atlihafsteinsson

I was a huge fans of Pauley Perrette as Abby Sciuto on NCIS, so when I heard that she would front her own sitcom, I was excited. It's hard to express how big the letdown is. I feel bad, because you can tell that all the actors, Perrette included, gave it their all and had some good delivery. The show tried tackling some social issues too. However, all that can only go so far when there's just... no laughter. You can only watch a comedy show for so long before the lack of laughter gets to you, and that's Broke's problem; it just isn't funny. I'm not in the least surprised that it only got 1 season.

My Life in Ruins is a fun, romantic comedy starring Nia Vardalos fresh from her winning performance as Toula in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Georgia is a Greek-American stuck in a dead-end tour guide job after she got laid off from Athens University (her reason for coming to Greece in the first place). Frustrated with her inability to engage her tour groups with her clear passion about Greece, she hates her job and they in turn hate her. But one tour group, and a man named Irv, will change Georgia's outlook on life considerably.

What bothers me about this movie is that it feels like it was written by two screenwriters who fought over what sort of tone it should have. Many parts of it are really touching and magical (the Oracle scene a particular highlight) but then other parts are so mean-spirited. Initially, the tour group are portrayed as collective airheads who are rude to Georgia, then suddenly they come around as much more likeable characters, and it isn't really a believable leap for most of them.

The movie's biggest misfire by far, though, happens towards the end. *SPOILERS* That misfire was chickening out of killing off Irv. Richard Dreyfuss and Rita Wilson's little scene was absolutely precious and it was clear that Irv's role in the story was complete; he was Georgia's mentor sent to guide her onto the right path. At this point she is, so it was his time to go. Not killing him had no thematic payoff at all except a cute little scene where the tour group visit him at the hospital. He should've just come back Obi-Wan style in order for Georgia to thank him for helping her onto the right path. Irv dying was what the story called for, and I don't like to think that it was producer interference that stopped it, seeing how Rita Wilson was herself an executive producer.

Because the acting is great all around. Nia Vardalos delivers with a tricky role far removed from her character in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Richard Dreyfuss really steals the show, though, as Irv. He should've been nominated for an Oscar for his role, such is the nuance and heart of his performance.

My Life in Ruins is a feel-good film with many laugh-out-loud moments and characters you come to care about. However, the film chickens out in regards to Irv and as such isn't as complete as it deserved to be.

Rocko's Modern Life is one of my favorite cartoons of all time, so naturally I had been eagerly awaiting the arrival of Static Cling, a standalone special that picks up where the series ended... sort of. Rest assured, it's very funny, full of references to the show and goofy humor on our culture as has always been the show's forte. Great visual style too. But... I do have things to say about it.

In "Future Schlock", the episode that this special's premise is based on, Filburt wasn't on the rocket that went to outer space. He remained on Earth. So why has he been in space too? That's a huge error right there in the very premise.

Way too much spotlight is put on Rachel (previously Ralph) Bighead, who was never that interesting a character to begin with. Meanwhile, beloved characters Heffer and Filburt barely get anything to do. They're relegated to background jokes while the Bigheads get all the spotlight. What a waste of such beloved characters.

The Wolfe family are barely mentioned at all, only Grandpa Wolfe's ghost (not a funny joke to begin with) and Virginia appears in one walk-on part. That's it. The Wolfes were always my favorite side-characters in the series, who even Joe Murray said could hold up their own show, so their omission was a real letdown.

Because yes, Static Cling's problem is the writing. The story is very preachy and shallow. The moral of "you must let go of the past and accept change" is very heavy-handed (there is a character who's literally the Winds of Change). If indeed the story is about change, then why have none of the characters changed at all? In 20 years?

Static Cling is a good view for nostalgia purposes, but it's got a lot of holes in it too, so it's a bittersweet reunion with our favorite wallaby.

Alan Cumming puts on a twist on the popular crime drama genre with his dandy character Dylan Reinhart, a former CIA-operative turned criminal psychology professor. When his book on the subject is used by a serial killer, he is approached by hardened NY detective Elizabeth 'Lizzie' Needham. Surprising them both, they work very well together.

What sets Instinct apart from other crime dramas is a few things. First and foremost is the humor, a lot of it stemming from Dylan's somewhat smug, flamboyant personality. But what really won me over (especially for a gay viewer) is the fact that he is gay, making him one of the few gay main characters on American TV. It's especially good because apart from a penchant for colorful suits, Dylan and his husband Andy are the most real-life gay characters on American TV, a far cry from the harmful stereotyping of Will & Grace and Modern Family. Even better, Dylan and Andy's relationship is very authentic.

The rest of the cast are wonderful too. Serbian actress Bojana Novakovic is endlessly entertaining as her nonexistant sense of humor collides with Dylan's gleeful demeanor and teasing. The writing is all-around great, and the crimes have consistent solutions not apparent to the naked eye. It took a few episodes for Instinct to start rolling, but now I eagerly await every episode.

I don't know why it was decided to make a short-form animated musical based on 2003's "Elf", which is a wonderful holiday movie. But whatever the case, if you've seen "Elf" and like it, there is nothing about "Buddy's Musical Christmas" that's noteworthy. The plot is basically the same, so there's no real fresh changes aside from a scene with some mall santas in a diner. Moreover, the characters aren't as charming here as their real-life actors made them. You come to appreciate how likable Will Ferrell made Buddy, 'cause here, he's annoying rather than endearing. The look style is whimsical, but it's a case of all style and no content.

You should just see "Elf" instead, and get way more for your time than this over-glorified and pointless TV special.

It's hard to recommend a movie like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" It is by no means an easy view. Set in minimal locations, mostly in a living room, the film is a constant emotionally harassing roller coaster. Aging couple George and Martha entertain a young couple after a night of drinking, but it soon turns into a game of searing at everyone's deepest, bitterest secrets. George and Martha are, quite frankly, vicious in their bashing of each other, and neither emerges at any time as true villain or hero. You come to understand, slowly, that something must have happened to this couple. Slowly, through the course of the film, you may find out what.

Elizabeth Taylor is beyond praise in her performance of the frightening Martha, an emotionally tortured woman who seems to be fighting a hidden pain. Richard Burton is perfect as her folly, George, whose verbal tactics are more controlled but every bit as biting. Both these characters have secrets that they wish to hide, and that we try to piece together the pieces of. This is a great movie, but expect to be satisfied with one view, because it will really take it out of you.

I didn't figure it out until later, but after me and my friend went to see this movie, we didn't talk about it at all. There was just nothing to say, nothing to share. I realized later that it was because this movie gave neither of us anything to work with. It left nothing. At the time of watching it, I was enjoying myself, and I had a few laughs... but it feels like it's stuck in first gear throughout.

Say what you will about the 2005 movie, but I watched that after this one, and enjoyed myself so much more. There's just way more character, humour and even action than in this reboot. I only enjoyed a few laughs during the 2015 Fantastic Four, the biggest of which was when Reed utterly failed an invitation to a fist-pump by Johnny. There's very little character development in this movie. Beyond that she was adopted from Kosovo, we know nothing about Sue, and she barely even cranks a smile. Johnny never becomes a developed character, and thus we just don't care about his angst. About the worst cinema sin happens with a single message flashing across the screen over half-way into the movie.

I don't know, there's just something really missing in this movie. By comparison, the 2005 movie gave us these developed characters with complex relationships and really entertaining banter (especially by Chris Evans), whereas the 2015 reboot feels like it barely even happened. I didn't much care for the Thing being all-CG either, he just doesn't feel authentic.

I guess I should've smelled doom coming when they marketed this movie as dark and serious. Marvel, that's why I prefer you to D.C., you've got a much better idea on how to make entertaining superhero movies, and you should've poured that same energy and spirit into the reported First Family of Marvel. As it is, this reboot only sheds the movies it was supposedly trying to outdo in a much better light. A big whoopsie, and it accounted for the most sombre Marvel cinema experience I've had.

So far, 2015 has been a pretty disappointing year for blockbusters. The recent additions to the Jurassic Park, Terminator and, yes, Avengers story lines have all been fairly underwhelming and let the theater public down. But along comes Ant-Man, a lesser-known character in the Marvel universe, and stars in the most entertaining movie of the summer and, what's more, a well-deserved addition to the Marvel saga.

Paul Rudd is excellently cast as Scott Lang, a cat burglar who longs to turn a new page so that he can be with his daughter. Just as he realizes that society isn't intent on giving him a chance, along comes someone who is - Hank Pym, who has invented a method of scaling a human being down in size while simultaneously increasing their strength. This technology has fallen into bad hands in his company, in particular the hands of maniacal CEO Darren Cross, whose shady intentions with the technology are plain. Thus, Pym and his estranged daughter work to put Scott up to a heist where he destroys all copies of the technology, with the help of the most undetectable partners imaginable - ants.

I can't imagine anyone but Paul Rudd pulling off Scott. He's got the comedy and humanity of the character down to a tilt, but he's frequently upstaged by his loudmouth friend and ex-cellmate, Luis, a theater-roaringly hilarious performance by Michael Peña. Ant-Man is fun across the board, exciting and plays with its themes of a man in a supersized world in consistently inventive ways. It strikes the balance between the themes of fun, action and serious that Age of Ultron so missed.

If you're a Marvel fan, you owe yourself not to miss Ant-Man. It's more than a worthy addition to the Marvel roster, and one of the most entertaining movies of the year. Don't be in a hurry to leave the theater, either - two last scenes that Marvel loves to put in their movies are really worth your time.

What bothers me most about Age of Ultron is that it can't decide on what kind of tone it wants to set. Some of the old Marvel spirit that balances fun with character arcs and themes is struck here, but a lot of the time, this film is just depressing too. The themes get quite dark, almost DC dark at times, and that worries me, 'cause I think the Marvel movies have done a better job with the whole comic-book movie thing than DC have. Hope this is not a sign of things to come.

Furthermore, all plot and character development seems to have been thrown out the window. The first Avengers worked because it was the perfect melting pot for all of these characters' stories and character development at the time. Captain America was still getting used to life in the 21st century, and of course Loki and Thor's story was in direct continuation to the movie Thor. In Age of Ultron, the same attempt at character and story unity is just messy. I thought Steve Rogers (and Falcon) was going to search for Bucky Barnes, did he just put that on hold? On the whole, the Cap was underused in this movie, as was Thor (my two faves). And the whole romance thing with Natasha and Bruce only works because of the wonderful performances by Scarlett Johansson and Mark Ruffalo. These characters have never shown the slightest bit of chemistry together before, now suddenly we're told that they have a crush on each other. After a movie where the Cap and Romanoff had a lot of chemistry together. Sure.

Also, maybe it's just me, but I just didn't care as much about the fictional city, because, well, it's fictional. We've already established that these characters live in a world tangent to our own, and Loki's invasion on Manhattan felt far more visceral to the audience 'cause we could relate to it. Not setting the final battle in an actual Eastern European location really damaged my investment in it. I really, really like Ultron as a character, though, and his personality kept me excited. But how he and Jarvis were connected might've gone over the heads of many in the audience.

You will not walk away from this film all energized like after the first Avengers. Instead, you'll feel like this is the end of an era. Pros to Elizabeth Olsen for a great character, but as a Marvel movie, Age of Ultron is messy to say the least.

I had an enormous good time with Jurassic World. I liked the plot and the characters, the pace was very good and suspenseful, and the film culminates in an awesome way that I did not see coming.

Why, then, was I not as scared as I was by the other films? I watched the first movie about a week ago in preparation for this one, and I couldn't block out one question; why does Jurassic World feel less real? The animation is too fluent. A large factor can be blamed on that. Real animals don't move every single joint with every step, like robots. We seem to have a reached a point where too fluent animation results in less connection to reality. Because the dinosaurs don't feel real, they're not as scary. Some animatronics by Stan Winston would've helped. There is even a particular, groan-inducing moment where a character bangs on a window from the outside and leaves his bloody hand imprint on it. That is a B-movie sign right there.

And that's a shame, 'cause Jurassic World is not a B-movie. But the dinosaurs, the way they move and - most crucially - the way they eat people isn't as chillingly real like it felt in Jurassic Park and the unfairly maligned The Lost World.

And you know what the result of that is? You don't fear the dinosaurs like you did in the first movies. The big evil dinosaur in Jurassic World causes a lot of destruction, but it doesn't scare you like the T-Rex did.

In wake of 2014's Godzilla, where they brought a colossal monster to life, Jurassic World has no excuse. I wanted to love it, but it only manages to place third in rank of the four Jurassic Park movies.

That's what Tomorrowland is about. Hope. And imagination. It's a film that makes you believe in the future. Sadly, it seems that many of the reviewers here have lost that belief, and blame that on the film. Tomorrowland is not about how to change the world - it's about believing that we can. And we need that belief more than ever in our depressing modern society.

Tomorrowland is about the power of believing. It's not a blueprint for how to change the world - because the point of the story is that there is no blueprint. It's up to us to believe in the future. That's not too vague for me, and it shouldn't be too vague for you. This film makes you believe in the possibilities of the future. Watch it and tank up on hope and imagination.

What sort of film 8 Women is depends on whom you ask. Some may call it a whodunit, some may call it melodrama and yet others may call it a postmodern who's-who. But it's not really any of these. It is a quite uncategorizable French film that's in parts murder mystery, in parts musical. In any case, it's a searing, enjoyable character piece exploring 8 fascinating female figures.

Presumed to be set in 1950s France, eight women assemble at their countryside home ready to spend Christmas together. But the celebrations are put on hold when Marcel, the only man in the house, is found stabbed to death in his bed. Since it's snowed in, it's clear that one of the eight women committed the murder. Fueled by this fear, the eight women begin to interrogate each other, and as they do, the real meat of the story unfolds. Suffice it to say, nothing is what it seems.

8 Women takes a set-up that Agatha Christie made famous in books like "And Then There Were None" and plays with it in a very tongue-in-cheek way. At the same time it still, astonishingly, manages to be very moving. It takes itself just seriously enough, as evidenced by the movie's most famous trait; the song and dance numbers. Each woman gets a little song sequence to herself, in which she gets to revel in her character. It should be noted that all of these are already well-known French songs, such as "Pile oú face" sung by the minxish Emmanuelle Béart in her iconic maid's outfit, and "Toi jamais" by Catherine Deneuve. The brilliance of these scenes is that unlike in most musicals, the characters are very much aware that a song and dance is going on. When the movie's first song kicks in, the mother enthusiastically starts dancing along, to the grandmother's consternation, and afterwards can be heard humming the chorus to herself. It's a cheeky breaking of the 4th wall that has not its like in any other movie. These music scenes give a great charm to the movie, so much so that there was even a soundtrack album released.

The murder mystery is the movie's setup, but far more important are the women themselves, as evidenced by the title. 8 Femmes is as much a story about the female psyche as it is a crime drama, and each of the eight women is a fascinating character in her own right. Of particular note, though, is the high-strung, hypochondriac spinster Augustine, performed by an electrifying Isabelle Huppert. Fanny Ardant is then spellbinding as the victim's estranged sister Pierette, a femme-fatale who seems quite above the drama most of the other women are up to their necks in, but delights in taking part in it. Catherine Deneuve is also strong as the matriarch, Gaby, who struggles to keep her well-ordered world from falling apart as more and more secrets are revealed. Adultery, lesbianism, incest, the plot only thickens every time someone opens her mouth.

If all the above seems like a very far-fetched blend, that probably stands to reason. But everyone involved is determined to tell this ridiculous story with love and passion. The cast is all big French names, young and old, which is something Hollywood could definitely learn from, from the young and vivacious Ludivine Sagnier as the victim's bratty teenage daughter Catherine to grande dame Danielle Darrieux in the role of the spiteful grandma. This movie is one of the reasons why there are awards for ensemble casts, and indeed the film garnered the Silver Berlin Bear and the European Film Award for this very reason. These actresses and their characters are the heart of the film. The delivery is sharp and biting across the board, and thus the film is genuinely laugh-out-loud funny on many occasions.

8 Femmes is, at the end of the day, a riveting mish-mash of film genres, told both with love, intrigue and tongue firmly planted in cheek. It's a fascinating, slightly self-conscious tribute to both film genres and actresses as much as it is an entertaining crime story. Parts of it will ask you to suspend your disbelief, but even so, the film reels back in even its biggest doubters with a superb plot twist towards the end. Still, what's important here is to what the movie's title so aptly pertains; the eight women. Let them take you on a ride you are unlikely to ever forget.

We don't hear as much about drug addiction now. Sadly, it seems to have become accepted more in the collective conscious of society, and I think that's a very bad development. Drugs and drug addiction continue to pull unwitting people into their web, often permanently. This movie, "Christane F.", is an exceptional movie on the horrors of drug addiction. A key part of that is having the human side of the issue in clear focus all the time.

Christiane is a bored, aimless teenager in West Berlin in the 70s. I remember what it was like being a teenager. Suddenly, the comfort of being a kid was taken from you, and you were exposed to the real world and all of its difficult realities. That's enough to make anyone jaded, and there is nothing for Christiane to do in the boring apartment neighbourhood where she lives. She escapes her day-to-day life through the music of her idol, David Bowie. Desperate to feel alive, she has her eye on a new disco called The Sound. Even though too young to enter, she gets her friend to take her. But this new disco turns out to be a seedy teen hangout full of drugs and dealers. Christiane meets a guy there and falls in love with him. She'll do anything to keep this positive new influence in her life - even if that means sink into the world of drugs that he's slowly sinking into.

This film hits close to home because of how utterly real it feels. You even come to understand, if not agree with, why Christiane chooses her path. After she falls in with her new clique of friends, there is an exhilarating scene of them running around Berlin, aimlessly and high on their freedom. David Bowie's "Heroes" plays throughout. These kids desperately want to escape their dark and dreary realities. Too bad that they end up choosing a means of escape that plunges them into an even darker reality. Frighteningly, and humanly, the characters are fully aware of their addictions. They just can't find the spirit to do anything about it.

One particular scene is terrifying. Christiane and her boyfriend are locked in her mother's bedroom while cold turkey floods through them. The agony they project is quite hard to stomach, even when they're not coughing up blood. This drug destroys their lives, if not just their bodies, and while they know and want to escape their heroin addiction, their human insecurities make it difficult to do so. Slowly, indeed, they become less and less human in their constant search for the next fix.

The actors were astonishing, so utterly believable, showing talent way beyond their years. "Christiane F." is a frightening, sadly relevant movie about one of the darkest side-effects of society, and the deeply human turmoil that lands people there - often permanently. Fortunately, Christiane ultimately managed to escape her drug addiction, and hopefully this autobiographical story will keep other wayward kids from following her path.

I love post-Evita Madonna. From Ray Of Light and onward, she's been on a wonderfully intriguing musical path. Loving the Confessions album and its fabulous sleeve, I was excited to watch this live (but heavily visually-edited) recording of a London performance of the Confessions Tour. It was a tour that Madonna herself was openly intent on making the world into one big dance floor. But if this show was any indication, the dance stuff kind of takes a backseat for awhile.

The first half of the show, and in particular how it opens, is very bizarre, almost off-putting. It begins with these clips of horses, and Madonna dressed like a very fancy jockey. This segues into the first performance, that of "Future Lovers", which has a theme of love taming people like those horses. Then it segues into very religious and/or humanitarian stuff (the infamous crucified Madonna), and it's quite off-putting. I know Madonna cares about meaning and such, but at times, the first half of the show is unbearably preachy (not counting the rather awesome dancers' confessions and the remix to "Sorry").

Stick with the show, however, because halfway through is when things get really good. The preachy stuff is gone as Madonna emerges in full rock get-up and delivers a stunning rendition of "I Love New York", ending in a crazy guitar solo. Next comes a rocking version of "Ray of Light", and then she cuts loose. With "Let It Will Be", she goes totally crazy, with energy amazing for a then-48-year-old.

The last quarter of the show is when the dance atmosphere is put into high gear, beginning with "Music Inferno", mixing Disco Inferno with Madonna's own hit "Music". Half of it is her dancers doing amazing rollerskating feats before emerging herself in full-on Saturday Night Fever get-up and truly taking her place as Queen of the Dance Floor. It segues then into a hauntingly beautiful new version of "Erotica", before striding on towards the thunderous finale.

This is an excellent show, Madonna's reputation as a perfectionist shows and the second half is utterly brilliant. But it very much feels like two different shows, even visually. The first half of the show is very bizarre and off-puttingly religious and/or preachy, but the second half is bombastic, full of energy and passion. I wish the entire show had been like the second half.

Lucy is not your average thriller, not by a long shot. It is, in fact, a movie that manages to be existential while not being preachy, and super-exciting at the same time.

Lucy is the wrong person at the wrong time (we never find out her last name). Her shady boyfriend lands her in the hellride she's in for, and as an experimental drug explodes inside her, her brain capacity begins to increase. She uses her newfound abilities to get out of her predicament and escape her captors, but what she does from there may surprise you.

Right from the start, "Lucy" asks questions. For a while, it even segues between Lucy's story and that of Professor Norman (played by Morgan Freeman), who's trying to theorize what could happen if humans could use more parts of their brain. Eventually, the two characters will meet.

"Lucy" is very exciting. Right from the go, we are with this innocent woman who wants to escape the drug cartel who capture her and intend to use her as a carrier. Scarlett Johansson is amazing, growing from the terrified young woman to the increasingly supernatural warrior with her own mission in mind. Min-sik Choi is terrifying as the revolting Mr Jang. At times you might feel that Lucy's a bit lenient on him and his men, but her ordeal changes her. I hesitate to give away more but the finale of this movie really makes you think. The movie's also very inventively told, with intercutting shots of things like animals used to thematic effect, especially as we realize in what danger Lucy is, and the interstitial indicators of the percentage level of her brain function.

I'm not surprised that Lucy already has a below-7 score, because it's a science-fiction thriller that asks questions. It's an intelligent movie that takes you along on a thrilling ride, helmed by a wonderful actress and a visionary director.

I loved the teaser trailer for Frozen, where Olaf the snowman and Sven the reindeer compete for the snowman's lost carrot nose. That trailer, which was barely a minute long, was both beautiful and hilarious, and the two characters bounced off each other very well. Which is why the end result of the film Frozen is so baffling, and its Guinness Book of Records worthy level of overratedness is such a slap in my face.

Frozen is pretty, I'll give it that. The winter landscapes and the character designs - apart from the wolves - is top-notch. The plot is a whole different story. The story isn't just bad - with characters exhibiting no common sense or the story reaching any sort of conclusion that's logical within its universe - it's downright offensive at parts. The trolls attempting to force Anna to marry Kristoff? Anna and Elsa's parents scared by the troll to keep Elsa's powers locked up, instead of teaching her to harness them? The idea that "love" is the solution to Elsa's accidental winter curse? Just vile.

Anna is hardly even a character; she is airheaded and lacks any sense of reason, to the point that it becomes downright uncomfortable to watch her scenes. The director stated that Anna and Elsa would have goals beyond Cinderella's. Um, wasn't Cinderella's goal to be free of her abusive relatives? Anna, on the other hand, is only interested in finding a man, yet finds the time somewhere in there to be worried about Elsa too. The whole song "Love is an Open Door" is almost parody-like in its awfulness (a couple two rows down from me in the movie theatre exchanged glances at its conclusion and muttered "What the f***?"). Don't even get me started on the wolf attack scene, as if those poor animals don't have it hard enough already.

Which brings us back to Olaf and Sven, shining like beacons through it all. The two are fantastic characters – funny, charming and lovable – who deserved to be in a much better story than this. Like, say, one starring them. Like in the teaser trailer. Apparently the story went through development hell and they had no idea what to do with it, and it certainly feels like it when watching Frozen. The songs aren't even great, and they're way too showing-off and sing-songy instead of rising from the story ("Let it Go" made me especially feel like this).

I cannot even fathom how people can praise Frozen as the best Disney film in 20 years, when it's far more mediocre than Tangled, Wreck-It-Ralph and The Princess and the Frog, all of which are well-realized and magical movies with both beauty and heart. Frozen, on the other hand, feels cold, almost parody-like in its one-dimensionality. Don't believe the hype, what you have here is only an average movie.

"The arrogance of man is to believe that he controls nature, not the other way around." So speaks Ken Watanabe's character in this movie, Godzilla 2014. It is a fantastic film, and it flies in the face of the philosophy of Godzilla 1998 and, more recently, Pacific Rim. The attitude of Godzilla 2014 towards its titular character is respectful. The story is not about "how do we kill the giant monster, yay mankind wins", so prevalent in our media today. No, it's about respect for nature, and how to make up for our own mistakes, and let nature take care of itself.

The trailer for this movie is one of the best trailers I have seen for some time, and it completely leads you off course to what the movie's about. You think that Godzilla's gonna be the bad guy, that the movie's about how we can elevate our mankind ego even more and kill him. The movie couldn't have steered further away from that trap. Godzilla fulfills a role that he does in the Japanese movies; a colossal guardian, answering the call whenever colossal threats arise that require his colossal touch to qualm.

The movie presents the age old tropes; the military's gonna nuke the threat to smithereens. But the events change the game drastically and Godzilla's left to do his job while the military, among which is our human main character, seek to prevent the damage they sought to use to wipe out the Threat. The Threat, I say, not Godzilla.

Godzilla 2014 left the biggest smile on my face. It's a movie whose attitude towards nature and monsters is to be commended, and which I would love to see more of. It's my favourite live action film of the decade.

The first two minutes or so of The Wild are very promising. They have a very snappy, cartoony style, culminating in a 14,000 foot wildebeest, and you think to yourself that you unfairly overlooked what's actually an entertaining cartoon comedy. But then what is revealed to be a mere opening (Kung Fu Panda style) ends and we are drawn into the movie's actual world.

If you are unfamiliar with the term "uncanny valley", it refers to creepiness of features being very realistic but noticeably off the mark. That's The Wild's look style in a nutshell. The animals look semi-realistic but the way in which they are not is very visually jarring. The character design is very unappealing all around, and this movie looked average even when it came out in 2006.

The setting might seem at first glance like a complete rip-off of Madagascar. The setting, not the storyline, centering on a lion and his friends in Central Park Zoo. The conflict here is about Samson the celebrated lion being separated from his son Larry, who runs away to the wild so he can overcome his total lack of a roar and thus live up to his father. The story about father and son is very touching and is definitely not to blame for this movie's shortcomings. Rather, how it's told is.

Going back to Madagascar again, one of the strengths of those movies is that they know which characters are golden and keep us with them. Not the case with The Wild. Larry's friends the kangaroo and hippo had potential, and so did the sports team penguins, masters in the zoo's preferred sport of curling (which the movie honestly does a good job at making look exciting). But they all vanish practically instantly when our main gang leave on their journey. Even more of a shame, the alligators (one of whom is on the poster) barely even register, let alone induce a chuckle. They just appear and then they are gone, and you could easily imagine their scene being cut. What a waste of characters with potential! The main cast really don't get a lot to do. By far the most entertaining is Nigel the koala bear, hilariously voiced by Eddie Izzard. He's fed up with his popularity as a cute and cuddly koala bear plush, and his scatterbrained nature is the driving force for what little comedy the film can muster. The giraffe does nothing but complain all the way through, I was fed up with her quite quickly. Don't even get me started on the Dutch dung beetles, which stick out from this film's look style like a sore thumb but thankfully have even less screen time than the alligators.

But what ultimately drags The Wild down is that its world is empty. Is anybody supposed to believe that New York City would ever be this empty, let alone Manhattan? They drive around, run around many streets, and there's just nobody there. Because it's nighttime? New York City is nicknamed the City that Never Sleeps, would some crowd simulations have hurt? There were lots of people in the zoo, so what's the excuse? This really kills one's believability in the film.

What is in most regards a rather tame, pedestrian film is made even worse by squandering its few gold nuggets. The alligators get no time to be developed at all, and the hilarious special agent chameleons even can't save much. The biggest shame is that the visual and storytelling grandeur of the opening sequence is never touched upon again and upstages the feature presentation considerably. If that doesn't say something about what a missed opportunity The Wild is, I don't know what does.

Sophie's Choice is one of those films I always meant to watch, and finally got the chance. It is best to go into it with as little idea as to what it's about as possible, as it's a slow film with a lot of layers that get peeled off one by one. A young would-be-author from the South moves to Brooklyn and befriends his neighbors, the couple Nathan and Sophie. All three hit it off, but Nathan's bipolar tendencies do puncture their friendship at times. Sophie, however, is a calm soul as kind as she is tortured by her past in Auschwitz. As the author, Stingo, gets to know them better, he is also taken deeper and deeper into Sophie's past, where a hidden pain resides.

Sophie's Choice brilliantly captures two polar opposite worlds. The colourful and tranquil Brooklyn is contrasted strikingly by a late 1930s Poland occupied by Nazis, where the colour drains so much out of the film that any further and it would be black-and-white. The present in Brooklyn is a good haven to have and catch our breath between glimpses into Sophie's horrible past.

At the end of the day, in spite of the emotionally shattering story, Sophie's Choice is a story about hope and redemption. The performances certainly helped. Peter MacNicol and Kevin Kline are both wonderful as polar opposite personalities, united by a common love for literature.

But Meryl Streep is utterly mesmerizing as Sophie. It's not for no reason that this was one of those Oscar-nominated performances of hers that gave that extra edge and got her the statue. All of Sophie's mannerisms, her accent, her speaking German and Polish, her searching for words in English to express what she wants to say, her restrained kindness, her pain; none of it overdone. The director even trusted Streep enough to take long shots with her as she gets into deep characterization. This is quite simply one of the finest female performances in cinema.

I did fear, throughout the film, what exactly Sophie's choice was, and I was right, for it is a scene that crushes your heart. But the film comes together in the end and ends in an emotionally satisfying way in spite of everything. Steel yourself for an emotional journey and give Sophie's Choice a view, it's a film as uplifting as it is depressing, and unmissable for cinema buffs.

The visual side of this movie is certainly worthy of praise. The world of Krypton and the destructive scenes later on are well done.

But Nolan strikes me as a filmmaker who hates anything that's not 100% serious, yet he takes on superhero movies and sets to remove everything about them that made them, well, "super". Nothing is allowed to be fun in this movie, the colours of emotions are always on the dark side. This just gets depressing after a while.

Russell Crowe's character in the spaceship gives this monologue that is such an excuse for exposition that I actually thought to myself, "This is not a character. This is just the script giving Superman information." All the Nolan clichés are here - characters just happen to find themselves in the right place at the right time, because the script decreed so. That potentially very useful spaceship in the icecaps is completely forgotten by the time the heroes really need it. Loads of people die and this is no cause for any kind of reflection or redemption. And the climax just confused me - after an extraordinarily elaborate battle scene, it ended so abruptly that I had to ask my friend what had happened.

Nolan, if superheroes are not your thing, please stop making movies about them. Stick to the overly-serious, intellectual stuff and leave the fun stuff to others, please.

When my dad and I left the theater after the screening of this ham-fisted sequel, he struck up a conversation with me about the absurd helicopter scene (those who have seen the movie know which one I mean). The entire drive home, he told me how helicopters would never, ever be able to do that. For him to get so worked up over a film device says something about what a disengaging failure of a film this is.

A Good Day to Die Hard is nothing like the other films. There are no worthwhile villains, for starters. They feel like complete jokes next to the Grüber brothers, with no menace or personality. Even worse, the movie thinks that a plot twist as to who the REAL villain is can make up for it. It does not, and feels very tacked-on.

There is no emotional investment with anything. Remember how McClaine was desperate to save his wife, as well as the people around her? Remember how, while he was drawn into it against his will, he was desperate to stop the bad guys in Die Hard 3? No such imaginative set-up here, the scenario basically being a big weapons deal. Yawn.

Worse still, McClane is relegated to the sidekick of his son, Jack. Jack McClane is a completely unlikeable character and you just wish his father John would step up and stop saying things like "I'm just here on vacation", over and over. Suspension of disbelief is on the "oh please" level all the time (is there no police in Moscow?).

So basically, A Good Day to Die Hard is not a good day for Die Hard.

Loopy De Loop was Hanna-Barbera's only theatrical cartoon series after they left MGM and formed their own studio. If you are familiar with Huckleberry Hound and Yogi Bear, you will already know the art style. Unlike those series, however, Loopy De Loop is quite ingenious and ahead of its time in terms of subject matter.

Loopy is a wolf who's determined to clear the bad name of wolves by being upstanding and doing good deeds. The sad irony is that his good intentions are usually met with hostility - not through anything he does, he is the soul of goodness. It's just because he's a wolf. Everywhere he goes, situations always work against him and people's prejudice against wolves sees his endeavours fail and fail again.

But no matter how many times he fails, he is undaunted and keeps on trying. With his impeccable manners and his French-muddled accent, he is one of those cartoon characters that time forgot - and who's more important today than ever. Both entertaining and poignant.

It may have Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris in it - but those are the only bright spots on an otherwise laughable film.

Was this film made by an Italian tourism board? On the way to the restaurant at the heart of the film, they happen to drive past every Roman monument. Furthermore, the film is terribly lit and shot. More than once, the film is out of focus. There are needless zoom-ins and zoom-outs. These film techniques work in fight sequences but not more low-key scenes.

Maybe humour is just lost in translation, but the jokes where Bruce Lee has to go to the toilet (which ceased to be amusing quick) are laughably embarrassing to watch. The pace of the movie is very bad. One of the aforementioned toilet scenes has the girl of the film waiting for Bruce Lee while he's in her bathroom. I also fail to see how any assassin would use a shotgun for taking someone out from afar. The cinematography is also very poor.

Thankfully, the fighting scenes deliver and Bruce Lee is on form. His fight scene with Chuck Norris is the film's highlight, but even that is filled with nonsense. Why, exactly, is there a little cat that the director feels compelled to cut to every 30 seconds? When there is a dramatic zoom-in, zoom-out on Lee and Norris, we get another close-up of the cat, ZOOMING IN AND OUT OF IT! Why?! (And thankfully, Chuck Norris would realize he looks better in a beard, and spare us shots of his hairy shoulders.) In terms of fighting, Way of the Dragon is a good watch, but so many pointless shots could simply have been, and should have been, cut. I'm almost positive the makers of The Hangover watched this film, as the main henchman could very well be Leslie Chow's cousin. He adds some comedic elements, but apart from him and the fighting scenes, Way of the Dragon isn't even an unravelled patch on Enter The Dragon.

A woman and her step-kids trapped in a safari car in the territory of lions who soon make it their business to get at them. The plot sounds similar to Savage Harvest, which, while more over the top, still achieves much better what it sets out to do than Prey.

PROS - Real edge-of-your-seat stuff at times, and the climax is quite unexpected and satisfying.

CONS - These characters seem to lack proper reason. When you're short on water and it rains, and you've got bottles, most people would try to fill the bottles with rainwater. Not these people. And the way they get into the mess is also one you can't really help but blame them for.

• In The Ghost and the Darkness, we really believed there was something about the lions that had them ravage the railroad construction site in Tsavo. In Prey, however, nothing is really preventing these lions from seeking other prey. A smart hungry lion would recognize that to just wait around a jeep is not a good idea.

• Shaky camera. It works in certain forms of cinema, but not here. The filmwork on the lions often suffers due to the hand-held camera, because it goes all over the place. Thankfully these moments are the exception rather than the rule. No, the foremost problem is...

• The death scenes are completely unrealistic. Here, The Ghost and the Darkness still wins out. Nothing about the way the lions kill people in Prey looks even remotely believable. As in, splatters of blood splashing up from the ground as if someone popped a balloon full of red liquid. A victim's bloody hands scraping the car window when the lion is attacking him from behind. That kind of non-realistic.

This makes Prey a pretty mismatched film. It has some exquisite lion filmwork, and some terribly cheesy scenes when we really need to believe in the lions' menace. 5 out of 10, purely for the cinematography, but if you want a good and thrilling movie about man-eating lions, see The Ghost and the Darkness. If you need an alternative to that, 1981's Savage Harvest is a reasonable choice.

I have not read any of the books, so this movie will be judged solely on my interpretation of watching. Which, really, is the only way to watch a movie, unlike many reviewers here apparently think.

The Hunger Games is terrifying. Set in a bleak future where a totalitarian world state rules with an iron fist and class separations are absolute, every year two teens from each of the world's "districts" are chosen at random to compete to the death in a callous show called The Hunger Games. When a young girl is chosen from district 12, one of the poorest districts, her older sister Katniss volunteers in her stead. She thus is taken to the Capital, a city overflowing with riches and privilege (the very contrast to her coal mining home town), heralded as a celebrity. But the sick thing about it is that while she and the 23 other youngsters are cheered on by adoring fans, they and everybody else knows they are really being led to most of their deaths. But Katniss, while quickly gaining attention in the much-publicised pre-games televising, is not intent on playing by the rules any more than she had to.

Some fans of the books expected the movie to be more brutal. I found the callous attitude of the whole thing quite brutal as it was. The sick nature of leading random kids to their deaths, cheered on by adoring masses, is most difficult to stomach. The first half of the movie sets up the games, and the latter half is the games themselves, in the woods, where all the celebration and celebrity vanishes like smoke and the cruel fight for survival begins. Of course, they don't know that they're dealing with Katniss, who's already proficient at surviving in conditions not that far removed from the ones she finds herself in bar the teens trying to kill her. The movie knows how to build tension by giving us moments to breathe, not knowing what's gonna happen next and making us worry about the characters.

The acting is superb. Jennifer Lawrence gives a stunning performance as Katniss and you root for her from beginning to end. She is 100% believable as tough and yet so vulnerable. If the Academy had any sense, she should've been nominated for her powerhouse of a performance. Donald Sutherland is chilling as the maniacal President Snow.

It seems the books have such a high standard that they can't possibly be fulfilled on the big screen. Too bad. But for the uninitiated, The Hunger Games is a thrilling, stomach-churning action movie about surviving in hell.