Reviews

There are times when too much of what was once a good thing can become overkill, and that's exactly what happens in Rebel Moon. Zack's slow motion moves gave 300 an added edge especially in the action scenes, but now it is in danger of becoming a parody. Why the urge to have slow mo shots in even non-action scenes, e.g. Hugging, planting a flag? And even in action scenes, doesn't Zack get it by now that, too much of an ingredient can actually spoil the taste? I'd wanna watch action scenes flowing smoothly, and while I don't mind the occasional slow mo, having one too many just yanks at the adrenalin build-up within that scene.

Underneath Rebel Moon is a plot and narrative with good potential. Maybe the next Dune or Star Wars. Unfortunately this is wasted with poor acting, and poor character and plot development.

Having a wooden lead in Sofia Boutella, who fails to project a commanding screen presence is probably the biggest bug. This is nowhere near her turnout in Star Trek, which was probably her best screen role to date.

While there are some big names in the acting department, most of them have inconsequential screen time other than when they are showing off their respective fighting skills when called into duty by Boutella's Kora. For e.g. Djimon Hounsou's General Titus is supposed to be a fearsome and skilled warrior, but I can't even recall his fight scenes. It's the same with the rest of the team that make up the rebel warriors, they end up being remembered more for their painted faces or exposed upper body. The final battle scene too, doesn't last long enough to register; in fact, the one scene that I thought was worth the effort was when Donna Bae's Nemesis faced off Harmada. But after that, Nemesis too, slips into the background.

The few moments that lit up the screen was when Charlie Hunnam and Ed Skrein were on it. Hunnam's experience probably helped elevate an otherwise short screen time who pretty much stepped into the background until the final moments. Whereas Skrein chews it away with relish playing the baddie, carrying it off as well as he did with his Zapan in Alita Battle Angel. Take these two away, and the rest of the cast are mostly forgettable.

And, what's with Irish brogue? Gee whizz, this is supposed to be taking place in a galaxy far, far away, and yet, they sound like they're hanging out at the streets of Dublin? Why mess up whatever dose of realism that exists?

Rebel Moon has potential, and while I'm not sure how Pt 2 is gonna turn out, but if it's more of the same as in Pt 1, then it's not going to give us anything fresh or new.

And that means we don't really have anything to look forward to.

IF this was made in the early days of superhero franchises, say when Iron Man first came out, then it might have stood out. Unfortunately Aquaman 2 has to bear the burden of having to follow through the recent flops and/or mixed bag of superhero output from both MCU/DCEU.

James Wan doesn't offer anything new under sky; a baddie who wants revenge - saw that in the Marvels. Sibling tension? Saw that in Thor. Supposedly all powerful, final-baddie who then gets thumped easily? Saw that in Black Adam. By now, there's such an air of familiarity in superhero fares, that I think it' gonna take a complete shift in narrative/plots to offer audiences a fresh take.

Jason Momoa's charisma and screen presence is basically the backbone of the movie and it pretty much carries it through. His timing, especially humour, is spot on, while his Aquaman is also convincingly authoritative. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II's somewhat wasted here. A capable actor, but he's reduced to portraying a stock baddie out for revenge, while his right arm, Stingray, is as one dimensional as they come. Plus it doesn't help that the actress who plays Stingray is kinda cardboard too.

I find Randall Park, while dependable, nevertheless still plays Randall Park from other movies/Tv shows. You've seen his character in Blockbuster, or in the mcu outfits.

Don't have any complaints on Amber Heard or Nicole Kidman, but they don't have enough screen time to make much of an impact. But I have to admit, I did wonder, what if Nicole played Capt. Marvel instead of Brie? I think I would have bought into it a lot faster. Kidman's talent is such that, even small screen time doesn't stop her from exuding enough screen presence to make her contribution count.

Which leaves me with Patrick Wilson. His portrayal of Orm is brilliant, suffusing the character with the tension his inner conflicts have with his motives - "do I live in hate, or do I forgive?" The fact that Wilson achieves this without any acting histrionics but leaves his angst just right above the surface, just enough for us to feel it, is probably the standout feature of Aquaman and Lost Kingdom. I think he kinda redeemed himself from the poor and dumb Moonfall.

I hope James Gunn will be able to create not only a new trajectory for DCEU, but an entire different take on superhero movies. While Aquaman 2 is entertaining enough to fill your 2h, it's also a by the numbers' effort. Not something you and I will live to remember.

What's the point of having some top character acting crew, only to waste it on a meandering plot that concludes nowhere, resolves nothing, and leaves you with the questions you asked at the beginning?

About a quarter into the movie's time, it started to display it's affinity for the M. Night Shyamalan's school of story telling; ambiguous characters, a weird kid, isolated neighbourhood, inexplicable animal behaviour, philosophical rantings about the state of humans and the world. Now, we all know M. Night lost himself when he started to wander off too far into that type of sort mode; think Lady in the Water, The Happening and After Earth.

And this is what happens in Leave the world behind. To add to the lacklustre atmosphere, the soundtrack can't seem to decide if it wants to be a horror movie, or an Alfred Hitchcock suspense type, or a dystopian tale.

In the acting dept, only Roberts & Ali seem to pull in their socks with some decent effort. Hawke, on the other hand, is quite wasted here, since the direction hardly requires him to flex his character driven capabilities. Bacon's screen time is too short to make any meaningful contribution. Add all this up, and you wonder what was all this about. I doubt any of them needed the pay check.

There are some decent special fx involving the animals, ships and planes, which to me, is about the only attractive part of the movie. But that alone won't save you from feeling why you wasted 2 hour watching this.

How does one try to top a first movie that was exceptionally good? Well, for one, give viewers an overdose of what made the original such a good watch. And in Spider-Man:Across the Spider-Verse, it's just loaded with an overkill of hip hop and comic book style story telling.

Just to be sure, Across the Spider-verse is a good movie, and a worthy follow up to the first. While filled with the usual Spiderman trope such as teen - superhero angst, or, "with great responsibility comes great power", it makes up the rest of the narrative with exceptional emotive content, backed up by over the top animation and use of comic style colours, and spot-on voice acting.

What I feel the directors and writers should have done is to curb their impulse to indulge on the soundtrack - especially hip hop, and the use of comic book style. There's a song for practically every scene change for the first thirty or so minutes. While this dissipates as the movie progresses, it doesn't altogether disappear.

But it's the over-use of comic style framing and captioning that gets in the way of letting the viewer to gently seep it in, especially during the action scenes, which are already playing out at break neck speed; it just becomes overwhelming after a while, to keep pace when there's an overload of come book caption boxes or screen splits. It's makes it hard to keep track of who's who, and where's where. Perhaps the directors and writers are aware of this, and that could explain the two hours and twenty minute length of the movie; they just had to find time through the overload to find additional time to allow the narrative to flow through.

But if your eyes and brains could adjust to the pace of things being flashed out on the screen, then there's no reason for you not to enjoy Across the Spider-verse; it's emotional core is strong enough to keep you invested all the way to the end, and ultimately to anticipate the sequel.

I can't quite get attached to this. Having grown up on Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot and Murder She Wrote, I wanted a murder mystery that had some semblance to these shows. And I was hoping OMITB would live up to that. Initially, I did have my doubts - how could two comic actors provide the edge needed for such genre? I'm thinking how effective Benedict Cumberbatch was in his take on Holmes.

Well, doubts are proven true. OMITB feels more like a vehicle for Martin and Short, built with trademark comedic elements peculiar to both of them, in which the murder mystery feels more like a support act rather than the framework on which the show ought to be built upon. There's also too much introspection on the part of characters, some of which doesn't add anything substantive to the plot. And that part with Sting? What is that? How was his character even necessary to the plot? It just gets mired in silliness. I'm surprised the legend from The Police was even willing to take part in such a portrayal. He certainly doesn't need the paycheque.

The acting's generally ok, you get what you've always expected from Martin, Short, and Nathan Lane. On that, even Sting pulls his weight through, despite the limitation on his self portrayal. For a singer who hasn't acted much after his Dune days, his timing remains spot on. On the other hand, Selena Gomez looks and feels lame, it's like she could only come up with a single expression delivered in a monotone, in each episode. You wish she'd take up some acting lessons to at least convey a modicum of emotions instead of looking blank.

Nope, I won't venture into S2.

I just finished Ep 10, which, going by many of the viral comments on the internet, is one of the best moments on modern day tv. But before that, I was already hooked to Andor from the get go, simply because it dares to take a level of risk that hardly existed in the SW world. For that matter, a SW galaxy that had become a ridiculous parody of what was once, a mighty franchise.

Yes, there can be a SW series that doesn't depend on what's the latest Skywalker guilt trip, light sabre duels, or even the Force. Andor instead, pays valuable attention to character and plot development, and acting. Yes, there are brilliant moments of special effects, but it's the individual characters that make you keep coming back. That's how starved we've been of good TV fare.

And the acting. Words aren't enough to describe the tour de force performance displayed by the likes of Andy Serkis, Stellan Skarsgård, Diego Luna, Genevieve O'reilly. Their delivery of dialogue and facial expressions convey all that we need to know about the pain and sacrifice that make up the Rebellion.

But Ep 10 takes the cherry, for me, for now. Just watch Andy Serkis' Kino say, "I can't swim", or Stellan's Luthen deliver his monologue on sacrifice, and be utterly amazed. This is acting and movie making par excellence. They should be seriously be given awards. The director, producer and script writer too.

For all the flak that Disney has received on some of its recent fares, it's good to know that there are still some in the company who help keep the faith. Andor is probably Disney+'s best attempt todate.

What started out fairly well, gets mired with poor editing and an apparent rush to the finale, in the last 30 minutes. I don't have complaints in the acting department in those first 60 minutes, with most of the actors and actresses puling off convincingly what was required of them from the script.

Up until those final 30 minutes, the story had a decent pace, well developed characters and a plot that you could kinda buy in to. I also felt good at seeing the usually great and dependable Beau Bridges, having not seen him on screen for some time.

The movie does come with a twist; although, since we've been fed for the past 30 odd years on unexpected endings from the likes of Usual Suspects, Se7en and Sixth Sense, the veteran movie goer would have been able to predict the ending halfway through the movie.

It still wasn't bad, but in that last act, I started wondering if the producers ran out of budget. Sloppy editing and bad dialogue ended up making even veterans like Latifah and Bridges look awful; what were the scriptwriters thinking when they had Latifah - playing a nurse - take down 4 or 5 thugs by using head butts and kicks? It then goes on to fail in almost every other department that marks low budget straight to video flicks, things that you were probably told to avoid if you attended a decent movie-making school.

To be consumed only if you are down to a boring weekend.

The good part it, most of the expensive money spent on Rings of Power shows well on the production and set design, the costumes, the architecture. One does need to commend the producers for doing their best to create the complex Tolkien-ish world that is Middle Earth.

Unfortunately, that doesn't quite save ROP from being bland. For me, one of the things that made Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy so good was that, they managed to create suspense, thrill and excitement through out. This, despite the fact that most of us knew how the story was going to end. Those of us who've read the story before watching the movies, knew what's going to happen to the characters, yet, we never stopped biting our finger nails as the story unfolds in the movies.

ROP fails to create that tension, even though for the most part, it's new material and - I'm guessing - the creative team was allowed a largely free hand to expand the story.

I think part of the fault lies in having too many characters to contend with, in the space of only 8 episodes. I find the addition of the Harfoot's story trajectory takes up too much time and totally unnecessary, especially at this juncture in Middle Earth's chronology. It feels like their addition has more to do with having a link with the hobbits of LOTR, although the script does give them meat. Still, it takes away much precious time from the development of other characters, for e.g Elrond - a central character in the history of Middle Earth. Consider this: Elrond appears in Ep 1 and 2, doesn't appear in Ep 3, and shows up again in Ep 4. If only more time had been spent on developing Middle Earth's important characters - from Gilgalad to Celembridor to Elrond to Durin etc, maybe then there would have been better attachment towards the plot.

I don't quite buy-in to Morfydd Clark's portrayal of Galadriel as a pompous, hot headed elvish fighter. It's feels so distant from Cate Blanchett's version, who's Galadriel exuded wisdom, patience and benevolence. It does speak of Blanchett's immense talent, that, while her Galadriel didn't occupy a lot of scenes in LOTR, yet she managed to captivate audiences as her ethereal and regal quality.

As for action scenes, none so far could match those of LOTR or even the Hobbit trilogy. Even the attack by a sea monster in Ep 2 doesn't quite excite, especially since one hardly gets to see the creature! Even the language suffers from inconsistencies; what's with all this brogue pronouncing of "Morr-dor", "Numenorr", which wasn't there in LOTR or the Hobbit? Did anyone think how that looks for continuity?

ROP feels stuck between the place of matching the highs of the book and Jackson's trilogy, and of character and content development. For all the money poured in creating a visually impressive set, one'd wish that the producers had also given thought about proper plot and character development.

I had high expectations for this, while waiting for Del Toro's version. Plus, it's not often a movie does wrong with Tom Hanks in it.

Unfortunately, this Disney remake isn't one of it. It feels too much of a paint-by-numbers effort; you get the feeling that, both live and voice actors are walking in to the set to do a job, rather than infuse it with passion for one of animation's all time classic. This also affects the songs, which are back bone to the Pinocchio tale. The warmth and enthusiasm in the original is sorely lacking. It doesn't help that the casting people chose actors or actresses that don't quite seem right for the role. One example is Cynthia Erivo as the fairy godmother. Her appearance seems more like a revisionist addition rather than enhancing the story; I mean, she looks like a dancer straight out of some MTV video rather than someone who lends credence to fairytale settings - as fairy godmothers do in other movies.

This ain't one of Disney's best hour.

The original Watch Out We're Mad was my entry point to the funny but entertaining world of Messrs Bud Spencer and Terence Hill. Subsequent movies comprising the two (or any one of them) became a staple of my growing up years, forming part of the family TV time.

What made the earlier movies work was the fact that Hill and Spencer had equal amount of screen chemistry and charm. This was compounded by their contradicting looks and demeanour, but it also contributed to their onscreen success. Hill with his dashing, handsome-blue-eyed-but-never-naive look, while Spencer's oversized gruff, leave-me-alone counterpart played the foil. Their characters often got together due to circumstances which pulls them into action, usually initiated by half-witted baddies who make the mistake of getting in the way of - and underestimating - our lovable heroes, and end up on the receiving end of some punishing and ridiculous slam-bam, which then provide most of the laughs.

This remake has none of the chemistry between the leads nor the laughs needed to simply sit and laugh our hearts out. The plot is more or less a carbon copy of the original, and both Edoardo Pesce and Alessandro Roja attempt to turn on the individual charms of Spencer and Hill respectively, only to fall flat. Peace could not replicate Spencer's trademark aloofness and Roja of Hill's romantic charm. After awhile it becomes tedious to try and sit through, knowing well that it's gonna be near impossible for the leads to replicate memories that evoke - or even better - of that of Hill & Spencer. Gave up without finishing the movie.

This is where Italian movies could learn from their Hollywood counterpart:- Never try to replicate the genius found in the original; 'tis better to work your way by creating your own charm, even if you do borrow the plot.

Seriously, do action movies have to compete with the likes of Godfather, to get decent reviews? Why is that John Wick or Damon's Bourne, as unreal as they were, get good scores while The Gray Man has to put up a fight to get a good report card?

Ok, so it's a gourmet combo made up of elements of Bourne, Wick, Bond, and countless other over-the-top action movies. But why should it be made feel guilty for that? I mean, we all cheered the other movies way back from Die Hard, no matter now corny they were, so what's the gripe if Gray Man borrowed from its predecessors, and churned, what turns out to be a highly entertaining movie?

Great SFX, and camera work. A thrill a moment of a ride. Ridiculous plot - I get it. But that hardly differentiates it from the rest of the marbles already in the bag.

Plus, the actors look like they're having fun. Ok, on that account perhaps give a pass to Billy Bob Thornton, who plays Billy Bob from other movies like Fast. But the rest are invested well enough to keep us glued right to the end. Ryan Gosling could play a 100 year old tree and still elicit enough emotion to make you sense that's there's a lot more underneath his disinterested demeanour; Chris Evans hams up his bad guy role without making you feel he's hamming it up. And you know he's hamming it up cos his 'stache makes him resemble an 80s Freddie Mercury; who grows that kinda facial weed in the 21st century? And Ana De Armas remains reliable as she has in her previous acts, further cementing her ability to traverse both dramatic and action roles with ease.

This is the quintessential action pop-corn movie. That's all there is to it. None of the heavy philosophy ala Dune or the hoo-rah machoism of Maverick. Yes, you can park your brains safely outside the movie hall, and still feel helluva satisfied when you go back home. And sometimes, that's all we want after a hard day's work.

By now, if you're into Harlen Coben, you'll kinda know what to expect:- twists, intertwined plots and characters, with a conclusion that throws in the whole kitchen sink where it all fits together.

The problem with that is if the script doesn't pace the plot development evenly, then there'll be moments where it feels things are being rushed, especially the last 2 episodes. This is true for Strangers. What starts with an even pace ends up climaxing with key characters coming around to offer their reasoning for their course of action, especially the stranger. In making all the pieces of the puzzle fit within a short space of time, the stranger's reason raison d'être seems somewhat laborious and stretching.

It's entertaining enough, and generally the cast pull their weight in. Kudos especially to Siobhan Finneran who injects her DS Johanna with just about the right amount of police tension and emotional pathos. Shout out too to Richard Armitage, who once again effectively portrays the tortured soul as he did in another Coben flick, Stay Close. On another unrelated matter, the producers of James Bond should consider Armitage as the next Bond; he does have the looks, and going by his royal portrayal of Thorin, he does have the charisma.

Fresh story line although it does take its time to build up, and I mean you've gotta be real patient to see through it. Much of that is helped by Spacek & JK Simmons. It's their effective delivery of body language, facial movement, repartee and the emotional pain their characters carry, that makes up the core of Night Sky. The other actors are decent enough with what the script requires from them, but it's the veteran duo all the way.

Having said that, I think the plot could have used some faster pacing; there are many moments where it keeps meandering between scenes without much resolution. For the most part, it's bereft of action, which keeps the excitement level down; the viewer has to wait until an episode's end to arrive at the nail-biting scene. Even then, many questions are left unanswered, for e.g. When Toni asks her mother Stella about what is it that they are doing, Stella's explanation comes in bits and pieces, leaving the audience to wonder why Toni doesn't ask for more information? I'd wish the writers of Night Sky would have gone for a more resolved approach, say, ala Stranger Things. It could have well compensated for the slow paceline.

Well, after the reveal of season one's conclusion, maybe it'll improve on that department.

You'd think that, for all the waiting that was there for Obi Wan Kenobi, the movie makers would have made some attempt to infuse fresh trajectory for the Star Wars universe. Now, I realise there's also a need to maintain continuity so that it leads to A New Hope.

But why rehash plot devices that we have already seen for the past 45 years? It's there - heroes who avoid getting shot by badly aiming storm troopers in the middle of ... err... stormy battles; bad acting by the bad guys (Sung Kung's fifth brother resembles a grouchy pot instead of fearsome dark lord), bad acting by the good guys (Vivian Lyra's Leai and Moses Ingram's Reva, although for Ingram, I suspect it has more to do with a poor script).

The cameo efforts by veterans resemble a weekend chore to make some bucks, instead of adding anything meaningful to the plot. Dialogues still sound corny, something that we can forgive the Star Wars of old, because they gave back us so much more in return. Weak plot development - how did Obi Wan evolve from wimpy old man to his brilliant, Jedi self after just one space flight?

Vivian Lyra's plays a bratty young girl Leai. I suspect that was to give the impression that young Leia is as feisty as older Leia. But was it necessary, especially when Lyra looks out of her depth at playing bratty, sensitive, brave, stubborn - all at once?

Now, it's not all bad, the acting does get salvaged by McGregor & Edgerton. Especially Edgerton's portrayal of Owen. His eyes alone are enough to reveal the world weariness within him, without having to say much. That he achieves this even though he spends a sum adding up to only minutes for the entire 6 episodes, speaks of his talent.

It's also refreshing to see Hayden return as Vader, considering his performances in Ep.2-3 were slammed. But he has matured as an actor, doing enough to give credence to Vader's reputation as one of the most feared villains in movie universe.

And the light saber duels were a few notches up from the last major battle - between Rey and Kylo in Ep. 9.

But my point is - did this series achieve anything new for Star Wars? Nope. And if this remains the mode of thinking by Disney, then I'm not sure if further sequels are gonna make a difference.

Fun & humorous ride that's filled with of homages to Indiana Jones, Angry Bird, Lion King, Empire Strikes Back. Look closely and you'll also catch some Easter eggs.

What's good about it is that, despite borrowing 'ideas' from above movies, it does create original characters that get you invested. Especially Abe, the perpetually pessimistic turtle who views circumstances through the empty half section of the glass. But boy oh boy, does his wise cracks provide a big chunk of the laughs!

My gripe is the central, but ever recurring theme among animations, of self - discovery, i.e. The journey of chickenhare who discovers that he's, 'different' from others. Why do animations keep using this theme? It's has become annoying. For all of its ingenuity and smartness at weaving a story with the homages, chickenhare doesn't hesitate to use this plot device. And that to me, keeps it from at least an 8.

To paraphrase one of Pataky's hubby's line in the movie.

It's a testimony, really, of the monumental legacy that Die Hard has had. Every Hollywood generation pays homage to it, and that's what Interceptor's about. But the low budget ends up turning it into a parody instead.

Bad CGI + acting + sfx, corny plot devices - it's all there. Hard to believe Hemsworth put his hard earned money into this. Even the end credits look like they've been produced using an 80s Windows PC in green monochrome; it must be where the producers were down to their last nickel.

Pataky is no action lead; most of the time, her expressions come out as forced. Apart from the other 'big' names (Friels, Bracey) the rest of the supporting cast put up their amateur acting skills on glorious display; seeing the White House team at the command centre makes me ask," which home depo site were these extras picked up from"? A bad script makes them stay glued in the same position they are through out the movie, with most of them only glancing at each other to earn the day's wage.

So, why do I still give it a 4 star, when maybe like many, I should tank this to a 2 or 1 star?

Cos of Bracey. For what it's worth, he shows up for work, putting up a display that at least tells us, he's in it. Even though I also get this feeling he's aware that it's a sinking script. He manages to inject his villain with just about enough conviction to make me wanna stay to see off the movie's conclusion. Couple with Helmsworth's cameo, those are the only convincing turnouts. Even veteran Friels looks out of whack - "why am I doing cheesy lines? Oh well, if it pays the bills..."

Oh well, at least there's still Thor for the Hemsworth family album.

And I mean that, about being forgettable.

I think very few people - if any - would remember TG: Maverick in years to come. That includes those who gave it a 10/10 rating; was it cos' they came out of watching Wiseau's The Room? Usually, dogfights make the movie stay in audiences' memory long after it disappears from the box office (e.g Blue Thunder); unfortunately, Maverick doesn't give us classic battle scenes.

The 80s Top Gun made an impact because it was a cultural statement, especially during the Cold War / east vs west thing. It was a time when the world by and large bought in to the Hollywood hype that only America could save the world and the Russians, Arabs were the bad guys. It was the era of Rocky vs Drago, Rambo vs the commies.

TG also announced the arrival of the cocky screen persona of a young Tom Cruise as a global Hollywood brand, who went on to solidify that persona and his box office cred in subsequent movies. It also didn't have to compete with a generation of high octane, SPFX powered superhero movies, so a movie filled with somewhat bland dogfights could still get away with it. Then, there was also the evolution of Cruise as an actor who sought to move away from a teeny-bop poster boy, with movies like Born on the Fourth of July, Few Good Men. With the Mission Impossible franchise, he went on to achieve the near impossible - intelligent action movies that consistently satisfy both critics & audiences.

Maverick doesn't belong in that league. It's a decent enough watch if you don't have much to do on a lazy Sunday afternoon, but beyond that, it doesn't add anything new as a sequel. Throw in the 80s soundtrack - and I'm guessing this was to attract nostalgic audiences who grew alongside Cruise's movies.

As its predecessor, Maverick doesn't try to punch above its weight as pop corn fare. Where it fails to satisfy largely boils down to the fact that its dogfight scenes are nothing to shout about; old F-18s that attempt the impossible by approaching Mach 9/10. The camerawork and battle angles don't give you any edge of the seat moments. The only exciting scene was the opener, where Maverick pilots a B-2 bomber-like experimental plane to exceed Mach 10. If they had stuck with that same jet in the finale, then maybe I'd felt differently. But the F-18s didn't have that same punch in your gut sensation, so the finale turns out to be a lame bomb-the-enemy exercise.

Couple that with cliched plot material & movie dialogue, or characters that occupy space to fill up time in between action scenes, and Maverick missed an opportunity to reinvent the dogfight movie. An unnamed enemy, hoo-ra dialogue, machoism, uptight admirals who always wanna clamp the hero, guilt & family ties - it's all there; evidence that the script went through the same run of the mill Hollywood factory. Well known character actors like Jon Hamm or Jennifer Connelly are pretty much A-list wall decos who's characters don't add value to the plot; especially for an Oscar winner like Connelly, you wonder why she accepted a pedestrian role with lame dialogue that could have been played by lesser known actresses. Guess the production team wanted big names to give credence to Maverick. Most of the actors' emotional projection - including Cruise's - seem laboured and unconvincing.

Only Miles Teller manages to inject some emotional depth into his Rooster; the loss of his father and the tension it creates with Maverick, is well projected by Teller, despite the fact that this too, belongs to the cliched school of movie plots. It reinforces my sentiment on Teller and just how good he is as an actor - he always gives 100% - whether or not the movie itself stinks. I'm hoping that he'll nab an Oscar one day. My only issue with his Rooster was - what's with the 80s moustache? In any event, Teller's moustachioed appearance bears an uncanny resemblance to Paul Newman's Gen. Leslie Groves in Shadow Makers - check it out.

To conclude, if you wanna a TC fare that you can constantly go back to, then go watch MI. Or even Collateral. Leave Maverick for rainy days streaming.

This should have gotten better treatment at the box office, and certainly better reviews. In 2019, practically much of the world was caught up with the wars of Thanos in Endgame. But for me, Midway delivers so much more where nail biting action is concerned. It doesn't make the mistake that Endgame made, which was to throw in everything - and the kitchen sink - in the final battle scene where every other MCU hero shows up, but only a few get meaningful screen time. I thought it was messy.

Midway never makes that mistake, although - like Endgame - a lot is happening in its action scenes. That's because for the most part, the narrative remains focused on what matters most for this movie, which are the dogfights and bombings, and how Intelligence officers provided the US Navy with crucial information. I'm not sure what the gripe is on the CGI - it's convincing enough to me. Throw in skilful cinematography, editing and a well paced dialogue - and we get what we paid for.

Emmerich's style can be a hit and run affair. While the spectacle he creates has become predictable, you can come out of the cinema after watching his movies, feeling either money and time were well spent, or why-did-I-waste-time-on-this. Moonfall is an example of the latter.

Midway, though, belongs in the former, right up there with Independence Day.

The acting is decent, including Nick Jonas who surprises me. I mean, how many make a convincing crossover from a singing career to a decent actor? Every other actor/actress playing a key role embellishes his/her character with the right amount of tension, pathos and conviction that draws you to them and the plot.

The other good part about Midway is that, it also offers you the perspective of the Japanese - how they are drawn into the war, the doubts they have about taking the might of America while retaining conviction that what they did was right. At the very least, Midway reminds you there were real heroes who fought, liberated and died to give peace to the world, and that you don't need overblown costumed superhero movies to entertain you.

But it lacks emotional core of previous Mani Ratnam efforts. This review is like decades late, but I finally got around to see it, especially every now and then the song tune play inside my head. So I just had to see what's the background for a great soundtrack.

When you've come out from watching Mani Ratnam's other monumental efforts like Nayagan or Thalapathi, you'd expect similar emotional turbo from subsequent outputs by the movie maker. Unfortunately, no. Partly due to the story itself, which revolves around a love relationship between newly weds played by Around and Madhoo with the background of terrorism in Kashmir. Somehow I didn't quite latch on to that as I did with the former efforts. A love story in the snowy mountains of Kashmir that face a terrorist threat, somehow felt forced. Hence, the dialogue that followed; it just felt somewhat unreal. As a result, one could not expect much emotional attachment to the central characters, although, every one of the actors and actresses do their best with what is given to them. Compare this with Nayagan and Thalapathi, where the story is enhanced by its central characters played by Kamal Hasan and Rajnikanth respectively, combined with great story telling and soundtrack, and you can understand why Roja falls short.

But when a documentary is titled "Final Act", then you'd expect revelatory insights into Freddie's final years & moments alive. Hardly. Instead, what we get are repeats of interviews & snippets that you already would have seen in other documentaries or Youtube. Most of what is portrayed doesn't offer us anything we don't already know.

Sadly, much this documentary also comes off as an apologist act for Freddie's life choices. While feeling sad for his demise, a better balance would be to recognise that he ultimately was a victim of his own decision to live hard and fast and ignore warning signs when HIV began taking off. Freddie lived in the fast lane - like many of his peers in the rock world. Unfortunately, it caught up to him.

This documentary ignores that, choosing instead to focus on the plight of Freddie & other AIDS victims & the negative portrayal of gays associated with the disease. I get that. After 30-40 years of fighting HIV infections and raising awareness, we get it - there are real victims in the cause. But how bout being honest and also admitting that many people - like Freddie - do get AIDS because they ignored the dangers?

In the words of George Michael during Freddie's tribute concert - "...please, for your own sake, be careful..." It appears this documentary ignores that message.

Wouldn't it have been of greater service to Freddie's memory if the documentary actually focused on that? So, if you want a more honest look at the man Freddie Bulsara - warts and all, then watch the movie. Or the BBC documentary "Who Wants To Live Forever".

I like Jason Momoa. To me, he fits in right up there with The Rock - an action hero with decent acting chops. Plus, there's screen presence. While Rock has pretty much made a name for himself as an actor who can carry the weight of movies upon his shoulders, this still remains to be seen for Jason. Despite the success of his DC made entries, the rest of movies he headlined have meandered around poor box office success (think Braven). I doubt Sweet Girl would reverse that. In Sweet Girl, while Momoa wears that I'm-your-average-Joe-actionman badge as in Braven, the plot of Sweet Girl is patchy. Part of this has to do with the sterile acting from the supporting cast. There's just nothing to connect them with the audience, other than what feels like a play-by-numbers by unknowns. Even veteran Amy Brenneman looks one dimensional in her delivery, albeit she doesn't occupy considerable screen time. My caveat though, is Isabella Merced. She delivers enough emotional weight & does her action scenes believably. And has enough chemistry with Momoa to support the movie, but just barely.

That's because the rest of the movie is let down by the delivery of its plotline. It drags itself from scene to scene, which is compounded by time fast forwards that felt like the director was doing it on purpose with the sole intent of simply skipping to the next thing on the script.

The saving grace for me though, was the twist at the ending. Without it, I'd only score a 5. At the same time I wondered after the ending, was the plot made to feel drabby because of the twist? Having said that, while I'd think the twist could rank alongside some of the better movies twists of past years, yet, I can't help but wonder about the scientific reasoning behind it. There's no explanation as to the why.

The action scenes were often near misses, only to be rescued by the last half an hour, which to me had a more purposeful delivery than to merely occupy the plot for the sake of occupying it.

I do hope that both Momoa & Merced get better vehicles in future. They certainly have enough talent to deserve that much.

Goodness! I've always had a soft spot for Richard Dreyfuss all the way back to Close Encounters of the Third Kind. He just had this charm in him, his characters almost always give out a snickering smile even when the situation's serious. It's there in Jaws, Nuts, Goodbye Girl etc. And when I saw Dreyfuss' name headline this revenge actioner, I told myself, "this, I wanna see." I didn't doubt he could pull it off.

And truth be told, his Ben Myers does carry some weight of conviction. But that's about where the good stuff ends. Well, Mira Sorvino & Pruit Taylor Vince do throw in whatever character-acting chops they have into their scenes, but everything else falls into the category of Bruce Willis' latest cinematic hobby - straight to dvd territory. Bad lighting, patchy camera work, & sloppy editing. I could hardly believe that two Oscar winners in Dreyfuss & Sorvino landed into this mess. Taylor Vince included. What were they thinking? Or do they need to find new agents? Throw in other amateur actors whose screen demeanour quickly reveals that much, and you wonder, just what path did Dreyfuss take to come to this place at this stage in his career? I sure hope he doesn't tread the Bruce Willis path.

I was expecting a lot in a movie helmed by John David Washington, especially after Tenet. The trailer gave hope that Beckett could be exciting. Unfortunately, no. The plot had potential to build into an appetising, Hitchcockian thriller. Instead, it ended up jumping from one scene to another with hardly any emotive attachment. Even the romantic narrative at the beginning fell flat. I think this is due to the fact that some of the central characters - apart from Beckett - don't have a lot of screen time. Eg. Vikander's April is only in about 20 mins; ditto to Boyd's Tynan. Sad, 'cos their screen presence could have helped the audience to resonate longer with the story. What we get instead are unknown actors and actresses playing the meatier support roles, but this just fails to translate the thrill across. By the time you start to live with that, then the plot gets muddled; what is it about? Were Beckett's travails due to politics? Gangster wars? There's some explanation towards the end - but you still end up going, "huh?" The director could have also tried to inject a bit more realism, especially onto the action scenes. E.g. A severely injured Beckett could still put up fights against armed baddies, escaping from the jaws of death more than once. It should have been framed more like the scenes involving Richard Kimble in The Fugitive, as opposed to a combatant Joe Ordinary that Beckett becomes. It just doesn't click. Acting wise, it's average; Washington & the rest do just enough to finish at crossing line.