domtaylor

Oppenheimer has phenomenal performances, cinematography and, for the most part, direction. It also has a superb score by Ludwig Görannson (and it has a lot of score, too - 94 minutes of it to be precise). Also, its use of practical effects is staggering. I have no idea how some of the shots were achieved.

The story is an interesting one, too, but its editing style nearly always kept me at arms length emotionally. The whole film is edited like the world's longest trailer, jumping from scene to scene so quickly that you rarely get chance to feel anything before being thrown into a new environment, timeline or perspective. Nolan seemed to adopt this editing style with his previous effort, Tenet; I wasn't a fan of it then and I'm certainly not a fan of it now. For a man who wants you to not "try to understand it", but to "feel it", this seems like a very strange choice. Yes, there is a lot to cover here but there is also 3 whole hours to cover it. The rapid editing doesn't do the length any favours either; it makes it feel its length because there are so many scenes and so much information is thrown at you in each and every one of them.

Where the film works best is when it actually slows down a little; the whole Trinity test sequence takes its time to build tension and is truly fantastic. The same can be said for a post-Trinity speech scene that really delves into the titular protagonist's psyche. That scene is my favourite of the entire year; its formalistic flourishes (the type of which Nolan typically tends to avoid) are used to perfection and create a really affecting atmosphere. I just wish more of the picture had taken its time to build emotion instead of being more concerned with rapidly throwing information at you left, right and centre. It's a good film for sure, and deserving of the many Oscars that are sure to be thrown its way, but for my money it's not one of Nolan's best.

Finally, a "Part One" that's not afraid to call itself "Part One". There's no Spider-Verse, Fast X trickery here. This one actually feels kind of complete by its end, too - even if there is definitely still more of this story to be told. Anyway...

Dead Reckoning Part One is the seventh instalment in the long-running Mission: Impossible franchise and, while it's not quite as good as Fallout or even Ghost Protocol, it's absolutely remarkable that it is as good as it is. We're seven films in and there are no signs of slowing down. Christopher McQuarrie returns to direct once again, but (like he did last time) makes this one feel distinct enough from its predecessors to fit the franchise's style of changing direction each and every time. After a slightly oddly-paced start, the remaining 135 minutes completely fly by; set-piece after set-piece of the highest calibre hit the screen and never let up. The action is great, it's got a lot of suspense, the characters are all good and overall it's just a blast. Hayley Atwell steals the show as Grace, the best new character to join the series since Rebecca Ferguson's Ilsa Faust (who is sort of put in the background to give Grace the chance to shine I guess. Come on, Tom, you can have more than one strong female character sharing the limelight with you surely), and Tom Cruise manages to blow your mind with the things he does for your entertainment once again.

This is seriously one of the best film franchises to ever exist. Sure, Mission: Impossible II is part of it but that's good enough. When the worst in the series is good, the majority are absolutely fantastic, and the best is one of the greatest action films of all time, you know you've got something excellent on your hands.

For the first time in the franchise's history, a director returned to direct another film. I like that the first five Missions had their own unique voice and style to them, but McQuarrie just knows how to make one of these things work.

And, boy, does Fallout work.

Brad Bird laid the foundations for what this series could (and should) be in Ghost Protocol, McQuarrie took those foundations and built on them in Rogue Nation (a great film, but less successful than Bird's effort overall) and then he took the reins again and absolutely perfected the material. This is a perfect action film.

A lot of the story doesn't really make all that much sense and if you stop to think about it for even a second, some glaring plot holes become really obvious. This doesn't matter at all though as, thankfully, you don't get a second to think about it; the pacing is immaculate. 147 minutes of pure, unadulterated action of the highest order. There are fistfights, gunfights, car chases, motorcycle chases, foot chases, helicopter chases, and even a real HALO jump. On top of all that there is espionage, there are twists and turns, there are masks, there's humour, there's suspense, there's a sublime score by Lorne Balfe, there's Tom Cruise and Simon Pegg, Henry Cavill and Sean Harris, Rebecca Ferguson and Michelle Monaghan, Ving Rhames and Alec Baldwin...

Everything about it just works; it's phenomenal. This is the best Mission: Impossible.

Following suit, a new director once again took the reins and - as it would turn out - held them so tight and refused to let go for at least 3 more efforts. Christopher McQuarrie's first Mission is stylistically the most similar to its immediate predecessor than any Mission to come before; the clean aesthetic and use of wide shots letting the action tell the story work wonders yet again.

Overall, the film is really entertaining throughout and features some all-timer set-pieces; having Tom Cruise really hang to the side of a plane as it takes off in its first 5 minutes let's you know the quality of the stunts here. Other notable sequences include the opera house and the multi-vehicle Morocco chase. Unfortunately, what could have been the picture's most impressive sequence (the underwater heist) is let down by the use of CGI, which completely diminishes the fact that Cruise was actually holding his breath underwater for prolonged periods of time. Thankfully though, the repercussions of this scene lead to some hilarious moments; you do believe that Hunt was down there after all.

Another thing I really enjoy about this one is the fact that for a long time it's basically a Hunt-Benji team-up flick. Simon Pegg is the best addition the franchise has ever had, so it's great to see him have a bigger role. We also get the second best addition the franchise has ever had with Rebecca Ferguson's Ilsa; even though she is stupidly sexualised here, the character is undoubtedly a great addition. Also, Tom Hollander is fantastic in this; despite having such a small role, he completely steals the show in the climax.

The fact that this is only my third favourite in the franchise (so far) just goes to highlight how great this series is overall. Entry number five has no right being this good.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol feels like a much more natural evolution of Brian De Palma's original Mission: Impossible film than either of its two direct prequels; it focuses on heists, espionage, teamwork, gadgets and working outside of the system. It's also not as stylistically directed as Woo and Abrams' (or even De Palma's to be fair) efforts, but Brad Bird's style works wonders for the film. This is Mission: Impossible. It lays the groundwork that Mcquarrie would take forward and marks a new turn for the franchise, one which established it as a series here to stay. It has so many amazing set pieces (the whole Dubai sequence is absolutely stunning and one of the highlights of the entire franchise), a great dynamic in its core team, and makes the best decision any of these films has ever made: bringing back Simon Pegg's Benji and making him a field agent. Pegg brings the distinct personality that this franchise desperately needs. It also features a top-two series score by Michael Giacchino (Lorne Balfe's Fallout score is its contender), taking Lalo Schfrin's sublime theme and imbuing it with a distinct espionage lilt, clearly inspired by his own work in Pixar's The Incredibles (also directed by Bird).

One thing that lets this Mission down a little is its (quite frankly) awful villain. We've gone from Phillip Seymour Hoffman's Davian (easily the best in the series) to Michael Nyqvist's... what's his name again? He's less a character and more a plot device, which is such a shame; Nyqvist is a brilliant performer (just watch John Wick to see how great a villain he can be) and he's completely wasted here. Aside from that though, this is just great. It's certainly a top tier Mission that's for sure.

It's not peak Pixar, but it's still a good effort and shows that the studio isn't out of creative steam just yet.

The central romance is really sweet and its core messaging is important, timely and well delivered. On the other hand, the pacing is a little bit off and some of the humour is bizarrely inappropriate (not that I have an issue with adult humour in family films, Shrek is a perfect example of where this works, but it just doesn't fit with the rest of this picture). Also, it bites off a little bit more than it can chew; the core theme is well done, but it has a few other thematic ideas floating around that don't really satisfyingly develop.

It's an enjoyable time overall, and seems to be getting over hated for some reason. I'd recommend it if you want a good family film. It's no Spider-Verse, but it's certainly better than the majority of animated fare (*cough* Minions *cough*).

After John Woo's (um... unique?) take on the franchise, the producers once again gave the source material to a new filmmaker - this time J. J. Abrams, making his directorial debut - and allowing them to take it in whatever direction they want. I like this approach to the early Mission movies; it makes each entry distinct and keeps things feeling fresh. Abrams opts to take a Bourne Supremacy approach here; the hand-held shaky cam, gritty action and dark cinematography clearly owes a debt to Paul Greengrass. Similar to Mission: Impossible II, the result of this filmmakers new take on the franchise is a pretty mixed bag. Its "in medias res" opening is extremely tense and gripping, the picture has perhaps the best villain in the entire franchise (he's not complex or anything, but Phillip Seymour Hoffman's performance is phenomenal and elevates the character- he certainly steals the spotlight from Cruise here), and the bit in the bathroom where Hunt is disguised as Davian and does that coughing to the guard is fantastic. On the other hand, the action is quite hard to follow (as much as he tries, Abrams isn't Greengrass), the supporting characters are bland (the aforementioned Hoffman and perhaps Monaghan's Julia aside) and the bit where Hunt climbs that wall and proceeds to say "Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall" is far stupider than anything in Mission: Impossible II.

Is it better than II? Probably, but for me it's just about as enjoyable. These two are certainly the weak links in the franchise, but they're not bad at all. That just shows how good Mission: Impossible is I guess.

I don't think another sequel exists that deviates this wildly from the original in terms of its style. Following up an intelligent and tense espionage thriller with a John Woo action extravaganza was a bold choice, but I reckon the shift works. Well, this certainly isn't a great film and I'm sure a Brian De Palma follow up would've been a better film. However, I do respect the early Mission movies for allowing different filmmakers to use the source material and take it in whatever direction they like.

Mission: Impossible II is a pretty mixed-bag. It's a Notorious knock-off caper that is really quite stupid and features a bizarrely menacing performance from Cruise (which isn't what he was going for, I can assure you.) However, it's got some cool action and is just so wild that it's hard not to have a good time watching it.

With only 60 IMDb users having seen this flick at the time of writing, I think it's safe to say that not many people are aware of its existence. This is a shame as 'Actress Wanted' has a lot going for it, mainly in the story department. It tells a rather unique tale with a rather compelling character in the mysterious Mr. Vu. While it plays like a straight drama for much of its rather short runtime, there are enough moments sprinkled throughout that let you know there's more going on than meets the eye. Indeed, you're never quite sure if the core premise is sweet or creepy, which keeps you engaged throughout. What lets the film down quite a bit, though, is its production. It clearly has a low budget but it's the directors second feature, and it feels very much like a student production. There's some choppy editing and the cinematography is rather basic, but the biggest issue is some of the performances. The film has a mixture of English and Vietnamese, with two of the main characters, including the protagonist, speaking a mixture of both. Whenever English is being spoken in this film, the performances are awful. It's not even a case of the actors' English not being very strong; they're clearly fluent in the language. The line delivery is just terrible. Now, I can't speak Vietnamese so perhaps that had something to do with it, but when these actors speak in that language, the performances seem absolutely fine. Whenever English is being spoken though, it's quite frankly hard to watch. Overall, 'Actress Wanted' is worth the watch for its interesting narrative if you can get past its 'student film' vibe and occasional cringe-inducing performances. 6/10.

For its majority, 'The Game (1997)' is a well-made, compelling thriller. Fincher gives the film a great atmosphere and Douglas is excellent in the leading role. After a fairly slow but necessary set-up, the eponymous 'Game' begins and from there the thing is fast-moving and exciting. Sure, there are a few things that don't really make all that much sense and require a certain suspension of disbelief, but you sort of just go with it and it isn't really an issue for a long time. It's full of twists and turns, constantly keeping the audience as uncertain of the truth as our protagonist; this works for the most part. Frustratingly though, the film falls hard at the final hurdle. It has one twist too many, one that completely derails all that has come before. By including this final reveal, most of the film actually makes no sense - suspending disbelief isn't going to help you here. It asks you to accept that absolutely absurd things have been happening throughout the film in order to accept the ending, which actually makes a lot of what has come before seem rather comical. The protagonist also has such an out-of-character reaction to the reveal that it feels like some kind of dream sequence. It's a fantasy-like ending to a previously serious, mostly grounded thriller that leaves an absolutely sour taste in the mouth. Thankfully though, while you're on the ride it is entertaining and successfully thrilling, primarily thanks to Fincher's involvement. However, it does come to a highly unsatisfying screeching halt that makes you forget that it is actually well-done for 90% of its runtime. As a whole, it's unfortunately just shiny schlock. 6/10.

'The Last Of Us: Part II' is an absolute masterpiece. It's a bold, unconventional sequel that isn't afraid to take risks, which pays off enormously and leads to an extremely mature, layered and profound experience. At times the unusual pacing makes you wonder where the story is going and why you are playing certain segments, but it ultimately comes together extraordinarily well. It's highly engaging and affecting throughout. The writing here is phenomenal, with every character feeling fully fleshed-out (brought to life by top-tier animation and outstanding performances) and every situation being as tense or emotional as possible. On the surface, it's about revenge, the cycle of violence and hate. All of these things are explored in a nuanced and unique way seldom seen in any media, let alone video-games. However, it's ultimately about love, redemption and forgiveness, following on from the themes of the first game very well. One of the ways in which it succeeds in exploring these themes is through its ability to make you care about almost every single character, regardless of what bad things they may have done. There are no clear-cut heroes or villains here; everyone is simply presented as a flawed human being doing their best to live peacefully in a cruel, morally dubious world. This gives the characters a rather unique, raw sense of palpability that truly excels in making you care deeply about them all. Indeed, it's this emotional investment that makes the game hit as hard as it does. Most video-games don't really make you feel anything - besides enjoyment and, perhaps, frustration - but this is a true rollercoaster of emotions. You'll feel sadness, happiness, anger, confusion, hope, excitement, fear and surprise, potentially within minutes of each other. While playing, I noticed that my mouth was quite often literally agape, be it in shock or in mere anticipation of something shocking happening. The narrative constantly subverts your expectations and, since the world is established as being as realistic as possible very early on, you know that nobody is safe. This makes for an utterly gripping and almost constantly tense experience. The whole effect is elevated by Gustavo Santaolalla and Mac Quayle's exemplary soundtrack that's one of the best I've heard in a video game. It's so good that it actually inspired me to dust off my old six-string and learn to play the tracks myself. The game also has absolutely fantastic representation, portraying diverse characters from all walks of life, while completely avoiding clichés and stereotypes. It's a major step forward for the industry and gives the already amazing narrative unique and fresh perspectives. The whole thing truly is groundbreaking. And that's not even mentioning the gameplay.

This is as refined a game as it gets. The gameplay is truly fantastic and it even conveys the themes of the narrative. Whether you're surrounded in a gunfight with only a couple of bullets or sneaking through a herd of infected with no supplies, the combat and stealth systems are enthralling. It's truly heart-pounding stuff and really allows you to approach things in the way you want, leading to a very mindful gaming experience. The limited supplies you have to work with and the open, varied environments make you constantly adapt your play style. Speaking of the general lack of supplies, this practically forces you to fully explore the world, scavenging for anything useful (especially on 'survivor' difficulty, which I would definitely recommend for the optimal experience). This is very rewarding. The world building is phenomenal, and exploration only makes it better. Collectibles feel extremely natural, never feeling like a 'side-task', and finding the various notes and other artefacts that are scattered around gives the narrative greater depth. Seriously, there are entire stories told with collectibles, which serve to enhance the world, tone and deeper themes of the game as a whole. Another masterful aspect of the piece is the absolutely phenomenal AI. The allies feels consistent between cutscenes and gameplay, while every single enemy feels like a real, living person, which makes the violence pretty hard to stomach. This is incredibly well-done and definitely serves the messages of the story. I'll never forget the first encounter with human enemies. The way in which your adversaries cry out in anguish at the sight of their personally named dead friends, or indeed the way those friends scream out in shock and pain as they slowly bleed out and die after you've just blown their arm clean off, is devastating. You truly feel bad for what you're doing. The realistic physics-based animations, which see your bullets blow chunks off dead bodies in the exact spot they hit, and the way in which the enemies authentically communicate with each other really enhances this effect. This meticulous attention to detail is carried through every aspect of the experience, whether that's the natural way that blood sticks to your shoes and leaves footprints, how your character squints as you zoom the camera in, or the incredible animations as you upgrade your weapons. This, along with the near photo-real graphics (which are certainly up there with the best I've ever seen), easily make this one of the best games of the generation on the technicalities alone. The whole thing is so entertaining, intense and immersive, though, that you easily forget about just how advanced it is and how amazing it looks.

Overall, 'The Last of Us: Part II' is easily one of the best games I've ever played. Everything about it pushes the potential of video-games to the max and the story is just sublime. It's an experience that totally stays with you and one that I'll never forget. 10/10

'Misbehaviour' tells an important story well; it's fairly fast-moving, has some great performances and is always engaging. While there's nothing outstanding in the filmmaking department, it's all well-done and supports its narrative by letting the characters and messages lead the way. Speaking of its messages, it has a great overall pro-equality stance that goes deeper than its feminist roots, covering issues like social class and racism. In that regard, it's a very important film for today as it's sadly all too relatable to current affairs. The flick does have a slight issue with the story it wants to tell, though. It focuses on both the liberation group and the 'Miss World competitors', especially Mbatha-Raw's Jennifer Hosten. While this does give the chance to view things from different perspectives and allows for the exploration of more themes, it makes things feel slightly muddled. Perhaps it would've benefited from choosing one perspective to focus the story through to make things a little more streamlined. Still, both storylines are effective and the thing works as a whole, but it just feels like something which could have improved the proceedings slightly. Overall, though, it's certainly worth the watch. 7/10

After the infamous first trailer and subsequent redesign, 'Sonic the Hedgehog' (2020) is finally here and, rather surprisingly, it's pretty good. It's very generic and predictable, though, and takes a while to find its footing so the entertainment value only goes so far. After a bumpy start, however, it's never less than entertaining and moves at a decent pace. Marsden is good, especially when it comes to his believability with the CG Hedgehog, and makes the most out of the generic 'human' protagonist role. The relationship between him and Sonic is one of the piece's highlights, as is Jim Carrey's Dr. Robotnik. He's in full 'Carrey' mode here which is great to see, even if he sometimes goes ever so slightly overboard for the role he's given. A lot of the humor, though, is bizarre to say the least. Most of it, in fact, is very situational dialogue-based stuff that kids likely won't get, and a lot of it relies on making intertextual references to things that kids will have never heard of. It's strange that most of the humour isn't meant for its primary demographic. Of course, it's not inappropriate (for the most part anyway), and some of it is rather amusing, but it just feels a bit out of place, especially in a film that does, indeed, feature fart jokes. The action is always entertaining for children and adults alike, though, and there are a couple of inventive 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' (2014) inspired sequences that are fun to watch. Overall, it's fun family-friendly fare that will entertain you while it lasts and then disappear from your mind rather quickly. It's certainly up there with Pokémon Detective Pikachu (2019) as far as video-game adaptations go. 6/10

'Love, Death & Robots' is, unfortunately, rather disappointing. The premise for this animated anthology series is a rather good one, allowing for a variety of creative adult-aimed animations, which is somewhat of a rarity. However, the delivery is far from perfect. The biggest issue here is the writing. While each individual short has clearly been animated by different groups of people, allowing for a huge variety of styles that individualise them, most of the short stories have been adapted by the same person. This means that despite the visual differences, the writing issues are carried over throughout the entire series. Firstly, the dialogue is mostly unconvincing and this really makes it hard to care about the characters, which obviously limits investment. Another issue with the writing is that most episodes have the same structure, which makes things more predictable as the series progresses. It doesn't help that this structure isn't all that great to begin with. The shorts aren't constructed as if they are short films (which, at the end of the day, they are), but rather as if they are long-form stories (whether that be full series, or in some cases feature films) condensed to a very short time. Of course, this makes them feel very rushed which limits investment even further. It also doesn't help that most of them are based around some sort of twist or reveal. Most of the time, this just comes out of nowhere and feels like something tacked-on to garner shocks, rather than a natural part of the narrative (there are a few standouts to this, however, such as 'The Witness'). This is perhaps down to the actual writing rather than the story, though. The narratives also often end really abruptly and unsatisfyingly, which leaves a negative lasting impression of the shorts. It seems as though they realised that they only had a short amount of time and decided to just end the episode at the point in which that ran out. Another issue with the series as a whole is, despite it purporting to be an 'adult' show, it is actually very childish. It's as if it has been devised by a group of thirteen year-old boys with a fresh insight on swearing and the female anatomy, making the majority of bad language and nudity just come across as gratuitous and unnecessary. Most of the more mature aspects rarely add to the stories and that's a shame because if used appropriately, they could have created a more adult tone that allowed for a deeper exploration of certain themes. Unfortunately though, they just make the majority of shorts feel immature and crass. It's also very sexist as a whole, unnecessarily objectifying women on several occasions, which can be rather uncomfortable. The show isn't completely bad, though. In fact there are a few episodes that, for the most part, avoid the aforementioned issues (such as 'Three Robots' and 'Zima Blue') and others that are interesting enough to get past some of the bigger issues. Another highlight is, of course, the animation. Each episode has a unique visual style and, for the most part, this really elevates the stories and makes them more enjoyable as you can see the care and attention given to that side of things. It's just a shame that the writing doesn't live up to this. Overall, 'Love, Death & Robots' is definitely disappointing on the whole due to its many issues, although the quality of the shorts does fluctuate and there are definitely some good episodes here. A lot of them are worth a look purely for the animation, too. It's decent, but doesn't live up to its full potential, especially with some of the big names attached to it. 6/10

'Jumanji: The Next Level' is the second, third, or fourth film (depending on if you're counting 'Jumanji' (1995) and or 'Zathura: A space Adventure (2005)) in the surprisingly successful franchise that's somehow managed to rival Star Wars and Marvel in terms of popularity and box-office success. It's the same as its immediate predecessor in two ways: firstly, the narratives are pretty much identical and, secondly, they're both fast-moving, fantastically entertaining and ferociously fun. Seriously, it's incredible that the last one worked, but the fact that this one is just as good is somehow even more surprising. While the MacGuffin driven plot is pretty generic, and the villain is extremely basic and unmemorable, it sort of gets away with it given its 'video-game nature' and, more importantly, the strength of its characters. It would be easy to dismiss the writing here and claim that its success comes from its spectacle, but that's just simply not the case. The film works because the characters are so well written and performed. They all have great chemistry, which creates the majority of the fun. This time around, the body-swapping concept is dialled-up a bit, too, which stops it from feeling like it's retreading old ground and allows the excellent actors to experiment even more. It's hard to believe that the 'real-world' actors barely have any scenes at all, which highlights how much the concept works. The big stars completely disappear and fully manage to channel their 'real life' counterparts; this just shows how good their performances are. The movie isn't deep, but it's not trying to be and sometimes that's great. It sets out to entertain its audience for two hours and it achieves that with ease. It's an effortlessly fun flick with a winning formula. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing where this series goes in its third outing (or is it the fourth? No, wait... the fifth?). 7/10

The title may seem ironic; 'Marriage Story' is, after all, about a divorce. However as much as it's about the end of a marriage, it's the little moments of love and affection that Baumbach really chooses to focus on. It's an engaging character study and nuanced look at the legal system that is extremely well written and features some of the best performances of the year. Seriously, Johansson and Driver are at the top of their games here, injecting life into their characters in even the quietest of moments. That's where the film really succeeds, too. For a story about a divorce, there are less arguments than you'd expect. Of course, they do happen and are expertly done (one scene in particular is destined to become a classic and is sure to be studied as a masterclass in writing and acting), but it's the restrained, subtler scenes that really create the most emotion, and highlight the strength of the piece. While it's obviously sad and emotionally affecting in that regard, it's also surprisingly funny. Even though it's never hilarious, there's a sense of humour injected into nearly every scene. This is mainly due to how realistically the piece is written, as the humour comes from common, everyday interactions more than jokes. Again, the simple fact that this tone works highlights just how strong the writing is. One of its biggest missteps, however, is its focus on Driver's character, Charlie. After an introduction to both parties, the film begins with a heavy focus on Johansson's character Nicole, then shifts to Charlie's perspective. The problem is that from there onwards the audience sees things very much from Charlie's perspective, even if the flick ensures that neither Charlie or Nicole are seen as a 'villain'. Because it initially establishes itself as a two-sided piece, it does feel a bit limiting that Charlie is undeniably the protagonist. That's not to say that Nicole isn't a great character, however. Whenever she is on screen, Johansson and the writing are great. We do primarily see her from Charlie's perspective, though, which obviously limits things. Luckily, this isn't enough of an issue to ruin the film by any means, and it's something that's more of a problem upon reflection rather than when actually watching it. Randy Newman's score is a little bit of a problem, too. While the music is in itself great, it is very similar to Newman's 'Toy Story 3' (2010) score, so whenever it plays it is simply reminiscent of that film rather than serving to enhance this one. That's a very minor issue, though, and likely something that won't affect most viewers. Overall, 'Marriage Story' is engaging throughout with a great screenplay and subtlety gripping performances. It's certainly one of the years' better films and it's a shame that most people will only be able to see it on the small screen. 7/10

'The Irishman' is good, even reaching greatness at several points, however it has a few problems which bring it down. Firstly, it's long (running for a whopping 3hrs 29mins) and it feels it, mainly due to its pacing. The first two-thirds have a very episodic feel and aren't very focussed. The intent of the piece isn't really clear here. What we see just seems like a selection of random events in the protagonists' life, rather than a carefully constructed, character-building narrative. It actually takes around 3 hours, which is far longer than most complete films, for its main purpose to become clear. That's not to say what precedes it is bad, though. It's actually far from it, as its individual scenes are undeniably entertaining thanks to good writing, direction and performances. It's just never that engaging because of its lack of satisfying coherence. It also follows the traditional structure of the genre, coupled with generic narration, which gives it an overwhelming sense of predictably. The final portion of the film, however, really brings everything together and makes it stand out from other gangster flicks. Here, it offers a reflection and meditation on the genre as a whole, exploring themes of guilt and death in an effective and engaging way. It's an incredibly bold, ultimately genius, way to end things and leaves a great lasting impression. It makes the whole experience more likeable and far less generic upon reflection. Saying that though, one mustn't forget that it takes a long time for it to really be effective. A lot of the first 3 hours or so could easily have been trimmed for a leaner experience, without losing anything essential. It does allow for more time with the performances, though, which are nothing short of outstanding. Joe Pesci is the highlight, appearing in a far calmer role than you might expect. Another notable aspect of the film are the de-aging CGI effects used throughout, which aren't phenomenal and are really noticeable in the first few scenes. Thankfully though, the power of the performances and writing easily allows you to forget about this very quickly. It's surprising how little you even think about it as the film progresses. Overall, 'The Irishman' is definitely worth seeing (ideally on the big screen like I did, although it may be a little late for that now). Even if it's not Scorsese's best and can seem like an endurance test at times, it's still an ultimately effective piece that's undeniably entertaining in the end. 7/10

'Terminator: Dark Fate' is the latest entry in the long running franchise to act as the third part of the 'official' series. In what seems to be the latest trend with decade-old franchises, it picks up directly after the events of the last well-regarded sequel, which in this case is 'Terminator 2: Judgment Day' (1991), completely ignoring everything that came after it. Ironically enough, though, this newest entry actually belongs with everything post T2, as it is far from being anywhere near the quality of the first two classics and is actually worse than some of the sequels that it canonically erases. It starts out pretty effectively with a swift set-up and a decent action scene, but it soon becomes clear that it has nothing new to offer. The narrative is just 'Terminator 2' all over again, even more so than the other entries in the franchise, and at this point it just feels tedious. How many times is Skynet, or at least a variation of it, going to keep coming back and causing the same chain of events? While that may be the point that these films try to explore, although even Cameron seems to be confused as to what the overall message is about fate now, it isn't necessary to keep showing the audience that, especially when the experience is as bland as this. Generally, this flick is fairly slow moving and feels rather long; its 'road-trip' premise quickly loses steam and feels very segmented. Also, the narrative is very clumsily told, with a lot of on-the-nose exposition and flashbacks that often 'reveal' things which are already fairly obvious to the audience. The final act is very poorly handled, too, with the action becoming way too big and overtly CG. This makes it really hard to see what's happening or even really care, which isn't a good thing when it's supposed to be the point where you're the most invested. It also just doesn't feel like a Terminator flick despite Cameron, Hamilton and Schwarzenegger being back together again. It's not awful, though; there's some good character work, the T-800 is used in an interesting way, it's great to see three strong female leads in a blockbuster like this, and the action is mostly entertaining. The problem is that it just doesn't offer anything new and therefore becomes rather boring. It's a shame, too, as this could, and probably should, have been a return to form for the franchise. I guess it just goes to show that regardless of the talent involved, this series has been past its expiration date for quite some time now. Maybe it's time this thing is terminated once and for all. 5/10

'Joker' is the type of film that you want to rewatch immediately yet never watch again; it's as deeply disturbing as it is utterly compelling, leading to a unique experience that truly sticks with you. The pure visceral effect of it literally lasts for days, and once that wears off the narrative still lingers in your mind, something truly rare in today's age of cinema. It's an incredibly grounded character study, with one of the most complex protagonists in years. He's not a hero, but not quite a villain either. It's far more complicated than that, purely because it's simply far more realistic than that. Arthur fleck is just presented as a person, one who you aren't supposed to empathise with but rather pity. The film never forces you to feel a certain way about him either, as it just shows the events in a relatively unbiased way, which allows for different audience interpretations. The filmmaking here is fantastic, with everything from the cinematography and production design to the haunting score putting most films to shame. It still astounds me that Todd Phillips directed this as it's in a completely different league to anything he's helmed before. For all it's technical, behind-the-camera excellency though, there's no doubt that this wouldn't have been nowhere near as successful without Joaquin Phoenix's masterful performance. It has been said before, but it needs to be said again: this guy deserves the Oscar. It's far and away the best performance of the year, and is perhaps one of the best performances I've ever seen. Phoenix's mere presence here demands your attention and he completely throws himself headfirst into the role, outdoing himself in the process (a very high praise for an actor of his talents indeed). Sure, the writing is great too, but Phoenix completely sells Arthur's transformation in such a convincing way that I'm sure the performance could have overcame bad writing had it needed to. Thankfully though, Phoenix is matched by the film surrounding him, which just solidifies how great the whole thing is. Like I said, it's a very disturbing, even scary, watch that is completely absorbing from the opening frame. It's not fun, but it isn't supposed to be. It knows what it wants to be, establishes this very early on, and rolls with it, completely sticking the landing. It's an incredibly accomplished work and if DC stick to this route from now on, they'll soon become the leading company in comic book adaptations. 9/10

One of the reasons why 'The Kitchen' simply doesn't work is its bizarre pacing. It seems to want to get through all of the material as fast as possible, which means that it skims over almost everything from character motivations and developments to late game reveals and twists, leading to an experience that's really hard to engage with. Because of this pacing, the piece feels as though it has reached a natural conclusion within about 10 minutes (the world has been set up, the characters' problems have been established and resolved, and there's even a sense of denouement), and the whole film feels like a montage. It seriously feels like the filmmakers don't care and just want to rush through it all, and if they don't care then why should we? As it ends, it doesn't really feel like anything has been achieved and the point at which the narrative closes seems to be a very random one, as if the writers simply couldn't come up with anything more so decided to stop writing. Another big issue is that it's very tonally inconsistent. It doesn't know if it wants to be a serious exploration of these characters' lives and take a serious look at the issue of violence, or straight-up be a comedy. Obviously these two things don't mesh well and often cancel each other out, but the film doesn't even manage to succeed at either on its own. These huge problems are a shame, too, as the film is technically far from being terrible. The cast generally all give good performances (although it's clear that Haddish is better suited to comedies) and it's decently, if a bit standardly, shot and put-together, especially for a first-time director. The aforementioned issues really hamper the piece, though, as they ensure that emotion is always kept at arms length and that you're never really engaged, leading to a repetitive and ultimately boring film. 4/10

Stallone is back as the titular hero in the fifth and final (or not, depending on box-office success) entry in the long running 'Rambo' series that began with 'First Blood' in 1982. Here, however, the character doesn't really feel like Rambo at all and the same can be said for the film as a whole. It's just a pretty generic 'revenge thriller' that could have easily been an entry in the 'Taken' series, for example. That's not to say it's bad, though; it's just lacking it's own identity, which obviously heavily limits its memorability. Thankfully it's fairly engaging in its first two acts, and actually has a few unexpected and successful beats in the narrative that make it rather interesting. The characters, while basic, are rather well done here, too, and the actors are decent enough to make you care. There's not a lot of action, though; if that's what you're looking for, you're going to be disappointed for a while. Indeed, the majority of the action comes in the final act and that has been largely given away by the marketing. Surprisingly though, as it reaches this final third, it becomes far less interesting because it becomes far more generic. The action is there but it's edited pretty bizarrely, focussing on single blows without any real flow, and it has a weirdly sadistic edge to it which plays into the film's problem of showing revenge as the only way of solving problems. It's rather violent, too, but it seems to be trying its best to simply be 'edgy' rather than make the audience feel any sense of the pain, and it ends on absolutely absurd final kill that kind of breaks its (already heightened) established realism. It doesn't help that all of the 'bad guys' are Mexicans, either, and that the all-American cowboy is the only guy who can take them down. I don't know if this is intentional, but it's certainly giving a political statement that can't really be ignored. Overall, 'Rambo: Last Blood' is too generic for its own good. It's actually fairly entertaining and surprising in its first two acts, but it gets less interesting as it goes along, and ends on a rather flat note. It's a shame, too, as it has a lot going for it and could have done a lot more with the material. As it stands though, it's fine. 5/10

I don't think that anybody actually cared that 'X-Men: Dark Phoenix' was coming out. It seems like an odd move to add a fourth film to the, as it's now called, 'Beginnings trilogy', and 'Logan' (2017) very clearly should've been the end point for Fox's 'X-Men' series. I know I wasn't really interested in seeing it, especially in a year that already has 'Avengers: Endgame' (2019). Surprisingly, then, it's actually pretty good. It's far from great and easily the worst superhero flick of the year thus far, coming no where near any of the MCU efforts or even DC's 'Shazam!' (2019), but it's still an entertaining time. The 'Dark Phoenix' storyline is better delivered than in 'X-Men: The Last Stand' (2006) and there are some really fun action sequences throughout. Most of the cast are pretty good, as well, although the series' regulars (especially Jennifer Lawrence) seem to be getting tired with these roles and have clearly only returned due to contractual obligations or huge salaries. Thankfully then, a lot of time is spent with Sophie Turner and the post- 'Days Of Future Past' (2014) crew, who do good jobs. Hans Zimmer's return to superhero flicks is solid, too, even if it can get repetitive, and Kimberg confidently helms the piece, even if he doesn't really have a signature voice. It's probably clear that for every positive there seems to be a negative, and that pretty much sums this one up. Thankfully though, the positives do outweigh the negatives, most importantly in how entertaining it is. Like I said, it's not an outstanding example of the genre and is pretty middle of the road stuff when compared to the majority of superhero adventures. Still, for what it is, it's far more enjoyable than it should be and doesn't end the franchise in a bad light, even if it is a far, far weaker ending than what we got in 2017. 6/10

'Godzilla: King Of The Monsters' isn't very good. In fact, it's one of the worst films of 2019. It's just not interesting, like at all. This is definitely a problem, especially considering that it's about huge fighting monsters. It's very difficult to care about anything that's happening as you don't really care about any of the characters or situations. A lot of stuff is going off and a lot of it should be at least slightly engaging, but it just isn't. A lot of people complained that 'Godzilla' (2014) featured too many humans and too little monsters, so this time around they've tried to balance that a little. Unfortunately, though, the human stuff is even duller than before and the monster stuff is somehow arguably even less interesting than that. If you're going to make a film like this, then at least make the action watchable. These sequences are way too dark and shaky to really even understand, or at least engage with, and even when you can see Godzilla battling it isn't 'cool'; it's like trying to watch a T-Rex have a boxing match. Maybe I'm being a little harsh on it, but it's just so completely un-engaging and quite frankly boring that it's hard to recommend to anyone. I'm certainly not looking forward to 'Godzilla vs. Kong' (2020) that's for sure. 3/10

'Booksmart' is supremely enjoyable throughout. While it's not laugh-out-loud funny all the time, (although there are a few times where it warrants more than a chuckle) it's always fun thanks to a witty script and excellent performances from all of the cast. Although this is undeniably about Diever and Feldstein's characters and their friendship, which is satisfyingly developed throughout, every supporting player truly feels like a real person with their own fleshed-out personality. This really helps make the picture feel much more believable, no matter how outlandish it gets, and keeps a firm grasp on character without letting the comedy surpass it in importance. While it can be rather predictable, this never seems like much of a problem because of the very 21st century spin on the world and characters that makes the whole affair feel rather fresh. Olivia Wilde realises this diegesis and its characters so successfully that it's impressive to know that it's her first feature as director. Overall, it's certainly worth watching if you're into coming of age dramas and teen comedies, especially if you want to see an example that feels like it belongs in 2019 and isn't afraid to balance character and comedy. It aces it. 8/10

'Rocketman' is a pretty entertaining Elton John biopic, but unfortunately it's just that: a musical biopic. While it does differ from the majority of them as it's a straight-up musical as opposed to just featuring on-stage performances, every beat of the narrative is very generic and therefore predictable. This means that for all its different qualities, its generic traits actually overcome them leading to a film that's unfortunately much more forgettable than it should be. Like I said though, it is definitely entertaining in the moment and the musical sequences are well-realised and enjoyable. Egerton is great in the leading role, too, and holds his own in the singing. Actually knowing that he is performing the songs himself really adds to the believability of the whole thing and doesn't just make it seem like an old album is playing over a mime act. In the end, this is probably one of the best examples of the music-biopic thanks to the fact that it's trying to be something different. Unfortunately, though, that's not enough to overcome the traditional trappings of the genre, leading to a picture that's enjoyable in the moment but ultimately rather forgettable. 7/10