Dory_Darko

He did it again. And I don't even really understand how. He has some kind of mysterious, special power that he secretly wields over us and we don't even notice. That's how he keeps tricking us into spending all our hard-earned money to see his movies, so much so that we've made him the most commercially successful director of all time. Because these are James Cameron's most typical trademarks, for pretty much all of his movies, which he has once again dutifully employed in Avatar 2:

~ The story is paper-thin.

~ The dialogue was written by a 16-year-old intern.

~ The soundtrack is unbelievably cheesy.

~ The lead actor has no discernable acting skills.

~ The bad guys are all 100% completely evil, and the good guys are all but entirely saintly.

~ The message and moral of the story are about as subtle and nuanced as a jackhammer.

And yet.....

IT'S SO DAMN COOL.

The world he and his visual design team have created is truly a work of art... It's stunningly beautiful, creative and inventive and it makes you want to be there so badly, it hurts. The action sequences are reliably awesome as always, and there are some truly heartfelt emotional passages. In all honesty, the story is awfully predictable, and an almost step-by-step rehash of the first movie. But it's damn near impossible to be bothered by this, because the magic is there, and it's real. And the whales... Oh my god, the whales. Or whale-like creatures, anyway. Absolutely spellbinding. The familiar characters are precisely the same as they were before, and it makes the past 13-year wait seem like nothing at all. It's like meeting with friends you haven't seen for a while. I especially love Zoe Saldaña, she was always the shining star of Avatar, and she's just as mesmerising here, even if her screentime is a bit shorter. The new characters are all good, strong additions to the whole. Cliff Curtis is very powerful as the Sea People's chief, and Kate Winslet is absolutely unrecognisable as his mate, which is as big a compliment as I can think of.

But the biggest, and most pleasant surprise, are Jake and Neytiri's children. All but one, played by young, virtually inexperienced actors who all understand their assignments perfectly. They are, without exception, lovely and engaging and very real. They each have to deal with their own respective troubles that come with their coming of age, and all these young performers were cast perfectly. I loved them. The "but one", however, is one of the most surprising character/performer pairings I've ever seen. Sigourney Weaver plays a 14-year-old. Yes you read that right. And it's amazing. She's amazing, it's all amazing...

Damn James Cameron. If he was a superhero, his name would be Magic Movie Man.

I personally found FB: The Crimes of Grindelwald to be one hot mess of a movie. The plot was all over the place, there were way too many unnecessary characters and the whole thing was just terribly convoluted. The Secrets of Dumbledore is a vast improvement on its predecessor, in many ways. The plot is much more straightforward -- Grindelwald tries to seize power in the political arena and so our intrepid heroes must try to foil his plans. That's it, that's the story. I liked it.

It almost felt as if the filmmakers tried to correct everything they did wrong with the second installment. They stripped the plot down to its basic necessities, scrapped all redundant characters (have you noticed how much shorter the cast list is?!), and focused simply on moving the story forward in a logical direction. Though I must admit, this movie, too, doesn't even come close to the pure magic that was the first Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Part 3 loses points not in what it has in abundance, but in what it lacks. Come to think of it, maybe they stripped it down too much...? Firstly, not enough fantastic beasts! I mean, they're in the damn title, aren't they, so why aren't they in the movie? We only get to meet two new species. Although the main beast-star is really quite impressive, there's just not enough of it to go around. Secondly, not enough Tina! She's all but absent from this film, and I missed her terribly. Big mistake on the writers' part, if you ask me. She is an integral part of the FB dynamics, and I cannot for the life of me understand why they left her out. Boo!

Still, I left the theatre feeling very pleased, and much, MUCH more entertained than I did the previous time.

One more thing: I'm not particularly interested in the reasons why, but whatever went down, I am *so* happy that Johnny Depp was replaced with Mads Mikkelsen. I immediately knew that he would be much better suited for the part than Depp (whose casting I had always been unhappy with), and he (Mikkelsen) lived up to my expectations, and then some. He was awesome.

Overall, The Secrets of Dumbledore has its flaws, but it keeps the magic alive and intact - and it makes me look forward to the next part.

A terrific satire that's frighteningly accurate in its criticism of current affairs. The actors are all equally committed and an absolute joy to watch. It could have been a bit shorter, yet there is not one boring moment and every scene has a reason for being there. A must-see movie. And please stick around till the end! Not only will DiCaprio's final words send shivers down your spine, but there are two bonus scenes that are well worth the wait. Highly recommended!

I'm done. Seriously. I've waited patiently for over a year to see the conclusion to this story, fully expecting Björn to live, and now this?! It was already clear, after season four, that the writers have just chucked historical accuracy right out the window, but this takes the cake. Björn Ironside was a legendary king. Not only because he was a great ruler, but also BECAUSE HE DIED OF OLD AGE. Which was pretty unique in those days. And now he is slain by Ivar?? Worthless, horrible, psychotic Ivar?! It should have been the other way around, that would have been the only righteous conclusion to this series. And instead they let great king Björn be killed off by his psycho kid brother, 10 episodes before the ending. As if Lagertha being killed by Hvitserk wasn't bad enough, and now this...

Never before have I quit watching a show in which I have invested years of attention, interest and, hell - I'll say it - loyalty, but now I have. I will not continue to the end. Truth be told, the quality of this show has left a great deal to be desired since the death of Ragnar, but now my patience is officially up.

This movie seems to be getting a lot of hate, which is mostly a sign of the times we live in.. Any 13-year-old can write a tweet and call it a review without putting any effort into it. Whatever - another discussion, another day.

I saw this movie at a theatre - uniquely, in the middle of a pandemic. I've been cooped up in my house since March, and when I saw that my local theatre was hosting limited viewings, I took a chance. Thankfully there were only two other people there. Anyway...!

I had a good time! I immediately loved the new setting of the story, Alabama. And yes, I definitely appreciated the renewed diversity of the characters. Rather than going too much into the story, I'll focus on the technical aspects. Actors first. Anne Hathaway is a riot! Deliberately overacting every scene, she just beams with wicked joy in playing such an evil character. She chews the scenery as if it's an all-you-can-eat buffet, and her glee is infectious. What struck me most about her performance though, was the way she utilised her voice. I'm not sure if it was digitally enhanced in some parts, but in any case, her range, depth and boisterousness were very impressive. And yes, her accent was ridiculous... But to me, somehow it just added to her otherworldly nature, because the fact that her accent didn't belong to any particular Earthly country, only emphasised her demonic identity. Octavia Spencer is lovely as always, faithfully executing her part as a kick-ass grandma. She, too, is joyful and captivating. Stanley Tucci is always a hoot. Even though he doesn't have that much screentime, it's obvious he still had fun with that leering Cajun accent and that typical hotel manager moustache. I would recommend this movie for the actors alone.

Now, as far as comparing this remake to the 1990 original or the book, I'm afraid I can't be of much help. I've never read the book and it's been so long since I've seen the one with Angelica Huston, all I can remember is that I was absolutely terrified as a child. Although I'm pretty sure that's exactly the point of The Witches - it's basically kiddie horror. Now, I personally can't really think of any reason why any children's book writer would deliberately want to give children nightmares, but it seems to be pretty normal for some reason.. On that note, the other two people in the theatre with me, were actually little kids, no more than 7 or 8 years old. Unaccompanied. Now, call me old-fashioned, but there are some visuals in this movie which are truly disturbing. I will even admit that I had kind of a hard time not being a little bit freaked out myself. Now, far be it from me to tell anyone how to live their life, it's just that... I don't know. I find it difficult to understand why the line between what's really kid's stuff, and what is not, should be so blurred. Why frightening, mentally unhealthy even, imagery needs to be so normalised to the point where our children are basically watching horror movies. Hell, why not just stick 'm in front of the tv and put The Exorcist on. Oh, that's different? I'm overreacting? Explain to me what exactly the difference is. A funny talking mouse really doesn't change anything.

Oh well, here I am talking into a void again...

One last note I guess. For the most part, this movie is very visually pleasing. The costumes are a treat and the scenery is very well visualised. The CGI is mostly good, although the cat is seriously unconvincing. They definitely could've spent a few more hours rendering its movements, or better yet, they could have just as easily trained and used a real cat. For most of the shots at least, just like they used a real mouse in the beginning, which was changed to CGI as soon as it started talking..

So. Definitely fun, and definitely scary. Also, should I be at all concerned that this review which I am writing right now, is the 666th user review for this title...? Freaky stuff..

I think a lot of people were either mislead by the glitz and glamour of its star-couple, or decided they hated this right off the bat *because* of them, but in any case, By the Sea is not what I expected it to be. My advice when you decide to watch this film: surrender to it. Accept that this is a slow-moving character piece devoid of spectacle and shock value. Rather, it is a very intimate and accurate portrayal of two peolple torn apart by heartache, but choosing to stay together nonetheless.

The performances by both Pitt and Jolie are admirable. I was especially fascinated with Pitt, his Roland being a character who shows nothing but patience, restraint and loyalty for his destructive wife. He had me constantly guessing as to his motivation and willingness to stay with her, though in the end it becomes plainly clear: love. He loves her, in spite of everything. Jolie, on her part, does a very commendable job in her painfully accurate portrayal of grief and depression, on an unrelenting path to destruction. Her Vanessa is an intriguing character to observe; all at once beautiful, sad, destructive, pathetic, vulnerable and charismatic. It is, in fact, very true to what depression actually is. In terms of atmosphere, By the Sea is heavy, slow, sensual, sweaty almost... The entire film feels exactly like the setting it's placed in: a hot, clammy summer in the south of France, where everything just sticks to your skin and there's no escaping no matter what you try. It's slow-moving yet there is, as is life, always movement. Things are never truly still, especially beneath the surface, as this film so poignantly shows.

All in all, I think Jolie did quite an excellent job here with her writing, as well as direction. The cinematography is quite beautiful and the music fits perfectly. It's overall an obvious homage to 60s romantic art cinema, and it works damn well. More simply put, it's much better than everyone would have you believe, you just have to... surrender.

Apparently I'm one of those strange people who doesn't like Wuthering Heights. Having just read the novel, I've written a pretty scathing review on GoodReads - but for some reason I still wanted to watch one of the film adaptations, and after some research, settled on this one. Since I've already spewed my guts on what I really think of the story elsewhere, I'll simply review this film on its technical aspects.

One thing that pleased me is that it's at least 90% faithful to the book. I even recognised some of the dialogue which had been lifted from the novel verbatim. While the director has taken some creative liberties with regards to the chronological narrative, tussling some scenes around, all in all the story remains intact. While some characters have been omitted, most obviously Mr. Lockwood, there's nothing that really feels missing. Though it would have been nice if a little more time had been spent on the children's stories, not to mention Isabella's fate. Still, as a whole it's more complete than not.

There were however, some aspects of this film that slightly bothered me. Things that felt rather, how shall I put it nicely... 'low budget'. Shaky camera, a lack of colour filtering and appropriate lighting, both of which combined create a strong feeling of 'not really being there'. What bugged me the most was the fact that none of the cinematography really gave me an impressive feeling of the infamous Yorkshire moors, which were so pronounced and alive in the novel. The lack of music, which could have very strongly contributed to a haunting atmosphere, was also quite a weak point.

The cast is pretty good. Tom Hardy embodies Heathcliff very well and Charlotte Riley makes an impressive and fitting Catherine. The rest of the actors do their jobs nicely, especially Burn Gorman as Hindley.

The only point where this film really strayed from the book is that Cathy and Heathcliff aren't depicted even halfway as cruel as they're meant to be, and this is a shame because it creates a false sense of sympathy for their characters, when in truth they are monstrous people who deserve no respect from anyone whatsoever.

P. S. Now that I have the opportunity, I just have to get this off my chest. Can somebody please tell me why it is that Heathcliff is played by a white guy in every damn movie, save one...? Thank you.

Well ain't that a bummer...! You (Matthew McConaughey) work your ass off - quite literally, in this case - to deliver a career defining performance, only to have every other scene stolen from you by Jared Leto! And not just that - on top of everything else, Leto's performance seems so effortless, so natural, so born-to-play-this-role, one can only imagine the experience of being so breezily upstaged would be almost more painful for McConaughey than his gruesome weight loss!

I'm kidding of course, but it must be said that I was truly, truly impressed with Leto. His Rayon is mesmerising.

In any case, I'm very happy that both men received Oscars for their parts because they so well deserved them.

Also, Jennifer Garner deserves a mention for her gentle, understated performance. Here is not a glamorous Hollywood star, dishing out all she has in order to be noticed. This is a very real, true person - who, even if she didn't exist in real life, deserves to be where she is because it simply makes sense for her to be there.

This is quite a beautiful film, and its story needs to be told. I can only imagine the impact Ron Woodroof must've made in the lives of everyone around him, and so many people after.

Young Adult tells the story of 37-year-old Mavis Gary - a pathologically unhappy, immature, egotistical girl in a grown woman's body. Upon hearing of her ex-boyfriend's new born baby, she decides that they are still meant for each other, and the fact that he is now happily married to The Perfect Woman is but a minor detail on their road to eternal bliss. More simply put Mavis is bat s*** crazy.

Going into this movie, I thought it was going to be a hilarious comedy, full of LOL moments. Actually it is nothing of the sort. Thinking about it, seeing the way this "adult" woman lives out her life (sleeping till noon, living in a pigsty, forgetting to take care of her dog and playing children's video games), is really incredibly sad. No, it's pathetic. She is the author of 'young adult' books, which in any other case is a perfectly fine job, except in hers it basically means she vicariously lives the life of her main character - a high school girl. This is the emotional level Mavis is stuck in.

Hearing about her ex-boyfriend's baby stirs an awkward obsession in Mavis. She packs her bags and returns to her small hometown in Minnesota - completely convinced that she and her ex Buddy are destined to be together. Back home, it's obvious the people she left behind know her a little better than she knows herself. Basically, everybody knows her and everybody hates her. And who can blame them Mavis is quite simply the most childish, entitled, RIDICULOUSLY selfish woman there ever was. Thankfully there's at least one old acquaintance from her past who's willing to look beyond all that. His name is Matt, he walks with a crutch because he once was the victim of a horrible hate crime, and he is the only one who listens to her.

What I love about this story is the fact that, although it starts out as a comedy, it gradually flows and meanders into a beautifully crafted, delicate character drama. Mavis, at first sight, is a hysterical character, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this woman has some deep seeded issues, no matter how hard she tries to cover up for it. Mavis is played wonderfully by Charlize Theron, who delivers one of her most hilarious, yet at the same time, understated performances to date. She could have easily gone overboard with this character, but somehow manages to humanize this completely unlikable woman. In fact, I'm willing to state that about 80% of Young Adult 'works' because of her. She displays some of her best work in two very intense scenes, where Mavis' sky high ego comes crashing down, leaving her remarkably exposed and vulnerable. That right there was some truly wonderful acting on her part.

Matt is played very amiably by Patton Oswalt, who seems to be the only character in town with any emotional intelligence. Although this character may be a bit of a cliché (the wise, sympathetic loser with a physical disability and a traumatic past), that's OK because it works. Oswalt's acting clearly takes a shot at versatility and he passed with flying colours, as far as I'm concerned.

I love the script. Penned by Diablo Cody (writer of Juno), it's full of sharp, sassy character traits and dialogue, while remaining very subtle and human. As a story, it doesn't honestly have that much to offer but it's a joy to watch for the high quality of 'human relatableness', I guess I could call it. Actually, I can't really think of any major flaws. It has an awesome soundtrack, all the actors are very well cast and the direction was placed perfectly in the very capable hands of Jason Reitman.

This is a small film, about basic, non-glamorous human behavior and a big girl who might find happiness yet, if only she wants it badly enough. Highly recommended.

Let me begin by saying that Captain Phillips, as an action film, turned out to be much more than I had initially anticipated. I was expecting half drama / half moderate action film with likely a good dash of political hopscotch. It's probably a good thing then, that I knew next to nothing about the actual story, because I love a good surprise. Captain Phillips is two hours of absolutely intense and absolutely uncompromising physical and psychological anxiety. At the end of it, I literally had to sit for a minute and just breathe, because this story gripped me by the throat like few films in recent memory have.

For those still unfamiliar with the story – this is a retelling of a historical event; the first US cargo ship in 200 years to be hijacked by pirates. During which, its captain Richard Phillips is taken hostage by the pirates, on his own lifeboat no less.

I got the sense that, somewhere in between the lines it was the director's intention to perhaps create an opening for a different story to be told: that of the Somali pirates, and why they do what they do. We are told that they are fishermen, and sheer poverty has driven them to these desperate acts. However, I don't know for sure if I'm supposed to feel any sympathy for these men, if I was supposed to 'understand' their motives – if this was Paul Greengrass' intention, it didn't work. Because no matter which way you swing it, these pirates are the bad guys and that's as clear as day. No degree of poverty or despair should be held as an excuse for such gruesome acts. Then again, if this was at all the point, I'm glad it wasn't hammered down in any way. It was merely a thought, and one conveyed subtly enough for anyone to make up their own mind about this issue.

What is clear here, is that these men (only four of them, surprisingly) committed a terrible crime. Not even so much the piracy itself, but the kidnapping and abuse of one individual. This individual is played by Tom Hanks, and he delivers one of his most eloquent and restrained performances to date. Here is a man, a captain of a large cargo ship, who is usually very much in control of his life and a clearheaded leader of his crew – but who, in the heat of reality, is just as human as any of us and simply does the best he can, even when (in spite of overwhelming protocol) one simply doesn't know what to do. Because protocol doesn't apply to the emotions that take control of both the captain and his captors, when they face a situation none of them anticipated. This is immediately one if my favourite performances by Tom Hanks, whose strength here lies mostly in the quiet moments in between all the chaos surrounding him. You can tell that he never stops thinking, never stops analyzing his situation, no matter what the pirates do to intimidate him. He conveys it all in the eyes – all the fear and anxiety, while constantly staying calm and collected, trying to talk to his captors, never losing his head. Even when fighting for his life, there is an assertive calmness that comes across so strongly that you can do nothing but admire this man. Hanks' performance is so convincing, it almost doesn't look like acting anymore... and that's a huge compliment.

The same goes for the other actors, especially the men playing the Somali pirates. Before being cast for this film, none of them had any acting experience, which makes their performances all the more impressive. Then, it also makes one wonder how much of a compliment it actually is when a director literally picks you off the street because apparently he thinks that you're perfectly fit for the part of a menacing pirate, but that's food for another discussion, another time... In any case, he was right about them. These men ARE absolutely convincing and authentic. Especially the leader of the gang, played by Barkhad Abdi, is right on the money. He needs nothing more than the look in his eyes to convince you that you're right to feel absolutely terrified of him.

From a technical standpoint, Captain Phillips is very well made. My only grievance is Greengrass' typical trademark: the shaky handy-cam. Here and there it's almost enough to make you seasick, and I really wish he would ease up on this gimmick, because although it adds to the feeling of suspense and chaos, that doesn't weigh up to the headache it causes. Steady-cam was invented for a reason, mister director. Use it. Still, the other qualities of the film are easily strong enough to make up for this one point of critique. The pacing is excellent, it grips you like a pitbull and never lets go until the credits roll in. Colouring and lighting effects are perfectly used for an incredibly realistic feel and claustrophobic atmosphere. Everything feels very real and absolutely no sentimental plot devices are exploited here. Top-notch screen writing.

I can do nothing other than strongly recommend this film. It is very intense and at times very violent, and definitely one of the best films in its genre. And if this doesn't convince you, see it for one of Tom Hanks' best performances of his career.

MAJOR spoilers ahead!

This is actually not so much a review as it is a vehicle for me to express my utter disgust of what was supposed to be a great sequel to what I consider one of the coolest movies ever made. I absolutely loved Kick-Ass. It was fresh, it was original, and in spite of its crude and graphic violence, absolutely hilarious. Its sequel, is nothing short of an abomination.

For your convenience, I have comprised a list of Everything Wrong with Kick-Ass 2:

1. The gore. It's not that it was worse than KA1, it's that it was very different in tone. Whereas in the first movie – where the violence was equally gut-wrenching – the nature of it all was laugh-out-loud hilarious, mostly because it was executed by a foul-mouthed 12-year-old school girl. KA2 on the other hand, feels more like a snuff movie where good guys and innocent bystanders are brutally slaughtered, just for the hell of it. Which leads me to point number two:

2. The targets. In the first movie, the whole point was easy: killing bad guys. So, no bad feelings and no conflict of interest. For the second installment, it seems the moral compass has taken a 180 degree turn. Here we have to sit and watch the good guys dropping dead one by one, and it isn't the least bit funny. I'd like to give you a heads-up on the brutal murder of Dave's dad, the most innocent good guy of them all. Yeah, I didn't see than one coming either.

3. The bad guys. Good god. Rarely have I seen such an array of dumb, sickeningly stupid villains. Most of the slaughtering and mayhem is done by one block-of-concrete-with-boobs called Mother Russia (what's in a name?). Everything about her just makes you sick to your stomach, especially the way she offs her victims. She is part of the main villain's gang, and don't even get me started on this guy… Remember Red Mist? He was pretty funny in KA1, wasn't he. Yeah well, those days are over. After accidentally on purpose killing his own mother (!), he proclaims himself the new great villain of New York, henceforth calling himself The Motherf***er (again, what's in a name…). He rallies a group of equally douche baggy cronies. Their mission is to kill Kick-Ass and all who follow him. Their first strike? Killing off the best new character.

4. Jim Carrey's screen time. The poor guy clocks out at exactly 7 minutes and 45 seconds. He plays Colonel Stars and Stripes, and he is by far the best addition to the cast. What's remarkable about his performance is that he's barely recognizable. His speaking voice is low and brooding, and there's not a funny face in sight. Really cool character all around. After waiting for what feels like forever for him to finally appear, guess what; not ten minutes later – gone. Impaled, slaughtered and decapitated by Mother Russia. I'd like to have a hearty word with the "screenwriter" who's responsible for this. He needs to go back to school. Here's my advice anyway – free of charge: YOU DON'T KILL OFF THE BEST CHARACTER HALFWAY THROUGH THE MOVIE. Dumbass.

5. The "humour". In KA1, the humour was cheeky, intelligent, and perfect satire. And where it was crude, it was right up at the top, but never really over it. Second time around, we have to make do with projectile vomiting and violent diarrhoea. Really, poop jokes…? Now this is a perfect example of what 'we' (we meaning – people over 13 with normal intelligence and a healthy sense of humour) call "rock bottom". Yes. They go that low. I'm going to stop here before I start remembering all of the other "jokes".

6. Lack of proper Hit-Girl action. Hit-Girl was always the star of the show. In KA2, she is given a dumb sub-plot where she vows to quit her alter-ego job and become a 'normal', prissy little cheerleader, competing with other Barbie girls to become popular. I really, really hated this story line. I don't even care if it was in the original comics, it sucked. The reason why it sucked the most is because effectively, this means that the essence of Hit-Girl is completely vacant for about 60% of the movie! And that's WAY too much time for the most beloved character to mope around apologetically before she finally gets her s**t together roughly 10 minutes before the end of the movie.

7. Mister Kick-Ass himself. Something went wrong here. I don't know if it was the character that was poorly written or Aaron Taylor-Johnson that came up short, but he was very different from the first movie, in which he had a really cute, geeky charm about him. Here, he was inconspicuous and dull, like a bystander in his own story. Or perhaps he was just overshadowed by the abundance of new and reformed characters… In any case, he was barely there to be noticed.

8. Soundtrack. The score of KA1 was so damn cool, with original, poppy punk music and electro that consistently added something to every scene. Here, I only remember one scene that caught that vibe and it still wasn't half as good.

9. It was seriously offensive. A "joke" about rape? Are you kidding me?! And I'm not talking about some guys hanging around, talking about wanting to 'do' some girl or whatever. No, I'm talking about The Motherf***er seriously intending to rape Night Bitch, except he can't because he's got no wood. Real classy.

There are some redeeming points to this otherwise complete crap fest, but honestly, they are so few and far in between they're not even worth mentioning. Well, I guess this is what you get for hiring some D-grade nobody to replace Matthew Vaughn. Don't waste your time with this garbage.

Today, June 4, I went to see Maleficent on the birthday of its star, Angelina Jolie. In itself, nothing more than a funny coincidence, although when you think about it, it is customary for someone who is celebrating their birthday, to hand out treats. And boy, this was the best treat ever.

Three reasons why I was completely stoked to see Maleficent after hearing about it for the first time about a year and a half ago: 1) I love Angelina. 2) I love Sleeping Beauty. 3) Maleficent is my favourite fairy tale villain of all time. On the other hand, I was also a little wary of the way they had apparently altered the story. See, if there is one thing I hate in films, it's when they explain and justify the motives and reasons why a certain character is "bad". I for one believe that some people are just plain evil and that's the way it is. And going into this persons' childhood and explaining how bad everything was (or something to that effect) only works to weaken that characters' force. Now, I don't know why a somewhat clichéd story about the love and betrayal of a young Maleficent (who apparently used to be good and pure-hearted), worked here, but somehow it just did. It completely surprised me, to be honest. I'm usually allergic to this kind of fluff, but it worked! Maleficents' back-story actually intrigued me, moved me even. And it succeeded at what it was supposed to do in the first place: it made Maleficent human.

In the end though, they could have written any kind of story about what is undoubtedly Disney's most beloved villainess, it never would have been raised to an above-par level without its most crucial element: Angelina Jolie. I might sound biased because I'm such a fan, but I am perfectly able to look at her performances in a critical way, and I can only say this about her performance as Maleficent: she was in one word, perfect. I honestly can't imagine any other actress who could have approached this role with the same flawless combination of properties (short of maybe Charlize Theron): she is beautiful and very charismatic, yet at the same time undeniably cruel and cold. She was everything I had hoped this real life characterization of Maleficent would be, and then some.

Compliments also go out to the three other main actors in this film. First to Elle Fanning, for being very convincing as the young princess Aurora. She is sweet, lovely and kind and she has the right personality to play this famous princess just the way she should be. Second, to Sam Riley, who was a pleasant surprise as Maleficents' pet raven Diaval in human form. I was thus far unfamiliar with his work, but he was very well suited to his role and I enjoyed watching him. Last, but certainly not least, Sharlto Copley, who has already thrilled me with his performances in District 9 and Elysium, and who has now definitely made a fan out of me. His range is awesome and he was totally terrifying as Stefan.

OK, there are some things you have to look past. My first, and most blatant, issue with this film is: if young Maleficent was a good, pure- hearted girl, then why did she, as an innocent 10-year-old, already have evil-looking horns, devilish wings and is she called "Maleficent"? Right… Secondly, I found the three pixies to be very unconvincing and even somewhat annoying CGI-wise. Overall the special effects are well done but the pixies were definitely an eyesore. The dragon in the end also looked a bit unreal.

That being said, Maleficents' costumes and make-up were absolutely stunning. I just couldn't get enough of gazing at her intricate headdresses and beautiful gowns. The costume and styling department really deserve top credit and I truly hope there will be some awards for them in the near future. The music was also great, with flawless scoring by James Newton Howard and a terrific rendition of "Once upon a dream" by Lana Del Rey over the end credits. Also, awesome battle scenes and action sequences galore!

Going into this film, I thought it would be nothing more than a so-so, kind of fun summer flick. A 6.5/7 maybe. Sometimes, I love it when I'm wrong. Out of the three films that I've seen at the cinema over the last week (the other two being X-Men and Godzilla, both disappointments…) I can tell you, Maleficent was by far the most gratifying. Perhaps because I had relatively low expectations, perhaps because it was simply that good.

One serious warning for the rough, rugged men out there: this film features pixies, fairies, sparkly thingies and magical fluff out the wazoo. If you're going to see this, do it for Angelina. If not, treat this film like kryptonite. You will thank me later.

To everyone else: go see this film. It will rock your socks off. Maleficent is magnificent.

OK, let me start off by saying that the new Godzilla is definitely an entertaining movie and well worth the price of an admission ticket. That is – so long as you go into it with popcorn-level expectations. Now, it has to be said that the bar, since the most recent attempt by Roland Emmerich in 1998 (which was hilarious at best) wasn't set particularly high, to say it nicely. So in all honesty, with today's budget and special effects, it never had a big chance of being that bad. But I have to admit, judging from the trailer – I thought it would be better.

It starts off pretty good. There is proper story build-up and character lay-out. Where we are – what's happening... It's all there. In fact, the story revolving around the main characters is pretty dramatic from the get-go. Death in the family, trauma leading to obsession over finding the truth surrounding the circumstances. Bryan Cranston is impressive as the family father and science guy. He just knows something is up concerning some big beastie and he won't let up until he figures it out. That is – if he gets the chance. Something happens around one third into the movie that is a pivotal turning point in the story. I knew this immediately when it happened and in the end I realised that I had been correct.

From this point on, it's out with the story and in with the action. An almost mind-numbing, pummelling assault of non-stop action. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's a lot less interesting than it could have been.

Here's the deal: instead of just one Big Monster, they bring in three. One Godzilla, and two huge insect-like creatures that are only designated as MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Object). Seriously, they couldn't come up with a proper name? And instead of Godzilla being the big threat to mankind, the MUTO are. In fact, Godzilla turns out to be the good guy because he's the only one that can defeat these insect creeps. This story line is factor one in the reason that this movie isn't what it could have been. Factor two is the plot point that these creatures all feed on nuclear energy instead of "manburgers". Consequentially, the only real threat they pose is the massive destruction they cause in big cities (and obviously, the human lives that become casualties by default). It's because of this that there is never any real sense of threat or danger. They don't hunt us, they don't care about us. All they want is nuclear energy and a place to breed. What's worse is, these MUTO take screen time and attention away from the monster who's supposed to be the main antagonist and namesake of the movie! It might as well have been called "Big Creepy Insects" instead of "Godzilla"...

In the end, what we're left with is billions of dollars worth of collateral damage and a big-ass monster who's really kind of a nice guy. Weird.

Still, it's certainly not bad. Aaron Taylor- Johnson does his best at looking very serious and all grown up since his Kick-Ass days, although I am certain that this is definitely one of his less compelling roles. The problem is that from the 1/3 turning point that I mentioned, his character becomes very formulaic and cliché. Our hero even shares an intimate moment of eye contact with Godzilla in the end... Aww.

Ken Watanabe spends every moment of his screen time looking shocked and awed... and pretty much nothing else. Juliette Binoche is shamefully underused. I would have loved to have seen more of her. The biggest asset is definitely Bryan Cranston. He's the only one who managed to make his character 3-dimensional and a real human being. He, too, would have definitely deserved a bigger role. In fact, the film probably would have been much better for it.

Visually, everything is very awesome and impressive. The special effects (visual and sound) are top-notch. Every time Godzilla opened his mouth to let out a massive roar, I thought my eardrums were going to pop. It's bone-chilling and very cool. The design of the MUTO is a real treat, they look like giant praying mantises, totally intimidating. The films' SFX really make it worthwhile.

All in all, the story is quite weak and riddled with clichés, though I must say one thing: thank God for the complete lack of obligatory footprints. I was seriously dreading the moment these giant "claw prints in the mud" would appear on screen, but thankfully it never happened. The overall feel and setting of this film is quite dark and threatening, and adding such a cliché would have been really dumb and unnecessary.

I had really hoped that this was going to be the definitive Godzilla movie. Alas, it is not. But I still enjoyed it for what it was and I definitely recommend seeing it for the special effects alone. In any case, 'Gojira' looks awesome.

I rate it 7.5/10.

Wow… Here I was, thinking I was going to get to see an awesome comic- like film about a group of girls kickin' a whole lotta butt surrounded by mind-bending fantasy scenery.

Technically, I was right… But only technically. Sucker Punch is like Chinese food. You can eat three plates and it will still leave you feeling hungry. It's a great deal of empty calories, is basically what I'm saying. Substance? Nah.

Let me just get right into it. What's wrong with Sucker Punch is the screenplay. Not the actors, not the director, just the story. This story revolves around a group of five girls in an institution for the mentally insane, in a fantastical, steampunk-wannabe 1940's (my best guess) setting. They are treated horribly and their lives are miserable, and to cope with it all, the main protagonist Babydoll, escapes into her fantasies and in this trance-like state, devises a plan for them all to escape.

The concept is not bad. It might have even been really exciting, had it not been executed so laughably unrealistic. And by 'unrealistic', I don't mean the fantasies themselves. I'm referring to the fact that these fantasies were so obviously not dreamed up by an actual teenage girl, but rather they look like the perfect fulfillment of the wet wishes of a horny teenage boy. It is very likely that a teenage girl WOULD dream of being able to wield a samurai sword and beat up every monster, dragon and every other kind of bastard who crosses her path. She WOULD dream of coming out of every battle completely unscathed and with every hair on her pretty head still perfectly in place. She would NOT, however, be doing all of this scantily clad in sexy lingerie wearing fishnet stockings and high heels… I am a girl, with very vivid imagination. Trust me on this one. It was, in one word, ridiculous.

Another thing that really bothered me was the way these characters were worked out. As obviously miserable as their personal predicaments were, I could not relate to a single one of them. They were all completely 2- dimensional and just flat-out uninteresting. I didn't care about what happened to a single one of them. I don't believe all of the blame for this falls on the actresses (although theirs weren't exactly Oscar winning performances...), again, I chalk it up to poor screen writing. The only one who was able to make her character slightly more than moderately interesting, was not even one of 'the girls', it was Dr. Vera Gorski, played by Carla Gugino. At least she was interesting to watch, and she was even somewhat of a scene-stealer, taking much thunder away from the girls simply because she (both the actress and the character) had the biggest personality. All the others, I felt were mostly just going through the motions, because they had zero character development and no interesting dialogue to work with. And that's bad when you're talking about the characters that are supposed to carry the story. A pleasant (and much needed surprise) came in the form of Scott Glenn, who only appears in the fantasy segments as several different versions of a wise man. That was a nice touch.

However, the one thing that really stood out for me as the true axis of failure that sums up Sucker Punch, was the feeling of total confusion that was present from the beginning and never cleared up. I'm not saying I didn't 'get it', I'm saying it was a hot, incoherent mess. And I usually don't mind being thrown back and forth and to and fro throughout a film, I don't mind playing guessing games and wondering what it will all lead to. I DO mind when the roller-coaster ride is over and all I feel is queasy. Some people have suggested that this is a really deep and complex film, but honestly, I think they're just reading too much into it. The stupid thing is, for the most part it was completely predictable, and STILL it lacked structure and decent storytelling. That may seem like a paradox, but there's an easy way to explain it. In the words of the great Roger Ebert: "Now that's bad filmmaking."

The only element in Sucker Punch that was somewhat redeeming, were the visual effects. I must say, it was all very gorgeous and eye-pleasing. Also, the soundtrack was excellent, filled with very well performed covers of well-known songs and some perfectly chosen originals. Emily Browning, who plays Babydoll (and also sings a few songs on the soundtrack), was a good choice for the lead role, but I must say, in all honesty, that was mostly because she was visually very appealing as the main protagonist. More simply put – she was very pretty. Still, I'm not sure that's enough to carry a film.

All in all, I'm left feeling – Zack Snyder… Dude. What were you thinking. You can do so much better than this. I guess I just finally have to come to terms with the fact that everybody's human and is bound to make one big mistake at least once in their lives. Zack… this is yours.

Sucker Punch sucks.

Watching Thor: The Dark World tonight, I got the feeling that Hollywood might have finally gotten the hang of it. In theory, a sequel should always surpass its predecessor, although as we all know, many have tried and famously failed. But a new trend seems to finally be breaking through. X2 was better than X-Men. Spider-Man 2 was better than the first. And now that I've seen it, I can tell you Thor: The Dark World… is better than Thor. (And the fact that these are all Marvel productions, that's food for anther discussion.)

I thoroughly enjoyed Thor, directed by Kenneth Branagh, when I only saw it for the first time just this spring. In fact, I watched it again the same week. Which is saying enough to imply that my hopes were high for the sequel. So I was really looking forward to tonight and I was not disappointed.

Thor 2 was helmed by a different director, Alan Taylor, which typically always spells trouble in my book when they change the director, but I take my hat off to him. What I admire is that he managed to capture the tone that Branagh set in the first film flawlessly – even perfected it in a way. He brings to the table a duality which almost never works successfully in any film, but here, does so perfectly: Taylor made Thor 2 notably darker, yet at the same time more humorous. I take my hat off to the writers as well – they put in a ton of great jokes, all at the exactly right moment. Had this been done even a fraction less tactfully, the film would have sunk like a bag of bricks, like so many others have. I found myself (and the audience) laughing my butt off one moment, and feeling very serious and engaged with the on-screen emotions the next. Even when it happened abruptly, it still never felt inappropriate. Now that's good entertainment. Two thumbs up.

The actors all wear their roles like a custom- made suit. It's obvious that Chris Hemsworth has really grown into his character, third time around. This guy IS Thor, hands down. The same goes for all the other actors, they were all perfectly comfortable in their roles and respective environments. The one that intrigued me most, however, was Loki – personified absolutely magnificently by Tom Hiddleston. Much like Hemsworth, it seems he was born to play this role. He captures all the slyness, all the arrogance and all the torment of a man almost unable to bear the weight of his own ego in a single flicker in his eyes. And then that grin… Perfection. The way Hiddleston plays Loki is strangely captivating. You know he's totally wicked and cannot be trusted, yet at the same time you can't help but really like him – you might even end up rooting for this guy, and I'm not sure many other actors would have managed this.

All the special effects were as good as one should expect them to be these days. I have nothing much to say there, except that it was all terrifically eye-pleasing, and Asgard looked even more beautiful than before. It was all convincing and very well done.

Still, I have not completely explained why T:TDW is better than the first. Actually, I might not fully be able to. It's mostly a feeling. As much as I was entertained the first time, I was even more entertained now. It was more action-packed, more exciting, darker and it just had a great deal more adrenaline.

The only thing that I think was weaker in this film, was the character of Jane Foster. Her character was just less interesting, kind of blank. I actually don't remember much of her at all, except that she slapped Thor a couple of times and she had all this creepy stuff coming out of her… Also she was somewhat of a damsel-in- distress most of the time with the look of a scared kitten on her face, and that's not exactly how we like to see our ladies nowadays. It's so common to see women being perfectly independent now, that it's a little weird to see a grown woman with "three degrees in physics" (as Darcy so poignantly points out) scared and shivering like a little girl. Most of the time, Natalie Portman just didn't carry her scenes very strongly, and that's strange coming from such a fine actress. So maybe one of the actors was actually a little out of place after all, thinking about it.

Having said that, that's pretty much my only complaint. Every other element in this film was very solid, the story was very good and they absolutely nailed the pacing. Those two hours went by in the blink of a eye.

Thor: The Dark World is wonderfully entertaining and a definite must-see for every Marvel fan. In fact – at the risk of enraging the Marvel Gods – this might just be pretty stiff competition to X-Men… Watch out Wolverine, I think I have a new favorite superhero.

Wow... Where do I begin? I just got back from the cinema and I can still feel the adrenaline rushing through me. I was already a huge fan of director Neill Blomkamp's previous effort, District 9, so my expectations were running pretty high. And for once, I was not disappointed. No, I got even more than I could have hoped for.

Elysium is a terrific film. Plain and simple. The story is fairly simple, which I consider a good thing because the plot was easy to follow and so it wasn't overly complex and trying to be too intelligent and contrived. It is the year 2154, and planet Earth is one hot mess. The rich reside on a space station called Elysium while the poor remain on Earth, basically grabbing at every straw just to get by. The story we follow is that of Max, who, after a terrible accident at work, is in dire need of medical help, which is only available at Elysium. In order to get there, he must go to extreme measures. I won't tell you anything else, because that would just spoil the fun.

Max is played by Matt Damon, and he is very good in this role. He truly carries the film, start to finish. It always pleases me to see an actor who is just as good at tackling the character elements as well as the action parts of his role. When you think about it, that doesn't actually happen that often. Matt Damon can do both perfectly, and he is convincing in every aspect. Jodie Foster plays the role of senator Delacourt, a rich bitch who thinks she can get away with anything just because she calls the shots on Elysium. Well, somebody's about to prove her wrong... I absolutely love Jodie Foster, so it's hard not to gush, but she is a delight to watch. Her character is cold, calculating and without a sliver of conscience. And Jodie is so convincing you just want to slap her. It was great, and the fact that her accent is a little weird and distracting at times, is easily forgiven. William Fichtner also appears in a relatively small, but crucial role.

The biggest surprise for me, however, was Sharlto Copley. Remember him from District 9? He played Wikus, a dorky and kind of sissy character... Well, not in this one. His character Kruger, is the meanest, most vile bastard you can imagine. A card-carrying sadistic psycho. It really was a great opportunity for Copley to prove his versatility as an actor, and he used it to the fullest. Also, somehow his South-African twang made his character even more menacing, so I'm really glad he didn't drop it in favour of a – perhaps more crowd-pleasing – American accent.

My biggest compliment goes to the special effects department. As was the case with District 9, the SFX are so convincing, it's actually hard to realise that you're watching something that was probably 96% computer animated. Unlike D9, the visuals were even better here, if you can believe that. Usually, when a director's first film is a success and they up his budget for the next one, they go completely overboard and essentially ruin the aesthetics that made the first film so successful *cough*Matrix*cough*. In this case, all and everything was a major improvement. The action scenes are incredibly solid, the spacecrafts were eye-poppingly gorgeous (without being all flashy and futuristic – adding to the reality factor) and Elysium was a true sight to behold. 109 minutes of pure eye candy.

There were only two things that slightly bothered me. One, the somewhat stereotypical characterization of the Rich vs. The Poor. Simply put, rich = evil and poor = good, no exceptions. Especially with the rich Elysium folk I found it a little bothersome that there wasn't a single person who seemed to have a heart, they were almost mechanical and so the polarisation was pretty black-and-white. Two, the lack of emotional involvement. I didn't really feel much for any of the characters, except Max. There is a plot line with a woman he has feelings for, whose daughter is very ill, and that's a sad thing but the film failed at really convincing me why I'm supposed to care. Could be personal, but that's the way I experienced it.

However, these two minor plot points are not sufficient enough to deter me from giving this film any less than 10 stars. What I think is most thrilling about Elysium is the fact that it actually paints a frighteningly plausible picture of what our future might just look like. It is, in any case, much more realistic than pretty much every other post-apocalyptic film I've ever seen. Don't write this concept off too easily, this might very well be the world we live in one day.

In the end, Elysium is a terrifically made film. It's gritty, it's gnarly and highly realistic. And, to the zero-attention-span MTV kids out there, it's also an incredibly entertaining, action-packed thrill ride. Tiny side note: the violence is quite graphic at times, so some amount of parental guidance is definitely advised.

That leaves me with nothing else to say but: go watch this film. You won't regret it.

There can be many reasons why the original director of a franchise may decide not to return for a sequel, though they all usually have in common that they're very Hollywood-politically-correct. So exactly why Jon Favreau decided not to helm the third instalment of what is, for all intents and purposes, 'his baby' Iron Man, I can't be sure. But I can tell you one thing: something definitely changed.

Everything about IM3 feels different from its predecessors. The atmosphere is darker, which is not to say it's really just a lot less humorous (which is – let's be honest – precisely what we love about Iron Man). The new characters are terribly underdeveloped and overall it's just a great deal less interesting. The storyline was completely vague to me; I'm still not really sure what the whole point of it was. And probably the biggest flaw of all – the first two films had really cool, interesting villains. This one's just really quite weird and not charismatic at all. Possibly at the core of the problem is the fact that it wasn't just one bad guy, it was many. The leading roles are shared by Guy Pearce and Sir Ben Kingsley, and – big shock – it was the latter who disappointed me the most. Not only was his role quite small, I thought it was also incredibly lame. I'd love to explain to you why, but that would be a major spoiler. I noticed some people in the audience laughing at the plot twist of Kingsley's character, but I thought it was just completely stupid and weak, and a total waste of such a great actor. Pearce is not bad, but never really manages to elevate his villain to a higher level, largely because he had zero character development to work with. Same thing with Rebecca Hall. Or the rest of Pearce's cronies for that matter... Too many to count. Sigh.

Well, at least we still have Robert Downey Jr. He's as reliable as ever when it comes to carrying a film, but even he can't help it that his character is almost boring in this one. Where's the humour!? Where's the cynicism we all know and love?! Where's Tony bloody Stark! This is not the familiar overconfident, pompous macho we adore. All of a sudden, and for NO apparent reason whatsoever, this guy is insecure and suffering from anxiety attacks! What the F! Not to mention the fact that his superhero alter ego is almost completely absent for half of the film, because he's off somewhere in the middle of Tennessee finding himself or whatever... I mean, geez... I know the director left, but didn't any of the screenwriters return either? The fact that Pepper Potts had only about two minutes of relevant screen time also certainly didn't help. And when she was there, she was humourless and annoying. Big sigh.

The more I think about it, the more I'm having a hard time trying to think of good things to say about this film. At least the visual effects were solid, and the sound effects were awesome.

This was actually the first time I've seen a film in 3D. I've always avoided it because I was sure that it would be a complete distraction from the story. Turns out I was right in my assumption. I found it hard to focus on what was really going on, and this might have definitely been an influence in trying to follow the plot, so there's a big chance I missed a few things. Nevertheless, I can't help being very disappointed with Iron Man 3, especially since I love the first two so much.

This is definitely a filmmakers' case of "could've, would've, should've". They obviously tried very hard, but never quite manage to get there.

No story, no interesting characters, no filler. Nothing. Too bad.

I just watched The Help, almost immediately after finishing the book. Now, when comparing The Film to The Book it was based on (generally speaking), one major rule of thumb almost always applies: The Book is better. The Help is no exception.

Accordingly, with the novel still so fresh in the back of my mind, separating my mind from the book in order to enjoy the film was an almost impossible task. No matter how hard you try, you just can't quit comparing the two, nitpicking every detail and being frustrated with everything they changed. Nevertheless, I was still able to enjoy the film for what it was, though I am glad that I possessed full knowledge of the actual story.

The Help tells the story of black domestic servants in 1960's Jackson, Mississippi. It focuses on white Miss Eugenia 'Skeeter' Phelan, and her efforts to give a voice to black maids by writing their stories from their perspective and thus giving them an opportunity to be heard for the first time in their lives. Among the black women, Aibileen and Minny are the two key characters.

So let's just get the "bad" stuff out of the way. One of the elements in the novel that I enjoyed the most was the incredibly delicate bond of trust and understanding that builds up (over an extensive period of time) between Aibileen and Skeeter. It really does take Skeeter a long time before she finally wins Aibileen over and convinces her to share her deepest feelings with a white woman. In the film, this process felt rather rushed, like Aibileen just woke up the next morning and decided to do it. What bothers me about this is not just the fact that (oh, cliché) it was "better" in the book, but mostly because the film forgets to underline WHY it took so long. Not only is it much more clearly explained in writing that these black women face an incredible danger in divulging their true feelings about the white women they work for, the film also fails to capture the palpable tension and sense of urgency of the book. These women aren't just risking their jobs, they are risking their lives, AND the lives of their loved ones. They're in danger just for being seen talking to a white lady. I found this to be a rather big flaw of the film.

The film also lacks a lot of the character development I was hoping for. Quite a few character changes were made, so that in the film they all just kind of appear out of nowhere, and more or less seem to go about their business without - again - the big "why" of it all. One of the most underexposed characters was a woman named Celia Foote, who is a poor white trash girl who married way out of her league - and because of it, has to face the constant disgrace and condescension from the other stuck-up, "sophisticated" white ladies. Celia is just the sweetest, loveliest person in the entire story, and her relationship with her maid Minny is heart warming. The fact that they barely included this in the film is a real shame.

OK - if I keep comparing the film to the book, this review will never reach its end. Obviously, there is a lot more I could (and certainly want to) say, but it's not really relevant to the effectiveness of this review. So, moving on.

At least they got the actors right! Each and every one of them was cast spot-on to their character. Emma Stone is wonderful as Skeeter - capturing her youthful daring and naiveté perfectly. There's also something about her voice and attitude that make it clear that this girl is different from her snooty bridge club peers. Viola Davis is the perfect Aibileen - all I kept thinking was, damn, she should have gotten that Oscar. Her performance is very moving and heartfelt. Octavia Spencer did actually win an Oscar for her role as Minny, and it was well deserved. She is exactly as I imagined Minny to be - sassy, smart-mouthed and with an attitude that could render any white woman speechless, even if it means losing her job a dozen times. Celia Foote is played by Jessica Chastain, and I fear I'm at risk of doubling over in superlatives to describe how perfect she was, so I'll just leave it at this.

The Evil Witch in this story is Hilly Holbrook, played by Bryce Dallas Howard. I'm not sure how big of a compliment it is to say that she is very good at playing a snide, cunning racist - so let's just say she is a very good actress. Another actress worth mentioning is Allison Janney, who plays the role of Skeeter's mother. Though she is not quite like I imagined her the way she was in the book (there we go again...), I always enjoy her performances very much and this one's no exception. Oh, and Sissy Spacek plays Hilly's mother, and she is a delight to watch. I got the feeling that the director extended her role to a little more than what it was in the book, just to give her more screen time. I don't blame him.

Overall, the film is properly paced and reasonably well-constructed, though some creative liberties are taken here and there considering the timeline. In comparison to the book, it is a little disappointing, but I can't think of a single book-to-film adaptation where this wasn't the case.

I still rate The Help 8 out of 10, because I think it is an important story to be told and the performances are stellar, but if you have a little more patience, I strongly recommend reading the book instead.

Back in the 70's, The Runaways was one of the first all-girl rock bands, initiated by then 16-year-old Joan Jett, who later went on to gain world fame with her band The Blackhearts. Now, I might be somewhat biased on this particular subject, because I am a huge fan of 70's (punk)rock, and especially female rock artists, but I am also a very critical film reviewer. The Runaways therefore, leaves me feeling in limbo.

I love musical biopics as much as I love the music itself, and since The Runaways falls exactly into my favourite genre of music, I thought this film would be nothing other than a win-win flick for me. However, I felt rather quickly discouraged from the build-up on. When you are telling a true-to-life story, I consider it an important issue to let the audience know who we're dealing with, what's going on and perhaps most importantly, why. These are real people and I want to know why they are who they are, and what motivated them to walk their chosen path in life. The film starts off with alternating scenes of Joan Jett and her soon to be band mate Cherie Currie. Doing stuff that, well... isn't that interesting. It doesn't tell us much about these girls except that they like punk rock and David Bowie. Honestly, having only seen the film last night, it's all I can remember about the first 15 minutes or so. And so the film continues.

They form a band, are taken under the wing of weirdo record producer/manager Kim Fowley, become famous and at some point, break up. The way director Floria Sigismondi tells the story, you'd think it was actually that easy. And this is exactly where the problem lies: bad direction. Possibly even worse editing and screenplay. We are given almost zero back-story of the lives of these young girls, and strangely, literally nothing at all about the personal life of Joan Jett. What makes it even stranger is the fact that the real Joan Jett was actually executive producer of this film, which completely puzzles me considering her part was so badly written. Her character comes across as not much more than a bystander in her own story.

At least we're offered snippets of information about Cherie Currie. We know that she comes from an instable family and that her sister (who is in fact her twin – something I had to learn from Wikipedia since it's never told in the film...) is the only one she is at least somewhat close to. Again though, strangely, what is never told here is that this girl was raped when she was 14 – an incident which strongly determined the person she would become later on. Very weird to leave out of a biopic.

It is my understanding that the rest of the band didn't give permission for their life story to be used in the film, and it shows. On the one hand, it's a shame because the back-story of the band is already so badly underexposed. On the other, I can't blame them, because this film would have done them no justice whatsoever.

The story of The Runaways is told as though it all happened overnight: formation, fame, break-up; in what feels like no more than a short year maybe. When in fact they released four albums, three of which with Cherie. Truly awful screenplay.

The actors though, are not at all to blame. Kristen Stewart embodies Joan Jett perfectly, she's got the looks, the voice (she sings all her parts herself) and the swagger. Dakota Fanning as Cherie does a very good job also. Although she may not look or sound that much like the real Cherie Currie, her acting more than makes up for it. But then again, anyone who's seen Dakota before, whether as a child actor or teenager, already knows she's a very convincing young actress. The rest of the band, much like their characters, are barely there to be noticed...

The part of Kim Fowley is played by Michael Shannon, and he approaches it with a "love it or hate it" attitude. Personally, I think he was an absolute scene-stealer (which is not necessarily a good thing, because obviously this film is not about him – though it is the direction that is to blame, not the actor), acting completely over the top, crude, and horribly inappropriate. Though I can see why some people absolutely hated his character. Simple: there is nothing likable about him. He's an a**hole, and a big one too. As an acting part however, it was obvious that Michael Shannon had a ball playing this guy, and I think that's what makes his role very enjoyable to watch.

The actors really do make up for a lot in The Runaways. All parts are equally well-played and very enjoyable. But when the technical aspects of a film are this poor, not even the best actors in the world can make it a success. Zero story, zero character development, shoddy editing and, worst of all, not enough music! Probably the stupidest thing about the whole film – you'd think that, in a film about The Runaways, there'd be more than two or three original Runaways songs! Yet we have to listen to "Cherry Bomb" over and over again, and we get only titbits of their other songs. Sheesh.

The Runaways may not have been the most groundbreaking band in history, but they certainly were a cool band of young rock chicks, and they deserved a better film than this one. I would say it's fun to watch once if you're into this kind of music, but that's it. Such a shame.

Going into this film, I had no idea what it was about, only that it was based on a true story. And the more I think about this fact, the truth behind it all, the more it saddens me.

The story that unfolded before my eyes last night is not one I'm likely to forget anytime soon. The characters, as I understand, are eerily like the real life people depicted, and all of the actors have done a great job terrifying me, surprising me, and making me feel sadder than any other film I can remember in recent history. Which is by no means meant to discourage you from watching this film, as I believe it is an absolute must-see for anyone who cares about the society we live in.

Jake Mazursky, an explosively charged skinhead, owes a large sum of drug money to a young thug called Johnny Truelove. After they get into a fight, Jake retaliates by trashing Johnny's house. Johnny then takes revenge by kidnapping Jake's 15-year-old brother Zack. Surprisingly though, Zack is OK with this, as he trusts his brother to come up with the ransom. In the meantime, Zack forms an unlikely friendship with one of Johnny's cronies, Frankie. But then, as fear starts to spread of having to do hard time, Johnny and his allies make a decision that spins the situation horribly out of control...

The character of Jake is played by Ben Foster, and I think he did an amazing job. Some people have suggested that he overacted his part, but I disagree. I think he was very convincing as a strung-out, aggressive, creep of a skinhead. Johnny Truelove, the young gangster, is played by Emile Hirsch, and his role is light years removed from anything he's done so far, and he's as equally impressive and convincing as Ben Foster - just as menacing and intimidating. Actually, he appears almost as though it's not a part he's playing, he's really some thug they plucked off the streets and put in front of a camera. Very impressive. This character in real life is known as Jesse James Hollywood, and he is the youngest person ever to be on the FBI's 'most wanted' list.

Zack is played by Anton Yelchin, and he's everything his character requires him to be; young, naive, even a little endearing, and most of all desperate for a little excitement in his life. The role of Frankie is performed by Justin Timberlake, and I must admit, he was better than I would have initially given him credit for. Actually, there wasn't a single actor or actress who was miscast in my opinion. All roles, big and small, were equally well played. I must not forget to mention the parents: Johnny's father is played by Bruce Willis, and even though his part is small, is it crucial. Sharon Stone plays Zack's mother, in a role that is gut wrenchingly emotional and very well played. Although there is one scene at the end where she wears a fat suit, and it's so obvious that it's distracting, and this is a discredit to an otherwise excellent and very important scene (but that's not her fault, of course).

What makes Alpha Dog so important, I think, is that's it's a testament of the times we live in. A time where, apparently nobody seems to be shocked anymore about the fact that young people in their teens and twenties lead a lifestyle of drugs and guns and no respect whatsoever for other people's lives and wellbeing. The ease with which some ideas and actions are executed, exemplifies and also amplifies the anarchy and devil-may-care attitude that lives within the hearts and minds of these people. Who cares if you beat a person to within an inch of his life. Who cares if you hurt, damage or even kill another human being, just so long as you can save your own neck. It's dog eat dog in the hierarchical food chain that is life, and this film is a disturbing reminder of that. I thought we'd moved on since the Dark Ages, but apparently I'm mistaken.

Aside from the heavy, moral message of this film (which, for once didn't tick me off, but really engaged me), I must also praise it on a technical level. It really is very well made, and it draws you in from the very first second with the beautifully edited opening scene. Director Nick Cassavetes ('John Q') has constructed the story into a balanced, properly paced whole, seemingly letting his actors run free and do what they do best, creating a spontaneous, natural feel and environment. The music is excellent and well dosed.

Alpha Dog is a film that you must see at least once if you care about this world and the people in it. It is a portrait of frighteningly laconic individuals and the shockingly low bar to unnecessary violence, and it shows just how easy it is for young people to get involved with all the wrong influences, simply because they have not yet lived long enough to know any better, or lack the proper role models to show them alternative ways.

I cannot recommend this film enough. It's heavy - but very, very much worth it.

Bernie is a really fun and enjoyable dark comedy, starring Jack Black and Shirley MacLaine. This is actually the true story of what happened between a purely good man and a purely evil woman.

Jack Black plays Bernie Tiede, an assistant undertaker in the small town of Carthage, Texas. He is loved by everybody for his pure-hearted character, his sympathy for every person he comes across and his willingness to help everyone who needs it in any way, shape or form. He's just such a good guy, you almost wouldn't believe it if not for the fact that this character is based on an actual person.

And then there's Marjorie Nugent, played by Shirley MacLaine. She is his polar opposite, as hated as Bernie is loved. She is the widow of some rich oil baron, and she is just the most mean and spiteful woman you could ever fear to meet. Everyone in town absolutely hates her guts, and there's no one who would be sorry to see her go...

Then comes the day when these two people meet and – all due to Bernie's good nature – form an unlikely friendship. Until about two years later when Marjorie's true personality rears its ugly head and even Bernie can't stand her abuse any longer, when he is reduced to her personal slave and whipping boy. And what no one believed possible, happens... He kills her. (don't worry, that's not a spoiler, that's the story line.) What follows is the strange lengths Bernie attempts to go to, in order to cover up his crime.

What makes this film work so well is mostly the subtle humour of it. Director Richard Linklater thankfully didn't choose to make this into the hysterical, caricature of a comedy it easily could have been. Something that really adds to the authenticity of the film is the use of actual Carthage townsfolk, providing commentary on the events in documentary-like interview scenes. This really is a perfect move on the director's part, because it makes the 'acting' completely real and spontaneous.

I really like Jack Black, but in this case, I'm somewhat glad he left his crazy mannerisms and facial expressions at the door, in order to just play this character true-to-form. He actually acts, rather than just playing another silly, typical "Jack Black character".

I always love watching Shirley MacLaine in a mean and vile role such as this one, and in 'Bernie', she plays it to a T once again. Imagine her character in 'Steel Magnolia's' and then multiply it by ten. That's what you get here and it's an absolute joy to watch.

Matthew McConaughey plays the county sheriff, dead-set on burning Bernie for his crime. I'm usually not too fond of him, but his role in 'Bernie' is pretty funny and he plays it well. He seems to be the only person in town who thinks it's bad what happened to Marjorie. That's another really funny aspect to this story – the fact that everybody involved just loves Bernie so much and really hates Marjorie to the bone, that they all seem to take his side in the matter. You might feel like I'm just throwing spoilers at you here, but pretty much the whole story is told in hindsight and flashbacks, so there are no real secrets or mysteries unveiled. Then what's the point of watching, you might ask, if I already know everything that's going to happen from the get-go? The point is the enjoyment you'll get from watching these events unfold.

The actors are all really well cast, and they play their roles with a certain flair that makes them instantly likable. The dialogue is clever and witty, and like I mentioned earlier, the combination of event re-enactment and documentary-like interviews, is a winning ticket and 'Bernie's' major selling point. The story is well constructed, as is the chronology of how it unfolds. Basically, it's just very well-made, and it definitely would have deserved a little more credit. But then again, this film also kind of has a "small budget/small audience" feel to it, so that might explain why it practically went unnoticed at the box office. It's just a shame that charming little comedies like 'Bernie' always get overlooked when stuff like 'The Hangover' and the like get multi-million dollar appraisal. All I can hope for is that 'Bernie' gathers its own DVD-fan base, because it's certainly worth it.

Watch this film if you're in the mood a darkly hilarious comedy that has its heart in the right place. Oh, and stick around for the credits, where you can see pictures of the actual Bernie and Marjorie, and footage of Bernie and Jack Black talking, which is a fun addition.

All in all, a highly recommended film!

Rampart invokes a question which, in itself, is never a good sign when it comes to filmmaking. What went wrong when the end result is much lesser than the sum of its parts?

Here we have the multi-talented Woody Harrelson, in the role of a psycho LA cop, flanked by great names such as Sigourney Weaver, Steve Buscemi, Ned Beatty and Robin Wright, in a film that, for all intents and purposes, offers great material and a thrilling story. Now, subtract from this sum the fact that most of these talents are shamefully underused, and then the factors of bad writing, bad direction, complete lack of build-up and the weakest ending in the history of weak endings... and what do you get? Proof that you need a lot more than a can full of great actors to make a great film, that's what.

This story is set in the late 90s. Harrelson plays Dave Brown, a Los Angeles police officer with 24 years of experience under his belt. He is a racist, misogynistic, violent brute and absolutely unashamed of it. He shares his house (and his bed) with two sisters, both of whom mothered his two daughters. At work, he will literally beat a confession out of any poor bastard under his interrogation. And when push comes to shove, he might just shove you into an early grave. Needless to say, this guy is not big on ethics. Until he himself is placed under interrogation by his superiors after he is caught using excessive force on a man who accidentally rammed his patrol car. This incident also sheds new light on a decade-old case of Dave killing an alleged rapist. All of this builds up to Dave's pending lawsuit.

So that's the basic story. Although – and this is a good thing – it's all pretty much a backdrop to a portrait of one seriously messed-up individual, and the people that get messed up by default.

Writing this review, I find it hard to answer the original question. Because this is usually the part where I point out all the good things about the film, but I'm actually having trouble finding any good things to say about Rampart. Well, there's one (very!) good thing and that's Woody Harrelson. Matter of fact, he's the only reason I even finished watching. He's one of my favourite actors, so it's hard not to sound biased, but the versatility he brings to every project he's involved in, is quite astounding. And should he ever win an Oscar in the future, it will be long overdue. His portrayal of this character is absolutely convincing, but it's a shame that his performance here is almost completely wasted in this would-be art house drivel. Had this been a better film, the Academy might just have noticed him.

Instead, what we're presented here is really nothing more than a lame excuse for an artistically made film. Technically, the only things that even remotely make it work are the good camera work and photography. The lighting techniques are very well applied and the image colouring and camera angles make the whole aesthetically well-made, and create an appropriate and heavy atmosphere. But that's pretty much it. Great actors completely fall by the wayside in small, uninteresting roles that could have been played by anybody. Sigourney Weaver plays a local DA which is a role that only shows her sitting behind a desk for about five minutes. Steve Buscemi plays the smallest and most insignificant role of his career as I-don't-even-know-who, and has no more than maybe six lines of dialogue. I don't know why he even bothered to show up. Robin Wright plays an attorney, whose relevance to the story becomes more and more puzzling throughout the film. And Ned Beatty? Oh yeah, he's in there somewhere too...

I should point out that the bad quality of this film is to no account of the actors, they are all very good in their roles. The fault here lies almost entirely with the bad screenplay. There is simply no proper start, zero build-up and the ending is so painstakingly unsatisfactory that it feels like a bad hangover. The structure of story-telling seems completely arbitrary and fragmented, like they just threw a whole bunch of random scenes together and decided to call it a film. Director Oren Moverman has made a few critically acclaimed films, most notably his Bob Dylan pic 'I'm Not There', but Rampart is one film I wouldn't want on my résumé.

What's probably the biggest let-down is the lack of shock value. The premise of Rampart is that it's about the incredibly violent nature of this one "all-American" police officer. And it's true, the things he says and does are pretty brutal, heartless and offensive. But all in all, it's actually not as bad as I thought it would be. I'm saying this not from a realistic point of view, because I think anyone who behaves like this should be behind bars, but as a film, it's just not interesting enough. The scenes depicting violence are few and far in between, and aside from the fact that he obviously uses women as a personal commodity, Dave Brown's character never really rises above your basic a**hole standard. There are – unfortunately – many more guys like this walking around, and I'm even sure there are cops worse than this one.

Altogether, the film drags, the pacing is awful and in the end, it leaves you feeling utterly hollow and unsatisfied. Some people might appreciate Rampart as a vague kind of indie effort, but I'm usually one of those people. I 'get' vague. I 'get' artsy. I don't 'get' Rampart.

It's an utter waste of great talent and opportunity, and I would wish for all actors involved that this had been a better film, because they deserve it, but this film is a blemish on anyone's track record.

So here we have it. The end of a trilogy, the end of an era of the universe of Batman through the eyes of Christopher Nolan. And baby, it goes out with a bang...

Going into the theatre tonight I actually wasn't sure what I was up for. I loved Batman Begins, but I didn't actually care that much for The Dark Knight. So the big question was, will TDKR actually be more like the first or the second film? The answer is: neither.

This third instalment of the Nolan-franchise carries its weight all on its own merits. Despite the lack of any kind of intro or opening credits, there actually is plenty of build-up (partly thanks to the insane opening scene). The foundation for a proper, action-packed story is laid down perfectly, explaining things just enough whilst keeping the viewer intrigued to find out more. But if you thought that Nolan couldn't surpass his previous work, you will be pleasantly deceived.

Christian Bale as Batman is terrific. Never before was a superhero so human, so vulnerable. As his mask of intangibility and anonymity slowly starts to crumble, this is a man who questions his reasons to keep being who he is, and he must figure it out before it is too late. Because somebody's preparing to take him and Gotham down, and he might just be too strong for the Batman...

This somebody is a character called Bane. As a character, an actor and a performance it must be incredibly hard to follow Heath Ledger's The Joker, which was easily one of the greatest villains to ever appear on the silver screen. But tonight, Tom Hardy took a swing for the fence... and made it. His performance is thrilling and actually frightening, in the sense that you don't just *know* you're supposed to be afraid of this character, you actually FEEL it. He instils a feeling of horror and discomfort that is not rivalled by many other film villains. What I actually liked about his character the most is the fact that unlike Scarecrow, who grew into being a villain, and the Joker, who was just a raving maniac, Bane was actually (literally) born from evil. Born in hell, as it is said in the film. This is not a man, this is a creature. A living, breathing manifestation of evil that cannot be reasoned or negotiated with. Hardy's performance is masterful. Since his creepy mask is never removed, he, like only a few actors before him, must act without the use of any facial expressions, making his voice his main tool. His manner of speech (and the sound of it through his mask) is enough to send chills down your spine. This is more than just a another villain from a superhero flick, this is a character that just got torpedoed into the top 10 of the greatest antagonists in the history of film. Now I realise that's a bold statement to make, but you just go and watch TDKR and prove me wrong.

I would say a slight downside to this film is the overflow of characters, both new and old. Aside from the already familiar characters, three new major ones are introduced. And there are also many characters running along in the margin which may seem not important enough to pay attention to, but actually they are so you need to stay focused.

I understand the character of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Blake, was written in specifically for him because Nolan wanted him in it. And although as a character he works just fine, it does feel like it was at the expense of Gary Oldman. As a cop, Levitt does everything that Oldman's character could've done, but he spends most of his screen time in the hospital, almost like they wanted to get him out of the way, and that's really too bad.

Now, I was extremely excited to see what Nolan had done with Catwoman, because she is one of my favourite film characters. When I heard that she would be played by Anne Hathaway, I had my doubts. I thought she was just way too sweet to pull this off. But I must say, Ms Hathaway did a pretty good job. She is actually much more sly and devious than I thought she could be. The Nolan brothers, on the other hand, disappointed me here. Catwoman isn't really Catwoman, she's just a sexy girl in a spandex suit who can kick your ass. Her movements aren't even typically cat-like... So that was a bit of a letdown.

I would also like to make a note on Michael Caine. I think his performance here was so much deeper and more character-driven than the other two films. In fact, there is one scene in particular, where he confesses something to Bruce, that almost moved me to tears. And this is actually TDKR's greatest strength; unlike the other two films, this one deals much more with actual human emotions, it gives us an insight into what actually drives these characters, both heroes and villains alike.

As much as I would love to, the word-limit restricts me from elaborating more on the characters, so I'll just move on to the technical stuff. And in that department, actually pretty much everything was perfect. The pacing was very well balanced, and during those 2 ½ hours I didn't get bored once. Great action scenes alternate with more quiet moments, and the special effects are absolutely awesome. Hans Zimmer once again delivered a terrific score and there was some high quality dialogue. Also in store: a couple of great plot twists and two very cool cameos... There are a few plot holes, but everything else easily makes up for it.

I highly recommend The Dark Knight Rises. It is a worthy conclusion to the trilogy, and it far exceeded my expectations.

I typically never write a review on a film that I've already seen more than once, because I insist on the review reflecting my first (and strongest) impression of the film. But after watching Wanted for what must be the 5th or 6th time now, I suddenly felt like writing something anyway, so here I go.

Let me begin by saying, this is one strange film. Strange in the sense that it's literally like a train wreck that you can't keep your eyes off because it's so fascinating to watch. And you almost feel sick with guilt and exhilaration because you're enjoying it so much. Violence never looked so gorgeous before...

Wanted is about a guy named Wesley Gibson, who is such a hopeless, pathetic dweeb that even Google won't return any results when he types in his own name. He is "rescued" from his pitiful cubicle existence by a gorgeous woman named Fox, who recruits him into an organisation of assassins known as The Fraternity, supposedly because they believe he is the only person who can kill the man who killed his father. Little does he know just how drastically his life will actually change once he agrees to join them.

The casting of the film is spot-on. James McAvoy has already proved himself to be a versatile actor and he is very believable as a weak push-over, who finds confidence in the fact that group of trained assassins apparently believe in his abilities. He also makes his character likable and fun to watch, because he delivers it with a sense of humour and you can actually relate to him because his situation is so understandable. Basically, he's just another slave to the wage, looking for a way to break free. This way is initially offered to him by Angelina Jolie, and who could say no to a woman like that... Ms Jolie plays a role that seems like it could only have been written specifically for her. Who else could play a beautiful and deadly assassin who's charismatic and covered in tattoos? She could and would kill you in a heartbeat, and yet you just want to be near her. Morgan Freeman plays Sloan, the leader of the Fraternity, and, well... I hardly need to elaborate on this one, do I? He makes pretty much every film he's in worth watching, and that's all I need to say.

Now, I titled this review 'beautiful garbage'. That's not so much because the film itself is garbage, because it's not, but rather because the events portrayed in this film are so brutal and merciless that they could only come from a very dark and rotten place. The 'beautiful' is directed at the visual effects, because everything ranging from camera techniques to production design to action choreography is so beautifully done, so thrillingly eye-popping that it would almost make you forget that you're watching people get slaughtered, beat up and maimed. Tons of blood flow, brains are splattered against the wall and yet you can't take your eyes off that beautifully designed bullet. That awesome tattoo on Angelina Jolie's hand interlacing with the engravings on her gun. Those mind-blowing car chase scenes. That guy jumping through the glass out of a skyscraper just to finish his "job"... This film is visual effects executed to perfection, elevating said perfection to a whole new level.

It's all so pretty to watch that it would almost make you able to forgive the writers the overpowering lack of realism. Almost.

The staggering amount of ideas and actions that are 98% of the time either inconsistent, improbable or flat-out impossible would in any other case surely put any screenwriter out of work. With a film like this, it's literally only the wrapper that makes the candy sweet. It just goes to show that sometimes, making something really, really pretty can make it worth watching, just so long as you're willing to suspend every inch of disbelief for the sake of watching pretty pictures. Nature, science, biology and every other form of technical factuality is being put to the test here, which is not to say it's basically just being thrown out the window... But hey, I can promise you you're going to get to see a guy get in a car the way you've never seen before. And a girl get on a train in a fashion that defies every rule of physics... It's all worth it for a totally cool, put-your-brain-in-stand-by-mode kind of action flick.

Director Timur Bekmambetov has obviously tried his darnedest to make his mark in Hollywood with his first English spoken, big-budget effort, and may I say, he could've done a lot worse. Not to mention the fact that he has managed to recruit a few very big names to top the bill, this is definitely a Hollywood debut to be proud of. I can only hope he will continue to work with the same excellent crew in the future, because although only the sound department was nominated for an Oscar, camera and visual effects would have definitely deserved a nod from the Academy too.

In a nutshell, Wanted is 110 minutes of gorgeous, eye-pleasing nonsense with great action and one very beautiful lady... I for one can't wait for the sequel.

Ever since I saw the first photographs of Snow White and the Huntsman surface on IMDb about a year ago, I've been extremely excited to see this film. And over the past few weeks, that excitement only built up more and more to the point where almost no film can meet such high expectations. See, I have always loved the fairy tale of Snow White and the evil queen, but never before had anyone attempted to make it into what I believe it was always meant to be: a Gothic tale of fantasy and horror, rather than a sweet night time story. And now, with a much promising trailer, it appeared that Rupert Sanders had fulfilled my wish. And even though he has claimed quite some artistic license story wise, the end very much justifies the means. Snow White and the Huntsman is a film worth watching.

Literally everything I ever imagined about this classic story is there. The Dark Forest is actually Dark. It's creepy and spooky in the best kind of nightmarish way. Funnily enough, throughout the film there were some analogies with the classic Disney film. For instance, in the Dark Forest, the tree branches move autonomously towards whoever dare enter their territory, grasping around like freakish clawing fingers. The mushrooms spew poisonous fumes when you touch them. And the hills literally have eyes... The Evil Queen's castle is every goth kids' dream house. And the dwarfs are rugged, mean little men. Graphically, there's simply nothing not to love.

However, without the key elements perfectly worked out, the pretty pictures alone wouldn't have made this film work. Let me start with the leading lady. I don't know why Kristen Stewart is getting so much hate, honestly. Not only is she a very talented young actress, she is the perfect Snow White. I can't imagine anyone doing a better job with this than her. She doesn't just have the right look (pretty face, pale skin and raven dark hair), she also has the right attitude to play Snow White the way her character was written: smart, daring and independent. This is no damsel in distress, this is a girl ready to kick some ass and get revenge. She just needs a little help from her friends. First and foremost friend on the list is Eric, the Huntsman. He is initially hired (or rather, commanded) by the Evil Queen, to hunt down Snow White. However, when he finds out that he has been deceived, he turns on the Queen and decides to help her instead. This character is played by Chris Hemsworth, and he is perfectly cast. He is all the Huntsman needs to be; rugged but charming, complete with a husky Scottish twang. Lastly, there is Snow White's childhood friend William, played by Sam Claflin, who sets out on his own personal mission to help her.

Of course, the tale of Snow White would not have been complete without the notorious 7 (or 8, in this case) dwarfs. It seems the casting director pulled open a can of Britain's finest for this occasion. Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Eddie Marsan, Ray Winstone, just to name a few. These characters are a delight to watch and also bring some much needed comic relief to the story, without actually turning it into a comedy (which is a good thing).

And then there's the Evil Queen, Ravenna, played by Charlize Theron. Ms Theron is a great actress, and I was really looking forward to her playing this purely evil character. And as such, the Queen was everything I had hoped for; a heartless, sadistic beauty who relies on dark magic to remain forever young and beautiful, sacrificing whosoever crosses her path for this purpose. Though strangely, viewed solely as a performance, I caught Charlize doing something I had never expected from her: she overacted. Personally I feel that her performance would have actually been much more intense had she decided not to spend half her screen time screaming at the top of her lungs, but rather just some of it, carefully dosed. However, Ms Theron has garnered a more than sufficient amount of brownie points in my book, so I'll just chalk it up to excitement. It's obvious she had a lot of fun playing this character, so she's easily forgiven. Besides, physically she fit the role perfectly and I still really enjoyed watching her.

Visually, Snow White and the Huntsman is truly stunning. The CGI is top-notch, especially the Mirror is quite awesome. It transforms into a human-shaped mass of liquid gold in order to speak, and it's one of the best visual surprises in the film. The Dark Forest is the closest thing I've ever experienced to an acid trip, and all the fantasy creatures are really cool (my favourite was the angry forest troll!).

I don't need to tell you about the story, we all know how it goes (although I've never seen Snow White in a harness before...), so there's no really big surprise anywhere, and of course you get the happy ending (trust me, that's not a spoiler). Still, it's the way this story is told here, that makes it a very exciting ride. There's only one point of critique I have, and that's the pacing. They really could have kicked it up a notch here and there.

I think, in the end, Snow White and the Huntsman actually did live up to my expectations, and that's quite an accomplishment, considering how high they were. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed this film and I highly recommend it if you're in the mood for Snow White: The Gothic Version. Beautiful, awesome, cool!