Eye in the Sky (2016) Review

Time: 102 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence and Offensive Language.
Cast:
Helen Mirren as Katherine Powell
Aaron Paul as Steve Watts
Alan Rickman as Frank Benson
Barkhad Abdi as Jama Farah
Jeremy Northam as Brian Woodale
Iain Glen as James Willett
Director: Gavin Hood

EYE IN THE SKY stars Helen Mirren as Colonel Katherine Powell, a UK-based military officer in command of a top secret drone operation to capture terrorists in Kenya. Through remote surveillance and on-the-ground intel, Powell discovers the targets are planning a suicide bombing and the mission escalates from “capture” to “kill.” But as American pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) is about to engage, a nine-year old girl enters the kill zone triggering an international dispute, reaching the highest levels of US and British government, over the moral, political, and personal implications of modern warfare.

Eye in the Sky is a movie that I was interested in ever since I heard about it, because of the talented cast and the premise, which sounded quite interesting to me. Unfortunately not enough people went to see this movie in the cinemas, I myself only saw it when it was released on DVD. After seeing it, I wished I saw it earlier. Eye in the Sky is a very solid tense and thrilling movie. The acting was great from its talented cast and the film jut overall was directed well. It’s not very special, but it is well worth a watch.

This film is very effective at making things tense. Something that I really liked about this movie is that there are also a lot of moral dilemmas that these characters are experiencing. Also this movie doesn’t really take a side as to what the right decision is, it lets the audience think about it themselves, which is so much more effective. Even the ending doesn’t give a definitive answer as to what the right decision was. You should probably know before watching Eye in the Sky that this is not really an action movie, there’s like only one scene of action, but that’s it. Go into this movie expecting a tense thriller with moral and ethical dilemmas instead of an explosive action blockbuster film.

The cast for Eye in the Sky is really talented with Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Barkhad Abdi, Alan Rickman (in his final film appearance, he was particularly great in this movie) and other actors part of the cast. All of these actors are truly great in their roles and they get to have great moments in the film. All these actors really embodied the viewpoints and stances that their characters have on their situation. The characters felt like real people and the actors helped convey that and a key part in that happening.

Eye in the Sky is shot and directed pretty well overall. As I mentioned earlier, there aren’t many action scenes in this movie but the few action scenes that are actually there are directed very well. The film is quite tense and thrilling and part of the contributing factor was how this film was directed. Even the conversations between people were made to feel quite intense, the tension never stops.

Eye in the Sky is a very tense and overall effective thriller that really works well at keeping the audience’s attention. The solid direction, and the great acting from the very talented cast was great and all combined to make an overall good movie. The film isn’t anything hugely monumental or special but it’s still quite a good and riveting thriller, that I personally enjoyed watching. Definitely check out Eye in the Sky when you get a chance. It’s an underappreciated and overlooked movie that needs more attention.

Advertisement

The Nice Guys (2016) Review

Time: 116 Minutes
Age Rating: Contains Violence, Nudity, Sex Scenes & Offensive Language
Cast:
Russell Crowe as Jackson Healy
Ryan Gosling as Holland March
Angourie Rice as Holly March
Matt Bomer as John Boy
Margaret Qualley as Amelia Kutner
Murielle Telio as Misty Mountains
Keith David as Older Guy
Kim Basinger as Judith Kutner
Director: Shane Black

Holland March (Ryan Gosling) is a down-on-his-luck private eye in 1977 Los Angeles. Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe) is a hired enforcer who hurts people for a living. Fate turns them into unlikely partners after a young woman named Amelia (Margaret Qualley) mysteriously disappears. Healy and March soon learn the hard way that some dangerous people are also looking for Amelia. Their investigation takes them to dark places as anyone else who gets involved in the case seems to wind up dead.

Score after first viewing:

Score after second viewing:

The main reason that I was interested in this movie was the people involved, that being Ryan Gosling, Russell Crowe and director Shane Black. Shane Black is a very talented director, who created the underrated Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and of course, Gosling and Crowe are very great actors. Having seen it now, I am so happy to say that The Nice Guys is one of my favourite films of the year so far. The great direction, entertaining and committed acting (particularly from Crowe and Gosling) is topped off by a fantastic screenplay, making this a must see film.

Shane Black is an incredible writer and director, so it’s no surprise that the script for The Nice Guys is absolutely fantastic. And as you probably could tell by now, this movie is hilarious, all the jokes hit, and they hit hard. In retrospect it’s a dark comedy and the tone need to be balanced out well and it really was. The dialogue is on point, well suited for every character. The mystery is actually intriguing as well, so it’s not just a fun and entertaining watch, it’s interesting to watch these characters unravel the mystery.

Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe are the main stars of the movie and are absolutely fantastic. It would be so easy for the dynamic between them to be similar to other buddy cop movies, where two guys who are vastly different, who don’t like each other are for whatever reason paired together. These characters aren’t complete opposites of each other (they are just a little different from each other), they work together well, both are clearly capable at what they do, and so the characters aren’t clichéd and the movie doesn’t follow some of the clichés that a lot of similar movies do. Somehow most the other characters are also memorable. The biggest showstealer for me however was Angourie Rice, who plays Ryan Gosling’s daughter, she was absolutely fantastic. Her character is the smart kid who’s often trying to help the main leads and even though this character is done hundreds of times before, it’s not written in a clichéd way and she sells this character as being quite capable.

The action was surprisingly great, very appropriately filmed as if it was in the 70s. The cinematography was quite great and beautiful. The production design was ripped straight out of the 70s, the time period is very easy to buy. This film really feels like it could’ve been filmed in the 70s, just with better film stock. I have no idea if that was Black’s intention, but if it was, major props to him.

The Nice Guys is one of the best movies I’ve seen in 2016. Everything from the script, to the direction and the acting (especially from Crowe and Gosling) is done perfectly. I definitely recommend that you see this movie, especially if you have a love of film, it’s entertaining, it’s smartly written, it’s absolutely fantastic.

The Liebster Award

Thanks to justmyrating for the nomination!

RULES
•Thank the person who nominated you and link their blog.
•Answer the questions given by the nominator.
•Nominate 11 other bloggers who have less than 200 followers, and link them.
•Notify all the bloggers you nominate.
•Create 11 new questions for your nominees to answer.

MY ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS

1. What is your absolute favourite film of all time?
Casino is my favourite film. Despite it being 3 hours long, it interested me from start to finish. Casino was a movie that absolutely changed everything for me, it was the point where I no longer saw movies as just entertainment, but also as an art form. An honourable mention goes to Fight Club.

2. What is your second least favourite film and why?
My second least favourite movie is In the Name of the King 2: Two Worlds. I was originally going to put Superman 4: The Quest for Peace, however I found as a experience, Superman 4 at least had some entertainingly stupid and bad moments. In the Name of the King 2 is just dull and boring and makes the first movie look like Lord of the Rings. I know I should stop watching Uwe Boll movies, I’ve however heard that one of his films, Rampage was quite good, so I might check that out.

3. What is your guilty pleasure?
In terms of movies, Vampire’s Kiss. There are plenty of movies that are considered so bad their good, but I have no idea what Vampire’s Kiss is trying to do. Whatever it did, it worked because it made for a pretty entertaining movie. Though to be honest, it’s really Nicolas Cage that brings so much energy and fun to the movie.

4. What one word would be the best one to describe your personality?
Indifferent

5. Coffee, beer, or wine?
I haven’t had beer yet, I think wine is okay, same with coffee, though I’d probably prefer Coffee.

6. Pick your favourite TV show, and then choose 3 characters from that show to Kiss/Kill/Marry.

Arrow
Kiss: Sara
Kill: Malcolm
Marry: Felicity

7. Favourite fast food restaurant?
McDonalds. It’s an easy answer.

8. If you had to spend time with ONLY one person for the rest of your life, who would it be?
I honestly don’t really know.

9. Your GoT house. (If you don’t watch GoT, you may choose Harry Potter house, LOTR group, Divergent faction, Hunger Games district, etc.)
I don’t know what my favourite house is but I’ve been doing many quizzes and I got Lannister most of the time, so I guess that’s my house.

10. What is next location on your travel list?
I don’t really know at this point.

11. What is your favourite blog post that you have written?
My review of Death Proof is my favourite post I’ve written. Originally when I was doing this website as a school project, I was going to have my reviews of movies that I liked. After checking Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof out just for my own entertainment, that all changed. I managed to write the review in one go, most reviews take me a few goes to fully write. I also didn’t usually deliberately watch movies that I disliked, any movies I watched before then that I now consider bad I liked at the time (Alvin and the Chipmunks and even The Last Airbender). This was the first movie I watched which disappointed me and got me to have a reaction to it, and it has now gave me an idea to review movies that I probably won’t like.

I NOMINATE
1. The Greatest Movie EVER! Podcast
2. HAND CRAFTED CINEMA
3. Alvin’s Adventures in Pop Culture
4. Carnebratt
5. The Shaw Law
6. Log’s Line
7. I Wanna Be In the Sequel
8. Daniel Binns
9. Brett’s Reviews
10. CsTheMoment
11. Movie Talk Express

My Questions for you
1. What is a movie you like that most people hate?
2. What is a movie you don’t like that most people love?
3. If you had to pick a different name for your blog, what would it be?
4. What is your favourite movie and tv villains?
5. What movie has made you feel the most emotional?
6. What season do you prefer: summer, autumn, winter or spring?
7. What is your favourite actor and actress?
8. What is you thoughts on debating?
9. What are your favourite youtubers and why?
10. What TV series’ are you into?
11. What is your most anticipated movie of 2015?

Have fun!

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Tale (2007) Review

Time: 127 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Jason Statham as Farmer
Leelee Sobieski as Muriella
John Rhys-Davies as Merick
Ron Perlman as Norick
Claire Forlani as Solana
Kristanna Loken as Elora
Matthew Lillard as Duke Fallow
Ray Liotta as Gallian
Burt Reynolds as King Konreid
Brian White as Commander Tarish
Mike Dopud as General Backler
Will Sanderson as Basstian
Tania Saulnier as Talwyn
Gabrielle Rose as Delinda
Terence Kelly as Trumaine
Colin Ford as Zeph
Director: Uwe Boll

A farmer (Jason Statham) sets out to rescue his kidnapped wife (Claire Forlani) and avenge the death of his son — two acts committed by the Krugs, a race of animal-warriors who are controlled by the evil Gallian (Ray Liotta).

I wasn’t expecting anything when I was going into this movie, Uwe Boll’s first two Bloodrayne movies caused me to have this feeling. For an Uwe Boll movie though, it isn’t as bad as Bloodrayne 2; the movie does have at times decent action scenes. However this movie still wasn’t good on its own, it still has a bad story, average to terrible acting along with having a lot of things from Lord of the Rings which did bother me from time to time.

The story doesn’t have anything interesting to offer, made worse with the movie being 2 hours long, it should’ve been shorter. The first act was set up poorly with characters that I didn’t feel attached to, not helping this is the dialogue which is poorly written, uninteresting and doesn’t further develop the characters. This may be an aside but Statham’s character is literally called Farmer. The most boring part of the movie was the second act, there wasn’t much going on. The third act was the most entertaining and had a whole lot of action scenes which were done okay but they didn’t have much story to link them together to make them interesting. The film has many plot holes, like in one of the final fights with Jason Statham and Ray Liotta, Liotta doesn’t use his magic at the beginning, despite being able to get rid of him in an instant. This movie also took a lot of things from Lord of the Rings, for example the last big battle scene was very similar to the Helms Deep scene from The Two Towers. Even the Krugs seemed very much like the Orcs. The writer of this movie actually rewrote 80% of the script because it felt too much like Lord of the Rings, it’s not just me finding it familiar.

This film has a good cast, none of whom brings much to the movie. Jason Statham doesn’t make much of an impression here, he’s much better in other movies but I will say that he does well in the action scenes, as he usually does. Ron Perlman gives the best performance in the movie, he’s one of those actors who can bring anything to a movie but unfortunately his character still wasn’t given any depth or attention. Burt Reynolds is for some reason in this movie but he just didn’t bring anything to the movie; he looks like he doesn’t want to be there and is quite underwhelming and boring. On the complete other end from acting bored is Ray Liotta who plays the villain and is completely over the top. If you’ve seen the two Bloodrayne movies, you know that Uwe Boll doesn’t know how to direct actors in playing villains. A prime example is when Liotta shares a scene with Matthew Lillard, it’s like they are competing in a ‘worst performance’ competition.

The action scenes in the first act of the movie are done poorly, the camera shook and cut often and they aren’t filmed well. Later on the action scenes improved, the camera didn’t cut and it was steady, however they weren’t very interesting or entertaining, they were just okay.

I will say that this movie is better than some of Uwe Boll’s other movies but this is still a bad movie. It has the many things that Uwe Boll movies have, bad acting, poor writing, average cinematography and has many plot holes, on top of feeling too much like Lord of the Rings. In short, the movie is a poor man’s Lord of the Rings, it’s the best way to describe it. I heard that Uwe Boll made a good movie, Rampage, I would really like to see it sometime; I need to take a break from his movies.

BloodRayne 2: Deliverance (2007)

Time: 99 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Natassia Malthe as Rayne
Zack Ward as Billy the Kid
Michael Pare as Pat Garrett
Chris Coppola as Newton Piles
Michael Teigen as Slime Bag Franson
Michael Eklund as The Preacher
Director: Uwe Boll

A hundred years later, the dhampir Rayne (Natassia Malthe) has arrived in the town of Deliverance where a group of vampire cowboys led by Billy the Kid (Zack Ward) have emerged, who is hell-bent on creating his own kingdom. Rayne aligns herself with Pat Garret (Michael Pare), a member of the long-thought-dead Brimstone society, a dishonest preacher (Michael Eklund), and a lowlife named Franson (Michael Teigen) to stop him.

Uwe Boll’s Bloodrayne was a terrible movie and I knew that before watching it. Still, nothing could prepare me for how awful its sequel could be. Bloodrayne 2 has bad acting, awful camera work and a plot easily summarised in 3 sentences drawn out to 90 minutes. Although the first movie had some entertaining moments (intentional or not), this movie has none at all.

The story is very drawn out; whereas the first Bloodrayne’s plot flew by really fast, this movie has a straight forward plot that is drawn out to incredible lengths. The dialogue is even worse here than in the previous movie, I swear it’s like a 12 year old tried to write an episode of Deadwood and he threw in some vampires. It also contains probably the worst final lines to a movie I’ve seen so far. After a while I actually figured out that Uwe Boll didn’t really want a Bloodrayne movie, he just wanted a vampire movie set in the wild west; I don’t think that using it as an excuse was the best idea, for example, it doesn’t make much sense for Rayne to have her blades when most of the time she uses guns.

Natassia Malthe replaces Kristanna Loken as Rayne and she did as well as the original actress, which is to say, not very good; however to be fair, none of these actors are given anything to work with. Zack Ward plays Billy the Kid, who’s a vampire and he’s not good either and he may be worse as a villain than Ben Kingsley in the first movie, topping it off with a strange unidentifiable accent. Chris Coppola plays a reporter and he was very annoying, he just made me wish that his character would be killed off. The acting was pretty much the same from everyone. The only over the top acting was in the first scene of Michael Eklund playing a preacher, that scene was hilarious, if only for how over the top he went, it makes Meat Loaf from the first movie look subtle. Unfortunately that’s the only hilarious acting moment; none of these actors leave an impression on you.

The cinematography is very clunky; it looks like the camera man forgot to use a tripod as the camera was shaky, even in steady shots. Whereas the previous movie had buckets of blood that were very over the top, the blood has been reduced; although it at first sounds like Uwe Boll made the right call in reducing it, the first movie’s gore at least entertained. The action scenes aren’t good, and there are even less of them than in the first movie; it’s a shame because even if this was a bad movie, it could’ve been a bit entertaining, like the first movie from time to time. Even the locations were bad, throughout the movie; the weather keeps also kept changing, one moment it’s desert, next moment it’s snowy, you can clearly see that this was shot in Canada.

This movie makes Bloodrayne actually look good, at least it had entertaining moments. This movie was just completely dull, with no redeeming qualities. In retrospect of my Bloodrayne review, there are actually some ‘so bad it’s good’ moments and if you look at the movie at a certain way, it can be entertaining. It’s not the same here, it’s just a bore.

Star Wars Episode 6: Return of the Jedi (1983) Review

Time: 134 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Cast:
Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker
Harrison Ford as Han Solo
Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia
Billy Dee Williams as Lando Carlrissian
Anthony Daniels as C-3PO
Kenny Baker as R2-D2
Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca
David Prowse as Darth Vader
James Earl Jones as Darth Vader (Voice)
Ian McDiarmid as The Emperor
Frank Oz as Yoda
Director: Richard Marquand

The Empire is halfway through construction of a new Death Star; when completed, it will spell certain doom for Luke Skywalker and the Rebels. Meanwhile, Han Solo (Harrison Ford) has been imprisoned and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) has sent R2-D2 and C-3PO to try and free him; Princess Leia (Carrie Fischer) and Chewbacca go along as well. They regroup with the Rebel fleet, which is massing for an attack against the new satellite battle station at Endor. Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) is leading the Rebel fighter attack, while Han is put in charge of a group of soldiers to take out the shield generator protecting the Death Star.

The original Star Wars trilogy has some of the best movies ever made and Return of the Jedi is no exception. There are some people who may have been disappointed with this movie, but for me, this was the perfect way to end the Star Wars trilogy. It has everything that the previous two films had: great characters, an epic score, excellent storytelling and well done action scenes. This final chapter brings everything full circle and concludes the trilogy in the best way possible.

The film has everything good from the previous two films and this includes the writing. The tone of the movie isn’t as dark as its predecessor but doesn’t go overboard either in being light hearted (with maybe the exception of the Ewoks which I’ll get to later). The first act was really good, especially with Jabba the Hutt; it is very interesting to see what’s going on. The second act, while still enjoyable, slowed down a bit as we are introduced to some creatures called Ewoks; these creatures have some of the more negative attention from some people. They didn’t personally bother me, they are a little distracting, however they don’t detract from the experience altogether. The final act however picks up; it is great and is so well cut together, intercutting scenes from three different events and locations. There is also a plot point near the end of the movie which was just perfect and is unexpected as most movies wouldn’t usually go that route.

The actors play their characters for a third time and we can see how far they have developed and matured. An example is Mark Hamill’s Luke Skywalker, in the first movie he was a naive farm boy, here he is a wise and powerful Jedi. The same goes with Carrie Fischer’s Leia and Harrison Ford’s Han Solo; their relationship from Empire Strikes Back continues here and it’s done as well as it was in that movie. Darth Vader is intimating as always with James Earl Jones’s well suited voice. A stand out performance is by Ian McDiarmid as the Emperor, like Vader, he has such a big screen presence.

Like in the previous Star Wars movies, the special effects are as good as always. The action scenes, whether it may be in Jabba’s Palace, in space with the fighters or on the forest moon Endor, they are so well shot and are very exciting. John Williams’s score is great as well in adding so many emotions to the film.

Return of the Jedi really ends on a high note. I still think that The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie made but in my opinion it’s on par with Star Wars (Episode 4). After hearing about the next three sequels it’s hard to imagine them getting anywhere close to this trilogy, the prequels certainly didn’t. Whatever your thoughts are about the prequels and unless the new trilogy changes everything, at the moment, the original Star Wars trilogy will remain the best Star Wars movies and overall, some of the greatest movies of all time.

Planet Terror (2007)

Time: 105 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence and offensive language
Cast:
Rose McGowan as Cherry Darling
Freddy Rodriguez as Wray
Josh Brolin as Dr William Block
Marley Shelton as Dr Dakota Block
Jett Fahey as J.T.
Michael Biehn as Sheriff Hague
Naveen Andrews as Abby
Bruce Willis as Lieutenant Muldoon
Director: Robert Rodriguez

In Texas, a gang lead by a black market dealer Abby (Naveen Andrews) faces a group of renegade militaries leaded by Captain Muldoon (Bruce Willis). During their shootout, Abby shoots a recipient of biological weapon, which releases an experimental gas that turns humans to flesh-eating zombies. When the outbreak affects most of the local population, a group of people lead by the mechanic Wray (Freddy Rodriguez), Sheriff Hague (Michael Biehn), the stripper Cherry (Rose McGowan) and Dr. Dakota (Marley Shelton) fight to survive and become the last hope to save the world.

Planet Terror is the first part in the Grindhouse pack, paired with Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof. As I pointed out in my Death Proof review, Quentin Tarantino’s movie unfortunately failed to entertain or interest me in the slightest and ended up as a bore. Planet Terror however is very entertaining and knows exactly what it is supposed to be. It’s a blood and gore drenched ride that doesn’t have a dull moment that will be entertaining for those who will be able to stomach it.

The movie can be cheesy but that adds to the style; nothing is played straight. To give you an idea of the level of how unrealistic it can be, Rose McGowan’s character’s character has her leg removed (not spoiling anything) and near the end of the movie has a gun attached to where it should be before shooting a whole lot of zombies without even pulling the trigger. It is also at times self aware, in fact that there is a moment in the film where the screen shows ‘Missing film reel’ in the middle of a scene. The dialogue in exploitation movies are often bad, but here it’s quite good, if a bit cheesy at times. The film isn’t just constant action and violence, it has explosive moments, hilarious moments, disgusting moments and occasionally, shocking moments. There were some scenes which I felt could’ve been cut out (most notably one with a child and a gun) which wouldn’t have really changed the movie but overall the writing is actually better than most exploitation movies.

Exploitation movies don’t really have great performances (they are in fact bad most of the time) but Planet Terror does have some decent performances. Rose McGowan does a pretty good job as the main character, even better when she’s in the action scenes with her gun-leg. Other actors like Freddy Rodriguez, Michael Biehn, Marley Shelton and Josh Brolin are also good in their roles.

This is so far the bloodiest movie I’ve seen and I’ve seen Kill Bill and Django Unchained. All of the zombies are really designed with a lot of detail and are made as disgusting as possible. Like Death Proof, this does have a hazy camera filter but this time it stays throughout the whole movie and in my opinion, is used much better. The action scenes are well filmed, though keep in mind a lot of it is intentionally blown out of proportion, though you’ve probably figured that out already; they were never going for any realism (I once again draw attention to the gun for a leg).

It is a better tribute to exploitation movies than Death Proof. The reason I give this film a higher score than most people would rate it is because of how it managed to entertain me. It’s not a movie that I think everyone should watch; if you hate these types of movies, nothing’s going to change your mind. However, if you are a fan of Grindhouse movies, it’s worth checking out, I haven’t watched any exploitation movies before and I had a great time with it. This movie isn’t great and isn’t going to win awards but it was never meant to; what makes it entertaining is the fact that it knows what it’s supposed to be and it delivers in that regard.

Natural Born Killers (1994)

Time: 118 Minutes
Age Rating: Graphic violence
Cast:
Woody Harrelson as Mickey Knox
Juliette Lewis as Mallory Knox
Tom Sizemore as Jack Scagnetti
Robert Downey Jr. as Wayne Gale
Tommy Lee Jones as Dwight McClusky
Director: Oliver Stone

Delivery boy Mickey Knox (Woody Harrelson) falls in love with customer Mallory Wilson (Juliette Lewis). He helps her kill her parents and began their journey down Route 666. Every few miles, they attack everyone within their sight, sparing one person to tell the tale. They are made famous by reporter Wayne Gale (Robert Downey Jr.), while being pursued by the equally sadistic Jack Scagnetti.

Oliver Stone is known for controversy in his films and Natural Born Killers is no exception. This film is quite polarizing; I don’t think everyone who watches this movie will like it. For me, it is a great showcase of acting, writing from Oliver Stone and satire. The style may be distracting but Natural Born Killers does have some elements that are great that are worth noting.

This film is a satire of the media, public opinion, and the modern attitude toward violence (you really need to know that before watching it) and I think Oliver Stone did a pretty good job at delivering in that aspect. One of the elements of the satire is the fact that these serial killers are killing a lot of people and are being made famous by the media, so famous in fact, that they seem to be celebrities among some people. These two main characters are Bonnie and Clyde of the 90s if they were serial killers. This film also has an unconventional plot, along with it being about two serial killers; the plot mostly just follows them, whether that is the past or present. The first act of this movie was pretty good; it established these two characters and their relationship well. In the second act though my interest started decreasing, that point was when I started to find the style quite distracting as well, the film also slowed down quite a bit. The third act however picks up greatly, I won’t spoil what happens but it’s quite exciting and is even better than the first act. Another thing to mention is the fact that a lot of the characters aren’t that likable. Along with Mickey and Mallory (obviously) a lot of other characters are often quite despicable. Sometimes even some of the people that Mickey and Mallory aren’t that likable, with an exception to a few people. This isn’t a flaw with the movie; it’s just worth mentioning it.

The acting is superb from everyone. Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis are really believable as these two serial killers who are in love and they really shine in their scenes. Robert Downey Jr. isn’t in the movie a lot but when he’s on screen is absolutely fantastic in his role. Tommy Lee Jones is also seen for a small part near the end of the movie and like Downey Jr., he really makes use of every second of screen time that he has.

The style is very interesting to say the least. Sometimes the camera filters are a different colour, sometimes it is shot on an angle, and sometimes it cuts to some surreal images; it feels like you are on an acid trip. For the first half of the movie I accepted it and I was okay with it as it seemed to fit with the movie. But at the half way point, this style started to be quite distracting to me. I know that a lot of people loved the style: I thought it was good but for me, it got a little tiring after a while, you really need to prepare yourself for this type of movie.

Natural Born Killers isn’t a movie that everyone will enjoy. Its style may be distracting, the fact that it’s following characters that aren’t likable (even some of the side characters aren’t that good either) or it might be the violence might repel some people. If you feel like you may like this movie, check it out but be ready for what you are going to see. You’ll either love it or hate it.

Man of Steel (2013) Review

Time: 143 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence
Cast:
Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Kal-El
Amy Adams as Lois Lane
Michael Shannon as General Zod
Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent
Diane Lane as Martha Kent
Lawrence Fishburne as Perry White
Russell Crowe as Jor-El
Director: Zack Snyder

A young boy, Clark learns that he has extraordinary powers and is not of this Earth. As a young man (Henry Cavill), he journeys to discover where he came from and what he was sent here to do. But the hero in him must emerge if he is to save the world from annihilation and become the symbol of hope for all mankind.

Man of Steel is a reboot of Superman and that has divided a lot of people. Some people say that it’s a good movie that does well in executing the new take on Superman, while others say that it is Hollywood garbage and is disrespectful to the comics. As someone who doesn’t read comic books but a fan of superhero movies, I personally enjoyed it despite some flaws in the writing. It’s an entertaining, visually stunning movie and for the direction that it was going for, it was well executed.

The writing in Man of Steel isn’t bad but it is the weakest element of the movie. I quite liked the beginning of the movie; it shows Krypton’s destruction and the events of what took place there. That scene was actually done better here than the original Superman; with the original, Krypton’s look was quite basic and we don’t really see much of it. Here though, it is exciting to watch all these events happening and was the best way to open the movie. This movie is a much different take on Superman; the tone is overall darker and it also seems to make Superman appear in this world as realistic as possible while keeping its serious tone. Also there doesn’t seem to be any romance between Clark and Lois. Another thing different in this movie is something that has been gathering controversy and unfortunately it’s a spoiler as it’s near the end of the movie; if you’ve watched the movie and looked at online forums you know what I’m talking about. All I will say about this moment is that I don’t really have much of a problem with it and I thought that it was actually well done.

Henry Cavill did a good job in portraying Superman; he had quite a Christopher Reeve vibe to him, which always helps when playing Superman.  Amy Adams was decent as Lois Lane and a good thing is that she does end up doing more to help Superman more than some previous Lois Lanes have. Michael Shannon did a great job as Zod; even though he wouldn’t have been the only person to be able to play that character he does well with what he’s got. One of the great things about this adaptation of Zod is the fact that you can really understand his motivations; so many supervillians in movies are just written to be evil but here you can see why he does what he’s doing. To be honest he is better than most of the villains in the Marvel movies. Russell Crowe plays Jor-El, Superman’s biological father; Crowe isn’t on screen for very long but makes use of what screen time he has.

Zack Snyder directed this movie, so you can expect it to look good, as well as the special effects being well done. The fights that take place are also extremely satisfying; it’s also quite impossible to describe the amount of carnage that happens in this movie. It’s like the opposite of Superman Returns which had little to no conflict. The soundtrack by Hans Zimmer is as usual great here and it adds another layer of epicness to this movie.

Man of Steel may not please everyone but for me it was an enjoyable watch. The acting was decent, the story was simple and it was fun to watch. It’s not a movie that I’d put among the great superhero movies but I think that it’s good. The follow up, Batman v Superman is something I am looking forward to and I’m interested how Zack Snyder will deliver.

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

Time: 115 Minutes
Age Rating: Coarse language
Cast:
Henry Thomas as Elliot
Robert MacNaughton as Michael
Drew Barrymore as Gertie
Dee Wallace as Mary
Peter Coyote as Keys
Director: Steven Spielberg

A group of aliens visit earth and one of them is lost and left behind stranded on this planet. The alien soon finds a friend and in 10-year-old Elliot (Henry Thomas). While E.T. slowly gets acquainted with Elliot’s brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton), his sister Gertie (Drew Barrymore) as well as with Earth customs, members of the task force work day and night to track down the whereabouts of him. After being able to communicate with Elliot and the others, E.T. starts building an improvised device to send a message home for his folks to come and pick him up.

E.T. is often called one of the greatest movies of all time. Maybe for its time it was, but looking at it now, it doesn’t seem to have held up, at least for me. The film isn’t bad, it’s decently made; but its aging has created some flaws as well as revealing some flaws in the movie that were there to begin with. In my opinion, this isn’t among Spielberg’s best or the best movies that ever made.

The movie most of the time seems to focus on the relationship between E.T. and Elliot and while it wasn’t done badly; I didn’t really feel the connection between the two. As for how much emotion I felt, I didn’t really feel much when I watched it, even when I was 13 when I watched it for the first time I didn’t feel anything. Also I never really felt for any of the characters, none of them are unlikeable, they seem likable enough for a pass but I didn’t feel like we got to know them. Along with me not being attached to the characters, a lot of the scenes that had an impact on others didn’t make any impact on me for whatever reason; the bike scene is an example. Speaking of which (without spoiling anything), I am still wondering how E.T. managed to get those bikes to fly. This is also a problem, there are moments that just seem convenient that weren’t mentioned or explained previously. Another example is when (again I’m doing my best not to spoil anything) there is some deep connection between E.T. and Elliot but there is a point when something takes a toll on both of their conditions, which isn’t explained in the movie ever.

The acting was okay by everyone. A lot of children are the main characters and they are well acted enough, they weren’t great performances but in comparison to some child actors of today, they are much better. However none of the performances made an impression or me and none of them stood out.

This may just be a nitpick for me but I personally think that the filmmakers could have gone with a better design for E.T. I’m glad that it wasn’t of a small green alien (which a lot of representations of aliens are done like) but the look of E.T. really took me out of the movie; it looks like it came from the garbage compactor from Star Wars: A New Hope. The effects were good with the bike scene but there actually aren’t that many other moments with effects. The score for this by John Williams is pretty good but I wouldn’t say it is one of his best.

E.T. isn’t a movie that I particularly love. I just wasn’t that attached to the characters and I had no emotional connection with anything in the movie. Despite this, countless people have been impacted by this movie; maybe they saw it in a critical part of their childhood; I will say that younger audiences will probably like it more than older people. If you haven’t watched it already, I recommend checking it out; even to just have an opinion on it. But keep in mind there is a chance that you may not like it as much as other people.