alexdelliott Reviews

Mad Dogs (I) (2015–2016)

An unoriginal idea executed with originality and perfection

[10/10 · 25 January 2016]

Mad Dogs is about 4 former friends who go to Belize to reunite with another friend who has taken early retirement. However they are inadvertently thrown into a hilariously dire situation involving drugs, money, a boat, police, criminals, corruption, the US government, smallpox, and a cat. This sounds like the sort of comedy that we've all seen before but it is very far from it and, without spoilers, I'll tell you why.

The drama. In most of these kinds of shows/movies the main characters are very shallow, with their main characteristics serving to make us laugh. Here, though, each character is completely three dimensional and fleshed out over the 10 episodes with back-stories (without flashbacks thankfully) and real traits and flaws. This is a drama first and foremost and the show never forgets that, effectively building up tension in every episode. We quickly learn that these friends perhaps don't like each other as much as they appear to and we get to watch the relationships evolve so organically over a long period - thanks in part to this being a 10 episode show rather than a 2 hour film. Even the aforementioned cat is given enough story for the viewer to care about his character. The acting from the main cast is flawless and convincing and managed to hold my attention throughout the entire season.

The comedy. I believe this is why opinions on the show are divided. This isn't a typical American comedy show about funny characters making witty comments at each other to make us giggle our way through 10 episodes. The characters play everything out with straight faces and, in fact, comedy is used pretty sparingly throughout the season. However, when it is used it is used to great effect and made me laugh out loud and rewind several scenes to see them again. One notable early example is the cat's first appearance in episode 1 (you'll know what I mean when you watch it). The comedy is extremely dark but also extremely entertaining and managed to surprise me and give me a welcome break from the tension that builds up throughout the show.

The style. The benefit of this show being available to stream is that episodes don't have to be cut to a specific time. This is used and the camera lingers on the characters faces to convey their emotions without them needing to talk and to build the suspense whilst also allowing the viewer to gaze on the beautiful, vibrant scenery. The style really complements the mood of the show, elevating it higher than many other shows that may try the same thing.

Overall, Mad Dogs is a show that delivers emotion, suspense, comedy and originality within a genre we have all seen before. It kept my interest from start to finish and now all I want to do is experience it over again. My only hope is that they don't try to drag it out with more seasons and just let it exist as the self-contained work of art that it is. This is my first new show of 2016 and it has already set a new benchmark for other shows of its kind. It is excellent and I fully recommend it.

Gomorrah (2014–2021)

Best new drama this year - season 1

[10/10 · 30 November 2014]

This show was a real hidden gem for me. I live in the UK and just happened to stumble across it whilst channel-hopping. Now I own the blu ray and would highly recommend this show.

The first season follows a number of characters in an Italian crime family: Don Pietro Savastano, the head of the most dominant clan in Naples and a man who has earned the power and respect he has through a combination of respect and brutality. His wife Imma who is clever and manipulative and would probably make a better leader than Don Pietro. Their son Genny is a typical spoiled kid who, at the start of the show, clearly does not have what it takes to walk in his dad's footsteps. Finally, and perhaps the most interesting character, is Ciro di Marzio, a soldier for the Savastanos who finds himself increasingly disillusioned with the clan and his position on the sidelines.

These richly developed characters all undergo change throughout this first season, when a war against a rival factions causes a chain reaction giving rise to an internal conflict which divides the clan. I found this show to be surprising (I guess I'm too used to more predictable US shows) as nothing turns out in a way which I expected. The biggest surprise was the realism of the show. You can tell that this was, to some degree, based around real experiences, it's incredibly dark and has no typical good guy to root for. It also chooses not to shy away from events such as the ruthless gunning down of unarmed innocents as to avoid them would be to sacrifice an element of realism.

In terms of the acting, it all seemed top notch to me though I can't speak with much authority as I (sadly) cannot understand the language and was therefore more focused on reading the subtitles. I really feel sorry for those many people who cannot enjoy a quality show due to subtitles, they really are missing out on a lot of great films (such as the Raid 2 which I also loved). There are the occasional phrases which do not translate so well but in no way was it detrimental to my enjoyment of the show.

My biggest criticism of the show is that it felt a little underdeveloped in some areas of character development. I would have liked to have seen the process of Genny's change from child to gangster as it is never really shown to us. Similarly, I would have liked to have seen more of Ciro as I feel we only really see one side of him as the show progresses.

Overall, this show is of exceptional quality and a real surprise as it seemed to come out of nowhere. If you're a fan of crime shows in general or if you're interested in seeing a very raw depiction of organised crime then this comes with my highest recommendation. I advise you not to let the subtitles stop you watching this show. You won't be disappointed. I look forward to season 2.

The Counselor (2013)

Solid thriller that would've made an excellent book

[7/10 · 6 June 2014]

Remember the 90's? That was a fantastic decade for neo noir thrillers such as the usual suspects and seven. It saddens me now that the label of thriller is usually given to films such as Taken which involve high speed chases, gunfights, fist fights and explosions. This film reminds me of those brilliant 90's thrillers with its slow burning character focus and I am happy to see Hollywood take risks and deviate from their tried and tested formula. On that basis I certainly recommend picking up this film.

The story is simple, involving a lawyer becoming involved in a drug smuggling operation when things go wrong and he finds himself in way over his head. We've seen it before. But this film distinguishes itself by focusing on the characters rather than the story. Fassbender plays the role perfectly as the arrogant lawyer who gradually finds his spirits crushed and his perfect life crumbling around him. Along the way he meets some very interesting characters and I have to tip my hat to Brad Pitt who plays the pragmatic middleman in the drugs business. He is cool and intelligent and it comes off with such charm. However the main theme of the film is choice and consequence. We've all been there, made a seemingly harmless choice for selfish reasons which backfires in a way we could not anticipate, leading to consequences far beyond our control. This theme is played out in a mature and very tense way. There is very little action so don't see it looking for shooting and high speed chases, there are so many films I could recommend for that. But this is pretty unique by today's standards.

The film isn't without its flaws which seem to mainly come from the writing. McCarthy wrote the film as if it were straight from one of his novels with philosophical dialogues which speak to the audience and heavy symbolism. In a book, this writing would have made this an instant classic but unfortunately it comes off as rather pretentious, lacking in subtlety. Due to its rather unnatural flow, it becomes clear at times that the actors are struggling with it at times.

Overall, this film is good. It is a dark and somewhat powerful look into the theme of choice and consequence, grief, death and hopelessness. There are many people on this site who really hate the film and I understand that given the writing. But I urge you to watch it and judge for yourself as it is a thought provoking and solid film that certainly deserves the label of thriller.

The Raid 2 (2014)

The Raid was just an appetizer - this is the main course.

[9/10 · 13 April 2014]

I watched the first Raid with my friends and found it to be an extremely well made action film. There was not much of a story to get in the way and the action was so well choreographed - proving that you don't need a massive Hollywood budget to make a solidly entertaining film. I saw the second one this weekend expecting to see more of the same. But this is one of those rare occasions where the sequel is superior to the original in every way.

The story follows directly from the ending of The Raid. The protagonist agrees to an undercover mission to infiltrate the criminal underworld. Think Scorsese's The Departed. He gets trapped in a brewing conflict between rival gangs and meets enough colourful characters along the way to make Quentin Tarantino proud. Moreover, the fight scenes are bigger and, generally, even better than the first. Some of them are a little hard to follow as the camera makes it difficult to follow each character but they have been expertly choreographed and blew me away at times. In fact, the film seems to combine Scorsese's storytelling with Tarantino's flare with Indonesian martial arts scenes to create a brilliant mix. I won't spoil the story for anyone but I highly recommend it despite the fact that it may get a little complicated with so many characters and motivations.

By now, you probably have an idea of how this is different from the first. That is to say that there is an actual story. It isn't in one setting and there are so many more complex characters. This may disappoint those looking for a retread of the first Raid because it is just so different but I like the fact that it was different and didn't just try to cash in on the original. They are so different, in fact, that I would say you don't really need to see the first film to be able to follow and enjoy this one. This one definitely takes its time to pick up, allowing the first hour or so for character exposition. But I have no problem with that and, as I said, when the action starts it is every bit as exciting as the first.

I really do recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a real action film without all the Hollywood CGI and for anyone who enjoys Scorsese, Tarantino, or just martial arts or gangster films. There is something here for most people and it comes with my highest recommendation. It makes the first film feel like a prologue to the real film, The Raid 2

The Iron Giant (1999)

The best animated film for all ages

[9/10 · 2 February 2014]

as a twenty-something year old man my favourite films include the likes of Reservoir Dogs, The Usual Suspects, Seven and I hope soon to see the Wolf of Wall Street. However, I have fond memories of my childhood, the days of Toy Story and Disney Classics. I say this to give context behind me stumbling upon The Iron Giant today on television. I partly remember really liking it as a child so I put it on in the background while I did some work, but within 5 minutes I was completely engrossed as this film is fantastic.

This film is about a giant metal robot that arrives on Earth in the 1950s for unknown reasons and a boy who finds him and befriends him. The two form a heart-warming bond as the child tries to protect his new friend from a paranoid government official. This is set against the backdrop of the cold war and the suspicion and fear that came with it. I wont spoil any more but this film is so emotional I'm not ashamed to admit I felt a few tears once or twice. The story is very simplistic yet it touches on a number of ongoing political issues, most importantly that just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean it's a threat.

Despite gong into these themes, the film never feel like it's preaching or talking down to the audience, and fortunately it came before the era when everything had to be very PC so don't expect anything like this film to be showing any time soon.

To sum up my short review, this film is a must-see even for those who don't like animated films, I don't usually watch them but this is definitely an exception. This is a film to watch with your family on a wet weekend day when you're in the mood for being cosy. I think children will enjoy the aforementioned giant metal robot but the film goes so much deeper than that, making it possibly the best animated family film I've ever seen.

Rush (I) (2013)

deep character story underneath a fast paced thrill ride

[9/10 · 2 February 2014]

Firstly, I'll just say I'm not a huge F1 guy. I very rarely watch it and when I do it's solely because there is nothing better on. I had only heard of Niki Lauda in passing without paying that much attention to it but this film really blew me away.

The film centres around the two rivals Niki Lauda and James Hunt through the 1970s as they both became famous and known for their intense rivalry for the world championship. This is not usually my type of film, I like suspense thrillers usually involving crime or mystery of some kind. However, the story in this is done so well and you can't help but become engrossed in the lives of the characters. I like the fact that no one is really painted as a bad guy in this film but I couldn't help siding with Lauda throughout most of the film, whereas a friend who saw it with me came down firmly on Hunt's side. I think praise must be given to the developers for this as they ensure that the viewer is always able to empathise with one of the two lead characters be it the fun loving playboy James Hunt or the calculating professional Niki Lauda. This ensures interest is sustained throughout.

The other characters are pretty much left on the sidelines but I never really noticed as the film is solely about the lives of Lauda and Hunt and how they influence each other. I do think the film ended rather abruptly but it certainly prompted me to research around the film a little and any film that can make me want to know more after it has finished must be good in my book.

The directing from Ron Howard was fast and exciting it really helped to create a tense atmosphere during the race scenes but unfortunately made some of the slower scenes feel a little rushed.

Overall, it's hard for me to point out from a cold critical perspective what it is about the film which makes it so good, especially seeing as I have no real interest in the subject matter. However, Rush was a really good film and I enjoyed it from start to finish. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good rivalry with fantastic characters which drive the story. You don't have to be a fan of racing as the race scenes only really seek to build up the tension and tend not to get technical. So sit back and enjoy the Rush you'll get from watching this film.

Gravity (2013)

major spoiler in second half of review

[7/10 · 31 December 2013]

The most significant point anyone can make about Gravity is that it is the most beautiful looking film of 2013. and for this reason alone I urge everyone to see it. The scenery all looks stunning, and the director has successfully captured the lifeless black void of space and juxtaposed it with the stunning view of Earth and all its vibrant colours. This is done through the use of camera angles and sound (or lack of sound) to create an atmosphere which is both peaceful and unsettling.

Our two main characters (or only real characters) are acted surprisingly well by Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. I was surprised to see them taking on these roles but I cannot fault the acting of these two. However, they weren't really given that much to work with and my main flaw is probably the writing. Since there are only two characters in the film I would have liked to have seen them more fleshed out. Instead they end up being very one-dimensional with Clooney providing moments of comic relief to Bullock's rather clichéd damsel in distress. It would have been nice to see developments in these two characters but this is not a character driven film so this can be forgiven. However, this problem is not just with the characters but with the story as a whole, especially in its second half:

SPOILERS

I will explain what I mean. The first half of this movie successfully builds up the tension which had me on the edge of my seat. The moment when Clooney's character drifted off really set in my sense of dread and hopelessness. Better writing could have taken this and made a very emotional film as we see our hero slowly lose hope as she realises that she will never return home again. But the movie seemed to lack to guts to go in this direction and instead falls back on the cliché of the main character having a sudden eureka moment in the last 10 minutes and everything suddenly working out perfectly for her. This took me right out of the experience as this film had previously been very realistic as far as I could tell and hence the ending lacked the punch I was expecting and hoping for.

END SPOILERS

This ending is why this film will never be remembered by me as a great film, rather than simply a stunning one. See this film if you are in the mood for stunning visuals and brilliant direction. It is certainly worth the extra money for the 3D effect and I cannot praise this enough. However, it is a shame that the writing was simply not on par with this, leading to a film that, while beautiful, is easily forgettable.

The Wrong Mans (2013–2014)

British and American comedy fused?

[7/10 · 8 December 2013]

There are so many comedy dramas out there today, with the USA taking up most of the market which is not necessarily a bad thing as there are some pretty funny shows with high production values featuring (at it's best) some silly slapstick moments combined with laugh-out-loud one liners. Contrast this with British comedy, a more subdued experience with cheaper sets and intelligent witty humour which plays on your mind despite not necessarily giving you the most laughs. That's how I would compare to two.

What we have here is a show written by and starring James Corden and Matthew Baynton (I hope that's right) as two 'everymans' who, through coincidence, get caught up in a huge conspiracy involving murders, secret agents and gangsters. The basic plot has been seen before but this show does not attempt to reinvent any genres, instead it gives us a tightly written comedy full of self-awareness and hilarious situations. This, I believe, is what we get when we combine British and American comedy. There are so many escalating situations that these two find themselves in that never cease to surprise and I often found myself laughing out loud at specific moments (such as the briefcase in episode 2). Despite this, the show has some more subdued moments more akin to a British comedy drama and here the writing is sharp and the delivery spot on. These moments didn't make me laugh out loud but I enjoyed them and they made the moments of hilarity stand out even more and continuously surprise me.

I usually find it difficult to review a comedy as one can only gauge how good it is by how funny they found it. But this show is so easy to get into I'll just say give it a go, if you enjoy witty well-written comedy dramas with moments of side-splitting hilarity then you can't go too far wrong with The Wrong Mans

The Following (2013–2015)

Season 1 review

[7/10 · 18 November 2013]

When I heard about a show starring Kevin Bacon about a serial killer I was immediately excited and came on IMDb to check it out. I was so surprised to see so many people giving it terrible reviews saying it's the worst show ever. I decided to watch it anyway and I'm so glad I did.

Kevin Bacon is brilliant as our flawed hero who is brought back into action when a serial killer (James Purefoy), whom he put away, escapes from prison and we find that he has a cult of followers on his side. This is probably one of the best pilot episodes I have seen in years. It jumps straight into the action with some gruesome deaths and some very fitting music. Unfortunately the rest of the season never quite nailed the same magic as the pilot but that's not to say the show was by any means bad. In fact, the acting was some of the best I've seen in a TV show and I quickly became engaged with the characters, especially Kevin Bacon's character who frequently steps into the morally grey area of investigating (breaking peoples' fingers etc).

The most frequent complaint I've seen for this show is that the FBI often seem to make some rather stupid errors and fail to spot clues which the audience can see. This was true in some instances where I wanted to shout at the screen but really that is some of the fun in watching a thriller as the story kept me guessing as to how it was going to turn out. The biggest flaw in my opinion came in the middle of the season when the writers decided to expand the 'cult' to include what looked like over a hundred people. It started to become silly at that point and did briefly take me out of the experience. Luckily, the subject is rarely brought up again and the show saves itself with a great build-up to a nail-biting season finale. Be warned, this is a show that isn't afraid of killing off a few characters...

One thing the show really does get right is the violence. We often see crime scenes from the FBI perspective and many are very bloody and some are quite graphic. Some of the violence we see on-screen is also quite brutal but it is done in good taste without lingering on the violence. This is a good thing as too much blood and gore would have removed the psychological thriller element to the show whereas not enough would have made it look unrealistic.

As I said earlier, there is a lot of hate for this show at the moment. Perhaps we have all gotten so used to fantastic serial killer shows like Hannibal that we won't settle for anything less. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon and say its the worst show ever, instead I recommend it to anyone who likes a good fast-paced thriller with layered characters, plenty of suspense and some really good acting. I will be watching season 2 in the hope that the show seizes its potential for a dark, chilling story which could turn this good thriller into a great one.

All Superheroes Must Die (2011)

Why so much hate?

[8/10 · 21 October 2013]

I would really like someone to explain to me how The Avengers, a film as generic as they come, gets praised as one of the best films of all time whereas a film like this that pushes the boundaries of film and focuses on the human characters rather than a bunch of gorillas with powers gets so many reviews hating on it. I'm not one of those to go easy on a film because it has a low budget, I either like a film or I don't. And I really liked this one.

Our 4 superheroes are kidnapped and stripped of their powers by Jokeresque villain Rickshaw and forced through a series of 'games' designed to crush their spirits and kill them. Not only is this very entertaining, especially listening to Rickshaw's monologues which never get old, it also packs more emotion into its short 70 minute run time than The Avengers was able to pack in nearly 3 hours (if it isn't obvious already, I found The Avengers to be overrated though by no means bad). It's the sense of hopelessness and dread that maintains your attention and morbid curiosity as you come to realise that these games are played by Rickshaw's rules and aren't designed to be won. If what I've said here interests you in the slightest then I advise you watch this film.

The acting is generally very good with special mention needed to James Remar and Lucas Till who played their characters brilliantly. There were no real clichés as all of the characters felt like human people rather than superhuman stereotypes like you get in many superhero films. I would even go so far as to say this isn't really a superhero film, the world feels real and gritty and even the costumes look home-made. Clearly there was a very small budget for this film but it only shows in the occasional action scene in which there are no computer generated effects. For the most part it allows the film to maintain its very real gritty look but at times it does become noticeable. But given the constraints on this film, I believe it is forgivable and there are no film-breaking moments in my opinion.

It was a real shame this film was so short as I would loved to have explored the characters deeper but thankfully this also means the film doesn't outstay its welcome and it generally feels tight and well-paced. For this though there should certainly be a price drop but that is hardly a fault of the film.

I tip my hat to Jason Trost and look forward to seeing what else he can do with a larger budget and more time, I wish I could make movies like he can. The film is by no means perfect, but it captures a true humanity that many superhero films skip over (with the exception of Watchmen). If you don't need CGI and big explosions to have fun and appreciate small scale films with superb acting then see this film and you'll quickly be intrigued and drawn into this dark world full of pain, suffering and death.

The White Queen (2013)

Better than many reviews say

[8/10 · 21 August 2013]

Having had the pleasure of finishing the series on BBC iPlayer today I would like to say I thoroughly enjoyed it as did most people who saw it with me.

Now I did not watch this because I wanted a historical documentary. I watched it for the same reason I watched The Tudors, for an entertaining period drama about the intrigue surrounding the War of the Roses. There are many inaccuracies in both shows but I found them easy to overlook. It concerns mainly Elizabeth Woodville and her time as Queen of England whilst others plotted her demise and some even sought to overthrow King Edward. The acting was, on the whole, very good for TV and the sets and costumes were all fantastic and suited the characters portrayed in them. There clearly was not a high budget here and it shows, particularly in the battle scenes. However, I did was able to overlook this as the story did enough to draw me in.

The reason many people did not enjoy this show as much, in my opinion, is due to the first couple of episodes. They are considerably weaker than the rest of the show and I was tempted to give up after episode 2, it just seemed too much like a soap opera. However, once the main story lines picked up it was highly enjoyable.

If you can overlook the flaws in this show and, like me, you actually read books for your historical knowledge rather than TV dramas then you should be able to enjoy this show and I highly recommend it.

Collateral (2004)

Intelligent drama and Cruise's best film

[9/10 · 23 April 2013]

Having seen this film about 6 times and holding it in my top 10 films of all time, I was so surprised to learn that not many people have seen this film. Most people love 'Heat' whereas 'Collateral', a film with the same director in the same style, went by rather unnoticed. So I'm just going to say watch this film as it has something there for most film lovers.

You shouldn't go into it with too many details, just that Tom Cruise breaks his usual role and plays a cold, calculating killer named Vincent who happens to step into a cab of a pathetic yet optimistic, kind hearted driver named Max (Jamie Foxx). The film shows the events of one night as our two completely opposite characters are thrown together by chance. I won't say more for fear of spoilers but the story is fantastic right up until the ending which did become a little predictable though it was carried out very well.

For those that like slow moving character dramas, this film has plenty of that with some of the best acting I've ever seen. Tom Cruise is a great actor but he is excellent in his role as Vincent, playing such a cool character and really making me feel like that is who he actually is. He should do similar roles more often rather than always playing the hero. Jamie Foxx shows some of the best character development in film and his role here put him on the map for me.

For those who love action films there is certainly some very well directed action from the man who brought us that spectacular heist scene in 'Heat'. It isn't on such a huge scale as 'Heat' but it isn't meant to be either. This is a slow moving character film but the action sequences will not disappoint action fans, most notably the chaotic club scene which was carried out so well.

I'll say again that this film is so good that I am so disappointed that so few people have actually seen it. If you're a fan of 'Heat', or suspense films, or character driven dramas then see this film and I hope you enjoy every moment of it.

Oblivion (I) (2013)

enjoyable but disappointing

[5/10 · 14 April 2013]

I know giving a film a 5/10 is the worst possible move as it automatically earns everyone's hate seeing as the general consensus on IMDb is to give a film a 1 or a 10 with very little scores in between. But I'm going to say that I did find this film enjoyable and thoroughly watchable, but disappointing as it could've been much more.

I love the world that was created, and the tranquil scenes of Earth juxtaposed the gritty action nicely. The acting was solid all round especially from Tom Cruise who gets much more hate than he deserves, he is still one of the best actors around.

So why only give this film an average score? Well, it made some rather disappointing rookie mistakes. Firstly, there were so many holes in the story. I know it's sci-fi and one must suspend their disbelief, but some of the mistakes were just sloppy. I won't elaborate for fear of spoilers but when the story finally does kick off, don't try to think about any of it too hard. This is my major issue with the film.

Also, whilst Cruise's character was well developed, the others (such as Morgan Freeman) were left pretty undeveloped and hence one-dimensional. Freeman pretty much acts as the plot explainer and many of the other characters I simply did not care about as they were given virtually no screen time.

If you like sci-fi action then get some popcorn and watch it for some solid entertainment with friends but don't try too hard to think it through. I left the cinema feeling disappointed at a film which was entertaining but could have been much more.

Red Cliff (2008)

Review of the ENTIRE film (part 1 and 2)

[7/10 · 5 April 2013]

Firstly I'll say I've had the pleasure of seeing both versions of this film and would highly recommend watching the original version (4 ish hours) and perhaps staggering it out over 2 days as the edited version misses out several key plot points and side characters which I won't talk about for spoiler reasons. Now for the review:

I love this era of Chinese history, I've studied the real history and read parts of Romance of the Three Kingdoms and have played Dynasty Warriors although it is not necessary to know much beyond a basic background knowledge before watching this. Cao Cao is basically governing through the Emperor as is puppet and is pursuing Liu Bei with his huge army as Liu Bei attempts to evacuate his followers and seek refuge with the Sun family. We get to see the forging of an alliance to stop Cao Cao and rise against him. The film details the preparation for the final battle against Cao Cao through the eyes of strategists Zhuge Liang and Zhou You. The characters are portrayed exceptionally well and I could see the quiet genius of Zhuge Liang whilst Cao Cao was portrayed as arrogant and power hungry but also ruthless and cunning. He was definitely the star of the show for me as he was exactly how I pictured he would be.

The directing is brilliant from John Woo who seems much more comfortable with Chinese films, and this certainly is a Chinese film in terms of style. I found this very interesting to watch but some may be put off a bit. Obviously this film is in Chinese with English subs. This did not bother me as a quickly became engaged and forgot about it but it's worth mentioning for those who can't enjoy that.

Now which part is better? I would definitely say part 2 as it is only then that the tension really begins to rise and we get to see our clever strategists at work to even the odds. The first introduces the characters really well but lacks the edge of your seat suspense of the second. But watch them both anyway as both are necessary to understand the story and both parts are honestly very good.

So this film has the making of a 9/10, and it would be if it were not for one major flaw - The action! The drama and acting were all excellent in this truly epic film but the fighting scenes just broke the immersion for me. Firstly, they drag on far too long and could easily have been cut down to allow for more character development. But also they just remind me too much of Dynasty Warriors with thousands of soldiers being cut down effortlessly by just a few officers. I know the film needs main characters but it was done to the extent that it didn't feel much like an epic battlefield but instead like a scene from The Matrix or a level in Dynasty Warriors. Because of this, the tension was lessened as we know the main characters are in no real danger as they are pretty much invincible to ordinary soldiers.

I can overlook this flaw and the film is very good overall and I would highly recommend it. to any fan of epic films. But I understand people disliking it for the reason I gave as if this film had been less interesting, the action would actually have ruined my experience. Luckily the rest of the film was so great is was just about able to overlook its flaws.

House of Cards (2013–2018)

The role Kevin Spacey was made for

[10/10 · 21 February 2013]

I am a huge fan of Kevin Spacey, for The Usual Suspects and LA Confidential among other films, but this role just fits him like a glove.

In this show he plays a ruthless congressman who, after being overlooked for Secretary of State, decides to cut off allegiances to the government and claim all of the power for himself. I won't go into any more detail as the plot is superb from the very first episode and had me pull and all-nighter to watch the majority of the first season.

It's important to bear in mind that this show is gritty, rather than glamorous. Characters drink, smoke, manipulate and betray all the time with Kevin Spacey at the centre of it all, revealing his observations and devilish plans in clever asides that wouldn't look out of place in a Shakespeare production. The world Fincher created is a work of art and the seedy side of DC with its hookers and drugs is blended seamlessly with the rich scenery and skyscrapers.

All of the characters are great in their own right. One can't help but root for Spacey's character despite the fact that he is betraying and ruining peoples' lives. His wife, played by Robin Wright, is a strong woman whom I doubt would bend over for anyone. Whereas the journalist Zoe played by Kate Mara is almost an opposite of that, willing to do whatever she has to to get her story. The other main character is Peter Russo, a recovering alcoholic, and another pawn in Underwood's game.

If you want a fast paced series to keep you on the edge of your seat every episode with some "eye candy" and plenty of action then stay away from House of Cards. But if you want an intelligent story about greed, love, sex and, most importantly, power, then watch this show. Get Netflix and watch it now, I cannot recommend this show highly enough. It's a reason why I believe TV is still worth defending as art.

The Impossible (2012)

emotional roller-coaster

[8/10 · 10 January 2013]

I don't know anyone who was involved in the tsunami of 2004 and for that I am truly grateful. This film is a great example of how to take the terrible nature of such an event and create a really compelling story about the themes of love, hope, helplessness and, above all, panic.

The story focuses around one family as they struggle to find each other and stay alive in the aftermath of the vicious tsunami of 2004. However it still does a lot to show the mass horror the tsunami caused for everyone involved. Not a lot of films do this in my opinion, they manage to keep us connected to that family whilst also making us feel for every character we see. This is done as well as, if not better than, Titanic. The story manages to strike the right nerve at the right time, it gives us just the right amount of hope for our characters, which is cleverly juxtaposed by the feelings of helplessness and dread.

As said, the film takes you on an emotional journey, and this is in no small part due to our actors. The acting is fantastic all round. McGregor is reliably good as ever although he didn't have as much screen time as I would have hoped. Naomi Watts has really entered my radar recently, I've been seeing some of her films and she really is one of the best actresses of this generation. However Tom Holland as Lucas owns this film. He isn't even 18 yet and I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes a very big star in film. The other kids played their parts very well. The acting adds to the great character development so much so that I actually found myself hoping the tsunami wouldn't actually happen.

This film really surprised me and I didn't even plan on seeing it. No film is perfect, but this one left me feeling emotionally drained. Hollywood could certainly learn a lot of lessons from this about how to make a compelling film without the need for clichés and formulaic plots. The Impossible comes with my highest recommendation for those who want a subtle but emotionally moving film about the lengths ordinary people will go to protect those they love.

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

"It's got layers"

[8/10 · 6 November 2012]

I really have to praise the film industry for giving me this film. I saw it at the cinema during my trip to the US last week and and after seeing the trailer I was expecting to be let down by a poor attempt to copy old school Tarantino films. What I got instead was a hilarious original film which (to quote Hans) has layers.

STORY

It centres around a guy trying to write a screenplay about seven psychopaths and how he takes inspiration from real characters he meets on the way. This is the main story line but there are many sub-plots that continuously come into play. Not much can be said about the story without spoiling the actual events but believe me when I say that nothing in here is generic or has been done before. The developers went for a more intelligent style of film and it really played out well. It never becomes generic for a second without something wild happening to keep it all fresh. It becomes a parody of Hollywood films and clichés in all genres which is what makes it so unique and a great film. 5/5

EXECUTION

With a good cast the film is acted exceptionally well from start to finish with even the lesser characters really showing their skills. Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell definitely stole their scenes. This film is really dialogue heavy which will not be for you if you like to see lots of action with cars exploding and epic battles. Those are all things the film attempts to parody and pulls off so well. The use of long takes by the director are great at achieving the atmosphere the film looks for. Again everything about the film's style is completely original and so the developers are to be commended for their efforts to do something new. 5/5

VERDICT

As I said I saw this film in the US, my only complaint is that I have to wait until December before I can actually talk about it with people here in the UK. Anyway, I would say this is a film for both critics and also for people looking for a more intellectual film and are tired of films just being dull copies of successful titles. If you want a film about a "tough guy" who "lets his gun do the talking" taking on hoards of enemies with slow motion and CGI effects then seriously don't see this film. But if, like me you are just fed up with that then see this film it manages to parody all the things you hate in film and is completely original and free of any clichés. Thank you film industry for finally giving me what I want without screwing it up. 5/5 + 5/5 = 10/10

Cleanskin (2012)

For those who want an action film but appreciate a thought provoking story

[7/10 · 15 September 2012]

STORY:

The film starts begins with secret service agent Sean Bean being tasked with stopping a terrorist cell. He plays a tough veteran who bares a sort of resemblance to Liam Neeson in Taken. Naturally I assumed it would be 100 minutes of a government trained superman killing lots of baddies and was set to rant on about how this film has nothing original about it. Then it surprised me about twenty minutes in by cutting to the other lead character played by Abhin Galeya and follows his gradual path from student to suicide bomber. He isn't made out to be inherently evil like many TV terrorists are but instead just a kid who is slowly turned and brainwashed. The is juxtaposed with Sean Bean's brutal tactics including torture as he searches for him, making it very difficult to find a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy'. The story here, whilst being easy to watch and follow, is also very controversial and isn't afraid of going into issues that many film developers fear to tread. The overall idea may not be original but the story makes it stand out from many other films. 4/5

EXECUTION:

Having never heard of any of the actors apart from Sean Bean I was surprised at how good the acting was all round, I must give particular mention to Abhin Galeya who plays the young student turned suicide bomber exceptionally well. This film was made on quite a low budget but I respect that and although at times it is noticeable without all the special effects of other modern films, it did not affect the quality of the film. In fact it proves that you don't need cars exploding everywhere and mindless action with stunts and chases like many Hollywood producers seem to believe. Instead, this film relies on its writing which is believable and genuinely thought provoking. The action, in itself, is gritty and intense and certainly not glamorised with all the special effects which suits the style of the film. There were a few clichés and the ending of the film was executed poorly in my opinion but that did not take much away from the overall experience. 3/5

VERDICT:

I think many will agree that the Bourne trilogy was good but that we don't need hundreds a poorly written copies of them from lazy Hollywood producers. Cleanskin takes that formula and turns it on its head with an original story that mixes gritty action with realism. This is a film for those who want to watch a gritty action film but who appreciate a thought provoking story with subtleties which you just don't see in many other films these days. How this film sneaked in under the radar surprises me as it is definitely worth checking out as even if you don't enjoy it, you will certainly appreciate the controversies in this film. 4/5 + 3/5 = 7/10

Dredd (2012)

if you don't want a story but would prefer to see lots of people get shot then it may be worth a look.

[2/10 · 13 September 2012]

STORY:

What story? set in the future where cops (or judges) are permitted to carry out sentences on the spot (in most cases this sentence is death), this film is about one particular judge named Dredd. He and his rookie partner (who is a psychic) get trapped by a gang of drug dealers in a huge apartment tower block and have to fight their way through hordes of enemies. That's it, nothing else, basically Die Hard but not as cool and without any criminal mastermind played by Alan Rickman. The baddies seem to be so well connected that they can lock down an apartment block, bribe several judges, afford high tech military equipment such as mini-guns, and send hordes of people to kill just two judges. There is no realism which I understand isn't the point of this film but there really is no development either. I won't give any spoilers but by the end the characters have achieved nothing and learnt nothing, there are hints at character development which become nothing. People will try to convince me that i just didn't understand it or that I need to read the comics first. But believe me when I say that this is a bad film and the plot has no substance. As a somewhat amateur film critic I felt insulted that my friends actually insist I see it. 1/5

EXECUTION:

I have little to say about how this film was executed as there was not much that really stood out. The whole film was riddled with clichés from the main character's silent, moody action man character to the gang of swearing loud- mouthed idiots who would put real criminals to shame. Even the rookie was predictable as she gradually lost her innocence throughout the film. There was nothing particularly notable about the directing or the soundtrack apart from the slow-mo effects which were a fun idea but were used far too often and became tiresome quickly. The acting was as one would expect from a B-rated action film. One positive would be the 3D as the type of film really suited the extra effects. On the whole it was a poor idea with a poor story executed poorly. 1/5

VERDICT:

Need I explain? This really isn't a good film and I have trouble recommending it to anyone. But if you're a fan of "One man army" films like Die Hard and if you don't want a story but would prefer to see lots of people get shot then it may be worth a look. If you do see it it's certainly worth seeing in 3D. Sorry that this review was more of a rant but those familiar with my reviews know that I always try to be fair and unbiased by popular opinion which at the moment seems far too high for this film. 1/5 + 1/5 = 2/10

The Day of the Jackal (1973)

those who appreciate a more realistic film which makes them think cannot go wrong with the Day of the Jackal.

[9/10 · 29 July 2012]

STORY: The Day of The Jackal is set against the struggles of the paramilitary organisation the OAS in France and their attempts to kill President Charles De Gaulle. With the exact same story as the book, it focuses around one fictional attempt in 1963 when the leaders hire a mysterious foreign professional assassin. It follows this man (The Jackal) as he plans and prepares the assassination whilst the secret service and police detectives launch a secret manhunt for this unknown killer. The film is all about suspense so very little action actually occurs in this film. It may be a little slow for some tastes but I honestly think that's what makes the film so unique. It had me on the edge of my seat almost throughout, and there was no need for recent Hollywood style guns blazing action. It's a film for the intellectual. Also as one reviewer mentioned, it is completely free from clichés. Our killer is never made out to be inherently evil, just a professional doing a job. Similarly, the leading detective on this case is as far from the 'maverick who never plays by the rules but always gets his man' cliché as he could possibly be. This is a definite plus in my books and is what really let the re-make down (the one with Bruce Willis), it was just too American with too much action and too many character clichés. DOTJ has a flawless plot for those with the patience and attention span to go last more than five minutes without a fight or chase scene. The fact that it is based around factual history allowed me to become fully immersed in the film 5/5

EXECUTION: Aside from having a brilliant story, the film is also executed remarkably. I'm told Edward Fox (The Jackal) made his name off of this film and that does not surprise me at all, he plays the part exactly as I would have imagined having read the book. He definitely steals the whole show. The other acting is great for the time it was made but is not in the same league as Fox. The film is directed almost as if it were a documentary which suits the style. Again action fans will be disappointed and probably bored by this but I felt it added to the realism. Similarly the fact that there is no soundtrack caused me to become more involved with the characters. I should point out that the film does sometimes show its age especially with the use of the infamous 1960s 'judo chop of death' but I can honestly say it didn't bother me or effect my immersion at all possibly because it's not an action film and the small number of deaths throughout were not a major part of it. The directing style topped with some near perfect acting mean DOTJ is almost perfectly executed, any minor nitpicks can be attributed to its age. 5/5

VERDICT: In this day of films basically being poorly done remakes of the Bourne films with ridiculous stunts and strong character clichés, an intellectual film is greatly appreciated. I can see why this film became a classic in the 1970s and I believe it is a timeless masterpiece and a fine example of how films don't need action, swearing or unrealistic characters who 'let their gun do the talking'. Clever dialogue and a very suspenseful story at the expense of fast paced action mean this film won't be for everybody. But those who appreciate a more realistic film which makes them think cannot go wrong with the Day of the Jackal. 5/5 + 5/5 = 10/10

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

it was a nice surprise when it actually turned out to be good

[6/10 · 10 July 2012]

STORY Well the story is fairly obvious, guy gets bitten by spider....guy becomes Spider-Man. It has been seen. However, its the other subplots and character developments which make this film actually (in my opinion) better than the 2002 film. I felt more attached to the characters like Uncle Ben for example. I won't go into details as I don't give spoilers but it was more emotional, and characters were much more relatable. The only real flaws I thought were the villain who's scenes felt a little rushed and the film didn't dwell on his character enough, and also the fact that Peter just wasn't nerdy enough, although that may be down to casting. 3/5

EXECUTION Firstly, I really enjoyed the directing, and with the 3D it did actually look pretty impressive. The camera work was smooth and really made each scene stand out especially the ones that actually showed Spider-Man. The acting was good all round, I think Martin Sheen stole some of the scenes he was in and Rhys Ifans played the part of Dr Connors really well, although he probably was't seen enough as I would have liked. Andrew Garfield is a good actor but I'm just not sure he's right for this role, Spider-Man is meant to be the repressed but sarcastic science geek and that just wasn't carried out well. This is just nit picking though, the film was executed very well in my opinion. 4/5

CONCLUSION After being dragged to this film by some mates, it was a nice surprise when it actually turned out to be good. It was slightly more gritty and emotional than the 2002 film whilst staying true to its roots. I'd recommend a watch as its probably worth seeing. At the very least I think people will be glad they saw it. 3/5 + 4/5 = 7/10

The Avengers (2012)

...well it was okay I suppose

[5/10 · 22 May 2012]

STORY: Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D assembles a group of Marvel superheroes to stop Loki from using a device he stole to inevitably destroy the world. This really isn't treading any new ground as far as storytelling goes (I don't know how close it is to the comic). Yes the superheroes are all pretty cool but that's why they each have their own film. I feel that having all of them there didn't really allow for any development of the characters who all seemed to be competing for screen time. It was fairly unoriginal considering the films out there, an invading alien army comes to take over the world (by which I mean an alien army comes and invades America; the only place aliens ever seem to attack). I feel they tried to fit so much in that the story in general was entertaining but also seemed a bit rushed and not very original, as far as I could see it was something straight out of Hollywood. 2.5/5

EXECUTION: The film was directed in the same way you would expect from this type of film. It had the epic explosive feel of a Michael Bay film (to be honest I thought he may have directed it until I saw the credits at the end). There were some pretty impressive action scenes which do enough to keep you watching right the way through, it was never boring for even a minute. However it was all very formulaic and the whole point of the film seemed to be to show off epic fights and to allow for cheesy lines from our heroes which come rapidly about every 5 minutes. The acting was actually pretty good. I'm not usually a fan of Robert Downey Jr. but he played his role very well. Samuel L Jackson did what he does best, playing the "badass" he's known for. The acting was definitely the best aspect of the film. 3.5/5

VERDICT: It was okay, I went to see it with friends and we all thought it was a fun, solid action film. I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Everyone seemed to think it was spectacular, I don't know if this was due to the hype or if it was people who read the comics. I just can't say I thought it was anything special, which was disappointing (although I seem to be against the world on this one so don't just take my opinion). See it if you enjoyed the second and third Transformers films or if you fancy unwinding with an above average action film. 2.5/5 + 3.5/5 = 6/10

Funny Games (2007)

Thought provoking and disturbing, but not funny. This film is not meant to provide entertainment

[7/10 · 11 April 2012]

I was recommended this film by a friend in the US due to my strong dislike for Hollywood clones and the violence and action that is glamorised within.

STORY: Well there is not much to say about the story without giving spoilers, the plot is very unoriginal. If I was pressed to think of a film to compare Funny Games to it would be The Strangers. In Funny Games a family is terrorised by a couple of extremely polite sociopaths who make a bet that they can kill the husband, wife, and young boy within twelve hours, and what a tense twelve hours that turns out to be. However the lack of originality in the actual story, however intentional, means I can't give it a particularly high rating. 2/5

EXECUTION: This is where the film really shines and is unlike anything I have ever seen (I haven't seen the original but I'm told it is exactly the same). This film deserves its 18 age rating not because of violence or profanity or sex, any nudity and most violence is not shown on screen and there really isn't that much of it. But it delivers highly emotional, tense and disturbing scenes that really aren't for the feint of heart. The techniques employed in this film are designed to sensitise the viewer to the violence shown in Hollywood films that we expect and show how it would play out in the real world. There are a number of times where the film teases the viewer with what they want to see (ie the kid escaping among others) only for it to be replaced with the cold reality of the situation. I will not go into more detail for fear of giving spoilers. The film also forced the viewer to become involved with the actions of the killers through the characters directly addressing the audience. The intention of this, I believe, is to question the viewer as to why they are watching this disturbing violent film when they know nothing good can come of it. This makes us question our own morality . The acting is also very good particularly from Michael Pitt and Naomi Watts. They really add to the tension and make the characters very convincing. 4/5

VERDICT: I find it hard to recommend this film to anyone due to its disturbing and depressing nature. However I would say that people who are fed up with the way Hollywood portrays violence and in want of a new prospective on it would appreciate (although not necessarily enjoy) this film. I wouldn't say this film is to be enjoyed and its intention seems to be more to educate and provoke the audience to look inwards than to entertain. The games in this film are dark and disturbing, but they definitely aren't funny. 2 + 4 = 6/10

Fracture (2007)

a slow but clever thriller

[8/10 · 14 March 2012]

STORY: Fracture manages to succeed where other films like it have failed spectacularly many times over. Ted Crawford shoots his adulterous wife in the head and waits calmly for the police to arrive. He had the gun in his hand and made a signed confession. On the other side is a slick lawyer who has finally made his big break into corporate law, this is his final case and it very well could be the one that breaks him when he realises that there is actually no evidence to convict Crawford. The film creates an ingenious plot that, while slow in parts, keeps you guessing until the very end. Character development was this film's strongest aspect. The only issue was the lack of progression in some parts where some pointless padding techniques were used rather than advance the plot. 3.5/5

EXECUTION: As seen in films such as Silence of The Lambs, Anthony Hopkins is spectacular as the ingenious sociopathic antagonist that you just have to love. Similarly Ryan Gosling portrays the arrogant lawyer trying to rush through his last case and leave it behind. Most of the supporting cast are good enough to hold their own. There is no real action in this film but it doesn't need it due to the clever directing and style that will keep you on the edge of your seat until the last few minutes. 4.5/5

VERDICT: Overall a good film with very few flaws. Best of all no clichéd "hero and bad guy" and no ridiculous Hollywood action or effects. This film relies on the talent of the actors and they do not disappoint. Give the film a fair trial and give it a chance to prove how good it can be. 3.5 + 4.5 = 8/10

The Machinist (2004)

Deep and powerful, a great film

[9/10 · 9 March 2012]

STORY: This is a film that intrigues you from the start. I knew I was going to like this film after only a few minutes. The story plunges you into the mind of insomniac Trevor Resnik; a worker at some form of machine works. He looks so thin he could break in half at any minute. In the first half an hour the film gives you so many questions: Why is he so thin? why hasn't he slept? what is significant about 1:30? What's with the eerie fairground ride? These are all questions that keep you guessing until the last five minutes. A Great film for lovers of this peculiar genre. Anyone familiar with my reviews knows I enjoy a change from the usual Hollywood clones being mass produced, and this definitely isn't one of them. It ( I feel) goes where Fight Club didn't quite reach. 4.5/5

EXECUTION: Well most of us (including myself) thought of Christian Bale as Batman or the guy in American psycho (both good films by the way) but The Machinist is where we really get to see his strength and diversity as an actor, it has put him higher in my books. The supporting cast is generally great and the directing style used creates an eerie atmosphere. Most importantly, it avoids any cheesy Hollywood drama or clichés that I have come to expect in most films, a pleasant surprise. The execution really adds to the exciting, thought provoking plot, making the whole experience entirely worthwhile. 4.5/5

VERDICT: Highly recommended film for people who, like me, get bored with the usual Hollywood blockbusters and would rather have a thought provoking, slow moving but intriguing film. 4.5 + 4.5 = 9/10