jtindahouse

'Civil War' reminded me a little of the 2013 film 'The Purge', where there was a tremendous idea for a film, but very little done with it. 'Civil War' wasn't anywhere near as bad in that respect, but it still did feel like there were too many uninteresting scenes early on and some missed opportunities.

When it does a scene right though it really does a scene right. There was scene with Jesse Plemons that was as captivating as anything I've seen in a film in a long time. Also the final sequence of the film was an incredible 20 minutes to watch, and something I won't soon forget.

I'd been highly anticipating seeing this film for a long while now, so perhaps I set my standards a little too high, and the down scenes early on weren't as bad I perceived. Either way though, there is no doubting this is a very fine film. 8.5/10.

This film set itself up so well. It had some great characters and some great dialogue - but it had nowhere to go with it. It didn't know how to use them in an interesting way. It tried to force some drama halfway through with an awkward fall-out between the two leads, but i just feels extremely forced and more like an after-thought in the script than anything else.

I like Dakota Johnson, I don't care what anyone says. I find her very natural in her performances. A lot of the times it doesn't even feel like shes acting. She'll say something so casually that you wonder whether they just caught a behind-the-scenes conversation and decided to leave it in the final cut.

It's not a good sign when an 80 minute film is feeling like it's starting to drag. This one just needed another element to the story to flesh it out and keep the audience interested. 4/10.

Nine times out of ten when I'm watching a movie, by around the 90 minute mark I'm ready for it to end. Partly because I really enjoying seeing how films choose to conclude their story and partly because I'm very restless and need to go and touch some grass. I knew 'The Woodsman' was a short film before I started it, but 87 minutes for a film of this nature seemed bizarrely quick. And sure enough, by the end of the film I wanted more.

Generally character studies aren't really my thing, but the heavy subject matter in this film was extremely interesting to me. I was never sure how dark the film was willing to get, and so I was hooked on every scene wondering what would happen next.

This is some of the best work I've ever seen from Kevin Bacon. I actually didn't know he had this kind of a performance in him. He played the role perfectly and never dropped a scene. This was a good film. 7/10.

'Tell No One' is as solid of a 7/10 as I've ever given. Anything less would be far too harsh, anything more would be far too generous. Funny enough, I actually read the Harlan Coben book 'Tell No One' a long time ago, but I couldn't remember anything about it, so in a way I got to experience this story twice. It's a good story, not a great story, but a good story.

I always like the concept of Coben's stories, but I always find the execution very flat. They are lacking a soul, if that makes sense. Some authors are all soul and no story. I would prefer all story and no soul every day of the week, but it does certainly leave something out of the experience. That comes across in this movie as well. I was interested, but I didn't care as much as I should've.

I also found the decision to have such a large age gap between the love interests a bizarre choice. It really took me out of a lot of scenes and didn't add anything positive to the movie. As I said, this one is a solid 7/10.

If you'd told me I'd ever give a 'Godzilla' film a 9/10 rating in life I would've looked at you like you were crazy. They are not my thing and I've always found the execution of them severely lacking. I knew pretty early in 'Godzilla Minus One' that this was something different. That this was something special. And it was.

Firstly, the film looks terrific. In fact it may be the best looking film monster I've ever seen. It's incredible with the low budget they were given what they were able to achieve. Some $250 million blockbusters would dream of having CGI this good.

Secondly, they had the story to back it up. They found a way to make us care about the human characters - something that is almost always missing in a 'Godzilla' movie. I was really impressed by this film. I doubt I'll see a better version of 'Godzilla' in my life. 9/10.

It's funny that I had planned to watch 'Glengarry Glen Ross' in the next couple of days and then a Kevin Spacey podcast came up where he was talking about how Al Pacino got a particular reaction out of him in a scene, and I knew I had to watch the film then and there. And I'm glad I did.

This film is a great example of how dialogue will always trump everything else. This isn't my favourite genre of film, nor is there a captivating plot, and yet I found myself absolutely hooked on every word being spoken, because it was all just such good stuff. It's proof that there really is no story or genre that can't be made into a great film, simply with a terrifically written script.

It does help that the cast speaking these lines was of the highest quality as well. Every single member of the main cast nails their role. There isn't a single character who brought the film down or lowered the standard when they were on screen. This is a great example of how masterful films were in the 90s. And it seems so effortless. 9/10.

I think it's so wonderful that M. Night Shyamalan's daughter has grown up to be a filmmaker. I can just imagine her childhood, growing up watching all of her father's incredible films and knowing that's what she wanted to do one day. And then having the master himself to teach you first hand. What more could you ask for? I really wanted to like this film, but it just didn't work for me.

You can see that Ishana Shyamalan has had some incredible influence on her in her formative years, because this film is very well made. It's beautiful to look at and the way some of the shots are created is nothing short of masterful.

The problem with this film lies in the absurd story. I understand it was based on a book, and I can kind of see it working in book form because when you have to imagine something like this yourself your brain naturally does it in a way that makes sense to you. However, seeing someone else's version of it in movie form is a hard pill to swallow.

And for that reason it was hard to ever take the film all that seriously. I tried to buy into it, I really did, but it just wasn't feasible. So I was never scared for these characters and I wasn't intrigued by where the story would go. It didn't leave me with a lot left to grasp onto.

Still, for a debut film effort this is better than most and there is a lot of promise here. I feel sure that if Ishana Shyamalan gets her hands on the right script she will do something special with it. 5/10.

It must be a lot of fun to write these 'Bad Boys' movies. The two lead characters really are great and they play off each other so well. And even if you wrote something in the script that was so-so, you know you've got a couple of great actors who will make it work. There were a couple of lines in this movie where I thought to myself, on paper that probably wasn't all that funny, but they found a delivery that got a chuckle out of me.

There's everything you could want out of a 'Bad Boys' movie in this one. The action is there, the laughs are there, there's a great menacing villain and there are some fun side characters to help carry the load. We are four movies into the series and have yet to see a drop-off in standard whatsoever. Bring on the next one I say. 8.5/10.

I realised something while watching 'All Good Things'. I often think of Ryan Gosling as being miscast in a lot of things, 'All Good Things' being the current example of that I had in mind, when I realised he has the acting chops for these roles, but he's too baby-faced and handsome. It's hard to be intimidating or a menacing presence when you look like that. It's not his fault, it just is what it is.

The movie itself is an interesting one. Some aspects make it hard to believe it's a true story. I always find movies involving any kind of domestic violence quite unpleasant to watch. It's not a fun subject matter. Where the film is fun though is wondering where this crazy story will end up.

The film could've used some pacing adjustments. It gets off to quite a slow start and then jams everything into the final 30 minutes. The ending may also not be to everyone's liking. It's a decent watch but I could imagine some enjoying it more than others. 6/10.

I love European films and I love films from the late 90s. I also love short and fast paced movies. So how could 'Run Lola Run' be anything other than a terrific experience for me? It found a way. I did not like this film at all.

I love the concept of the butterfly effect as well. It's really hard to make an uninteresting film about that concept. But this found a way. Watching a woman run endlessly - not fun. Watching the same story 3 times over when I didn't care about it the first time - not fun.

This movie just didn't work for me. Thankfully it was extremely short and I didn't have to suffer through it for long. But it is not one I'd recommend. 3/10.

I generally associate Netflix movies with safe, forgettable nonsense that isn't worth anyone's time. Just every so often though they release something out of left field that is dark and grimy and highly watchable. 'Colors of Evil: Red' is exactly one of those films.

From a very early point it was clear that this film wasn't afraid to go to some very dark places. From there we meet each of the characters, and this is where the film is at its strongest. All the characters are extremely well defined. If you are supposed to be rooting for someone, then you will be. If someone is meant to be an antagonist, then they are portrayed as pure evil. The divide is clear and pronounced.

This is just my kind of movie. A murder mystery/thriller with great pacing (there aren't any down periods in the film) and a dark, twisting plot. More of this please Netflix. 9/10.

It's crazy to compare 1970's Bond to what he has become now, 50 years later. 50 years is an unbelievably long time admittedly, but the character is almost unrecognisable from what he is today. These movies were so light-hearted and fun. Whereas today we have a very serious Bond. That's not to say either is better than the other, in fact I'm glad we live in a world where we have both available to watch.

The funny thing is that this was actually an attempt to make the Bond character more like the novels, with him being more serious and hard-edged. Of course that only occurs in a few scenes, while the rest of the time is bordering on a comedy. There was certainly no intent to go all in with the concept.

I found the villain a little lacking. I like Christopher Lee and it wasn't his fault, I just thought the character was a little underdone in the script. 'Nick Nack' was a great addition to the film however, and the kind of character I would love to see pop back into modern Bond films. I also loved the Asian setting of this film. I wish more Bond films went to Asia. This is a middle of the road Bond experience. There's worse out there, but there's also plenty better. 6/10.

I don't know what exactly I was expecting from this movie, but it wasn't what I got (in a good way). This movie really caught me off guard. It starts off with a fascinating 20 minute opening scene (possibly done in one take - I can't be sure on this, but it seemed like it in hindsight) that sets up the whole film and had me hooked right the go. From there, the next 2 hours went by about as quickly as they ever do while watching a film for me.

I've never seen a film hold its cards so close to its chest before. Often when films do this it is more frustrating than anything else. Here, it was captivating. I really had no idea what direction the film was ultimately going to go in.

There is some haunting imagery in this film but it doesn't come in the way you'd expect. Considering the extremely dark subject matter the film actually shows very little, if anything, in the way of torture or graphic horror. Instead the film gets under your skin with the lead character doing some things that need to be seen to be appreciated.

I can't recommend a film like this highly enough. It will have you gripped for 2 hours and then stick with you long after that. 9.5/10.

I noted in the trivia section for this film that Steve Carell didn't like the title 'Crazy, Stupid, Love' because he couldn't imagine a group of guys going along and asking for tickets to a movie title like that. And I tend to agree with his reasoning. In fact I was probably in that same boat back in 2011. A film with an amazing cast who obviously all signed on because the film had a great script, and yet I had no interest in seeing it because the title didn't sound like something I would enjoy at all. And it's a shame because the film is actually really good.

I found every scene in this movie interesting. It really is a great script. It comes at you from a lot of angles. There are a lot of characters and they all have their own thing going on. But there isn't a single character who is less interesting or whose scenes I was bored by.

Eventually it all culminates into one chaotic scene and it was one of the funniest things I've seen in a film in a long time. The only area the film let itself down a bit was when it tried to get a bit preachy and wrap all the character's arcs up in a neat little bow at the end. It was unnecessary and the one time the film didn't feel like it was in complete control. Otherwise though, this was an excellent film. 8/10.

'Reunion' came out of absolutely nowhere. 24 hours ago I hadn't even heard of it. Tonight I found myself really enjoying it. It was exactly my kind of movie. An isolated mystery/whodunit with a pretty decent cast. Sign me up immediately. And even though it was a little formulaic, it ticked all the boxes that needed to be ticked.

The film leans a lot more towards the comedy side of things than taking itself too seriously. That said, I thought it found a pretty good balance. There was one character played by Jillian Bell who was perhaps a little overly comedic for the overall tone of the film - but she was so funny and got so many laughs out of me that I didn't even mind.

The key thing for a film like this to stick the landing. It needs a good wrap up that makes you think back on everything you've seen and see it in a different light. This film had that. It was a well done ending. 'Reunion' is a really good time and a film I would happily recommend. 7.5/10.

'The Fall Guy' currently has a 7.2/10 on IMDb. There are some really terrific films out there that don't have a rating as high as 7.2. This movie gave me some clarity on why a movie like 'Barbie' was so popular. People don't actually like the films - they just like Ryan Gosling. It's the only explanation. And chances are they don't even realise it. It's only those of us who aren't overly fond of Gosling that can see how average these films are.

This is exactly the kind of film I hate the most. Safe, boring and predictable down to the last detail. You know exactly how a film like this is going to turn out from the moment it begins. There is zero chance it is going to take daring and unexpected turn. The studio themselves may as well have made the movie.

I could go on endlessly about everything I hated about this movie, but it's not the type of film that is worth putting the effort into. I would rather watch a film that tried something original and daring, and perhaps failed in its attempt, than watch a film like 'The Fall Guy' every single time. 4/10.

A 30 year later sequel is a strange thing, but probably what's even more strange is that it took 30 years at all considering how successful the original was. I didn't even have to check if 'Nightwatch: Demons Are Forever' was made by the same writer/director as the original. I could tell by the chaotic structuring that both films possess. If you enjoyed the original then I'm sure you can at least find some enjoyment in this film.

Again, just like the first, for the first 40-50 minutes of the film I really had no idea where it was headed or what it was even about. Then out of nowhere, just like the first, it straightens the wheel and puts itself on course for a pretty entertaining and well done final hour or so.

Most of the original cast are back, which is a great effort all this time later. Considering the success Nikolaj Coster-Waldau has had in the meantime I'm a little surprised they were able to entice him, particularly considering they made his character a shell of his former self. There is one scene where he interrupts his daughter at the school that really should've been left on the cutting room floor.

In a lot of ways this is going to come across as a strange sequel. But considering how much later it is and that they were able to work the entire original cast into and still make a somewhat creepy and coherent story out of it, I think it is an impressive effort. 7/10.

I won't lie, when I heard there was a 'Strangers' trilogy in the works I was excited. That was some of the best movie news I'd heard in a while. I love everything about these movies. They're as intense as horror films come. Still, just the announcement of a trilogy wasn't a guarantee of continued quality. I'm incredibly pleased to say however that 'The Strangers: Chapter 1' was an excellent horror film.

It was my understanding when the films were first announced that 'Chapter 1' would closely follow the story of the 2008 original, and then the following two would branch out from there. This was very much the case. It's not an exact remake by any means, but there are a lot of similar ideas and concepts along the way. They do things just differently enough that fans of the original still have a reason to watch this one.

The film does a good job of finding two lead characters who are likable enough that you care about what happens to them. They certainly aren't your typical disposable horror characters. Also, the film is extremely tense. It has the slow build up that we've come to expect, but once it kicks into gear it never relents.

I had a great time with this movie and I'm extremely excited to see where the sequels go to from here. 9/10.

Movie fans and critics are funny people. When they like a film they will say it was "inspired" by such and such a film. When they don't like a film they will say it "rips off" such and such a film. When watching 'Killer Book Club' I thought to myself many times that certain scenes were clearly inspired by 'Scream' or 'I Know What You Did Last Summer'. I never thought it went far enough to be considered ripping them off. Maybe that's accurate (I certainly feel like it is) and maybe it's just a case of me enjoying the film more than most others. I can't be sure, but what I do know is that this film is getting a rougher reception than it deserves.

The film is not without its flaws. The character were a little too unlikable at times. I understand in a film like this they have to unlikable in a way, because otherwise they couldn't be considered suspects in the whodunit. I do think you can illustrate someone is a bad person while still being likable to the viewing audience though. In fact this was one of the things that 'Scream' did so masterfully. It should be said that it's not an easy thing to pull off mind you.

There was plenty to like as well though. I thought the killer mask was very good. The pacing was excellent throughout. I rarely found myself bored or in a lull. All I'd say about this one is that you should make up your own mind. 6.5/10.

Man, was I geared up for this film. It sounded like it was going to be a really good revenge thriller (one of my favourite genres of film). Unfortunately the film turned out to be nothing like what I expected and fell completely flat on its face.

I just don't know what they were going for here. The film sets a character up to be an absolute monster of a human being, and then we spend the whole movie being asked to sympathise with him. I don't understand it, and I didn't like it.

The film was a lot more arty and slow than I had hoped for too. It's more interested in looking good than actually telling a good story. This one wasn't for me. A big letdown. A generous 5/10.

I noticed a sequel had recently come out for this film (almost 30 years later) and so I thought I should finally get around to seeing it. It is mind-blowing to me that this film had better box office numbers in Denmark than 'Jurassic Park'. Talk about a country getting behind its own film. The film itself is a strange one. It's an entertaining film and it has a lot going for it, but it is a little unfocused and all over the place at the same time.

At about the 45 minute mark of the film I realised I didn't actually know where the film was heading. We were spending a lot of time with the characters but the plot wasn't really advancing - or even presenting itself. Then there comes a point where all hell breaks loose and the film kicks into overdrive. It's a furious dash to the finish line from there in.

Films in the 90s were so great. Even when they weren't perfect they found a way to be endlessly watchable. There's also a dark grittiness to this film that we just don't really see anymore. I enjoyed this one and I'm looking forward to seeing what the sequel has to offer. 7/10.

I'm surprised at the amount of negativity this movie is receiving. I found a lot to like about it. Perhaps people just have enormous expectations when it comes to anything with the Coen name attached to it. Was it a perfect film? No. Was it completely polished? No. Was it a lot of fun? Yes.

The film knows how to make a scene interesting. There are very few boring scenes in this movie. Even when it's just two characters talking or the movie just needs to get some information out there to advance the plot, it finds a creative way to make the scene unique and keep the audience focused.

In a world where films are rarely funny anymore, this one got some good laughs out of me along the way. There are some great characters in this movie that make for a lot of very humorous moments.

The problem with the film probably comes in terms of the plot. It comes together at the end in an interesting way, but for a long time you don't actually know what people's motives are, and so it can be a little hard to stay invested in that aspect of the film. Otherwise though, I had a really good time with 'Drive-Away Dolls'. This was a fun one. 7/10.

Something I really struggle with in these apocalyptic films is that the characters never have anything to live for. Their whole existence becomes based around surviving, but to what end? What are they surviving for? They're living lives as pointless as a blowfly. And so it becomes almost impossible to care for their fates, because it is always in the back of your mind that they might as well be dead they way they are living.

The film itself is fine, nothing more. Pretty forgettable for the most part. Never really takes any chances or does anything edgy or daring. It's also a very dark film and can be quite hard to see what is going on. Which is a shame because from the little glimpses of creatures we got to see, they looked quite interesting. The film also contains possibly the single worst exposition scene I've ever seen in a film, where two characters play a "game" where they try to explain the events that lead to all this in 10 seconds. My goodness that was painfully in your face.

The actors do their best and it doesn't outstay its welcome, so it gets a generous 5/10.

Christmas horror has never been a positive sign for a movie to me. I understand why they get made from a marketing stand-point, but they are just rarely ever good films. 'There's Something in the Barn' is no exception sadly. This feels like they had a really weak idea for a movie that was struggling to be green-lit, and so they tacked on the Christmas element to sell it that way.

The film leans very heavily on the comedy side of things. The problem - it's never funny. It finds this awkward ground between horror and comedy where it is never funny, but also never scary. It's a very bad place for any horror movie to find itself.

The only fallback in that situation is to have likable characters, and the film certainly doesn't have those either. The dad has some decent moments but the rest of the family are very badly written. Bottom line: I was bored for the duration of the film. Not one I'd recommend. 3/10.

'Suncoast' set itself up so well. All the pieces were perfectly put in place for a great movie. Then it stalled. And it stalled for a long time. It didn't really find itself again until the final 10 minutes of the film. I can't help wondering what some filmmakers could have done with that giant chunk of potential through the middle of this film.

We have a really likable lead character in 'Doris' and we have a conflicted and complex character in her mother, both dealing with a really traumatic situation. So much could have been done with this and yet it feels like we spend the entire film watching 'Doris' interact with her (incredibly uninteresting) friends. I get that that they may have been going for a coming of age story, but there are far more interesting ways to do that. No creativity went into those scenes whatsoever.

I feel like the film could've hugely benefited from some humour as well. It doesn't have to be over the top, but some genuine laughs here and there would've gone a long way. The film isn't bad by any means, but it really did get the least out of the concept it possibly could have. 6/10.