RagingDraugr Reviews

Oldboy (2003)

Gloriously Chaotic And Savagely Emotional.

[9/10 · 29 September 2019]

If you want to have my thoughts on this film be expressed in greater detail than I ever could, go check out YourMovieSucks' review of Oldboy. While its predominately about the (apparently) abhorrent 2013 American remake, it also goes over what makes the original so great and it also helped me to understand its plot, symbolism and messaging far more clearly.

In essence, I think what makes Oldboy something special is just how purposeful everything is. There's so many little things than go into developing and crafting it, it's simply astounding. The way the narrative unfolds is both a joy to behold and is also utterly no-holds barred with how far it goes in depicting graphic violence and imagery; but again, with purpose, as Oh Dae-Su (the main character brilliantly performed by Choi Min-sik) becomes a 'beast' satiated only by revenge whose motivations, though clouded by rage, are sympathetic. And the cinematography captures it so well with such impressive variety complementing the story damn near perfectly. A good example is when Oh Dae-Su is first imprisoned, the camera's perspective is low to the ground with an extreme close-up of the hatch he's sticking his head out of, desperate for help and the knowledge of why he has been imprisoned. The audience has just as much information as he does (which is very little) and both the plot and cinematography carries this mystery throughout in so many ways to the point where you notice things in earlier scenes that play a part in the grand scheme of the narrative.

And despite his excessive flaws, the audience can still sympathise with Oh Dae-Su and can understand his perceptions of himself as a shameful monster driven mad by a lack of human companionship, which speaks volumes of the film's incredibly strong characterisation. There's also plenty of intertextual references going on. Most explicitly, the film in-part adapts the myth of Oedipus Rex, whose events echo the major plot twist of Oldboy (though it's retold in a far more uncompromisingly brutal way). My main hangup with this film is that I thought the hypnosis thing that acts as a crucial plot device seemed like a bit of a cop-out...? Maybe cop-out is too harsh a word, but it seemed like a lot of Oldboy's events were predicated on the idea of hypnotic suggestion which I found to be difficult to suspend my disbelief over, even when considering all the other "outlandish" occurrences within the film.

Overall: 9/10 - Maybe I'm wrong about the hypnosis thing and it makes perfect sense. In which case, it might be a 10/10. Either way, it's a gloriously chaotic and savagely emotional revenge film that's well worth a watch (if you're not of the faint of heart).

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Competent But Obtuse.

[6/10 · 28 September 2019]

If I could wrap up my feelings on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in three words, it would be "competent, but obtuse". Because there's a lot I liked about it for sure: the acting was pretty decent (Hardy, Oldman and Cumberbatch were my favourites as I think they did the best job and had the most development), the sets, costumes and props all looked great and seemed to fit well into the Cold War era atmosphere. Plus the cinematography is great with a lot of variation in shot composition, colour and lighting - with its usually dark and oppressive environments with cold sterile walls and harsh shadows (again, fitting as a Cold War era film, an era with much uncertainty and looming threats around every corner). However, there are just a lot of things holding this movie back from being anything truly special. For one, the narrative is very confusing. It demands so much of your attention, which isn't a bad thing necessarily. But I often found myself being bewildered by the arrival of seemingly new plot elements and characters that the movie, I feel, didn't do an adequate enough job of setting up.

And there's so many of these major and minor characters that you need to be aware of. But the movie doesn't spend a lot of time on building or developing many of them...which leads to much of the cast being bland, unmemorable and very similar to one another despite the overall quality of the performances. Also, the reveal of the identity of the mole inside British Intelligence was very underwhelming considering the immense amount of tension that was being built throughout the course of the film and especially in the last fifteen to twenty minutes. I noticed a lot of plot inconsistencies or discrepancies too, like "Why did Jim Prideaux act nice to that school kid and then yell at him to go away just before he shot Bill Haydon (Firth), who was the mole and his old friend? Was it because he didn't want to get the kid involved in what he was doing or trying to preserve his innocence? Early on the film, did he think he could learn to be better and integrate himself back into society, but discovered that he couldn't and thus tried to shut the boy out of his life? Either way, his aggression seems out of character. Why was Bill at all allowed to wander around outside and along the fence freely considering his status as a high profile target? Did Peter (Cumberbatch) ever make up with his lover/family member/something else (Again, the nature of that character is not really established)? He kicked him out of the house to prevent him from being targeted, presumably. If the answer is no, that he didn't meet up with him again, he seems remarkably chipper about it at the end. If it's yes, it certainly wasn't included in the film. Are we just supposed to intuit that he did? Speaking of which, Tom Hardy's arc just ends, the last time we see Hardy is a closeup of him in the rain, looking somewhat sullen. That's...one way of ending a character's story, I guess."

Overall: Maybe I'll like it more on a repeat viewing, now that I have a decent grasp on the story. But for now, the best I can give it is a 6/10 - mainly for its cinematography and performances. The rating could be lower, more so than it could be higher.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits (2012)

Shiver Me Timbers! This Story...Could Be Better.

[7/10 · 12 September 2019]

After seven years since their previous stop-motion animated film, Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, Aardman Animations came back with The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists! with the subtitle being weirdly changed in the United States to Band of Misfits! for some reason. And it's an excellent and endearing film...well, for partially at least.

Look, what I want to make clear from the get-go is that if you're going to watch the film for its story elements, you're going to be sorely disappointed. It's a painfully run-of-the-mill and predictable 'redemption narrative': main character is made of fun of for being the worst at something, goes out to prove their peers wrong, makes mistakes, is abandoned by their friends, realises their mistake, goes out to correct mistake/s that leads to the return and admiration of their friends and peers. Very little of that overarching narrative is changed in The Pirates! and is, in turn, its biggest and most alarming downfall.

What makes up for its severely lacking story however is its animation, humour and vocal performances. I absolutely adore stop-motion animation and few are more adept in the field than Aardman Animations. The characters, props and sets have the distinctive Aardman look and simply pop with vibrancy and detail, and are filled with little jokes that carry distinctly British references and wit like on the Pirate of the Year Awards form having one of the options for 'Roaring' as the excessively wondrously loud Brian Blessed (who also plays the Pirate King) or the last of the pirate rules in the Pirate Captain's room referencing Gremlins. I particularly liked the 'speaking card' gags with the monkey character, Mr. Bobo. One of my favourites was him throwing the cards up in the air as he falls down a pit, spelling out "AHHHH!"...Yeah, visual gags are really one of those things you need to actually see for them to be funny.

And although not every character is as developed or unique as I would like, none of the actors ever phone in any of their lines. For example, Charles Darwin (David Tennant) is your typical wimpy geekish scientist, but Tennant does a good job of playing the character regardless, to the point where I didn't even know it was him until the credits!

My only wish is that I could praise this film more than that, but the weaknesses of its story prevent that from happening. Also, I thought the choice of music was a bit odd and out of place, using famous (or marginally famous) pop tunes alongside the film's score (which seems to be a bit of a trap many animated films seem to fall into).

Overall: 7/10, maybe lower to a 6/10.

12 Monkeys (1995)

Absolutely Surreal And Utterly Bleak.

[9/10 · 9 September 2019]

Absolutely surreal, utterly bleak and one of the best time travel movies I've ever seen.

When it comes to the story's performance, Brad Pitt's character, Jeffrey, is a standout performance for his expressions and body language - the little inflections and facial movement in his delivery really emphasise the insanity of his character while working as a brilliant red herring for who caused the viral outbreak that decimated the population of the earth as it's revealed that it wasn't the titular 12 Monkeys that caused it, but instead the assistant of Jeffrey's father, a virologist, and the story unfolds in such a manner that you realise that the main character, James Cole (Bruce Willis), is part of a closed 'causal loop' with his actions leading to the viral outbreak happening in the first place. And despite its many twists and turns, the plot somehow never gets overly convoluted or confusing. Also, the romance subplot between Cole and his psychiatrist, Dr. Railly, is surprisingly believable and touching. The neo-noir/steampunk-esque set design and props are also gorgeously created and showcased through the film's (mostly) excellent shot composition, like the strange 'eyeball' contraption that observes Cole in the scientist's room or the dilapidated underground area shown in the opening credits sequence. However, as you might guess from the phrase "(mostly) excellent", I didn't think the cinematography was perfect. Mainly it's because I felt that the use of dutch angles was overused. I get that the atmosphere of the film is uneasy and the 'dutches' reflect that, but at the same time, I definitely think it could have been toned down significantly through more varied camera positioning and blocking.

Overall: 9/10; maybe high 8 or lower, somewhere around there.

The Untouchables (1987)

"Eh, Fuhgeddaboudit, It's An Okay Movie!"

[6/10 · 6 September 2019]

The Untouchables has two major things going for it: its well-realised 1930s Chicago setting and its cast, particularly Robert De Niro who gives a decent and convincingly threatening portrayal of the notorious gang leader, Al Capone. Its lead, Kevin Costner, however, who plays the main 'untouchable' police officer Eliot Ness, doesn't do as good a job as his fellow performers and feels a bit stilted. Some of his scenes I would even consider laughable. The way he delivers the lines "God, didn't ya hear what l said? What are you, deaf? What is this, a game?!" was a memorable standout that gives off the impression of being a first take, a warmup for an "actual" performance. His romance with his wife, Catherine (Patricia Clarkson), also felt terribly cliched, like you've seen it in so many films before and his character as a whole just has very little going on - he's your typical morally driven good cop that's seen (or rather, is about to see) some sh!t.

And unfortunately, despite the other members of the cast's performances, the deaths of two 'Untouchables', Jimmy Malone (Sean Connery) and Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith), lacked any real punch for me as the film didn't give them enough time to grow fully as characters or for the audience to sympathise with them and get to know them better. Yeah, Oscar's death is brutal for sure (getting shot in the head and then hung inside the elevator), but it just didn't yield that much of a reaction from me. Plus the copious amounts of blood that poured out of Connery's body made highly unrealistic the idea that he was still alive, let alone conscious. And he somehow manages to stay alive long enough to impart information and wisdom to Ness and Stone (Andy García)! The film isn't exactly historically accurate, not by any stretch of the imagination, but Malone's prolonged survival throws any semblance of reality out the window.

And hell, the death of a little girl in a bombing in the opening scene was far more impactful to me than two of the main characters' deaths (perhaps merely due to its abruptness)! Speaking of which, The Untouchables has this opening that raises the stakes higher than the film can actually manage as nothing else that happens throughout the rest of the story ever reaches that extreme. Well, other than maybe Ness throwing one of Capone's gangsters off the roof of the court building for insulting Malone (something which he apparently gets away with without consequences - but hey, its 1930s Chicago, I'll let it slide).

There are a few moments which I thought were excellent though, the most famous of which being the train station stairway scene, an elaborate, unfolding, escalating series of events that in real-time probably only lasted 30 seconds or so, but gets drawn out to great effect as the baby in a pram tumbles down the stairs amidst a violent shootout as the child's mother watches on in horror. In a lesser film, it would be cheesy at best, but The Untouchables manages to sell it well.

Other than that, the most I can say about the film is that its far from the best crime film I've ever seen - many of its elements seem borrowed and cobbled together from similar films and fiction - but its something a bit more than competent.

Overall: 6 or 7/10 - Somewhere around there; maybe more, maybe less.

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019)

Highly Entertaining If Somewhat Exhausting.

[7/10 · 25 August 2019]

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum is an action film that delights, practically revels, in violence - so much so that one can reasonably draw comparisons to the visceral sequences in other contemporary foreign action films like The Raid series (which is fitting considering Yayan Ruhian and Cecep Arif Rahman, who both star in The Raid and The Raid 2, appear in this film). It's also not too shy of developing its narrative either, or more accurately, its world-building. What was once a humble little world in the first film in the series is now an ever-expanding labyrinth of alliances and hidden societies that make you question how deep these organizations (and Wick's relationships) run. Chapter 3's cast is largely the same, with a few highlights like Sofia (Halle Berry) and her vicious pack of dogs or the Adjudicator as a compelling antagonist, being suitably arrogant and condescending. The plot is also straightforward enough as to be expected, with its ending being particularly noteworthy. Winston's apparent betrayal of John Wick feels earned, seems in-character and I didn't see it coming at all, which is more than can be expected of many action movie plot twists. But make no mistake: despite my praise for the film's world design, much of the film's emphasis is still placed on the action sequences as it should be.

There's so much action in fact to the point where, near the end, my eyes were starting to get numb to what was happening onscreen. Wait, am I really going to criticise an action movie for having too much action? Well, kinda...sorta...not really. Look, the action and cinematography for all of the sequences was entertaining and it always, at the very least, kept things fresh through the choreography, camera work, environment and lighting. And the film knew what it was and didn't try to be anything more than an intense, stylised, action extravaganza. As a complete package though? It doesn't excel at everything, but it didn't necessarily need to. In all, I'd say John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum is highly entertaining if somewhat exhausting, but it's still well worth a watch. But if you're a John Wick fan, you didn't need me to tell you that.

Overall: mid-to-high 7/10, maybe low 8/10.

The Italian Job (1969)

A Fun Slice Of 60s Crime Caper Escapism.

[6/10 · 24 August 2019]

On the whole, The Italian Job feels like a comedic cross between a James Bond film and Ocean's Eleven, and on that premise, it does a decent enough job. Much of the film is buildup to the final escape sequence, and much like its inspirations, the details of the heist are only fully revealed as the plot rolls on. And although it doesn't quite do it as neatly and elaborately as Ocean's Eleven, it still executes it well enough. But that praise is for when it comes to the heist plan aspect of the plot. On the other hand, the pacing is drearily slow at times and much of it is spent developing largely unnecessary plot details like Croker's (Michael Caine) role as a womanizer, when it could have been spent establishing more plot details in clearer detail or giving more of the side characters personality. Not to mention the cinematography, which does its job well enough, but doesn't stand out for anything in particular. Some of the performances aren't exactly stellar either. For example, Maggie Blye, Michael Caine's girlfriend in the film, comes across as especially unconvincingly at times. Although, Arthur (Michael Standing), ironically enough, stands out as he's one of the few side characters who DOES have a more developed identity beyond their literal role in the heist.

It might seem like I'm being a bit harsh on this film, but I still enjoyed it for what it was. The effects, stunts and pyrotechnics are nice. They're practical and still hold up well - although it seems the director enjoyed throwing cars off cliffs, as it's quite the common occurrence (no less than five cars are sent over the edge in some way or another). The escape sequence, the centerpiece of the film, is the best part about it and it's filled with clever moments and tricks to fool, outwit and outdrive the police that are trailing our heroes. And while the police are doing their job, The Italian Mafia, the de facto villains of the picture, are cartoonish, lining the cliffs in preparation for Caine and Co, before disappearing instantly like some kind of Italian ninja sect. It's silly, but it feels intentional, especially considering the tongue-in-cheek, literal cliffhanger ending and the film's general attitude of not taking anything that's happening on screen too seriously.

Overall: 6/10 or 7/10 (somewhere around there) - Silly, slow and dull at times, but still a fun slice of 60s crime caper escapism.

Annie Hall (1977)

"Irrational, And Crazy, And Absurd..." And I Love It.

[10/10 · 24 August 2019]

Annie Hall is a film that surprised me quite immediately by how eclectic it was. It was eclectic in its cinematography, its humour, its editing, its elaborate breaking of the fourth wall...and it went by so quickly that I felt like re-watching it immediately after the first viewing. Will I? I very well could. And not many films I've watched have ever instilled me with that feeling.

Maybe it inevitably comes down to the fact that many of the more intertextual jokes in Annie Hall are ones I don't completely understand. Possibly it's the jokes and little details that pass you by before you even get the chance to fully take it all in, like the photos Annie (Diane Keaton) took of Alvy (Woody Allen) with the lobster in a later scene or the pedestrian crossing lights changing to 'Walk' as Alvy leaves the frame after saying goodbye to Annie, literally and metaphorically indicating their relationship is over...maybe I'm reading into that too deeply.

But perhaps its 'rewatchability' results from the chemistry in its cast. The story of two neurotic but very different people who fall in and out of love is strange, compelling and oddly sweet, and the "fidgeting" and insistence of the narrative to go all over the place is as if Alvy is trying to piece together what went wrong in his and Annie's relationship - but the audience has vague ideas of why just by being outside observers. So the portrait the film paints of its characters could be why I like it so much. I can't honestly say, I would need to stew on it for a lot longer to come to a more definitive conclusion.

But what I do know is that, somehow, I love this film. Like it's final line, my interest in Annie Hall seems "totally irrational, and crazy, and absurd...", but something tells me I will keep revisiting this film for a while yet.

Overall: 10/10 - as with all my ratings, it's just an arbitrary number and may fluctuate.

American Sniper (2014)

Gritty, Brutal At Times, And Pretty Alright.

[6/10 · 16 August 2019]

Yeah, it's alright.

Bradley Cooper's performance is pretty good, the pacing is decent, there are a few nice shots here and there, and a lot of sympathy and attention is given to soldiers and civilians caught within a war zone and the effect it has on their state of mind. It's certainly not a fresh and original take on the trauma of warfare, but it's certainly presented well with decent seemingly realistic gun-play and some very harrowing moments - like seeing a young child and his mother being killed by the protagonist in one of the opening scenes (arguably justifiable in the context of the scene, but nonetheless an intense moment of ethical dilemma). So I think it's fair to say that this film doesn't exactly pull its punches. And while American Sniper comes with a good helping of chest-thumping patriotism, which is to be expected from a Clint Eastwood film, it still does an okay job of at least giving some humanity to the opposing side like showing a picture of the enemy sniper, Mustafa, as a Syrian gold medalist in the past. It's limited, sure, but at least it's there.

However, the cinematography isn't all that special, the score is unmemorable, and very few of the characters outside of the few in the main cast have any character development whatsoever, thus the few that die leave barely any emotional impact and the ones that survive are wholly unremarkable. In addition, its realism and accuracy to the real-world events is questionable to say the very least (but again, that's expected with most films like this) and some of the special effects like the helicopter in the sandstorm are quite bad. Not to mention that clearly fake baby doll which everyone has already talked about at great length, so I won't.

Overall: 6/10

Free Solo (2018)

Rockclimbing Without A Net, Or Anything Else For That Matter.

[9/10 · 16 August 2019]

Rarely does anything capture the feeling of fear more innately than the extremity of heights. In most people, it triggers an instinctual, animalistic gut reaction that tells them on a primal level to keep away from the edge of a tall cliff or to not look over the side of a precarious bridge. Of course, Alex Honnold is not one of those people and his incredibly abilities are highlighted in the documentary film Free Solo, which showcases his attempt to climb El Capitan without any harness or assistance whatsoever - relying entirely on his own strength and skill.

The film however is less about the climb itself (which only takes up the last thirty minutes or so) and instead focusses on Alex Honnold the person, his state of mind, and his mentality towards a seemingly insurmountable challenge as well as the community of like-minded people who have as much of a passion for climbing as Alex does. Hell, one of the directors, Jimmy Chin, is a rock climber himself so it's clear that this is a topic and pursuit that the filmmakers are passionate about.

The most distinctive aspect about this film to my mind is the cinematography highlighting just how tall El Capitan is: sweeping, steady shots over the rim of the mountain at the top, drawing your eye downwards towards Alex as he hangs from the side of the rock, then seeing the enormous gap between him and the vast canopy below. And because the film has the ability to take its time as a feature-length documentary, we have come to sympathise and care for Alex as strange and dissociative he seems at first glance, which heightens our fear that, with one misstep, he may plummet to his death. But if Free Solo was, say, a short film - ten or twenty minutes tops - we wouldn't have gotten to know him as well as we did, and that connection might not have been as strong or have been there at all.

Overall: One of the most nerve-wrecking documentaries I've ever seen, but one that is certainly worth watching to witness a stunning feat of a human being overcoming nature in one of the most gripping ways imaginable.

Heat (1995)

Crime has (almost) never looked so good.

[8/10 · 1 August 2019]

A film so successful in its execution and, well...success, that it has been parodied and referenced to no end, in other heist films, in video games like the Grand Theft Auto series and even, arguably, real life. The film has been cited and blamed for real world robberies - most notably, the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. Whether or not it's impact was substantial enough for full-blown blame is up for debate. But it still goes to show just how far reaching the influence of Heat is.

Now, I don't revere this film as much as other people might do. It's still great, don't get me wrong - it does a good job of managing its near three hour runtime, the brutality and realism of the famous shootout heist-gone-wrong scene is top notch and of course, the highlight of the entire film for me is the chemistry between Al Pacino and Robert De Niro's characters which is showcased brilliantly in the coffee shop scene where this understated, soft music plays and then culminates into a more ominous moment where, though they share immense mutual respect between them, if it comes to it...they will both try to kill the other. And that scene is only part of the reason why this film is so acclaimed. There's also the romance between Robert De Niro's character and Eady, which is surprisingly touching, but much like the rest of the film, it has a tinge of darkness and sombreness to it when Eady discovers that Neil (De Niro) is a criminal and that she was blinded by her love and naivety. Finally, the way Heat demonstrates how easily and quickly criminal organisations can crumble is simple but effectively executed, where one mistake becomes the entire crew's downfall...leading to the death of Neil which, much like his romance, has heart to it with Al Pacino holding his hand as he passes on. It's a bit sappy, sure, but it works.

The only major thing I can think of that I didn't like as much about it was the cinematography. It's serviceable, and does its job well...and if the film is of a high enough quality level like this one, it shouldn't matter that the cinematography isn't perfection incarnate. And besides, there's some interesting things Michael Mann does with lighting and shadows which especially comes into play in the tense climax at the end of the film. I just think it's one of Heat's weaker elements, as there isn't a whole lot that was particularly striking about it, taking everything into consideration.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)

A lovingly constructed, beautifully animated love letter to the Spider-Man mythos.

[9/10 · 11 June 2019]

I don't know what took me so long, but I finally saw it: what many people say is one of the best animated films ever made, or at least, certainly of the past few years. In the words of the ever-classic phrase, "Does it live up to the hype?" Well yes, essentially. Well, I guess that's the review!

In all seriousness, it does mostly live up to the hype as an excellent animated film. And I put emphasis on animated. Because honestly, if it wasn't for the incredibly vibrant, detailed, and gorgeously textured and layered animation...I don't think it would necessarily be revered as it is. That's not to say the story is crap or anything, far from it. It's well told, has a nice progression and pace to it, doesn't get slowed down unnecessarily and is full of a cast of colourful (or in one specific case, colourless) characters. But there are a fair few (the dreaded word) cliches in it. The one that stood out the most was the group of heroes (or other versions of Spider-Man from other dimensions) leaving the protagonist, Miles Morales, behind at the final battle because he wasn't ready. Soon after, he manages to gain complete control over his powers which he has been struggling with throughout the movie and then joins up with the rest of the Spider-Men (Mens? Spider-People? Eh, I don't know) at the battle, and ultimately, saves the day.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting a revolutionary story or anything, but some parts of it felt like I had seen it plenty of times in other films before (particularly, animated films). Now, before anyone writes me off as being a hater of this film, there are still plenty of cool things in the story. The death of the main universe's Spider-Man came out of left field. I really wasn't expecting it and it took some serious guts to actually do that - near the opening of the film no less - and it sets up the overarching plot of the story really nicely. The reveal that Miles Morales' uncle was The Prowler, henchmen of the Kingpin, was pretty neat even if his death lacked any emotional impact for me (Ah crap, we're back to negatives again). But I suppose, while we're on the subject, I wonder if there's something wrong with me when it comes to a character's death in a film or if I've just seen this sort of death so many times before that I've become desensitized to it.

Anyway, back to what makes the film excellent. For one thing, other than the beautiful animation, the humour is (like the film itself) fast-paced, energetic and doesn't slow down for a second. So while not every joke will land, the film just moves on as quickly as possible to a joke that probably will. The humour is also aided by the animation with little details here and there like little captions (the yellow boxes) representing Miles' thoughts ('Play dumb!'...'Not that dumb!'), referencing other comic book conventions like visual onomatopoeia ('Bagel' is probably my favourite instance of it) as well as each character having their own little quirks in animation style (like Noir Spider-Man being fascinated by the colours on a Rubik's Cube or Spider-Ham's propensity for 'Hammerspace'), which further makes each character stand out.

Let's see, what were other things I liked about the film? Well, I thought Kingpin's motivation was interesting: trying to bring back his dead wife and son by taking them from another dimension. At least it wasn't some generic "TAKE OVER THE WORLD" modus operandi that more generic villains seem to always have. Although, I think Doc Ock's character could have been fleshed out a bit more. The reveal that she was Doctor Octopus was neat, but I think they could have done more with her. Well, sequels are a thing, so we can only hope.

And I do desperately want a sequel because this film really is amazing, and I simply cannot overstate how beautiful this film is visually - so much so that I desperately want to look up Behind the Scenes stuff, and talks by the animators on how they pulled off some of the sequences. And yes, my only major criticism is that I think the story could be a bit stronger. But even with the weaknesses in the narrative, 'Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse' is still a lovingly constructed, beautifully animated love letter to the Spider-Man mythos that I'm sure will be thought of as a classic years down the line.

Overall: 9/10, with a good chance of being a 10/10...I guess. Look, I don't know where to place it, just go watch it - it's fantastic!

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

Ethan Hunt hasn't died, didn't die & never will die.

[7/10 · 22 May 2019]

It seems that Mission: Impossible's title as a franchise is less of a reference to the intensely difficult missions that the IMF undertake, but is more so referring to the possibility of Ethan Hunt's death. In other words, much of the enjoyment I derived from 'Fallout' was not the 'If' Ethan would survive a perilous skydive or a helicopter crash, but more so 'How' Ethan would survive (We all know he is going to survive - it's a given). And I think the film achieved an incredible spectacle through that as the film could be as outlandish and extreme as it wants, because it doesn't have to worry about believability or feasibility. After all, I stopped questioning the realism of Mission: Impossible a long time ago because it's not the film's focus. Neither is narrative, truly - the narrative is merely a vehicle for the film's action, and action this film certainly has. It's the film's core impetus to keep the audience engaged - and to keep them engaged, there has to be variety. Without it, the film would get stale. Fortunately, the assured direction of the film means there is both focus on how the action is controlled and on how that action consistently builds and builds.

Through this building of action, I noticed something impressive about the film's direction - well-controlled cinematography (with barely any egregious shakycam, one of my biggest action film pet peeves), a variety of colour and colourful lighting and a focus on trying to do many stunts practically rather than doing them against a green screen. The no-music car chase was a truly standout scene for me in this regard as the film understood, at least for a brief moment, that simply having pure action, foley and the squealing of burning rubber was far more important than playing the heart racing orchestral film score to make what was happening onscreen more action-packed than it actually was.

There's also a charming obsession in 'Fallout' for twists wrapped in more twists like the revelation at the beginning of the film that the hospital the insane manifesto-writing weapons expert, Nils Delbruuk, is in is a set that dramatically falls apart when he gives the IMF the information they need. There are plenty of 'Gotcha' moments like this in 'Fallout' with both the bad guys and the good guys one-upping each other, playing each other for fools - which is certainly indicative of what one could call classic spy-vs-spy espionage, I would think. And it has to be said that there was a moment near the end where it seemed as if the nuclear bombs were detonated and Ethan's friends, his wife and many, many others have just died - but actually it was just the rising of the sun over the mountains. "You got me with that one, but I'll get you next time, director of the film 'Mission: Impossible - Fallout', Christopher McQuarrie!"

It's not all perfect, obviously. One of the film's most glaring faults is its emotional scenes - neither Ethan's relationship with his ex-wife, Julia, or with Rebecca Ferguson's character Ilsa Faust really left an impact on me. The death of Alec Baldwin's IMF Director character also lacked a lot of punch, especially since he was only introduced in 'Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation', just before this one. A more prominent issue, however, would probably be the 'reveal' of the villany of Henry Cavill's August Walker. Yeah sorry, 'Fallout' - that was kinda obvious of you, which is a real shame. Considering how well the rest of the movie can play the audience like a fiddle, Cavill's character could have been done way, WAY better. Hell, it would have been more surprising to me if he didn't turn out to be a villain.

Overall: mid-to-high 7, borderline 8 maybe?

Casino Royale (2006)

A slickly polished spy thriller...

[8/10 · 20 March 2019]

...with, as you'd expect, plenty of action - but with a surprising emphasis on tension and on tentative expectation as well (mostly to do with the high-stakes poker game which gives the film its namesake). The assured direction of the film also complements a well-written story with quality cinematography, a sympathetic but nonetheless imposing villain (played by the always wonderful Mads Mikkelsen) and a great deal of chemistry between Bond (played by Daniel Craig, who gives the character depth as simultaneously a suave gentlemen, cold killer, reckless rookie and troubled soul) and Vesper Lynd (played by Eva Green), an enigmatic and intelligent counterpart to Bond. However, the film's biggest flaws are with some elements of its presentation and the dragging and slow final third or quarter. The film, despite being just over two hours long, maintains a good pace up until that last quarter of the film that is mostly made up of wedging in as much romance filler between Bond and Vesper as possible (as a means to drive home the impact of her betrayal and eventual death/suicide). That, to me, doesn't make sense, considering the film got across their romance just fine without it with a believable arc in their relationship with witty dialogue and mind games. My other criticisms are with the location title cards, which are a huge pet peeve of mine (Filmmakers, respect your audience's intelligence and use the establishing shot for what its named for - please!) and the spy tech and computer screens, which feels like low budget NCIS (yeah, that's a pretty negligible nitpick, but hey-ho, worth bringing up).

Overall: 8/10, very very high 7 or low low 9

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

High-octane submarine action!

[7/10 · 17 March 2019]

A slow-burn submarine thriller, whose strongest component is its suspense and claustrophobia. This is largely due to the excellent set design and miniature prop work that really makes you feel like you're in a submarine in the middle of the ocean. The tight hallways and rooms within the submarines are what give the film this sense of claustrophobia, and both the Russian and American subs are stylized both in terms of design and lighting (i.e. the American USS Dallas sub has mainly blue lights and the Russian Red October sub has...well, red lights) Yeah, it's not overly subtle but its still a neat detail nonetheless. In terms of both the Russian and American 'sides', however, I liked the fact that neither the Americans nor the Russians are demonized, which I appreciated as we got to see both sides and see each's perspective (apart from maybe Skarsgård's character, who was just kinda...weirdly positioned as maniacal and insane). The aforementioned miniature work is also fantastic - if they were to do the film with CGI or another "non-practical" method instead, it wouldn't look nearly as good today. It's because of the detail in the miniatures and their believability that I became more engrossed in what was happening in the story. The characters within the story are also good...well, the main ones at least - some were tired cliches and pretty meh like the cranky old general at the War Room table who wants to stop those "damn Reds!". But for the most part, each main character is solidly built and decently performed. Not the best acting I've seen in my life, but more than passable.

My only reservations about the film are some story beats, some of the other visual effects and the pacing. The rogue captain of the Red October, Sean Connery, has a scene with his second-in-command (played by Sam Neill) where he dies after getting shot by a KGB agent, with his final words being that he wishes he could have seen the state of Montana. This hearkens back to a previous scene where Sean Connery and Sam Neill are discussing what they're going to do once they defect to America, which, while watching the scene, almost instantly made me think, "Well, one of them is going to die..." and the whole reveal of the KGB agent being the cook that we saw earlier in the film is kinda lame, and doesn't really amount to much. They probably could have just had Sam Neill's character live, and cut out the secret KGB agent B-(or C-)plot entirely. After all, there's still the threat of the other Russian submarine attempting to destroy the Red October to prevent it from falling into American hands. In terms of the visual effects, most are good but the end scene where Ramius (Connery) and Jack Ryan (played by Alec Baldwin) are traveling on a boat was pretty obviously shot on some sort of blue-or-green screen. But it's a minor scene, so it's not that big of a deal. Finally, you might be put off by the pacing if you're expecting a more action-oriented film, which this really isn't as it's much more focused on building tension and dramatizing naval tactics and maneuvers - so bear that in mind.

Overall: 7/10, very high 6 or low-mid 7

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

'Ocean's' is back to doing what it does best.

[7/10 · 2 March 2019]

After an awkward middle entry, 'Ocean's' is back to doing what it does best: engage you in a thrilling heist filled with twists as well as plans for every eventuality. But this time, it's personal. Yes, after a beloved member of Ocean's team, Rueben, is conned out of his investment in a new casino by Willy Bank and has a heart attack as a result, the team decide to make Mr. Bank pay, literally and figuratively, by making his new casino pay out tremendous amounts of money to its patrons on opening night. It's a compelling setup, largely due to the fact that I have grown to become attached to these characters over the course of three films and therefore felt an immense amount of satisfaction watching the 'Eleven' stick it to Mr. Bank. And sure, the idea of another casino heist might seem blasé to fans of the first film. But considering the disastrous attempt at a change in formula with 'Ocean's Thirteen', at least based on the critical response, it's understandable why a 'return-to-form' was made.

So pretty much everything I liked about 'Ocean's Eleven' - the heist plan itself, the characters, the music, the humour, the dialogue - is present in 'Ocean's Thirteen' and it's all great stuff. Not to mention, we get to see Eddie Izzard as Nagel in a more prominent role than in 'Ocean's Twelve' (which is great for me, 'cause I like Eddie Izzard) as well as the glorious Al Pacino in a scenery-chewing, wonderfully brash and brazen performance as Willy Bank, the 'mark' that Ocean's team is after. And the film also has the best editing in the trilogy with (almost) no weird edits at all! Although, it's hard not to feel like you're just watching an overhauled rehash of the first film. Don't get me wrong, it's still enjoyable - but it still has the impression of a rehash all the same considering many of the same elements and 'setups' are here. For example, a seasoned 'Ocean's' viewer knows when the "Gotcha!" moments are coming, so they don't have quite as much of a punch to them as they did in the first film. Take for example, the reveal that the FBI agent who apparently arrests Linus, one of Ocean's eleven, is actually Linus' father. The film plays it tongue-in-cheek with a wink to the audience as if to say, "Bet you didn't see that one coming!"...except we absolutely did.

Overall: 7/10, maybe mid-high 6 or low-mid 7.

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

Yeah, this one isn't as good as the first.

[6/10 · 2 March 2019]

I know that's pretty blunt, but those were my feelings right after watching it. It's not bad per se, and it definitely has some of the great elements of 'Ocean's Eleven' - mainly the characters and performances. But what mainly lets it down is how overly tangled and messy the plot is. Firstly, for a movie that's posited as a 'heist' film, there's very little actual heisting that's going on on-screen. You only get to see some snippets of a few heists, and in the van der Woude house heist, a lot of the actual heist is just 'sped up'. Secondly, you have the romance subplot between Rusty and the Europol agent, which I found to be quite dull AND it takes up quite a significant amount of screen time. But before I rag on this film too much, there were some things I really liked about it. Like how in one scene, where the 'gang' are discussing the best approach to the van der Woude heist, they talk over each other in a convincing manner - instead of feeling like it's just actors waiting for each other to say a line, it actually sounds like a discussion between real people.

But back to what wasn't great about the movie. Much like the first, the editing was bizarre but, to its credit, less so than 'Ocean's Eleven'. The cinematography was really poor in some scenes, looking like an episode of a really low-budget documentary or children's television show. And finally, the soundtrack wasn't nearly as memorable as the first. In general, while it does some things well, it's just too convoluted for its own good and is simply a lesser film than it's predecessor.

Overall: 6/10, maybe high 5 or low-mid 6.

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

Talk about "the perfect crime".

[8/10 · 2 March 2019]

In terms of an elaborate heist story that keeps building and revealing the full extent of the plan as the film goes on, I haven't quite seen anything else like 'Ocean's Eleven'. The way this film unfolds is something to marvel at, and is practically worth the price of admission on it's own. Fortunately, it has more going for it than just a well thought-out heist plan that accounts for every single eventuality. What also stands out are the characters and the soundtrack. Each of the heist members are distinct and memorable, much like the soundtrack is - with classical tunes mixed in with then-modern beats, as well as a funky, jazzy score that evokes the spirit of a romanticized era of film and music and thus, gives the film a sense of timelessness...if it weren't for the chunky early-2000s mobile phones, that is. But those, in all fairness, can be easily overlooked.

The movie also has a good dose of humour, but it never detours the film for the sake of making a joke or needlessly 'ruins' a serious or emotional moment. Rather, it helps to flesh out the characters and make them feel real and believable. In addition, the humour is interwoven with the dialogue, which has no small measure of wit or cleverness to it and again, contributes to improving the overall characterisation. Finally, the pacing is actually remarkably strong - even in the slower moments, it never feels like the film is dragging its heels and instead, manages to maintain a breakneck pace with ease. My only major criticism with the film is that some of the editing can be...odd. Specifically, the transitions and occasional effect such as the ever-"classic" 3D flip transition and the intentionally choppy footage in the scene where Ocean spots a potential heist member on a train. These editing choices seem bizarre and amateurish, and do drag the film's rating down somewhat.

Overall: 8/10, maybe 9 or higher if it wasn't for some of the weird editing decisions.

Ip Man 2 (2010)

More of the same...and a little bit less.

[6/10 · 1 March 2019]

Well...it's certainly more of what was shown in the first film. It still has great fight choreography, with an emphasis much more on variety than 'Ip Man' - you get to see a variety of Chinese fighting styles, as well as a more aggressive Western style of boxing. The set design is still strong, and the plot is once again, rather simple: directly following the events of the first film, Ip Man attempts to set up his own Wing Chun martial arts school in Hong Kong, but as the film progresses, it becomes more focused on settling a match between a Western wrestler known as the Twister and Ip Man himself - a fight which has weight behind it, considering Twister "accidentally" killed a martial arts master known as Master Hung in a previous fight. There are a number of other memorable scenes; most notably, the sequence which involves Ip Man fighting other Hong Kong masters to 'earn' the right to set up his own martial arts school, with plenty of reality-breaking stunts such as Master Hung flicking a stool onto another stool, then jumping off THAT stool up on to the table that Ip Man is on. So, there's no shortage of great fights. And yes, just like the first film, the cinematography is still solid.

But what really lets 'Ip Man 2' down is the fact that, while all of the Chinese characters are portrayed sympathetically and in a nuanced manner, practically every Westerner is portrayed as being over-the-top cartoonishly evil and/or extremely corrupt. Not to mention that, for the most part, many of the performances by these characters are just plain bad. Bad delivery, unconvincing and generally hard to take seriously. I can forgive that to an extent considering that this is a 'foreign' film, but still...yikes. In addition, the idea of the final fight to (at least initially) prove whose fighting style is better is such an overly familiar concept to anyone who's seen a martial arts film (Karate Kid, anyone?). Add on top of that the speech that Ip Man makes after the fight which basically asks, "Why can't we all just get along?", had my eyes rolling into the back of my head.

Overall: 5 or 6/10, high 5 or low 6.

Ip Man (2008)

A decent well-made martial arts film.

[7/10 · 1 March 2019]

'Ip Man' is a solid martial arts film with plenty of action set-pieces and impressive fight choreography to keep you entertained. The plot is simple, but straightforward and uncomplicated - which allows the film to focus on other aspects such as the characters. In particular, Donnie Yen (who plays Ip Man) is a charismatic protagonist, playing a stoic grandmaster of Wing Chun who also manages to have some personality and a sense of humour about him. Speaking of personality, the set design is excellent with many memorable, characterful locations (e.g. the darkened prison-like Japanese dojo; the bombed out streets of Fo Shan; Ip Man's tranquil home at the beginning of the film etc.). In turn, the set design is shown off through the cinematography, which simultaneously draws attention to the fight choreography through finely tuned shot compositions (even if it does fall back on 'shakycam' a bit too much). The main issue with the film is with its pacing, which is incredibly slow at the start, decent in the middle, and ridiculously rushed at the end. Because of this, the beginning of the film can feel rather boring and the epilogue doesn't feel complete or satisfying. Instead, there are on-screen captions saying what happened to Ip Man after he was shot through the shoulder and escaped to Hong Kong - a classic example of telling and not showing.

Overall: 7/10, maybe a high 6 or low 7?

The Resistance Banker (2018)

A good period drama...kind of.

[6/10 · 22 February 2019]

When you think of a WW2 film, what springs to mind? You might think of some sort of plucky hero in a leather fighter jacket, pistol-of-the-era in-hand with an amorphous explosion of fire and burning Nazis flaring up behind them. Imagining that image in your head, therefore, seems a lot more exciting than some bankers in Amsterdam secretly funding a Dutch resistance with a 'shadow bank' - but that notion is pretty far from the truth...sort of.

What do I mean by sort of? First, what works about the film? Well, what mainly carries 'The Resistance Banker' are the performances, with plenty of poignant moments: Walraven or 'Wally', the intelligent but cock-sure mastermind of the shadow bank who's known by the pseudonym, 'van Tuyl'; his brother, Gijs, who is far more wary and cautious of helping his brother fund the Dutch resistance but is constantly being roped into Wally's schemes anyway; and...that's it. Sure - there's a number of other characters that help out the brothers, but they are not nearly as fleshed out as they could have been - despite every actor's strong performance.

...Which brings me onto why the execution of this film is so-so. To compound these issues with characterisation, the plot of the film often falls into the trap of being repetitive - and thus, much more explicitly reveals how 'one-note' the characters often feel. Gijs, for example, never really grows as a character and doesn't undergo a transformation as you would expect - being influenced by his brother and all, and growing more and more involved in his schemes. But no, his progression is formulaic: Wally comes up with an idea, Gijs says "it'll never work" or something along those lines and then, inevitably, helps him out anyway. This happens constantly and quickly grows tiresome. It often makes the film seem like it's traveling in a circle - repeating itself over and over, and before long, it became quite tedious. This lessened the impact of many of the scenes, like the treasury bond heist and Wally's death at the hands of the Nazis near the end which is well-shot and acted brilliantly by Barry Atsma (Wally) as he finds a moment of peace thinking of his children just before he is summarily shot.

Other than issues with the plot, most of the other aspects of the film are good: particularly, the cinematography, with a number of really nice shots throughout and a variety of hues which match the tone of the narrative at that point in time: summer and warm colours in the early scenes, winter and cold colours by the end. The cinematography also drew attention to the excellent costume and environmental design, both of which feel authentic and fully realised. It's a shame, therefore, that the plot at the core of this film feels so lackluster at times.

Overall: 'The Resistance Banker' manages to make its seemingly dull premise interesting, if not engaging - largely due to the real events and real people it is based on. What happens in the film is almost certainly dramatized extensively for cinematic effect, and it is far from being an exemplary period film, but it brings to light an organisation of people that is oft-forgotten by history.

Riddick (2013)

OK, come on guys, you need to come up with better film titles for this series. They're just getting confusing...

[6/10 · 23 January 2019]

• (P) Positives
• (N) Negatives
• (?) Other points/Neither positive or negative

• (P) The story follows directly on from the events of 'The Chronicles Of Riddick', but it shares a lot more in common with the predecessor to 'Chronicles', 'Pitch Black' - due to it focusing on a smaller group of people on a single planet rather than spanning multiple planets. The plot centers around two groups of mercs arriving at a beautiful but dangerous planet filled with vicious creatures after receiving a distress call from an emergency beacon down on the planet's surface - a beacon which indicates that the notorious criminal, Richard B. Riddick, activated it.

• (P) Combining the best of the previous films - that being the action from 'The Chronicles Of Riddick' and the suspense and tension of 'Pitch Black'.

• (P) Much like the first film, despite much of 'Riddick' being a slow burn, it never feels sluggish or poorly paced.

• (P) Most of the characters were highly enjoyable, with Santana, the leader of the first group of mercs to arrive, being unstable and quick-to-anger; Diaz, played by Dave Bautista, whose dialogue is one of the only attempts at humour that actually work in this film (unlike most of the jokes involving Riddick's pet dog); and 'Boss', the leader of the second group who is later revealed to be William J. Johns' father (a character whose importance is not lost on those who have seen the first film) - he is searching for Riddick to find out what happened to his son.

• (P) Elaborate detail in the sets, props, and visual effects draw you into the world which the other two films did not accomplish as proficiently, which helps to further build the world (even if the CGI can be distractingly bad at times, particularly on the younger version of Riddick's adopted pet dog).

• (P) The cinematography is probably the best it's ever been in the series or at least a very close second to 'Pitch Black'; helps to make the colour and lighting 'pop', further showcasing and bringing to life the hostile alien world the film takes place on.

• (P) Action choreography was well done (or at the very least, was much better than 'Chronicles'), with a few creative kills dotted about. My favourite was Santana being killed by his own machete with Riddick still tied up - Riddick kicks the machete into the air, kicks Santana back into the wall, balances the knife on his foot before flicking it up and kicking the machete directly into Santana's head, slicing it clean off (As Keanu Reeves might say, "Woah").

• (P) Excellent and/or funny dialogue going back and forth between Johns' and Santana's teams; in particular, the scene which reveals that 'Boss' is William J. Johns' (from 'Pitch Black') father is very well done and stands out for how well it sets up said reveal.

• (P) The blood messages left by Riddick on the door and cabinet draw your attention thanks to the cinematography, and also demonstrate how he uses his mythical and legendary status as a ghostly killer to put all of the mercs on edge.

• (P) "Morphine's always one of the first things to go" - Dahl, one of Boss Johns' mercs --> Nice throwback to 'Pitch Black''s William J. Johns' morphine addiction as well as helping to 'tie' the universe together, connecting Boss Johns to his son.

• (P) Boss Johns learning from his son's mistakes by "having a strong spine" (i.e. coming back to save Riddick rather than abandoning him) which was an effective if somewhat simplistic character arc of letting go of his demons, and his hatred of Riddick - and trying to be 'the better man'.

• (?) Vaako's crone is actually called "Krone". Wut. Seems a bit too obvious a name for a henchman; but whatever, I guess.

• (N) It seems that when bringing elements from the first two films into this one, the amount of plot contrivances was also included in that transference. Here are just a few that I noticed: "Why would you leave the cabinet with your ships' cells wide open, the things you absolutely 100% need to get off the planet? Makes it even easier for someone like Riddick to remove them noiselessly and escape. Also, leaving that skylight that's right above or at least very close to the cabinet open seems like a poor decision or oversight on Boss Johns' part..."; "Why did Cyclops, the robot whose specific use is to track and pick up lifeforms or other structures at long range and in tough conditions, only just pick up those weird snake-scorpion-things when they were right on top of the mercs? Seems like this sudden limitation in Cyclops' abilities was included at this point only to add urgency to the situation at hand..."; "Santana, even in his unhinged state, should be smart enough to know that his attempted attack on Riddick, even in chains, was extremely telegraphed - an infant would have seen it coming a mile away. Why not attack him from behind? He at least has a better chance of killing them (although, it must be said that this does end up leading to one of the more creative kills of the film..."; "Why did Diaz keep firing his handgun after he was mortally wounded by Riddick's bone axe, which destroys the engine of the hoverbike - their only real form of transport? Did he do it on purpose? Seems convenient for the plot if Johns and Riddick can't easily make their way back to the ships..."

• (N) Santana's female prisoner is introduced, released and killed in the exact same scene by Santana; perhaps just to show us how evil he is? Seems the film could have gone about it another way other than having a scene with a character that ends up getting killed in said scene, making it seem like pointless padding.

• (N) The vast majority of jokes or moments featuring Riddick's new pet dog (throwing the knife/metallic object at the beginning hoping that the alien dog is like an earth dog that plays Fetch...and it actually does; relieving himself on a packet of dog food reserve etc).

Overall: 7/10 - maybe a mid to high 6 or a very low 8.

The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)

More Riddick, More Problems.

[5/10 · 23 January 2019]

• (P) Positives
• (N) Negatives
• (?) Other points/Neither positive or negative

• (P) The film is mostly focused on action and world-building with numerous set-pieces, thus the story is more the second priority as it were; basic but adequate.

• (P) The "Riddick universe" has been expanded substantially in this film, which, in combination with the higher budget, allows for a variety of locations (e.g. the blizzards on the harsh snow planet Riddick hides out on at the beginning of the film; the brick-and-mortar streets of Helion Prime; the half-freezing-cold, half-boiling-hot prison moon of Crematoria, the dark, cold halls of the Necromongers etc.), which are complemented by the set design, costuming etc.

• (P) Riddick himself has also been given an overhaul. The compassion and love he has for Jack/Kyra is made ever more present than it was in 'Pitch Black' (the first film in the series) and we also get to see the "sassier", wise-cracking side of Riddick - most notably in the "I bow to no man" scene.

• (P) Clever details here and there (e.g. the scar marks on the sides of converted necromongers' necks left by the instruments used to "convince" them to convert).

• (?) While the cinematography was OK, there was a lot of 'shakycam' in the fight scenes making it hard to actually see the action sometimes; particularly in the first few scenes on Helion Prime where there are so many strobe lights, it almost gave me a headache just looking at it. Luckily, these scenes didn't take up too much of the runtime.

• (?) Some of the moments in the film are so on the nose and are as subtle as a brick wall, it's hard not to laugh at them for how riddick-ulous (heh) they are. My favourite examples include the Lord Marshal, leader of the Necromongers, demanding information by saying, "THESE ARE THE THINGS I NEED TO KNOW"; The computer on the ship arriving at Crematoria: "ANGLE OF APPROACH - NOT GOOD" as well as Toombs, a bounty hunter who's after Riddick, screaming "RIDDICCCKKKK!" after being locked in a cage. While these are great and memorable moments, they make it harder to take the film seriously.

• (N) So many issues with the plot and overall structure of the film. Firstly, there are so many characters that aren't given any time to develop - so almost none but those remaining from the first film are interesting. Secondly, some of the plot contrivances are staggering ("Why was there a knife in the necromonger-who-killed-Imam-and-was-then-killed-by-Riddick's back in the first place? What is its purpose? Why is it there? Is it a holster? If it is, it seems pretty inconvenient to have it sticking out of your back like that..."; "Why did the Purifer release Riddick in the mind regression chamber? Couldn't he just keep him locked down and have the Necromonger guards attack him without risk of Riddick fighting back?" --> However, the purifier is later revealed to be a Furian, like Riddick, so perhaps this was the Purifier being conflicted between being a Necromonger and a Furian, and so decided to release him...? Not too sure about this one - either it's a major plot contrivance or it's a bit of foreshadowing as to the Purifier's true nature). Not to mention the fact that Riddick killing and overthrowing the Lord Marshal was prophesied by the Elementals. Ugh, did we really need a prophecy for this? A prophecy like that is such an overused trope as it is, and the movie would have been just fine without one. Finally, the whole idea of religious subjugation by the Necromongers is interesting, but was handled with no subtlety or nuance whatsoever - making the Necromongers into a cartoonishly evil threat whose leader actively enjoyed the death and destruction he perpetuated, which left no room for any sympathetic qualities of any kind.

• (N) In a way, the lower budget of 'Pitch Black' actually helped to make that film more timeless, as, with 'The Chronicles Of Riddick', the higher budget meant a lot more CGI, which now looks pretty dated - whereas the CGI in 'Pitch Black' still looks OK, mostly because there was more of an emphasis on practical effects and simpler visual effects. As a result, it was a lot harder for me to get invested in this film - even though the CGI and other visual effects were well done, considering when it was made.

• (N) While the acting was mostly good, some performances weren't as good. Karl Urban in particular, who plays the Macbeth-like Vaako, was stilted and unbearably dry for the entire runtime of the film.

Overall: 6/10; maybe a very high 5 or high 6 - but certainly not a 7.

Pitch Black (2000)

Fight Evil With Vin Diesel (Heh heh, get it? I...I rhymed...a-and it's like the tagline on the...poster).

[7/10 · 23 January 2019]

• (P) Positives
• (N) Negatives
• (?) Other points/Neither positive or negative

• (P) Slow-burn sci-fi thriller about a group of civilians and a convict crash-landing on a deserted planet which at first seems devoid of life - before an eclipse occurs that blocks out all light on the planet, causing murderous creatures to fly out of the ground and attack the shipwrecked survivors; focus on suspense, tension etc. rather than all-out action; in addition, despite this film being a "slow-burn" story, the pacing still feels brisk and avoids being sluggish or boring.

• (P) The story is strong enough to keep you invested in what is happening (even if the film can get a bit cheesy at times, and sometimes makes you want to yell at the characters (see the negative point below that starts with "Several moments in the plot...").

• (P) Each of the crash-landed survivors are all memorable and are performed well (Richard B. Riddick, the convict with mystery, myth and fear surrounding his persona; Carolyn Fry, the strong-willed but empathetic pilot of the crash-landed ship; William J. Johns, the 'merc' who has a history with Riddick and initially is believed to be a cop; Paris, an antiques merchant with a penchant for alcohol, luxuries and relaxation; the Imam and his three sons traveling to New Mecca etc.).

• (P) World-building is subtle but effective; while borrowing heavily from many aspects of a typical science-fiction story, it also employs lots of horror, grittiness, dark themes as well as integrating aspects of the modern day into it (the most immediately obvious of which is the Islamic religion that the Imam and his sons practice) - all of which helps to differentiate it from other sci-fi universes).

• (P) Cinematography is adequate; although specific praise must be given to the lighting as, not only is there a great deal of variety, but it's used in ways which service the film's overall atmosphere and grittiness.

• (N) Several moments in the plot either didn't make sense ("Wait, how did they manage to get Riddick, this highly cunning and effective killer, chained up twice? Was it part of his plan to get captured several times, or are we just going to look over this plot contrivance as it puts Riddick in a position where he's 'forced' to help the survivors get off the planet?" Or "Paris, the antiques merchant, is killed after crawling away from the rest of the group in a moment of panic, accidentally disconnecting the lights and putting everyone else in danger - despite knowing full well that the creatures on the planet avoid the light as much as possible as it burns their skin. Why? Why would he do that? That seems pretty foolish for a character who, while somewhat vain and lazy, has shown a protectiveness towards some of the characters (like Jack) and, at the very least, has been shown to be intelligent.") or were pretty cheesy (Riddick looking back to Jack being attacked by one of the creatures, having a change of heart and going back to save her).

• (N) A number of editing choices e.g. the distortion effect over the scene where Fry is crash-landing the plane, the extreme wide-angle lens in a few shots, "flopping" the image back and forth horizontally very quickly (?), Johns walking up to Riddick's discarded chains being a quickfire series of jump-cuts for some reason etc. were distracting and could have been handled better.

Overall: 7/10, perhaps a high 6 (?) and maybe a low 8.

Waterloo (I) (1970)

The historical epic with thousands of Russian extras.

[7/10 · 13 December 2018]

• (P) Positives
• (N) Negatives
• (?) Other points/Neither positive or negative

• (P) The thousands of extras present that make up the vast armies we see are arguably the film's greatest asset; due to the sheer size, the audience gets a sense of just how large-scale these battles were.

• (P) This is conveyed excellently through the cinematography; examples include: grand sweeping bird's eye shots; close up "ride-along shots" where we follow hundreds of soldiers on horseback; huge crowds rejoicing at the return of Napoleon; the choreography of dancers in the ballroom scene; also, there are many 'subtle' shots such as Napoleon in the opening scene appearing small in the background in front of his marshals in the foreground, symbolizing how he is fighting a losing battle and the fact that his marshals are demanding him to abdicate; or the scene in which Napoleon's signal to his men to lower their guns transitions seamlessly into a close-up shot of his hands behind his back; or the scene in which Napoleon is sitting in the bath --> the framing of the shot is positioned in such a way where Napoleon is surrounded by the wealth of France, with its sublime architecture and such --> Napoleon looks around at the splendour around him, knowing how much rests on his continued victory against the British.

• (P) Colour and lighting are also used effectively with a great deal of variety; e.g. the warm, soft yellow glow of the ballroom scene; the harsh blue of the evening sky; the intense burgundy-red in the aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo etc.

• (P) Great set design with many notable locations such as the French regal halls of the palace, the ballroom, and the battlefield itself slowing turning from that of a lush green and gold to upturned, blackened soil and blood.

• (P) The acting was solid, with Rod Steiger (Napoleon) and Christopher Plummer (Wellington) being the standout performances, with the film demonstrating how alike both famous military men were in their thinking as well as their mutual respect for each other's military ability; arguably, Steiger's performance was "too overly emotional", but I think he brought a surprisingly empathetic and compelling center to Napoleon's character.

• (N) One of the film's poorest qualities is it's horrendously poor pacing i.e. it takes about 80 minutes into the 130 minute runtime to actually begin the Battle of Waterloo; I understand that we need a strong buildup in order for the Battle to have any weight to it --> this is especially true for the Battle of Waterloo, considering it's tremendously important place in history - however, I also think that taking over half of the runtime to get to the event your movie is named after is far too long a time to take; also, many scenes do have the tendency to drag out - further putting stress on the film's pacing problem. In other words, much of the time, you sometimes just feel like screaming at the screen, "GET ON WITH IT!"

• (N) Many of the other characters aren't particularly note-worthy and/or memorable, despite the actors' performances; thus, the characters that do die don't really have the impact they could have had if they were developed more thoroughly.

• (N) The editing can be particularly sloppy at times, with many jarring cuts and noticeably dubbed-over lines.

• (N) The score isn't particularly special; not bad, but not good either.

• (N) The film also occasionally depends upon on-screen subtitles to explain events (many of which we don't see i.e. we don't actually "see" Napoleon escape the Isle of Elba; instead, we are only merely told that he did. This is more of a nitpick than anything else, but I thought I'd bring it up regardless).