Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2022) Review

Time: 124 minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Cast:
Paul Rudd as Scott Lang/Ant-Man
Evangeline Lilly as Hope van Dyne/Wasp
Jonathan Majors as Kang the Conqueror
Kathryn Newton as Cassie Lang
David Dastmalchian as Veb
Katy O’Brian as Jentorra
William Jackson Harper as Quaz
Bill Murray as Lord Krylar
Michelle Pfeiffer as Janet van Dyne
Corey Stoll as Darren Cross/M.O.D.O.K.
Michael Douglas as Hank Pym
Director: Peyton Reed

Ant-Man and the Wasp find themselves exploring the Quantum Realm, interacting with strange new creatures and embarking on an adventure that pushes them beyond the limits of what they thought was possible.

The Ant-Man movies aren’t among the best movies in the MCU by any means, but they were fun, charming, and worked as pallet cleansers following major Avengers movies. I rewatched the two movies for the first time since I saw them in cinemas, and I appreciate them a lot more now, especially compared to much of the MCU nowadays. So with that in mind, making the third Ant-Man movie the introduction of the MCU’s next major villain (named Kang) was certainly a strange decision. I had doubts that it would work, but I thought that it would end up working itself out. Turns out I was a bit too optimistic.

The first 5 minutes of Quantumania resembles the Ant-Man films with a light and comedic tone. From the moment the main characters are transported into the Quantum Realm however, everything falls apart. Gone is the familiar charm and humour, as it moves from familiar locations into a sci-fi setting. It even lacks some of the supporting characters and cast from the previous two movies, including Michael Pena, Judy Greer and Bobby Cannavale, which is a little disappointing. A lot of what made Ant-Man appealing was his operation in a normal sized world, whether he shrunk down or grew larger. Setting the movie in an already microscopic world removes the uniqueness of those abilities. Not only that, but instead of focussing on relatively smaller stakes, the film is at an Avengers level scale with higher consequences. If Quantumania is meant to be a trilogy ender, then it’s a terrible note to end on. So as that, it’s very disappointing. However, even on its own, it is a very generic sci-fi movie. The familiar plot involves a revolution against a dictator (Kang) and it’s just so hard to care about anything that’s going on. There is barely any development to any of the characters, and not much for Ant-Man or The Wasp to actually do. Honestly, they could’ve swapped Ant-Man out for any Avengers character, and it would’ve worked the same. Much of the movie feels dull and on autopilot. I tolerated the first two acts because of the mystery it was building, but I would struggle to get through it a second time since it’s a whole lot of nothing. Most of it consists of people moving from place to place with a lot of exposition dumped about the Quantum Realm or Kang, and then occasionally something somewhat exciting happens. The third act did have a somewhat entertaining climax, at least in contrast to the aimless first two acts. Even the Quantum Realm is a very dull and standard sci-fi setting. Much of it plays like a bad Star Wars knock off. The creatures and ships are weird, but in a half-hearted way, as if the visuals and the writing were generated by an AI. It has some humour, but it’s less like the comedy in the Ant-Man films and is more of the obligatory Marvel humour in most of their movies nowadays, which misses more than it hits. For what its worth though, it doesn’t drop to the level of the humour in Thor: Love and Thunder. Quantumania is essentially a 2 hour trailer for what’s to come with the Kang era. The “setup for the next movie” criticism can apply to many of the past MCU movies, Iron Man 2 being an example. The difference is that you can still find an actual story and movie in that, and you feel that things are at least moving. Quantumania however feels hollow, not much of consequence happens, and not much of significance happens with these characters. And while it aims to get audiences interested in what’s to come, I don’t think it really succeeded.

Paul Rudd once again plays Scott Lang/Ant-Man and as always, he’s effortlessly charming and delivers in his scenes, whether it be with the comedy or the drama. As I said earlier though, it feels like there’s not much for his character to do. Despite being a third of the title, ironically The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) doesn’t play that significant of a part, and doesn’t leave any impression on the movie. Kathryn Newton plays Scott Lang’s now grown-up daughter Cassie, and I don’t think she was very good. That being said, the writing given to her was terrible. The dynamic between Cassie and Scott looked like it was going to be a major part of the movie, but this arc is sorely underdeveloped that you could practically miss it. It doesn’t help that Newton and Rudd have virtually no chemistry. Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer reprise their roles as Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne, and they are mostly just fine. Pfeiffer at the very least had a much bigger role in this movie compared to the last, and does handle her part well. Douglas however seems like he doesn’t want to be in these movies anymore. Bill Murray is in the movie for a bit, but he leaves so little of an impression that they really could’ve hired anyone for the role.

So much of the movie is hyping up the main villain and next major antagonist of the MCU, Kang. To be fair, actor Jonathan Majors is doing some heavy lifting and makes the character better than it was written. The movie picks up somewhat whenever he’s on screen. It’s just as well that they got an actor on his calibre considering that Kang’s first appearance (outside of the Loki show) wasn’t the greatest. Quantumania’s idea of building up Kang comes from people talking about all the things he’s done, despite himself not actually doing anything significant in the movie. Contrast this with Thanos; multiple films had characters talking about the things he’s done and how dangerous he is, and then when he finally served as a central villain of a film, he killed significant MCU characters and erased half of the universe. I can assure you that nothing of the sort happens in this movie with Kang. It really doesn’t help that they keep him hidden for much of the movie, with characters referring to him as “him” or “the conqueror”. While I get that they wanted to build suspense, his character ended up being really underdeveloped and with unclear and generic motives. Any depth that was given to the character was provided by Majors. As for how they convey how dangerous Kang is, any possible threatening factor he has is nullified by the fact that his first opponent in the movies is Ant-Man, and he isn’t able to instantly kill him without a second thought. Honestly, he made a much bigger impression in the Loki Season 1 finale. There’s another villain worth mentioning, Kang’s henchman in the form of MODOK, who’s pretty much a guy with a giant head and a small body. He’s a ridiculous character in the comics and so a ridiculous character here, and they really lean into the silliness and comedy. The writing isn’t really that funny, so it’s just as well that actor Corey Stoll performs it in such a way that it is funny. For what it’s worth, the movie does actually pick up a little whenever he’s on screen.

Peyton Reed returns to direct the third Ant-Man movie. While I liked his work in the previous two films, his work in Quantumania is severely disappointing. His direction worked for the smaller stakes and identifiable setting, but it didn’t work so well for a sci-fi epic. The action is fine but very generic and basic. Quantumania very likely tops Thor: Love and Thunder as the worst looking MCU movie. The visuals are beyond terrible, so much of it looks fake, and there are multiple points where it straight up looks like Sharkboy and Lavagirl (which came out nearly a couple decades ago). I lost track of the number of times actors would be standing in front of blatantly obvious greenscreen, with nothing in the scene looking real. Even Ant-Man’s ability to shrink and grow isn’t that special this time around. As I said, making Ant-Man grow large to the size of a building or shrink down to the size of an ant worked in his previous appearances, because there’s identifiable scale. When it happens in the Quantum Realm, it just doesn’t have the same effect. The creatures and alien designs are certainly strange, but almost ripped from aliens in other sci-fi movies. And if that’s not enough, there’s also the look of MODOK, which is quickly one of the biggest jokes from those who have seen the movie. I get that he’s supposed to look weird like he does in the comics. However, instead of coming across as creepy or gross, in Quantumania he just looks like a guy who just can’t get enough of a wide angle lens snapchat filter, or a villain in a rejected straight to dvd sequel to Sharkboy and Lavagirl. However, I’m not going to harp on MODOK’s design too much despite how hilarious of a misfire it is, because it did provide some unintentional entertainment.

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania is yet another low point for the MCU. A product that is lacklustre, dull and generic with terrible visuals, and was mostly a slog to get through.  It sacrificed the fun and charm of the previous Ant-Man movies for a bad sci-fi flick to set up future films in the MCU, and it didn’t even succeed at that. There are some enjoyable moments, some of the action is entertaining enough, and the performances from Paul Rudd, Jonathan Majors and to a degree Corey Stoll elevated the experience somewhat. Overall though, it’s at least in the top 2 worst movies from the MCU alongside Thor: Love and Thunder. That being said, despite being a worse movie, at least Love and Thunder wasn’t trying to be “The Beginning of a New Dynasty” as Ant-Man 3 so boldly claimed it would be. While I liked most of its movies, Phase 4 was a meandering mess for the MCU, and Quantumania was meant to kick off Phase 5 with a bang. Alas, it looks to be even worse.

Advertisement

Stardust (2007) Review

Time: 127 Minutes
Age Rating: contains frightening fanstasy scenes & violence
Cast:
Claire Danes as Yvaine
Charlie Cox as Tristan Thorn
Michelle Pfeiffer as Lamia
Mark Strong as Prince Septimus
Robert De Niro as Captain Shakespeare of the Caspartine
Jason Flemyng as Prince Primus
Rupert Everett as Prince Secundus
Kate Magowan as Princess Una
Ricky Gervais as Ferdiland “Ferdy” the Fence
Sienna Miller as Victoria Forester
Peter O’Toole as the dying King of Stormhold
Director: Matthew Vaughn

To win the heart of his beloved (Sienna Miller), a young man named Tristan (Charlie Cox) ventures into the realm of fairies to retrieve a fallen star. What Tristan finds, however, is not a chunk of space rock, but a woman (Claire Danes) named Yvaine. Yvaine is in great danger, for the king’s sons need her powers to secure the throne, and an evil witch (Michelle Pfeiffer) wants to use her to achieve eternal youth and beauty.

Stardust was the only Matthew Vaughn movie I hadn’t watched in it’s entirety yet, I’m pretty sure that I saw parts of this movie a while ago since moments of it look familiar. Going into it, I really didn’t know what to expect. A fantasy based movie is not something that I could see Vaughn of all directors do. However, this movie was quite surprising and much better than I thought it would be, I had a good time with it.

Stardust is based on the graphic novel of the same name by Neil Gaiman, throughout it’s a purely fantasy movie and really leans into that. Much of the movie is cheesy but in a good way, you can really have fun with the movie. You really can’t take this movie too seriously, and thankfully it doesn’t take itself seriously either. It has a bunch of fantasy adventure clichés and does very little to subvert them, so this isn’t necessarily something that you’ve never seen before. It’s also fairly predictable, you can generally see which direction the movie is moving towards. As a light, silly adventure fantasy movie however, I had a blast with it.

This movie has such a surprisingly large cast, young Henry Cavill and Ben Barnes appear in minor roles and even the legendary Peter O’Toole shows up for a brief appearance. On the whole the cast did very well. Claire Danes and Charlie Cox are the leads and they really worked. The interactions between the two characters were pretty typical of fantasy romances but Danes and Cox still had some good chemistry together. Michelle Pfeiffer is I guess the primary villain of the movie as one of a trio of witches looking to get Claire Danes. Pfeiffer really hams up her role at just the right level, and it really works for this movie. Mark Strong has played multiple villains and he also plays a villainous sort of character here, however there’s something about him here that’s just so entertaining to watch, he’s definitely having fun here. The MVP however was Robert De Niro who shows up in a supporting but memorable part here, definitely the standout from the whole cast. Other supporting players like Sienna Miller also play their roles well. Honestly the only one that didn’t really work was Ricky Gervais who appears briefly and even in that short time was really out of place.

This doesn’t actually feel like a Matthew Vaughn film and I don’t mean that in a bad way. He’s actually handled this movie very well. As I said with the writing and story, this movie really leans into the fantasy aspect and it’s done very well, the production design and costumes are on point. At times the visuals can look a little dated but you can look past it, because most of them are really nice to look at, even a decade later.

Matthew Vaughn’s take on a fantasy movie with Stardust was way better than I thought it would be. Even the cheese and the over the top elements were entertaining, it knew what it was, and the cast were really good here. There are for sure better fantasy movies and it’s by no means a classic, however I just really had a lot of fun with this movie. It’s worth a watch at least.

The Age of Innocence (1993) Review

Time: 139 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Daniel Day-Lewis as Newland Archer
Michelle Pfeiffer as Ellen Olenska
Winona Ryder as May Welland
Director: Martin Scorsese

Newland Archer (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a lawyer who is happily engaged to May (Winona Ryder). His life however turns upside down when he meets and falls in love with May’s scandalous cousin, Ellen (Michelle Pfeiffer).

I’d been meaning to watch The Age of Innocence for some time, it seemed like it would be something interesting. Sure, it had Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder, but what was interesting to me was Martin Scorsese directing this, a period piece of all things. Not to slam period pieces, and he has occasionally tried different things (New York, New York and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore for instance) but I didn’t know what to expect from him with this. I actually liked it a lot more than I thought, and it really deserves a lot more love than its been receiving.

The Age of Innocence quite a long movie at under 2 hours and 20 minutes, I will admit that I started off watching the movie not really fully invested but it grew on me as it progressed. I think part of my initial problem was the fact that a bunch of information is being thrown at you through narration early on and there’s a lot that you have to know, but after everything was established and set up, I was on board with the movie through to the end. The screenplay from both Martin Scorsese and Jay Cocks was really great, you wouldn’t normally think of Scorsese as the right person to take on a story about an upper class affair scandal period piece drama, but he actually fits in very well. The Age of Innocence remains one of his most effectively passionate and emotional films, he’s actually called this his most violent movie, and even though there isn’t a drop of blood, he’s correct. As someone who doesn’t usually watch period pieces (not that I dislike them or anything), I was quite invested in what went on. The ending is also perfect for the film, couldn’t think of a better way to end it.

The talented cast did very well in their roles. Daniel Day-Lewis is really good as per usual, I wouldn’t consider this to be one of his all time best performances, but he’s nonetheless great. Michelle Pfeiffer gives one of the best performances of her career, and Winona Ryder also gives a great and complex performance. There are also some minor supporting performances from the likes of Richard E. Grant and Jonathan Pryce, who don’t leave as strong of an impression but are good enough in their brief roles.

Martin Scorsese did a very good at adapting his directional style to one that works for a period piece, and his work here is once again nothing less than fantastic. It’s a stunning movie, very well shot and edited. Scorsese really captured the time period excellently, and showed off the great production designs, locations and the costumes well. If there’s one aspect of the direction I wasn’t loving, it was all the narration. As time went on, I grew into it, but I remember being put off early on when there was a bunch of exposition and explaining done over voice over. A lot of it was explaining all the characters and while I get that it’s partly necessary with so many characters, it went a little overboard. After everything was established though, I thought the narration was used at the right level.

The Age of Innocence might not be among my favourite of Scorsese’s films, but there’s a lot here to be loved. His direction was outstanding, after the first 30 minutes or so I was invested in this story and the lead characters well enough, and the performances (mainly from Day-Lewis, Pfeiffer and Ryder) are all really great. I’d strongly recommend at least giving it a chance. The more I think about The Age of Innocence, the more I think I’m going to love it the next time I watch it again.

Ant Man and the Wasp (2018) Review

Time: 118 Minutes
Age Rating: Contains violence & coarse language
Cast:
Paul Rudd as Scott Lang/Ant-Man
Evangeline Lilly as Hope van Dyne/Wasp
Michael Peña as Luis
Walton Goggins as Sonny Burch
Bobby Cannavale as Jim Paxton
Judy Greer as Maggie
Tip “T.I.” Harris as Dave
David Dastmalchian as Kurt
Hannah John-Kamen as Ava Starr/Ghost
Abby Ryder Fortson as Cassie
Randall Park as Jimmy Woo
Michelle Pfeiffer as Janet van Dyne
Laurence Fishburne as Bill Foster
Michael Douglas as Hank Pym
Director: Peyton Reed

Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is grappling with the consequences of his choices as both a superhero and a father. Approached by Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), Lang must once again don the Ant-Man suit and fight alongside the Wasp. The urgent mission soon leads to secret revelations from the past as the dynamic duo finds itself in an epic battle against a powerful new enemy.

I was somewhat interested in Ant Man and the Wasp. I have to admit I wasn’t super hyped for the movie. Don’t get me wrong, I actually liked the first Ant Man, it was a simple but effective enough comic book movie that was quite entertaining. However with it being released after the juggernaut and emotional chapter that was Infinity War, Ant Man and the Wasp just felt a little off to release months after. Also I had a feeling that the sequel would just be more of the same, fun but nothing really that new. Nonetheless I was interested. Ant Man and the Wasp surprisingly worked very well for what it is, which is a fun and entertaining comedy.

Something that is quite apparent is that this movie is very focussed on being funny and entertaining. It’s like Marvel wanted a lighter movie following Infinity War, that could possibly affect your thoughts on Ant Man and the Wasp, for better or for worse. A problem which could happen with some MCU films is that while the comedy works, often times it would interrupt some more dramatic or emotional scenes. However with Ant Man and the Wasp, there aren’t a ton of emotional scenes, the most is related to Scott Lang and his daughter and Hope van Dyne and Hank Pym with Pym’s wife (played by Michelle Pfeiffer). So there really weren’t many emotional scenes to ruin with comedy. This movie might as well be called a straight up comedy and while I would’ve preferred some more emotional depth to the movie, it does well at what it sets out to do. A criticism of the movie is that it doesn’t have great consequences or stakes, like with the first movie the stake here are very small and personal and I’m completely fine with that. Even so, you don’t ever feel a sense of urgency, you felt it slightly more in the first movie but here you always just know that everything is going to be alright. It’s also rather predictable, with very rare surprises. Really the biggest spoiler of the movie is the credit scenes, you can’t really spoil most of the movie. It’s a rather straightforward superhero movie that doesn’t really do anything particularly surprising, it’s goal was for it to be fun and hilarious and it achieved that. The movie is about 2 hours long and from start to finish I was quite entertained. There are a couple credits scenes, the first is about something that everyone will want to watch following Infinity War, the second is okay but not necessary to watch.

Paul Rudd is once again great as Scott Lang/Ant Man, he’s just so likable and funny, and a real underdog character. It’s very easy to root for him, Rudd’s casting was perfect. It’s been a few years since I’ve watched the first Ant Man for the first time, but I remember him being a little less goofy in the original movie. While he’s not completely stupid or anything, they do put him in more goofy scenarios or make him do some somewhat goofy things, it’s like they were doing that to try to make Evangeline Lilly’s character of The Wasp stand out more in comparison, which wasn’t necessary as she would’ve done that perfectly fine on her own. Lilly as the Wasp is one of the standouts of the movie, she gets to do a lot here and the movie definitely utilises her well. I didn’t buy the sorta romance between her and Scott in the first movie and the same is here. It’s not constantly done again and again to the point of annoyance but it can be distracting at times and doesn’t really work. Michael Douglas is once again great as Hank Pym, perfect casting, here he gets to do even more than in the original movie. Michael Pena like in the first movie is very funny and has some great scenes. Other actors like Laurence Fishburne do their part. The villains often have a chance of being one of the weaker parts in MCU movies (or comic book movies in general), however with Black Panther and Infinity War earlier this year providing great comic book villains in Killmonger and Thanos, the MCU seemed to be making some progress in regards to them. The main villain in Ant Man and the Wasp is Hannah John-Kamen as the character of Ghost, who has unique phasing abilities which can lead to some entertaining action scenes. Also she does have a different backstory and credit from other MCU villains, you can really understand why she does the things she does here. For once the whole “this comic book movie villain isn’t really a villain” description actually applies, it could be argued that Ghost is more just an antagonist than a villain. It seems that all the main MCU villains this year have in common is that they all have strong and defined motivations. Ghost unfortunately isn’t a top tier level villain in the MCU but she’s a reasonably strong second tier villain. The biggest problem is that aside from her powers, the backstory, motivation and the performance, there isn’t enough of her as a character. She has just about enough screentime but it would’ve been a little better if they showed a little more to the character. With that said, the character was actually done well, with her arc being treated well, consistent throughout and not just being a throwaway villain. Also Hannah does do a great job in her role. She fared much better than Walton Goggins, who served to be as a leader of generic disposable henchmen. Goggins really is wasted here as a generic villain. He and his henchmen seem to only be in this movie because the movie needed a large amount of villainous characters that the main characters can fight because the main villain herself didn’t have any. Honestly if they were somehow connected to Ghost, maybe they could’ve worked in some way.

Peyton Reed turns from the first movie to direct Ant Man and the Wasp. The thing that really stood out about the first Ant Man was the unique action scenes that included resizing (mostly shrinking). The sequel really leaned into that more and they got very creative with the action scenes. Other visual aspects such as Ghost’s phasing ability are done pretty well. The visuals can look pretty stunning at times, especially when it comes to the Quantum Realm, which plays a part in this movie. On a side note, like in the first movie there is a flashback scene which utilises de-aging technology and once again it works effectively.

Ant Man and the Wasp is not anywhere near the top tier of Marvel but it is quite entertaining. The cast do well in their roles, it’s visually stunning with some entertaining action scenes and the movie is so fun. It does have its fair share of issues but it achieves what it sets out to do for the most part. If you really liked the first Ant Man, I’m pretty sure that you’ll have a good time with Ant Man and the Wasp.

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) Review

Time: 114 Minutes
Age Rating: Adult Themes
Cast
Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot
Tom Bateman as Bouc
Penélope Cruz as Pilar Estravados
Willem Dafoe as Gerhard
Judi Dench as Princess Dragomiroff
Johnny Depp as Samuel Ratchett
Josh Gad as Hector MacQueen
Derek Jacobi as Edward Henry Masterman
Leslie Odom Jr. as Dr. Arbuthnot
Michelle Pfeiffer as Caroline Hubbard
Daisy Ridley as Mary Debenham
Marwan Kenzari as Pierre Michel
Olivia Colman as Hildegarde Schmidt
Director: Kenneth Branagh

A lavish trip through Europe quickly unfolds into a race against time to solve a murder aboard a train. Everyone’s a suspect when Detective Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) arrives to interrogate all passengers and search for clues before the killer can strike again.

I was curious about Murder on the Orient Express, I had never read the original book or watched any adaptations. It was the cast and crew involved that had me interested, especially with Kenneth Branagh directing and starring. As someone who hasn’t seen any version of the story beforehand, I ended up thoroughly enjoyed Branagh’s Murder on the Orient Express. The performances (particularly from Kenneth Branagh) and the direction really make this movie. It does have some issues (particularly with its characters) but its good elements far outweigh the weaker elements overall.

I can’t comment on any similarities and differences between this and the original book or other adaptations, so I’ll just treat it as its own thing. It’s not a flashy typical Hollywood whodunit, it is slower paced and feels restrained. I can see a lot of people getting bored of this movie so if you’re going to see it just know that it is very slow paced. The pacing didn’t bother me personally, it felt just right. I was quite intrigued throughout the whole movie, my attention didn’t waver once. This movie has a surprisingly amount of effective humour, especially from Branagh’s Poirot. One issue that I had is that there is so much going on that at times it is hard to follow. At the end, even though I understood most of what happened, I had to look up the plot to clarify certain things. You have to be paying close attention or you could miss details, I know because I was paying attention and I didn’t pick up all of it. The second problem and probably the biggest problem is the handling of the supporting characters. The supporting characters aren’t developed or fleshed out that well. You might be able to remember some aspect about them (like in terms of the actor or the character’s job) but that’s about it. So when names are being thrown all about by Poirot as he theorises what happened, it’s a little jarring and at times hard to follow what’s going on. Its hard to remember these supporting characters, I can barely remember any of the supporting characters’ names, save for a couple.

This movie has a lot of A list actors but the true star of this movie is Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot. He is a little over the top but it works, Hercule is a quirky and likable character and its basically worth watching the movie for this performance alone. Also he manages to sell that over the top handlebar moustache. We have a large and talented supporting cast with Willem Dafoe, Daisy Ridley, Judi Dench, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer, Olivia Colman, Penelope Cruz, Leslie Odom Jr., Johnny Depp and others. For many of those who have had long careers like Judi Dench and Willem Dafoe, their performances here aren’t going to rank up as one of their best but they play their part well, in fact everyone plays their parts rather well. A stand out to me was Josh Gad, who surprised me, he’s usually known for comedic roles in movies like Frozen and Beauty and the Beast. But here he proves that he is really good in a dramatic role. Even Johnny Depp was good, granted his performance was one of the weaker performances and he doesn’t have a massive amount of screentime. As I said, the actors played their roles well, it’s just that the characters really weren’t that fleshed out that well aside from Hercule. I have no issues about the acting however.

Kenneth Branagh directs the film very well. The cinematography is truly great, it’s beautiful looking. The long takes also help show just how big of scale everything is. It makes use of its locations very well. The editing also was top notch and worked well, especially in the scenes where Poirot is piecing together what happened.

I’m not sure how much you’ll like 2017 Murder on the Orient Express. I think you will at the very least appreciate and enjoy Kenneth Branagh’s performance and his direction. Personally, I really liked it, with the acting (especially from Kenneth Branagh) and the direction and the plot which is mostly done well. There are some aspects that didn’t quite work in terms of some of the characters but for the most part this movie does everything right. Branagh has mentioned that he was interested in doing more films with the character of Poirot and I am completely on board for that. I’d love to see him make a return.

Mother! (2017) Review

Time: 121 Minutes
Age Rating: Contains violence, horror, cruelty, offensive language & content that may disturb
Cast
Jennifer Lawrence as Mother
Javier Bardem as Him
Ed Harris as Man
Michelle Pfeiffer as Woman
Domhnall Gleeson as Oldest Son
Brian Gleeson as Younger Brother
Director: Darren Aronofsky

A couple’s relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence.

Mother was gaining my attention with every passing day. It is directed by Darren Aronofsky and stars talented people like Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer, so it definitely had a lot of potential. My interest levels only increased when I heard the response to this movie, that being incredibly divisive and polarising. People either loved it or hated it. As for me when I finally saw it… I kinda loved it. With that said, I can perfectly understand the people who really dislike it. Calling Mother ‘not for everyone’ would be an understatement.

First thing I want to get this out of the way, don’t watch the trailer. The trailer makes Mother look like a straight up horror movie, but the actual movie is nothing like the trailer. It’s a little difficult to describe what kind of movie it is. I can’t even pin it down to one genre, I guess perhaps horror but even then it doesn’t go to that level until the third act. I can’t really go into detail about my interpretation about the story because that would be spoiling things, so I’ll just have to be vague when describing it. All I can say is that there is some religious/biblical allergories that Aronofsky put into the movie, and if you don’t pick up any of them, you will be completely lost. The pacing was slow but I never felt bored, I was always intrigued as to what was going on and trying to figure out what this movie is actually all about. However if you aren’t invested in what is going on (or aren’t able to pick up anything that Aronofsky might be going for), this is going to be a very long drag for you. As I previously said, this movie is very allegorical and metaphorical, it’s not a good idea to go in expecting a conventional story. The third act is where it goes into absolute insanity, by this point, you’d probably realise that this isn’t a conventional story. I’m not going to act like I understood everything, a lot of it I did and I thought it was notably done by Aronofksy. There are some hidden meanings and unresolved aspects that I’m still not certain about, especially the ending. I have a feeling that more rewatches will clarify what this movie is about (though to be honest its going to be one of those sparingly done rewatches). Fun fact, Darren Aronofsky wrote this screenplay in 5 days and it kinda shows. This movie does seem more Aronofksy wanting to deliver a message than an normal movie and while its not necessarily a bad thing, but I can see how this can annoy some viewers.

There’s not really much to say in terms of characters as they seem to be more representative of ideas, and I can’t go into my thoughts on that because that would of course be in spoiler territory. But I can say that the acting across the board is great. This is one of Jennifer Lawrence’s best performances, we really see the movie from her perspective and we relate to her because they are having the same reaction as the audience, completely and utterly confused at what’s going on. She has to deal with a lot of things and Lawrence delivered that greatly. Javier Bardem is also great, as usual he’s a significant screen presence and for what I think he represents, we was perfect for it. The supporting cast we don’t see a whole lot of, but they do great to make themselves memorable. Ed Harris is good, showing a vulnerable side to him that we don’t usually see from his performances. Michelle Pfeiffer is also fantastic, stealing the scenes that she’s in. The Gleeson brothers (Domhnall and Brian) also show up briefly and despite their short appearances managed to do so much with their performances.

Darren Aronofsky’s direction was a bit interesting. The camera most of the time follows and focuses on Jennifer Lawrence, whether that be up close on her face or over her shoulder. While I get why this was done as it helps highlight how she feels as the movie progresses, at times it can be a little annoying and overused. It does help convey a feeling of claustrophobia however, which helps with the uncomfortableness factor that Darren Aronofsky was going for. Apparently the soundtrack is done by Jóhann Jóhannsson but it honestly doesn’t sound like there was a soundtrack. The sound design however was done very well. Aronofsky also does well to convey a sense of uneasiness, even in just the first two acts, you know that something is not right but you don’t know what it is. As for the disturbing levels of this movie, most of it actually happens in the last act and while most of it is appropriate for the story, there is one moment, really one shot that felt completely unnecessary. They really didn’t need to show that and it felt like it was used for shock value rather than having any form of meaning, which the film for the most part seemed to do. It doesn’t ruin the movie but it does stand out in a very bad way.

I can’t guarantee that you’ll like Mother, it is an unusual and bizarre movie, unconventional in both story and direction, I can’t recommend it to everyone. I don’t blame you if you downright hate it. If you don’t like unconventional movies, stories which are allegorical, I actually think you shouldn’t watch it, because its unlikely that you’ll like it to be honest. Even if you’re fine with those movies I can’t guarantee that you’ll like it. You’ll just have to see for yourself, if you are willing to take the risk. It seems like you’ll either love it or hate it. For me though, it only gets better the more I think about it. Everything from the performances to the unique story is so great and special. This is to me is one of the best films of the year. This is one thing I can say, this is a movie that people will be talking about for a long, long time.

Batman Returns (1992) Review

Time: 137 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Cast:
Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne / Batman
Danny DeVito as Oswald Cobblepot / Penguin
Michelle Pfeiffer as Selina Kyle / Catwoman
Christopher Walken as Max Shreck
Michael Murphy as Mayor of Gotham City

After successfully defeating the Joker, the Dark Knight, known as Batman (Michael Keaton) helps to keep Gotham City a safe place. Beneath the city in the sewers, another villain emerges. Known as the Penguin (Danny DeVito), he joins up with Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) and targets the position of new mayor. Whilst Batman tries to uncover the truth behind the Penguin, the Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) also emerges with her own agenda in mind, but not without mixed feelings.

In 1989 Tim Burton created one of the most iconic superhero movies, Batman. It changed the ways comic book movies could be made. After the success of Batman, Burton makes his return with his own personal style added to this film. Some people are split about this movie, I’m personally one of the people who likes this movie. It does have some problems but nothing to overshadow the overall experience.

After Batman, Warner Bros gave Tim Burton the freedom to do whatever he wanted with the franchise and it definitely shows here. With the previous Batman, you are able to watch it without picking up that Tim Burton directed it but Batman Returns has Burton stamped all over it. The city does not feel like Gotham, it’s like a whole different city, a much darker city (if that’s possible) with even more gothic feelings. With this really being his movie, this film is of course much darker. The Penguin is an interesting addition to the film, the way he is isn’t quite like how it was in the previous stories and I thought that really worked. The film also shows how Selina gradually becomes Catwoman and I did like how it is shown. The only problem I had is that I don’t know how she becomes Catwoman. It’s not really a spoiler in me saying this, she falls quite a distance out the window and cats somehow bring her back to life. Despite this minor hole (and others) I thought that the film handled Catwoman and Penguin quite well.

Michael Keaton once again is good as Bruce Wayne and Batman. Like the previous film, it doesn’t really focus as much on Bruce Wayne but more on the villains. Danny DeVito is great as the Penguin. Now this Penguin really isn’t quite the character from the comics but more like how Burton would interpret him. I would’ve preferred The Penguin was portrayed in a different way but his interpretation was done well. Danny Devito really sold the slimy and unpleasant nature of the Penguin. Michelle Pfieffer is excellent as Catwoman. As I previously stated this film shows her descent into madness and it is somehow plausible, and a lot of that has to do with her performance. Christopher Walken is also pretty good in a supporting role. The acting by some people can be over the top, in a Tim Burton sort of way, though it wasn’t really too much of a problem.

The action scenes are as good as ever. The costumes are well designed, from Batman, to the Penguin and Catwoman. Even though this city feels more Burtontopia than Gotham, it was well designed for what he was going for. Danny Elfman’s score is once again good, even though like a lot of this movie, it feels more like a Tim Burton soundtrack than a Batman soundtrack.

Batman Returns is definitely a divisive movie but I thought that it was overall a decent movie and I almost like it as much as its previous movie. It is definitely more of a Tim Burton movie than the previous film but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think that if you haven’t seen it already, Batman Returns is definitely worth checking out.