Reviews

Much like 'The Six Thatchers', 'The Final Problem' is an almost incoherent mess of an episode, where narrative logic is left by the wayside in favour of mindless spectacle and nonsensical twists.

Lord how I miss those days when it was just Holmes and Watson using actual deduction to solve an interesting mystery. Now we have the pair travelling to some super high security jail on some island to visit his psychotic uber-genius long lost sister, whom Holmes has rather conveniently completely forgotten about, even though the sole defining moment of his childhood directly involves her. She then subjects Sherlock, Mycroft and Watson to some twisted games of death and psychological torture, and in the end we learn she isn't really evil, she was just jealous of Sherlock's friends and wanted to be loved. Awwwwwww.

Oh, and a quick note to the CIA: Apparently global terrorism can be foiled simply by going on Twitter for an hour. You can thank Gattis and Moffat for that solid gold intel.

Whilst not approaching the greatness of earlier seasons, 'The Lying Detective' was a welcome return to form for Sherlock, yet still contained some flaws that detracted from my overall enjoyment.

The acting overall was superb, with a still grieving and guilt-riddled Watson and a seemingly off the rails Sherlock sharing some great scenes together. One of the problems with recent Sherlock has been the waste of the amazing supporting characters, especially Mrs Hudson, Molly, and Lestrade, who contributed so much to the earlier seasons but who have been relegated to bystanders for the most part as of late. Lestrade unfortunately still gets short shrift, but Molly has a small but fun scene and Mrs Hudson almost steals the show during the second act (that Aston Martin bit was pure gold!). Toby Jones plays Culverton Smith as a disgusting, slimy little rodent, and yes I get the Jimmy Savile metaphor, but it was a bit too over the top, and strained belief that this person could be so famous and so loved by the public.

The overall plot was very good, and Steven Moffat's script is by far more coherent and enjoyable than Gattis' effort on The Six Thatchers. Sherlock's scheme to both catch a serial killer and win his friend back was seemingly clever, yet when looked at closely reveals some implausible and too convenient plot machinations. What if Watson was 2 minutes later in arriving at the hospital? What if Smith hadn't confessed to police? When examined further, Sherlock's plan was pretty slap dash and not very well thought out. This to me was the episode's major failing.

And yet it was almost totally redeemed by the final twist of Euros' reveal. It was incredibly well done, and left me on the edge of my seat. All I can say is that was some fine acting by Sian Brooke. I cannot wait to see the final episode of season 4, and if it is indeed to be the final episode of Sherlock ever, I hope they really finish it with an episode to rival The Reichenbach Fall.

This show has declined to such a drastic degree it breaks my heart. I adored the first 2 seasons of Sherlock, whose episodes ranged from simply entertaining to jaw droppingly brilliant. Season 3 had its work cut out for it following the masterpiece that is The Reichenbach Fall. Ultimately it was a disappointment, with a horrible first episode, a fun but essentially flimsy second episode, and a decent but not brilliant third. Part of the problem was the introduction of Mary Morstan, Watson's lady friend with a shady past. Personally, I feel Amanda Abbington is not a bad actress at all, but was awfully miscast as a bad-ass cold blooded retired killer-for-hire. It's quite obvious she got the gig because of Martin Freeman's influence.

And this brings us to the crux of the problem with The Six Thatchers. It's all about Mary and her past. Gone are the days of solving brilliantly complex mysteries and battling wits against psychotic cabbies, seemingly supernatural hounds, and of course the singular Moriarty. OK, there is one mystery that is solved in like 2 minutes, but then the next 80 minutes are mystery free.

Without going into too much detail, basically some guy from Mary's old hit squad team wants her dead because of some alleged betrayal, which is never really made clear. Anyway, he soon dies and its discovered someone from the government was the betrayer. Turns out it was some secretary we met at the beginning of the episode, whose sole motivation was getting money to buy a cottage (oh, and jealousy of her superiors apparently). Secretary decides to pull out a gun and shoot Sherlock, but Mary jumps in front of him and takes the bullet, because apparently Sherlock's life takes precedence over her new born baby and husband. And then the ridiculous cherry on top of this laughable sundae is that Watson is furious at Sherlock for some reason??? And that's pretty much how the episode ends.

Sorry Mark Gattis, but that is some God awful writing. Full of improbable turns, glaring plot holes, plots threads that make no sense (Watson's bus lady???) and it plays out as a second rate Jason Bourne thriller starring a middle aged woman who looks more suited to being a primary school teacher than a black ops assassin.

On a positive note though, she dies. So can we get back to solving mysteries now pretty please?

Was i hyped to see another California Noir written and directed by Shane Black? HELL YES.

As a huge fan of his earlier film 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang', the idea of Black making another movie in the same vein filled me with anticipation. But while TNG hits most of the same notes as KKBB, in every single area it just lacks the same magic of the earlier film. In the end, i enjoyed it, but didn't love it.

It starts with the casting and performances. Crowe and Gosling are good but lack the chemistry of Kilmer and Downey Jr. Crowe plays it fairly straight, as a stoic tough guy reminiscent of his character in LA Confidential. Gosling's performance is well....odd. He goes back and forth from hard boiled PI to zany broad physical comedian. Tonally, its just an odd performance. And along for the ride is his daughter, an all too precocious and worldly beyond her years 10 year old girl. Whilst her performance is OK, she really isn't needed and seems to act as a dramatic device when she is kidnapped or held at gunpoint by the bad guys. Also, the 'femme fatale', that is the girl they're chasing, happens to be a shrill, supremely annoying teenager with no redeeming qualities. When she meets her demise, i watched with almost glee.

The sparkling, razor sharp dialogue of KKBB is also lacking. There are some genuinely funny Shane Black-esque lines, but they're few and far between, and it helps when you have Robert Downey Jr to deliver them.

The story was altogether a bit too convoluted and messy, and i didn't really get a clear picture of the villain's motivations. The climactic shootout was also rather uninspiring and the ending rather unsatisfying. As a total package, TNG feels a little slapdash and lazy in its execution.

Look, despite my criticism i did genuinely enjoy the film. But for me it was impossible not to compare it to KKBB, and note that in every single area, this was an inferior film. Definitely worth a watch, but i was expecting so much more.

The first 4 eps really got me excited for the epic showdown between Eve and Mick, but some really poor writing in the last 2 eps harms what could have been one of the great Aussie TV series.

Lucy Fry is pretty damn great. She is vulnerable, beautiful, fragile when we first meet her, and one of the series greatest strengths is seeing her grow tougher, stronger and more self reliant. However she has to deliver some cringe lines, and some of her actions in the last eps make no sense at all. But Lucy was great, really enjoyed her character. The other characters.....not so much.

Mick is the boogeyman. An unstoppable force who just goes around indiscriminately killing anyone he comes across for no reason other than he is a killer. We get a little backstory about his childhood but this is not really enough to flesh out such a one dimensional monster. Jarrett obviously has fun with the role but he's too normal to be a mythical Jason/Michael Myers monster, yet too unbelievable to be a truly scary serial killer.

The side characters and their stories too are fairly pointless and are pure filler for the most part. Great actors like Deborah Mailman and Gary Sweet have small arcs which are completely inconsequential within the greater Eve vs Mick story. Little B-stories like the cop's relationship troubles with his wife pop up every episode and truly offer nothing but filler. We also have other poorly written characters as Jesus, the bikies, the escaped con and the list goes on. This is the weakest aspect of Wolf Creek by far.

The direction and cinematography on the other hand are superb. Every episode is filled with beautiful sweeping shots of the outback. They really captured the beauty but also the scary isolation of living in the remote parts of WA/SA/NT.

So yeah....its a mixed bag for sure. But in the end i think its definitely worth a watch. It definitely stumbles towards the end but overall it could have been a lot worse.

Bought the bluray of REC after reading so many glowing reviews. I must say i was underwhelmed when all was said and done.

at about 75 minutes, REC doesn't over stay its welcome, however its only the final quarter of the movie that really delivers the scares (fairly meagre scares at that).

The movie is filled with many plot holes. the main one being: there are a group of tenants who inhabit a building and one by one they all get infected with a mysterious disease and die/get killed off. a few of these tenants who appear prominently earlier in the film are simply forgotten by the end of the film as if they never existed. this is lazy writing. And the explanation for this chaos is frankly dumb. a priest researching a girl with a disease finds its highly contagious, so instead of killing her or at least telling the authorities, just locks her in the attic and hopes everything will work out somehow. right...and the condition itself is inconsistent, example: the cop/fireman who are infected take about 30 minutes to become psycho, whereas the little girl Jennifer appears to have been infected for days before she turns. once again lazy writing. and its never explained how the first older lady gets infected or even Max the dog. lazy writing annoys me greatly. its obvious the film makers were more concerned with those big "fright" moments than a cohesive story.

Too much shaky cam (a cheap way of creating tension and chaos i.e. excitement) is utilised, which is a pet peeve of mine, however i understand from a narrative POV this is necessary. It does tend to stretch believability though that Pablo (the cameraman who is never seen on camera) is much more concerned with capturing all this on camera than helping others or worrying about his own wellbeing. the characters all act crazy as well, there isn't one level headed person in the group, which basically means everyone just shouts and screams at each other.

For all the many faults of the film, it does deliver scares pretty effectively, especially with the climactic Silence of the Lambs homage. All in all, its a very decent horror film, albeit a very unoriginal one with some gaping plot holes and inconsistencies. i picked it up on bluray for a tenner, so I'm not regretting the purchase, but a 7/10 is the best i could rate it. Not a classic but very good.

I loved the cinematography of this film, the lighting and the stark, crisp black and white image seemed apt for the environment; the dark cold streets of the 1880's East End, streets filled with the unfortunate, the dirty, the poor. In fact, Jack the Ripper was plying his trade at the same time John Merrick was being subjected to horrified stares from folk as the Elephant Man. the cinematography by Freddie Francis was truly the hero of the film for me.

The acting as well, was of a very high caliber. of course with acting royalty on screen, your always going to get great performances. Gielgud, Hopkins, Hurt, and Bancroft all give wonderful performances. Gielgud, so measured and precise in his delivery of every syllable, Hopkins too, reflect the upper class doctor of the time. Bancroft, is just luminescent in her genuine desire to accept john as her friend. Hurt is very good as well, many may argue but i feel this is not his greatest acting role by any means though. he stammers platitudes "ohhh, that is wonderful, beautiful, lovely" etc etc. it is a very one dimensional performance. the grotesque makeup masks this lack of diversity in his acting to a great extent i feel.

The emotional simplicity of the film is its major downfall in my opinion. it feels as emotionally manipulative as a Disney film at times, with its very black and white depiction of Merricks existence. he is treated as animal, then he is treated as an honored guest, everybody treating him as a child almost in their fawning over him. every new experience is met with Merrick's stammered breathless replies "oh how wonderful, how lovely, how beautiful". there are about 10 scenes with this scenario. Merrick getting a standing ovation by the crowd of upper crust theatre-goers, whilst he sheds a tear (for what reason, for the simple fact he is deformed?) is about as emotionally manipulative as it gets. i can say i was moved, but i felt manipulated afterwards by this feel-good moment.

this does put a damper on what is otherwise an exquisitely crafted film. visuals and performances are wonderful, but the actual story and its simplistic portrayal of Merrick's emotional state mean its not a film i will be re-watching many times in the future. a very good film, but with its faults not a great one in my opinion. 7/10.

This is a surprisingly safe film for a film maker like DOR to make, and as a result of its cliché conventions, it feels like it's trying to get Oscars, rather than trying to tell this story of this family skilfully. to put it simply, its a comeback film like 'the wrestler', yet told with little of that film's subtlety, or its pathos. you get the feel good story, with some obstacles to overcome along the way. THAT'S IT.

performances are mixed. Leo is very good as the overbearing matriarch (whether its Oscar worthy is another thing), and Bales is also very good as Dicky. wahlberg on the other hand, is stoic and impotent. he drifts through each scene without owning them. I've never been a huge fan of his acting, and this confirms my lack of admiration. its like he worked more on his six pack for the role than his acting. Adams as his girlfriend is also below her best, and i am a fan of her work. but here she plays a stereotypical boston girl, full of confidence and fire, but it feels like a caricature of nearly every other bawston female we've seen in recent years.

the script really plays it safe and there is never too many surprises in the plot's development. the family drifts apart, then dicky gets clean in jail, comes back to do right with his life, mom is forgiven, everyone is happy and friendly, and in an inspiring climax mick wins the world title, in a fight that is on par with rocky for its fight choreography. for gods sake there's even a training montage with an 80's rock number playing ala rocky. whether this is meant to be ironic or not i dunno.

Going from I Heart Huckabees, an abstract, existential comedy, which was obviously not meant to reach a wide audience, to a formulaic rags to riches boxing flick which plays like its counting its Oscar noms by the minute, is just mind boggling. 3 kings displayed the talent which russell so obviously has, but his last 2 flicks have quickly buried that promise.

Leon is a great action movie, that much is unarguable. the action set pieces are handled with great aplomb by Luc Besson, who certainly has shown with previous films that he can create a beautiful film visually, especially with action scenes. And yet Leon is also a great coming of age tale, with Natalie Portman putting in a great performance in a difficult role that would be above the ability of many young actresses.

As much as i really like Jean Reno, he is not a nuanced actor. he is likable, charming in a dumb sort of way, but subtlety isn't his forte. good thing Leon is required to speak little, and basically maintain a gruff exterior and stoic facial expression the entirety of the movie...seriously, his beloved pot plant is more expressive (ok thats a tad harsh, i know). it seems besson tried to inject some quirkiness into the character (his best friend is a pot plant, he seems to exist purely on a diet of milk, he likes gene kelly etc) in order to make him more interesting an unique, but these traits seemed tacked on.

Then we go to the other end of the spectrum with Gary oldman's performance....haha, i mean WOW....great actor and I'm a fan of his overall body of work, but he so completely overacts and chews up the scenery every time he's on screen, it severely dampens my enthusiasm for the movie. every bit of body language, every word that he screeches, just sets my teeth on edge. just taking a pill (supposedly to curb his psychotic tendencies? hmm, maybe up the dosage...) involves shaking the little capsule tin up to his ear (???) then swallowing the pill, and having a full body convulsion, neck twisting while he groans loudly...i mean, a simple bodily function turns into a grand opera in oldman's hands, its ridiculous.

This ridiculousness in the acting also extends to the story, which in some moments just made me shake my head in disbelief. the climactic action scene, where it must be close to 100 swat team are trying to storm an apartment to kill one man, (oh, and using rocket launchers for gods sake) is so over the top it robs the scene of any true tension, as its all so unrealistic. there are a multitude of such stupid, unrealistic moments that i could list at least another 10 without thinking about it. anyway, the movie has some serious flaws, i think I've made that pretty clear by now.

But the Pro's do outweigh the Con's. as mentioned before Portman made the world sit up and take notice with her performance here.Between Reno's stonefaced acting, and Oldman's histrionics, sits a balanced, mature depiction of a girl on the cusp of puberty. Portman is magnetic and you cant help but fall in love with her like Leon does. So where do i sit with the whole age gap thing? to be honest its never really bothered me, bloody oldmans acting and the stories ridiculousness have always been my gripes with the movie. Portman and Reno certainly have a chemistry that works on screen, their scenes together are among the best, as their relationship grows from a father/daughter relationship to something deeper.

And as mentioned before, Besson is a brilliant visual artist, no denying that. for all the weakness of the story, the visual beauty carries the film for all its 2+ hr length. Its just a shame that the films acting and plot leave me almost laughing in disbelief at its ridiculousness. Nevertheless, id give it a 7 out of 10, as its entertaining and re-watchable.

QT is a unique director, and you just know that whatever subject matter or cinematic genre he tackles, it is going to be unique within that genre. This especially true of Inglourious Basterds. QT has crafted a wonderfully entertaining tale that doesn't seek to aim for historical accuracy, or even political correctness for that matter. But my lord is it gripping, entertaining, and plain fun. the characters do however display a mercilessness and ruthlessness; a real brutality that can be off putting, yet this is just a personal issue i had with the film.

The opening scene is a great example of the feeling, the atmosphere, and the suspense that will pervade the film for all of its 2 and a half hour running time (which incidentally, as the great films do, makes that time fly by). We meet a pivotal figure, Hans Landa, an SS super sleuth who is one of the most menacing, yet at the same time most cordial and charismatic interrogaters the screen has ever seen. his conversation with a french farmer who is hiding a Jewish family under his house, is amazing. the two men exchange pleasantries and meaningless banalities, all the while both know exactly what the other is thinking. you can see LaPadite thinking frantically, how firstly he can hide the jews, and also how he can protect his family. when it become apparent that Landa already knows every detail of his hiding, he wilts and gives up the jews in exchange for his families safety. One family member does escape however, the beautiful Shosanna, played by Melanie Laurent, who will get her revenge ultimately, but at a high price.

You could talk for hours about the first scene in the movie, such is the mastery with which its handle by QT, and such is the movie as a whole, with many memorable, and especially suspenseful scenes that would be the envy of Hitchcock. The bar scene in which Bridget von Hammersmark (played by the gorgeous Dianne Kruger) and a few nazi double agents are under suspicion by a shrewd gestapo officer is another incredibly well crafted, suspenseful scene. Once again, as he has made his trademark throughout his career, Tarantino provides great dialogue with which to ramp up the tension little by little until it reaches a boiling point. Scene by scene, the care and craft that have gone into the movie's structure elevate it above the dreck that pervades contemporary American cinema.

A small element within the film that made me uncomfortable was the ruthlessness and cruelty of the films characters, especially the Basterds. they're supposed to be the heroes of the film, yet they cruelly kill and maim their nazi foes, and show no honour nor any mercy. Eli Roth has a few brief scenes, and true to form, all his scenes revolve around gratuitous violence, whether it be bashing a nazi soldiers head in with a baseball bat, or mowing down a room full of nazi moviegoers in machine gun fire. Not to mention the role of aldo rayne was so completely overacted by Brad Pitt, his portrayal of Rayne showed the character as a slightly retarded, bloodthirsty redneck, with one of the worst southern accents I've had the displeasure of hearing. and also the backstory of Stiglitz wasn't adequately explained - a nazi officer who for some reason decided to go a homicidal rampage and start killing every gestapo officer he could find? no explanation was given for his motive and i found this really bugged me. and the other 5 or so basterds were given no story nor any screen time, so they were essentially props. So in short, as you can see, the basterds were the weak link of the movie in my opinion.

But overall, this is but a small part of an otherwise excellent production. The exquisite acting of Kruger, Laurent, Waltz, Bruhl, and most of the European cast was a joy to behold, and i was once again enamored with Tarantino's unique directorial vision. Huge recommendation from me, QT has done it again.