jamie-carrick

As a film student, I'm always judging every possible thing in order to determine whether it's good quality or not. With a film like this, it's impossible to do so.

This film is something that you can't take too seriously as a piece of a cinema. A light- hearted, sex and drug-infused Christmas comedy isn't exactly too focused on interesting cinematography.

What it IS focused on is good comedy. And, for me, it hit the nail on the head.

The comedic actors in this movie were at their finest.

Fresh off her Emmy win and launch into super-mainstream popularity, Kate McKinnon delivers a hilarious performance as by-the-books HR worker, Mary, who embodies a Luna Lovegood-esque airiness about her and a layer of mystery that makes you wish she was the central character. This just proves that Kate McKinnon might just be the next Fey/Poehler to come from SNL into Hollywood movies.

Jennifer Aniston is also solid, playing the ruthless, sassy CEO, Carol. Aniston's one mission for the past 12 years has been to prove that she's not just Rachel Green and she's done it several times successfully and this is one of them. Her comedic timing has greatly improved and she delivers her insults so coldly that I had to put a jacket on.

Bateman and Munn are a good on screen duo and the insertion of TJ Miller into their dynamic is one that works well for the movie.

Above all, though, this movie is one big cliché and by the end you don't even care that you've probably seen 9 different attempts at the same movie.

I recommend watching if you've got some time on your hands and want to be entertained. Also for Kate McKinnon's dancing. That too.

"The Hollars" is a film I had heard about for a while mainly because of the actors, particularly Krasinski, Kendrick and Martindale. When I finally got around to watching it, it was exactly what I expected and also nothing like I expected at the same time. And here's why:

The plot has been done many times before. Dysfunctional family is brought together by an illness or some kind of conflict. Each has their own personal struggles which run under the surface of the main plot. Family realises that the true happiness in life is each other. "The Hollars" manages to do that a little differently, although that's not necessarily a good thing...

The movie simply has too much going on to ever really focus on one storyline in enough depth to make it succeed. The main plot that is detailed in the summary regarding Sally Hollar's illness almost seems like a subplot at sometimes, taking the backseat to John's drama or Ron's drama or Don's drama. Yes, those are their names. I like that each character is complex with their own personal lives outside of the story arc, but too many things are focused on when more time could have been spent with Margo Martindale's terrific performance than with Josh Groban.

I was also particularly confused at the brevity of some of the story lines that ran throughout. Once it was introduced, I expected the storyline with Mary Elizabeth Winstead's unhappy Gwen and her husband, Jason who also happens to be Sally's nurse and John's old classmate. Oh yeah, Gwen is also John's ex girlfriend. But John is now dating and having a baby with Rebecca. You can read how 'Gossip Girl' it all sounds.

Thankfully, there are some strong points. The soundtrack was lovely, highlighting some really poignant moments that needed no dialogue. I don't think any dialogue would have made them work but the music was really lovely.

Krasinski seems to know what he's doing in terms of direction and his performance was good, too. Not exceptional, but it was a lead performance. Though it's the supporting actors that take the spotlight this time around. Anna Kendrick spent the first half of the movie trying to find out who her character actually was and then redeemed herself in the second half. Richard Jenkins had a strong outing as Don Hollar, though the bouts of crying were a tad excessive and over-dramatised at points. Sharlto Copley was good, too, standing out as a true supporting actor. Others such as Charlie Day and the aforementioned Mary Elizabeth Winstead were convincing in their small roles.

But really it's Martindale who steals the show. Predictably. It's a role she could really nail. I'm proclaiming her the queen of supporting roles, for she always make them more like a lead. She always brings a certain charm to her roles that make you want more of her. Having seen her shine in "The Americans" and "The Good Wife", I was excited to see her performance. And what a turn it is. Martindale does what she does best. Acts the hell out of any character. If the awards season wasn't plagued with outstanding acting performances all around, Martindale could potentially have been a contender with the right voters.

Disney's latest animated gambit, "Moana" details the story of the eponymous character's quest to restore her island, where she is the chief's daughter, to its former state of natural beauty. To do this, she must find the demigod, Maui and sail him across the sea to restore the heart of Te Fiti, a goddess whose stone possesses the power to create life.

Quite simply, "Moana" is exquisite.

From the very beginning (in which the history of the film is told) to the very end (where Tamatoa accuses the audience of loving him more if he were named Sebastian), the movie is visually stunning and has a well-crafted nature of storytelling.

The titular protagonist follows much the same formula as most Disney heroes do, but Moana is endearing and lovable enough for the audience to forget that as they watch her on her journey. The voice actress, 14 (now 16) year old Auli'i Cravalho, gives a competent voice performance given that it was her very first. Her singing vocals are impeccable and, since learning she never received professional training, I was more impressed with her performances.

The screenplay is very well done and the characters are given lots of opportunities for humour, a lot of them being via repetition. A particular standout is Moana's animal companion, Heihei the chicken who is quite simply one of the best parts of the movie.

The songs are catchy and excellently written: "How Far I'll Go" should go down as one of the greatest Disney songs ever written and performed in my opinion. Never have I listened to a Disney song more than this one. Move over, Frozen, Moana is coming.

All in all, this movie is a wonderful effort by Disney, made more pleasing by the lack of Caucasian characters. The all-Polynesian cast and characters were refreshing to watch, especially given Disney not-too-stellar reputation with diversity.

I would happily consider this my favourite Disney animation of all time because it would definitely deserve such a title. All I can say is make sure you watch this film, because it does not disappoint.

What a movie.

This film is one of the few to make me think about things on a deeper level that hasn't been filled to the brim with metaphors and big life quotes. It's as simplistic as it is real. The screenplay was incredible, not really needing much to make it shine on screen. The actors took care of that.

I knew from 20 minutes in that the highlight of this film would be the lead performances. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams were wonderful. Their respective portrayals of Dean and Cindy were honestly so powerful, so real and true that there was not a single moment in which I thought they were acting. Having seen them both in other things, it shocked me that I forgot they were only pretending to be Dean and Cindy. Gosling proved that he's not just a juvenile rom com actor with this performance. He can take naturalistic, serious material and make it his own.

Williams was in a class of her own in this movie. Her Oscar-nominated turn as Cindy Heller proved her as one of the best. If not for the strong Best Actress category that year which resulted in Natalie Portman deservedly winning the statuette, it would have gone to Williams without a doubt. Her performance was quiet, subtle and nuanced yet captured the entire screen every time she appeared. Her range and depth of emotions and physicality is awe-inspiring and she is long overdue the accolades she so well deserves.

Okay, so I enjoyed this, perhaps less than I anticipated. And here's why.

I'd heard such good things about this movie that my expectations were too high. I'll just keep things simple and short (unlike this movie).

-The first hour was bland, and the second hour was incredible.

-Jake Gyllenhaal was outstanding, as were Dano, Davis and Howard.

-Hugh Jackman was not good. Overacting in some parts, stiff and wooden in others, though that might be down to the simplicity of his character and a lack of overall development.

-Writing was good, if a little plain.

-Some of the cinematography was really nice, especially the close up shots of Alex while he's trapped.

-I really enjoyed the ending. I loved how not everything was wrapped up in a simple bow like a lot of movies are: it represents reality and how things may work out, though not everything will. It also left the viewer to fill in the blanks for themselves, which I quite liked. Does Loki find Keller in the end? Does Keller die in the hole? Is Keller already dead in the hole? Who knows?

Should you watch this movie? Yes. Will you enjoy it? Maybe. Was it good? Yes. It all comes down to personal preference. This movie compared to the likes of Gyllenhaal's other best performances in my opinion, Zodiac and Nightcrawler, this fell short of the mark, though Jake was extraordinary yet again.

With Fincher's "Se7en" ingrained in my mind from repetitive viewing, I was ready to expect another film in the same realm. My overall thought:

Same subject matter, completely different results.

Now, standing at a very lengthy 160 minutes long, this film requires close attention, quiet concentration and no disturbances. There's no doubt that this film is very thrilling, but there is also a lot of close analysis and theorising involved, making it very complex. I have a policy in place which is if I start a movie, I have to see it through unless something prevents me from doing so. "Zodiac" was no exception to this rule and I was glad that I didn't give up on it.

This film was never going to please everybody. A lot of people are disappointed by lack of action in a movie and I am definitely not one of them. I watch a movie for its depth, plot, characterisation and acting performances. This film covered every one of those and pulled them off with aplomb.

The case of the Zodiac Killer is one of the most famous in criminal history and notorious for being unsolved, even if the evidence was rather convincing, and David Fincher uses this opportunity to gather together a thesis of sorts that combs through substantial pieces of evidence and uses the medium of film to piece it together in a highly entertaining way.

The acting performances, especially those of Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo, were remarkable. The way that Robert Graysmith evolves over the course of his story arc really played to Gyllenhaal's skills, as audiences would later observe in the chilling 'Nightcrawler'. Graysmith goes from being a socially awkward, rambling, polished cartoonist to a man whom is almost unrecognisable. Graysmith becomes obsessive, impolite with a gritty determination to solve the case that originally stemmed from a simple love of puzzles. Mark Ruffalo is strong as ever in his role as investigator Dave Toschi, tasked with the elaborate quest to uncover the identity of the Zodiac Killer.

So, all in all, this film is not for those who aren't willing to pay attention. It's not a non- stop action thriller, though there are some moments, particularly towards the latter end of the movie, which do grip you. What Fincher has accomplished is an in depth look into an infamous cold case, which provides solid theories, all while creating entertainment and characterisation that really drives the story home. Not an easy task, given the abundance of scenes that are merely focused on handwriting samples and analysis of other evidence samples. Though do not misunderstand me, this movie is certainly not boring or dull, it is entertaining and you will get a lot out of it, if not only a burning desire to discover the real identity of the Zodiac Killer.

(And no, it's not Ted Cruz)

My desire to see this came from the cast, as I've followed their careers for quite some time, namely Affleck, Renner and Lively. I was not disappointed.

Now I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert in the area of heist movies, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film. No comparisons to others, but as its own movie it does pretty well. I mean there were some moments where I wasn't satisfied, particularly with the ending, but overall it was a great movie.

The action is great, the plot has good pacing but main strength is with the cast.

Ben Affleck has proved yet again that he's a director, a great writer and an actor who's worth his salt. Many have reviewed Affleck's performance as 'wooden' and 'filled with nothing but frowning', but I think he did a wonderful job. His delivery was appropriate, his expressions were on point and I think that if you can play a criminal and a killer and still make the audience root for you in the end, then you've done a good job. And I inexplicably found myself rooting for MacCray by the end of the movie.

Blake Lively continues to impress me as she sheds her "Gossip Girl" fame and battles with being taken seriously as an actress of real standing. Her character "Krista" was terribly two-dimensional and just like most other stereotypical "skanky" characters that are portrayed in movies, but she did it well and I have no complaints, except for maybe the fact that her laugh is a little childlike and didn't really fit with her character, but that is very minor.

Jeremy Renner was, in a word, exquisite. He was breathtakingly haunting as he echoes his previous acclaimed role in "The Hurt Locker", with a powerful performance as Jem, a ruthless, no-nonsense criminal who solves his problems with bullets and no mercy. He stole the show for sure, creating a complex, provocative performance out of a character who lacks development. He really was spectacular.

Buy this movie on DVD or stream it wherever you can because you will have a good time watching it.

First of all, this is a shark movie. No doubts about that. No, it's not 'Jaws' so people not to stop expecting it to be better, because it wasn't.

But that doesn't mean it was bad.

There are only so many things you can do with a movie about a shark attack. "The Shallows" was an interesting look at one of the few takes on the genre.

It follows a medical student Nancy (Blake Lively) who travels to Mexico to find a hidden beach where her late mother once surfed in order to feel closer to her and get some alone time.

The irony is...the alone time she so desperately craved what was she got, just not in the way she expected.

After being attacked by a shark, Nancy has to deal with her injuries and find a way to survive, with every plan she concocts being thwarted by either nature or the shark itself. Sat upon a rock (where my mind went to the Little Mermaid) with only an injured bird for company, Nancy has to strategise an escape plan while also keeping herself alive, all while trying to best a shark which is following its natural urge to eat.

In what reminded me of a water based version of "The Revenant", it's quite simple to dismiss it as yet another shark movie, but it is more than that. The landscaping shots are quite exquisite and the way the music changes depending on whether the camera is above or below water really sets the tone. The pacing is good, although questionable.

A lot of disbelief has to be suspended with some areas of the film such as the shark not eating the injured whale that was there for the taking and instead focusing all of its attention on Nancy. Then again, it wouldn't be much of a film if the shark wasn't trying to attack her again.

The standout part of this film is undoubtedly Blake Lively's performance. With someone who is steadily growing as an actress and making a name for herself as more than just the star of a teen drama or "the wife of Ryan Reynolds", she definitely proves herself as being able to keep up with her contemporaries. In what echoes Jennifer Lawrence's survival performance in the latter half of "The Hunger Games" from four years ago, Blake uses a range of talents to make a believable performance. It's harder than you might think to shout "SHARK!" and have it not sound like it has been ripped from a pantomime. However Blake manages to steer clear of melodrama and pulls off an impressive, gritty performance. Her emotions are readily available to access on her face, but she is also somewhat reserved when dealing with her injuries.

All in all, I enjoyed the experience of watching this movie. Obviously, as with most shark movies, it isn't to be taken completely seriously and harsh criticisms of this won't do any good. It's supposed to be an enjoyable movie experience, not the next Best Picture winner. Review the piece for what it is, not what it isn't. It slides right into the genre and proves itself as one of the best since "Jaws".

Having not ventured into a lot of Woody Allen's work, I wasn't sure what the reviews were pointing to when they spoke about the typical 'Allen style' that seems to flow throughout all of his movies.

As a movie, this one works exactly how you would expect it to, both from the trailer and the summaries.

The visual elements in this movie are absolutely stunning, the camera work is done well and there's a definite nuance to this type of shooting that works very well with the setting of the early 20th century glamour of Hollywood.

The plot itself wasn't all that original, rather blending influences together to make something inspired by old Hollywood. It was nothing I hadn't seen before and, yet, I found myself unsure of the direction of the story and also intrigued as to where it would end up.

Thematically, it explores love, guilt, loss, responsibility and maturity as Jesse Eisenberg's Bobby grows up quite a bit throughout the course of the movie. His well- developed character became the protagonist I was hoping for at the beginning.

The performances were all well delivered. Eisenberg's typical awkward, rambling character comes into play again, yet it's somehow different to the likes of J. Daniel Atlas and Lex Luthor, but that same brand of Eisenberg charm I've come to expect from his performances. It was a great casting for the lead. Once more, I was rather impressed by Kristen Stewart and it's long past the time people should be viewing her as Bella Swan and about time she should be taken as a serious actress, because that it was she is and continuously proves herself to be. Her subdued, restrained performance as Vonnie was wonderfully acted and Stewart's natural chemistry with Eisenberg helped the performance come to life even more. Steve Carrell once again proves that he can nail a role that isn't purely comedic. I rather thought Blake Lively was well cast and charming in her role as Veronica as she continues to prove that there is life for her after Serena van der Woodsen. As another supporting role, Corey Stoll stood out as Bobby's gangster brother, Ben.

Overall, this is definitely a film worth watching, with a competent screenplay and an ensemble that works well together to create something truly representative of the glamour and life of the early 20th century.

I rated the first film in this series a 10/10 because I was completely enchanted by it. I had never watched a movie like it before in my life.

As with any sequel, that illusion was gone (no that pun was not intentional and no I'm not deleting it). While I still enjoyed the movie as a whole, it lacked the spark that the first one brought to the screen. As with my review of the last one, I will list the things I liked and things I didn't.

The good parts:

• The sequence where they passed the card around. I thought it was imaginative, really. Others have passed it off as being unrealistic with a lot that could easily have gone wrong, but that's the whole point of the movie. They're highly skilled illusionists and magicians. Jack is one hell of a card trickster. I spent the time trying to work out how the stick got in the card in the first place!

-The performances. As with the first film, I was impressed yet again with the performances. Mark Ruffalo brought it once again, with more depth to his character this time around. Morgan Freeman never fails to steal the screen. Dave Franco did a great job with his still limited material to work with. Jesse Eisenberg had arguably a smaller role than the first one, but his work is good as always. Lizzy Caplan continues to prove herself as more than just "Janis Ian" with every role she takes and even though she was there as Isla Fisher's stand in (and the comedic relief) she really did well in my opinion.

-The twists. I saw more of them coming this time around, but that doesn't diminish their effect. When the characters are fooled, so are the audience (most of the time).

The things I didn't like about it:

-I miss Isla Fisher. Yes, I know she was pregnant (and will be back for the third instalment) but I still missed her. Henley was a large part of my love for the first film and it was weird to see the other three without her. As I said, Lizzy Caplan was a good character, but Henley was missed. Hey, at least the movie addressed her absence instead of just replacing her for no apparent reason.

-*sigh* this one pains me to say. Daniel Radcliffe. Look, I'm a huge Harry Potter nerd and Daniel Radcliffe has a special place in my heart, but he can't act. Yeah, I'll be that one guy who says it. He can't act. It felt as though he was trying too hard to emulate David Tennant's portrayal of Kilgrave in Marvel's Jessica Jones at some points. I didn't really believe his performance and he doesn't really make a good villain. I guess that might be because he'll always be Harry Potter to me.

-Dave Franco remained fully clothed yet again. I stated this flippantly in my last review, but I'm still bitter about it. The same can be said for Mark Ruffalo because damn he looked great in this movie.

So, overall, not as good as the first one, but nobody expected it to be. Sequels are curses upon themselves and, as iconic as the first film will always be to me, this was a solid effort at a follow up. Of course I'll watch the third film (I'm guessing it's the finale) and I assume I'll rate it lower than a 6.

Well, maybe not considering Isla Fisher is back.

This movie does not deserve the bad reviews that I've seen! Not at all!

I'm a person who watches a film for the actors (at first) and then is surprised by the film itself. I watched this film for Mark Ruffalo and Dave Franco. I was definitely surprised by how much I enjoyed it.

I usually write in depth about all of the good things in a movie, but if I did that for this it would go over the 1000 word limit IMDb has set. So I'll make a list instead of why I love this movie so much.

-Unique plot -Some amazing performances -Clever twists -Action that is enjoyable to watch -I realised what the twists were merely seconds before their reveal, something which I think every movie twist aims to achieve. -Well executed

As with any review and with any film, there have to be some drawbacks:

-Isla Fisher was criminally underused (though that applies to the rest of Hollywood too) -Lack of character development after the first introductions -Can be confusing if you don't pay full attention (but I did so this doesn't really count as a flaw) -Dave Franco remained fully clothed the entire time

I highly recommend you get yourself a DVD copy of this film or buy it on Amazon Video or watch it wherever you can! Ignore the bad reviews, people are stupid.

Nobody said this film was going to sweep come awards season. Nobody said that Snyder would win Best Director at the Oscars that year. Critics weren't too kind towards this movie, complaining about several different things. Some of it I agree with, others I don't.

Let's start with the main attraction of this movie. Henry Cavill. No I'm joking (I'm not), it's the ACTION. The action sequences which filled the majority of the movie. I personally enjoyed the special effects and the sequences were nicely edited most of the time. I didn't enjoy the sheer number of action moments. Yes, this is first and foremost an action movie and I expected a lot of it. Just...not that much.

Let's talk about the acting.

Overall, it was good. The characters were well acted. Henry Cavill made a brilliant Clark Kent in my opinion. He looked the part and he acted the part well. His American accent was very good. His posture was fit for a superhero and sometimes I found myself seeing Chris Evans' iconic Captain America in his tone and words. That's a good thing, by the way. It means Henry nailed the superhero thing.

And now onto one of my favourite ever actresses, Amy Adams, who found the role she was born to play, Lois Lane. I read somewhere that she auditioned several times in other Superman features to be Lois and there's a reason for that. To me, Amy Adams IS Lois Lane. Her portrayal was smart, subtle yet dramatic in all the right places.

Michael Shannon played a great role as Zod. Sorry...General Zod. After only seeing him in Revolutionary Road, I expected to nail this role, even though it is a vast change from that role. He definitely did a good villain justice.

I was sadly disappointed but Russell Crowe yet again (after Les Mis, I didn't really have high hopes). All of his dialogue felt wooden and I could sense boredom in his performance. It was very stiff and two-dimensional, and I feel like more could have been done with his character.

All in all, I enjoyed my experience in watching this movie. Superhero fans will no doubt enjoy it, even if they find fault in some places. The chemistry between Cavill and Adams is natural and easy, the acting is great, the storyline is fun and action-packed. The cast is hot (looking at you Cavill) and it was a very solid effort at a genre that polarises opinion on every outing (see Thor: The Dark World for more on that)

A lot of the time, I like to watch pieces that are driven by character, rather than plot. This was the reason why I watched "Junebug", a very overlooked film about small town life.

The script itself was well done, with a good pacing and a lot of nice moments of dialogue, particularly in the scene where Madeleine is helping Johnny with his paper. Having not read Huckleberry Finn, I probably missed out on a context which was reflective of the plot and message of the film.

Having only witnessed Embeth Davidtz in her arguably most popular role as "Miss Honey" in Matilda and a small guest starring role on Grey's Anatomy, I wasn't quite sure what to expect from her. I was pleasantly surprised by her performance as it was fairly nuanced with a lot of nice, authentic moments that help show who Madeleine is as a person.

I was also impressed with Ben McKenzie's performance as "Johnny", George's brother who is studying for his GED. He brought his dialogue to life in a way that wasn't so obviously highlighted but served as a refreshing, grounded undertone to Madeleine's slightly pretentious personality.

I saw a lot of reviews for this film from both critics and audiences and the one constant positive note was the standout performance from Amy Adams, even in a supporting role as "Ashley", a pregnant, whimsical woman. They were not wrong. I was blown away yet again by Adams' range and depth of performance. She took on the role with her own personal flair, while staying true to the character as written in the screenplay. She shows a lot of range in this piece with arguably not a lot of complexity to work with. The scene in which she talks with George in the hospital was my favourite scene of the movie, simply because Adams captured the screen and stole the show.

Overall, this movie has a lot of nice moments that were well acted, but I feel as though it is heavily carried by Amy Adams' flawless performance. A lot of my enjoyment came from watching Adams in what should have been her first Oscar-winning turn.

Not knowing a lot about this movie going in, I expected it to be just another boxing movie that focuses on a complete underdog going from a nobody to a world champion, but I was wrong.

Sure, Mickey Ward (Mark Wahlberg) acquires underdog status somewhere along the way, particularly in the final few fights, but he is much more than that.

I was more than impressed with the performances. The four main leads really brought some of the best work.

Mark Wahlberg's Mickey Ward was very convincing and I thought his boxing performances were dedicated and sharp. He was more than just a boxer who wanted to be the best. He switched between idealising his brother and realising his flaws while still hoping for redemption.

Christian Bale fully deserved his Oscar for this performance as Dicky Eklund, a local legend and drug addict. The script gives him a lot to work with, but I was more impressed with his depth of facial expression to convey Dicky's emotions. The scene in which Mickey tells him about the deal not to work with him anymore was stellar. I really believed it, down to Bale's performance.

I've always been impressed with Amy Adams in everything she does and her role as bar worker Charlene Fleming was no exception. Charlene is a college dropout (due to partying too hard) who attended on a high jump scholarship. She becomes romantically entangled with Mickey and her fiery personality and grit cause problems with Mickey's family members. Adams plays the part with conviction and precision that comes from a dedicated approach to the role. She really proves herself as one of the greatest in her generation.

Melissa Leo pulls out a wonderful performance as Alice Eklund-Ward, mother to Mickey, Dicky and their sisters. I was impressed with Leo's performance, though less so than her co-stars. In my opinion, the Academy Award belonged to Amy Adams for her performance as Charlene.

The boxing scenes weren't really all that different from other movies, but still exciting and exhilarating. The final fight of the film Ward v Neary left me gripped, unable to look away, my heart pounding as the action took place.

All in all, a wonderful movie that proves David O'Russell's talent in directing award-winning performances with a cast that give everything that have to their characters. So I give it a 9/10

As soon as I noticed that Juliette Binoche was teaming up with Kristen Stewart for this movie, I was enticed. Two talented actresses with the opportunity to bring a great script to life. It was highly naturalistic at places, which I think played to the strengths of the performers.

Juliette's "Maria Enders" was a complex, fascinating character who is faced with an opportunity to take part in a revival of the very piece that made her career...only in a role that is completely opposite. During a personal tragedy, she begins working on her character, even though she already dislikes her. It's a wonderful performance by a seasoned actress and I expected nothing less from her.

As for Kristen Stewart, I was blown away by how much she has grown as an actress. As with somebody tied to a popular literary figure, Kristen hadn't quite managed to make it out of the Twilight spotlight...until now. She plays Maria's assistant "Valentine", who gives Maria a youthful outlook on life, as well as her honest opinions. Val should have been two-dimensional, if not for the incredibly authentic portrayal by Kristen Stewart. It wasn't a performance which fought for the spotlight, but it was a fully fleshed out supporting turn which is arguably the best of her career so far. She shows a lot of promise for her future now that Twilight is behind her.

Some of the landscaping shots were incredibly beautiful, showing the scenery at its finest.

One of my few complaints was with Chloe Grace Moretz in the role of Jo-Anne Ellis. In a part that wasn't particularly highlighted, Moretz didn't do a lot to make it memorable, as with the likes of other performers who do a lot with little material. Her portrayal of the controversial Hollywood starlet Jo-Anne didn't bring a lot to the screen. It merely seemed like she was playing herself at times. She was severely outclassed by Binoche and Stewart.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie a lot more than I thought I was going to and I recommend it, even just to see Binoche and Stewart as a proficient on-screen duo.

I had heard some good things about this movie, Colin Farrell's performance in particular, so my curious mind wanted to see it. After reading the summary and watching the trailer, I was nothing but intrigued by the unique premise and absurdist hype that surrounded it.

As my numerical vote may imply, I have few positive things to say about this movie.

-For what it is, it was well done, I guess. There are only so many ways you can pull off an absurdist dystopian comedy, it seems.

-The music was nice to listen to, especially the repeated main theme which had some nice combinations.

-Lea Seydoux is always a wonder to watch on screen and I found her character to be the most compelling, even for a supporting role.

That's it.

The plot was occasionally slow, unclear and felt too Brechtian for me too enjoy.

From a social justice point of view, this movie's representation was not good and sometimes offensive, especially the scene in which David is told that bisexuality is not an option and he has to choose whether to register himself as homosexual or heterosexual. This did not sit well with me.

I found the performances to be a little bland and two-dimensional. Even the leading Colin Farrell couldn't save the day, as his portrayal of David was uneven and nothing remarkable in my opinion. Olivia Colman, a brilliant actress, had some nice, comedic moments, but she had too little material to do anything major with it.

All in all, I found this film to be unsatisfying and confusing. Maybe I'm not intelligent enough to understand the subtle nuances of absurdist cinema or the underlying messages contained into the movie, but this film has left me in no hurry to try another absurdist dystopian movie any time soon.