Centrist Philosopher

Reviews and other content aren't verified by Google

Watching this again (perhaps the 4th or 5th time) I have revisited my older review and upgraded it. Ridley Scott's take on Robin Hood is a decent historic epic but not without some flaws. Although Kevin Costner was criticized for not dropping his American accent in the popular 1991 Prince of Thieves, I think overall he projected the protagonist much better. That version, despite it's obvious flaws (not least around locations), came across as 'more rounded' a story. And actually more epic in some ways. Crowe and some of the other Merry Men frankly seemed to 'mumble' their lines - I had to put on subtitles on my dvd several times. To me, Russell Crowe does what he needs to do but not much more. He certainly isn't a screen stealer. As with Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator, the villains - Oscar Isaac as King John and Mark Strong as Godfrey outshine the leading man. Cate Blanchett is a great actress but not for the first time, Scott is injecting 21st Century ideals in a historic setting. Being a robust landowner is one thing but having her Marian kitted out in armor and fighting in the final battle - even incognito, just came across as a nod to feminists. Not realistic for a story set in 1215. We also see these PC overtures at the start when Robert scolds Richard the Lionheart for the Massacre of Muslims at Acre. It is true that Richard I was not as noble as most of our history has implied but would Scott portray Muslims in a negative light? The Islamic Conquests were just as violent and merciless as the Crusades. It came across as an unnecessary dose of PC. There were good performances by supporting cast such as Eileen Atkins as Eleanor of Aquitaine, Mark Eddy as Friar Tuck and Matthew McFadyen as the Sheriff of Nottingham (albeit a fairly minor role in this film) and Max Von Sydow as Lord Loxley. On the strong points, the action sequences were visually impressive - particularly the beach battle finale. I also liked the 'earthy' feel of the film - hard to explain, but I think Scott done a good job of conveying that 12th/early 13th Century atmosphere of feudal England. The artistic backdrop in the credits (also partially utilized in Gladiator II) was creative and I now look at some scenes in a new light - Robin and his men panicking as they arrive in London instead of Gravesend for example. I also liked the juxtaposition of the Robin Hood story with Magna Carta and the scene around that. Also Friar Tuck as a beekeeper was a good angle. Scott films get criticized for historic accuracy but he is a film-maker not a documentarian. And his version is probably closer to reality than some others. The film clearly leaves us with the possibility of a sequel but 14 years later (writing in 2024) that hasn't materialized and at 87, will Scott do that? It does feel this 2010 film was 'unfinished' with Robin designated an outlaw. So why leave it there? Overall, I now consider this a better film than I had previously considered. Not flawless, but pretty watchable. 7/10

An enjoyable, original movie. Himesh Patel was perfect in the lead role as a young singer feeling guilt for covering the Beatles songs to a world that doesn't know the Beatles existed with Lily James as his love interest. A comedy that also gives us a thoughtful look into the 'price of fame' Richard Curtis made a gem with this one. I would have liked to see the scene with the real Paul and Ringo confronting him in the talk show but I guess the Lennon scene makes up for it. 8/10

The lead roles had strong actresses in Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie. The drama, costumes, cinematography and some other aspects are also commendable. However, it is riddled with historic inaccuracies. Whilst films cannot be expected to be documentaries, when it comes to 're-writing' history this was drenched with woke revisionism. For instance, as much as I like Gemma Chan (Humans was great), it is simply ridiculous for an actress of East Asian descent to be cast as the very Caucasian (historic) Bess of Hardwick. Chan is quoted as saying 'If John Wayne can play Genghis Khan I can play Bess of Hardwick' - sorry Gemma, but there is a difference between 1956 Hollywood and a period film of 2018 and it isn't 'trolling' to say so. We also see high-ranking black courtiers at a time when the very few black people in Britain were likely slaves and even less likely north of the border. This is a film where the 'colour blind casting' is simply a distraction because it is so forced. Inaccuracy (Elizabeth and Mary never met in person among many other mistakes) and the woke agenda (aside from the colour blind casting, every other scene was about a feminist narrative) aside, it is a reasonably watchable film.

I thought this was a strong directorial debut by Anna Kendrick who also takes on the lead role. Summed up, Woman of the Hour focuses on a young woman who appeared on the 1970s dating show 'The Dating Game' when serial killer Rodney Alcala infamously made an appearance. Although she picked him, her misgivings likely saved her life. The actual footage of the episode this is based on can be seen on Youtube. I always feel it is important to handle true crime stories with as much sensitivity as possible. Whilst the scenes of violence are implied, they are not so graphic as to be sensationalist or insensitive. And it must be noted that far from profiting off Alcala's crimes, I understand Kendrick - to her credit, has donated to survivor charities. Some films based on serial killers look cheap and exploitative. To me, this really didn't. Indeed, it is rare to see such a film where the killer himself (and lets be honest, it usually is a he) is not the central focus. Though this doesn't take away from the strong performance of Daniel Zovatto as Alcala - certainly not a comfortable role to play. He may not directly resemble Alcala but he carried the weight of such a sinister character well, particularly his confidence which can be seen in the aforementioned YT clip. There are however some scenes which show Alcala seemingly disgusted with himself and that will of course be hotly debated. Of course not every single aspect will be accurate to the events but it isn't so far detached. I suppose some may question why there is a focus on the central character as she didn't really seem to do anything exceptional to bring Alcala to justice but merely survived him. Indeed, (spoilers) the teenage runaway girl and the woman in the audience who remembered him seemed to actually be more pro-active in that regard. So perhaps the title is misleading insofar as it implies she is a heroine for the other survivors (and victims) but nevertheless, as a viewer I felt Kendrick really elicits huge sympathy in the character, particularly the 'close encounter' scene where she has to think on the spot. Finally, I admit I had a minor preconceived notion that a 2024 (post Me Too) film directed by a woman would be overtly focused on male-shaming to the point of naked misandry. But I honestly didn't see that. Contrary to what some other reviewers have said, Kendrick doesn't paint every male character in a negative light. For instance, Bachelor Number 2 comes across as a little cocky but otherwise a normal guy who actually tries to subtly warn our protagonist about Alcala. Contestant Number 1 is sympathetic because he seems to lack confidence so it actually shows how TV Shows can cruelly exploit human emotions. And a young male journalist who works with Alcala is shown to be creeped out by him. Yes, the film portrays 1970s sexist attitudes and police incompetency but I wouldn't say it was overtly 'anti-male' so male viewers shouldn't be put off by that perception. All in all, I think Anna Kendrick handled a difficult subject matter tactfully and professionally and it is to her great credit. I don't know her very well as an actress (only from Twilight and Noelle) but she clearly has talent and will go far. I hope this film will encourage viewers to think of Alcala's victims.

For me, this was a very worthy sequel to the 2000 epic. I suspect some purists will actively seek out inaccuracies (show me one historic drama that is entirely accurate) but cinematically it was impressive. Connie Nielsen and Derek Jacobi are the only returning cast members but for me having a predominately new cast didn't diminish this film. Denzel Washington on top form as always. Was it perfect? No. But I suspect there are people out there who will seek to be contrarian and negative just because it is a sequel. All in all Gladiator II did not disappoint. I felt it delivered as an action-packed, aesthetically impressive big screen historic epic. Good stunt work, set designs - the whole package. Too early to say if I would put it on par with the first but for me it certainly lived up to it at least. And when you consider the director is well into his 80s (hailing from my part of the world I am proud to say) it is all the more impressive. Of course everyone is entitled to their own perspective but browsing some of the very negative posts here, I consider them very misplaced. 7.5-8/10

The film is watchable and a fair bit of escapism but also, I feel very over-rated. The vibrant technicolor combined with very cliched Irish characters and tropes gave this picture quite an artificial feel. It just needed a leprechaun with a pot of gold to go along with the 'diddly-dee' atmosphere. This is not necessarily a bad thing if you are looking for a bit of light escapism - ie a film that doesn't take itself seriously but for a comedy this film also carried some serious background tones - namely an ex boxer carrying guilt that he killed a man in the ring. That explains the central character's reluctance to fight but for me that doesn't lie well with a film pitched as a comedy. It is like throwing in 'The Harder they Fall' with a Disney film. John Wayne was in my view, a pretty one-dimensional actor - very over- rated. Every line feels somewhat deadpan and wooden. Be it this, a war movie or a western he always looked the same. There are also scenes pitched as funny but just don't sit well today - for example, Wayne's character literally dragging Maureen O'Hara's character for miles to collect her dowry with locals cheering him on before the climatic brawl with the protagonist. Certainly mid-20th Century Ireland was still a conservative society but this sort of bare misogyny was pitched as humor. I don't consider myself as 'woke' or PC but it just wasn't funny. And it can't be put down to being an old film because other 1950s films were more progressive. Also 'the fight' was quite pathetic. From a long-term boxing fan like myself it looked more like very amateur wrestling. If you are going to have a climatic fight, at least make it more realistic. The Quiet Man has it's moments. There is a pleasant score and it is entertaining enough. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a bad film but I do feel it is over-rated. For me, 5/10 is about right.

Whilst I respect that film taste is entirely subjective, I don't get the low ratings for this film. In my opinion, Killers of the Flower Moon is a great movie. Yes, at 3 hrs 26 mins - it is long but I honestly didn't find it dragging - the point is it is engaging - there are plenty of dramatic scenes to ensure that. For me, Oppenheimer which has a shorter running time, felt slower in pace although I ranked it highly. KOTFM was also easier to follow. Oppenheimer frankly got complex at points with the sheer number of names brought into the Congressional back and forths There are some tropes here about culture clashes, eroding ways of life etc between whites and Native Americans in the early 20th Century - yet the film feels original and unique at the same time. I particularly liked that it isn't black and white - there are cultural tensions but also very obvious overlaps going on too (I hesitate to say integration or assimilation as that would be misleading) - for example the whites and Indians intermarry, drink and gamble and socialize and go to church together. Some old Frontier movies were overly simplistic 'Cowboys and Indians' - some new takes on this genre are overtly drenched in 'White Guilt' - this movie doesn't shy away from controversial issues but is somehow done in a way that is engaging more than 'preaching' and we see a later Frontier - this is not the 'Wild West' of the 1880s but rather the early 1920s Given the backdrop of the film which is about the Osage Nation murders in the 1920s, there are some violent and disturbing scenes but I wouldn't say it is excessive or gratuitous - there is violence but lots of 'breathing space' too. Some say there was no chemistry between Di Caprio and Lily Gladstone - I think they are missing the point (given the context of the story) and I feel there was even if it is not the conventional type. Perhaps the only flaw is the sheer running time would put people off giving this a chance - I would skim 20-30 minutes off. A great director like Scorsese should understand that he is losing potential viewers. Stellar performances from Di Caprio as ever. My favourite actor. 7.8/10

Disclaimer - Horror isn't my 'go to' genre but being Halloween I decided to check this out on Netflix The first third of the film was promising - an interesting premise (the real life McKamey Manor controversies came to mind) But I found the plot started to get a little convoluted. For example, the character Harper's background family issues didn't lend anything to the film. There were plot holes too (SPOILERS) - even after seeing their friend killed, they decide to trust an employee. I understand some gore is needed for shock value but Haunt just descended into typical 'torture porn' that seems to be abundant in horror today. It was more gross than scary. There was too much happening at once - focusing on one character then immediately another takes away the suspense aspect And the ending felt vague. She confronts the leading 'clown' character in her house and says 'lets see what is under the mask' and it just closes there... All in all, I was therefore somewhat disappointed. I've certainly seen worse films but 'Haunt' wasted a good premise and just became messy and disjointed. Decent acting though. 5/10 at most.