Protecting The Private Life

A popcorn movie through and through. When you’re released at the same time as another movie in the same genre, you’re bound to be compared, and this movie definitely loses to Ironman 3. Nothing is particularly wrong with it – it’s just nothing special. The script made sure to spell out even the most simple plot points to the audience multiple times, the music was overly dramatic, and some pretty damn corny lines were scattered throughout. It became painfully obvious that the plot was just there to have excuses for different action sequences. While solid, the action never wowed me like it did in Ironman 3 (except for the short warp-speed battle). Ironman 3 managed to be a far deeper and richer movie, while simultaneously winning on humour and action. If I was to sum up Star Trek 2 in a word, it would be “melodramatic”. Great to waste a few hours and have a bit of easy fun, but honestly I’d rather just re-watch Ironman 3. 7/10 Bonus Rant: The pre-title opening scene was embarras...

I can’t think of a single thing to fault this movie on. By every objective and subjective measure I use to judge films, Ironman 3 gets full marks on everything it aimed for. When a scene gets even remotely close to cheesy, the PERFECT line of dialogue is hilariously delivered to elevate the scene to new levels. Robert Downey Jr. cranks his wittiness up to 11, and I swear Ben Kingsley was using some kind of captivation magic whenever he was on screen. Even the child actor was hilarious, without losing the innocence child actors sometimes sacrifice. This movie found a perfect balance of humour, seriousness and action. And man that action – intense, original, beautiful. The greedy nerd inside of me would've loved to see a few more seconds of each of the new Ironman suits, but I realistically couldn't have asked for more. 10/10

This movie represents the untapped potential of original sci-fi movies. Sure, we've got cool new Star Trek movies and stuff like Prometheus, but seeing some truly original sci-fi is all too rare. A great soundtrack by M83, kick-arse acting from Tom Cruise, and an AMAZING aesthetic reminiscent of “Moon” is a pretty unbeatable combo. The plot got a little contrived about 3/4 of the way through – not to mention some annoying (though inconsequential) plot holes – but recovered nicely before the end. Oblivion successfully caters to the masses while earning the respect of sci-fi fans – not an easy thing to do. 9/10

For a movie with an excellent premise and an excellent conclusion, Trance didn't really seem to capitalise on it. The middle occasionally felt like it was adding in needless complications just for the sake of trying to appear more "trippy" than it really was. What struck me as odd is that after all this effort to make the plot and marketing "trippy", the visuals were decidedly lacking in anything unusual or unique - it honestly felt like the DoP and director were just on autopilot for this film. This is all made more disappointing by the fact that it's directed by Danny Boyle of "Trainspotting", "28 Days Later", "Sunshine" and "127 Hours" fame. It should be said however, that in the hands of an ordinary director I definitely wouldn't be as critical as I am being now - Trance is by no means a bad (or even average) movie. I was simply hoping for more. 7/10

Great mystery movie. It slows down a tiny bit between the crime happening and the mystery beginning, but nothing to worry about. The acting is superb, with Jude Law and Rooney Mara being as excellent as always. It provides all the information necessary for the audience to work it out in advance (which is a personal requirement for me when watching mysteries), but portrays it in a completely different light at the time. Just as it proves the importance of context when hinting at the truth, so to does it comment on the danger of context when surrounded by crazy people - suddenly everything you do can seem crazy. How do you know if someone is actually crazy, or just appears crazy because you've prejudged them? What about the reverse? 9/10

What first appears to be a simple shy-boy-meets-girl story turns into a surprisingly dark tale about child abuse and mental illness. It is an incredibly well handled example of an unreliable narrator, supplemented with superb acting. If you're willing to stick through its illusion of mediocrity, there's a lot of nuance to be found. 10/10

Some excellent speeches scattered throughout 2.5 hours of rambling Old English. It fails as a gripping political drama, and certainly isn't a war movie; it's merely a biography about a man whose personal life just doesn't seem interesting enough to warrant 2.5 hours. It's by no means a bad movie (the acting is exemplary), but I can't see it entertaining anyone beyond patriotic American intellectuals. 5/10

Very slow, but intentionally that way. It very methodically builds up to the final act, and makes the final scene very powerful. Whether that scene makes 2 hours of build-up worth it is up to the viewer. Nobody can argue that it's incredibly well crafted, but it's not designed to be "entertaining" in the traditional sense. It's a window into the real world of intelligence-gathering, and not spiced up in the slightest. 8/10

Amazing movie. The surreal-ness was handled extremely well, and Jake Gyllenhaal gives an amazing performance. It had me intrigued from start to almost-finish. And that brings me to my problem with the ending: [SPOILERS BELOW] Suddenly the time travel is actually real? Up until the tornado crashing the plane, everything could be explained as paranoid schizophrenia. It would have been really easy to have an amazing ending while keeping with the idea that it's all in his head - why the need to suddenly make the pseudo-science real? What did the ending add to the story? Unless I'm missing something? Maybe the Director's Cut is much better? 8/10

Apart from a couple of times where it slipped across the line, it walked the tightrope between cheesy and charming/old-fashioned to perfection. Harnessing the theme of ageing as a way to honour the series' past. Translating the theme of "fighting in the shadows" to literal (incredible) silhouette fight scenes with amazing background colours. So good. If it wasn't for some inexplicable character decisions and laughable "hacking", a perfect score would have been given. 9/10

Walked out after 25 minutes. I could rant for several paragraphs, but it can be summed up by saying that absolutely no respect was given to the audience's intelligence. Also, "slow motion" is not synonymous with "arty", nor "weird lens flare sparkles" with "beautiful". 2/10 And "3D" in the title? Seriously?

What a great movie. Far, far better than all previous Spiderman movies. Only downside is that the plot is almost exactly the same for the first half of the movie, but it's okay because everything about it is better - the acting, the CGI, the script, the pacing, the music, everything. Also Emma Stone in thigh-high boots :D 9/10

10/10 cinematography 9/10 music 10/10 acting (Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron were amazing) 9/10 script 10/10 intensity 9/10 pacing 10/10 mysteriousness (and not overdone) 3/10 characterisation. For "scientists", they make some pretty stupid decisions. Hell, even for human beings it was stupid. I can forgive some of it for pacing reasons, but the rest was unforgivable. Everything might be perfect, but a small amount of bad characterisation can ruin a movie by tearing down the wall of believability, and that's what happened here. 7/10

"Shame" is not only quite a surreal movie, but an oddly surreal movie. The main character shows such complex and conflicting emotions through very little dialogue, that it's actually quite hard to confidently know what's happening. Don't watch it if you expect fast-paced plot, or tonnes of awesome sex. While there's a huge amount of sex in it, it's almost entirely deliberately soulless. I'd compare Shame to hypnotically lethargic movies like Blue Valentine or Lost in Translation, but with a slightly more sinister tone. 8/10

1. Incredibly intense plane crash. Only matched by the Super 8 train crash. 2. Equal parts frenzied violence and methodically paced humanity. 3. The action scenes had the camera a bit more zoomed in than I'd like. Think the Bourne movies but more zoomed in. Don't expect any "Taken" shenanigans from Liam Neeson. 4. It's a profoundly human movie - the fear and death experienced in a desperate situation. 5. When faced with so much fear and death, what is your motivation to keep living? 8/10