slowcando

1917 (2019)

WOW...second only to Apocalypse Now for greatest war film

I recently hugely enjoyed the spectacular A Bridge Too Far and declared that the best war film I've seen outside of the immense Apocalypse Now.

Only weeks later I see one that tops it. 1917's big selling point is the entire movie being a single take (well, making a convincing illusion of it). Sam Mendes already impressed when I caught Spectre at the cinema: that opening single-take at the Day of the Dead festival was the best scene of that movie. Here with 1917 the entire movie is one epic best scene!

But it's not just that excellent 'gimmick' that works, it's everything else too. A coherent tense plot, superb acting from one of the main characters (Oscar-worthy), high-class cinematography and immersive sound-design. Actually for the first hour I wasn't convinced that the film needed background music, especially when it sounded so modern...but once a truly special scene begins (the sky lit up) the strings soar and it really works. Directly following that are a few beautiful tender minutes which is temporarily carthatic, before the march continues.

Impressive moments like that abound.

We may wonder about how quickly dawn brightens, we may be a little charitable about some powers of recuperation, and we may regret the somewhat impersonal shallow presentation of the Germans...however these are relative nitpicks. One slight critique is during the finale's most bombastic scene you can make out a blue-screen outline of the main character in shot, which slightly deflates the epic happenings. This kind of effect we're more used to from older movies. However I did watch this in the virtual IMAX (near 150° field of view) wraparound screen of the Meta Quest 3...so may not be so noticable for most viewers. I watched while spot-walking/jogging...extremely immersive! That headset has a FoV itself of around 110° so I was actively turning my head left and right to see more, just as you would in real life. This method of immersion-viewing fit 1917 perfectly (note: only properly appreciable with uncompressed Blurays & above...not with compressed HD, streams or DVD due to digital artifacts & visible pixels).

Misses a mega-rare 10/10 (about 1% of my rated films, including Apocalypse Now) but totally deserves the 9 (about 5%). I feel comfortable placing 1917 in my all-time Top 50, out of near 1200 movies rated.

Recommended to anyone who appreciates high-quality film-making.

Terra (2007)

Cliché upon cliché...3D-spectacle saves it

I've been enjoying 3D-Bluray movies in the virtual IMAX of the Meta Quest 3 headset. Viewing this way elevates a lot of mediocre films a couple of points.

And Battle For Terra is certainly mediocre. It hits all the same tired story beats we know from a hundred similar movies. The kid-friendly clear emoting recalls typical Disney films. We know where we stand.

The animation and graphics seem a little dated now too, the soundtrack is generic and the voice-acting merely serviceable. So all that's left to save it from a poor score is the 3D-spectacle....

....and that is very good indeed! Great depth and some nice popouts marry well with an imaginative world and immersive dramatic action. Pacing was decent too, no boring or annoying bits.

Recommended if like me you're becoming a 3D-completist.

Not particularly recommended if you're looking for epic sci-fi animation. It's too generic to really stand out.

The Last Starfighter (1984)

Not aged well, tho' still a little fun

5/10 may seem harsh, but I rate 6/10 as the minimum 'worth a watch' rating...and frankly if you've never seen The Last Starfighter I can't quite say it's 'worth a watch'.

I enjoyed it as a kid of the 80's...it has an outstanding magical premise which fires the imagination: a young man gets so good at a video-game that he gets to live it!

But upon rewatching - around 35 years since last seeing it - the movie has quite basic textbook setpieces, flat dialogue, thin characters, some lame humour (tho' the beta droid was funny) and very dated CGI FX which age poorly vs the model-FX of other space-opera movies like Star Wars (A New Hope had a similar budget) and others. Cinema-historians may get a kick out of how impressive those graphics must have seemed at the time, however I judge on how the experience is now.

While I didn't get excited at the action, there were a few entertaining moments in the film, and some flickers of imagination to tickle the sci-fi mind. Overall it's watchable...but not really worth watching.

Recommended for completists of 80's boys'-own-stuff sci-fi adventures. Not recommended for anyone seeking movie magic.

009 Re:Cyborg (2012)

Great setpieces, philosophical dialogue, jumbled hazy narrative

I didn't know anything about this but bought the 3D-Bluray on a whim as I enjoy good fantastical anime (Akira, Attack on Titan) and the 3D-experience.

Worth it!

The very first scene has a spectacular setpiece with skyscrapers crashing down after a bomb attack. We're then quickly thrust into a story which appears to already be in the middle of it. I gather Cyborg 009 is a series, or series of movies? Not sure, but it does feel like this particular movie isn't the first entry.

Despite not knowing the background I still quickly got a grasp of setting & characters. Alongside the fine action I also appreciated the quieter dialogue-heavy sections, which touches upon the idea of 'God' and free will. While not exactly original, the ideas were well presented. Also these moments had sometimes quite striking imagery and dynamic visual angles.

However the film does stumble with its narrative: what is happening, and why, is asked but never satisfactorily explored. The musings about how characters interpret motive isn't enough, we still would like a coherent plot-resolution.

Overall I rate this a good 7/10, as the action & visuals make it a fun experience. 3D is effective. Japanese voice-cast are immersive. Subs are well-written.

Recommended.

A Bridge Too Far (1977)

Action-packed spectacle with realistic & measured delivery

No spoilers but I do hint at the outcome, which if you're not aware of the real history you may wanna avoid reading.

Just watched this for the first time and throughout the highly-enjoyable 3 hours I was often surprised and thrilled at the near-constant action. It barely lets up!

And it outranks more modern efforts like Saving Private Ryan because there's no distracting mawk or overly-moralised characterisations. This is big stupid war fought by people following orders.

Brilliantly-filmed, epic production, skilled mannered acting...and an unusually-neutral depiction of the Nazis (and an unusually-neutral outcome too) also elevate this above other war films. Only the somewhat-jaunty soundtrack felt slightly ill-fitting.

You may not enjoy this movie if you actually prefer your characters to have emotional depth/journeys (replete with longing looks at battered photos of their sweethearts who the audience meets earlier), but if you'd rather see clinical stoic characters in realistic situations where the spectacle and plot are the main drivers, then A Bridge Too Far is ideal! Special mention also to the authentic foreign-language cast: we had genuine Dutch and German languages which added greatly to the immersion. This is something that the otherwise-excellent Schindler's List didn't do, which I found a little jarring tho' again your mileage may differ...

Apocalypse Now (10/10) remains the greatest war film in my rankings, tho' now I have a clear number 2: A Bridge Too Far is a strong 9/10.

Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)

Boring 1st hour, picks up 2nd hour, good last 30min

Kill Bill is one of my all-time favourites (both parts), and Pulp Fiction is clearly a still-thrilling masterpiece. Late-era Tarantino Hateful Eight is different from previous fare as it had a slow methodical build-up, but it's engaging and kinda hypnotic. The payoff is satisfying.

However, Once Upon A Time has an even slower build-up which feels far less connected & consequential to the subsequent payoff. This disconnect made the first hour extremely boring and feels pointless. I was 'this' close to skipping ahead, even began browsing my phone out of boredom. During a Tarantino flick!

Thankfully things picked up in the second hour, including something approaching Hateful Eight's hypnotic-quality during that cult ranch scene when Cliff goes asking after his old sleeping buddy.

But by the time the final half hour rolls, where we finally get some tense graphic action, I frankly didn't care about these characters. Didn't care who would get slaughtered. Regardless of not caring, at least we finally got some 'good' Tarantino movie.

A lot of things wrong with this picture, the dialogue especially is somewhat lifeless. The pacing is yawn-inducing. Not much interesting or dynamic cinematography. Soundtrack so-so. No real humour.

Unrealistic acid-trip behaviour. Al Pacino & Damien Lewis are wasted in forgettable bit-parts. Margot Robbie plays the same character she always plays. Brad & Leo are watchable, thankfully...tho' Leo's accent feels too try-hard.

Not sure who this movie is for. Hollywood-fans?

Feet-fetishists?

First hour 3/10. Second hour 6/10. Final 30min 7/10.

5/10 overall. Not really recommended. Will never watch again.

Banshee Chapter (2013)

low-budget & clichéd yet still nicely effective

It's a low-budget but well-made mystery chiller about DMT extracted from dead humans' pineal gland which is consumed by people. The resulting effect is that the brain of the user acts as a receiver for Lovecraftian entities which turns the user insane. Familiar stuff if you're versed in Lovecraft (see also the movies From Beyond & In The Mouth of Madness).

As it's low budget we don't see much in the way of monsters. And as it's a movie we obviously don't get a realistic positive picture of DMT, so the usual movie clichés about how psychedelics result in horrific experiences.

It would be very cool to have a CGI-driven film about the realistic effects of DMT...the alternative-reality aspects and jester-type bizarre entities.... Banshee Chapter is not that, at all.

Despite the low-budget and unrealistic negative depiction it is still very engaging as a mystery horror, and still a curious one for DMT-followers to watch. Some elements are fact-based (MK-Ultra, Numbers Stations) which peaks the interest nicely. Tho' for a 90-min flick we can't expect any real depth or deeper message here.

7/10 - good solid trip enhanced by watching the immersive 3D Bluray.

Shingeki no kyojin: Endo obu za wârudo (2015)

Bit better than the first one...

...because now there's focus on the story & characters. While the main trio of Eren, Mikasa & Armin remain quite bland characterisations we do get some bloom from Hange, the captain and the officer.

The story is more coherent and somewhat engaging, the setting is still pretty good. Some more dynamic ODM action and a fun 'mecha' fight which recalls all those Godzilla-vs flicks.

It's honestly worth your time if you're curious and didn't think the first movie was too terrible. There's a lot less comically-gruesome Titan-feasting, but this sequel didn't need it.

Clearly tho', the animated series is where the really good stuff is. That's a 9/10 series throughout....all killer, no filler.

Fright Night (2011)

Middling, flat, unoriginal, synthetic

This is the very definition of ho-hum movie-making. Textbook cliché stuff everywhere. The most unoriginal vampire film.

Anton Yelchin (R. I. P.) was very flat, difficult to feel pumped-up for him. David Tennant over-acted, channeling his Doctor Who character at its most annoying. Colin Farrell oozed charm and menace, so at least he was watchable. The support cast were serviceable.

Juvenile bland script doesn't really engage. No really decent cinematography. Forgettable soundtrack. Cartoonish CGI blood & deaths. Not scary in the slightest, more like an unserious teen 'horror'.

Doesn't have a lot going for it, but gets a 4/10 as Colin was good, a couple of scenes were engaging (the car chase) and in 3D some of the CGI splatter popped out of the screen agreeably. Pacing was fine, i didn't skip forward. Mildly entertained, i guess.

Just there's so much out there that's more worth my (and your) time.

Shingeki no kyojin (2015)

B-movie/fan-film quality

This is nowhere near the quality, artistry and atmosphere of the anime series. Nowhere near the weighty dialogue, memorable characters and immersive vocal performances (watched both in japanese). Nowhere near the sense of ominous mystery...

The movie has a clumsy b-movie fan-made feel. The story has no real structure, characters are forgettable, pacing is boring, cinematography is merely functional and the action is laughable.

But there is some good stuff: for fans of the anime, seeing this world brought to life in live-action is interesting. The sets are decent. The titans & feasting are kinda hilarious in a dark black-comedy manner. Some of the ODM action is at times quite dynamic.

But this movie can only hold mild interest for those already familiar with AOT, it must be a total mess for everyone else.

I'll watch Part Two only out of that curiousity...

Beast (2017)

Consistently good throughout

This mystery psycho-drama isn't about mythical beasts as one of the hype blurbs would imply: an "adult fairytale" it is not. It is grounded in reality...and no less gripping for it.

It's the kind of film that has you analysing what's going on and guessing what might come next. As other reviewers have said it's best to go in completely blind. I didn't even read the synopsis, just trusted the intriguing bluray cover, film title and decent IMDB score.

Very well acted by all. Strong script. Nicely filmed: subtly effective rather than anything fancy. The Jersey setting is nice. The plot develops at a consistent pace, there's no drag but also no explosive set-pieces. It's a modest-budget psychological drama which relies heavily on its two main characters carrying the film, which they certainly do!

Gets the 8/10 as it stuck the landing. My 9's and 10's are reserved for really special movies and this modest effort isn't quite that, but it's certainly very good for what it is. And so obscure that the director - who did a fine job here - doesn't even have his own Wikipedia entry.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

Flirting with a rare 9/10...

...but the thinly-drawn characters just about prevent that.

Despite John Boorman's Excalibur being my joint-favourite film of all time (alongside 2001, incidentally), I've avoided other King Arthur efforts for the perhaps mistaken view that they'll all be a massive comedown, however I'm currently - and belatedly - appreciating 3D-Blurays so Guy Ritchie's Arthur got a purchase....tho' my expectations were dialled right down as I wasn't convinced his style would suit such a production.

And it kinda doesn't, and kinda does. It doesn't in terms of having a deep rapport with the characters, so that when they meet their doom we feel for them (here, we don't). It does in terms of kinetic action and pacing: this movie is a very fun trip! With the immersive soundtrack acting as the MVP here. The cast are all serviceable, Hunman's Arthur is fine tho' perhaps lacking in some tangible human weakness. Jude Law's villain was a little underwhelming, i think his character would've been better served by a lesser-known yet more-skilled character actor. David Beckham's appearance during what should be a highlight moment was hugely distracting, breaking the suspension of disbelief these films require...even if to be fair to him he played it alright.

The final battle with the Big Bad ran very cliché, that was the last chance to up the score to 9 so slightly fumbled there.

The whole experience felt like an extended flashy music video. This is normally a negative except Guy & crew pushed this style as high as it could possibly go...and we get a very entertaining ride from it! Fun action, great pace, fine 3D, decent performances....

....but it's no Excalibur.

Gorillas in the Mist: The Story of Dian Fossey (1988)

Worth it for the gorilla scenes

If like me, you're not familiar with the real-life story of Dian Fossey, I'd recommend watching this film first before reading up.

Like another reviewer just before me, i've been aware of this film since it came out and always fancied seeing it...36 years later finally got round to it! On DVD, very good clear image considering the lack of HD.

It's worth a watch for the gorilla scenes, the combination of real gorillas and costumes is near-seamless, with only a baby gorilla costume being obvious. The work here is the most realistic ape-costume footage I've ever seen, far above Kubrick's 2001 or the classic Planet of the Apes. The realism factor also trumps the modern CGI Planet of the Apes as they don't have that 'uncanny valley' factor, tho' of course we then don't get epic action scenes...but that's not what we're here for.

Sigourney Weaver is engaging, thankfully so as she's almost always on-screen. Her character's story is an interesting one tho' it does date the movie...anyone sensitive to the 'white saviour' trope' may be rolling their eyes at times (even if the depictions are somewhat faithful to the reality of those times).

The cinematography is excellent, another solid reason to watch if you enjoy documentary-style landscape/jungle shots.

The film does drag in the middle-third during the romantic-angle. While I believe it was indeed part of Ms Fossey's story, it still felt forced...tho' it does serve the audience a narrative of highlighting her emotions & priorities.

The final third attempts to picture Fossey's struggles didn't always quite land, tho' not sure if this may be a limitation of Sigourney's range, or the writing.

These quibbles do prevent a higher score, but a 7/10 is a 'good film' in my book, so recommended to anyone who feels curious about this one.

Chinatown (1974)

Not an engaging story, but fine production

Chinatown is one of those classics I've been meaning to get round to for literally decades. I still try to go in with neutral expectations. Sometimes I'm blown away by the magnificence (like with Lawrence of Arabia), other times I'm very disappointed (like with Casablanca) and with Chinatown I'm kinda like...meh...it was alright.

Very nicely filmed, expertly acted, clever dense script, decent action when it comes around. But the story was simply not that interesting: a dispute about water supply in 30's Los Angeles being the backdrop for a murder mystery is as dull as it sounds. And the scene immediately preceding the ending didn't make much narrative sense considering how otherwise careful & calculated Jake had been up until then.

Also...why is it even called Chinatown? There's barely 5 minutes set there, and the only Chinese present are a couple of near-wordless bit-parts.

Hard to recommend if you're also considering striking this famous film of your watchlist. I highly rate other Polanski films too, so did feel a little disappointed that arguably his most lauded work felt a bit flat. Maybe noir fans might get more out of it.

For completists however it's still worth a watch because of the fine quality of the production.

Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)

Almost as good as the first

Normally I avoid films scoring less than 5/10 on IMDB, I made an exception here as I enjoyed the first one, and have good memories of playing the first game too. Plus I got it on 3D-Bluray!

First, the bad:

• acting & dialogue is very basic. It's not much better than PS1/PS2-era voicework, to be honest. English-northerners more known from Game of Thrones struggling with American accents didn't help. The lead actress is passable tho' sometimes unconvincing.

• the story makes no real sense, and there's no consistency to the plot.

• the atmosphere is well done but not quite as moodily-effective, nor as visually-game-faithful, as the first movie.

• what we came for! Namely a handful of standout scenes and disturbing monsters. Decent camera work gave them time to shine, not too much of the fast shakey jump-cuts which ruin lesser horror movies.

• effective sound design, faithful soundtrack.

• 3D was nice, some fun popouts and decent depth.

• VisualFX mostly quite good, tho' the digital-look sometimes was obvious.

Dune: Part Two (2024)

Overrated in all aspects, but still a trip worth watching

Just getting my Dune history out of the way: I read the first novel decades ago. Honestly didn't enjoy it much: very dry, technical and convoluted. Lynch's Dune is terrible. I watched Villeneuve's Dune out of a cinematographer's curiosity. His films are a bit detached and overly-stylish but a feast for the senses for things like composition, angles, atmosphere. And Dune Part One is his best film so far: fantastic thrilling atmosphere coupled with a generous handful of memorable scenes and a stand-out performance from Rebecca Ferguson. These strengths overpower the usual Villeneuve detachment, making it a very good 8/10 in my book. The main weakness Part One had was an occasional propensity to look like a stylistic music video, or worse...an extended high-budget commercial advert.

Unfortunately Dune Part Two dials that up to 11, while removing the quality of having a stand-out performance: Lady Jessica had nothing to do other than look sternly & calculatingly cool with exotic writing on her face. That's all the other characters did too: look 'cool' or otherwise conveying a clear emotion by way of wordless glances. Add some basic overly-dramatic dialogue, an explosion, some vistas...then more knowing glances. Repeat. Chani scenes especially guilty of this.

There's no 'character' in Part Two. Stilgar is the only one who comes close but he still feels very basic, had to double-check what he was even called. We the audience don't really get to know him, or anyone else. Chalamet's Paul should at least then be the anchor, the one character we can connect with, but he's a blank bland slate. The antagonists fare no better, just displaying nonsense depraved cruelty while mumbling a 'cool'-sounding one-liner. The nephew antagonist feels like a corny Game Of Thrones reject (also, spot the stunt double during the climactic knife fight). Bautista just shouts a bit. The interesting Baron visuals are present, but his character isn't really.

"Overrated in all aspects" also means the much-lauded production. Frankly, Dune Part One was more impressive (and better paced too). Part Two has some nice visuals, for sure, and the soundtrack is riveting. But Part One had more memorable eyecatching scenes, and even its use of music felt a bit more focussed than what we get here. Part Two's epic vistas also have an overreliance on digital imagery, making it feel less immersive than say classic epic desert vista scenes from Lawrence of Arabia or Spartacus. Somehow, the sand worms feel small here, whereas in Part One they felt huge.

So we're left with the plot...and it's just a series of things happening, with no feeling of audience-attachment connecting the events. This is trademark Villeneuve. It ends like the first one did, preparing for the next chapter.

6/10 is still worth watching. Despite all my criticisms the trip - the ride of the senses - is enjoyable. So dial down expectations and enjoy the ride!

Dune Part Two is however not the messiah.

• Watched 4K Bluray on Meta Quest 3, filling the entire field-of-view IMAX-style.

Dial M for Murder (1954)

another meh Hitchcock...

After the 5/10's for Rear Window & North by Northwest, and the 6/10 for Vertigo, I've now done another middling Hitchcock which curiously has a very high IMDB rating.

I guess I just don't see the appeal. Dial M isn't a bad film: it has a neat setup, nicely (if somewhat formally) played by the actors and the ensuing puzzle-solving is watchable enough. But I never felt particularly interested or immersed. It's all quite stagey and detached. Also, the murder scene is very dated...tho' this can be forgiven as a product of its time.

I watched the 3D Bluray, which has artificial depth and a couple of standout popout moments, involving hands. Those scenes were so effective they had me instinctively reaching my own hand out to touch them.

So on the celebrated Director, I do rate Psycho & The Birds...but my search for a third Hitchcock I actually like goes on...

...maybe I won't give up quite yet. Lifeboat, Marnie and The Wrong Man remain on my watchlist.

Ran (1985)

Tonedeaf slapstick mars what could've been a great epic

This is the third Kurosawa I've seen after Rashomon (6/10) and Seven Samurai (7/10) and it may be the last, at least from his samurai genre. The films are good...not great.

Where Kurosawa's slapstick tone worked with Rashomon & Seven Samurai, it seems out of place here. Ran feels like it should be a dark brooding epic, farcical slapstick ill-serves that vibe. It also has too-theatrical acting from the main character (Hidetora): while he is highly-watchable, the performance does venture into the scenery-chewing absurd at times.

The contrast with the relative monotone from most of the other characters is an uneasy one.

Then there's the typical grunt-barking aggressive japanese dialogue-delivery...it gets tiresome after a while, all the characters sounding alike. The content of that dialogue is often too simplistic, so that the characters aren't able to convincingly sell the premise. The situation far too easily spirals out of control.

Consequence of such being: unlike Seven Samurai, I never felt like I cared for any of these characters or what was going to happen.

Another disappointing aspect is the small feel of the production when compared to english-language epics like Ben Hur, Spartacus, Excalibur, Lawrence of Arabia etc. Despite the big budget, large cast, costumes, castles & landscapes the movie-experience somehow doesn't feel totally 'sweeping' like those other Epic films...maybe because the setting & timespan were restrained to one small area and a short period. Action-wise it's also not that impressive, there's not even any notable one-on-one fights. The gory deaths often look comical rather than dramatic.

With all that out of the way, what was good about Ran? The lauded cinematography is impressive, there are some great shots...after the hour mark there is an extended almost-operatic battle-scene with a gorgeous string-heavy score washing over it. Best scene in the movie. Generally, I appreciated the striking appearance of Hidetora. Lady Kaeda is an intriguingly-vampiric character, well-written and performed. The soundtrack throughout is very nice. The film generally was watchable and fairly entertaining, it didn't drag or get boring.

But is it worth watching? To be worth watching, to be worth seeking out and spending precious hours on, requires a minimum 6/10 in my book. I feel like Ran earns that. But it certainly has issues.

Recommended if you accept there's gonna be that Kurosawa-brand of slapstick-farce amongst the serious stuff.

Incidentally I recently saw Harakiri (8/10) which stimulated me more than the three Kurosawas I've seen. So my focus on that particular style of film-making will be from those less talked about directors. Kwaidan & Onibaba are the next two on my watchlist.

Ghost in the Shell (2017)

Does what it's meant to very well

I have no skin in this game: not interested in how it compares to the anime classic, nor do I care for the manufactured 'race controversy'. I'm just interested in watching an entertaining and visually-interesting 3D sci-fi action movie. Bonus points if things get deep & mysterious!

While Ghost in the Shell didn't scratch much deeper than the surface, and while its mysteries were resolved in a simple (yet satisfactory) manner, this movie did scratch that itch in 3D eye-candy! One of the best showcases for this medium. I watched the Bluray in my Meta Quest 3 headset, the screen - extremely curved - filling more than my entire field-of-view...mega immersive! Excellent depth.

Overall an entertaining, engaging & fun 110 minutes. The action was good, Scarlet is a convincing hero (tho' a little monotone, character-wise). The plot is fine. Soundtrack nice. Support cast mostly decent, except Juliette Binoche feels miscast and the villain (the actual villain) is blandly predictable. Generally the philosophical ideas it has are tropes at this stage, and the film didn't approach them at a unique or interesting enough angle to truly stand out.

What pushes this to an 8/10 however are a couple of strong scenes which hint at philosophical depths potential sequels could flesh out. One involving a 'possessed' trucker's inability to remember his daughter is particularly haunting.

If you dial down your expectations, ignore external criticisms you may have heard and choose the 3D version on as big a screen as possible...then for sure you'll enjoy this! Superior to the similar Battle Angel Alita I saw recently.

Dredd (2012)

Fun but thin, slow-mo concept has missed potential

The best action sci-fi flicks have a (relatively) original concept that they utilise to the max. Terminator had time-travelling cyborg killers, Star Wars had 'the Force', the Avengers movies their movie-spanning arcs, Aliens/Predator their unique antagonists, Edge of Tomorrow the 'Groundhog Day' angle, The Matrix had...the matrix. And so on.

Dredd might have joined this elite group had it put more thought into how to make the film about the slow-mo effect itself: all the cool creative ways it can be used to drive the story (both from antagonists and heroes). Alas...all it's used for is some stylish FX-scenery, some of it pretty dandy...other times the FX have already dated (clearly-digital spurts of blood don't cut it in 2024).

So we're left with a standard setup plot-device of surviving and/or raiding a locked-down building. There's not too much sci-fi going on outside the slow-mo. We've got gangster-warfare clichés and a pair of miscast Judges leading us along to a corny 90's-sounding score. Characterisation generally is very thin, as is the dialogue.

But once we accept that this movie isn't gonna be a great, we can accept it for what it is: a fun dumb action thriller with nice pace, watchable villain, some entertaining deaths and satisfying gunplay.

For doing what's expected, no more no less, it deserves a decent 7/10.

The Godfather Part III (1990)

boring...

...one of the most boring films I've ever struggled through. Boring story, boring dialogue, boring camera, boring acting. Even the acts of violence are oddly boring. There's a severe lack of energy in every part of the movie.

I'm amazed this has a 7.6 on here. It's terrible. Al Pacino seems to be playing a different character to the Michael Corleone we knew in the first two films....so different that '16 years later' can't quite explain it.

After 40-odd minutes I had to start skipping forward...3 hours of this is unbearable. Reminds me of 1963's The Leopard or 1981's Prince of the City...similarly highly-rated but I found to be soul-crushingly boring.

Gets a point for providing Sopranos with a memorable meme ("just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in!"). Michael's silent scream at the end was pretty good too, only the scene that immediately preceded it was laughable.

It's frankly best to ignore Part III entirely. Parts I & II tell a fine story without the need for a clumsy out-of-character epilogue.

The Godfather Part II (1974)

Superior sequel, tho' still not near the greatest

As with Godfather 1, rewatching Part II for the first time in 25 years hasn't changed my mind as to its subjective quality.

It's very good, improving on the first in every area (with caveats):

• camera & production is of higher quality, more ambitious believably-busy crowd scenes. Tho' some obvious studio dialogue-overdubs jar a few lines (from Al Pacino, mostly).

• story is a bit easier to follow. We're still inundated with hard-to-remember italian names, but the setup for each subplot is tidier than in the first one. However, still a couple of things not making sense, like how did the Cuba military-police know they needed to protect Roth? That just happened without any clue as to how or why. Then Pentangeli killing himself made no narrative sense (his character not seeming the type to do this, especially after saving Corleone in the Hearing earlier. Not to mention why Roth's gangsters wanted to fake Michael's involvement by stating "Michael Corleone says hello" during their bungled assassination attempt ...if Pentangeli dies then how does that statement matter? And generally there's a feeling that some deaths simply occur as they make great dramatic material, rather than making any narrative sense. Vito's murder of the Black Hand seemed quite the leap, considering the extortionist had previously hinted he'd be happy with a smaller amount, and then indeed accepted that smaller amount, even praising Vito's attitude.

• Al Pacino performed admirably, a dark morose presence which felt engaging. His reaction to the abortion-revelation is up there in the pantheon of greatest acting scenes. Overall tho', Michael is

• De Niro in the most challenging role almost outshining Brando himself. The Vito character is clearly the most interesting role of the series.

• generally solid action, good pacing, strong dialogue, solid death scenes (except..why Johnny Ola didn't put up more of a fight against an old guy with a coathanger...who knows).

The Godfather (1972)

It's good...but nowhere near the greatest

I first saw The Godfather around 25 years ago, long before I became a film buff. I thought it was good, not great. When registering on IMDB a decade ago I rated it a 7/10 from memory. Incidentally part II I rated a little higher, an 8/10 due to the engaging flashbacks.

Ten years of being a film buff...I've seen some incredible works in that time (including two Coppolas, namely his Apocalypse Now & Dracula). Curious if The Godfathers are as good as their 9.2/9.0 ratings on here, I purchased the Bluray-Restoration Trilogy and just now watched the 3-hour first movie...only my second watch, and the first time since 25 years or so.

....and my opinion is unchanged! The Godfather is a good film. It's very well made, with tons of neat intelligent scenes and dialogue. Well acted. Fitting music. Decent camera work. But it's also tricky to follow, a few times I wondered who characters were referencing...this isn't a problem I've had with Goodfellas or Sopranos. Michael's relationship drama with his two wives isn't really that compelling, and neither is the paranoid mob war. The motives of the antagonist mobsters don't feel convincing.

A couple of action scenes have dated badly. One scene has Sonny punching clear air but the sound effects are claiming contact. Tho' the death scenes were generally done well and still look good today.

Curiously, there's often no offered subtitles when the characters talk in Italian. Specifically an important restaurant scene is missing this. I later watched an online clip with the translation, and I disagree with Copolla: the subs should've stayed in. Also, the image-quality isn't that impressive for a claimed 4k-mastering restoration. Very deep blacks for indoor scenes, meaning you struggle to differentiate among all those black suits. I guess they were going for a chiaroscuro-style (like Caravaggio famously employed in his paintings), so this gets a pass.

7/10 feels absolutely fair. Yet poll after poll still puts this movie right at the top (or very close) in the all-time rankings.

Citizen Kane is one of those I feel deserves such a reputation. The Godfather...not so much.

Part II next. Let's see if it holds its 8/10 (hopefully improves on it!).

Alita: Battle Angel (2019)

Tropetastic!

This movie is so full of tropes it's hard to get engaged:

• mysterious character with no memory of badass past mixed with manic pixie dream girl.

• kindly older father figure played by well-known character actor guiding said character.

• committee-pleasing diverse gang of characters so underdeveloped nobody remembers their names or what happened to them.

• rich city in the sky that the folk below aspire to.

• mass garbage dumps.

• talk of a catastrophic event long ago which ruined the planet.

• cyborgs with human heads (very Robocop-aesthetic).

• bad guys who maniacally laugh while hunting their prey.

• Murderball variant.

• mysterious 'Big Bad' who eventually reveals his face to be...a famous actor.

Godzilla vs. Kong (2021)

King of the Monsterverse!

After the watchable but not particularly worth watching Godzilla 2014, Skull Island and the series stinker King of the Monsters I would normally not even bother with a series fourth, but already had this on 3D-Bluray so felt obligated...and turns out it's the best by a mile!

It does everything better:

• monster fights are numerous but not too many so you never get fatigued. Also clear, bright, had motive, dramatic and easy to follow.

• human element are the most engaging cast of characters in the series (which isn't saying much, but still).

• plot made sense (relatively-speaking, it is a giant monster movie).

• some fantastic, if scientifically-nonsensical, ideas like the Hollow Earth...visually very nicely realised.

• 3D also the best in the series: great depth.

• did I mention the monster fights were brightly-lit, satisfyingly-crunchy and easy to follow?