The Contractor (2022) Review

Time: 103 Minutes
Cast:
Chris Pine as James Harper
Ben Foster as Mike Hawkins
Gillian Jacobs as Brianne Harper
Eddie Marsan as Virgil
J. D. Pardo as Eric
Kiefer Sutherland as Rusty Jennings
Florian Munteanu as Kauffman
Director: Tarik Saleh

Involuntarily discharged from the Army, a special forces sergeant lands a contract with a private underground military force. When his very first assignment goes awry, the elite soldier finds himself hunted and on the run, caught in a dangerous conspiracy and fighting to stay alive long enough to get home and uncover the true motives of those who betrayed him.

I saw The Contractor advertised on Amazon Prime, it looked to be a military thriller starring Chris Pine. Having watched it, it definitely felt like a streaming movie, but I was entertained nonetheless.

The script and story are fairly average; if you’ve seen a passable military action thriller (especially a streaming exclusive), then you’ve probably already seen The Contractor. The opening half hour is a bit slow, but it does well in setting up the lead character and showing why he decides to take on a particular job. It also has probably the only thing that distinguishes it from other movies of this genre, as it highlights how veterans are treated by the US military and attempts to tackle some issues about private military organisations. However, by the end it has forgotten about those and becomes another standard action movie. The story isn’t that interesting and is very predictable, not helped by the slogging pacing. The characters aren’t that developed and don’t have the emotional depth needed. I will say that I do appreciate how surprisingly solemn the tone was. Also, whereas a lot of these types of military movies put things on a large scale, The Contractor is comparatively small scale and mostly focuses on Chris Pine trying to survive. While I didn’t care for the story, it was okay enough that I was willing to pay attention to what was happening. The third act is fine and entertaining enough, but it felt like they ran out of ideas and needed to formulate some predictable climax. The ending itself also ends a bit too abruptly.

The cast are definitely the highlight of the movie. Chris Pine is very solid in the lead role, he carries much of the film. He certainly puts everything in this and helps to make his character feel more vulnerable and relatable. The rest of the cast deliver on their parts too. Ben Foster is quite good as well, even if he’s underutilised, and he and Pine (who co-starred in Hell or High Water) share convincing chemistry. Other actors like Gillian Jacobs, Eddie Marsan and Kiefer Sutherland also work in their screentime, but they are a little underserved. Gillian Jacobs is limited to just being ‘the wife character’, and Kiefer Sutherland’s villain (not much of a twist, it is easy to see coming) doesn’t get enough screentime to land an impression. Eddie Marsan’s scenes are some of the best scenes in the movie, but unfortunately he isn’t in the movie all that much.

Direction wise, The Contractor is competently made. The cinematography is very basic, but the locations are pretty good, especially in Berlin. The action is solid too, with the firefights and fighting scenes being handled well. The editing did take away from the action and they could’ve used less cuts, but I wouldn’t say its as bad as in some other action movies. These sequences aren’t anything you haven’t seen before, yet are nonetheless entertaining enough to watch. The score from Alex Belcher also works for the movie, albeit isn’t anything special.

Despite its potential, The Contractor is a generic and forgettable military action thriller, mostly let down by the average script. However, I did enjoy watching the movie; I liked the action and the cast are quite good, especially Chris Pine.

Advertisement

Wrath of Man (2021) Review

Time: 119 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, cruelty & offensive language
Cast:
Jason Statham as Patrick “H” Hill/Heargraves
Holt McCallany as Bullet
Jeffrey Donovan as Jackson
Josh Hartnett as Boy Sweat Dave
Chris Reilly as Tom
Laz Alonso as Carlos
Raúl Castillo as Sam
DeObia Oparei as Brad
Eddie Marsan as Terry
Scott Eastwood as Jan
Director: Guy Ritchie

Mysterious and wild-eyed, a new security guard (Jason Statham) for a cash truck surprises his co-workers when he unleashes precision skills during a heist. The crew is left wondering who he is and where he came from. Soon, the marksman’s ultimate motive becomes clear as he takes dramatic and irrevocable steps to settle a score.

I was interested in Wrath of Man. Not only was it a Guy Ritchie movie, but it would be his first collaboration with Jason Statham in a long time. The trailer for the movie was alright but it definitely seemed like more like a typical Jason Statham action flick than a Guy Ritchie movie, and I wasn’t really sure what to expect outside of some good action scenes. I still was interested in it however, and it ended up being better than I expected it to be.

Essentially, Wrath of Man is a revenge thriller meets heist film. The plot wasn’t exactly unpredictable and was a tad on the generic side, but I found myself invested throughout its runtime. The characters are common personalities as well for a film of this genre, but they’re written confidently and in such a way that we can just focus on what they are involved in. While Wrath of Man features some Guy Ritchie tropes, there’s definitely a lot of distinct differences between this and most of his other films. It’s set in Los Angeles, the dialogue while being Ritchie-esque isn’t quite as snappy, and the characters aren’t quirky. It also doesn’t quite have the dark comedy that those other movies have. Wrath of Man is a dead serious, brutal, relentless, and violent revenge thriller, in fact this is definitely one of the darkest movies that Guy Ritchie has made. The middle section particularly gets grim, bleak and unsettling. At the same time, the tone felt right for this story, and it was well put together. One way Wrath of Man is similar to Ritchie’s other movies is the nonlinear narrative. We cut around to different character sand see their perspectives, even in the past. As a result, it gives the narrative even more context. It does get a little crazy with the time jumps, especially as we see title cards revealing that we are jumping months ahead and behind. The pacing runs a bit on the slower side, especially when we are often cutting back to the same events and just seeing them through different perspectives. A consequence of this is that it makes the movie feel longer than it really is. With that said, the slow pacing was necessary, and it is rewarded greatly with an entertaining and action packed climax.

This movie has often been advertised as a Jason Statham flick, and he’s definitely the lead character in this. As expected, he plays his role similar to how you’d expect him to, basing it off his previous action and crime movie roles. However, there’s something slightly different to him in this, unlike his past roles (even his straight up villainous roles), he feels actually threatening in this. His character is mysterious and stoic, and he’s got this empty far-away look that makes him actually feel intimidating. He’s ruthless, and in some scenes seems almost like a terminator or slasher villain. At the same time he’s still very much not invincible, just very dangerous. Probably among Statham’s best performances. The rest of the cast are good too, with the likes of Holt McCallany, Scott Eastwood, Josh Hartnett, Jeffrey Donovan, Eddie Marsan and Andy Garcia providing solid support work.

Guy Ritchie directs this, and his work here is really good. Even though I previously said that its different to a lot of his previous movies, you still do feel to a degree that it’s a Guy Ritchie film with the way things are shot and edited. It’s a very well shot movie, there are some impressive long takes, the movie even opens with a great long take. Despite how it was advertised, Wrath of Man isn’t an action-packed movie. Outside of a couple of action scenes in the first two acts, most of the action takes place in the last act, and it’s brutal, bloody, and kind of realistic. You feel every shot and impact, and the build up to it all is just as effective. One of the standout aspects from this movie immediately was the foreboding score from Chris Benstead, making an already unnerving film even more haunting. It has a sense of doom and dread that fits with the film, even sounding like something from Joker. It keeps the tension rising throughout the movie, creating this unsettling and intense atmosphere. Speaking of which, with the level of violence and intensity, it really makes the movie stand out in Ritchie’s filmography.

Wrath of Man might actually be among Guy Ritchie’s best movies. The plot isn’t anything special or unpredictable, but the bleakness, the intense and haunting atmosphere, the non-linear narrative, and the fantastic action sequences, along with some solid acting and directing, it all combines to make an experience that I’m glad I saw, especially in the cinema. If you are a fan of Guy Ritchie’s movies or Jason Statham’s movies, I do recommend checking it out.

The Gentlemen (2019) Review

Time: 113 minutes
Age Rating: Violence, offensive language, drug use & sexual material
Cast:
Matthew McConaughey as Mickey Pearson
Charlie Hunnam as Raymond
Henry Golding as Dry Eye
Michelle Dockery as Rosalind Pearson
Jeremy Strong as Matthew Berger
Eddie Marsan as Mike
Colin Farrell as Coach
Hugh Grant as Fletcher
Director: Guy Ritchie

Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is an American expatriate who became rich by building a marijuana empire in London. When word gets out that he’s looking to cash out of the business, it soon triggers an array of plots and schemes from those who want his fortune.

The Gentlemen was one of my most anticipated movies of 2020. Director Guy Ritchie hasn’t been doing so well with his recent movies. People have wanted him to return to the crime genre that made Ritchie known, with the likes of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch and RocknRolla, and with The Gentlemen we finally have that. Add on top of that a great cast, and there was a lot there I was looking forward to. I found myself to be really entertained by The Gentlemen, and it was a nice way of starting off the new decade for movies.

The Gentlemen feels like a movie that Guy Ritchie could’ve made back in the 2000s, for better and for worse. The characters and story aren’t necessarily interesting, but they’re nonetheless very well written and entertaining, in the same way that Snatch was really entertaining. There isn’t much action in the movie, in fact the dialogue really is the action. It’s sharp, memorable, and really funny, and I’m a fan of well done dark humour, so this really worked for me. This movie is very much not politically correct to say the least, and I know that a lot of people won’t like some of the jokes (and it’s understandable). I mostly liked it, and it doesn’t feel like it’s necessarily trying to be too edgy for the most part. With that said, there were a couple moments that probably should’ve been left out, one in particular was really unneeded and shouldn’t have been included in the first place. Most of the movie for what it is though was really good.

A large part of why this movie works so well is the fantastic cast, with Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Henry Golding, Michelle Dockery, Jeremy Strong, Eddie Marsan, Colin Farrell and Hugh Grant. McConaughey is in the lead role, and although he seems a little out of place with him being really the only American in the main cast, he fits into the movie rather well. Hunnam actually surprised me quite a lot, he really does some good work here. The two standouts to me personally were Colin Farrell and Hugh Grant. Farrell is in a minor role but gets so many moments to shine. However, this may just be Grant’s movie, he’s in a completely different role that you’re used to seeing him in. He steals the show every time he’s on screen, he’s the one actually telling much of the story, and he’s constantly entertaining.

Guy Ritchie is definitely at home directing in this genre. While his style like much of the story and the like are similar to his other crime movies, it’s polished up rather nicely here. All of his style works, especially when it comes to Grant’s character telling the story. A lot of people could say that this movie is style over substance, but with Ritchie, his style is his substance, and it works pretty well for the film.

The Gentlemen is a return to form for Guy Ritchie. It’s darkly hilarious, constantly entertaining, effectively written and directed, and the cast do well. It’s not quite on the level on some of his other movies, but it’s still by far his best movie in many years. If you liked Ritchie’s past crime movies, this might just be what you’re looking for, if you’re not then don’t bother with this one. I hope he continues to make more of these types of movies instead of his recent blockbusters, because he’s really great at the former.

Hobbs & Shaw (2019) Review

Time: 135 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Dwayne Johnson as Luke Hobbs
Jason Statham as Deckard Shaw
Idris Elba as Brixton Lore
Vanessa Kirby as Hattie Shaw
Eiza González as Madam M
Eddie Marsan as Professor Andreiko
Helen Mirren as Magdalene “Queenie” Shaw
Director: David Leitch

Ever since hulking lawman Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), a loyal agent of America’s Diplomatic Security Service, and lawless outcast Shaw (Jason Statham), a former British military elite operative, first faced off in 2015’s Furious 7, the duo have swapped smack talk and body blows as they’ve tried to take each other down. But when cyber-genetically enhanced anarchist Brixton (Idris Elba) gains control of an insidious bio-threat that could alter humanity forever — and bests a brilliant and fearless rogue MI6 agent (Vanessa Kirby), who just happens to be Shaw’s sister — these two sworn enemies will have to partner up to bring down the only guy who might be badder than themselves.

I like the Fast and Furious movies, ever since the 5th movie they’ve really found a formula that works well, with each entry being rather entertaining blockbusters, if very similar (almost exact). It’s pretty much a given that I’ll be watching each of the following movies in the series in the cinema, but I was particularly looking forward to Hobbs and Shaw. One of the biggest highlights of The Fate of the Furious were the scenes between Dwayne Johnson (Hobbs) and Jason Statham (Shaw), who played off each other very well. That dynamic was so popular that the studio was more than willing to have a team up movie with just the two and not featuring any of the other Fast and Furious series characters. So I was somewhat interested in the movie already. However you add on top of that the casting of Idris Elba and Vanessa Kirby, and it being directed by David Leitch (who co-directed John Wick and directed Atomic Blonde and Deadpool 2), I was definitely looking forward to it more than I initially thought I would. Hobbs and Shaw pretty much delivered exactly what I was expecting it to, a really dumb yet entertaining romp held together by the leads and the action.

If you’ve watched a Fast and Furious movie, you basically know what you’re in for. There aren’t really any twists that surprise at all, but they make it simple and not needlessly convoluted, so it works well for what it is. If you really wanted to pick apart the plot you could, but there wouldn’t be much point doing that considering the movie it’s attached to. However they’ve taken an even bigger turn for the ridiculous, yes that’s somehow possible. The movie is about some shadowy organisation who gives their soldiers cyber enhancements and have super futuristic technology. People joke about the Fast and Furious series ending up in space but at this point it’s a certainty that they’ll end up there. It’s pretty close to becoming a full on superhero movie franchise. As per usual with this series, there’s a theme about family (for both Hobbs and Shaw), just this time you don’t see Vin Diesel give a big speech about it, and it still fitted reasonably well within the movie, even with his absence. The Fast and Furious movies (at least since the 5th movie) had a pretty good idea of what they are, while having some level of seriousness to how they approach the characters and plot. However Hobbs and Shaw absolutely knows what it is and isn’t really that serious at all. It’s by far the funniest movie in the series, mostly due to the banter between the two leads. One legitimate problem I guess I have with the movie is that it’s too long. Granted these movies have been growing in length but 2 hours and 10 minutes is at least 5-10 minutes too long. It’s more to really do with some of the action scenes being a little too long, as entertaining as they are.

Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham reprise their roles as the titular characters, and the pairing is one of the main reasons why the movie works so well. Hobbs and Shaw are basically just the actors playing themselves, or at least very similar to the characters have played before, and I get the feeling that the movie knew that. They really do get to shine when the two get to verbally spar with each other, they share great chemistry and are hilarious together. Vanessa Kirby, fresh off her scene stealing role in Mission Impossible: Fallout, is one of the highlights of Hobbs and Shaw. Even among the duo, she shows herself as being very capable and gets to do a lot, especially in the action scenes. I’m glad to see that Kirby is getting to star in more prominent roles in these bigger movies. It is more than a little distracting that she and Statham are supposed to be siblings around the same age considering that there’s at least a couple decades age gap between them, still she’s a more than welcome addition to the series. Idris Elba plays the villain, Elba is always good in everything he’s in, so I was looking forward to seeing him in the role. Unfortunately, he’s not really that great of a villain, really just a generic super soldier who occasionally spouts out monologues about humans evolving that we’ve heard plenty of other villains deliver. However Elba definitely knows what kind of movie he’s in and plays up the role well, and his character of Brixton is threatening enough to actually pose a threat against both of the lead characters combined. There are also some really hilarious cameos which I will not spoil, but needless to say they were hilarious to watch.

One of the things that got my hyped for the movie was director David Leitch involved, I really like the movies that he worked on, the fight scenes in those movies were particularly great. Unfortunately, the fight scenes in Hobbs and Shaw don’t really feel like those featured in John Wick, Atomic Blonde or even Deadpool 2, likely because of the PG-13 rating that he has to keep to. Nonetheless they are still quite entertaining, and possibly amongst the best in the series. As I said earlier, some of the action sequences, notably the prominent action scenes in the second and third acts. However they are still really entertaining and overblown as they should be.

If you don’t like any of the Fast and Furious movies, Hobbs and Shaw definitely won’t change your mind. It’s dumb, it makes no sense, and is absolutely ludicrous. However if you like any of the recent movies in the series, I think you’ll have some fun with it. The people who willing pay to see this movie generally know exactly what they’re going in for, and more than likely they’re going to get it. The ridiculous action scenes, as well Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham and Vanessa Kirby all make it entertaining from start to finish. I don’t have an official ranking of the Fast and Furious series but it’s more than likely one of the best entries.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle (2018) Review

Time: 104 Minutes
Cast:
Rohan Chand as Mowgli
Matthew Rhys as John Lockwood
Freida Pinto as Messua
Christian Bale as Bagheera
Benedict Cumberbatch as Shere Khan
Cate Blanchett as Kaa
Tom Hollander as Tabaqui
Andy Serkis as Baloo
Peter Mullan as Akela
Naomie Harris as Nisha
Eddie Marsan as Vihaan
Jack Reynor as Brother Wolf
Louis Ashbourne Serkis as Bhoot
Director: Andy Serkis

Human child Mowgli (Rohan Chand) is raised by a wolf pack in the jungles of India. As he learns the often harsh rules of the jungle, under the tutelage of a bear named Baloo (Andy Serkis) and a panther named Bagheera (Christian Bale), Mowgli becomes accepted by the animals of the jungle as one of their own, but the fearsome tiger Shere Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) doesn’t take a liking to him. But there may be greater dangers lurking in the jungle, as Mowgli comes face to face with his human origins.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle (originally titled Jungle Book: Origins) was one of my most anticipated movies of the year. With the direction of Andy Serkis, the involvement of actors like Christian Bale, Benedict Cumberbatch and Cate Blanchett, but most of all a darker and more accurate to the source material adaption of Jungle Book, I was curious about the movie. While not quite great, Mowgli is a solid movie that’s well worth the watch.

It’s difficult to talk about this movie without mentioning Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book, which was pretty much a direct live action adaptation of the animated movie. I will be making some comparisons between the two but I will refrain from talking about which version I prefer. Ultimately both versions are great for what they are. Although I never read the original Jungle Book stories, from what I can tell Mowgli is a much more accurate adaptation of it. The movie is much more darker and while it doesn’t necessarily creep into R territory, there are definitely some scenes that a lot of children will be scared by. That’s not to say that there aren’t some light moments, its just that you won’t see Baloo signing “Bear Necessities” or anything like that. The characters are also rather different from what you remember in the previous Jungle Book movies. For example, Baloo is a grumpy bear who lived closely with the wolves with Mowgli grows up being mentored by him instead of encountering him for the first time during the story, and Kaa isn’t really a threat to Mowgli. The events and focus of the story are a bit different as well, while Mowgli meeting other humans played a small part in the other versions, here it plays a more larger part. So for those who wonder whether it’s just the same movie with a dark filter, it’s not. The movie is an hour and 45 minutes long and from start to finish I was actually liking it quite a bit. This doesn’t necessarily make it better than Favreau’s version but I really liked the dark tone that they went with, and the darker and scarier moments feel earned and not forced at all. The one thing with the story that I didn’t like so much is that it has a very abrupt ending, just a scene or two more and it would’ve improved it much more.

First of all worth talking about when it comes to acting is the titular Mowgli, played by Rohan Chand. Much of this movie relies on him being great and he really was. He was great at the very physical scenes and he was also great at the more emotional parts of the role. There is a reasonably large talented cast involved in the motion capture as well. The cast includes Eddie Marsan, Naomie Harris, Peter Mullan, Tom Hollander and Jack Reynor who are all great. However some stood out more than others. There is Christian Bale as Bagheera, with a bit of different take on him, who’s great. Appearing in front of the camera as well as behind was Andy Serkis who plays Baloo. Again, different take on Baloo and Serkis is an expert when it comes to motion capture, so it’s no surprise that he’s great here, a real scene stealer. Benedict Cumberbatch already played a motion capture role with Smaug in the Hobbit movies and here also plays Shere Khan. Whereas Idris Elba in Favreau’s Jungle Book was an intimidating and menacing force to be reckoned with, Cumberbatch’s feels like a monster or a demon, who is made all the more threatening by his voice. I do wish that we got a little more of him though but he owns every scene that he’s in. Cate Blanchett as Kaa was great. They seemed to have taken inspiration from Favreau’s Jungle Book by having Scarlett Johansson voice Kaa instead of a male actor, and both versions actually worked well with this. However Mowgli’s version works much better for the sheer fact that we get Kaa for more than one scene. We don’t get a ton of her but she steals the scene when she appears, and Blanchett’s voice adds so much to her, giving Kaa a sort of mysterious presence.

Andy Serkis handles this movie well as director and it really looks visually stunning. Unlike the 2016 Jungle Book movie, Mowgli uses motion capture. This makes the characters appear more expressive and really enhances the performances of the actors, and as I said before the performances are great. Most of the time it is great, however there are some character designs which look bizarre and don’t work at all with some of the animals. The lighting compared to The Jungle Book from 2016 is darker but it works for the tone of the movie.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle is solid but I can understand why it was put on Netflix. It was only released a couple of years after the last Jungle Book adaptation, and also it was quite dark, which would no doubt mean that it wouldn’t have that much interest from the general audience. I personally found it to be a well made and different take on the familiar story, and is worth seeing at the very least for the visuals. No matter your thoughts on other The Jungle Book movies, I do recommend at least checking out Mowgli.

Mission Impossible 3 (2006) Review

Time: 126 Minutes
Age Rating: Medium level violence
Cast:
Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt
Philip Seymour Hoffman as Owen Davian
Ving Rhames as Luther Stickell
Billy Crudup as John Musgrave
Michelle Monaghan as Julia Meade
Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Declan Gormley
Keri Russell as Lindsey Farris
Maggie Q as Zhen Lei
Simon Pegg as Benjamin “Benji” Dunn
Eddie Marsan as Brownway
Laurence Fishburne as Theodore Brassel
Director: J.J. Abrams

Retired from active duty, and training recruits for the Impossible Mission Force, agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) faces the toughest foe of his career: Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), an international broker of arms and information, who is as cunning as he is ruthless. Davian emerges to threaten Hunt and all that he holds dear — including the woman Hunt loves.

JJ Abrams brought back the Mission Impossible series after the… rather questionable Mission Impossible 2. Mission Impossible 3 is a really good movie, and benefits from the direction by JJ Abrams. It’s a stand out in the Mission Impossible series. There are parts that don’t work as well but none of it is enough to significantly bring down the quality or enjoyment over the movie.

This movie never lets up, its like a never ending chase. It’s very difficult to be bored as the movie barely gives you a moment to breathe, and the moments that serve as breaks are the right length and don’t take away from the tension and thrills. It is apparent pretty early on that Mission Impossible 3 has an emphasis on action over espionage, but unlike Mission Impossible 2 it is actually executed well. One thing that stands out about this movie is that there are some personal stakes, which is mostly due to Ethan Hunt’s connection to his wife and how she becomes involved with the plot. That is immediately established by a very tense and effective opening scene. It also feels a lot darker compared to all the other Mission Impossible movies. The movie is about 2 hours long and it feels like the right length, the pacing is solid and allows you to stay engaged throughout the entire runtime.

Tom Cruise is as usual good in his role here. This is his best performance as Ethan Hunt to date, along with performing the action scenes and stunts excellently, he gets to show an emotional range and gets a lot of moments to shine. From this point, Ethan Hunt improved dramatically as a character in the series. Michelle Monaghan plays Ethan’s wife, and the two share some solid enough chemistry. We have Ving Rhames returning from the prior films as Luther Stickell, and is one of the stand out characters. We also get Simon Pegg’s introduction into the series as Benji, who would go on to feature more prominently in the next Mission Impossible movies. Other additions like Billy Crudup, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell, Maggie Q and Laurence Fishburne were also good, they played their parts well. Phillip Seymour Hoffman here plays one of the stand out villains in the Mission Impossible series. He is truly menacing and threatening in his scenes, making himself one of the highlights of the film. If there’s an issue with him, it’s that his character Owen Davian doesn’t really have any backstory, he really is just an evil arms dealer. The simplicity of his character and how matter of fact he is was part of why he’s so effective but it would’ve been nice to have learned some of the character. Also we really don’t get enough screentime with him, they way they conclude his character was also underwhelming. It’s Hoffman’s performance that makes this character really work.

This is the first live action film that JJ Abrams has directed, and it’s very solid for a film debut. There is a more of a handheld direction apparent here which works most of the time in MI3. Dan Mindel’s cinematography is actually rather beautiful here, the colour tones are quite different for a Mission Impossible movie and somehow something about it works. If there’s an issue with the direction, is that there are too many close ups used. Part of the reason why it’s so prominent in this movie is because Abrams likely used a lot of them in tv shows like Lost, which would typically use a lot of close ups. As seen in the Star Trek movies and The Force Awakens, he’s sort of moved away from that and improved his style so now everything is more balanced. The movie is heavily focussed on action and the action scenes themselves are really good and entertaining. A stand out is a bridge sequence about halfway into the movie.

Mission Impossible 3 is a very solid dark, gritty and intensely personal action thriller. The highlights were the personal stakes, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, the darker story and JJ Abrams’s direction. From start to finish you are on board with what’s going on and it never lets up, it’s one thrilling ride. There aren’t really a huge amount of flaws to bring the movie down, and is actually rather underrated as a movie.

Atomic Blonde (2017) Review

Time: 115 Minutes
Age Rating: Contains graphic violence, sex scenes, offensive language & nudity
Cast
Charlize Theron as Lorraine Broughton
James McAvoy as David Percival
John Goodman as Emmett Kurzfeld
Til Schweiger as The Watchmaker
Eddie Marsan as Spyglass
Sofia Boutella as Delphine Lasalle
Toby Jones as Eric Gray
Bill Skarsgård as Merkel
Director: David Leitch

Sensual and savage, Lorraine Broughton (Charlize Theron) is the most elite spy in MI6, an agent who’s willing to use all of her lethal skills to stay alive during an impossible mission. With the Berlin Wall about to fall, she travels into the heart of the city to retrieve a priceless dossier and take down a ruthless espionage ring. Once there, she teams up with an embedded station chief to navigate her way through the deadliest game of spies.

While one half of the directors of John Wick continued with the sequel, the other half (David Leitch) worked on an adaptation of a graphic novel titled The Coldest City which resulted in Atomic Blonde. With the talent of the director, as well as the talent of actors involved such as Charlize Theron and James McAvoy, how could I not be excited? And it lived up to expectations. The actors were great in their roles (particularly Theron and McAvoy), the story was interesting enough and David Leitch’s direction were all great.

Atomic Blonde’s plot isn’t anything special but it works for the movie. There is enough twists to keep you invested in what’s going on from start to finish. Whether all the twists will hold up on a second viewing remains to be seen. The plot kept me pretty interested throughout and I was consistently entertained. One last thing I want to address, I know a lot of people will go into Atomic Blonde expecting Jane Wick but don’t, Theron’s Lorraine Broughton is not like John Wick, and the world that this film is isn’t the criminal underworld from the John Wick universe. The only thing similar in both the John Wick films and Atomic Blonde is the excellent direction. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just different. No, Atomic Blonde doesn’t have the fascinating world that John Wick has, but it doesn’t need to. For what the movie that it was aiming to be, Atomic Blonde succeeded very well.

Charlize Theron absolutely owns her role as Lorraine Broughton, she’s fantastic in her action sequences and actingwise she is fantastic as well, she really does have a screen presence. She steals every scene she’s in. However another showstealer is James McAvoy, who is also great in his role as a very wild, shady and morally ambiguous character. There were times when both McAvoy and Theron were on screen and I couldn’t tell who stole the show more. McAvoy was definitely one of the highlights of the film. Other actors like Sofia Boutella, Toby Jones, John Goodman and Eddie Marsan were really good in their roles.

David Leitch’s direction naturally is great. This movie like John Wick is very stylised and was one of the highlights of the film. Unsurprising the action is great with the cinematography capturing all the action clearly, the stunts and choreography looked genuine especially from Charlize Theron and they were very entertaining overall. Probably the most standout action sequence is inside a apartment and at a stairwell later in the movie, it is brutal and unrelenting. It is also a long 7 minute unbroken take (or at least appears to be). That was the best action sequence in the film, so incredibly done. I guess maybe the only negative I can say that its not consistent as to whether the action scenes are stylistic or realistic and brutal and they feel distinctly different from each other but that’s a minor issue. The soundtrack is also really great, along with Tyler Bates’s score, there is a bunch of classic songs that play very well in the film.

Atomic Blonde is a really good action movie, the actors was good, Theron and McAvoy stole the show and it had some truly great action sequences. For those wondering, no, I wouldn’t quite consider it at the level of quality of the John Wick movies but honestly it doesn’t need to be. I actually wouldn’t mind a sequel to Atomic Blonde if it actually happens, I would love to see more of Lorrain Broughton in action. To repeat a point I said before, don’t go in expecting Female John Wick, maybe expect the similar action but that’s it, Atomic Blonde is its own thing, and I’m glad it is.

Filth (2013) Review

Time: 97 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, offensive language, sex scenes and drug use
Cast:
James McAvoy as Bruce Robertson
Jamie Bell as Ray Lennox
Eddie Marsan Clifford Blades
Imogen Poots as Amanda Drummond
Brian McCardie as Dougie Gillman
Emun Elliott as Peter Inglis
Gary Lewis as Gus Bain
John Sessions as Bob Toal
Shauna Macdonald as Carole Robertson
Jim Broadbent as Dr Rossi
Director: Jon S. Baird

Scheming Bruce Robertson (James McAvoy), a bigoted and corrupt policeman, is in line for a promotion and will stop at nothing to get what he wants. Enlisted to solve a brutal murder and threatened by the aspirations of his colleagues, including Ray Lennox (Jamie Bell), Bruce sets about ensuring their ruin, right under the nose of unwitting Chief Inspector Toal (John Sessions). As he turns his colleagues against one another by stealing their wives and exposing their secrets, Bruce starts to lose himself in a web of deceit that he can no longer control. His past is slowly catching up with him, and a missing wife, a crippling drug habit and suspicious colleagues start to take their toll on his sanity.

Based on the book of the same name by Irvine Welsh, Filth lives up to its title with flying colours. The film by itself is pretty good, but it’s the performance by James McAvoy that really makes the movie. It’s not a film for the easily offended but if you are up to it, you may find yourself really liking it.

Filth for the most part follows Bruce Robertson. There are a lot of subplots (like the murder he’s assigned and getting the promotion) but for me, the main focus is Bruce’s descent. I think in terms of how Filth is marketed, it’s kind of like how In Bruges was marketed. Both looked like at first straight up comedies, when in reality both of them have dark elements to them. The comedy starts to die down at the halfway point of the movie as Bruce’s demons start reappearing in his life. Don’t get me wrong, the comedy is good when it’s there, it’s not the best dark comedy I’ve seen but it was well done. However I most captivated by the deep story and I personally like the second half more than the first. The movie can be emotionally captivating at times and it was well put together, especially the ending which was effective and really well done.

James McAvoy here gives so far the best performance of his career. Bruce Robertson at first seems like the most unlikable character ever, he’s so corrupt that he’d make Nicolas Cage in Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans look like a boy scout. Despite this, McAvoy manages to convey many emotional moments and moments of empathy for this, at times reprehensible character. Without spoiling anything, Bruce Robertson has a lot of issues, all which are shown in the movie. So much of this movie relies on the main character, and James McAvoy managed to do really well in this. Other cast members like Jamie Bell, Jim Broadbent, Eddie Marsan and Imogen Poots are also great in their scenes and do great jobs to stand out.

The movie looks great and it is neatly edited together. A lot of the film is seen from Bruce’s perspective, so it helps that the whole movie is narrated by James McAvoy. Also, as time goes on, Bruce starts hallucinating things, sometimes he looks in a mirror and sees a pig, at one point he sees a tapeworm creature. These images I felt were surprisingly when they appeared and were well done as we see what Bruce sees. The soundtrack is also well put together, whether it be Clint Mansell’s score or other music put into it.

For first time director Jon S. Baird, Filth was pretty good. It is definitely not for everyone, its main character may turn some people off and it does have some lurid content. Even if you’re not certain whether or not to watch it, it’s worth watching it for the well put together character of Bruce Robertson and acting by James McAvoy.

The World’s End (2013)

Time: 109 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, offensive language and sexual references
Cast:
Simon Pegg as Gary King
Nick Frost as Andy Knightley
Paddy Considine as Steven Prince
Martin Freeman as Oliver Chamberlain
Eddie Marsan as Peter Page
Rosamund Pike as Sam Chamberlain
Director: Edgar Wright

20 years after attempting an epic pub crawl, five childhood friends reunite when one of them Gary King (Simon Pegg), becomes hell bent on trying the drinking marathon again and drags his reluctant pals to their home town and once again attempts to reach the fabled pub, The World’s End. As they attempt to reconcile the past and present, they realize the real struggle is for the future, not just theirs but humankind’s. Reaching The World’s End is the least of their worries as they discover that there’s something really unusual about the citizens that now inhabit the town, and as they hit each pub, another piece of the conspiracy unravels.

The Cornetto trilogy (Which consists of Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and now The World’s End) concludes with The World’s End. People who loved those two previous movies can rejoice; this movie is an excellent conclusion to this great trilogy. It gave me everything I wanted and expected (and sometimes what I didn’t expect) this movie to be. I loved every second of it and watching it for the first and second times are some of the most fun times I had watching a movie.

The writing by Edgar Wright is typically entertaining and it really added a lot to the movie. An interesting thing is that I was engaged with this movie, even before the alien invasion plot point starts coming into play. The film from the beginning has your attention and never once loses it; there is never a dull or boring moment. The films in the Cornetto trilogy are quite clever and this film has well placed moments which foreshadow plot points. The comedy as usual is well done and the timing by the actors makes those scenes even more hilarious. Edgar Wright can write a lot of great comedy but he is also outstanding at writing character development and human drama between the characters. Towards the end, there were actually some unexpected emotional bits which are a pleasant surprise. Edgar Wright also writes great dialogue between characters; all of the actors should be credited for this.

The actors also really shined in their roles. Simon Pegg stole every scene he was in; this is a character that he hasn’t really played in the other two movies and this just might be his best performance he’s given so far. Nick Frost is also excellent here and has a lot of great moments, especially with Simon Pegg. The rest of the cast which consist of Paddy Considine, Martin Freeman, Eddie Marsan and Rosamond Pike are also great in their roles here. The dialogue is delivered so well between the actors and they share great chemistry. The writing wouldn’t have come across to audiences if the actors weren’t able to deliver it to them; they do it here and succeed in their roles.

The fight scenes are filmed spectacularly; the choreography that the actors have and the way the cinematography is handled is absolute perfection. There are a lot of fight scenes but the one that stands out to me and a lot of other people is the bathroom scene, I won’t say anything more about it, except that it’s in a bathroom. These scenes are edited very fast, as most Edgar Wright movies are, and are done extremely well.

The World’s End is entertainment at its finest. When I was watching it I never wanted it to end. This movie is very fun but is also smart, and the whole trilogy is some of the most rewarding experiences you can have while watching a movie. This is one of those movies that can never get old for me. Watch it when you can, you won’t be disappointed.