jtindahouse

About a half hour into 'Nothing But the Truth' I realised something. I had been absolutely gripped on every word so far. The cast were killing it and it was such an interesting premise that had been set up. And from there the film only got stronger and stronger.

It's a film that constantly has you asking the question, what would I do in this situation? Of course you don't know the full situation because a big part of the film is the mystery of the source, but you can still hypothetically consider how far you'd be willing to go to protect.

This was just everything I love in a thriller. No action needed because you are hooked on every word coming out of the character's mouths. And the reveal, what a treat that was. This was a truly excellent film. 9.5/10.

As a rule, westerns are not typically my jam. But there's something about a film, in any genre, when you get two heavy-weight actors going toe-to-toe that is just such a pleasure to watch. Christian Bale and Russell Crowe (in 2007 before he started phoning it in) are worth the price of admission here alone. Throw in a great Ben Foster performance and you have yourself a real treat.

For what it is, the film is pretty good. It's a remake of a1950s movie, so it is quite simple in nature, but then most westerns are to be fair and that's what people tend to like about them. Of course you have to accept the usual improbabilities of 10,000 bullets conveniently missing the good guys along the way. We're all pretty used to that by now though, aren't we?

There's enough here to keep the average audience member entertained, and if westerns happen to be your thing then you'll likely have a great time. 7/10.

Can we just take a second to appreciate Clint Eastwood still making movies at 94 years of age? I sometimes complain about some sloppiness in his movies based around the lack of takes he does, but at that age he can do as few takes as he wants, quite frankly. If this is his final film then it was a good one to go out on.

The film has an insanely strong cast, to the point where some seriously talented actors don't get the screen-time or strength of characters they deserve. It does help to polish over the cracks that often appear in Eastwood's movies where he doesn't do enough takes to ensure a good one. Most of the actors in this film are good enough to get it right on the first attempt.

I like the idea behind this film. It's a daring concept to take one of the greatest films of all time '12 Angry Men' and put your own spin on it - assuming that was actually the intention behind the film. It felt different enough to be its own thing while also bringing a modern approach to the concepts and ideas touched on in that film. This was a good one. 8/10.

Boy this movie was hard work. Everything about it, the dialogue, the characters and the morals were all over the place. It was a really unpleasant watch and a grind to get through.

Apparently trying to make your son eat his vegetables is worthy of a death warrant? Was there no other thing they could've had the father doing to justify this a little more?

The dialogue at times is nothing short of bizarre. A mum searching for her missing son is talking to a man and he says something like, "You know what will cheer you up? Ice cream" and she replies "What the f&%# are you talking about?" A truly bizarre exchange that I can't believe was ever written down, let alone made the final movie.

And don't even get me started on the jingle that we hear 'Mr Crocket' single a thousand times over and over. It doesn't sound good and it doesn't make any sense. Absolutely zero sense. So frustrating.

This one is not scary, not interesting and not worth your time. 3/10.

I went into 'Run Fatboy Run' looking for a bit of inspiration. And it worked. The way they went about this movie and especially the final 20-30 minutes was truly motivational. I've heard a few people say they watch this movie the night before every marathon they run and I can now see why.

It was a very safe movie though which was a shame. I guess they were trying to appeal to a wider audience and that's fine, but I feel like there was enough comedic talent here to get a few more laughs along the way than they did. The movie even bleeps itself at one point. I don't think I've ever seen a movie do that before (one of the 'Pitch Perfect' movies did it, but that was on a news show on television, so that at least kind of made sense - even though it made no sense at all as CinemaSins pointed out).

I got what I needed from this film and nothing more. A solid 7/10.

'AfrAId' is the worst kind of horror in my mind. I call it "polished horror". It's nicely shot and has a decent cast - and it has absolutely no chance of being an effective horror. It's basically horror for children.

It can be hard sometimes to draw the line between poor acting and the actors having to deliver terrible dialogue. It's probably more of the latter in this film, but it often feels like everyone is reading off a teleprompter. There are annoying children everywhere too which doesn't help.

The only good thing I can say about this film is that it's short. 84 minutes and a good chunk of that is the end credits. This one is boring, unoriginal and has one of the stupidest endings you'll see this year. It also wasted David Dastmalchian in the prime of his career. 3/10.

This movie certainly wasn't intent on doing any favours for the journalism industry. Every character is an absolute monster and it's not even all that subtle about it. I get that it's a cut-throat industry and what this film is portraying probably isn't all that far from accurate. It doesn't change the fact that it makes for a pretty tough watch though.

Even still, the movie feels very flat. I never really felt like I'd been given a reason to keep watching or to stay invested. The story just kind of ticks along and then there's a decent, if quite cliche, ending and that's that. It's all very forgettable stuff.

I don't know, I just didn't feel like the film had enough to offer. I'm not going to remember this one a week from now. 5/10.

When 'His Three Daughters' began I was picking up what it was putting down. Three great actresses, all with unique and interesting characters to play, going at it for 100 minutes. Sign me up. Then through the middle the film lost steam. It stopped throwing new stuff at me and kept repeating stuff we'd already seen. I understand this is a very contained movie (was it based on a play? It felt like it but I didn't see that written anywhere) but you still have to have enough to justify the runtime.

Luckily the movie has a very strong ending. There is a truly great scene towards the end of the film. Almost a completely redeeming scene. They executed it so well and it really hits you like truck.

There's enough here to make a very presentable movie, I can't help feeling it was a stronger second act away from being something truly special however. 7/10.

I wonder if when Stephen King wrote 'Salem's Lot' back in 1975 he would've ever thought a remake 50 years later would be this bad. He would probably have hoped that if nothing else the film would at least look good. He would be sadly mistaken.

This film is everything that can be wrong with the horror genre. There's absolutely zero character development, there's never any tension created and anything supposedly horrifying that happens in the movie happens off screen. This feels more like a Goosebumps episode than a proper horror movie.

And the ending, boy oh boy, the ending. It's always been said that Stephen King's biggest weakness is ending his stories and you'd quite believe it watching this. I was cringing through the entire final act. This was a misfire on all fronts and not a film that is worth anyone's time. 3/10.

Holy heck this was a tough watch. And quite a bizarre one too I have to say. On the one hand you have a lame duck of a horror movie with almost nothing to offer, yet amongst all that you have the natural charisma of Nick Frost doing everything it can to shine through. Could he do enough to save it? He could not.

This movie just didn't work on any level. It wasn't intriguing, it wasn't scary or mysterious or tense. It was just a nothing ride. And frankly quite an unpleasant one too. All the characters were highly detestable people and not a lot of fun to spend 90 minutes with.

For whatever reason the British do not seem to do horror all that well. I've seen very few British horror movies over the years that I've actually enjoyed and 'Black Cab' was certainly not one of them. 4/10.

What a disappointment this film was. It should've been loads of fun, 'Totally Killer' proved that with the same concept, and yet I was just bored for the majority of the run time. It doesn't work as a comedy, it doesn't work as horror or a mystery or drama. It just doesn't work.

Terrible character decisions and weak writing in terms of detailed plot points don't usually bother me, but this film was a shocker for this. Things like a girl surviving a murder attack and afterwards just being dropped home instead of at the police station. Them knowing where the killer is going to be and a simple phone call to the police ending all of their problems, and yet instead they decide to go themselves. A character apparently having an "airtight alibi" for all the murders, and yet we actually see that character at the mall at the time of the murder. There are endless things like this throughout the movie and they become very frustrating.

This concept opens itself up to so much clever humour, and there are brief touches of it, but to be honest they barely scratched the surface. The jokes should almost write themselves and yet they were very scarce. One thing I will give the movie though was that it had a great soundtrack. A generous 5/10.

The movie universe it so saturated these days that a film with two Oscar winning actresses in the lead roles can come out and almost no one will ever hear about it. It doesn't help that the film has a title that sounds like a Lifetime film and a poster that is unimaginably bland. Seriously? No one could come up with anything better than just the two of them standing side by side?

Which is all a shame because the film is decent. In fairness it's my kind of movie, so I'm probably going to enjoy it more than most. But as far as reasonably grounded domestic thrillers go, this had all the right ingredients. A catastrophic event leading to major consequences with some mystery and darker themes lurking beneath the surface. Sign me up.

The old trope of the annoying child is going to bug a few people. Hollywood has been fixing this a bit more often in recent times, but this film had a big serving of it. However if you simply want to see two pretty good actresses going toe to toe in a surprisingly heavy film then this may be up your alley. 7.5/10.

There seems to be two camps when it comes to this movie. Those that loved it and those that hated it. If you came in just looking for 2 hours of damn good action and violence then you are likely going to have a great time. If you saw a cast featuring many Oscar winners and nominees and thought you were going to get some kind of prestige piece then you are going to leave disappointed. I personally had a great time with this film.

I love a good heist movie. And the tone of 'Triple 9' is a lot darker than your average heist movie. There are some truly brutal moments in this movie. It was not afraid to go to some daring places. Also the action sequences are terrific. There is a scene where the police are clearing a house while chasing a suspect that was edge-of-your-seat stuff and perfectly shot to keep us right there with the officers.

I'll admit there were one or two interesting (shall we say) choices. I'm still doing some thinking on the final scene for example. But looking at the picture as whole, this was a damn good time of a movie. 9/10.

There have been a lot of great gangster movies over the years. It's probably not far from being the most consistent of all the sub-genres. I'd always meant to get around to seeing 'Donnie Brasco' and I finally did. It's a pretty solid film.

This being a true story is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it's very cool that this actually happened and when you're watching it that fact adds another layer to the film. On the other hand, it being a true story sort of hampers the film-making process a little. It feels safer than other gangster movies I've seen, because they're trying not to stomp all over the actual events. And that's a shame because with a few alterations to the ending of this story it could've been something truly special.

The best thing about this movie though is just seeing two actors at the top of their game going at it. How there were no Oscar nominations is beyond me. This was a good one. 8/10.

I love New Zealand and its people, I really do. But we are a very safe and predictable people, and so we tend to write terrible books (I should know I was forced to read a number of them in school) and make extremely bland films. 'A Mistake' is no exception. Sure, we got some Hollywood talent across the Pacific for this one, but the result was the same.

In fairness its not all bad. I quite like a film that bases itself around a simple concept, or one minor event that leads to a number of consequences. For a film like that, this is about as good as you can expect. Yes a lot of the drama feels very forced and the characters are absolutely ridiculous and in no way resemble how normal people act, but hey, I guess you have to jazz things up a bit for the sake of the film.

I don't know, I guess it's just disappointing because you almost always know exactly what you're going to get with a New Zealand made film. I keep waiting for the day someone breaks the mold, but this wasn't that occasion. A generous 6/10.

The opening scene of 'The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare' was fantastic. It had me sitting forward in my chair and licking my lips at the prospect of the rest of the film. It was Guy Ritchie down to a tee. Then the film became a little lazy. It became more like a video game than anything else. There were still little hints of Ritchie's magic along the way, but they were frustratingly few and far between.

The film is obviously very similar to 'Inglorious Basterds'. Now comparing a film to one of the greatest films ever made is obviously not ideal. But it has to be said that that was more of what I wanted. I wanted the personal touches that that film had. I wanted more than just, "These guys are Nazis, therefore they are bad". Let us get to know them. Let us find out how truly evil they are and then their deaths will be that much more satisfying.

Don't get me wrong, this wasn't a bad film. I had a lot of fun with it. But the potential was there for it to be so much more as well. 7/10.

The premise for 'Cellar Door' intrigued me. When you name your movie that and then make the movie about the mystery of what is behind the cellar door, then it should be a fun ride to go on and hopefully have a good pay off. Unfortunately the film wasn't as much about that as it had implied, and the ride wasn't as fun as it should've been.

This was more of a regulation thriller with a side story revolving around the cellar door. Now I've got no problem with regulation thrillers - if they're done well. This one however was a bit flat. In fact the whole movie was a bit flat. It was lacking some punch and some X-factor.

I found myself really having to strain to keep my attention on the film and that's a shame. There were a lot of little tweaks that I think could've made this a better experience. 5/10.

I like Anna Kendrick, I've always enjoyed her work as an actress. She does come across to me as a very safe person however. She's not going to be one to take daring risks. And that's how her directorial debut comes across unfortunately. It's a very safe re-telling of a reasonably interesting true story.

Where she really lets her self down though is her inability to draw tension out of a scene. The serial killer scenes in this movie are both written and filmed in a really bizarre way. It's almost like how you'd do it if you were challenged to get the least reaction out of an audience possible.

There is one decent scene towards the end in a parking lot where she gets it right. But even then she ends it far too abruptly and draws the absolute minimal amount of tension from the audience she could've got. You've got us on the hook - keep us there!

The final scene in the movie I will give her credit for though. It was very well crafted and showed potential for her future. If more scenes had been like that then the movie could've been something special. As it was though it was very forgettable. 5/10.

Good lord. I have been nervous about this film for most of 2024 and my concerns were justified it seems. Damien Leone has proven there is nothing he won't show and God I love him for that. The opening scene for 'Terrifier 3' is one of the best I've seen in a while (how good have opening scenes in horror movies been lately by the way?), for the simple reason that you really don't know whether the movie is willing to go there or not, but you have a great fear that it will.

Basically this film is like if they said, "Hey you know that one extra extreme kill we had in 'Terrifier 2'? What if we just made every kill that extreme?" If that sounds like a bit of you then you are going to have a great time with this film.

They are really starting to flesh the character of 'Art' out. He's bringing more and more extremely dark humour to the table with every outing and it is landing almost every time. Also the movie looks great. The make-up and effects were the best I've seen in one of these films yet I believe.

The scary thing is that if every one of these movies has to outdo the last, where are we heading to next? I shudder to think. And God forbid this series reaches 5, 6 or 7+ films. It's rare that your most anticipated film of the year actually lives up to expectations, but this one absolutely did. 10/10.

June Squibb is a national treasure. I remember first seeing her in 'Nebraska' back in 2013 (how was that eleven years ago?) and her just stealing every scene with amazing comedic timing (so good that it earned her an Oscar nomination). Amazingly, 'Thelma' is the first time she's ever been the lead in a movie, and again she absolutely kills it.

Unfortunately she's basically asked to carry the entire movie by herself. They put very little - incredibly little actually - comedic talent around her and so every piece of humour has to come from her. She's good enough to do that but it does make the humour a bit of a one-trick-pony.

Also the story is such a good idea, but the execution was severely lacking. They forgot to put any stakes in the mix. Just a random amount of money plucked out of the air and some faceless bad guys. It wasn't enough to make me care about the mission she was on.

I just feel like this film could've been a lot better with some more talented supporting cast members and a re-structuring of the story to make it all matter more. 6/10.

War films are a funny thing. There are two types of people in the world who watch them. One is the type that watch and think how much fun it would be and that it glorifies war. The other is the type like me who thinks it looks like hell on Earth and couldn't imagine anything worse.

'Platoon' comes about the closest I've seen a movie achieve to making it very hard to justify a case that the movie is glorifying it. This really is a gritty showing of what Vietnam would have been like. Insects everywhere, snakes, the opposing soldiers potentially hidden around every corner ready to blow you to pieces, your own side even turning on you. Absolutely grim stuff and how I imagine it really was.

I did have a bit of trouble buying Charlie Sheen in the lead role. He's just a bit too polished and civilised for what the character demanded. Also, you have Johnny Depp right there, please give him more screentime.

'Platoon' was good, but it wasn't quite the masterpiece I'd always hoped it would be. And it won't be re-watched dozens of times like I do with 'Full Metal Jacket'. Still, a solid 7/10.

Is the art of a good opening scene starting to make a return? Probably not, but a couple of films I've seen recently have had good ones and 'Don't Move' was one of them. It's a tense little scene with a bit going on, but more than that it sets up the rest of the movie. It gets information across that will come into play later and sets the characters up nicely.

My main concern when I read the synopsis for this film was whether they would be able to stretch it out over 90 minutes. The film uses some good creativity to stretch things out and keep the movie feeling fresh as things advance. It manages to make it work - just. I don't think they could've pulled off another 15-20 minutes and they were smart to keep the runtime at the length they did.

This is a solid little thriller with some good moments along the way. It may not quite have had enough X-factor to stick with me for long, but there are certainly worse ways to spend 90 minutes. 7/10.

It's hard to ever be too critical of a low-budget independent film. Often these guys are working with the absolute bare-minimum to get their film across the finish line. So you try not to be too critical of the technical elements of the film or the acting or things like that. One thing I do think you can still be critical of though is the script. I did think it was a bit lacking in 'Pi'.

The film doesn't have much of a story. It's very simple in its premise. That on its own doesn't have to be a problem, but the movie still has to give you a reason to care. I simply didn't find myself caring about whether this guy found the number or not, or what the number related to. There were never any stakes presented.

There are little hints here of Darren Aronofsky's amazing abilities that would come to full fruition in later films when he had the budget to utilise them. If this is what you're capable of in your first film then it's likely you're going to have a hell of a career. 5/10.

'The Infernal Machine' was giving me a lot of 'Secret Window' vibes. I really liked 'Secret Window' and I wasn't really enjoying 'The Infernal Machine'. It took me a while to put my finger on what the difference was (aside from the obvious star power of Johnny Depp that 'Secret Window' had).

The difference was that in this film we didn't have a face to put to our villain. There was no charismatic "bad guy" that we would be captivated by. We simply had to see everything from Guy Pearce's character's point of view, and that gets a little tedious after a while.

The film is a mystery, and that was the part of it I was most looking forward to, but it never gave me enough of a reason to care about the answer. The result is that we find ourselves grinding through the almost two hour runtime and it isn't much fun. This one wasn't for me. 4/10.

Roger Ebert once said, "It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it." Nothing could be further from my interests than a film about a biker gang. But when the film is made this well it simple doesn't matter. You're going to have a good time whether you like it or not.

This is a cast at the absolute top of their games. I couldn't think of a more perfectly suited role for Tom Hardy. He was giving me 'Godfather' feels. Jodie Comer continues to prove she is one of the best actresses working today. She's playing someone very far from who she actually is, but you'd never know it. She sinks herself into the character and never drops a scene. Also Michael Shannon might just be one of the finest actors working today (and I worry that not enough people know it). He does so much with so little screen-time in this film.

I just couldn't look away from this film and it kept getting better as it went along. The writing was exquisite and squeezed every drop out of every scene. I never expected to like this film as much as I did. 9/10.