ellscashncarry

The Accountant revolves around a mysterious, autistic accountant (Affleck) whose role goes well beyond that of accountancy. As we learn about 'the accountant' (both his past and present), as well as an ongoing treasury investigation into his activities, events start to unravel and several characters find their lives in danger.

First off, I should say that The Accountant does so much right. It's engaging, exciting and thoroughly entertaining. The plot hooks the audience in from the opening scene and keeps you right through to the end. The story is novel, fairly distinctive and a little more intelligent than your bog-standard thriller. This an action thriller made by someone who actually cares about making good cinema.

The acting is very good across the board including another strong performance from Ben Affleck, who's much underrated in my book thanks to some poor film choices in his early days. Since Argo he's very much back in favour with 'those who matter' though and it's great to see him getting the lead in another serious film, without him having to direct.

Some of the techniques used to link characters to their 'younger selves' or to connect their thought processes in multiple scenes were very slick; subtle, but just enough to allow the viewer to make the connection.

Finally, the relationship between Kendrick & Affleck (don't worry, this isn't a spoiler) is just enough without going beyond their own social limitations.

However, there were a couple of areas where the movie let itself down a touch. Firstly the plot became a little convoluted, which at the time I was fine with because it felt like a complex story which may require a second watch to fully appreciate. However, when the ending is revealed it leaves you feeling a little like 'who cares?' or 'so that was all for nothing then?'.

In all honesty, the plot just ended up a little far-fetched and convenient, even for Hollywood and I think the director got a little carried away with the film being 'cool' rather than 'stellar'. For some reason, I went into the film thinking I'd seen somewhere that it was based on a true story. Safe to say by about two thirds of the way through I'd well and truly dismissed that notion. There's just no way something like this could ever play out in real life, which left me a little disappointed as the film didn't need to go as far as it did. There was a perfectly legitimate and just as exciting story in there without the embellishment. A few too many unrealistic action sequences (one in particular) and 'what are the chances?' type moments for my liking. In fact one of the characters actually asks 'the accountant' this question near the end of the film, to which our autistic friend begins to calculate the odds before being shut off as it was 'a rhetorical question'. Safe to say had he been allowed to answer this question he would have identified that the chances were practically impossible of all things playing out in this film how they did.

In summary, if you like thrillers, go see this movie. If you like Ben Affleck, go see this movie. In fact, if you like any half-decent film, go see this movie. If however you're only in pursuit of movie-perfection, then this one doesn't quite cut it.

P.S. How many films is Shane from The Walking Dead managing to get himself in???

A heartwrenching look at the British benefits system which presents a real juxtaposition to the ubiquitous 'Benefits Street', 'Daily Mail 'scroungers' headlines-type culture that we've become so accustomed to.

'I, Daniel Blake' follows the lives of Daniel and Katie who, although from very different backgrounds both appear to be suffering similar fates at the hands of The State.

With believable, real characters, excellent acting and an engaging plot, the film really draws you in, and leaves you feeling grateful for what you have. Yes it clearly has a political message and no it won't be for everyone but it certainly can't be knocked. Better and more important than many of the so called 'blockbusters' we'll see this year.

This rating feels really harsh as this was a genuinely good movie and an excellent homage to the original.However the issues here are two-fold:

1. If you've seen the original there's really no need to see this one. It's effectively a modern remake of the original film with some minor tweaks. As a result, there isn't really much need for its existence other than to make more money for the film studio.

2. Part of what made the original so genre-defining and so ruthlessly scary (at the time) was the fact that nothing had been seen like it before. Tie that in with all the paraphernalia that went with it – mockumentaries, interviews with relatives, the actors in hiding for months, and it meant people were genuinely terrified before they'd even set foot in the cinema. Without all that, and with people being so accustomed to 'hand-held horror films' now, this film doesn't really deliver anywhere near the terror or frights that its namesake did 17 years ago.

Despite the above however, Blair Witch does so much of what 'Project' did well. For a start, the characters make genuinely, believable choices (minus maybe the idea of going into the woods in the first place). When you find yourself thinking you'd definitely leave at that stage - the characters attempt to leave. When you think at that stage you'd set up camp for the night rather than wandering round in the dark – they set up camp for the night… So often in horror films we have to put up with idiotic characters making idiotic, wholly unrealistic decisions and suffering the consequences as a result. At least with the BW series, you can actually empathise with the characters as they act in a similar manner to that, any of us would in the same situation.

Then, somewhat in homage to the original, it brings in elements of new camera-work which add to the tension and genuinely seem to present some alternative ways of filming (GPS cameras connected to the ear, looking through the reverse screen of a video camera, drone cameras etc) and all are integrated into the story seamlessly rather than being thrown in for the sake of it.

Finally, although I personally found myself relatively unmoved by the whole thing, the cinema itself barely moved when the credits rolled. My partner and I watched the entirety of the credits and were still two of the first out. It was as if everyone was waiting for the lights to come on first, which would suggest maybe others were more unnerved. I've never seen anything like it! In summation, if you've seen the original, there's really no need to see 'Blair Witch'. It's not that you'll be disappointed as it does a lot well, but it does a lot well because it practically mirrors the first. Not a bad film by any stretch but doesn't offer enough new material to warrant its existence.

Finally finished watching this with my partner and what a superb ending (don't worry, no spoilers!). With the exception of the nonsensical notion that the main characters, despite not being policeman and worse, being witness to the crime in question, are constantly allowed to be involved in the investigation, this series was perfect...

An excellent story (I shall have to pick up a couple of Harlan Coben novels I think), incredible acting across the whole cast, a great soundtrack, well-rounded characters, superb casting (especially where different actors were required for the same characters 20 years apart). I could go on, but in short, if you haven't started this already, do! It's still available on Sky/Now TV Box Sets at the time of writing.

It's shows like this and Utopia which so many US TV shows (which seem to get all the plaudits) really should take note of. No dragging out of episodes where you wait 6 episodes just to get 1 new piece of information. No leaving cliffhangers at the end of the 1st series to leave it open for a 2nd. None of this 'oh well you've got to get through the first 2 seasons, but then it gets good, honestly'. Just a perfect one off series which is rounded off properly and if anything moves a little too quickly. Seriously, each episode contains the equivalent of around 3 'US season finale' type moments, you'll find yourself rewinding just to make sure you'd seen things right.

As a film this really is poor. On practically every level it falls down… Now You See Me 2 picks up directly where the first film left off and the film follows a similar pattern – The 4 (or 5?) horsemen, performing larger-than-life magic with the aim of providing for those less fortunate or exposing those who do wrong. However, unlike the first, their motivations behind each of these stunts are a little less clear and certainly less meaningful. In fact inconsistent or unlikely character motivations and actions are a problem throughout the film (with supporting characters as well as the leads).Then there's the fact that this plot is so unrealistic and beyond the realms of possibility that it makes the first script look practically normal. The script in itself is a problem… it's messy, incongruent and forced – "well we need to have a shootout/car chase, otherwise it won't be cool enough".

Then there's the fact that Isla Fisher's character has left the gang and although briefly explained at the beginning of the film, is never mentioned again. Yet her replacement (played by Lizzy Caplan) is not only treated as if she's been there since the beginning, but also held responsible for all the actions she wasn't around for in the first film. I get the feeling it might have been easier for her just to play Isla Fisher's character (Katie Holmes-Maggie Gyllenhaal in Batman style) rather than trying to shoehorn in a different character. And talking of characters – Daniel Radcliffe's character is atrocious. I don't want to give anything away but he is such a stereotypical, spoilt, British man it's untrue. Moreover his acting in this was reminiscent of all his appalling, wooden performances from the early Harry Potter films… And just I was starting to believe that maybe he could act!

And then there are issues around plot holes, speech which is purely for the viewers' benefit, seemingly irrelevant sub-plots and a ridiculously backwards ending which doesn't appear to make much sense.

So how the hell, given all these problems, does it give it get a 6 I hear you cry? Well, as with the first, it is still thoroughly entertaining. It's light-hearted fun, which isn't really tackling any of the world's serious topics and as a spectacle is still great. Sure I found myself thinking of several occasions 'my god this is garbage', but it didn't annoy me. It's the kind of film where you can laugh off the issues and appreciate the fun parts.

In summary, if you liked the first one, I certainly wouldn't discourage you from seeing NYSM2. I'd just go in with limited expectations and an acceptance that many aspects of it aren't going to be very good. If you have those two things you'll probably enjoy it thoroughly, despite all its flaws.

Well, the 'King of Cool' is back and once again he's created a slick, smart film, which excites all those little nerves that us blokes (and women - no sexism here) find so appealing! Yes there are slick lines, yes there's blood... and yes, as always, there is a shootout... my god, does Tarantino love a shootout!

I don't want to give any spoilers away, and given that we know so little about the film going into it, I fear that saying practically anything will give something away. So in short, The Hateful Eight is about two bounty hunters, heading to Red Rock, Wyoming, to claim their bounties. Not only do they pick up one interesting and suspicious character along the way, but due to a nasty blizzard they are forced to make a pit stop at 'Minnie's Haberdashery' where they run into several more of these types, all of whom may or may not be telling the truth about their identities or their reasons for being there. Our story then revolves around these eight (well nine if you include the driver) characters' stories and how they interact with one another. Think Cluedo/Clue but in a blizzard, in America, in the 1870s.

I know this film has very much split Tarantino fans but for me, if you like Tarantino, you should enjoy The Hateful Eight. The only reason I can think some may be put off, is that it does move significantly slower than much of Tarantino's work. It is much more of a slow burner and revolves more around the characters' actions and dialogue, than the actual scenes themselves. That being said, it had me gripped enough that I wasn't looking at my watch (despite the near 3 hours running time), so it can't be too drab!

So let's do some quick fire bullets to prevent this review getting too lengthy:

• No this isn't Tarantino's best work. No it isn't close to my favourite of his work. That being said, it is once again a very well made piece of cinema from a director who continues to make films in a way no one else really can. Another engaging, funny, smart story from Mr Tarantino. I can fully understand why The Academy have failed to recognise it however, it may just be a little 'action-gory-type' film for them I expect. It certainly doesn't carry the distinction of say, a 'Revenant'. But I certainly preferred it to The Revenant, Big Short, Brooklyn, Room etc.

• The acting across the board was excellent. One of the major strengths of the film were its characters, each having its own distinct personality and back story. This is not only testament to the actors themselves but also to Tarantino on the writing front. I thought Tim Roth in particular was superb and although no really considered from what I saw 'pre-awards season', can count himself unlucky not to get a Best Supporting Actor nod. I'd certainly place him higher than Christian Bale in The Big Short, that's for sure.

• Jennifer Jason Leigh played her crazy, but calculated character very well and is definitely worthy of her Oscar nomination.

• The film also provides a huge role for Walton Goggins, who I must confess I've not seen before, but will no doubt be cropping up in more feature films now I expect. He did a very good job in this, especially given the actors he was lining up alongside.

• And finally, Ennio Morricone... He is very much deserving of the Oscar. And unlike Leo (who deserves it because of his body of work, rather than for his specific role this year), this score would more than be worthy of the win. Despite my love of Thomas Newman's Bridge of Spies score, I have to accept that it was relatively samey throughout whereas the variety of compositions that Morricone has had to put together for this is impressive... more so because each works so perfectly with the scene/s it's attached to. Very Hitchcock-esque... including one part having a hauntingly similar relation to Psycho... which would explain why I appreciated it so much. So yes, although Thomas Newman's Bridge of Spies score is my favourite so far this year, this is probably better in terms of achievement and quality. Besides... how can you deny the composer of The Mission & The Good, The Bad and The Ugly finally receiving an Academy Award?

My second film of the Oscar season set against the backdrop of the Cold War, and like Bridge of Spies, this too is a very good, solid drama, which tells a story I knew nothing about.

The story of Dalton Trumbo, a screenwriter who wrote some of the biggest films of the era but who, because of his political beliefs (which are seen to sympathise with the Soviet Union), finds himself blacklisted and a social pariah... the film shows just how paranoid America was during the aftermath of WW2 and throughout the Cold War and the effect it had on honest, American citizens who in reality had no connection with Russia other than a similarity in political beliefs.

My thoughts notes on the film (in short, easy to digest bullets):

• Bryan Cranston gives a very strong performance. I can't say I know of Dalton Trumbo but I certainly forgot I was watching 'that bloke from Breaking Bad'. I've seen 3 of the 5 Best Actor nominees so far (Damon, DiCaprio & Cranston) and I couldn't say I could really split any of them. The only thing I would say, is I was very conscious I was watching 'Leo' during The Revenant' rather than his character, but that may just be because Leo is so ubiquitous, which can't really be held against him. I guess it's on Redmayne or Fassbender to blow me away!

• It was slightly unnerving to see Helen Mirren play a nasty character for once! Not so much a baddie (as this film doesn't really have baddies in that sense of the word), but certainly the person you are supposed to hate. She does it well, and it's really strange disliking Helen Mirren 😂! - Robbie Coltrane gives his usual 'likeable supporting-character' performance which he is becoming synonymous with. Is that guy ever gonna play a leading role again? He and Cathy Bates would have fantastic 'supporting actor' babies 😂.

• It may not blow your socks off, but it's a very well told story and although I appreciate not all Best Picture nominees can just be straight dramas/biopics, I did prefer this to many of the nominees I've seen (Big Short, The Revenant, Brooklyn).

• It's also funny! I find myself chuckling along with the rest of the cinema on a number of occasions.

• The acting is solid throughout.

• Oh... and Diane Lane looks great!

Given that virtually all the pre-awards hype since September has been about DiCaprio's performance and potential first Oscar, I'm going to split this review into two parts: DiCaprio & the film.

The film: A beautiful film with insanely good cinematography and camera-work, an excellent score and superb acting all round. From the films I've seen so far it should definitely win Best Cinematography. The scenery and backdrops are epic in scale and totally immersive. The camera-work also helps really place the viewer in the film and has some different and quirky ways of shooting which I definitely respected. The score (as with Bridge of Spies) is also excellent and matches the film perfectly. I'm very surprised it didn't get a nod for Best Score. Finally as mentioned, the acting across the board. Tom Hardy in particular is fantastic and absolutely nails his character. In fact I'd argue his is the most memorable character and best performance in the film. Whatever the case I'd certainly place him above Bale (The Big Short) and probably Rylance (Bridge of Spies) too, in terms of the films I've seen so far, and would love to see him win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.

However... a film can't stand up on its sound, acting and cinematography alone. The story needs to be of a top calibre as well if you are to be considered for Best Picture. And it is here where I feel the film falls down a little bit. Don't get me wrong, I've given it a 7 and thought it was good. I certainly respect Iñárritu for what he's achieved. But did it blow me away? Was I wholly immersed and engaged in the story? Did I find myself empathising with the characters? Unfortunately the answer to all these questions is no. I can't really say I was gripped by the film, I thought it started well but actually got worse as it went on and by the end I find myself looking at my watch as it began to drag. Additionally there were a few scenes which got my back up... firstly on two occasions Iñárritu filmed scenes which I found myself thinking were totally unrealistic, which was odd given how expertly most of the scenes were shot and set out. one where French soldiers don't see what's happening to one of their men 20 feet away and in plain view... and the other where horseback native-Americans fail to shoot him from mere metres away. Additionally I thought the final scene felt a bit cliché and was far too 'James Bond' style for a film like this. It felt a bit obvious and a somewhat of a cop out.

So in summary, technically it's great but as a story, there's better. Iñárritu should certainly be considered for Best Director given what he's managed to achieve here but the film in my opinion should not win Best Picture.

DiCaprio: First off let me say that yes Leonardo Dicaprio should win an Oscar. Should he win one this year, for this performance however? I'm not so sure. Let's analyse what a performance worthy of Best Actor should be... The actor should create a memorable character, a character that stands out as the best thing in the film, they should put in a performance that has you mesmerised from start to finish. Take Eddie Redmayne last year... What he pulled off was nothing short of spectacular. He became Stephen Hawking... by the end of the film you forgot you were watching Eddie Redmayne as he had totally transformed himself, not only physically but mentally, verbally, in fact in everything he did in that performance. It was well and truly worthy of a Best Actor win. I wasn't too fussed about There Will be Blood as a film but Daniel Day-Lewis' performance and the character he created still lives in my memory even though the film itself has been long forgotten. Ask yourself, what's the first thing you think of when you think about The Dark Knight? It's Heath Ledger... that's how good his performance was!

Now going back to DiCaprio. Can those of you who've seen it really say he's the thing you will remember about the film in years to come? As I stated earlier, in my opinion it was Tom Hardy's character and portrayal that is the one which sticks out for me, not DiCaprio's. Don't get me wrong, he is excellent and doesn't put a foot wrong. But did it excel? Did it do what other actors haven't done this year? No. The film studio has spent lots of time and money hyping up his performance this year, long before the film had been seen. We were told how he'd slept in carcasses, been subject to extreme conditions and generally put through his paces. DiCaprio himself has told us that it's the hardest film he's ever had to make. But do these things mean he should win Best Actor? Just because your director makes you sleep in an animal carcass or subjects you to horrible conditions and filming hours, does not mean you yourself have done an incredible job with your character. It simply means your committed to your job and the role. I'm not saying I'd fancy it, I totally respect him for what he's done and he did an excellent job with the character, but realistically he spent a good 3/4 of the film crawling/walking and breathing heavily. I'm not convinced another actor wouldn't have played the character just as well. And for that reason I question whether he deserves an Oscar specifically for this role, despite how difficult it may have been to do. I honestly went into this, wanting it to be one of the best performances I've ever seen. But when you strip back all the hype and all the pre-awards material that's been pressed upon us and just judge the performance itself, I don't think it's a stand-out.

Firstly, I loved the quirky way it was filmed, with characters speaking to the camera and little cutaways to celebs (Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez etc) explaining some of the 'technical jargon' batted about in the film. Also it does a sound job of introducing and characterising some of the the key figures in predicting the financial meltdown.

That being said, I do feel it was a little bit of a let down. As entertaining (and at times funny) as it was, that is all it was. I certainly don't think it blows viewers away or does anything special and even viewers like myself, who know somewhat about the financial collapse, will find themselves getting a little lost at times, despite the film's efforts to explain what's going on. Additionally I'm not really sure it's the best written screenplay or film editing (depending on where the blame lies) as you're left wondering what the point of the story and its characters were and what message the film was trying to get across to its viewers. Are the lead characters heroes or hypocrites? I really don't know what it wants us to believe.

I had expected this to take the best bits from both Inside Job and Margin Call and turn them into an Oscar-worthy film. If anything I'd say it falls short of both, which is a shame. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad film and is thoroughly entertaining, but if I was to advise someone, I'd say if you want to know about the financial crisis and how it was caused, watch the excellent Inside Job. If you want to watch a drama set around the financial collapse which accurately captures the extreme gravity of its repercussions, watch Margin Call.

Also on a side note, Carrell's performance trumps Bale's here and I'm a little unsure as to why Bale has received an Oscar nomination. I mean he's OK and don't get me wrong I love Christian Bale. But he's delivered much stronger performances in the past and I think Carrell gives us more from his character.

All in all a solid 7/10 film but not Oscar-worthy and won't be remembered in years to come I don't believe, which is a shame given the calibre of the cast and the story it was telling.

First off I had no idea going into this film that it wasn't a traditional Spielberg/John Williams collaboration. So it is testament to Thomas Newman's sheer brilliance and style that as the credits came, the first thing I turned and said to my partner was 'I could swear this score sounds like Thomas Newman, but obviously it's Spielberg so I'd imagine it's John Williams'. In fact on viewing the credits it turned out I was right and Spielberg has collaborated with another composer for the first time in 30 years! And what a brilliant soundtrack it is! Already far and away my favourite composer it's about time Thomas Newman won an Oscar. Given that he's done Spectre as well this year, fingers crossed it's his time!

As for the film itself, yes the soundtrack is the best thing about the movie but that doesn't mean to say the film isn't good. It's very good, and delivered exactly what it should - a fascinating story delivered well and with solid acting performances. Hanks is great as usual and his character is brilliant! The set design is excellent and very true to the era (across 3 different countries). All in all it does exactly what it's supposed to, not ground-breaking, unlikely to be award winning, but a solid film... Think Lincoln, but more thrilling, less 'dull historic scenes'. One thing's for sure, it's certainly a step up from War of the Worlds!

The best film I've seen in quite some time! Which given that so far (admittedly from the limited number of his films I've seen) I'm certainly not classified as 'a Ridley Scott fan', is saying something.

A superb film with brilliant characters, excellent acting, a great soundtrack, incredible cinematography, genuinely funny moments and a 2h 20m+ plot that has you hooked throughout and at no point checking your watch! Really difficult to find anything you can fault with this movie!

Having seen both films it's inevitably going to be compared to: Gravity & Interstellar, I feel I'm in a position to compare - and on first viewing (watched them all once, and at the cinema) this one knocks the socks off Gravity and encompasses the 'wow' factor of Interstellar but with a much more 'human' plot which is far easier to connect with. I bet the book is a fantastic read, but even without actually reading it I'm guessing this is a really good adaptation which helps bring the pages to life.

Would definitely recommend this to anyone who wants to experience what cinema is all about: taking us out of our ordinary lives and whisking us away for 2 hours or so... And realistically who's going to the cinema not wanting that...?

Almost an excellent example of what horror films should be. A plot with actual reason behind the spooky/scary happenings and which actually gives some context to the characters' motives - not usual in the horror genre which commonly puts sod all effort into character & plot development and everything into 'ooo how can we get the audience to jump next?'.

I don't feel the supernatural element was needed in all fairness. I think it would have worked better as a simple serial-killer story. That being said at least in the main the supernatural stuff was done properly.

My main gripe (once again) is the protagonist's sheer stubbornness to leave the property where they're having all the problems. OK, I get he's an ambitious writer who thinks he's on to something big and about to finally catch his big story, but after maybe the third incident any sane person would either leave or bring in the police. But like virtually all horror films Ethan Hawke persists long after any normal person would and time after time I find myself saying 'oh come on, by now you'd definitely leave'! 'surely he's gonna leave now'?.

Oh, and the other issue (although not quite as bad in this) is the characters' reluctance to turn lights on! You hear a noise in the living room, you'd turn the bloody light on! Just because it's a horror film doesn't mean every scene has to be pitch black - and if it is going to be, at least give it a reason to be, rather than turning the characters into idiots!

Hi I am only 15 and I thought this film was great. Although as stated above it does take a while to get going. As said I'm only 15 and I understood the plot so for you dummies who say you got confused you might want to pay attention. It's as if someone has written a clever story, cut it up and then mixed all the pieces around.

As someone said the only possible floor is the fact that a simple mobile phone (cell phone) wasn't used is quite annoying. However I don't have a mobile and I am at the peak age for having one. Not all people have them and it is not necessary for everyone to have them. Plus for the amount of near misses that occur during the film. Especially the scene at the end with the engaged phone etc then it is highly likely that something would have happened to stop them getting in contact via mobile phone (cell phone) anyway. That is another good point I thought you Americans could put people on hold. Rather than getting engaged. Surely if this is true. Matthew could have talked to Lisa when talking to Alex etc.

Although this film isn't really targeted at my age group (well apart from the appearance of Josh Hartnett for the girls) I still thoroughly enjoyed it and so did the three girls who were with me. Who being honest aren't exactly very clever and yet TWO of which understood it fully. So don't make excuses for your lack of attention and understanding, this film is fantastic.

Best film since I Robot definitely maybe better. I Like they way that both are mystical and yet have no floors.

Recommendation - go and see this film, would love to watch again. Along the lines of Bourne Identity and The Matrix. That took a long time to get going and yet that is one of the most celebrated films ever.

Rating: 8-9/10