writer/director Matthew Vaughn's shear lack of effort, the film's promising premise evolves into a feature with a half-baked plot, clunky dialogue ("F this gentleman S", the villain cries- I ask you: is this what the fine art of screenwriting has come to?), lacklustre action scenes, absurd plot devices, underwhelming heroes and a central villain with an intriguing motive, but atrociously delivered with the facial hair of Dr. Eggman, the wardrobe of Baron Greenback and an outrageously bad Scottish accent!

After the travesty that was The Golden Circle, I don't know why I should've expected anything else from Mr. Vaughn and his team... but I had hopes for this smoking dumpster fire of a movie! I had hopes...

The Last Duel (2021)

THE LAST STRAW

[7/10 · 10 December 2021]

Growing up, one of my favourite movies was 1953's KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, starring Robert Taylor as the dashing Sir Lancelot du Lac, Stanley Baker as the villainous Mordred, Mel Ferrer as the gallant but wronged King Arthur and Ava Gardner as the fair Guinevere. Watching Taylor charging into battle and chopping down his foes with merry abandon before whisking his "damsel in distress" off into the sunset astride the mighty Beric was quite simply, glorious! The sheer nostalgia and sense of adventure that this film evoked was truly magical, prompting me to garb myself in cardboard armour and take up a foam sword to combat swathes of imaginary villains. It was wonderful; the heroes always triumphed and the bad guys always got their comeuppances... But Ridley Scott's THE LAST DUEL, isn't like that...

This film has a lot to like, a lot to dislike and a lot to talk about. The attention to period detail and costume design is nothing short of extraordinary. The film itself is heavily CGI'd in parts (to recreate medieval Paris, for example) but the animation is so good and so life-like that it actually doesn't matter. The cast (for the most part) is excellent and Jodie Comer's performance was nothing short of a revelation. And yet... something was missing. By the time of the story's climax, when the brutal Jean de Carrouges duels the villainous Jacques le Gris for the honour of his wronged wife, we have lost something: the stakes. The story itself is told from three perspectives (à la RASHOMON): Jean de Carrouges, Jacques le Gris and Marguerite de Thibouville. It's the same story told three different ways and at some points, that's really quite intriguing: in Jean's story, we see Jean (unsurprisingly) as the hero- a loving husband and a gallant warrior. However, in Marguerite's story, we see Jean as a brutal and ambitious man who cares more about his precious reputation than his wife's feelings. It's an intriguing turnaround, highlighting the rampant chauvinism of the period and making Marguerite a character that we can really empathise with. However, by breaking apart the story's structure, we lose its momentum. When Jean de Carrouges finally plunges his dagger into Jacques le Gris's mouth, we derive no actual catharsis from his death. The story's disjointed nature (in the end) prevents us from enjoying the stakes. The film becomes more like a hard-edged historical documentary than an edge-of-your-seat medieval drama. Had the story been told from beginning to end with no detours (and perhaps a few more battle scenes), I believe Scott would've held his audience until the very end. As it is, I felt no real excitement or tension when the credits finally came. Whilst I enjoyed parts of THE LAST DUEL, I did not find myself gripped by its story; a great shame when it really was such a gripping real life story.

On a closing note, the other major problem I have with THE LAST DUEL is its battle scenes. Ridley Scott has always been an expert at filming "swords 'n' steel" battles (the opening scene from GLADIATOR, need I say more?), but for some strange reason, he decided to have his actors (or stunt men) using modernised moves during the fighting: cuts and slashes that looked more like moves from WWE than medieval Europe. As soon as it was over, I turned to my Dad and said that the climactic Lancelot vs. Mordred duel from KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE was ten times' better, and you know what? Re-watching that fight scene, my opinion hasn't changed. If anything, I found the fight scene (even though this film was made in 1953- at a time of tin shields and plastic swords) more accurate than THE LAST DUEL's concluding bust up; when they finally draw their long swords, Taylor and Baker are clumsy, stumbling around and missing each other by metres. But this isn't inaccurate; it shows just how heavy swinging a medieval long sword was and coupled together with the stakes of the story (Part Four: The Final Battles) and the rousing soundtrack, I found my nostalgic love for KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE growing while my memories of THE LAST DUEL continued to fade into the distance...

Arctic (2018)

THE MARTIAN............ ON ICE!!!

[8/10 · 27 October 2021]

Came across this little gem quite by accident whilst browsing through worthless TV channels on a Monday night. So glad that I did; ARCTIC is one of those rare films that doesn't bother with endless backstories of overcomplicated subplots and just chucks you right into the thick of it- a plane crash victim attempting to survive the brutal conditions of the Arctic tundra. That's all it is and you know what? That's quite enough! The lack of dialogue is made up for by the story's sheer ability to draw you in as you become desperate to see whether the central character prevails... or fails.

As that central character, Mads Mikkelsen fires on all four cylinders, demonstrating what a powerful and versatile actor he is. He's not some buffed-up action hero or a stone-faced man of the wilderness: he's raw and real. He's just playing a smart guy trying to stay alive and coupled together with the breathtaking cinematography, the brooding soundtrack and the life-or-death situation, that makes for a great retelling of a really old story that has been told and retold over and over again with films like THE REVENANT, CAST AWAY and THE MARTIAN (the film that, I felt, had the most common with ARCTIC), somehow making it feel fresh and exciting in the process.

The Emperor of Paris (2018)

JAMES BOND Meets LES MISÉRABLES!

[7/10 · 25 August 2021]

Jean-François Richet's THE EMPEROR OF PARIS is a highly fictionalised and highly romanticised retelling of the early life of one Eugène François Vidocq- the notorious real life career criminal who survived the infamous "Reign of Terror" of the early 1790s to become the virtual "founding father" of France's first National Police Force.

The film's cast is excellent, with many of the heavyweights of modern European cinema (Vincent Cassel, August Diehl, Olga Kurylenko etc...) joining together with a younger generation of rising European stars (Freya Mavor, Némo Schiffman etc...) to breath real life into their characters with fiery, passionate performances. The characters themselves are mostly excellent: Vincent Cassel's Jean ValBond, August Diehl's sinister Nathanaël de Wenger (a role with clear shades of Diehl's scene-stealing turn in 2009's INGLORIOUS Bs as the monstrous SS Major Hellstrom) and James Thiérrée's Duc de Neufchâteau- swaggering into (and promptly stealing) each scene he's in whilst cutting a bloody path throughout the film with his hussar's sabre! The attention to set detail (though a large portion of the film's background environment is sadly digitally-mastered) and action choreography both make THE EMPEROR OF PARIS one heck of an entertaining ride! The film's only major problems are its pacing and its script.

You're never really allowed to get bored during this film, as Cassel's morally ambidextrous Vidocq grabs you by the scruff of the neck and drags you down into a murky Parisian underworld of thieves, burglars, cutthroats, killers and renegades. However, any significant character development is promptly sacrificed in the process and when several leading characters are killed off during the film's final act, it produces no real emotional reaction from the viewer. A shame really, especially considering the acting talent on display.

This film's other main problem is its script. The trailer portrayed a very different kind of film to the one we actually got: a former chain gang member-turned detective hunting a killer through the backstreets of Napoleonic Paris and dipping his toes into a ruthless criminal underworld. That's sort of what we got... but on a much smaller, simpler scale. The anti-hero (who very quickly becomes just an ordinary "good guy") goes straight from A to B and despite having a few genuinely thrilling twists and turns, the film has him arrive at his destination with very little deviation.

To me, it just feels like the film could've explored the world it was trying to create in a much deeper, broader way: prioritising the role of Maillard's underworld and Vidocq's hunt for a killer. What we got instead was a bog-standard action-adventure romp... which was perfectly fine! But (in my opinion) the film settles for far less than the story was actually capable of achieving.

Gods and Generals (2003)

GODS & GENERALS... & CRITICS

[8/10 · 14 August 2021]

Ronald F. Maxwell's GODS & GENERALS, the official prequel to 1993's GETTYSBURG (also directed by Maxwell and starring many of the same actors seen here), is a film that I cannot for the life of me work out why it did so badly at the box office (losing $43.2 million) and why it received such negative reviews from critics.

Yes, it could've been shorter. And yes, the dialogue was (at times) a little bit sickly. But overall, this is an epic war movie that manages to breath new life into an old subject whilst developing a central character that we can come to genuinely care for. Since GETTYSBURG, the battle scenes, the music, the cinematography and the score have all come on a great deal, and Steven Lang and Robert Duvall are both superb as the "roaring lions" of the Confederacy.

However, one regularly-debated point that completely baffles me about this movie is the issue of its portrayal of the Confederate Cause. When this film was first released back in 2003, many critics came out to rubbish it for its alleged neo-Confederate sympathies. Quite frankly, I find this view to be absolutely ridiculous. Throughout the film, both sides of the conflict are shown in equal measure. The topic of slavery is regularly discussed and labelled as what it is: evil. Yes, the film follows the great leading generals of the Confederate Army, but only to demonstrate how neither side can claim the monopoly on bravery or honour. Ignoring the trappings of modern-day politics, this film takes a deep and profound look at the life of one man who loved his God and loved his country, and when he thought that that country was under attack, he took up arms to defend it, not because he wanted to keep people in chains, but because he felt that his rights were under attack. Like Erwin Rommel or Napoleon Bonaparte, these men fought for causes which may be corrupt or tyrannical or downright evil, but we must first understand them before we judge them as individuals.

This film humanises deeply-complicated individuals who have often been branded as one thing or another by critics who don't appear to have looked at many history books. It doesn't try to justify or sympathise with their cause. It simply shows both the characters and the cause in all their true colours, creating an epic, touching work of art at the same time. I only wish Maxwell had been allowed to finish the trilogy; this film deserves much more acclaim than it originally received...

The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)

"Cry, Havoc!"

[6/10 · 18 July 2021]

THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, a highly fictionalised 1964 historical epic directed by Anthony Mann (EL CID, WINCHESTER 73' etc...) chronicling the gradual decline of the Western Roman Empire under the rule of the insane Emperor Commodus (played by the late, great Christopher Plummer), starts on a high: with breathtaking cinematography, stunning set pieces, a Shakespearean script and two acting legends (Alec Guinness and James Mason) playing off one another like Djokovic and Federer. Alas, THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE slowly starts to roll downhill from there.

A film with all of the scale and scope of Akira Kurosawa's RAN but none of its emotional intensity. The script quickly trades in style for spectacle, orchestrating unending military parades, lacklustre battle scenes, boring senate speeches that would put THE PHANTOM MENACE to shame, an unoriginal chariot race that tries and epically fails to top 1959's BEN-HUR (you even have Messala in this film too!) and a star-crossed romance (with about as much romantic chemistry as a baked potato) that makes Anakin and Padmé look like Rick and Ilsa.

"No! No! No!" James Mason cries out as he falls, mortally wounded by a Roman spear while delivering one of his many speeches... And at the end of the day, that's what this film feels like: a tired, sunken chronicle crying out to be prolonged when it could've and should've been put to rest much earlier; one will need a great deal of patience to endure the 3:59 runtime of this crude, bloated mess.

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

The Greatest Western Ever Made?

[6/10 · 8 April 2021]

The Sky Arts team of Ian Nathan, Derek Malcolm and Stephen Armstrong proudly proclaimed ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST as the "Number One Greatest Western Ever Made", with John Ford's THE SEARCHERS coming second... So I went into it with high expectations, determined to find out why it had been placed above Ford's 1956 masterpiece of tension and beauty... I came out of it, glad that I had finally seen it but puzzled why so many people loved it and why the Sky critics had rated it so highly. Alas, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST proves to be one of those great cinematic letdowns...

I find it difficult to believe that the genius behind the Dollars Trilogy could come up with a movie this dull. I'm all for character development, but do I really need to stare at the fly on Jack Elam's cheek for what feels like half an hour? THE WILD BUNCH was about growing old and losing your touch with reality; SHANE was about the unspoilt innocence of youth and the eternal difference between right and wrong; THE ALAMO was about the price of freedom and the cost of war; and THE SEARCHERS was about redemption and love conquering hate... but after sitting through the 2:45 runtime of ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (that, by the movie's end, felt more like 5:45), I still can't tell you what it was really all about. Leone tries to be all things to all people and ends up completely losing the message of his film. There are moments of genuine movie magic, but they are broken up by long periods of the most unimaginable boredom. At the end of the day, I had to ask myself if it really was about anything at all?

A loveably roguish Jason Robards and a truly reptilian Henry Fonda shine in their roles along with the rest of this all-star cast, but there's not a grain of charisma to be found amongst any of them. Their monotonous speeches end up blending together, polarising their both their characters and the pace of the movie. And all the heavenly choirs and the breathtaking shots of Monument Valley can't save it from feeling bloated and more than a little pointless...

It was the best of films, it was the worst of films... Personally, I'm inclined to the latter rather than the former.

A Hard Day's Night (1964)

"A Hard Night's Viewing"

[6/10 · 10 October 2020]

As someone who grew up with the Beatles (let's be honest, we ALL did), I was interested to see what a feature film about them would be like. After sitting through it, my opinion is a little mixed. It's a cinematic fashion statement, created to showcase these four lads from Liverpool in all their glory. Therefore, it's rather jarring to see characters like Wilfrid Brambell (the nightmarishly wide-eyed "Grandpa") and Victor Spinetti (the embarrassingly overzealous TV Director) taking up such a large percentage of screen time. It gets to the point where you wonder, "Is this a film about John, Paul, George and Ringo, or Wilfrid, Victor, Lionel and Norman?" This was not helped by the film's clumsy script that somehow bafflingly earned itself an Oscar nomination. There are some genuinely funny moments but overall, the film unapologetically plays for laughs, with John making quips at a potted plant or confirming to a stuffy passerby (Anna Quayle) that he really is John Lennon for what must have been five minutes but what felt like five hours.

However, I must say that I found it an unequivocally sad watch. This was back when they were just starting out- young lads, young friends who just wanted to have fun, get drunk and chase women. This was before the drugs, before the breakups and before the bust ups. This was at a time when their lives were virtually painless and when the entire world was their musical oyster. History has not been kind to The Beatles or its members but their music still endures and that's a fact that this film unintentionally confirms.

A Hard Day's Night will probably go down in history as a right of passage for all true Beatles fans. It's amateurish, embarrassing and (at the points involving Brambell) woefully ill-conceived but charming, enlightening and poignant at the same time.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019)

So, I finally watched The Rise of Skywalker last night...

[8/10 · 5 May 2020]

And...

I LOVED it!

I NEVER thought I would, but I did. This was a really gripping, decent Star Wars movie and it gets about as close to recapturing the magic of the originals as Disney is ever going to get. The pace of the film is perfect and the new characters were all really compelling. The tales of redemption and belonging blend together beautifully and aside from the odd plot-hole and unnecessary kiss, things fitted together perfectly. Unlike the abominable Last Jedi, things didn't feel convoluted and I was never really bored. I was skeptical about the prospect of Luke returning as a force ghost but the X-Wing lift scene was magical! Overall, a really decent movie that gripped and thrilled me. As to the global criticism, all I can say is that Jeremy Jahns and the Honest Trailer group must have been watching a different movie.

The Mandalorian: Chapter 1: The Mandalorian (2019) Season 1, Episode 1

The Mandalorian With No Name

[9/10 · 6 April 2020]

Jon Favreau's "The Mandalorian" combines two of my favourite things: Star Wars and spaghetti westerns. Result? I enjoyed every minute of this first instalment!

Apart from Rogue One and the Clone Wars Series, I don't like modern Star Wars adaptations. For me, they've always tried (and failed) to capture the magic of the original trilogy. However, The Mandalorian succeeds on all counts and I was gripped from start to finish. The dialogue was crisp and exciting, the subject matter was treated with maturity and respect, the characters were well-drawn and mysterious, and the action somewhat resembled the ending carnage of 1969's "The Wild Bunch".

This was genuinely more like a western than a Star Wars movie; Pedro Pascal's broodingly silent "Mando" replaces Clint Eastwood's broodingly silent "Manco" (direct reference by Favreau?). His character resembles that of Silence (from 1968's "The Great Silence") or Bill Meceita (from 1967's "Death Rides a Horse"): a silent man with a dark past.

This first episode did not disappoint on any level and I can't wait to watch the next. Thank you Mr. Favreau, for reigniting my love of Star Wars!

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019)

"We Happy? We Happy!"

[8/10 · 6 April 2020]

For me, this film was another La La Land; the first time I saw it, I didn't like it. However, after going away and thinking about it and eventually returning to it, I thought (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) was really quite good.

I wouldn't say that it's Tarantino's best film but I would say that it's possibly 2019's best. The dialogue is simple but hits all the right notes. The stellar cast is, well... "stellar". Brad Pitt was the definition of "cool" while Margot Robbie managed to capture all of the silent tragedy of the life of Sharon Tate. Even the dog (Brandy) was on top, hippy-chewing form!

Personally, I think you've just got to know what you're going in for. This isn't some complex movie trying to tell some spiritual message. This is a story about two fellas going from A to B. It becomes more complicated when you wonder why Tarantino decided to add the Manson element, and I can only conclude that (like my father, who was 18 at the time) he was very affected by them when they happened. Apart from that, this film is very, very simple. Is that a bad thing? In the end, no. Films are often so convoluted these days, so it was nice to see a film that knew what it wanted to achieve and achieved it.

Should it have one Best Picture? Yes. No other film this year has entertained me like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I was very disappointed with The Irishman and thought Joker was both grim and unoriginal. I know there are others but for me, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood really stood out for its creativity and its visual poetry. After watching it, you sit back and think: "why couldn't history have been like that?"

In short, it's a movie made by someone who loves movies and if you want a nostalgic, heartfelt look at the bygone days of 1960s Hollywood, this film is for you!

The Irishman (2019)

"Three And A Half Hours Of My Life I'll Never Get Back!"

[7/10 · 5 January 2020]

I can probably sum this film up in about three words: overlong, grim and boring.

My family will tell you I'm a big Scorsese fan (Goodfellas is one of my absolute favourites!) but I was really disappointed by his latest directive outing. The genius behind Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and The King Of Comedy (to name a few) has presented us with a monotonous slug of a film: The Irishman.

I got a big kick out of seeing my acting heroes (DeNiro, Pesci, Pacino, Keitel...) doing what they're best at doing and the attention to set detail was spot on (as always with Scorsese) but apart from that, I found little to like about The Irishman.

The CGI was passable; I didn't think it was great but I didn't think it was terrible. The main problem (for me) was that DeNiro is trying to sound like 30-year old with the voice of a nearly 80-year old.

As someone who's read Charles Brandt's I Heard You Paint Houses (the book that the film is based on), I was really struck by how much story Scorsese and Zaillian left out of the script and film. Almost all of Frank Sheeran's young life is glossed-over and people who don't know who Jimmy Hoffa was will be left almost none the wiser. If you really want to know who Jimmy Hoffa was and want to see a film about him that is both gripping and moving, I'd recommend Dany DeVito's Hoffa (1992). The film is not only shorter (by a whole hour and a half) but holds a cast that actually resembles the real people they're based on. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with The Irishman's cast but Al Pacino resembles none of Hoffa's characteristics or mannerisms. Jack Nicholson on the other hand is a virtual carbon copy of Hoffa's restless, volatile nature and squat, bulldog features.

If this film were a piece of music, it would be a funeral dirge. The usual excitement of a Scorsese narrative is replaced with a prosaic confession spread-out over three and a half hours. It's not soulful or meaningful but dry and barren of any emotion. Maybe that's what Scorsese intended but when I sit down for a three hour film, I intend to be moved and gripped. The Irishman did neither. My advice? Watch Hoffa instead!

But what do I know? "I'm an average nobody, get to live the rest of my life like a schnook".

Avengers: Endgame (2019)

3/4 "Meh", 1/4 "Woah!!!"

[7/10 · 15 May 2019]

I wasn't that keen on ENDGAME, there... I said it. I went into this film with high expectations (thanks to all the hype/money it's made/phenomenon that was INFINITY WAR) and was rather let down. There were two real problems with this movie: 1) it's WAY too long and subsequently becomes rather unfocused on reaching it's conclusion. 2) it is just plain BORING for it's opening 2 hours and a half! There's no material that grips me/makes me say "wow", unlike INFINITY WAR which blew my socks off within the first 10 minutes.

There are several plot lines that are both uninteresting and unnecessary. I'm all up for character-building, but do we need much more character-building after 15 WHOLE MOVIES, and does it really have to take up 2 AND A HALF HOURS OF SCREEN TIME?!! I don't mind a film needing a build-up but this was quite frankly RIDICULOUS, especially when (despite being 2 hours and 40 minutes) INFINITY WAR cut to the chase pretty quickly while still making us feel for the characters.

However, to say that ENDGAME was a total loss would be untrue. The final quarter/ending of the movie will leave you awestruck and sad! It's a brilliant ending that fires on all four cylinders, so it's just a shame that the rest of the movie had to be so tedious/unnecessarily stretched-out!

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Tarantino's Magnum Opus!

[8/10 · 25 December 2018]

Genius! Pure genius, is what this film is! Though INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, DJANGO UNCHAINED and JACKIE BROWN are among my favourite QT movies, none of Tarantino's other work is quite as much fun, as inventive or as darn quotable as PULP FICTION! It's a true 'cult movie' of the highest order, and a true, movie, gem from the 90s!

Never has Tarantino's dialogue been so juicy, his story so much fun or his characters so iconic (apart from Mr. Blonde or Hans Landa, of course!). There's just so much to enjoy from this movie as Tarantino pulls together one his best casts including Bruce Willis, Tim Roth, Uma Thurman and unforgettably, Samuel L. Jackson! Tarantino also crafts one of the best soudntracks in cinematic history; using some of the greats like Al Green, Dusty Springfield, and Chuck Berry's "You Never Can Tell" in the so-bad-that-it's-good dance sequence (which I intend to dance with my future wife at our wedding someday)!

Every scene is laced with killer, totally quotable dialogue and who here, isn't aware by now, that a Quater Pounder with Cheese in France, is called "Royale With Cheese"? It's probably (save INGLOURIOUS and DJANGO) Tarantino's best script, with the dynamite dialogue and brilliant, yet baffling use of the non-linnear storyline. Never have Tarantino's storylines ever captured the imagination in such an explosive way as we follow two hit men, a mobster's wife, a boxer and a pair of diner-robbing, adrenaline junkies!

I'm not saying it's perfect; there's stuff you'll hate, there's stuff that will shock you and there's stuff that will disgust you as the film deals with the illegal, criminal, underworld of Los Angeles. As iconic as it was, being a Christian, I was not entirely comfourtable with Tarantino's version of the Bible verse from Ezekiel but on a whole, I found myself moved by Jules Winnfield's (Samuel L. Jackson's) tale of redemption as the hitman who has a dramatic change of heart since it shows that even a hired killer, is not without soul or humanity.

Like I said, this film is about crime but the real crime is that Samuel L. Jackson didn't get an Oscar for his role! He is frankly masterful as he lyrically waxes about burgers, pigs and moral codes. He's BY FAR, the best part of the film and is able to appear comical and terrifying at the same time.

Every factor of this film fits together perfectly and to paraphrase from INGLOURIOUS: "I Think This Just Might Be Tarantino's Masterpiece!"

Johnny English Strikes Again (2018)

'Johnny English Strikes Again' And Misses Completely!

[6/10 · 6 October 2018]

To paraphrase from the last film "JOHNN ENGLISH STRIKES AGAIN couldn't hit a barn door with a banana!" Alas, JOHNNY ENGLISH STRIKES AGAIN is a complete missed opportunity and a true letdown for all die hard ENGLISH fans like me and my Mum.

The bar was set so high by the last couple of ENGLISH films but this third instalment has lived up to none of their comic or cinematic greatness. There is true comedy to be found at some points in the film but for the most part, JOHNNY ENGLISH STRIKES AGAIN combines silly, predictable jokes with borrowed material from the previous films. You will laugh at several moments in this film but you will soon forget the humour of it all with the clunky, half-baked script, the boring, predictable plot and castrated characters; the characters in this film have had all their heart and soul taken away and replaced with silly goo. It's nice to see Rowan Atkinson doing what he does best but all the heart, determination and daring that made English so great is gone, leaving a big, silly joke!

No one else hits the mark either; the villain offers no fun, no cackle, no suspense or true villainy, the main heroine is soon forgotten about even though so much is built around her and Bough (Ben Miller) is made to look pretty insignificant too! What this film needed was to bring back some of its previous stars like: Natalie Imbruglia or Rosamund Pike to jazz things up but sadly, things have been left dull and uncomplicated. What this film needed was also some MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE-style, scale and spectacle! There was no true danger or daring to this film (unlike the previous movies) and the whole mission felt like a bad joke that anyone could have done.

Tis film was a real missed opportunity that had the potential of becoming something really fun but alas, the writers and directors have traded in both quantity as well as quality. A true disappointment, most of all to me and my Mum!

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

A Moving, Cinematic Classic!

[8/10 · 15 September 2018]

The first thing that really struck me after watching Frank Darabondt's THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION was how much it resembled parts of the plot, but most of all the feel of John Steinbeck's OF MICE AND MEN. What is THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION really about? Yes, it's about a hellish prison, it's about how corruptible some human beings can be, it's about the good and the bad and the ugly of humanity, it's about depression, it's about yearning for belonging, it's about hope but most of all (like of MICE AND MEN), it's about one, truly glorious friendship. I do (of course) refer to the brilliant and heartwarming bromance shared by one Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) and one Red (Morgan Freeman). It's their tale of friendship and sacrifice that takes place in the living hell that is Shawshank prison and their brutally honest story is brought, magnificently to the screen by Frank Darabondt.

Every, single, vital element of this film is done to cinematic perfection: the writing, the directing, the cinematography, the scoring and of course the acting. All these elements are executed perfectly and the story is told with poignant, brutal, raw honesty. It makes you immediately stop and think about the days when "prison" meant prison and how if you went down, you were as a good as dead. We see this by the horrendous cruelty that Andy experiences at the hands of the brutal Captain Hadley (Clancy Brown), the vile, rapist inmate Bogs (Mark Rolston) and finally, by the black hearted and truly evil, Warden Norton (Bob Gunton). We see men, in short, treated and brutalised like animals. We see men suffering from utter hopelessness and depression but still trying to build a life around their grieving situation. However, we also see the lighter side of things and this is where the film is most moving; we see people making a working environment in prison and how they carry hope with them (some, more than others) and try their best to live a productive life in a harsh environment.

Darabondt brings this to life epically; he directs perfectly, getting the uttermost from his cast and pulling everything together marvellously, he writes powerfully, breathing real life to each character and clearly marking out the heroes and villains. He makes you feel about each and every character and you end up truly caring about their hopes and dreams for the future. Like I said, this film (I believe) owes much to OF MICE AND MEN and as we focus on Andy and Red, (I think) you can appreciate how much they both resemble George and Lenny. They care and love each other almost like brothers and share a wonderful dream of someday escaping their current hell and living the dream. Sound familiar? He is a truly talented writer and with the script, as well as being able to make you shocked, horrified and sad, he can also make you laugh, make you happy and make you charmed as you behold the lighter side to the life in Shawshank. In short, Darabondt pulls together a truly marvellous piece of cinema that captures the inner turmoil and quest for hope and peace of the human spirit.

However, Darabondt's brilliant directing is not the only great thing about the film. The cinematography in this film was simply breathtaking, courtesy of the great Roger Deakins. I always love the poetic way in which Deakins tells a story with the camera. It feels poetic and mystical: the way in which the camera flies over the prison inmates, Andy in the sewage pipe, Andy in the rain and the beaches around the Atlantic Ocean. Wether it's BLADE RUNNER 2049 or SICARIO, Deakins captures the spirit of every story he films perfectly and is a true artist with the film camera.

Another great thing about the film is the score, courtesy of Thomas Newman. It builds throughout the film with a combination of soft piano and strings. His composing is filled with such poignant emotion and poetry and it really struck me how much this score resembled his work for Sam Mendes's 2002 thriller ROAD TO PERDITION. In both films, the score lifts each scene and makes the film powerful and poignant. Finally, the true brilliance of the film (or, when you think about it, any film) lies with its cast. The cast for this film was truly magnificent with some of the 20th centuries finest actors giving it their 110%! The main standouts are (without a doubt) Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman. Robbins is powerfully poignant and moving as the movie's wronged hero. He steals every scene as his face paints pictures of sorrow, regret, depression and gentle optimism. He makes you feel so much for the character and you almost feel as if you're going through life in Shawshank with him. Put it this way: his performance in this film couldn't be further from his performance in something like THE HUDSUCKER PROXY! Morgan Freeman was also frankly masterful in this film as he shows what a truly talented actor he is. His portrayal of a worn-out but kindhearted individual is heartwarming and sincere but also his methodical, poetic, poignant, and now famous narration is truly marvellous. The story is really lifted with his virtual fairytale narration and to quote from TED 2 (as said to Freeman) "I could go to sleep on a bed made of your voice!" Everyone else in the film is marvellous so its hard to pick who else deserves a mention, but I think you definitely have to mention Shawshank's vile Warden Norton, played by Bob Gunton. At first, he pretends to be a firm but fair teacher with good, pure values, but as the film progresses, you see that his heart is as black as the some of the prisoners he keeps. He's ruthlessly ambitious and hides behind the facade of protector. He's truly as "boo and hiss" sort of villain and Gunton plays the character perfectly!

All these wonderful factors carried the film along to its shocking but wonderful conclusion. I won't spoil if you haven't seen it but I will say that the film truly ends, perfectly!

THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION captures what many films have tried to and failed: the human nature! I've seen very few films that capture the human nature in such a raw and uncompromising way. It's a truly masterful piece of cinema and probably the best 'prison movie' since COOL HAND LUKE...

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

A Complete Blast For MARVEL Fans!

[8/10 · 27 April 2018]

Even though it's not perfect, I must say that AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR totally delivers all you want from a MARVEL movie. It gives you: the characters you love, the villain you've been waiting for and, of course the action sequences you've been craving like a fist-shaped bar of MARVEL-brand chocolate! We ALL should know by now that Joel and Anthony Russo+ MARVEL MCU= greatness and INFINITY WAR proves that fact yet again! Overall it's a pretty cool and fun ride, but you certainly have to prepare yourself for typical superhero silliness. However, the silly superhero stuff is told in a mature, non-patronising way and it wasn't like the rest of the of the frankly "daft" superhero films of the past year. Yes, I'm talking about you, THOR: RAGNAROK, SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING, BLACK PANTHER and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL 2. Though INFINITY WAR is certainly NOT realistic at all, it grips and has a serious tone that keeps you watching. The script is dynamic but also very funny in some parts and we get a good look at MOST of the characters. The plot is simple and nothing THAT new or fresh but it still grips and provides real closure on the already rather over-bloated MARVEL cinematic universe. There were a couple of elements I wasn't QUITE sure on but more about them later. Firstly, the good things: the plot, the characters and action.

The plot for the most part was really exciting and really had me gripped; it was serious and tense. However, it WAS a little dull in some parts. There were a few times when things lagged for a while but on a whole I was never really bored during this film. The main thing I was concerned about in this film was the amount of additional characters and how the film could easily become convoluted. Here's the thing: it didn't feel convoluted BUT, some of the characters do get sidelined. Some of your favourites like Captain America, Black Widow and Black Panther were kind of pushed out into the background and though they featured, they didn't feature as much as some (and me) would have liked. The story really focuses on three sectors: Thanos, Team Iron Man and Team Guardians. Everything else is really not that major. Now, on to the action. The action in this film was quite frankly AWESOME! After all, these are the directors behind the elevator and airport fight scenes in the Captain America films 2 and 3. The battle for Wakanda plays out like a completely OTT version of the battle of the Pelennor Fields from LOTR 3 and once the infamous AVENGERS score kicks in, you know you've got a good thing going!

Now, on to the acting! Almost ALL the members of the cast are great and give it their all! Some of these characters may not get all that much to say but they're all well-acted. However, I REALLY wasn't sure about the movie's main villain Thanos (Josh Brolin). I must admit I found Thanos (as a character) rather bland. You certainly realise what a threat he poses to the Avengers but really, he's a purple Darth Vader who's not THAT interesting. Brolin's performance is strong as the genocidal maniac but there were times when Brolin simply read the script. Though the villain is something new, I don't see him as a cinematic villain that will stand out!

On a whole, the film was fun, action-packed and gripping but it's nothing REALLY new and as my Dad so rightly said: "once you've seen one; you've seen them all!" The conclusion was devastating and raised many, many questions and the after-credits scene was certainly interesting even though it wasn't really worth waiting for. Definitely a fun ride but I couldn't really say that "this... Does bring a smile to my face"...

Gangs of New York (2002)

Not Great, But Good For The Most Part!

[8/10 · 22 April 2018]

One thing I can definitely say for Scorsese in this film, is that he knows how to START! GANGS OF NEW YORK has one of the best opening scenes of a movie that I've seen. It's up there with the likes of THE DARK KNIGHT and THE GREATEST SHOWMAN in terms of a best opening scene. It both grips and sets the tone of the entire movie: muscular, stoic and violent with the epic 'Priest' Vallon (Liam Neeson) marching to war with his Irish gang of street warriors "The Dead Rabbits" and his young son Amsterdam (Cian McCormack) to do battle with the vicious Bill "The Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his racist army of American "Natives". I must say I found this film really quotable as well and now, every time I cut myself shaving (accidentally), I find myself repeating the line "No Son! Never! The Blood Stays On The Blade!" The film REALLY gets off to a great start with this opening scene that leads up to a brutally bloody battle for the Five Points. It's in this first part, that the movie is at its strongest, but as the film progresses with Amsterdam as a grown man (Leonardo DiCaprio) returning to the Five Points for revenge on "The Butcher" who slew his father, that the film's structure and pace begins to weaken.

The violent, epic events of the beginning, are replaced with duller, less-gripping ones and a truly disappointing and underwhelming finale, that leaves you a little cross that you wasted all that time waiting for the clash of the titans that never came! It does thrill at some points with the odd "Butcher" assassination attempt and the hero (DiCaprio) coming about as close to death as a hero has ever come in movie history.

Scorsese also (in my opinion) delivers a really authentic and thorough look into 19th century life in the Five Points. Everything from the props, to the buildings, to the clothes is spot-on for detail and highly authentic. The period drama side of things is faultless with the film capturing all the attitudes and feelings of the period and introducing us to a fairly unknown side of American history (Gangs in the Five Points and the Draft Riots). This is all fine but it's safe to say that the film is carried by its cast and I have chosen the 3 standouts and the 1 absolutely awful performance: Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz and Jim Broadbent.

DiCaprio is (as usual) convincing, as Amsterdam despite the muddled accent and brings real emotion and passion to the role, unfortunately the character (on a whole) is rather bland and very dull. There's nothing exciting about him as a character, even though DiCaprio does his best in the role. Now, on to Daniel Day-Lewis as "The Butcher" Bill. This film (like THE DARK KNIGHT) is a good example of a supporting actor TOTALLY stealing the show. Day-Lewis delivers (in my opinion) one of the best performances of his career as Bill. Like Heath Ledger's Joker there are two, brilliantly-acted sides to his antagonist. On one hand he's a vicious, psychotic, racist, cowardly, backstabbing brute, but, on the other hand, he's a true patriot and a fairly "honourable man". Both sides to Bill's personality are played brilliantly and Lewis's sudden changes in character (see the "Poor Little Rabbit" scene) are frankly awesome! Cameron Diaz was also very convincing as the film's main heroine Jenny Everdeane. Diaz adds dome real spice to this role and (in my opinion) saves the character from being lost among so many forgettable screen damsels. She's feisty and fun but also caring and soft-spoken. Diaz certainly proves what a versatile and strong actress she is. Then, there is the one performance that both annoys and puzzles me: Jim Broadbent as Boss Tweed. I simply don't know what Scorsese was thinking in casting Broadbent in the role. Broadbent is awful, totally wooden and unrealistic. He READS the part, and it baffles me how he got this part among such a stellar cast in the first place. However, along with the likes of Brendan Gleeson and John C. Reilly the cast, for the most part, uplifted the rather dull 3/4s of the film and made it a slightly more enjoyable ride.

However, the final quarter of the film was what REALLY disappointed me. The problem is: Scorsese spends far too much on time on Amsterdam's saga of "do I"-"don't I" and the complete inessentials of the plot so that, as he crams in 'Monk' McGinn (Gleeson) running for sheriff, the Draft Riots and another Battle for the Five Points, the film becomes convoluted and terribly rushed. Things certainly needed to be trimmed down here, (I think) Scorsese just needed to synchronise the conclusion better. The conclusion itself was (as I've said) a true disappointment and doesn't deliver the outcome you hoped for (or watched the rest of the movie for).

Certainly mixed goods. The acting, beginning and script= goods. Bad= plot, pace and finale. Scorsese can do better and I was left thinking the film could have been better. Much better...