Reviews

This Oscar-nominated German comedy may have gained favour amongst others, but failed to leave me captivated through its' depiction of politics, pranks and dysfunctional families.

The film views a snapshot of the life of Winfried Conradi - a music teacher and life-long prankster who, upon the death of his beloved canine companion, decides to visit his estranged daughter (Ines Conradi, played by Sandra Hüller) in Bucharest for her birthday.. leading to her horror as an alter-ego - 'Toni Erdmann' - begins causing a nuisance at various events as he follows her around (in an attempt to both embarrass and connect with her).

The premise of the film - though not riveting - sounds decent enough; a moving father/daughter tale with some jokes lodged in there. The screenplay, though well-written and humorous at times, came across (perhaps purposefully-) awkward and dull - somewhat lacking in that natural fluidity that many alternative comedies manage to achieve. This could be, in part, due to its' long-winded (almost 3 hour) screen-time (not many pictures can pull that off!).

Sandra Hüller was actually rather good in her role - though I struggled to want to reach her entry to the film as it started so slowly I could happily have nodded off. Once in full swing, Toni Erdmann was actually quite nicely paced, showing well how irritating, over-bearing and infuriating Winfried makes his daughter (bad-dad dancing doesn't cut it!) who, though softens to him toward the closing credits, really doesn't want her father to be a part of her world.

My main compliment here is that it is unashamedly silly whilst contributing some underlining moving, melancholic elements - something popular this season at cinemas (think Manchester by the Sea). Dutch director, Maren Ade, may well have been caught up in the ridiculousness and satire of her whole creation though - which sometimes worked but at other times were left stale.

Some fairly good characters and fairly good dialogue, this tragedy/comedy caught me off guard with its' seemingly-uncharacteristically serious elements - as Ines begins to let down her defences, I felt that so did I.

Though perhaps a controversial opinion, I can't really say I would give Toni Erdmann the time of day again; not a tragic effort but one best left at one time only viewing. Although I appreciate a foreign language film generating a bit of buzz, and liked their attempt at bringing things back to basics, I couldn't vouch for it past 'it's not bad'.

https://showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/

Better than expected, a not-too-shabby attempt at yet another (insert eye-roll here) King Kong picture, starring Tom Hiddleston, John C. Reilly and the beloved Samuel L. Jackson.

Predominantly set in 1973, the flick follows a purpose-built team of soldiers, scientists and stragglers as they head for the undiscovered Skull Island in search of the unknown. Here they stumble upon a beast trapped on the island known as Kong - a potentially misjudged anti-hero.

Highly-anticipated by many, this sequel was - in my mind - always going to be either a complete masterpiece or bucketful of disappointment. To my surprise(/delight/sadness), it turned out to be neither. Whilst on the most part I would praise its' solid cinematography (some beautiful landscape and action shots), as well as Kongs' expert-use of CGI throughout, these couldn't save it from what appeared to me a watered-down premise with fortune-cookie-clichés being pulled out of a hat and inserted into every appropriate crevice.

The acting standard as a whole is admittedly not bad - I have to give particular nod to Samuel L Jackson for finally producing a well played-out character (seriously, name me a role he's played well since Django Unchained and I'll be a monkey's uncle) - but I can't particularly criticise much of the performances throughout. Toby Kebbell (yes, that guy that's been in everything recently that you never remember the name of) and Brie Larson were probably the most bland - with Tom Hiddleston outshining most of his fellow cast members.

The fight scenes were indeed the most entertaining part - well-timed, well thought-out and, at times, epic! Other than a slight overuse of slow-motion features, and a couple of ridiculous shots, I honestly quite enjoyed seeing not only the fights with Kong himself but the other internal exchanges (no spoilers, I promised!).

Also, entirely blameless of the creators, but yet another movie this season with the insertion of JFK, Vietnam and 60's culture was really not needed (sorry guys!). Despite this, it redeemed itself slightly with some fairly enjoyable music throwbacks. Alongside these were plenty of well-utilised sound-effects and editing that I found rather enjoyable (a complete renunciation from the script).

I was pleasantly surprised to find Kong: Skull Island didn't leave me wanting 2 hours of my life back; that said, given the choice I wouldn't waste another two rewatching it. Okay to pass the time, Kong exists. If you're after something more worthwhile, perhaps skip this and shove on Predator (terribly brilliant) or Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus (brilliantly terrible).

showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/review-kong-skull-island.html

Style really does take priority over substance for Denzels' one-man-band; a whole lot of fuss for a film quite ordinary.

Fences in many ways mimics a 1989 film, Do the Right Thing, which essentially tells a tale of life, with no intentions to over-dramatise or show a Hollywood filter over events. The idea of Fences is paved with good intentions - it is not a cash-grab like past Denzel Washington movies have been, and the plot does flow at a consistent rate. That consistent rate in question happens to be, however, a sluggishly slow rate.

The movie seems to make a big fuss out of every little event that occurs; the opening of the film is a twenty minute conversation between Troy (Washington), his wife Rose (Viola Davis) and his best friend, Jim Bono (Stephen Henderson), with little context or connection to the rest of the film, with no other purpose than to make the characters appear more relatable - but this scene was far too drawn out to be a Tarantino-esque dialogue masterpiece.

Despite these attempts, Troy is not a relatable character at all either, in fact most of the decisions he makes throughout the movie are completely unreasonable and yet as the main character he is painted out to be the moral authority. The idea of excusing him for his actions simply because he is from a troubled background with many difficult situations to deal with at once, is not how the movie should deal with his character. A character can only be excused for their unrelatable actions if their reasons for their actions are relatable, which in this case, they are not.

Troy was played well by Washington, and most actors did a great job as a whole. Viola Davis was excellent in her role, and was essentially perfectly cast; Cory (Jovan Adepo) was good as Troy and Rose's son, attempting to impress his father constantly, and the emotions he conveyed whenever Troy would do something he disagreed with were authentic and natural as a performance.

The problem Fences has is that it doesn't really go anywhere. The film has great actors, and environment for those characters to be in, but no opportunity to make a fantastic film out of a worthy script, which has some lines which even repeat during the movie.

Fences does not really have a premise, there isn't a moral of the story and it appears like the film was put together as an idea before the script was even written to be able to simulate 'real life' action and conversation, but there was no need for all of this self-celebratory pretentious style which made the movie irritating to watch.

I never found myself engrossed in the plot at all, and I couldn't recommend this since I barely found myself caring about how events would unfold or what would happen to the characters.

https://showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/review-fences.html

An attempt at a bombastic creature-feature resulting in a pathetic excuse for a film, with little bother for pacing or any form of decent storytelling, The Great Wall does not keep up with modern-day CGI or acting quality in the slightest.

Basing a movie around one type of enemy; that being one creature in this film, is entirely dependent on whether that monster poses a threat to the protagonists at all. Creating a creature which appears threatening or terrifying is not a simple task, the likes of a huge franchise like Alien took an entire movie to build the Xenomorph into the icon it is today - and The Great Wall does not manage this. At all.

The reptilians that are known as the Tao Tei in the film are not threatening at all, their presence in the film is so prolific, they behave more like rodents rather than any form of adversary for the protagonists. The first attack upon the wall is within the first 30 minutes from tens of thousands of the Tao Tei (so this isn't a spoiler at all), and they all simply retreat because Matt Damon manages to kill one of the beasts, despite the fact it appears as if they are beating the humans.

The greatest threat to the Nameless Order (the army and defenders of the Great Wall) is Ballard (Willem Dafoe), who is only interested in deserting the wall to save his own life, and that seems to be conveyed as the worst crime anyone could ever commit and is worth far more focus and screen time than any monster that could be a 'real' threat.

The acting and character writing in the film is on par with films like Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones or Star Trek: Nemesis. Matt Damon and Pedro Pascal's characters are supposed to be best of friends even if they seem to disagree with each other consistently throughout the film on whether it is worth staying to defend the wall with the Nameless Order, which implies that William (Matt Damon's Character) believes that his contribution among an army of tens of thousands will make a measurable difference.

The only decent performance is that of Willem Dafoe, who does the best job he can with what role he has been given - which honestly isn't a great deal. The portrayal of General Lin (Tian Jing) is not unique at all, and Matt Damon didn't really play a character at all. Ideally, the film would have had a main character with some form of relationship with any other character and would show some actual emotion rather than murdering monsters and pretending to do the 'honourable' thing by staying and fighting them, all whilst being praised as a hero for literally managing to kill one beast alone.

The truth is that this movie does not make sense, the ending is as unsatisfying as anything that came before it, and the only parts of the movie that look visually impressive in the slightest are the shots of the wall from afar, which are plentiful by the end of the film. There is some obsession with using slow motion to a ridiculous extent mid-action to the point that it is jarring to watch at times in this movie, and the pacing is so basic that the film is repetitive by the end and it's only just over 90 minutes long! To spend this much money on creating a movie like this is basically laughable, and the intent to blend Eastern and Western film isn't a success here at all; purely an eastern-influenced, poor-quality Hollywood picture. I'm certain it is very much possible to merge influences from genres and cultures both east and west, but this pitiful film certainly feels forced.

I could not recommend this laughably-rushed movie to anyone, and frankly I wouldn't watch it again if you paid me. Essentially a boring, badly-delivered joke with barely enough substance to even call itself a movie.

showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/review-great-wall.html

Despite high quality performances among seasoned acting veterans, The Founder is a missed opportunity in biographical cinema.

The Founder is a movie which tells a story of the creation of the McDonald's restaurant chain and how it came to be, following Ray Kroc (Michael Keaton) and his acquisition of the brand from the McDonald brothers (John Carroll Lynch & Nick Offerman).

What this movie holds to its' advantage is that the portrayals of the main characters do not water down their personalities, Ray Kroc is shown to be opportunistic and devious without apology; Dick McDonald is calculating and uptight, and Mac McDonald is conveyed as too forgiving. The screenplay for these characters played to the actor's talents; Nick Offerman was particularly entertaining in his role, but the main cast's performances could not save this semi-biographical script.

The movie has some interesting cinematography, one particular scene has the McDonald brothers explaining the creation of their restaurant, with cutaway shots going through the events being explained whilst simultaneously being described by the brothers; not to mention that they finish off each other's sentences in a slick manner. All of this adds to an alluring start, but really its' all just style over substance.

Besides the atypical camera-work and skillful performances, The Founder does not have much left to offer. The way the story flows is far from perfect, focussing on Kroc much more than necessary which pushed aside the credible supporting cast, which could have likely told a more accurate plot with greater inclusion of the McDonald brothers.

The movie suffers from being in the middle ground, not taking enough risks to be credible as a great movie, but playing it safe enough so that the film isn't terrible either. There is not much that can even be said about The Founder other than that it has interesting moments and good acting, but I could never say that I didn't find my attention wavering during the picture.

The trailer of the movie does give away most of the important events during the film, I left the cinema getting exactly what I expected; a mediocre-to-good biopic with decent costume design for the era, and not a great focus on attention to detail or actually making the film more interesting than the bare minimum.

If I was asked if I could recommend this film, I would only be able to do so if you're interested in biographical movies as a whole; the movie does project the characters in a realistic light but the story that they are placed in is far from perfect or interesting.

The Founder hired the right people for the acting jobs, but from the man who directed acclaimed biographical drama The Blind Side, this could have been much more than just a vanilla motion picture.

https://showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/review-founder.html

The final X-men picture goes out with a depressing whimper instead of the emotional roller-coaster that was intended.

Over time, X-men movies have grown more and more inconsistent in terms of tone and pacing between films; maintaining consistency is a difficult task with such a vast franchise (particularly one with multiple timelines), but Logan manages to be one of the 'odd films out' in that it is far more grounded than its' predecessors. In making the movie more grounded, the film is far more dark and brooding than any other X-men movie, portraying Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) as a jaded and depressed mutant and even the presence of a child throughout doesn't lighten the tone.

There is no doubt that having Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart in their usual roles is the best the movie has to offer, it is clear that they are completely comfortable in their roles to such an extent that one cannot imagine anyone else performing. Their presence on-screen is fierce and captivating; and I could not praise Logan enough for this.

The movie however is riddled with faults throughout, starting with the primary plot point of the film, the most important character involved: Laura (Dafne Keen). The introduction of this character is key to the entire fabric of how the film runs and functions as a storyline, yet she is unlikable and irritating. I have pictured a version of the film's events without her presence, and she does not add to the story as a single entity at all, despite the fact she is among the centre of events. To put it simply: the film revolves around her as a character, but if not present, the film would not lose an entertaining or vaguely interesting on-screen performance. This is not down to acting talent, but script writing which paints Laura as a damsel in distress despite the fact she can clearly handle herself during action scenes.

The action is undeniably entertaining, yet comes few and far between. Some dramatic moments include Logan having to deal with Xavier having a seizure, which causes the surroundings to be affected perilously and Logan must stop the seizure by calming Xavier down with an injection, which just involves Wolverine walking toward Xavier in slow motion, disposing of a couple of enemies who are frozen and cannot move. This doesn't particularly constitute its' own 'action' segment, and detracts from the real moments in the film in which the protagonists really can entertain the viewer with some incredible bloodthirsty scenes.

Logan is a bloodthirsty film overall, at no point is there a pause in the violence that the movie shows, which again, changes the tone from most of the other films within the franchise. This film is not for the light-hearted, and those that find themselves huge fans of the series are definitely going to enjoy the movie; this is not the first X-men film which I can say has flaws, and while I know that the film isn't perfect and I personally did not find the plot captivating (in fact the plot is not anything we haven't seen before), I know that a lover of the X-men series is going to find that this movie will tug on their heartstrings time and time again.

The need to thrust the important parts of the story upon Laura is completely unnecessary, when this film tries and fails to get the audience to enjoy her as a character, it then attempts to make her relatable by placing her opinions and feelings towards Logan in line with that of the audience: of admiration. This didn't work on me at all, and I still found her an annoyance as the film began to close, and due to the fact the main focus was shifted slightly from Logan and greatly from Xavier to this new character, it meant these beloved characters did not get the chance to really relate like they have done in other films before their exit.

Is Logan a good film? At least partially. Is it a good X-men film? Absolutely. The vast inconsistency with other X-men movies puts it above many others, naming The Wolverine and X-men Origins: Wolverine as the main movies that Logan has managed to top (which wasn't particularly difficult). I can recommend the movie to anyone who loves X-men and Marvel, but definitely not to anyone else.

https://showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/review-logan.html

An almost-excellent historical drama based on the US court case Loving vs. Virginia. An interesting tale portrayed well - a break from the usual glossy, Hollywood image.

Set in 1950's Caroline County, Virginia, Loving expands on the true lives of Donald and Mildred Loving; a working-class, interracial couple whose lives (and families') get torn apart when they elope to Washington D.C to marry. Not accepting the legislations against them, in an era in uproar over civil liberties, the Lovings' begin what seems to be a losing battle (legally and emotionally) for the right to keep their family together.

Ruth Negga - the shining star of this flick - was wonderful to watch as Mildred Loving (nee Jeter); her flawlessly understated, emotional performance held strong throughout. Joel Edgerton (Donald) alongside her, the pairs' chemistry bode well on-screen, though his solo performance slightly dull. The entirety of the cast worked well together for both an accurate yet captivating result.

Though enjoyable, Loving lacked in intensity and came across rather 'vanilla' at times - a lacklustre screenplay, a predictable nature and a mostly uninspiring setting. I expected a bit more oomph; something more empowering, inspiring or admirable to be displayed from this groundbreaking, real-life story - instead, the legal battle is its' weakest asset.

I will, however, praise Loving for its lack of in-your-face, politically-correct agendas; the rights and wrongs need not be explained, the movie purely left to go its' own way in its' individual story.

Heartfelt, gentle and quietly powerful, this was a moderately enjoyable movie that I struggled to find specific criticism in - but I still felt as though something was missing.

Loving was a nice alternative to the glamourised Hollywood 'masterpieces' that so regularly get churned out. Worth a watch, for sure - just don't expect it to become your favourite movie of all time.

With Oscars weekend underway, I thought it would be appropriate to review a movie which won best picture exactly thirty years ago at the 59th Academy Awards. Platoon totalled four Oscar wins, and eight nominations - the leading picture of the year, so it begs the question - has Platoon stood the test of time? Platoon follows Chris (Charlie Sheen) and his stint in the Vietnamese War, alongside fellow protagonist Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe) and cruel manipulator Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berenger). The plot simply tells the story of the platoon both during and outside of battle, to give a 'big picture' take on the conflict to show multiple sides of the soldiers.

If you have ever heard this song before, (likely you have, many times), it's interesting to note that Platoon made Adagio for Strings as famous as it is today. Despite this, its' severe overuse happens to be my biggest criticism of the entire film. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure its' 1987 viewers will have watched in awe in deep melancholy, but presently its' use in essentially every death scene (of which there are more than a few, I kid you not!), comes across as horrifically cliché.

The film was clearly low budget, so there are times where action sequences with explosions do not look true-to-life, and the Platoon involved sometimes appear too small due to the cinematography and an absence of more actors/unavailability of CGI.

However, other than a few mere complaints, the movie is dramatic, compelling and by definition: Oscar-worthy. While issues can be drawn from the low-budget action, this, and I guess I'm contradicting myself here, completely misses the point of the film. Platoon shows the true horrors of war, the relationship comrades have with one another during their down-time between conflict, and the issues that allies can have with one another: even if they're meant to be brothers in arms.

In my review of Hacksaw Ridge, I explained that there are too many war films which make staring death in the face look incredibly fun; count Platoon among the films that do not do this. With magnificent acting from Tom Berenger and Willem Dafoe, the film is a saddening story, as interesting as it is brutal; deliberately not providing a polished version of events.

Platoon received the praise it deserved, and it will be exciting to see which movie will join it among the list of best picture movies at the Oscars this year; it is well worth a watch and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie overall.

The second instalment of the much-loved John Wick action-thriller; the man himself (played by Keanu Reeves) crawls back into the criminal underworld to pay back a blood oath, leading to a price on his life - and this time, even the rules can't help him.

He Said...

What made John Wick amazing was not only the incredibly well-choreographed action sequences and dozens of enemies being taken down with relative ease, but its' world-building provided a look into a never-before-seen assassin underworld, conveyed in such an ambiguous manner that I found myself asking so many questions. When I found out that John Wick: Chapter Two was going to delve deeper into this society, I was excited to see where the plot would take us this time. The fact that Laurence Fishburne and Keanu Reeves were being reunited in this film made this all the more promising - their first time working together since The Matrix Trilogy. What I received from this movie was very much exactly what I expected - while the action sequences did not quite live up to the original, nor the desire for setting up a satisfactory plot line, the environment as a whole was perfect, and the world of John Wick now has a much more fleshed-out identity. My main criticism here is the storyline, as the new characters are mostly unimaginative; though those reprising their roles fit in much more appropriately. The lack of care towards an overcomplicated storyline from the first film (which only added to the amazing action) did not transfer to the second, which is troubling when the plot itself did leave more to be desired. Sadly Laurence Fishburne did not get enough screen time to really justify his involvement, or the hype around his character; nonetheless, the film as a whole is incredibly enjoyable and is a fantastically-themed look into the assassin's society.

She Said..

Eat. Sleep. Kick ass. Repeat. - John Wicks' philosophy seemingly out of the window as he returns for a more plot-detailed ass-whopping. Alongside his new canine companion, Wick is back with a vengeance when an old acquaintance catches up with him to repay a debt. Cue action-packed shoot-outs, an underground party in Italy and more mentions of his 'impossible task'. I can't tell you how excited I was to see John Wick 2 - the first movie beyond exceeded my expectations and I was intrigued as to what the sequel would bring - which, it turns out, was an overly cliché plot, borderline-boring fight scenes that we've all seen a million times over, and a tonne of product placement. Without Keanu Reeves, I feel the whole flick would have fallen apart; Ruby Rose, Laurence Fishburne and the various other 'supporting' cast brought some disappointing performances into the mix. The thing I loved most about the original was the way it pulled you in despite its' deliberate lack of attention to detail - not a single moment of eye-rolling plot detail or boredom, just 2 hours of car chases and epic stand-offs in abundance. Even though Chapter 2 focused more on the interpersonal relationships and underground lifestyle, I somehow found myself less invested. With a year ram-packed with sequels, this needed to be something special to keep up; all it left me with was a need for Guardians 2 to come round the corner sooner.

Matthew McConaughey reprises his role from The Wolf of Wall Street to present us with a repetitive storyline which doesn't make the most of its source material.

I kid, of course; Kenny Wells (McConaughey) is not actually the same character as Mark Hanna from The Wolf Of Wall Street. However, if you were to put the film side by side with Gold, then there would be many moments I would be unable to tell the difference; bar McConaughey's receding hairline in the more recent movie.

Gold has a plot loosely following a true story; two men who find a gold mine in Indonesia which was predicted to be the largest gold find of the decade. The sequential events involve big-time stockbroker involvement and multi-billion dollar investments into Kenny Wells' company following his discovery along with Michael Acosta (Edgar Ramirez). The plot doesn't offer much else, and has tendencies of being repetitive throughout the storyline.

The trouble with the adaptation of a true story into a movie is that films are not often representative of real life in many ways; directors are often tasked with a perplexing decision: stay as true as possible to the story or dramatise and exaggerate for the sake of the audience's enjoyment? Gold does not achieve an effective balance at all, in an attempt to remain as true as possible to the real life story of the Bre-X mining scandal (all bar a couple of scenes added in to create tension).

As a result, the movie shows an up-down-up-down relationship with the plot, unable to decide where the storyline is actually going to go, and while this is much like how reality operates, no one has a sublime story arc in real life - it does not make for a great film. The amount of times in the film that Kenny Wells is celebrating how rich he has become, then losing all of his money, then getting it back again only to lose it once more... you get my point.

It is a shame that this was the case because it seems like this role was practically written for McConaughey, he clearly relished his opportunity to perform as Wells, but his character does still lack originality. To mention it again, moments of the film where the company are celebrating the fact they've made a lot of money on the stock market floor and when the main cast are calling up potential investors and essentially lying to them to obtain a greater investment, look basically ripped from The Wolf of Wall Street.

Gold is not a bad movie - it is merely mediocre. When I find myself not caring about the characters during their times of need or desperation, they must not be written very well. In fact, most are completely forgettable other than the main two cast members. I can't particularly justify a reason to go and watch the film other than to kill time, it didn't have a great deal to offer.

The inspiring tale of three extraordinary women who, despite all the odds stacked against them, made a dent in history by heavily contributing to NASA's space programme when it mattered most.

The never-before told stories of Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson; three coloured women living and working in Virginia, USA during the 60's who stopped at nothing to show a world full of generalisations that they were highly underestimated.

The movie follows Katherine G. Johnson, an exceptional mathematician who is given the opportunity to work as 'computer' at NASA for the 1961-62 missions in the all-important 'space-race'. Alongside her were friends Dorothy Vaughn (computer-turned-supervisor with a knack for programming) and Mary Jackson (a wannabe aeronautics-engineer).

The standard of acting throughout was fantastic; not only did Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer and Janelle Monae provide us with wonderfully powerful, and terribly funny, depictions of the leads, but a surprise role from Mahershala Ali and an unrecognisable Kevin Costner made for a praise-worthy ensemble (all bar Jim Parsons and Kirsten Dunst, who I felt could have added more to their respective roles).

From cinematography to costume, the entire movie was fairly good - I wouldn't say flawless, but certainly to a decent standard. The plot itself was interesting, and the overtly 'Hollywood' glamorisation was combated with live-footage of the real-life events - which added a nice touch.

A Pharrell-Williams-saturated soundtrack (and, of course, a musical number for Janelle Monae), the music was fun and fit in well with Hidden Figures as a whole, though I can't help thinking more of a variation (instead of one all-too-often-repeated song) of songs could have been sampled. Either way, Pharrell was probably just happy to be involved.

Slightly (though slightly-understandably) agenda-pushing, I can't help but refer to similarities to Apollo 13 (the Friendship 7 landing scene reeked of Tom Hanks' blackout) and Octavia Spencer's earlier character in The Help - slightly unoriginal is the point here too.

Nostalgia-inducing - even for those not of the time - and portrayed almost expertly - but arguably too reminiscent of already-done pictures.

https://showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk

The next installment of E.L James' Fifty Shades trilogy features more lip-biting, leg-grabbing, cash-flashing drivel than ever before; which doesn't amount to anything more than a lack of ingenuity.

The saucy sequel to the novel-turned-movie epidemic that is Fifty Shades of Grey, this adaptation was a concise continuation of the first - glossy, well-polished, and truly tedious. Though funny at points, and extraordinarily easy to keep up with, the persistent lack of chemistry between the mediocre leads made the film about as raunchy as your grans' knickers.

While the franchise has established a rather successful position within the market (having made almost $150m on its' opening weekend alone), the sex-fuelled romance between the very plain Ana (Dakota Johnson) and billionaire bachelor Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan) sees demons confronted and emotional deviations from the start.

Dornan, while definitely more polished than his previous performance, still lacked energy and relate-ability, while Johnson was an irritatingly deficient component in her reprisal. The remainder of the cast (including an over-hyped Rita Ora) were about as unmemorable as you would expect. The introduction of various faces (Mrs Robinson, unfortunately not portrayed by Kim Cattrall) added nothing exceptional either.

The cinematography which, although well-suited to the style of the story, didn't strike me as anything special whatsoever. This time around however, the music was also particularly bland in comparison to Fifty Shades of Grey - which at least complimented the picture.

There isn't much to be said for the writing or direction - sex is Darkers' only narrative, which, by the end, borders on ridiculous. It still can't work out if it wants to be a classic love story or a steamy depiction that verges on pornographic - either way their brief has been ineffective.

Overall, a middle-of-the-road love story; well-adapted though poorly executed, with occasional steamy moments but hardly tugging at the heart-strings. Boring and bland - I can't wait to be Freed from this trilogy.

http://showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/

An immensely challenging sequel to produce; Danny Boyle's reprisal was never going to satisfy old fans and newcomers alike.

After twenty years, there would be obvious ambiguity in how to go about writing and directing this cult-classics' sequel. 2017 is brimming with sequels of both original movies and installments to well-established series; thus this may be a recurring issue in the near future. T2 Trainspotting is very clearly a movie made for the fans of the original, for people who loved the first film but haven't watched it in years, and have fond memories of it. This film preys upon the fact that some people will be so wound up in their own nostalgia that they won't give this film the independence from the original it needed.

T2 struggles to declare itself a story of its own; literal scenes from the original Trainspotting are shown to portray a reflection on the past repeating itself; but all that this shows is an unwillingness to write a completely original plot. It is likely Danny Boyle did this to appease fans, as going in a completely different direction would then annoy those who are devoted to the first film.

The story has a great premise; the Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor) returns to Scotland and meets with the lovable Spud (Ewen Bremner) and best-pal Simon (Jonny Lee Miller) once again - much to their initial disgust. Not long after, the return of Begbie (Robert Carlyle) fills the plot with more drama than a soap opera. The events that take place are mostly for comedic purpose, under the premise that the audience already know the characters (fair to assume, but not taking into account standalone viewers). A specific scene in which Simon and Mark are forced to perform a song in a loyalist pub had me laughing out loud in the cinema; so often the attempts at making the film light- hearted were received with a good response.

That being said, one of the things about the original is that it wasn't light hearted in the slightest. The characters were the only thing lovable about the film, not what happened to them necessarily, whereas T2 swaps this around - the environments were far more ostentatious in this film, bright neon lighting and fewer disgusting and dull backdrops make for a more optimistic view in this film - quite the opposite of what the original was about. It seems in trying to appease the fans of the original and placing the same characters in a repetitive-yet more flamboyant setting has managed to stray from the roots of what made Trainspotting great.

T2 could have been set anywhere provided the main characters still acted in the way that they do, and that's a shame - every piece of Trainspotting was necessary to put together the plot that was made.

Despite all of this - T2 is a good film. It's not a great film, but it certainly isn't awful either. Its' greatest failing is that it can't decide whether to create an entirely new story - which would abandon the roots of the original - or to re-hash Trainspotting - which would be total cowardice. The film does the worst of both worlds, in that it doesn't have a great deal of original thought but it also doesn't capture what the first film did.

On its own merits, T2 is a funny film; and it is enjoyable to watch. I didn't leave the theatre as disappointed as I would have anticipated, and the film didn't fail to put a smile on my face during. Despite the 20 year gap, the actors clearly haven't lost track of their alter-ego's nature - the performances were great and the chemistry that the actors had was immense, with a gleaming nod to Robert Carlyle.

I can still say I recommend T2, its not like the original in terms of quality or theme, but I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy myself. I can make an odd comparison to another sequel, Aliens, in that both T2 and Aliens are very enjoyable, but both films also spoil the point of their predecessor in a sense.

What at first glance appeared to me a money-grabbing spin-off of 2014's The LEGO Movie, riding the waves of last years' Batman vs Superman and Suicide Squad adult flicks, I do not joke when I say this movie gave me faith in kids movies again.

When I say that The LEGO Batman Movie is incredible, I am not being ironic; I wholeheartedly believe this movie is near-perfect. This movie should set an example as to how kids' movies should be made, unlike the recently-released Sing, which is the perfect example of how animated films for children can be churned out and swallowed up by an unsuspecting audience.

Of course, partial enjoyment of this movie comes down to callbacks and references of the series of Batman films that have come before this, and while these throwbacks are not subtle, they also don't impose on the story-line that The LEGO Batman Movie provides; equating to an excellent balance.

I was laughing throughout the majority of this film - the humour is designed for both adults and children; the perfect family movie, rather than restricting to just one generation. The performance of Batman by Will Arnett is the best thing he's ever done; Robin (Michael Cera) is spot on, and the Joker (Zach Galifiankis) is wonderful to watch on-screen.

Animation of the LEGO characters is top notch; I often didn't notice I was watching a LEGO-themed film and only saw the actual characters being portrayed in front of me. The film was, at times, a pleasure to watch in all its' animated action glory, and there was no ambiguity as to who the characters were meant to represent, despite being in their 'LEGO forms'.

My only criticisms are that the Phantom Zone included in the film is completely inaccurate to its previous portrayals, and that Harley Quinn's (Jenny Slate) voice doesn't sound very Harley-esque at all. I literally can't think of anything else worth complaining about.

Most amazing of all, the references to past Batman movies and comics add to the plot in such a wonderful way - inclusion of the Condiment King (rarely-heard-of, useless DC comic book villain), Batman poking fun at Suicide Squad, and even Bane (Doug Benson) having his accurate voice from The Dark Knight Rises! The film is not afraid to laugh at itself, and this makes the viewer laugh with it more.

Because LEGO have so many different franchises at their disposal, it means that they also manage to include characters from multiple different sources, such as Lord Voldemort, The Daleks and even Godzilla. Including these characters made for an oddly-amusing twist.

This movie is wonderful - it's the highest rating I've given to a movie so far and with good reason. For those of you doubting giving up your movie-watching time to a kids movie, I urge you to give The LEGO Batman Movie a chance and go and see it - you won't be disappointed.

Written, directed and produced by the lead himself, a run-of-the-mill, roaring '20's gangster flick lacking in imagination; a quickly-forgotten, unremarkable tale.

Our story begins in a glamorized 1920's Boston; Joe Coughlin (Affleck) is a WWI-veteran and small-time hoodlum with a nepotistic bail-out and a forbidden love-affair. After being recruited by Mafia boss Maso Pescatore, Joe heads down a road of money and privilege from his new-found criminal activities in Tampa. The film leads on to the atypical gangster gun fights, dodgy deals and 'business meetings' fueled by whiskey and cigars. Amidst this, somehow (and unsubtly) thrown in are story lines of Klansmen, heroin addiction and Christianity.

In all honesty, I don't really know what this film was attempting to achieve - a little bit of everything and a whole lot of nothing encased the 130 minute viewing, leaving me unsure to an extent what even happened. The (overly-) quick pacing in certain parts were unbalanced alongside the dull, awkward rest of the movie. I found myself almost wanting to take a well-deserved nap during the screening, for I felt that I wouldn't miss much and if I had would have woken up more than capable of still keeping up with the films' 'plot'.

Ben Affleck seemed a weak link in an already weak chain - his dry performance only made worse by his failure to direct the rest of the notably irritating cast (namely, Elle Fanning and Sienna Miller, although Zoe Saldana was disappointingly bland). Robert Glenister and Chris Cooper the only saviours among the acting standards here.

The costume was superbly cliché 1920's get-up, which whilst suited the tone of the film, made Affleck appear to be wearing his dads' suit and every female seemingly permanently overdressed for the occasion. The cinematography was not diabolical, however action shots alone allowed it to shine through. Notably, the action (when it happened) was pulled off fairly well, but for a gangster movie you would think there would be a lot more - particularly boring for a 'fast-paced action flick'.

I wasn't expecting a cinematic masterpiece from Live by Night, but I did expect a hell of a lot more from a man who has over two decades of industry experience. My advice to anyone looking for an action-packed badass gangster film is to check out The Godfather or Pulp Fiction and leave this be. A shoddy performance all-round.

showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/review-manchester-by-sea.html

Melancholy-inducing Manchester by the Sea's attempts to tell a passionate story of tragedy, loss, and the importance of family in times of struggle, fall short; all that felt received was a mediocre presentation with a lack of convincing portrayals.

It is clear to see what Manchester by the Sea tried to achieve here; the plot follows the death of main character Lee Chandler's (Casey Affleck) brother, and his new-found guardianship of nephew, Patrick (Lucas Hedges) - Lonergan envisioned a hard-hitting movie encapsulating real-life reactions to trauma, gripping the viewer until the bitter end.

The main storyline carries the predominant issue Lee faces - being left custody of his nephew after his brother, Joe (Kyle Chandler) dies from a heart condition. Lee is incredibly reluctant about this and spends plenty of screen time trying to palm off said nephew on others, and the ending is inconclusive as to how this issue can really be resolved.

The faults in Manchester by the Sea include an unjustified runtime, near-emotionless acting (particularly Affleck) and some rather odd pacing; flashbacks occur frequently - detailing Lee's past and why he moved away from Manchester - but these flashbacks have no indication of timing so it is often unclear whether each scene is a flashback or part of present day events. Affleck's performance is wooden on the most part; the majority of intended powerful moments fall short with Lee - a brooding loner - just being portrayed disinterested and expressionless; mundane to watch, to say the least.

Casting decisions were not entirely on form either - both Lee's ex wife Randi (Michelle Williams) and Joe's ex wife Elise (Gretchen Mol) looked very similar (and had uncanny styling) so, particularly in one certain scene where only the back of her head was visible, it was unclear which character we were seeing.

The film did have its merits however; the location the film is set in was an excellent directing choice; the scenery was beautifully shot at times, and the writing of the story was touching to an extent, were it not for poor execution. Manchester by the Sea did have some comical moments as well - especially during the first half an hour of the film. It was a let down that this dissipated throughout the film because it appeared as though the movie couldn't decide if it was entirely sombre or if it had light-hearted aspects despite a dark plot-line.

The film succeeded in the sense that I did leave the cinema feeling melancholy - Affleck did display an on-screen presence of depression and angst; and there were times during the film that this did absolutely fit the tone, but not when there were attempts to show his compassionate side towards his nephew: which were key to the plot.

Manchester by the Sea's greatest fault is that it is mostly uneventful and uninspiring, I never found myself enthralled or anticipating what was to come - only waiting on the movie end. How Casey Affleck won a Golden Globe for his performance I remain uncertain - but one can appreciate he made some semblance of effort with respect of the material given.

Lucas Hedges' depiction was of note; it is disappointing that the character of Patrick Chandler was written merely as a bratty teenager (with an injection of lothario and absence of empathy) above all else; reduced to an irritating on-screen presence.

The film is at times a bore to watch, as some plot lines don't go anywhere (perhaps in an attempt to simulate lifelike events), but the premise of the movie is commendable and despite an inconclusive ending, Manchester by the Sea was not completely awful.

Critically acclaimed and currently totaling 14 Oscar Nominations, 11 BAFTA Nominations, and 7 Golden Globe wins, musical La La Land is not as incredible as you would expect. Myself and guest writer Natasha tell you why...

Plot Summary La La Land's centres on Seb (Ryan Gosling), an overqualified restaurant pianist with a penchant for Jazz, and Mia (Emma Stone), an aspiring actress lacking in successful auditions. Upon meeting, Mia and Seb push each other to make their struggling dreams a reality, and the movie follows how their relationship moulds as they attempt to reach their goals.

He Said... Damien Chazelle, director of La La Land, clearly knew with this project that he was on to a winner; but why did he have to make such a song and a dance about it?! With its' dazzling aesthetic and charm, it is difficult to imagine La La Land going home empty-handed at this years' Academy Awards, particularly for costume design and cinematography. Emma Stone clearly the star of the show, I felt Ryan Gosling's performance was not particularly special, nor any of the rest of the cast bar Stone. For its' praised musical elements, certain shots (and songs) were overused at times - every other song, it appeared, would open with dimmed lights and a spotlight on the performer (*eye roll*). Perhaps due to the overwhelming acclaim it has already received, my expectations were set high - and La La Land was not the solid 10/10 I had hoped it to be. The plot itself wasn't overly ambitious, and through all its glitz and retro glamour had an aura of arrogance despite being far from perfect.

She Said... Did I like La La Land? Of course! Did I love it? Hmm, perhaps not.. With fantastic use of colour and costumer, as well as a hint of Baz-Luhrmann-esque beauty in its' shots and cuts, the storyline and catchy songs kept my intrigue until the end. But whilst I understand some of the hype, I can't help but feel it could have been a little less pretentious. This self-indulgent piece of cinema portrayed a bland Ryan Gosling, some fairly odd pacing (or total lack there-of), and an unusual, disappointing lack of chemistry between Gosling and Stone. Emma Stone was breath-taking as ever - endearing, gawky and not afraid to laugh at herself - but I felt paired with far too 'Hollywood' a role. The films' music (think 20's speakeasy & Parisian jazz cafe contrasted with blatant cheese), whilst catchy, was paired with some fairly mediocre singing and dancing. The whole thing just seemed a bit unnecessary, and its' overzealous approach to the arts just reminded me of the movie Midnight in Paris (FYI, not a favourite of mine). My final words? Over-hyped but a fun ride.

Due to the much-antipated release of T2 Trainspotting this weekend, this throwback Thursday called for a re-watch (and review) of the original motion picture.

Trainspotting was undoubtedly huge; launching director Danny Boyle and the lead cast into stardom shortly after its release - in particular, Ewan McGregor, who went on to perform high-profile roles in films such as Moulin Rouge, Star Wars and Black Hawk Down. Trainspotting was iconic in so many ways; the acting, soundtrack and honest scripting all left their mark on everyone that watched.

Most memorable of all must be Rentons' (McGregor) "Choose Life" speech during the opening scenes, which was not only reprised throughout the movie but brought to life once more in the trailer for its' sequel: T2 Trainspotting. The entirety of the film is filled with moments like this - fast-paced, raw and utterly glorious.

The plot doesn't shield from the harsh realities of the characters' lives; Trainspotting is critical in its storytelling - following Renton and his heroin-addicted lifestyle with his so-called "mates" Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), Begbie (Robert Carlyle) and Tommy (Kevin McKidd), all portrayed excellently authentic. Scenes like 'the worst toilet in Scotland' provides a great example of how Trainspotting does not care just how disgusted or distressed the viewer may be; it simply shows what it needs to to get the point across.

What is the point though? How did Trainspotting tell such a story of desperate criminal activity whilst still managing to be relatable and enjoyable? The answer lies in its' scripting, casting and uninspiring set. The characters and environment are designed to be as incredibly ordinary as possible, of no real interest and deliberately bland. Characters we love to hate and hate to love and identify with even though we differ greatly. That's the magic of Trainspotting entirely.

Trainspotting is daring and rife with idiosyncrasy; a movie that you can respect while you watch it. Many filmmakers can only dream of recreating what Trainspotting achieved, and in trying only convey an air of pretentiousness. The film still holds up today, is still seemingly somewhat relevant, and the acting is still wonderful even by modern-day standards. I can only hope the sequel can live up to expectation: the bar is set very, very high.

https://showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/review-moonlight.html I had the privilege of previewing Moonlight ahead of the its' UK release date (17th February); a coming-of-age tale told spectacularly.

Many modern dramas in this style tend to be artsy, pretentious and not to my tastes. However, Moonlight managed to tell this story with subtlety and confidence, without trying to be overbearing or arrogant.

This particular depiction follows the life of a young black man from Miami, with the film differentiating between three key phases in his life - 'Little', 'Chiron' and 'Black'. Each phase is performed by a different actor, which worked to the movie's advantage - too often is a child-actor hired for a five minute scene just to jump-cut to its' prominent section of the characters' adult life.

The movie bears witness to Chiron's childhood tribulations; overcoming intense bullying, dealing with his drug-addicted mother (played expertly by Naomie Harris), and coming to terms with his sexuality. Throughout the film, Chiron is consistently an underdog, partially due to his race and homosexuality, but mostly because he is a small, timid youth that allows others to figuratively walk all over him.

Something I couldn't praise more highly is the films' cinematography: it is stellar. Calming or carefree moments in Chirons' life are reflected through soft and slow camera moments, whereas dramatic or tense scenes called for their well-used, rough, jarring shots. Scene transitions were almost always instant, until a moment of pure bliss uses a gradual fade to blend scenes.

Moonlight is very subliminal with its' concepts carried throughout - an example being the change in nicknames for Chiron; representative of his choice of who he is, and reflecting childhood advice given to him by a character named Juan (Mahershala Ali) who he meets as a young boy.

The acting quality was wonderful on the most part; Chiron's actors (Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, Trevante Rhodes) clearly studied each other's mannerisms to portray the characters' likeness perfectly. Kevin, the childhood friend, played by Jaden Piner, Jharrel Jerome and Andre Holland, respectively, was also portrayed well. Yet it is Naomie Harris who certainly needs commending; she was near-perfect for the role, and did an excellent job on her accent.

The film did, however, have some things lacking. The characters of Juan and Theresa (Janelle Monáe) were prominent at the very beginning of the film, but shortly after lacked any presence - clearly only present for the purpose of opening the story. I also found a couple of scenes slightly unnecessary - one scene of a sexual nature was clearly only placed for shock-value rather than substance, and a classroom scene alluding to the HIV virus seemed irrelevant to the plot, but thrown in simply because the films' lead was gay.

The film also lacked the kind of closure many people like - leaving unanswered questions as the credits rolled. Whilst a sign of intrigue and plot-investment, this also meant the annoyance of open-ended plot points, and left me wondering if the end was justifiable.

All-in-all, Moonlight is an incredibly good movie, with great acting, lighting, cinematography and script. I was pleased to watch it before its' February release date, and would undoubtedly recommend it.

https://showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/review-silence.html Martin Scorsese's passion project of 28 years falls upon deaf ears with this reviewer.

Upon first glance, Silence appeared to be a long-winded Samurai action flick, with the likes of actors Liam Neeson, Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver placing high expectations on Scorsese's new offering. In contrast, the film is about the tribulations of religion, and the Japanese' views on the outlawed Catholicism in the 17th century.

The plot primarily centres around a character known as Ferreria (Neeson) - a Christian mentor captured by the Japanese - and a pair of his Portugese students Rodrigues (Garfield) and Garupe (Driver), whom, upon hearing rumours of Ferreria having apostatized (renouncing his religious beliefs for the purpose of saving his own life), travel to Japan in order to search for him, whilst remaining unseen by those who would object their faith.

This plot, seemingly 90-minute-worthy, is dragged out by Scorsese to the point that the film becomes repetitive. Throughout, Christian persecution is a naturally recurring theme, but there are only so many times one can be shown the death/torture of people - or their forceable denouncement of Christ - before you become desensitised to its' occurrence.

Silence, seemingly alluding to not only the silence of God during times of need for the leads, but also to the extrinsic lack of music and/or sound entirely throughout. On multiple occasions, Rodrigues (Garfield) is forced to test his faith, and finds it difficult to accept criticism of such; what he viewed as a slightly dangerous mission to recover his mentor transforms into a far more sinister quest - and Andrew Garfield shakily conveys this by breaking down in tears in almost every scene, upon which he is told that his God is not listening.

The absence of music is another poor choice - awkward silences apparent and a disturbing lack of atmosphere. Moments within the film are essentially devoid of sound between dialogue, and special effects in this department are minimal. As a result, the intentional efforts to portray themes of isolation and loneliness fall short, and merely boils down to two and a half hours of little-to-no substance.

Alongside this, the singular concept is over-played throughout the duration of the picture - any attempt to change its' plot direction just falls flat and then continues on the same course. Even when Ferreria's presence comes into play, it barely adds anything and Neeson is underused - just more torture, more apostatizing, and more of Andrew Garfield crying, to the point I would just roll my eyes by the end.

The acting quality was shoddy to say the least; Garfield and Driver's attempts at (I believe) a Portugese accent sounded like they were trying too hard, and their chemistry lacked (possibly due to the lack of atmospheric noise) with awkward pauses. As Catholics who are meant to have been together for a long time, they did not seem like good friends in any way - arguing about their mission and then just being sad together does not appear to depict a brotherly bond. The chemistry between Ferreria and Rodrigues is slightly better, since Neeson did work well as a jaded fallen mentor - but still lacklustre.

The story does not really get anywhere by closing credits - the film just feels very dense, as if I was meant to get the point in it; which seems like it is not apparent at all. The movie gives off a very pretentious vibe like this was supposed to be the next Passion of the Christ, but with the lack of soundtrack and awkward direction (namely, that particularly ridiculous scene in which Jesus himself talks to one of the characters) was closer to watching a film from the era of Ben Hur or Jason and the Argonauts when movies were far more limited.

What can be commended is that the writing quality was not terrible - although the length of the film was completely unjustified, and the actors (particularly Garfield) did not pull off the intended notes - the themes are indeed very interesting, and the script itself satisfactory - probably because this film is an adaption from a book written in the 1960s.

Silence has many issues overall, and I fail to understand how Scorsese invested 28 years on developing this project, or how the plot could have interested him so much that a 2 hour 40 minute run-time was justified (a 30 minute short would have sufficed). While not awful, it certainly needed much more refinement, and a change in cast that never came. I have little faith in this doing well at box office.

showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/review-passengers.html

With its' limited cast and seemingly cliché story, Passengers surprisingly succeeds in its' depiction of a moving tale of loneliness, morality and belonging.

When I first caught wind of Passengers, I pictured an atypical, unimaginative love story only made slightly more interesting by its' sci-fi setting; Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt the lucky A-listers brought in to up-sell a bland, poorly-scripted movie that's' only discernibly interesting concept has been stretched out over a two-hour substance-less picture. Proof that you should never judge a book by its' cover.

Giving the movie a chance to prove me wrong, I found not only a well-written story with underlying themes but excellent casting in the form of Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Being the predominant (and almost only) characters, Aurora Lane (Lawrence) and Jim Preston (Pratt) had clear chemistry and an ability to command the attention of the audience in a rather unique way.

The film primarily follows Jim Preston, a passenger on the spacecraft 'Avalon', on an intergalactic, 120-year-long journey to a new colony. After waking up in his cryogenic sleep chamber years too early, Jim finds himself alone (all bar (!) an android named Arthur - played fascinatingly by Michael Sheen) and unable to force his way back to sleep, despite multiple attempts and methods. Eventually, on the advice of barman-turned-confidant Arthur, Jim accepts his fate and decides to make use of all the spaceships' facilities for the time he has left - cue video-games, swimming pools and first-class cabins.

Despite previously resigning himself to a life devoid of social interaction, Jims' loneliness, desperation and understandable depression slowly begins to drive him mad (a nod to The Shining, anyone?!) and he contemplates suicide by opening an airlock without wearing a spacesuit. The decision to exclude a large cast becomes apparent (and appropriate) here, where one can empathise with Jim's isolation and his longing for new faces.

Enter: Aurora Lane. Thought-provoking and filled with moral dilemmas, Aurora and Jim hit it off from the start, and Jim shines to Aurora almost instantly after managing human contact for the first time in over a year. After hearing his story, Aurora is sympathetic towards Jim, and though doomed to perish years before anyone discovers what has happened to them, their dynamics make way for a seemingly good life. Unaware of the dangers that befall them, the circumstances surrounding how both Jim and Aurora woke up then becomes apparent, and the spaceship begins to experience severe failures that have to be solved in order for the passengers and crew aboard (all still asleep) to be saved.

What I can absolutely commend about Passengers is how very economical it is with its' hidden meanings aside from its main concepts, and how it flawlessly takes the plot where it needs to go, at a reasonable pace for the viewer. Jennifer Lawrence doesn't appear until the film has properly set the scene - and whilst Pratt carries at least the opening act alone, it doesn't feel like 'The Chris Pratt Show'; it remains entertaining throughout.

The acting quality is superb all around; Martin Sheen will likely be overlooked this awards season, but deserves an honourable mention - the presence of Arthur (a representation of the viewer), allows the thoughts, feelings and troubles of the leads to be known - the unemotional voice between character and movie-goer.

My one real criticism stems down to the charming-yet-essentially-predictable romance between Aurora and Jim - though the writers' clearly self-aware. I would have preferred a story that focuses on a boy-meets-girl turned friendship than blatant, unnecessary cheese - though the relationship itself entirely integral to the plot. Though easily foreseeable, Passengers did not suffer as a result.

Visually, the film is professional, the spaceship itself looked incredible - and the soundtrack had some great choices in it including a well-used Bob Dylan track and a made-for-movie Imagine Dragons tune. Passengers is an overall great film, a sci-fi-come-romance that achieves the best of both worlds; an enjoyable presentation, very compelling to watch. Don't be fooled by the trailers, it isn't that bland, I promise.

Disney's new animated presentation from the creator's of Frozen had a great deal to live up to - and surpassed every expectation.

Many of Disney's past animated films with musical aspects have always often irritated me in different ways - I never thought Tangled was great, and Frozen was simply obnoxious to watch. I'm very much aware that my opinion is much against the tide of the rest of the world, particularly with Frozen and its ridiculously famous Let it Go leading track, which I didn't even consider enjoyable either.

Considering the opinion that I hold on animated Disney (except Pixar, they are exceptional 80% of the time) I thought that Moana would sit as a 5/10 at best, considering Disney are very talented at sticking to a formula that makes money: but I couldn't have been more wrong. Naturally, Moana certainly does fit into this same formula, and it certainly will have made a very sizeable profit, but despite this the film was incredibly enjoyable regardless.

The overall plot is quite typical of any animated kid's movie as a whole, Moana (Auli'i Cravalho) is a girl who lives on an ancient island which is becoming affected by a curse - fish begin to die, villagers start worrying about food etc - and Moana believes that the solution to her problems lies beyond the reef, away from her island, where no one has allegedly been before. Her father is the chief of the tribe that reside on the island, and wants Moana to take his place when she is of age, so he is very much opposed to the idea of her travelling away from the island.

This all lines up to the generic overbearing-parent/adventurous-child dynamic, where Moana longs to travel, and her father is desperate to keep her restricted to the island during the entirety of her childhood. This isn't exactly pushing the boat out (I'm funny) when it comes to an original plot, and when Moana eventually leaves the island with the encouragement of her Grandmother, the real adventure begins.

What is absolutely worth mentioning is the music, since How Far I'll Go was nominated for a Golden Globe (and likely will be for an Oscar) for best original song. While La La Land took the award, this track deserved its spot on the nominees list at least, as this is a Disney song which is not only listenable, but enjoyable and - and this is important - leagues above Let it Go. It's clear the creators of Moana understood that this song would really be a hit, since they reprise the song two or three times more during the film, which does make it a bit stale by the end - but Cravalho's voice seems perfect for not only voice acting as Moana, but also in performing How Far I'll Go.

There are other original tracks in the film, Maui (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) does perform as well, but none of them resonated as much as the main track. However, other than the song that he performs, Maui was absolutely my favourite character in the film. This is far and away Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's best presentation in any film, playing a demi-god who has caused the curse that Moana's island is affected by, mainly through his own ignorance. And that's what Maui is during the time you meet the character; an ignorant, self-absorbed moron who is too focused on his own image to actually help anyone using the status he possesses as a demi-god. Moana attempts to find him to try and fix the curse, and Maui is our reluctant hero in this adventure.

What I really loved about Maui is that there is absolutely no reason for him to be so full of himself, he is stripped of his shapeshifting abilities when Moana discovers him, and he has essentially caused all of the problems that he and Moana face during the film, yet his ego is still huge, and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's execution makes this somewhat charming. The relationship that Moana has with him is naturally quite rocky (I'm very funny) to begin with; Moana tries to command Maui to fix the curse and Maui tries to leave Moana to rot on an island and steals her boat. Despite this, they do work together during the film and their relationship grows to a point of admiration and empathy of one another - without spoiling anything. The actors clearly work in conjunction very well, and Maui was one of the main reasons I really enjoyed this movie.

Overall, Moana is incredibly enjoyable, even if it follows the typical Disney formula. The plot may have been particularly generic, but every performance in the film really hit a high note and the animation style, while Disney's usual, still had moments of spectacle. Even for a children's movie, I would wholeheartedly recommend this film to any child or adult, because either demographic will likely find this film really entertaining.

https://showme-themovies.blogspot.co.uk/

The video game franchises' movie adaptation manages to convey a less interesting plot than the games themselves; Fassbender was very much an overqualified actor for this role.

The Assassin's Creed franchise has always been plot driven - alluding to apocalyptic storytelling about Mayan influence, templar rule and long-line ancestry of assassins. When converted into a movie, one would expect this to enhance the detail as much as the story can muster - sadly this couldn't be further from the truth.

If there is one thing I could compliment about Assassin's Creed, it's that it put in a great deal of effort in remaining true to the franchise. Anyone who has seen or played the video games will see that Michael Fassbender does look exactly like one of the assassins, there is mention of many important plot details from the games such as the Apple of Eden and the Templars, and many of the camera shots are designed to look like the games did. Too often has a video game to film adaptation completely lost all relevance of its original plot: Doom, Resident Evil and Street Fighter to name but a few, yet Assassin's Creed has managed to remain true to its brand. This, however, comes at a great cost - which is completely detrimental to the overall film quality. The camera shots during action scenes are genuinely awkward and jarring, making it difficult to actually focus on what is happening in front of your eyes, and the mention of important items in the games felt more like a checklist of things the director was required to mention rather than adding relevance to the plot: the assassins did cite the Assassin's Creed for example, but there was no given reason as to how the vow "nothing is true; everything is permitted" relates to the assassins in the plot.

The plot follows main character Cal Lynch (Fassbender) and his Spanish ancestor Aguilar, who Lynch can access the memories of through the use of a device known as the Animus - another callback to the video game series - where Lynch will re-animate moments from his ancestor's informative past. Lynch gains access to the animus through an organisation known as Abstergo, who save Lynch from being sentenced to death and contain him in a facility to extract information from Aguilar's life using the animus. Of course, Abstergo are gaining this information to use maliciously, and to ultimately control the will of humanity by finding the Apple of Eden within Aguilar's memories, which has the ability to control human nature.

Now, a similar story does take place during the games, but it takes up until at least Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (the third game in the series) to fully explain all of this - the Apple of Eden is only revealed in the last act of the first game - whereas the film attempts to cram as much of this information in at one time, so it is likely anyone watching who has never played the games can't keep up or feel that the story is rushed: which is exactly the case.

Dramatic moments during the film do not feel as substantial as they are intended because every part of the film tries to add a new twist constantly: particularly the ending, which is supposed to be a surprising cliffhanger, yet I found myself not caring about any of the characters or their motives at all by the bitter end; if every moment is meant to be dramatic in the movie, then nothing stands out as intended.

The acting quality is also not great - Sofia (Marion Cotillard) is the leading scientist on the Animus project, and Cotillard clearly tried her best to work with the material she was given, however her characters' permanent expression was always worried, making Cotillard incredibly underused. Essentially any actor could have played Fassbender's role(s); Lynch was incredibly bland, and Aguilar had barely any dialogue (and since he was also played by Fassbender, he didn't look like a spaniard as he was meant to) - unlike in the games where main character Desmond's ancestors were completely different people and did not look exactly like him.

Overall, Assassin's Creed would definitely not be on my watchlist, and it is riddled with faults. The plot does clearly open up for a sequel, which will need to step up its quality in order to make me even vaguely interested.

Originally the brainchild of Siobhan Dowd, and beautifully finished by Patrick Ness, A Monster Calls' on-screen adaptation hits all the right notes.

When it comes to writing a children's book about dark themes such as a bullied 13-year old's attempts to deal with an overbearing grandmother, absent father, and his mother's battle with cancer, Patrick Ness must have had his work cut out when trying to set a suitable tone. When this is then transferred to a movie adaptation, with so many factors to consider like the score, animation and dialogue - you have an incredibly difficult task from the start in moulding to your target audience and remaining consistent without viewing as too dark or too edgy.

The solution that A Monster Calls attempts is the best of both worlds; maintaining a touching tale of loss and hope for the future, yet sliding in themes that children will be able to digest - though sometimes panning out as cliché.

The story focuses on schoolboy Conor O'Malley (Lewis MacDougall) and his brief relationship with an imaginary monster; whose purpose it is to help Conor learn to deal with the issues he faces by telling him three tales - provided that Conor tell the monster a tale of truth in return. The Monster (voiced by Liam Neeson), originating from a yew tree near Conor's home during the opening act, is, at first glance, reminiscent of Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy; though with far more vocabulary and an even shorter fuse.

From an aesthetic standpoint, the animation of The Monster is indeed a spectacle - not to mention a certain scene which is featured in the trailer of the film with a collapsing graveyard, where the CGI is top notch again. Naturally it is not a huge sci-fi blockbuster-level phenomenon, as the film is clearly created with a modest budget, but at the same time, A Monster Calls manages to supply the viewer with enough to please the eyes. During the times the Monster is telling his tales, 2D animation illustrates the story as it is told; the animation is a good break from the main story and I found myself always looking forward to his next - even though the third was incredibly short and fit in to the main story rather than having its own sequence, to my disappointment.

As far as sound design and score goes, there isn't too much to note other than one dramatic moment where all sound stops completely which was pulled off perfectly; the soundtrack wasn't particularly memorable at all on its own, but it did work well tied into the film, so standard enough.

The performances of the main cast are more than worth a mention, particularly considering what was managed with quite a limited number of performers. Lewis MacDougall certainly suited the role of Conor very well, a commending performance from a young actor with a good knowledge of his field. While I can't say the performance was quite exceptional, MacDougall did make Conor relatable in how he responded to different situations throughout the film, an example being how frustrated he gets when The Monster tells seemingly irrelevant tales to Conor's situation. Liam Neeson was a perfect choice for The Monster, who projected and dragged out his words so that he sounded how we'd imagine a gigantic tree-monster to sound, to the point that there were moments The Monster didn't even sound like Neeson at all; an incredibly immersive presentation.

Furthermore, acting from Felicity Jones and Sigourney Weaver were near-perfect - Jones (Conor's mother) portrayed a very realistic mother/son bond; with Weaver playing the grandmother of Conor (an excellent casting choice), superbly displaying a particularly powerful moment during the film when she loses one of her prized possessions.

The lapses in immersion and writing quality came in only two forms - one with the cliché bullies that torment Conor at school:- there are three of them, they have a 'leader bully' and that specific bully eventually gets a form of comeuppance- it sounds even less original when I describe it.

These bullies have no real motivation to consistently distress Conor whatsoever, and whilst the revealed reason Conor puts up with their teasing is incredibly moving, the actual point of the bullies simply felt like a plot mechanic, rather than fully fleshed out characters making a meaningful appearance. The other issue I would raise is that Conor is essentially correct about The Monster's stories, that they are completely irrelevant to the main story in this film; I found myself waiting for the moment that The Monster would explain how all his tales tied into the problems Conor was facing - however that moment never really came.

Overall, A Monster Calls is a great movie, and one I would certainly recommend - but do expect to be leaving the film in a far worse mood than you walked in with; it deals with some depressing themes and children with a firm understanding of the plot will likely be in tears.

8/10