Search Results

This film opens in a dark world. The shots are decent, but the lighting is very poor. I understand that the director was trying to make the planet look terrible, but not being able to see Han's face subtracted from the aura. The hero then divulges himself as he exits the scummy planet he has called home for so long. Even Donald Glover's snide attitude could not save this film. Once again, the writers of the New-age Star Wars movies decided to use a droid for comic relief in the film, and it did not pay off. There was an attempt by the writers to make the audience feel sympathy for Glover's character as he lost his partner L3, but there was no connection. However, there are silver linings in the film. The relationship between Chewbacca and Han is developed, Darth Maul is introduced, and the concept of the rebellion is mentioned. All these aspects of the film help connect it to the mainstream series. Overall, I would see the film if you like the Star Wars saga. If you are looking for a film Roger Ebert would appreciate, you are better off going home and watching "Call Me By Your Name" on HBO.

Fun, fashion, fabulous, fierce, forgettable. Just a few F’s to sum up this star studded girl-power instalment in the latest Ocean franchise. Unfortunately as a heist film it doesn’t do what heist films do, I didn’t feel thrilled by what was happening, I didn’t think the stakes were high enough, I didn’t believe the characters. That for me was the problem with this film is that it all felt like an episode of Ugly Betty (not a bad thing, but not what I want from a heist film). A bit too glam, a bit too fake and a bit too cheesy. It all just felt a little flat, which is a huge shame because the cast are actual queens of the screen. When you think that Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Sarah Paulson, Helena Bonham-Carter and Anne Hathaway are some of the biggest and best names in Hollywood it really does feel that the film just didn’t live up to the potential of the names attached to the film. The film itself is a very important movement for feminism in Hollywood, obviously there is a lot of talk about an all female film not making money, well Ocean’s 8 has already made 100m. However as great as it is that the cast are all female and that it passes the sometimes dubious Bechdel test there are two reasons why I think it looses its message of female empowerment. One, the director is a bloke. I think it would be very refreshing and needed to have female directors, stories about women told by women. I don’t want some middle aged white guy directing women, I want a woman directing women. It’s really not hard for Hollywood to do this. Whilst the representation on screen of women might be improving with the help of this and the rebooted Ghostbusters film and others, behind the screen, is there that same movement and representation? Another problem I had was that the real aim for her to do this heist, other than money, was to get back at her ex, a man. Does a man really need to be the motivation for her? Yes she made money on the side, but I think the film really sets out to make it look like that was the real aim. I don’t know if the film needed that, it needed a side motivation, but I think they could’ve found a different reason to that.  2/5 A film with a great cast, apart from the ever appearing James Cordon, a straight-forward story but with a lack of thrill, laughs and entertainment. The making of the movie and what it can hopefully do for females within Hollywood will hopefully have a more lasting impact than the film will have on the viewer.

(Release Info London schedule; July 6th, 2018, Cineworld, Leicester Square) "Uncle Drew" After draining his life savings to enter a team in 'The Rucker Classic Street Ball Tournament' in Harlem, Dax Winslow (Lil Rel Howery) is dealt a series of unfortunate setbacks, including losing his team to his longtime rival Mookie Bass (Nick Kroll). Desperate to win the tournament and the cash prize, Dax stumbles upon the man, the myth, the legend Uncle Drew (Kyrie Irving) and convinces him to return to the court one more time. The two men embark on a road trip to round up Drew's old basketball squad and prove that a group of seniors can still win the big one. Dax Winslow is the man who unexpectedly brings Uncle Drew back to the court. He proves to be both Drew’s comic foil and true friend. Though always a diehard basketball fanatic, Dax has never had the chance to really feel a part of the game. Ever since missing his one chance to hit a winning shot as a kid, he’s been hustling to prove his worth, nearly forgetting why he wanted that success in the first place. He thought he was on the hunt for the next young hotshot, only to find himself trying to wrangle a limping, if also swaggering, team of guys who haven’t rebounded since the 70s. Dax is a young man searching for family. He doesn’t see it coming, but in the course of putting together this team of old guys to play at 'The Rucker Tournament', he finds that. They teach him some things about what matters. It’s Dax who shows how everybody ends up gaining something from the mix of new and old school. Dax defies stereotypes as a protagonist. He's this guy who isn’t that cool, who’s a little nerdy, who's kind of sweet and doesn’t have all the answers. Dax is an orphan, so from the start, basketball is his way of finding friends and family. He just forgets how important that's until he meets Uncle Drew. He’s felt unappreciated, betrayed and unable to trust anybody. He makes his life about the hustle and being in it for himself. At first, he’s skeptical Uncle Drew is even real, let alone even the longest shot contender all these years later. When guys in the barbershop talk about Uncle Drew, Dax doesn’t believe any of it. So when he finally meets Uncle Drew it's like seeing 'Santa Claus' or the 'Easter Bunny' in person. But as Dax and Uncle Drew set out on a trek to locate his old team, their cross-generational friction leads to a deeper connection and Dax comes to feel needed as he never has before. At first, Dax and Drew are just two strangers in a van. They’re having all this back-and-forth about music and basketball and not agreeing on anything. But by the time they get to Harlem, Dax realizes he's experiencing a feeling he always wanted, the feeling of family. He’s now surrounded by people who actually love him for being himself. Once the competition starts at 'The Rucker Tournament', Dax realizes something different is on the line than what he imagined. More than a win or the cash, what matters now is that he can’t to let down his friends. It’s become about so much more than money for him. He has the chance to gain the respect and affection he always wanted. Dax is unsure of himself and Uncle Drew matter-of-factly tells him, don’t need you to be great all the time, youngblood, just need you to be great one time. Big Fella (Shaquille O’Neal) is the giant who brings power to the team, he’s the anchor. In the beginning Big Fella seems full of anger but then he shows us a guy who he can break dance and has a heart as gigantic as he's. Big Fella is a very conscious, focused individual, but also one with a grudge. Uncle Drew did something to upset him long ago, and Big Fella has not forgotten. Yet, he's also understanding and caring, and he's a team player who will do whatever is necessary for the team to win. Wilbur 'Lights' Wallace (Reggie Miller), in his heyday, was one of the greatest gunslinger shooters of his time. As father time caught up to him, his eyesight went, but he refuses to admit it. Everyone around him knows that he’s legally blind, but in his mind he thinks he’s making every shot. Lights may be a little hazy, but he's not out of touch. He’s still the cool guy in this geriatric crowd, dressing to be noticed. He wears Capri shorts, pastel colors, Kangol fedora hats, high white socks and fresh white Reeboks. 'Lights' is good to go all the time. He even has a gold tooth rocking. Boots (Nate Robinson) is the team’s silent scorer with a sneaker superstition. Uncle Drew might find his old friend sitting wordlessly in a retirement home, but Drew knows the brilliant old Boots is still in there and it’s just a matter of reigniting his spirit. Having given up basketball, Boots thought he was done with life. Then, Uncle Drew and Dax arrive to change his fate. Finally, his gang is back together and life has meaning and purpose again. Boots still doesn’t say much, but he’s the guy you want on your team. Boots keeps everybody going. When he’s playing, it’s always a show of dunks and high-flying stuff. Boots is like this beautiful tree that’s grown over centuries, with his massive hair, the beard and just the age in his face. But you also feel his wisdom, and the way Nate plays him, you really believe him as Boots comes more alive and becomes indispensable. Preacher (Chris Webber) has replaced his basketball with 'The Good Book Of The Lord'. Preacher is a cross between Al Sharpton and James Brown, with that kind of power of oration. He's a guy who wears his emotions on his sleeve. He's the leader of the crew spiritually, but he's also the wildest member at one time so everyone respects how he has learned to stick to discipline. Betty Lou (Lisa Leslie) is Preacher’s no-nonsense wife, who's in hot pursuit of him all the way to 'The Rucker'. She wears the pants in Preacher’s household. There's her fierce, take-no-prisoners persona; and her skepticism about letting Preacher return to basketball with all it's temptations. Betty Lou is feisty, independent and she doesn't take any mess. She's bossy and she likes to be in control but, she's also very in love with her husband and she wants what's best for him. She just wants to make sure Preacher stays on a positive path. When Casper (Aaron Gordon) switches teams, Dax is left in the lurch, which ultimately leads to his fateful search for Uncle Drew. Casper is the cocky, arrogant, young up-and-comer who doesn’t respect those who paved the way before him. He doesn’t understand what it means to be a team player; he just wants to win. Mookie Bass is the villain of the movie. Ever since Mookie blocked Dax’s shot in a tournament final as kids, Mookie has viewed Dax as the secret source of his power. In Mookie’s mind, he sees the two of them as being like Bird and Magic, two iconic rivals, who feed off. He's obsessed with Dax because it makes him feel big, whose whole agenda is to constantly get energy from defeating this person. Maya (Erica Ash) is , Boot's loving, levelheaded granddaughter who joins the road trip to keep tabs on her grandfather, but starts to have feelings for Dax in spite of herself. Maya is the voice of reason in this band of merry men. She becomes just one of the guys on this cross-country road trip, but with her own voice. The greatest players in the world have played on 'The Rucker Court'. If they hadn’t played there, 'The Rucker' dates back to the 1940s when a playground director and teacher named Holcombe Rucker set out to uplift kids in Harlem by combining sports with education. Rucker created a series of summer youth leagues that gave local kids a chance to shine. His motto each one, teach one, became as famous as he did, reflecting his belief that by passing on the fundamentals of what you learn to others, you grow a stronger community. Through his tournaments, Rucker helped hundreds to attain college scholarships that changed their lives. In 1956, 'The Tournament' gained steam when it began hosting pro and semi-pro players in the off- season. The park would soon become the sacred mecca of a faster, wilder street version of the game, a liberating place where ballplayers could create, experiment and display their best. 'The Rucker' is the most iconic stage in the sport. It's a great equalizer because it doesn’t matter what color you're, how old you're, male, female, if you can play, you’re respected. What makes streetball unique is there’s less rigidity and when you lose some of that formality you get more fun, you get more theatre. Everyone essentially has courtside seats in a place like 'Rucker', so the crowd is interacting in real time with these amazing plays they’re seeing. It’s much more communal you also get a lot of vibrant showmanship. In the spring of 2012 audiences first met the unforgettable Uncle Drew, a rickety-looking, white-haired, older gentleman who rose gingerly from a park bench to school a bunch of youngblood ballers in a fiercely competitive pick-up game. Uncle Drew is the real deal, a lost legend from another time whose love of the game and courage to keep driving the ball against the odds had apparently never faded over the decades. On the contrary, his skill had only been sharpened with a cantankerous wisdom. His appeal was palpable. The documentary style Pepsi campaign quickly went viral. As it turned out, Uncle Drew is an old legend being played by a vibrant, young legend. Uncle Drew’s 'YouTube' videos have been viewed over 100 million times. After four webisodes people still wanted to see and to know more. Who was this trash-talking, proud old baller with so much game? What had happened to him? What drove him to keep playing in the park? And what would he do with one last shot at greatness? The idea is to take the character on a larger journey that, like the webisodes, would be as enjoyable and moving for audiences who are passionate about basketball as for audiences who wouldn’t know a foul from an alley-oop. The film explores Drew’s fascinating life history and supernatural skills but take him on a comedic adventure to reunite his old teammates into a true family, even if they all appear more likely to compete for the early bird special than New York’s most illustrious streetball tournament. This movie is so special that it maintains the authenticity of how sports can bring people together around something they love. The basketball’s great, the comedy’s hilarious, but the message of family behind the story is even more awesome. In the film, Uncle Drew is called back into action by Dax , a young man who has been on a life-long losing streak and at first doesn’t believe Uncle Drew is any more than an urban legend But once he finds Uncle Drew; and joins forces with him to assemble a last-minute squad for 'The Rucker Classic', the Harlem tournament where countless basketball legends made their names, Dax learns that Uncle Drew has much more to give than just buckets. For Uncle Drew, this journey is about reconciling the mistakes he’s made in his life and with his teammates. Uncle Drew may have lost his way but now it’s time for him to put the team back together and find his purpose again. It’s a wild journey, but in the end, he and Dax and his long-lost friends become a true family, and it’s a beautiful thing. You don’t stop playing because you get old. You get old because you stop playing. While high humor, family, friendship and the dream of returning to the Rucker drive "Uncle Drew", it's equally important to capture some visceral basketball action with his unprecedented cast of hoop legends. To get to the heart of the beauty, the flow and the flying spirit of the game; from simple hand-offs to 3-point miracle shots. With all that's going on in this movie, the film focuses on the relationships, the funny dialogue between characters and the basketball. Luckily, the character-driven script really lent itself to that which is exciting. Dax and Uncle Drew’s generational gap might be obvious in their contrasting clothes, style, music and banter, but it’s beneath the skin that they ultimately connect. “Uncle Drew" shows you that no matter your age, the prime of your life is right now. "Uncle Drew" reminds us that wherever you're at, you can still deliver. He encourages us to never quit doing what we love. What makes "Uncle Drew" timeless is that he devotes himself to what he loves. This movie will be relatable to everyone. It pays homage to Uncle Drew’s love of basketball, but at heart it’s a story about staying true to the things and the people you love most.

"You put a dime in him, you've got to let the whole song play out." When Arthur C. Clarke wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology was indistinguishable from magic I doubt whether atomic scientist finger wizardry from former Cat-Women was exactly what he had in mind, yet that is the barely explained science thing we are asked to buy into during the closing moments of Ant-Man & The Wasp which, not unlike the rest of the movie, leaves a lot to be desired. Finding Evangeline Lilly's bite-sized mother is the name of the game in Peyton Reed's second stab at bringing Ant-Man to the big screen. To achieve this Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) - who is currently serving house arrest after the events of Captain America: Civil War - must first be abducted, then put in a position where he must choose between the debt he owes the Van Dyne crew (Lilly and Douglas) and his own young daughter, all because he dreamed he was Michelle Pfeiffer once (and really, who among us?). They've got some kind of quantum connection, the Van Dyne's contest, because they've both shrunk to sub-atomic level and they need to get inside his head to find her. It's the kind of ambulatory plot contrivance that super-hero movies are often forgiven for and wouldn't be as much of an issue if it weren't indicative of the kind of laziness on display throughout the rest of this thoroughly uninspiring movie. Chief among it's flaws is the fact that despite ostensibly being something approaching a comedy, Ant-Man & The Wasp manages to be so consistently unfunny. Rudd has his moments and Reed is able to construct one or two decent sight-gags, but the lion's share of the humour is delivered by Michael Pena who - while being fantastic in this movie - isn't in nearly enough of it to keep the script from moments of eye-roll-inducing tedium. Asking Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly to shoulder any kind of comedic burden is like telling a child to disarm a bomb: it's unreasonable of you to ask and will almost certainly end in tragedy. The script here is so lacking in anything resembling actual jokes that it feels almost as if Pena must have ad-libbed his lines, he is that far removed from everyone else in terms of quality. Not pictured: Taika Waititi and Chris Hemsworth high-fiving as Thor Ragnarok's stock as a comedy retrospectively rises. The absence of good comedic writing would perhaps not be as noticeable if the rest of the movie weren't so lacking in any kind of tonal consistency, or even just a script which didn't feel like it was written with nothing but getting it's characters out of stupid situations in mind. Lang's daughter video-calling her dad while he is being held hostage, with his kidnappers holding the phone up to his face out of frustration, is a relatively funny idea. Attempting to sow dissent between the kidnappers literally seconds later as they argue - very seriously - about whether they should also abduct his daughter is - at best - clumsy and - at worst - wildly misjudged. And this movie is full of these kind of tonal handbrake turns; a moment played off for humour which is also required to move the story forward and carry emotional weight. Neither the writing nor the direction is competent enough to achieve all three of these goals in one scene and so the movie frequently fails at all of them. And the constant sense that events are simply occurring because the plot demands them to compounds this lack of quality. Visually, this is boring. The occasional uses of licensed music are fairly entertaining although this is purely because the song choice is good and it really can't be over-emphasized how funny Michael Pena is here. It's no coincidence that the best sequence of the movie is narrated entirely by him. It's just a shame that this wasn't a film which focused around his character. This is a movie which would have been better as schlock. It tries to give the kind of villains who explain their plans to you a heart instead of having them twirl their mustaches, while the good guys stand around telling bad jokes and staring wistfully at each other with slight smiles while strings play softly behind them without a shred of irony. This is a super-hero movie where no one feels villainous and the heroes - like the film in general - are boring as hell.

There’s an old adage that says that movie’s are basically empathy generators’; their job is to present you with characters and circumstances that are unfamiliar to you, and would probably never happen to you, and make you connect with them and care about them, within a timeframe of two hours. The greatest movies do this so well that you don’t even notice it, you just find yourself crying with the film, laughing with it, cringing from it, and pumping your fists in the air for it, all because it put in the effort to make you care about the people in it. So, if a movie’s success is measured in how well it makes you care about the lives of the people in it, then “The Big Sick” is one of the most successful movies of 2017, because no other movie made me care, connect, and just plain feel for its characters quite like this wonderful, small, little miracle of a film. “The Big Sick” is based on the real-life romance of Kumail Nanjiani and Emily Gordon. It tells the story of how they met, how they fell for each other, the trials and tribulations they go through, and their eventual reconciliation. It’s a classic romantic comedy plot, filled with all the familiar tropes and beats that one gets used to seeing in this kind of film. But, the movie does something curious; as it unfolds this familiar tale of two young, struggling 20-somethings falling in love, it weaves in a whole host of other stories, the story of a group of young comedians who are helping each other succeed and trying to find their own unique voice, the story of an immigrant family trying to come to terms with its native identity and how it fits in the “melting pot” that is the US, and, most movingly, the story of an older couple that’s facing the prospect of their daughter dying, and the perspective that starts to offer them. Don’t be fooled, “The Big Sick” is a loaded film, deceptively weaving heavy and heady themes into a seemingly simple romance story, but always making sure to anchor that heaviness and thematic weight in the two utterly charming performances from Kumail (playing himself) and Zoe Kazan (subbing in for Emily). However, that’s not to say that “The Big Sick” is a tear jerker, filled with emotional monologues and teary confessions. It is, in fact, a remarkably light film; and most of the film’s most memorable moments come from the expert comedic chops of its cast (and the deft comedic writing of Kumail and Emily, both of whom have worked on some of the best comedy material of the past 10 years). This is a movie made up of small moments, of light conversations and little asides that reveal small but vital details about the characters that make them so relatable, so familiar, so lovable. By the end of the movie, you feel like you’ve known these characters your whole life, like you’ve lived with them, laughed with them, cried with them, shared these significant moments with them. It’s not just Kumail and Emily, it’s Emily’s parents (played by Holly Hunter and Ray Romano, in what would, in any other film, be show-stealing performances), it’s Kumails family (including his father, mother, brother, and sister-in-law), it’s even his fellow struggling comedians who seem to serve as some sort of Greek chorus, always ready with a snarky or smarmy line about Kumail’s current conflict. “The Big Sick” is an oddity in terms of summer theatrical releases, it’s not a multi-million dollar blockbuster, it doesn’t derive its power from powerful world-ending moments of grandeur or from the sheer scope of its filmmaking. This is an intimate film in every sense of the word, a film that derives it’s emotional power from the normal, every day little problems that all of us go through, but in showing it to us through these characters, it gives us just as much emotional catharsis as a thousand apocalyptic epics, and it creates a movie that’ll stay with you long after the credits roll.

Lord of the Bad Boys When ‘Bright’ first appeared on my ‘Netflix screen’, when browsing through the various other titles, I hesitated for some time over the play button. The premise interested me, as well as the choice of acting talent and from the trailer, it looked very different and stylish. Having seen ‘Fury’ and thought it a very impressive war film, I was drawn in by this title but at the same time, I had some reservations. Mainly being, that despite David Ayer having directed a handful of good films, he was also the man responsible for ‘Suicide Squad’. Being a big fan of ‘DC Comics’ and ‘Batman’ in particular, I was disappointed in a number of things in ‘Suicide Squad’, as were many others. The main concerns were costume design and casting, as they were the two biggest failings of ‘Suicide Squad’ in my opinion. Will Smith is a very capable actor and given some truly impressive performances over the years but there is always the concern that he will be thrown into a role where he is type cast i.e. playing the same character as in ‘Bad Boys’ and ‘Men in Black’.  So, going into the film, my expectations weren’t particularly high, and I have to say, having watched the flick in it’s entirety, I was actually quite impressed. Initially, after watching the trailer and seeing images and posters, I was a little sceptical of the costume design. On closer inspection however, I must admit that they have upped their game. The orcs have been designed through a mixture of prosthetics and a clever implement of CGI. There is a still a slightly low budget look to the skin and makeup design but it gets away with it because it isn’t too over the top. A few of the minor character’s tattoos did annoy me, as in ‘Suicide Squad’ but I was able to overlook it, as there were enough other strong elements of the film to carry it. Will Smith’s character Ward is well done. On the surface and particularly at the start of the film, he does feel like a generic smart-arse cop but as the film develops and we learn more about his character, we begin to understand that it is all just an act.  Will Smith gives a very strong performance, but it is Joel Edgerton that really stands out in this film. Both his character and personality of Jakoby are created and executed masterfully. His awkward, clumsy and slightly naive attitude makes him a relatable character, even though he is an orc. In fact, in a lot of ways he is more human then Ward. I feel this is kind of what the writer and director are hinting at in a way. From Ward’s brutal take down of a pest fairy at the beginning, to the corrupt and prejudice human cops that racially abuse Jakoby, the film very much aims to highlight the human nature of the orcs. There is also another reason why Jakoby is such an engaging character. Being a rookie cop, he has pressure to perform up against other more experience and hardened police officers. Combine this with being the only orc in a fully human precinct and it sets the scene for a perfect character development and the struggles that come with it.  The way the two interact with one another is nicely done. It has that classic style of veteran cop forced to team up with newbie officer and much of their relationship reminded me of such classics as ‘Training Day’ and ‘Dirty Harry’. Ward has the unfazed and weary behaviour of a tenured cop but when push comes to the shove, demonstrates his competence as a cop. Jakoby on the other hand is eager, optimistic but significantly wet behind the ears. This team up, whilst a cliché in many respects allows for a great dynamic between the pair and some truly hilarious examples of dialogue exchange. It also gives the film that sense of realism. Amid all the fantasy of orcs, fairies and elves, you have that relatable cop partner scenario, which is instantly recognisable to anyone who is a fan of crime.  This leads on to the matter of the world itself. Unlike most films with a fictional world, ‘Bright’ doesn’t mess about with a detailed explanation of how humans, orcs and elves coexist. Instead, it drops viewers right into the middle of the story. The world is already established, and the characters have already been living their lives. This is not to say there isn’t any explanation. The world itself and the creatures that inhabit it are introduced in three ways: through visual cues, in dialogue and finally in situations or confrontations. Some may find this a little bit too immediate but I think it is a very effective and unique way of establishing the world. It also makes it feel more authentic. Shots of graffiti covered walls with references to orc lore and the transition from rough, impoverished orc neighbourhoods to rich, audacious elven territory, illustrate clearly both the political and economical state of the world, without the need for a black screen with paragraphs of writing, spelling it out for the viewer.  Making a gritty cop film or an epic fantasy flick is a hard task by itself. You want aspects to be familiar, as both genres have their own tropes and trademarks but at the same time, you want to bring something fresh and exciting to the table. Imagine how much more difficult that is, when trying to do that in a film that is both crime and fantasy combined. In a way, the use of orcs and elves in a modern day society with cops and gangs, is different in itself but it still needs to demonstrate an ability to do both those things competently. Personally, I think it works. It has a gritty, urban element that will appeal to fans of crime. There are corrupt cops, dangerous gangs and intense shoot outs. As well as this it has orcs and elves squaring off against each other, a prophecy, a magic wand and a dark lord. These aspects will appeal more to fans of fantasy. By combining these elements, Ayer and the writing talent Max Landis have produced something familiar but unique. At first the two concepts seem like they should not marry up but over time, as the characters and narrative develop and the world becomes more established, they slowly begin to coalesce.  ‘Bright’ is a big budget film. In fact with a 90 million dollar budget, it is the most expensive ‘Netflix’ produced film to date. The cinematography, choreography and special effects are very impressive. So much so, that I would have happily paid money to see it in the cinema. At the same though, there is something about the film that feels slightly less polished and glitzy as your standard Hollywood film. The camerawork is one example. Although, the cinematography is very pretty, there are a lot of close, over the shoulder shots, giving the shoot outs in particular, a more realistic and intense feel to them. Ayer incorporated this style in ‘End of Watch’. This style of camera work is more commonly seen in documentaries and by implementing it into a film, you can add a greater sense of realism and prevent it from looking too squeaky clean and smooth. Also, ‘Netflix’ have a reputation for producing films that look and feel different to Hollywood flicks. Mostly this is due to budget constraints but partly because of the way the film is filmed and edited. The choice to make the film through ‘Netflix’ has definitely paid off, as it still packs all the punches of a big Hollywood film but without all the glitzy and sparkly shine that is usually part and parcel.  The film is a nice length. It doesn’t feel like it is dragging. There is a good momentum and pace. Ward and Jakoby are thrown from one perilous situation to the next and there is definitely enough tension and excitement to give that much needed adrenaline hit. At the same time, they spend enough time at the beginning building up the characters and the world, so we feel invested with the protagonists, whilst feeling like the world created is genuine and well established. This accomplished, when the shit hits the pan, Ayer can make it climatic and impacting, making for an exciting watch. There are brief pauses in the chases and shoot outs, where Ward and Jakoby force each other to reveal what each other has been hiding. This technique allows our investment with the characters to grow but because it is only short sequences, it doesn’t feel drawn out or outwardly used as a plot device.  The only thing that was a little weak for me were some of the fantasy elements. The race divisions and class confrontations worked beautifully, as with most fantasy storytelling it highlights issues that are clearly apparent in real life. However, the idea of their being chosen ones, a magic wand and a dark lord seemed like a mishmash of ideas, borrowing off titans such as ‘Lord of The Rings’, ’Harry Potter’ and even ‘The Matrix’. Also, the twist of the film was readily apparent about a third of the way into the film and as such wasn’t as much of a revelation, as perhaps it could of have been.  ‘Bright’ is a deceiving film that offers a lot more to audiences that it outwardly appears. With the flop that was ‘Suicide Squad’ on the director’s resume, it is easy to see why many would be hesitant, including myself. Also, with the inclusion of Will Smith, an actor who is prone to being typecast and some slightly dodgy costume design, on first glance it may come across as unoriginal and a little naff. However, Smith’s character Ward is a much more well rounded character then he first appears and the makeup and the design of the orcs, is far more effective and polished then Ayer’s previous attempt. Once you are able to realize this, the film instantly becomes more appealing. The blending of genres was a risky gambit but pays off, as it takes two strong styles of film and merges them together to produce something which has all the traits we love in fantasy and crime but in combining the two, produces something unholy new. The characters, their personalities and the struggles they face, in a world infested with racial hate and prejudice makes it more then just another action flick and the world Ayer and the writer Max Landis have brought together is both relatable and weird enough to be fascinating. The story and narrative has a good drive to it, despite it being a little weak with some of the fantasy elements. These aspects can be ultimately overlooked, as the characters, acting, world, dialogue, cinematography and editing are strong enough to keep the viewer’s interest sustained throughout. It is only fairy enough, that Ayer gets a pat on back for a job well done.

First thing first, kindly watch this if you have a thing for sci-fi. As per many news media outlets, Blade Runner has been declared a flop. Please, please and please, kindly ignore those tabloids and watch it at your own accord. The movie like many Denis Villeneuve movies is a visual treat. Breathtakingly stunning and every frame producing it's own distinct piece of beauty something which will make you sit up and marvel at the imaginations of few individuals and their ability to draw them out on the screen with such panache. Deakins probably has sent a clear message that anything less than an Oscar nomination will be a complete shame. Not to forget the special effects and the background score (Zimmer) which were equally brilliant. As far as the story is concerned, I honestly could never figure out what to say about it. Not the best storyline I came across but to say that it's bad will be purely insulting the sanctity involved behind the making of this film which in every word needs to be respected . In the end it was equally difficult to look for any reasons to think about any flaws because it did cross the level of magnificent it was expected to scale. It was equally difficult to sit down and look for flaws and even if there was any, take the liberty to brand it with any negative adjectives. Nevertheless, on a personal level, I would be lying if I wouldn't say that BR2049 is hands down one of the best movies of 2017 and probably a work which might have set a certain barometer for Villeneuve for eclipse in future. The movie is close to 3 hours long and extremely heavy in nature. As mentioned earlier that unless you are a fan of Sci first kindly stay away as there is a huge chance that you might leave the hall early, something I saw many others doing during my three hours spent in the theatre. Ryan Gosling is brilliant and undoubtedly is the major player who carries the film forward very well. Jared Leto is under utilized and felt should have been used more, but he probably is the trump card for the director as he may set out to make another sequel. Is it as good as its prequel? The 1982 movie was a landmark movie in its own right and hence it will be a sin to compare it. The current one is beautiful in its own manner and deserves to be put in a bracket of its own. PS- Kindly watch the prequel before you watch this one. On a scale of 5 my rating would be a 3.5/5.

Even though Dirty Dancing was produced in 1987, it is clear to say that it still gets us up onto our feets to dance 'like noone is watching!' It is a shock to find out that Dirty Dancing - a box office hit - was in fact a low-budget film! However, that didn't change anything! The storyline itself catches the eye of the audience - set in the summer of 1963 in a interactive resort in the Catskill Mountains, a young 17 year old girl named Frances "Baby" Houseman (Played by Jennifer Grey) is taking a vacation with her family. A plain, innocent get-away leads to Baby to ultimately 'come out of her shell' by falls in love with with the handsome and flirtatious dance instructor Johnny Castle (Played by Patrick Swayze). It is fair to say that this was every girls fantasy, falling in love with the guy of EVERYONEs dream vice versa! Who wouldn't want that! DIRECTING: The director Emile Ardolino has undoubtably provided a box office hit with the plot, storyline, characters and every element for the film. With only a budget of $6 million, the talented Emile Ardolino caused the film to have an outstanding box office of $214 million. I'm sure the figures themselves highlight the positive outcome of the film. ACTORS: Patrick Swazye and Jennifer Grey provided a brilliant representation of the character. Jonny's serious nature being shown to have an emotional side is portrayed through Swayze's body language and favial expressions. Grey's own acting skills plays an amazing role, showing her awkwardness in the setting, contrasting her from the other characters. EDITING: The film shows many different scenes, many different characters, and many different scenarioes all in which edited beautifully. The flow of each sceneis created positively, providing the manipulation of time to be unnoticable. FUN FACT: The director used actual footage of the bloopers between Swayze and Grey (scene where she is learning to dance and she keeps laughing, showing his seriousness) -yeah...He was not happy! Last but not least, the SOUND!: The moment people hear 'Time of my life', their thoughts instantly go to Dirty Dancing and the major dance scene at the end of the film. This effect it has, has left a positive remark as this highlights the memorable film which is still sa classic and amazing to this very day! I recommend watching it - if you haven't have guessed

Forgive me for this next liberty; but I have to start off with saying that I spent the duration of ‘The Last Jedi’ concerned for my cholesterol levels as this film is as cheesy as a comprehensive 10-cheese, cheese board. I was entertained but not convinced. So. My main issue with the latest war of the stars was that many moments where poorly founded and I felt I was being asked to extend my disbelief further then it was willing to go. I’m not even referring to the moment when Luke Skywalker took a drink from a lactating alien walrus (I like a bold touch). There where many dramatic twists and turns of the plots which didn’t convince me and these moments where worsened still by a melodramatic set of verbal cliches. I’d usually, at this point, try and interweave a breakdown of the premise but I can't say anything more sophisticated then - the characters had to go collect a thing to enable a thing whilst Daisy Ridley does an undergraduate force-course at the school of Skellig Island and ends up having a series of Jedi-Skype sessions with the dark side. ‘Return of the Jedi’ has many technological strengths and the choreography during fight sequences was extremely skilful but this was all negated by the fact I found myself laughing during moments that weren’t supposed to be funny. Although there are some quotable lines; the script felt on the whole rather unconvincing - apart from when the words were being salvaged by the hearty acting skills of Adam driver and Domhnall Gleeson. Whilst on the topic of acting skills; It has to be mentioned that there was an unmissable bite and vigour in Hamils' performance as Luke which did impress. Despite the character undergoing a sharp arc from his last proper appearance in ‘Return of The Jedi’ I did ultimately believe I was watching the real Luke back on my screen which does in this case owe credit to the writing. This may seem like a bizarre point to cite as an issue, but to me; many scenes in the ‘The Last Jedi’ felt all too shiny and glossy and It would appear that the entire film has been put through a laminator! With the space-based action there was something about the sharp shiny quality and the enormity of the scale which removed me emotionally from the story. I felt like I was watching a showcase of what modern CGI is able to achieve, and whilst it was an objectively impressive spectacle I just wasn't taken by it from a narrative point of view. This has to be because it failed to conjure up a sense of familiarity from the original three Starwars films. The thing I appreciated about the originals was that everything felt tangible. Obviously the special effects where more rudimentary and I’ll happily join in if you wanna chuckle at the 70s film technology but for me these films still tower over the sequels. The way that the characters interact with their surroundings made everything in the original Starwars universe feel naturalistic and almost touchable. The last Jedi on the other hand played to me as crisp quality fakery. A lot of people have divided opinions when it comes to the structure of the film. No sticker for anyone who can guess my stance! I felt dissatisfied by the shape of the plot which started early on. The problem with the film opening during huge battle is that I wasn't in fear of the outcomes for either fighting side. It is always a risk to start off with a battle when the audience hasn't had time to root for the new characters or become reconnected with the returning ones. I ask those who enjoyed the sequencing of the various plots; could it be you have a penchant for clutter? For me the way the stories intermingled felt inelegant and underdeveloped and when we arrived at key moments we were asked to connect with characters deaths whom we barely became acquainted with. Visually the films strongest moments where when the action took place on location. The scenes on ‘Skellig Island’, where Luke and Rey train have some cinematic majesty to them, even with the addition of what looks like island folk from Beatrix potter. Whilst I was generally underwhelmed, I did appreciate the effective use of the final setting as it was an artistic idea to create vast white planes that showered plumes of red dust into the air during the ending battle sequence. Although I thought the film was pants, I did for many of the same reasons find it wildly entertaining and I was never once bored. (If I could pass a message onto production it would be - where did you get the jazzy red latex articles worn by Supreme Leader Snokes' bodyguards and where might I purchase a set?) Reviewed by Esther Cross

(Release Info U.K. schedule; January 26th, 2018) "Last Flag Flying" Three 'Vietnam War' vets reunite after 30 years and embark on a bittersweet road trip to bury a young Marine killed in 'The Iraq War'. In 2003, 30 years after they served together in 'The Vietnam War', former Navy Corps medic Larry Shepherd (Steve Carell) re-unites with Former Marines Sal Nealon (Bryan Cranston) and Reverend Richard Mueller (Laurence Fishburne) on a different type of mission: to bury Larry’s son, a young Marine killed in 'The Iraq War'. Larry decides to forgo burial at 'Arlington Cemetery' and, with the help of his old buddies, takes the casket on a bittersweet trip up 'The East Coast' to his home in suburban New Hampshire. Along the way, Larry, Sal and Mueller reminisce and come to terms with shared memories of the war that continues to shape their lives. The film follows the trio as they wrestle with the pangs of war both past and present. In 2003, three decades after a tour of duty in Vietnam, soft-spoken New Hampshire family man Larry Shepherd surprises alcoholic former Marine Sal Nealon when he shows up at his bar in Norfolk, Virginia. Together they visit their formerly wild comrade-in-arms Richard Mueller at the church where he now serves as pastor. Soon after, Larry reveals that his son, a Marine, has been killed in Iraq. He asks his two friends to accompany him on a road trip to attend the young man’s burial at 'Arlington Cemetery'. When the vets arrive at 'Dover Air Force Base' in Delaware, where the remains have been sent, they meet the young Marine’s best friend, Corporal Charlie Washington (Quinton Johnson), who casts doubt on the official story of how Larry Jr. died. Stunned by the news, Larry decides to bury his son near the family home in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Accompanied by Washington, the three vets escort the casket on a north-bound train, debating the existence of God, reminiscing about their tour of duty in Vietnam and revealing a dark secret that still haunt each of them. After a stopover in New York City, the men visit the mother of a fallen comrade in Boston, then proceed to Larry’s hometown, where Sal and Mueller don their dress blues as Larry says goodbye to his son for the last time. "Last Flag Flying" brims with humor, melancholy and regret as it examines the lasting effect of choices made in the crucible of war. From that very first scene Larry’s literally being rained on and we've the camera move down on him like the world’s slowly crushing the poor guy. As revealed over the course of "Last Flag Flying", Larry took the fall for his friends and spent two years in a naval prison for a crime whose consequences still haunt all three of them. That was then. Now Lary’s pretty mild-mannered, quiet, contemplative. He enjoys a simple life, he values his family and that’s really become the core of his existence. “For Last Flag Flying, it’s a relatively simple palette. It’s not so much manipulating the audience into some emotion that’s not there. It’s more about supporting the emotion that’s already in the scene and heightening it just a little bit. There’s a road trip theme, because the film includes that element of a fun buddy movie. But there’s also this weight and heaviness, so we've music dealing with the dead son, whose coffin keeps appearing. And there’s also this intimate friendship theme. Here and there, the film layers these themes on top of each other. In another nod to rootsy Americana, "Last Flag Flying" features a performance by 'The Band’s Levon Helm' as Larry oversees the burial of his son. In the climactic sequence, Helm can be heard singing 'Wide River To Cross'. Haunted by the violence he witnessed during his extended tour of duty in Vietnam, Mueller sought refuge in alcohol after the war before turning his life around and becoming the pastor of a small, predominantly African-American church. The transition from civilian life to military life changes you. “And if you survive the war and try to transition back into civilian life, that also requires you to change. It’s a really complex journey. The film gradually unmasks surprising facets of Mueller’s personality as his measured pastor persona slips away after a few hours in the company of his former comrades. When these old buddies get back together, they fall back into the roles they had during the war. It takes a while, but Sal brings out the devil in the Reverend Mueller a little bit. When Sal almost gets them killed by taking on an 18-wheeler, Mueller cuts loose and unloads on him. At that point, it’s like the genie’s out of the bottle. And for the rest of the movie, it’s as though the Marine’s on one shoulder and the reverend is on the other. Sal Nealon is an ex-Marine who has become a womanizing tavern owner in the years following the war. Sal’s an interesting dude because he covers up a lot of his emotional baggage with all this energy, some of which is natural and some of which comes from various substances. He has an oral fixation. He needs to either be talking or smoking or eating or drinking or chewing, he’s constantly doing something. He’s an irritant to Mueller, who might call him the piece of sand in the oyster. But out of that, Sal would say, comes a pearl. Sal self-medicates because he’s covering a lot of pain and guilt from his 'Vietnam War' experience. He’s not comfortable revealing his feelings so he tamps it down primarily with alcohol. He considers himself the life of the party kind of guy, but on this journey he opens up and discovers that what’s really important is friendship. This movie is a sequel to the book 'The Last Detail'. At that point, the war in Iraq was already a disaster and the book said a lot about these echoes of Vietnam in relation to Iraq. But mostly it's these three characters, Larry, Sal and Mueller. Their characters were like brothers 30 years ago, so the film explores what it feels like in middle age when you’re kind of thrust back in time. The culture back then wasn’t ready to deal with 'The Iraq War', which was happening right in front of us with no end in sight. When you think about the history of war movies, the best ones usually arrive years later, when people are finally ready to start examining what happened. The film is going to come back around. We can set it in December 2003 at the time they catch Saddam Hussein. People might remember that moment, so it grounds the story in some kind of shared reality, which is going back to the original intent of the book. When you hear the setup for "Last Flag Flying", it sounds pretty dark, but there’s a lot of funny stuff as well. The film takes great pains to not beat people over the head with the moral of the story. That juxtaposition of humor and tragedy is something Linklater has touched on in previous films. In a way, it's a college reunion movie, because it’s about these guys who haven’t seen each other in 30 years, and they get back together because of this tragic event. They've to re-examine their relationships, re-examine who they're now, how they connect or don’t connect as adults 30 years later. The war is really a backdrop for the interdependencies between three guys, which is fascinating. "Last Flag Flying" is also really interesting in the way that it deals with veterans from two different conflicts. You've these three Vietnam veterans but then you also have Washington, a veteran of 'The Iraq War'. They've so many things in common. This movie is a really interesting opportunity to show what people who return from these conflicts have to deal with. "Last Flag Flying’s" second act takes place largely on trains as the three Vietnam vets, along with Corporal Washington, escort Larry Jr.’s casket north from Delaware to New Hampshire. The film’s emotional atmosphere is also reflected in it's look, including the nearly constant bleakness of the weather. This movie has a certain texture, not just photographically, but the overall feel including the design has this wintry vibe, with the rain, and the December-ness of this story. You realize the huge debt we owe to all the men and women who serve in the armed forces, fight in all these different conflicts and then, if all goes well, come home. Maybe they’re intact or maybe they come home a bit broken. We really owe them a great deal of gratitude, respect and honor. That’s the big takeaway, and we've to honor their sacrifice in the way the film tell this story. Life is a dark comedy where it’s kind of sad, but with humor on top of it. An exploration of friendship forged in wartime and tempered by the passage of time, "Last Flag Flying" challenges audiences to draw their own conclusions.