johanteitur

I love a good disaster movie and I find it that Gerard Butler always delivers. This movie is very straightforward yet keeps me intrigued. It is very raw in its level of gore and does not shy away from blood, which is refreshing. Most movies would rather be flat and PG13 than get a rating at the risk of losing cinema viewers. This is without a doubt an adult movie but in the era of streaming, I assume that all ages will still be watching.

Sprinkled throughout is a lot of cheese and very emotionally dependent scenes that are somewhat uncalled for. I find that this is part of the charm of action flicks like this. We want the protagonist to succeed – of course we do, it’s Gerard Butler. I’m a sucker for every aspect of this film. Aviation is a very interesting way to isolate people from the world and a plane is one of the most suspenseful situations because it takes immense skill to get under control. If there is an issue while the plane is in the air it is automatically dramatic.

We don’t get a close connection with the civilians which doesn’t affect the movie poorly, they are just civilians. Gerard is our hero and he is here to save the civilians and we just want to see him be cool – most accurate tagline for this movie. For the viewer who enjoys action movies, I strongly recommend this movie – pure fun with all the dumb tropes it comes with.

7/10

I had never heard of this movie when I started watching but I was pleasantly surprised. It is based on true accounts documented in diaries and published as a book.

I generally have a grudge towards traditional book movies because they try to convert a 20-hour book into a 90-minute movie; This in most cases turns out as a mess. This movie introduces 30 characters hand in hand with our main protagonist and expects us to feel for each of them. It succeeds mostly by utilising its plot to its advantage by profiling each character as part of a racial group in combat with each of the other groups. We don’t have any stake in which demographic or racial group wins this battle but rather have an interest in resolution. Other characteristics that bring me back to the book aspect of this film is the excessive use of inner dialogue rather than visual storytelling; There are so many other ways in which you can tell me a character is angry without me hearing their inner dialogue – lazy storytelling.

I find ‘based on true events’ movies to be extremely interesting but in most cases, it’s rather an emphasis on ‘based on’ rather than ‘true’. In all cases, the director has liberty in the storytelling and representation of the events but I prefer everything to be as raw as possible. This movie is a good middle starting and provides a narrative account of what I assume are the actual diary entries combined with a visual representation of the actual accounts. I would probably not watch it again, but I recommend it to someone looking for an emotional movie based on truth.

8/10

Based on an old children’s novel that has been turned into film and animation many times. Here is a lovely example of how to treat a story featuring animal characters. The practical makeup is simple yet effective, featured coloured hair, gloves and jackets. It is so refreshing for a movie to know its limitations and use it for its advantage.

Matt Lucas can be extremely annoying as a personally but for playing Toad it really comes in his advantage. Toad is without a doubt supposed to be annoying, childish and over the top personally which fits like a glove on our dear Matt. Bob Hoskins and Mark Gatiss are both charming in their respective roles.

As a straight to TV kids’ movie I wouldn’t recommend it to someone looking for a blockbuster cinematic masterpiece; But for a sunday morning cozy movie to watch with your duvet and cereal on the couch, this is perfect.

6/10

This movie does not offend me, it is what it is: A magical, beautiful, awkward, fantasy film covered in glitter – no joke, there is actual glitter on everything. Directed by Ridley Scott, this movie is not near the top of the list of his creations. I would say that he has brought a fair bit of creative direction that does give points in its favour.

Tom Cruise is strange throughout this movie. In every scene he has a gaze at the audience which I assume was to portray wonder, but comes off as confusion. Most of the acting is theatrical, probably more suited for a play rather than a feature film.

I’m not disappointed in the movie itself, it’s not bad just meh. The story doesn’t have much going for it and is pretty weird, to be honest. I was bored at times and the only thing that kept me interested was the practical and visual effects, and Tim Curry wearing the most insane makeup.

5/10

Why? That is the big question… I think I have a reason for the existence of this movie. There is though a fine line between reasoning and excuses. For kids these days, the 1940 original Disney Pinocchio might not be as relatable in the modern era of filmmaking. The new generation of kids and teens might find this new and modernized Pinocchio to be their original, rather than going back and watching the original.

This is rather an excuse to blatantly rip the old film into a new format to milk an ancient story for more profit. The 1940 movie had its charm and nostalgia for being ahead of its time and portraying a story everyone knew and had heard before in a new and exciting format. It was a magical movie. Breathing fresh air into an old classic can be exciting and a great way to convey the magic to a new audience. This movie didn’t succeed in doing that.

Most of the cinematography was great and the movie looked beautiful – but looks can be deceiving. I can’t read the mind of the director, but as a media which is solely made to convey a message, this one was a mess. I get that the directory was not assigned to reinvent the wheel, but rather retell an ancient story – this was probably the most uninspired way to do it. I’m an adult and I didn’t enjoy the movie, but I don’t even think it was made for children. It killed the spirit of the original in the same way that the ‘Home Sweet Home Alone’ from 2021 butchered the spirit of the original ‘Home Alone’. Uninspired milking for milking’s sake.

Live-action adaptations and remakes of old films can be fantastic and bring a new and interesting spin or flare for a modern audience. Even spark nostalgia for an old fanbase or bring bring joy to a new generation. I’m disappointed this didn’t even try.

3/10

I will start by stating that this movie had no actual direction and doesn’t even attempt to makes any sense what so ever. Let me explain:

There is no character development and not even an attempt to make the viewer have any emotional investment in what happens to the main characters. I had no care in the world for the survival of the main drive of the movie – the main character. If she had died the movie would have ended and there would have been no more cinematography – and maybe here, the real story would have started?

When I start a movie I am in most cases devoted to finishing it. I finished this one too, and regretted all the decisions made by the script writers immediately. I can enjoy cringe when it is subtle or well places. In a dramatic movie like this, all the jokes presented hit wrong and were completely insincere. I know it is based on some video games I have never played, and maybe it makes sense then; The movie does feel like a bunch of cutscenes, glued together by emptiness. Probably the worst kind of storytelling – the one that leaves out all the story.

Don’t get me wrong, the movie is extremely appealing visually and the cinematography is wonderful. As much as a beautiful movie tries to be interesting, the lack of any emotional investment or drive for the main character to succeed, creates an empty void that is impossible to fill. Milla Jovovich is Milla Jovovich taken straight out of Resident Evil – Amnesia and a swap from zombie to monster later. I enjoyed the movie from it’s visual merits – mainly because there was nothing else to truly enjoy.

3/10

With the intention of watching a thriller like this one, my fear was not to be frightened, but rather to be disappointed. This fear was quickly substituted by a genuine feeling of claustrophobia and anxiety, for a character I was actually invested in.

The movie is written and directed by Leigh Whannell, who previously has had a finger in the horror and thriller genre. He has written for the Saw franchise, as well as the Insidious franchise, which can be seen in his great storytelling. There are countless scenes where not a word is uttered – yet a story is told. The presence of invisibility is a force that brings wonder and fear to film. The lingering emptiness that is uncertain and unpredictable is used beautifully in every scene. Leigh knows how to tell a compelling story and shows off his skills and knowledge of the field from the title screen to the credits. Cinematically the movie is stunning with great wide shots, lingering pans and little to no flashy jump-cut sequences – which is a huge plus.

Elisabeth Moss is the star of the show, giving a great and fulfilling performance, throughout the film. Every time she is on the screen her emotions can be felt in the air, bringing me to the edge of my seat. The strength in which she composes herself and genuinely brings her character to life is nerve-wracking.

Where the movie loses me a little is in some of the plot holes, which are impossible not to notice. It does not lose its thrill or drive because of this, but as an attentive viewer, I feel that the actions of the characters on screen sometimes infuriate me. It’s a very entertaining movie that I will definitely recommend. It was though released at the worst possible timing, as this is a movie that I would have loved to have viewed on the big screen.

8/10

There are so many throwaway action films out there that are still thrilling and interesting in their own way – this movie is no different. The plot is straight out of a conspiracy theory and feels authentic and true to itself. The story is out there – to say the least – and for it to even be executed all the puzzle pieces of the plot just need to fall into place and fit without any opposition. The movie does a great job of taking itself seriously and never even flinches when it comes to seeing the plot as serious fact.

Angelina Jolie comes straight out of Tomb Raider and yet again gives an action-packed performance that is noteworthy and on a Tom Cruise level of danger and intensity. Her performance is good and she really delivers the character I bet the director and writer intended in an authentic way.

I really like the dark and serious nature of the film. The plot might not be that realistic if you look at it from a nit-picky standpoint and does have a few major plotholes, But it is just so entertaining. I have seen it three times by now and in a few years, I will probably watch it again. For me, it is not exactly up there with Tomb Raider and the Bourne Identity franchise, but it gets really close as a one-off entertaining Friday night film.

7/10

Absolutely nothing in this film feels real. Everything is staged in the worst possible way and feels horrible. It is cinematically alright, but many of the shots are extremely overexposed, and this effect ads nothing good to the visual representation of the movie.

This is American slapstick blatant humour at its worst. In all honesty, it made me giggle a couple of times, but none of the goofs feel well-earned or well-executed. This movie has no comical timing and the only real thing going for it is the fact that it seems they had a lot of fun making it.

The actors are all really famous and generally very talented, but most of them are comedians and that makes the movie feel like a skit straight out of a talk show. At the end of many other comedy films, you will see outtakes that resemble scenes featured in the film where the actors improvise certain jokes to make it feel more natural; Here the director will choose his favourite edition of the joke and have that featured in the movie. Not in this one; Here the scenes haven’t been cut out and this makes it feel even more tasteless – quality is always better than quantity.

3/10

I am thoroughly impressed with this movie. I saw it in the cinema on the first sitting and was amazed by the presentation and immersed in the plot. It is self-aware of all the tropes in its genre and uses them to its advantage in such an interesting way.

The dynamic between Colin Firth and Taron Egerton works really well and creates a natural character arch which is interesting. Cinematically this movie looks stunning and has excellent fighting scenes, but at times the camerawork is at a rather strange angle or positioning – probably on purpose, I just don’t understand it when the rest of the films is so perfectly framed. The music choices tie perfectly in with the movie and cinematic presentation.

I feel this movie bridges the gap between James bond and Austin Powers in such a nonchalant way. The wittiness and famous charm of our characters are taken advantage of in a clever and interesting way. It does so without making a fool of itself, even though Samuel L. Jackson has a lisp. The humour and suspense of the plot create a comedy spy movie that is in a league of its own and that actually is really good.

8/10