Leezy's Movie Reviews

Welcome everyone. This blog mainly exists as a way of tracking all the movies I've been watching and some of the initial thoughts and general feelings I've had about them.

Rating System

5/5 - Fantastic movies; movies which need to be seen and enjoyed by everyone.

4/5 - Movies which are very good but don’t have that spark which compels you to make others watch them as well.

3/5 - Average movies; watchable and enjoyable, but nothing which elevates them higher. The baseline all movies are given before watching.

2/5 - Can be watched but really bland and forgettable.

1/5 - Minimal to no reason to watch these films. It may have some redeeming factors e.g. it’s so bad it’s good or there’s one character that’s awesome enough to make it not a total waste of time.

0/5- Total waste of time. Nothing redeemable about these films.

As with every review blog/site, this is all my own personal opinion so feel free to take everything with a grain of salt.

Also I'm Scottish so all reviews will be in UK English. Get used to theatre, colour and words ending in -ised.

free counters

Home
Archive
Subscribe (RSS)
Ask me anything
Random post

Catching Elephant is a theme by Andy Taylor

 

#513/#64 Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book (Rewatch) A live-action retelling of the Jungle Book. This version sees Mowgli (Jason Scott Lee) brought up in the jungle but drawn out by his first childhood love Kitty (Lena Headey) and then hounded by her boyfriend Cpt William Boone (Cary Elwes) to disclose the location of a long lost jungle ruin containing a mountain of gold. It’s a tad unclear why this is called Rudyard Kipling’s the Jungle Book as, other than character names and Mowgli being raised in the jungle, this film has very little in common with its literary counterpart. Perhaps it was to differentiate from DIsney’s animated version but it is misleading none the less. Other than this little annoyance the rest of the movie is remarkably solid. The plot works and holds your attention while the romance feels somewhat organic unlike many others of the same ilk. The only thing throwing me off about it was the fact that it’s almost a beat for beat copy of Disney’s Tarzan right down to the boorish English hunter and teaching the wildman English through projected slides. Somebody on the animation team of Disney was clearly taking notes (Tarzan having come out in ‘99 while Jungle Book was released in ‘94). Like I said for Summer Wars, it’s not instantly a bad thing when directors or companies take ideas which had potential and then refine them to created a better later product. Jungle Book’s story was fine, if lacking a little excitement and held back by the limitations of live-action, but making it animated and adding the Disney sheen to it just upped the product a little. A little lazy perhaps, but I liked Tarzan a lot so I feel it worked out for the best. From the casting side of things, the Jungle Book was mostly well handled. Scott Lee makes a fine Mowgli pulling off the stunts while also maintaining the comedic and the romantic elements. It’s a little jarring seeing a Chinese actor in what is clearly supposed to be an Indian role but Hollywood has always been really bad at that. Additionally, Elwes makes a fine stiff upper lip villain and Headey plays the lovestruck but determined female lead well. It was a little weird to see Cersei Lannister in such a demure role though. Sam Neill and John Cleese were a little superfluous however. They played their parts well; they just seemed largely unneeded.  I remember this film being scarier as well, having seen it in theatres as a child when it originally came out, but seeing it now the quicksand and CGI snake don’t hold up. Overall, I think it’s a strong enough film that you won’t be bored by it but it’s not one you’ll feel the overwhelming urge to share with people either. 3/5

#513/#64 Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book

(Rewatch)

A live-action retelling of the Jungle Book. This version sees Mowgli (Jason Scott Lee) brought up in the jungle but drawn out by his first childhood love Kitty (Lena Headey) and then hounded by her boyfriend Cpt William Boone (Cary Elwes) to disclose the location of a long lost jungle ruin containing a mountain of gold.

It’s a tad unclear why this is called Rudyard Kipling’s the Jungle Book as, other than character names and Mowgli being raised in the jungle, this film has very little in common with its literary counterpart. Perhaps it was to differentiate from DIsney’s animated version but it is misleading none the less.

Other than this little annoyance the rest of the movie is remarkably solid.
The plot works and holds your attention while the romance feels somewhat organic unlike many others of the same ilk. The only thing throwing me off about it was the fact that it’s almost a beat for beat copy of Disney’s Tarzan right down to the boorish English hunter and teaching the wildman English through projected slides. Somebody on the animation team of Disney was clearly taking notes (Tarzan having come out in ‘99 while Jungle Book was released in ‘94).

Like I said for Summer Wars, it’s not instantly a bad thing when directors or companies take ideas which had potential and then refine them to created a better later product. Jungle Book’s story was fine, if lacking a little excitement and held back by the limitations of live-action, but making it animated and adding the Disney sheen to it just upped the product a little. A little lazy perhaps, but I liked Tarzan a lot so I feel it worked out for the best.

From the casting side of things, the Jungle Book was mostly well handled. Scott Lee makes a fine Mowgli pulling off the stunts while also maintaining the comedic and the romantic elements. It’s a little jarring seeing a Chinese actor in what is clearly supposed to be an Indian role but Hollywood has always been really bad at that. Additionally, Elwes makes a fine stiff upper lip villain and Headey plays the lovestruck but determined female lead well. It was a little weird to see Cersei Lannister in such a demure role though. Sam Neill and John Cleese were a little superfluous however. They played their parts well; they just seemed largely unneeded. 

I remember this film being scarier as well, having seen it in theatres as a child when it originally came out, but seeing it now the quicksand and CGI snake don’t hold up. Overall, I think it’s a strong enough film that you won’t be bored by it but it’s not one you’ll feel the overwhelming urge to share with people either. 3/5

#512/#63 The Great Gatsby In the roaring 20’s we meet our narrator Nick (Toby Maguire) as he finds himself drawn into the mysterious life of his new neighbour, Mr Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), and his former relationship with Nick’s cousin Daisy (Cary Mulligan). I can’t say I was particularly drawn to this picture but my family were all going so I thought I’d tag along as well. I’ve always liked Baz Luhrmann’s other works (Moulin Rouge, Australia, and to an extent Romeo and Juliet) but this one didn’t strike a chord with me at all. I’d also never read the book so I was going in with no preconceptions about the story. Other than some rather impressive visuals and costumes, I can’t say I really cared for this one, old sport. DiCaprio as Gatsby and Joel Edgerton as Daisy’s husband Tom both gave good performances from the main cast but I felt Mulligan and Maguire’s parts could have been played by anyone and it wouldn’t have made a different. They brought nothing interesting to either of their roles and as such I felt no emotion one way or another towards their characters. Given that so much of the story revolves around Daisy this also meant I was never grabbed by the narrative. The film was also way too long at almost two and half hours. For the minimal amount of goings on in the plot there did not need to be such a padded out runtime. The visuals however worked really well, with the CGI and the green screen giving New York than olden style feel to it on top of an overall grandness in scope. Similarly the costumes, sets and locations all felt like you were back in the 20’s. What didn’t work was the music. Luhrmann took the same chance he did with Moulin Rouge and used modern music, mostly hip hop and rap, for the soundtrack but it didn’t fit the tone this time and felt out of place. Some of the parties blended well enough but other than that it fell flat almost every time. I didn’t dislike Gatsby but it left me feeling ambivalent to the whole endeavour. I went in not knowing anything, and I left not caring about anything I had just seen. It was literally like I had sat in the the theatre for 2 1/2 hours looking a blank screen for the amount of impression it left. 2.5/5

#512/#63 The Great Gatsby

In the roaring 20’s we meet our narrator Nick (Toby Maguire) as he finds himself drawn into the mysterious life of his new neighbour, Mr Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), and his former relationship with Nick’s cousin Daisy (Cary Mulligan).

I can’t say I was particularly drawn to this picture but my family were all going so I thought I’d tag along as well. I’ve always liked Baz Luhrmann’s other works (Moulin Rouge, Australia, and to an extent Romeo and Juliet) but this one didn’t strike a chord with me at all. I’d also never read the book so I was going in with no preconceptions about the story. Other than some rather impressive visuals and costumes, I can’t say I really cared for this one, old sport.

DiCaprio as Gatsby and Joel Edgerton as Daisy’s husband Tom both gave good performances from the main cast but I felt Mulligan and Maguire’s parts could have been played by anyone and it wouldn’t have made a different. They brought nothing interesting to either of their roles and as such I felt no emotion one way or another towards their characters. Given that so much of the story revolves around Daisy this also meant I was never grabbed by the narrative.

The film was also way too long at almost two and half hours. For the minimal amount of goings on in the plot there did not need to be such a padded out runtime. The visuals however worked really well, with the CGI and the green screen giving New York than olden style feel to it on top of an overall grandness in scope. Similarly the costumes, sets and locations all felt like you were back in the 20’s.

What didn’t work was the music. Luhrmann took the same chance he did with Moulin Rouge and used modern music, mostly hip hop and rap, for the soundtrack but it didn’t fit the tone this time and felt out of place. Some of the parties blended well enough but other than that it fell flat almost every time.

I didn’t dislike Gatsby but it left me feeling ambivalent to the whole endeavour. I went in not knowing anything, and I left not caring about anything I had just seen. It was literally like I had sat in the the theatre for 2 1/2 hours looking a blank screen for the amount of impression it left. 2.5/5

#511/#62 Fast and Furious 6 When news that Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) is still alive and running with a crew that are ripping off dangerous military hardware reaches Dom (Vin Diesel) via Agent Hobbs (Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson) he reassembles the crew. With promises of pardons all around if they help stop the other team, the crew get to work on trying to stop them and figuring out why Letty is with them. Surprised by how much I liked Fast Five, given how bad the rest of the series is, I actually went to see this one in theatres and while not as good as its predecessor, it is still a fun time at the pictures. The majority of the cast is still made up of pretty bad actors but like before their collective whole makes up for the sum of its parts. The Rock and Diesel are both still enjoyably dependable for some good action while even Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris manage to bring out a chuckle every now and then.The reintroduction of Letty was pretty forced, and Rodriguez was not the missing element sorely lacking, but I suppose there needed to be a reason to reform once more and it worked well enough. The action is top notch this time around. In the previous films, and even in the last one, there was a tendency to have all of the big set pieces at the beginning and the end leaving long boring sections in the middle. No 6 avoids this by having a strong selection of action throughout. The villain was a bit lacking but I don’t think there has ever really been a memorable one in this series so it’s par for the course at this point. The main reason it’s a couple of steps down from five is that there are a number of moments which stretch the suspension of disbelief too far. I know it’s a fun action romp and you don’t want to examine everything to closely but things like street youth Letty being able to hold her own in a fight with a Mossad trained agent, drag racing in the heart of London and the longest runway in existence are a couple of the things your brain just rejects. Still a fun time thought and I like the way the series is continuing. The post credit scene gets you pumped for no 7 with an addition which makes perfect sense and I’m surprised has taken this long for someone to think up. It’s still stupid action, but it’s the good kind of stupid action. 3.5/5

#511/#62 Fast and Furious 6

When news that Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) is still alive and running with a crew that are ripping off dangerous military hardware reaches Dom (Vin Diesel) via Agent Hobbs (Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson) he reassembles the crew. With promises of pardons all around if they help stop the other team, the crew get to work on trying to stop them and figuring out why Letty is with them.

Surprised by how much I liked Fast Five, given how bad the rest of the series is, I actually went to see this one in theatres and while not as good as its predecessor, it is still a fun time at the pictures. The majority of the cast is still made up of pretty bad actors but like before their collective whole makes up for the sum of its parts. The Rock and Diesel are both still enjoyably dependable for some good action while even Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris manage to bring out a chuckle every now and then.The reintroduction of Letty was pretty forced, and Rodriguez was not the missing element sorely lacking, but I suppose there needed to be a reason to reform once more and it worked well enough.

The action is top notch this time around. In the previous films, and even in the last one, there was a tendency to have all of the big set pieces at the beginning and the end leaving long boring sections in the middle. No 6 avoids this by having a strong selection of action throughout. The villain was a bit lacking but I don’t think there has ever really been a memorable one in this series so it’s par for the course at this point.

The main reason it’s a couple of steps down from five is that there are a number of moments which stretch the suspension of disbelief too far. I know it’s a fun action romp and you don’t want to examine everything to closely but things like street youth Letty being able to hold her own in a fight with a Mossad trained agent, drag racing in the heart of London and the longest runway in existence are a couple of the things your brain just rejects.

Still a fun time thought and I like the way the series is continuing. The post credit scene gets you pumped for no 7 with an addition which makes perfect sense and I’m surprised has taken this long for someone to think up. It’s still stupid action, but it’s the good kind of stupid action. 3.5/5

#510/#61 Jeff, Who Lives At Home When Jeff (Jason Segel), who has sort of lost his way in life, receives a wrong number call looking for someone named Kevin, he takes this as a sign and heads out into the world looking for Kevin to see where he’ll lead him. Meanwhile, his brother Pat (Ed Helms) thinks his wife is cheating on him and begins to follow her. Meeting along the way, the pair need to figure out what, if anything, they should be doing next. I wasn’t expecting a whole lot from this movie but it turned out to be fairly pleasant experience. Segel and Helms make a good brother pairing, with Susan Sarandon also getting an interesting storyline as the pair’s mother. Although I’m not sure I subscribe to the central message the movie was trying to put across, it was interesting to see why these characters are the way they are and why they act the way they do. They’re not happy characters, and it is a bit of a melancholy film for the most part, but the movie’s message and upbeat ending leave you taking away a little something from the watch regardless. At about an hour and half long it’s also the perfect length, letting you get to know these people but not overplay their traits to the point of annoyance. It’s funny as well but in a more subdued way than most other movies which have this calibre of comedic actors involved. Overall it is just a generally enjoyable flick which doesn’t require a lot of thought process to be entertained by 4/5

#510/#61 Jeff, Who Lives At Home

When Jeff (Jason Segel), who has sort of lost his way in life, receives a wrong number call looking for someone named Kevin, he takes this as a sign and heads out into the world looking for Kevin to see where he’ll lead him. Meanwhile, his brother Pat (Ed Helms) thinks his wife is cheating on him and begins to follow her. Meeting along the way, the pair need to figure out what, if anything, they should be doing next.

I wasn’t expecting a whole lot from this movie but it turned out to be fairly pleasant experience. Segel and Helms make a good brother pairing, with Susan Sarandon also getting an interesting storyline as the pair’s mother. Although I’m not sure I subscribe to the central message the movie was trying to put across, it was interesting to see why these characters are the way they are and why they act the way they do. They’re not happy characters, and it is a bit of a melancholy film for the most part, but the movie’s message and upbeat ending leave you taking away a little something from the watch regardless.

At about an hour and half long it’s also the perfect length, letting you get to know these people but not overplay their traits to the point of annoyance. It’s funny as well but in a more subdued way than most other movies which have this calibre of comedic actors involved. Overall it is just a generally enjoyable flick which doesn’t require a lot of thought process to be entertained by 4/5

#509/#60 13 Assassins The evil brother (Goro Inagaki) of the current Shogun is raping and killing at will with no reprimand or repercussions for his acts. Unable to do anything because of his position, the Japanese government turns to an old samurai warrior Shinzaemon (Koji Yakusho) and ask him to assassinate Lord Naritsugu before he can proceed further through the ranks. Shinzaemon accept and brings together 12 others to help him on this suicide mission. 13 assassins is a mixed movie. In the beginning it takes its time to set up how evil Naritsugu is, why the government feels assassination is the only option and some of Shinzaemon relationships. It’s all very involved and story building but it also makes the film feel like it’s moving at a glacial pace. It’s very in-depth, dialogue heavy (in a foreign language) and built around the intricacies of the feudal Japanese system and its customs. I was able to follow along with it because I’ve watched a lot of anime, which worked as a sort of primer on the subject, but I could easily see it being a bit much for the western audience to wrap their heads around. Whatever boredom there is however vanishes when it comes down to the 13 assassins taking on a force of over 200 men in a small village. It’s like watching a live action version of Bleach, without the superpowers, which lasts about a third of the movie. It’s what you always want the legendary samurai warriors to be like when watching an action movie with a samurai character but never seems to deliver on. Well, 13 assassins delivers. It’s got all of the blood, gore, dismemberment, last stands, poignant deaths, stand offs and minions dying by the handfuls you could ever want and it is glorious. It’s wonderfully shot as well, never letting the action get repetitive even given the length of time dedicated to it. The only issue I had with it was it was hard to differentiate between a lot of the assassins because they had such minimal characterisation or physical differences but that was to be expected with such a large group of characters. It was the Hobbit all over again. I was losing interest right before the giant battle started so I would say you need to be prepared to sit through a tough first hour but it is needed to see why killing this one man, and fighting against such bad odds, is worth all of the bloodshed that takes place. Once you get to the battle though, it’s all good until the credit roll. 4/5

#509/#60 13 Assassins

The evil brother (Goro Inagaki) of the current Shogun is raping and killing at will with no reprimand or repercussions for his acts. Unable to do anything because of his position, the Japanese government turns to an old samurai warrior Shinzaemon (Koji Yakusho) and ask him to assassinate Lord Naritsugu before he can proceed further through the ranks. Shinzaemon accept and brings together 12 others to help him on this suicide mission.

13 assassins is a mixed movie. In the beginning it takes its time to set up how evil Naritsugu is, why the government feels assassination is the only option and some of Shinzaemon relationships. It’s all very involved and story building but it also makes the film feel like it’s moving at a glacial pace. It’s very in-depth, dialogue heavy (in a foreign language) and built around the intricacies of the feudal Japanese system and its customs. I was able to follow along with it because I’ve watched a lot of anime, which worked as a sort of primer on the subject, but I could easily see it being a bit much for the western audience to wrap their heads around.

Whatever boredom there is however vanishes when it comes down to the 13 assassins taking on a force of over 200 men in a small village. It’s like watching a live action version of Bleach, without the superpowers, which lasts about a third of the movie. It’s what you always want the legendary samurai warriors to be like when watching an action movie with a samurai character but never seems to deliver on. Well, 13 assassins delivers. It’s got all of the blood, gore, dismemberment, last stands, poignant deaths, stand offs and minions dying by the handfuls you could ever want and it is glorious. It’s wonderfully shot as well, never letting the action get repetitive even given the length of time dedicated to it. The only issue I had with it was it was hard to differentiate between a lot of the assassins because they had such minimal characterisation or physical differences but that was to be expected with such a large group of characters. It was the Hobbit all over again.

I was losing interest right before the giant battle started so I would say you need to be prepared to sit through a tough first hour but it is needed to see why killing this one man, and fighting against such bad odds, is worth all of the bloodshed that takes place. Once you get to the battle though, it’s all good until the credit roll. 4/5

#508/#59 Mississippi Burning In 1964, the disappearance and suspected murder of 3 civil rights activist in rural Mississippi brings in FBI agents Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman) and Alan Ward (Willem Defoe). While the manhunt for the bodies drags on the local Klu Klux Klan, and by extension the local sheriff’s office, hound the pair and stir up trouble for the black community. Will someone break the town’s silence or will fear win out? Centring around such thorny subject matter, you wouldn’t call Mississippi Burning an enjoyable film but it is dramatically powerful and peppered with strong performances. Hackman plays a world weary former sheriff of a similar style Southern town well. You get that he’s angered by the mistreatment of these people, the same as Dafoe’s more open hearted character is, but life has taught him not to be as naive or see through in his actions. Dafoe’s character on the other hand, is the audience surrogate showing our indignation to the transpiring events whilst also being indicative of the shifting change linked with the time period. They augment each other well, highlighting the cynicism of one who’s seen it all before and the optimism of one who thinks he can still change things. Brad Dourif and Francis McDormand are also strong players in the story as the primary antagonist and his put upon wife. Dourif has always been good at playing slimy characters while McDormand play demure but resilient well. They have a good dynamic together in that they don’t interact a lot, or even talk much, but you get the entire scope of their relationship through their brief silence sections together. As for the story, although apparently sensationalising the actual historical events, it plays out quite well keeping the pace quick and tensions high. You’re with Dafoe’s character as he tries to go after the culprits lawfully, and by the book, at the beginning but by the end you’re more than happy to see Hackman’s character bring out the big, slightly shady, guns to get the job done. It’s a little insulting it takes the white woman being beaten up and not the black community being ransacked a couple of scenes back to get them to that point but what are you going to do? It’s not a movie I’d be sitting down to looking for an evening’s light entertainment or making all my friends watch, as you really need to be invested to sitting through it before watching, but it’s a good dramatic film and worth a look if you’re interested in the time period or enjoy solid character performances. 4/5

#508/#59 Mississippi Burning

In 1964, the disappearance and suspected murder of 3 civil rights activist in rural Mississippi brings in FBI agents Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman) and Alan Ward (Willem Defoe). While the manhunt for the bodies drags on the local Klu Klux Klan, and by extension the local sheriff’s office, hound the pair and stir up trouble for the black community. Will someone break the town’s silence or will fear win out?

Centring around such thorny subject matter, you wouldn’t call Mississippi Burning an enjoyable film but it is dramatically powerful and peppered with strong performances. Hackman plays a world weary former sheriff of a similar style Southern town well. You get that he’s angered by the mistreatment of these people, the same as Dafoe’s more open hearted character is, but life has taught him not to be as naive or see through in his actions. Dafoe’s character on the other hand, is the audience surrogate showing our indignation to the transpiring events whilst also being indicative of the shifting change linked with the time period. They augment each other well, highlighting the cynicism of one who’s seen it all before and the optimism of one who thinks he can still change things.

Brad Dourif and Francis McDormand are also strong players in the story as the primary antagonist and his put upon wife. Dourif has always been good at playing slimy characters while McDormand play demure but resilient well. They have a good dynamic together in that they don’t interact a lot, or even talk much, but you get the entire scope of their relationship through their brief silence sections together.

As for the story, although apparently sensationalising the actual historical events, it plays out quite well keeping the pace quick and tensions high. You’re with Dafoe’s character as he tries to go after the culprits lawfully, and by the book, at the beginning but by the end you’re more than happy to see Hackman’s character bring out the big, slightly shady, guns to get the job done. It’s a little insulting it takes the white woman being beaten up and not the black community being ransacked a couple of scenes back to get them to that point but what are you going to do?

It’s not a movie I’d be sitting down to looking for an evening’s light entertainment or making all my friends watch, as you really need to be invested to sitting through it before watching, but it’s a good dramatic film and worth a look if you’re interested in the time period or enjoy solid character performances. 4/5

#507/#58 The Maltese Falcon A noir thriller which sees detective Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) drawn into the hunt for a lost expensive statue, the Maltese Falcon, when his partner is killed on a job for a mysterious dame (Mary Astor). One of the earliest and quintessential film noirs, the Maltese Falcon is not short on style. The blocking and cinematography of all of the scenes are wonderfully done and really help to get across the unease of the events transpiring. Simple things like having Peter Lorre’s character Joel Cairo fondling the top of his walking cane while talking to Spade are nice subtle ways of implying intimation and creating unrest in the audience.  On top of this the story is so full of twists and turns that it’s easier just assuming everyone is lying at all times rather than trying to gleam any sort of truth from them. This adds to the mystery and the atmosphere of the whole thing but it does mean the viewer can’t really follow along with, or try to solve the mystery until Spade spells everything out at the end. This is an older mystery thing and can be a little annoying for those more used to trying to solve the case with the detectives (i.e. most crime dramas now) but it’s just one of those small annoyances you either accept or you don’t. This was also the role which propelled Bogart into the limelight and it’s clear to see why. His morally ambiguous portrayal of Spade made for a sort of early anti-hero. He didn’t give a damn about anyone of the people in this and it was clear the entire time he was equally manipulating them as they were him. He’s fun to watch and a character with some depth to him. The only thing off about it was the fact that he and Mary Astor had no chemistry; making certain events at the end seem out of place. Astor in general wasn’t particularly good. The story’s a little standard now but as a genre and career spawner, the Maltese Falcon deserves its iconic status. It’s doubtful I’d return to the film but it’s definitely up there with some of the top tier film noirs I’ve personally seen. 4/5

#507/#58 The Maltese Falcon

A noir thriller which sees detective Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) drawn into the hunt for a lost expensive statue, the Maltese Falcon, when his partner is killed on a job for a mysterious dame (Mary Astor).

One of the earliest and quintessential film noirs, the Maltese Falcon is not short on style. The blocking and cinematography of all of the scenes are wonderfully done and really help to get across the unease of the events transpiring. Simple things like having Peter Lorre’s character Joel Cairo fondling the top of his walking cane while talking to Spade are nice subtle ways of implying intimation and creating unrest in the audience. 

On top of this the story is so full of twists and turns that it’s easier just assuming everyone is lying at all times rather than trying to gleam any sort of truth from them. This adds to the mystery and the atmosphere of the whole thing but it does mean the viewer can’t really follow along with, or try to solve the mystery until Spade spells everything out at the end. This is an older mystery thing and can be a little annoying for those more used to trying to solve the case with the detectives (i.e. most crime dramas now) but it’s just one of those small annoyances you either accept or you don’t.

This was also the role which propelled Bogart into the limelight and it’s clear to see why. His morally ambiguous portrayal of Spade made for a sort of early anti-hero. He didn’t give a damn about anyone of the people in this and it was clear the entire time he was equally manipulating them as they were him. He’s fun to watch and a character with some depth to him. The only thing off about it was the fact that he and Mary Astor had no chemistry; making certain events at the end seem out of place. Astor in general wasn’t particularly good.

The story’s a little standard now but as a genre and career spawner, the Maltese Falcon deserves its iconic status. It’s doubtful I’d return to the film but it’s definitely up there with some of the top tier film noirs I’ve personally seen. 4/5

#506/#57 The Five-Year Engagement Couple Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) become engaged right as Violet is accepted to a post-doctorate position at the University of Michigan. This means they need to uproot their lives in LA right when Tom was about to become head chef in a top restaurant. Deciding to delay the wedding until they are settled in Michigan the pair leave, not knowing events will keep transpiring to put off their wedding. Overly long, or at least the illusion of length, is the main thing which springs to mind when thinking about the Five Year Engagement. The movie starts off fine but by about halfway through the Michigan section it just begins to drag and it never really picks back up again. It’s got a couple of funny bits sprinkled throughout, but never enough to merit the long drawn out sections making up the majority of the film’s second half. The tone is also all over the map. Sometimes it’s a light hearted romp, others it gets a bit surreal before taking a left turn and becoming a serious drama suddenly. A dramady is one thing, but this movie just doesn’t stay consistent from one scene to the next The film’s not all bad though. Segel and Blunt have a really believable chemistry, which keeps their romantic scenes pleasant and the beginning and conclusion of the movie quite nice. The supporting cast are also fairly effective and where most of the comedy stems from. Alison Brie and Chris Pratt, as the couple’s sister/best friend work well, while Rhys Ifans and Mindy Kaling, as Violet’s boss and co-worker, also get another couple of funny lines in. I think this is going to be one of those movies women like more than men do, which is sad because it looked like it could have been one of those rare romantic comedy which speaks to both genders. Sadly, it’s not funny enough to be a good comedy but if you get invested in the characters and the story it might be considered an okay romantic movie. Didn’t do a whole lot for me personally, but nothing to make me hate it either. 2.5/5

#506/#57 The Five-Year Engagement

Couple Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) become engaged right as Violet is accepted to a post-doctorate position at the University of Michigan. This means they need to uproot their lives in LA right when Tom was about to become head chef in a top restaurant. Deciding to delay the wedding until they are settled in Michigan the pair leave, not knowing events will keep transpiring to put off their wedding.

Overly long, or at least the illusion of length, is the main thing which springs to mind when thinking about the Five Year Engagement. The movie starts off fine but by about halfway through the Michigan section it just begins to drag and it never really picks back up again. It’s got a couple of funny bits sprinkled throughout, but never enough to merit the long drawn out sections making up the majority of the film’s second half. The tone is also all over the map. Sometimes it’s a light hearted romp, others it gets a bit surreal before taking a left turn and becoming a serious drama suddenly. A dramady is one thing, but this movie just doesn’t stay consistent from one scene to the next

The film’s not all bad though. Segel and Blunt have a really believable chemistry, which keeps their romantic scenes pleasant and the beginning and conclusion of the movie quite nice. The supporting cast are also fairly effective and where most of the comedy stems from. Alison Brie and Chris Pratt, as the couple’s sister/best friend work well, while Rhys Ifans and Mindy Kaling, as Violet’s boss and co-worker, also get another couple of funny lines in.

I think this is going to be one of those movies women like more than men do, which is sad because it looked like it could have been one of those rare romantic comedy which speaks to both genders. Sadly, it’s not funny enough to be a good comedy but if you get invested in the characters and the story it might be considered an okay romantic movie. Didn’t do a whole lot for me personally, but nothing to make me hate it either. 2.5/5

#505/#56 Star Trek: Into Darkness When a rouge Starfleet operative (Benedict Cumberbatch) takes out the top brass and escapes; Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto) and the crew of the Enterprise must track him into Klingon territory. All might not be as it seems however, and soon they find themselves in a fight for their lives. Having generally liked the 2009 Star Trek film, but also having no particularly strong emotions for it or the original series, I was interested to see how the follow up did without really putting any expectations on it. I think Into Darkness did a remarkably good job at maintaining the tone it set with the reboot while also upping the ante the way a good sequel should.  You’ve got to give it to the visual effects, set design and the sound people for this film firstly, because sections of this movie are just beautiful and really put me at ease for what JJ Abrams is going to be injecting into the Star Wars universe soon. The space battles look epic, the ship interiors look futuristic while still functional and the score was grandiose when needed and complementary when an emotional scene required it. Great stuff all around. From the cast I thought Pine and Cumberbatch were the clear stand outs in this instalment with Quninto as Spock, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Karl Urban as Bones and Simon Pegg as Scotty all getting an increased role this time around as well. Even John Cho as Sulu and Anton Yelchin as Chekov got at least one moment within which to shine. Alice Eve as Carol Marcus was the only one who really felt more like a plot point than a character. Pine, who I’ve generally thought was kinda so-so in everything I’ve seen him in, was wonderful as Kirk this time around. He really brought an emotional element to the role, especially when dealing with Bruce Greenwood’s Pine character and with Spock, which you didn’t get in the 2009 movie. Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, I’ve always thought Cumberbatch was good actor but getting to see him as a villain this time around was a real treat. Some of the lines he gets to give and some of the actions he takes are wonderful to watch. Nero, from the original, was so forgettable that it was great to see Cumberbatch come in and just own this movie. I’d definitely say this was a worthy follow up, and probably even surpasses, the 2009 reboot. Other than a bit of a lackluster final conclusion, some homage fatigue and a few logic failings here and there this movie is top notch. Can’t wait for Star Wars Episode 7 and Star Trek 3 now. 4.5/5

#505/#56 Star Trek: Into Darkness

When a rouge Starfleet operative (Benedict Cumberbatch) takes out the top brass and escapes; Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto) and the crew of the Enterprise must track him into Klingon territory. All might not be as it seems however, and soon they find themselves in a fight for their lives.

Having generally liked the 2009 Star Trek film, but also having no particularly strong emotions for it or the original series, I was interested to see how the follow up did without really putting any expectations on it. I think Into Darkness did a remarkably good job at maintaining the tone it set with the reboot while also upping the ante the way a good sequel should. 

You’ve got to give it to the visual effects, set design and the sound people for this film firstly, because sections of this movie are just beautiful and really put me at ease for what JJ Abrams is going to be injecting into the Star Wars universe soon. The space battles look epic, the ship interiors look futuristic while still functional and the score was grandiose when needed and complementary when an emotional scene required it. Great stuff all around.

From the cast I thought Pine and Cumberbatch were the clear stand outs in this instalment with Quninto as Spock, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Karl Urban as Bones and Simon Pegg as Scotty all getting an increased role this time around as well. Even John Cho as Sulu and Anton Yelchin as Chekov got at least one moment within which to shine. Alice Eve as Carol Marcus was the only one who really felt more like a plot point than a character.

Pine, who I’ve generally thought was kinda so-so in everything I’ve seen him in, was wonderful as Kirk this time around. He really brought an emotional element to the role, especially when dealing with Bruce Greenwood’s Pine character and with Spock, which you didn’t get in the 2009 movie. Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, I’ve always thought Cumberbatch was good actor but getting to see him as a villain this time around was a real treat. Some of the lines he gets to give and some of the actions he takes are wonderful to watch. Nero, from the original, was so forgettable that it was great to see Cumberbatch come in and just own this movie.

I’d definitely say this was a worthy follow up, and probably even surpasses, the 2009 reboot. Other than a bit of a lackluster final conclusion, some homage fatigue and a few logic failings here and there this movie is top notch. Can’t wait for Star Wars Episode 7 and Star Trek 3 now. 4.5/5

#504/#55 Escape From LA 16 years on from the events of Escape from New York, Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) is once again captured and offered leniency for his crimes if he retrieves a stolen device and the president’s daughter from the ruins of Los Angeles. Very much a retread of the original film, Escape from LA is enjoyable as a goofy action flick but it’s not as good at capturing the gritty 80’s feel of the first movie. This is mainly because it came out in the mid-nineties but it feels like it was still trying to go for the tone of the original film and didn’t quite make it. I also think it’s partially that L.A. is not as interesting to see people fight through as New York was, and that the supporting players were just weaker than in the former film. Russell is still enjoyable in this, and watching him be Snake again is always fun, but it’s the supporting cast which isn’t as engaging this time around. Steve Buscemi as the weasley conman was okay but his character seemed fairly ancillary and could have been cut from the movie and it wouldn’t have mattered. George Corraface as Snake’s main antagonist was also rather weak. He didn’t seem like a credible threat at any point and really didn’t invoke much interest one way or the other in me. Elements which did work however, were the slow poisoning of Snake as a motivational tool and the ending. The poisoning was enough like the bombs from the first movie that it felt familiar while also adding a new flavour to things as we get to see Snake getting weaker over time and having to compensate for that as well. The ending was, again, like the original but it had enough of a twist on it to make it work. It also felt very much like what Snake would do in that situation and it’s always nice to see characterisation continuing to pay off. Nowhere near as good as its predecessor, but enjoyable in the same vein as say Demolition Man or Stallone’s Judd Dredd. Could have been better but still a fun watch. 3/5

#504/#55 Escape From LA

16 years on from the events of Escape from New York, Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) is once again captured and offered leniency for his crimes if he retrieves a stolen device and the president’s daughter from the ruins of Los Angeles.

Very much a retread of the original film, Escape from LA is enjoyable as a goofy action flick but it’s not as good at capturing the gritty 80’s feel of the first movie. This is mainly because it came out in the mid-nineties but it feels like it was still trying to go for the tone of the original film and didn’t quite make it. I also think it’s partially that L.A. is not as interesting to see people fight through as New York was, and that the supporting players were just weaker than in the former film.

Russell is still enjoyable in this, and watching him be Snake again is always fun, but it’s the supporting cast which isn’t as engaging this time around. Steve Buscemi as the weasley conman was okay but his character seemed fairly ancillary and could have been cut from the movie and it wouldn’t have mattered. George Corraface as Snake’s main antagonist was also rather weak. He didn’t seem like a credible threat at any point and really didn’t invoke much interest one way or the other in me.

Elements which did work however, were the slow poisoning of Snake as a motivational tool and the ending. The poisoning was enough like the bombs from the first movie that it felt familiar while also adding a new flavour to things as we get to see Snake getting weaker over time and having to compensate for that as well. The ending was, again, like the original but it had enough of a twist on it to make it work. It also felt very much like what Snake would do in that situation and it’s always nice to see characterisation continuing to pay off.

Nowhere near as good as its predecessor, but enjoyable in the same vein as say Demolition Man or Stallone’s Judd Dredd. Could have been better but still a fun watch. 3/5