The Great Gatsby: Review

Based off the book of the same name, The Great Gatsby is about Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) and his recollection of his past, mainly the period of his life where he befriended rich bachelor Jay Gatsby, played by the extremely talented Leonardo DiCaprio. This is a very brief description of the plot, but more than I was aware walking into the film. Even by the 20 minute mark, I was still attempting to work out exactly what the film was about, as it starts off rather slow and frankly, boring. 

To be honest, the movie never truly picks up from this slow pace. It's never unbearable, and at times such as a scene where Gatsby enters a fury can be rather enjoyable, but most of the film is hugely forgettable. It's an important thing to know that Leonardo DiCaprio almost single-handedly saves the film from being a complete failure with his consistently exceptional acting, so if you are not a fan of his, I'm not sure I can recommend The Great Gatsby. 

Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio)

Now, despite all this, Gatsby is in no way a dreadful movie. There are times where the acting is rather enjoyable, and the plot thickens slightly more beyond the usual boring layer, but I personally thought that there was a lot more to dislike than like with the film. For example, I think it was a huge mistake of the producers to use music from our current generation such as Jay Z instead of something that would be more appropriate for the time of 1912 New York. If they had chosen to do so, I think the movie would have been at least slightly more enjoyable, becoming more engrossing overall.

The problem is that although there were a couple interesting scenes littered throughout the movie, I just can't see myself telling anybody: "You've got to see The Great Gatsby". I'm not sure I could even suggest you rent it at an incredibly reduced price, because the 2 hour 20 minute run-time just seems far too long for such a bland story. 

Verdict
I know that most of what I have said in this review may be controversial as many people I know agree that Gatsby is an exceedingly good movie, with a superb soundtrack. But I simply cannot agree with them, as in my opinion, The Great Gatsby is a vaguely enjoyable film but one which you will forget about mere days after viewing.  6/10

"And yet again I felt within, yet without."

Django Unchained: Review

When it first premièred in cinema, I was unable to see Django Unchained due to it's 18 certificate. I consistently heard such great things about the movie, that the hype I felt to inevitably see it grew and grew. Now, four months after it's release, I finally got around to watching the Tarantino masterpiece that is Django. 

Django Unchained follows the slave turned bounty-hunter character of Django (Jamie Foxx). He is freed from captivity by German dentist Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), and together they pursue several targets for the monetary gain of Dr. Schultz. Soon however, Django tells his mentor about his slave wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), and the duo head off to a plantation known as 'Candieland', run by the despicable slave owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio)

Now, when I say that Django Unchained is far from over-hyped, I thoroughly mean it. For months, I heard non-stop praise for Quentin Tarantino's spaghetti-western, and it is exceedingly well deserved. The violence in the movie is at times slightly excessive, but incredibly suitable and entertaining. The acting is beyond enjoyable, with DiCaprio and Foxx shining, but supporting cast members such as Samuel L. Jackson adding huge amounts to the already spectacular collection of actors. 

Like every Tarantino movie, the script is incredibly well-written. Swiftly changing between hilarious scenes and edge-of-your-seat tension, the dialogue is superior to almost anything I have seen recently. There are some genuinely funny moments littered throughout, which made me laugh more than when I saw the semi-decent comedy 'Hangover Part III' recently, and others which make it almost unbearable to watch due to their unforgiving nature. 

That's an important point to touch on: as this is a Quentin Tarantino film, no holds have been barred. Several racist terms are used freely in almost every other sentence, but it's an appropriate representation of 1858 Southern America, not entirely for entertainment purposes. The violence acted out upon the black people in the film is at times very difficult to watch, but credit must be given to deliver such an uncensored interpretation of the era. 

It's difficult to think of a single thing wrong with Django Unchained, as everything from the cinematography to the soundtrack is phenomenally enjoyable to experience. My only minor gripe however, is that because the film is almost three hours long, there are a few times where the action slows down and you're left wanting more, but it is not long before the movie delivers and it's back to a consistent pace of entertainment. 

Verdict
Django Unchained is simply spectacular. It is one of few films I have seen lately that completely lives up to all the hype it has recieved, and one which should be experienced by as many as possible. It won't be for everybody, due to the gratuitous violence and frequent racism, but for those able to cope, it is certainly a movie which you should not miss out on.     9/10

"D-J-A-N-G-O, the 'D' is silent."

The Hangover Part III: Review

I'll start immediately by saying that the third and final movie in the Hangover trilogy is far better than the second released in 2011. Not only is it funnier, but the story is not simply a remake of the original movie. The Wolfpack consisting of Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), Doug (Justin Bartha) and most importantly Alan (Zach Galifinakis) are reunited when Alan's Father suffers from a heart attack, and he is sent to be taken to an 'intervention' facility where he will learn to change his ways. Things go awry however, when a man known only as Marshall (John Goodman) kidnaps Doug and will not return him until the three remaining members of the Wolfpack bring him Lesley Chow, played by the hilarious Ken Jeong. 

Now, I was a huge fan of the original Hangover movie, and have seen it several times since it's release. It's simply a hilarious comedy which has an interesting story, two factors which rarely mix well, but the movie pulled it off perfectly for me. Hangover Part III contains several throw-backs to the first, which can only really be appreciated by those whom have seen it. If you have though, there are several scenes and references which almost feel nostalgic. 

Alan (Zach Galifinakis)

The third in the trilogy is not as hilariously funny as the first, but mixes things up with some exciting action sequences and occasionally a few touching encounters between well-known characters to fans of the series. Don't go in to the film expecting a laugh-a-minute comedy, but it certainly is an enjoyable movie in it's own right. 

There were a few points pulling The Hangover Part III back from a considerably high rating though. There were times when jokes seemed reasonably forced, such as in the trailer when Alan cries for a solid 10 seconds. It doesn't sound long, and initially it was funny, but you're swiftly waiting for the film to continue. Also, it seems that the lovable-idiot character of Alan who we were introduced to in the first film has changed dramatically, now becoming a rather arrogant, rude person. It's not to say 90% of what he says isn't funny, it's just something that you should be aware of. 

Verdict
There's no way that The Hangover Part III is going to win any oscars, but that's expected. It is however a fun and comedic film which is perfect if you gather a few friends to go to the cinema. I wouldn't say you have to rush out immediately and go pay extortionate prices to see it, but if you have a spare few hours it's certainly worth your time.       7.5/10

"I told myself I would never come back."

"Don't worry...it all ends tonight." 

Scarface: Review

When it comes to classic gangster movies, Scarface is widely regarded to be up there with greats such as 'The Godfather'. It follows the aggressive rise in power of Cuban immigrant Tony Montana (Al Pacino) through a drug cartel, after he begins from the very bottom. But is Scarface really worthy of being compared to such iconic films?

First, lets get the positive points of the movie out the way. Al Pacino plays the angry character of Tony Montana very well, delivering all of his lines in a superb fashion. The scenes where he goes into a blind rage are the amongst the best in the movie, creating memorable quotes which have been repeated for years and years since it's release. Also, there are times when the story is engrossing and interesting, leading you to wonder how it will all conclude. 

Tony Montana (Al Pacino)

Unfortunately however, there seems to be far more negative points to Scarface. The film runs for a colossal three hours, which isn't completely unheard of, but the pacing just isn't up to scratch to keep things interesting. By about the two-hour point, I was wondering how long it was until the end, as it already seemed to have been on for an incredibly long time. This is solely down to the fact there are many scenes which could have been cut and it have benefited the film, which is never a good sign. Also, there are certain characters which we are expected to care about but simply cannot, due to them not being fleshed-out enough or just being simply unlike-able. 

The main problem really is that Scarface has been over-hyped so much, it's become ridiculous. It's in no way an awful movie, just with a little editing and shortening, could have been far better. I just don't feel it deserves the status it has gained, as it is constantly referenced in many aspects of pop-culture and hailed as one of the greatest gangster movies by many. 

Verdict
It may now be a very controversial thing to say, but I can't honestly recommend you see Scarface, unless you have a spare three hours with literally nothing to do. There are a few moments which almost redeem the countless unneeded scenes, but in the end you feel like you've wasted a long time rather than gained anything. If you are a huge fan of Al Pacino, it's a good idea to watch one of the films which made him a household name, but otherwise I don't think I could blame you for giving it a miss.    7/10

"I always tell the truth, even when I'm lying."

Forrest Gump: Review

Released in 1994, Forrest Gump has now become an incredibly classic movie. Starring Tom Hanks as the iconic character of Forrest Gump, the film tells the story of Forrest, from his childhood all the way until his older years. He somehow managed to be present at many key dates in American history, from the Vietnam war to the Watergate scandal. 

The simplest way to describe Forrest Gump is that it's an emotional, funny and heart-warming film about a man who is unable to act out nastiness intentionally, who would give anything in the world for the love of his life Jenny (Robin Wright). While in Vietnam, Forrest meets a man named Bubba (Mykelti Williamson) who soon becomes his "best good friend". 

Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks) 

The most surprising thing about Forrest Gump is how emotional it gets. Touching on issues such as child abuse, drug use and sexual assault, it may be a little mature at times for it's 12a rating, but there are moments which never fail to make me choke up, one of a very small list of films able to do so. It's also a very feel-good movie though, with many funny scenes and countless loveable characters. 

For me though, one of the most memorable features of the film isn't the engrossing story, or the incredible acting by Tom Hanks. No, for me, the soundtrack of Forrest Gump is perfectly suited to what is happening on-screen. With songs like 'Fortunate Son' accompanying scenes set in Vietnam, or a personal favourite 'Free Bird' played during a drug sequence, in my opinion it stands out along with films such as Pulp Fiction for having a perfectly chosen musical score which compliments the film exceedingly well. 

There's very little wrong with Forrest Gump. It's funny, entertaining and moving. The only minor complaint I could have is how at times, some of the accompanying actors are out-shined by Tom Hanks' incredible role. This is barely a negative however, standing testament to just how accomplished Tom is as an actor. 

Verdict
Forrest Gump is a classic movie which will be enjoyable for many years to come. Almost 20 years old, I had as much fun watching it the fourth time as I did the first. The list of people who haven't seen it may be a minority, but if you haven't I really do urge you to do so, as it more than lives up to the years of hype it has received.       9/10

"Mumma always said: dying was a part of life...

I sure wish it wasn't." 

A Clockwork Orange: Review

Arguably Stanley Kubrick's finest masterpiece, A Clockwork Orange tells the story of the violent, charismatic and aggressive youth Alexander DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell). The film revolves around his extremely antisocial actions and their inevitable reactions, touching on several dark areas such as rape and abuse. When Alex is jailed for the murder of an innocent person, the movie portrays exactly how much power the government has over it's citizens: experimenting on those placed in confinement. 

There's no doubt that the first time you see A Clockwork Orange, it may shock you as to how peculiar it all is. For anybody familiar with Kubrick, the movie may not seem quite as odd, but it is unique nonetheless. Its contradiction of classical composers such as Beethoven against disturbing violence creates a viewing experience like no other. 

Alexander DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell)

But why exactly is A Clockwork Orange my favourite movie I have seen? Probably down to the main character of Alex being so likeable despite the fact he is quite clearly a psychotic delinquent. The film opens with an iconic shot of Alex raising a glass of milk, while he narrates in the background. I am personally a huge fan of films which contain a strong lead narrator, such as Fight Club, so it is no surprise as to how much enjoyment I get every time I watch A Clockwork Orange. 

From a personal point of view, I have literally no issues with the film, as it is as much of a pleasure to watch now as it was the first time I saw it. Some may argue that certain segments seem drawn out or it is occasionally strange solely for the purpose of being strange, but I would have to disagree with both of these criticisms. The story details the tribulations of Alexander DeLarge to an excellent degree, making you feel you've experienced his journey by the end. 

Another thing to note is how A Clockwork Orange contains many subtle themes and messages, being a Stanley Kubrick film. The movie was released in 1971 to a very mixed reaction, but is still just a relevant to this very day. It saddens me that many have not heard of A Clockwork Orange, as it really is something everybody should experience. 

Verdict
A Clockwork Orange is a film like no other. It is thought-provoking, funny, scary, exciting and disturbing all at once. The acting is eccentric, but it all makes perfect sense in context of the rest of the movie. Malcolm McDowell presents one of the most iconic characters put on screen, somehow gaining the viewer's respect through his particular delivery of all his lines and worryingly charismatic outlook. A Clockwork Orange will not be for everybody, but if you take the time to search it out, I promise you that it will not be an experience you forget quickly.   10/10

"Goodness is something which is chosen. 

If he cannot choose, he ceases to be a man."

Star Trek Into Darkness: Review

Not being a viewer of the classic Star Trek programmes and movies, I went in to this sequel with little prior knowledge of the detailed Star Trek universe. I hadn't even seen the 2009 reboot also directed by critically acclaimed director J.J Abrams, although had heard great things about it. Star Trek: Into Darkness follows the crew of the Enterprise as they attempt to track down a terrorist named Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch) who originated as one of their own, led by Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine). 

The movie opens in a particularly exciting fashion, with Kirk and Bones (Karl Urban) running through an exotic far away planet. It's notable how beautiful the foliage on the planet looks, with bright reds contrasting with the white-painted skin of their pursuers. We're quickly introduced to iconic characters such as Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Scotty (Simon Pegg) who go towards assembling the cast of accomplished acting talent. 


It's a stand-out point of how good the film looks at times. Landmarks such as a futuristic London look believable and entirely appropriate, with architecture not being too over-the-top yet still immensely impressive. It's a relief that J.J Abrams has been chosen to direct 2015's Star Wars Episode VII, as there are times where the Star Trek world he has created reminds you of areas seen in the 'rival' series. 

Benedict Cumberbatch is excellently cast as the aggressive, brutal and sinister Khan, with exchanges between him and members of the Enterprise being exciting and interesting. There is no precise weak-link when it comes to the actors, as everybody was enjoyable to watch, but Cumberbatch stands out as one of the most memorable characters I have seen in quite a while. 

Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch)

Star Trek: Into Darkness was not perfect however. There were a few times where conveniences allowed the story to progress and, without any spoilers, the movie just seemed to wrap up rather quickly. I'm not saying it is a short film, being just over two hours, but it goes rapidly from intense action to the conclusion. If these issues had been addressed, then I think the film would easily be amongst some of the best I have seen.

Verdict
Star Trek: Into Darkness is an enjoyable movie taken by itself. I say this because that's what it was for me, as I've never been an avid fan of the series, but I'm certainly aware that there are a few nods throughout which will give pleasure to those who have been long-time watchers. With a memorable and truly intimidating villain and a likeable group of heroes, it's certainly worth paying full price for.    8/10

"So tell me, why did you allow me to live?"

Saw: Review

Before they became solely about releasing a sequel for money, the Saw franchise told a truly interesting and original story. Up till about the third movie, they kept up this story, adding several new layers and introducing new characters to keep things fresh. This multi-million dollar series had to begin somewhere, and that place exactly was the original directed by James Wan back in 2004 simply titled: Saw.

Two men wake up in a room, a body lying between them. They have no recollection of how they got there or why they are there, but soon find out that only one can leave alive, with the only culprit being a suspected killer known only as "Jigsaw". The movie quickly sets up an intriguing premise which immediately interests you as the viewer, as you know no more than the characters in the film. It soon becomes apparent however that Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and Adam (Leigh Whannel) are not as entirely clueless as they first seem. 

Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes)

I personally enjoy the first Saw movie more than any of the others, as it focuses on something deeper than just mechanical traps meant to torture and kill their victims as gruesomely as possible. No, it is far more than that, as you are slowly introduced to more than just the two men in the room, and things become a lot more interesting than they first appeared. Of course the film contains some gore and death-devices: a staple of the series which everybody came to expect, but it holds its own as a unique crime thriller, mixing tense scenes with occasional action.

Now, that's not to say that it is a perfect example of a crime movie. The acting is questionable at times to say the least, and the story can become slightly convoluted when detailing the history of ex-detective David Tapp (Danny Glover). Some of the more brutally violent scenes are definitely not for everybody, being almost too twisted to be deemed sane. The acting provided by Cary Elwes as Dr. Gordon is notably engrossing though, particularly towards the film's conclusion.


Verdict
Saw is frequently overlooked for being a part of the long-spanning gore franchise, but it really is far more enjoyable than some of the later iterations. If you can look beyond it's several flaws, it is an exciting crime thriller with horror elements and several twists thrown in, which will entertain anybody mature enough to appreciate the unique story.    8/10

"Most people are so  ungrateful to be alive...

but not you, not anymore." 

Donnie Darko: Review

Donnie Darko is a movie which I distinctly remember hearing about or seeing in shops when I was younger. It always confused me as to what the film was actually about, with the box-art not giving very much away whatsoever. The movie follows the estranged visions of a teenager named Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) who already has problems with isolation and remaining solitary. He begins seeing a mysterious rabbit-figure who tells him the world will end in 28 days, who goes on to almost possess him to commit numerous  crimes. 

The film is very bizarre, with any scenes involving "Frank" the rabbit being particularly disturbing and dark. His appearance could result in the movie being mistaken for a horror film, with a sinister looking mask to complete the image of a nightmarish apparition. It's difficult to explain precisely what the film is about, or what order things happen in, because honestly after just watching it, I'm still rather confused about everything.

Frank (James Duval)

I will say that Jake Gyllenhaal presents the socially-isolated character of Donnie very well, really making you as the viewer want to empathize with his current state. Some of the hallucination sequences are highly engrossing, with sound and cinematography being utilized exceedingly well to create a sense of confusion and mystery. Some scenes in the movie are also pretty humorous, as I laughed out loud on a couple of occasions. 

It's just sometimes too strange to be able to keep up with. The last act of the movie in particular is filled with twists that you as the viewer are meant to take in, with an ending which I'm not too sure how to interpret. I won't spoil anything, and maybe with time I'll appreciate it far more, but as of this moment it seems far more complex than I would have thought. 

Verdict
Donnie Darko seems a lot like a film which I need to watch a few more times to properly appreciate and understand. Although at times it seems strange for the sake of it, it feels like there's a much deeper plot and collection of themes which I haven't properly grasped. As an initial verdict after the first time I've seen it though, I'll say it's unique and interesting, even though seemingly convoluted at times.     7.5/10

"I can do anything I want to, and so can you."

Thanks to Rosie Cooper for letting me borrow this movie.

Memento: Review

It would be appropriate to begin this review with the verdict, and work backwards to how I reached that. For the sake of continuity though, I'll keep it familiar. 'The start is the end, and the end is the beginning'. This is not a profound metaphor on life or anything like that, but rather the general structure of Christopher Nolan's intriguing movie Memento. Starring Guy Pearce as Leonard, Memento begins with a scene reversed, shown in colour. It then goes on to show another scene in black and white, before again going back to colour. Soon you realise that the colour scenes are being shown in reverse order, and the scenes with a black and white filter being in the correct order but not in chronological sync with the coloured ones. 

Leonard (Guy Pearce) 

The movie revolves around Leonard trying to find a man whom he only knows as "John. G", who is believed to have raped and murdered his wife. I say believed, because Leonard only knows everything he does from many tattoos applied all across his body, hence the name: Memento. 

If it sounds confusing, it's probably because the first time you watch the movie, it is. I have never seen a film attempt such a complex structure, but Memento pulls it off perfectly. The reasoning for this unique presentation of the story is because the main character and narrator Leonard has a mental condition where he cannot create new memories since an accident he had. It is best described by a quote from the movie: "It's like you know what you want to do but don't know what you've just done." This structure of the scenes creates a feeling for the viewer that they can almost empathise with Leonard, desperately attempting to wrap their head around what is happening and what is yet to happen. 

It's difficult to write about Memento because it requires a lot of explaining in advance. This does in no way make it a bad movie, far from it, just a very individual one. Guy Pearce presents the vulnerable and confused yet purposeful character of Leonard exceedingly well, with supporting cast members such as Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano deepening the story even further. Because you're never too sure of the relevance of each character, you are constantly left guessing as to who is really on the side of good. 

Teddy (Joe Pantoliano)

If it's not incredibly obvious, Memento is a rather difficult film to keep up with. You will either stick with it and experience one of my favourite movies I have seen, or you will deem it too complicated and give up. I would highly recommend the former, as it really does all come together very nicely towards the end.

Verdict

Memento is a daring attempt at creating a very unique movie which still manages to tell an interesting and deep story. In my opinion, it succeeds completely, allowing for a movie experience which will stick with you for a long time, almost solely because there is very little at all like it.    9/10

"Can I believe that when I close my eyes, 

the world is still there?"

My thoughts on sequels

Usually whenever there is a popular movie released, there will almost always be a sequel at some point. Whether it be planned beforehand due to a scheduled trilogy or has simply arose due to the original being so sought after, sequels can either add hugely to a series or make the first seem less itself in quality. 

Some movies, such as Memento or Forrest Gump stand out to me as being perfect on their own, with no further storyline arcs or plot twists needed. Obviously for series such as The Hunger Games several films are needed to fully tell the story already set by the books, but it's not uncommon to see a sequel which is solely to milk a popular brand dry. Take the latest Fast And Furious for example. It is the sixth in the adrenaline-fuelling car/action series, which in my opinion is three too many. Unless a movie direly needs a fourth, I think leaving it at a trilogy is far more appealing. 

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy some film series' that have gone on for considerably longer than originally thought. The Saw movies, although not enjoyed by many, stand out for me as all entertaining films. I still believe however that the producers of those films could have very easily concluded the story after the third, instead of pushing on all the way up to seven. It became rather obvious that they were being made solely for money, as new twists were introduced almost as if it were just to keep the story going so another film could be made. 

Billy the puppet, Saw Movies

The problem really, is that these long-running series will continue to be made as people choose to pay for them. Fast and Furious is a million dollar brand, which is precisely why it has been allowed to continue to it's sixth sequel. Similarly to bad movies that have spanned many years, such as Scary Movie, anything will continue for as long as people allow it to.

I'm not saying go out and boycott against films which are beginning to get a little stale, I just think that movie producers need to sometimes consider the quality of their content over the monetary gain from it. That is why I respect directors such as Christopher Nolan, who has gone on the record saying he will not direct another Batman movie, even though I feel if he did it would yet again rake in millions upon millions of dollars. He chooses not to because he has wrapped up the story he wished to tell, I just hope that other members of the films industry will do the same. 

The Dark Knight Rises: Review (Spoilers)

Sequel to 2008's critically acclaimed 'The Dark Knight', The Dark Knight Rises had very big shoes to fill. Starring Christian Bale as comic-book hero Batman, the film's hype began about a year before it's release, getting many fans including myself well and truly excited. Initially after watching The Dark Knight Rises I believed it to be one of the best films I had seen, still buzzing from the pre-movie build up. Now almost 10 months after it's release, it's still incredibly entertaining, but is it as good as I once thought? 

The film revolves around Bruce Wayne's (C. Bale) struggle at becoming the Batman once more, after 8 years of leaving it behind and going into isolation. He is forced out of seclusion however when a masked terrorist known only as Bane threatens the city in which he resides. Bane, played by the award-winning Tom Hardy, is a much darker and realistic vision of the comic-book villain, leaving behind the original back story and instead trying a much more intimidating look (in my opinion), with a mask covering only his mouth, allowing Tom Hardy to act almost solely with his eyes, no easy feat which he still manages to pull off spectacularly. 

Bane (Thomas Hardy)

The Dark Knight Rises keeps you glued from start to finish, which is a huge accomplishment seeing as the movie is almost three hours long. Bane is a brute of a man and a physically superior adversary to the Batman, hugely different from what the Joker was in The Dark Knight. He is built up to be such an interesting villain, with every scene he features in being amongst the best in the film. It is a shame then, and this is a major spoiler, how his on-screen presence was concluded. For me, this is one of the major faults in The Dark Knight Rises, as Bane is simply blown away by Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) when she rides in on Batman's motorbike. It's just all far too abrupt for my liking, making an almost perfect finale not quite extra-ordinary. 

Regardless of this however, The Dark Knight Rises is still a fantastic conclusion to arguably the best trilogy in films. The choice of ending to (again, huge spoiler) make the viewer believe the Batman was dead was a bold choice by director Christopher Nolan, but one which paid off immensely. And I suppose technically the Batman did die, allowing Bruce Wayne to begin again, running away from everything with Selina Kyle. I also respect Christopher Nolan for including a subtle nod to Robin, even though he confirmed he would not be bringing him into the trilogy. 

Verdict

So is The Dark Knight Rises as good as it was built up to be? Yes, I do believe it is. But is it better than it's predecessor The Dark Knight? Unfortunately I do not think so, as nothing for me will top the phenomenal acting by the late Heath Ledger as the dark and twisted Joker. It is however a near-perfect conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy, and one which deserves to be viewed in it's entirety along with the previous two films.     8.5/10

"You're pure evil."

"I am necessary evil" 

Scary Movie 5: Review

There's bad movies. There are films which make you completely regret watching them, knowing you could have spent your time literally any other way and it would have been more worthwhile. Then there is Scary Movie 5. The plot (if it could even be called one), transitions from one awful parody to another, mainly revolving around the averagely-received "Mama" released earlier this year. Like in that movie, a fairly average couple adopt some children who have been missing for several years, supposedly being guided by a mysterious entity known only as "Mama". 

Now, I know that sometimes parody films or even certain comedies (because there is a huge difference) portray events purposefully as slap-stick as possible in the hope that it will be seen as funny. Scary Movie 5 fails miserably at this from start to finish. Relying on toilet humour and 'pop-culture' references, I found literally nothing funny in this movie. There were only a couple of scenes where I smiled slightly, before another forced celebrity cameo or joke about faeces reminded me of what I was watching. 

The star studded cast of incredible actors

The film opens with a short sketch spoofing Paranormal Activity, with Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan playing themselves. It was nice of director Malcolm D. Lee to prepare viewers for exactly what they were getting in to; completely un-funny, ridiculous, mindless attempts at humour. Paranormal Activity isn't even a modern movie to poke fun at, with the first being released 2007, so why they chose to mock it in a film almost solely riding on pop-culture is beyond me. This isn't where the celebrity appearances stop however, with Terry Crews, Snoop Dog and Mike Tyson all popping up in one embarrassing sketch after another.

 One thing worth mentioning is the fact that Ashley Tisdale is one of the main characters in the movie. For those who don't know, Ashley Tisdale is a Disney 'star' who appeared in masterpieces such as High School Musical. I don't think it's even worth commenting on the acting in the movie, as hopefully that will speak for itself. The only thing I thought was amusing throughout the entire film was that there was an impressionist mimicking the voice of Morgan Freeman as the narrator, but even that doesn't pull it up any points.  

Verdict
Do not pay any money to rent, see or buy Scary Movie 5. The only way films like this will end is if people stop fuelling them. I think I can honestly say that it is by far the worst movie I have ever seen, and I genuinely feel like I've lost an hour of my life doing so. That's another thing: the movie is only 70 minutes long, but it seems to drag on for an eternity. Just don't see it, plain and simple.       1/10

There's no memorable quotes for this film, 

just do yourself a favour and do not see it.