This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. To preface, I want to clarify that I know nothing about the Borderlands video games—I’ve never played them, and I have no bias against them. However, I approached this movie with some trepidation, knowing Eli Roth's track record with handling other IPs has been less than stellar.
From the outset, Borderlands feels like a blatant attempt to rip off Guardians of the Galaxy. The influence is undeniable, but Roth clearly missed what made Guardians so special. Borderlands is one dance-off scene short of being a direct copy, but even if Roth had included a dance-off, he probably would have cast an Australian Olympic breakdancer—an ill-fitting choice emblematic of how off-target this film is.
The movie throws the audience into a barrage of nonsensical twists and turns that lack coherence or purpose. The narrative seems to be constantly shifting, yet never in a way that feels organic or meaningful. The lack of a coherent plot makes it difficult to stay invested, and the film quickly becomes tedious.
Another glaring issue is the film's failure to create any meaningful connection between its main characters. In Guardians of the Galaxy, the chemistry among the team is a driving force, making their adventures feel both exciting and emotionally resonant. In contrast, Borderlands completely misses this mark. The characters are paper-thin, with little to no development, and their interactions lack the spark needed to make the audience care about their journey.
Visually, the film also disappoints. The aesthetic choices, from the set design to the visual effects, fail to create a compelling or immersive world. The film’s attempt to capture the wild, chaotic energy of the Borderlands universe falls flat, resulting in a bland and uninspired visual experience.
Overall, Borderlands is a truly boring movie, devoid of character development, narrative coherence, or visual appeal. It’s a film that not only fails to honor the spirit of its source material but also fails to stand on its own as an entertaining piece of cinema. Eli Roth’s attempt to capture the magic of Guardians of the Galaxy is misguided and ultimately unsuccessful, resulting in a forgettable and frustrating experience. This movie serves as a reminder that simply mimicking successful formulas without understanding what makes them work is a recipe for disaster.

I just have a question on what world Hollywood is living in to believe this would be in any way a success. We've have how many writer strikes for better pay and this is the outcome for people supporting them?
Nah, sorry I'm not a borderlands fan game wise, its simply not my cup of tea but I can see the appeal that so many love about it especially with friends. However I am still familiar with the characters and seeing this film completely destroy them is a slap to the face.
If you aren't going to respect the lore/source of whatever book or game you're taking it from don't make it at all.
PS - Kevin Hart as Roland? Really? How many drugs are legal in Cali?

Oh come on - it's not that bad! True, there isn't an original thought in it's hundred minute duration and it does look like a very poor relation to a video-game, but it's "Mad Max" meets "Buck Rogers" vibe just about entertained me. It's all about "Lilith" (Cate Blanchett) who is a renowned bounty hunter charged by gazillionaire "Atlas" (Edgar Ramirez) with finding his kidnapped daughter "Tina" (Ariana Greenblatt). Thing is, she's already been rescued by "Roland" (Kevin Hart) and is in no great rush to return to the loving arms of daddy. Whilst trying to track her down, "Lilith" encounters the true star of the film - the robot "Claptrap", a sarcastic pile of scrap who decides to help out whether she likes it or not, so off they go a-child-hunting. Yep - it proceeds exactly as you'd expect, except for the frankly bamboozling contribution of Jamie Lee Curtis (and her red glasses) who does look like she's enjoying herself on set but, like Blanchett, is just a complete fish out of water as the banal dialogue and set-piece combat scenes pass the entire project into the hands of the CGI developers. This is nothing at all special or memorable, just a predictable action enterprise that takes "Robot Wars" to the desert, but if you aim low and take it in the spirit it's clearly intended then it's a perfectly watchable summer adventure.

10 minutes is and the acting is already bothering me. Why are they all smiling like it's all a joke, totally does not fit the background or mood of the set. How can a movie with such complex and elaborate set, costume design and background can have such a bland, forgettable character with such a boring storyline? I suppose it is not the fault of the movie because it follows the story of a video game? Yet it remains true. I think there's too many characters and not enough time to explore each character. They could have just pick one or two characters for this movie and then add a bit more on the next sequel.

Never played the game, enjoyed the film.
I have heard of the video game that 'Borderlands' is based upon, though my knowledge of it doesn't extend past that one and only fact. I knew nothing else about it, so I can't comment on this in regards how well it adapts the game. As a movie though, I did get the required enjoyment from it.
Sure the story could've been greater, but what's produced kept me watching all the way through - it's a watchable flick. I did like the cast and characters, all of whom I found suitably interesting. Cate Blanchett is good fun in the lead role, Kevin Hart is perhaps a tad underused but satisfactory nonetheless, while Ariana Greenblatt impresses.
Jack Black is the one I enjoyed most, admittedly that's no surprise given I am a fan of that guy as an actor. I will say that his character is the opposite of Hart's Roland, in that I think the filmmakers should've utilised him less - he does get a bit too much screen time for a side character. However, as it's Black voicing Claptrap I can't possibly say I didn't like seeing him.
*now looks to see how this has been received thus far* Well, shit. Granted, I do see the 'Guardians of the Galaxy' attempted resemblance.

Celebrated author "Ben" (Lewis Pullman) returns to his childhood home looking to do some investigations into his own youth when he discovers that there's something distinctly unsavoury going on in the "Lot". That all seems to centre around the long abandoned "Marsten" house whose basement has recently received a strange package before a local urchin goes missing. Luckily for our intrepid writer, he has hooked up with "Susan" (Makenzie Leigh), somewhat sceptical local doctor "Cody" (Alfre Woodard) and with the savvy young "Mark" (Jordan Preston Carter) and as it becomes pretty clear what's going on, they have to work out a strategy that will keep them all alive! This, sadly, hasn't an original bone in it's body - falling somewhere between mediocre Hammer and that "Penny Dreadful" television series we saw ten years ago. The acting is pretty woeful, but no worse than the overly descriptive dialogue and with the possible exception of the young Carter who at least puts some effort into the proceedings, the rest of this follows all too predictable lines before a denouement that offers us nothing new either. Sure, reinventing this particular wheel is nigh-on impossible, but then why make it? It's not as if it has any sense of menace or peril, there are no gruesome special effects or harrowing scenes of gore and blood-lust; it's more like a series of unfunny comedy sketches set in an eerie scenario where just turning on the light (or not going into the place in the first place) might have been a better solution. It's far too long and slow to get going, and all I can think of really is bring back David Soul. Standard television fayre for Halloween, no need to trek to the cinema for this.

For anyone old enough to remember, Coles Notes offered students an accessible summary of famous works, by the likes of Dickens, Shakespeare or Tolstoy.
Something similar can be said of the latest cinematic iteration of Stephen Kings book, Salem's Lot. This is an abridged version of Kings vampiric tale. It plays out in broad, somewhat hurried, expository strokes, absent the deeper essence of the work. Things happen quickly, at the expense of a slowly established atmosphere of creeping dread, as the viewer comes to see whats really going on, in the rural town, of Salem's Lot. Indeed, the core of what makes this tale so terrifying, is revealed in the opening scenes.
In short, this is Salem's Lot for the impatient.
Frankly, the first cinematic production of Salem's Lot, starring David Soul, remains, I believe, by far the best re-imagining of Kings work, to this day.
In summary, the latest cinematic edition of Salem's Lot is not awful but it rushes through the story, largely spoiling the atmosphere of creeping terror, I believe, is at the bloody heart, of this nightmarish tale.

Overstays its welcome and isn't as interesting as it could've been, but what's there is still serviceable.
I really enjoyed the cast, I think every member does a neat job - without that being the case, I'd probably be rating this film a touch lower. Lewis Pullman leads events well, while Makenzie Leigh, Alfre Woodard and Bill Camp are able supports. The kid actors are solid as well, the standout evidently being Jordan Preston Carter. Good to see Pilou Asbæk, too.
As noted at the top, this does overrun. It felt a fair bit longer than 113 minutes, a more fitting run time may have worked wonders. I did like how, aside from the obvious, no cast member had major plot armour, admittedly one of the young ones does seem a tad overpowered in regards to what he achieves throughout.
All in all, I'd consider 'Salem’s Lot' a narrowly passable horror flick.

"Salem's Lot" is a well paced and perfectly watchable film that often manages to strike out on its own with a considerable degree of success. However, it proves to be a different matter entirely when it tackles the more spooky scenes which had the hallucinatory quality of a fever dream and made the original such a compulsive and memorable viewing experience. It recreates each one of these scenes, but with considerably less effectiveness (this is in large part due to the noticeable absence of Harry Sukman's superb music to magnify and intensify them) and as a direct consequence of this the scenes in question - Marjorie Glick on a mortician's table rising to join the undead, Mike Ryerson returning from the dead and so on - lack the necessary fear and tension in this latest incarnation which just confirms that Tobe Hooper's version of "Salem's Lot" (1979) is still the ultimate in terror.

"Horizon: “An American Saga – Chapter 1” does not rush anything and provides numerous storylines before fully exploring Kevin Costner’s character, an hour into the show. Speaking of the dynamics, the turn of the century setting’s epic, but gritty representation is complemented by John Debney’s touching score, even though the characters remain poorly developed, and the action almost hilariously paced.
What I noticed while watching it, is that pioneer struggles were portrayed quite realistic but I wish the characters were related more intensely. It wouldn’t be wrong to state that yes, the film’s rawness and ‘sex and violence’ do depict the given period and hence is value added to the movie through a rather raw introduction to Costner’s extended story.
If you enjoyed my experience, then check out the Latest Movie Reviews.

Feels like an entire season of a TV show compressed into a 3-hour motion picture.
It's beautiful to look at, but has no chance to set up its characters and make you care about them, even though it demands it. Not coming back for the sequels.

Kevin Costner channels his inner John Ford with his immense passion project, starting with Horizon: An American Saga Chapter 1. Unfortunately, in this initial chapter, he falls short of making a lasting impression akin to Ford's timeless works. Costner serves as the film's producer, director, co-writer, and star, undertaking a monumental task. This film marks the first chapter of a four-part epic series that weaves together the lives of various characters around the territory of 'Horizon'. The saga will span 12 years, with this first film serving to introduce Horizon and its primary characters.
The ensemble cast is led by Costner himself, alongside Sienna Miller, Sam Worthington, Luke Wilson, and many more. While the cast is impressive on paper, the execution leaves much to be desired. The characters feel underdeveloped, and the acting often comes across as lackluster. Sienna Miller and Sam Worthington, despite their talents, struggle to breathe life into their roles, making their characters feel one-dimensional.
On a positive note, Costner's direction and the film's cinematography are commendable. The sweeping landscapes and meticulously crafted shots capture the grandeur and harsh beauty of the American frontier. His wide-angle shots of the sprawling territory and close-ups that highlight the characters' rugged determination are visually stunning, reminiscent of classic Westerns. These elements create an immersive atmosphere that is one of the film's few strengths.
The primary issue with Horizon: An American Saga Chapter 1 is its role as a setup for future installments. The film feels more like an extended prologue than a standalone story. The plot is fragmented, with numerous threads introduced but few developed to a satisfying degree.
While the film has its flaws, it lays the groundwork for what could become a compelling saga. The potential for intricate storytelling and character development exists, but it is not fully realized in this first chapter. If the subsequent films can build on this foundation and address the gaps in the plot, Horizon could evolve into an epic worth watching. However, if the pacing and character development issues persist, maintaining interest in the series may prove challenging.
Given its ambitious scope and narrative structure, Horizon: An American Saga might have been better served as a TV miniseries. This format would allow for more detailed character arcs and a more deliberate pacing, giving the story the room it needs to unfold organically. The episodic nature of television could provide the depth and continuity that the film format struggles to achieve in this case.
Overall, Horizon: An American Saga Chapter 1 is a visually impressive but narratively weak start to Kevin Costner’s ambitious project. While the direction and cinematography stand out, the lackluster acting and fragmented plot diminish its impact. The film serves primarily as a setup for future chapters, which may hold promise if they can build upon and enrich the story introduced here. As it stands, Horizon has potential, but it will need to deliver more in its subsequent installments to truly captivate its audience.

'Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter 1' surpassed my expectations!
A three-hour western, which is only the first of many connected entries? Yeah, that doesn't exactly set the pulses racing! Based on that, I was anticipating it to be a slow-moving set-up to future chapters. However, to my surprise this opening installment is a lot of fun. For a film of such a length, it absolutely flies by; this felt like a 2hr, max, movie to me.
My main praise for this film is directed at the pacing (evidently), the visuals and the score - the latter is particularly outstanding. I will say there are a fair few scenes that I felt could've been lit better, mainly across the opening chunk - not a big deal, though.
There are so many characters in this, some may say too many but honestly I enjoyed all the different people portrayed onscreen. Kevin Costner is very solid, though to be truthful he isn't really involved all that much in this chapter - at least to how much I was expecting to see of him. I wouldn't say there is a main standout from the cast, but I don't mean that negatively.
Sienna Miller, Sam Worthington, Abbey Lee, Jamie Campbell Bower and Michael Rooker are some of the notable performers, though it truly is an ensemble because I can't really separate any of them based on their performanes - which is actually a good thing. Mind you, as good as he is, Rooker's Irish accent is awful, I gotta say - rather distracting.
How annoying that we have to wait so long for the seque... oh, ''Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter 2'' drops next month! Bring it on!
...oh, and I (unintentionally) watched this on July 4th - how American of me. *shudders*

Well it's certainly a saga! Against a backdrop of the American Civil war we are introduced to half a dozen different spokes on the wheel of pioneering America that gradually head towards a centre of what I assume will be the creation of the fabric of modern day USA by the end of part four. It begins rather brutally when a woman shoots a man then flees the scene with her infant child. Despite her proximity to the victim he survives and orders his two sons to pursue her. Meantime, there's a wagon train heading across the Apache dominated territory under the command of "Matthew" (Owen Wilson) and, separately, "Hayes" (Kevin Costner) is doing a bit of wintery horse-trading. With the younger Apache restless and determined to do what they can to thwart the encroachment on their ancient hunting grounds, they attack another white-man's settlement decimating the population. It's only after some sterling riding from the young "Russell" (Etienne Kellici) to a nearby army post that we meet "Lt. Gephart" (Sam Worthington) and his sagely "Sgt. Major Riordan" (Michael Rooker) who arrive to pick up the pieces amidst the charred ruins. The survivors include the terrified "Frances" (Sienna Miller) and her daughter "Lizzie" (Georgie MacPhail) whom they rescue from a tunnel in which they were hiding. The two adults immediately click perhaps offering us a glimmer of romance for the remorseful widow? Across the country, "Hayes" arrives in a small settlement where he encounters the good-time girl "Marigold" (Abbey Lee) and her young baby who just happen to be the one the avenging sons are looking for. Needless to say he, and his Colt revolver, have to come to the rescue and they decide it's better to take to the hills to avoid yet more trouble. With the forbidding west outstretched before these characters and the dangers and demons of their pasts never far behind them, the adventure is teed up for part two. To be fair, this looks great with some stunning drone cinematography illustrating really well the the scope of this virgin land that is every bit as hostile at times as those who have lived there for generations. There's also some impressive battle scenes as the maturing natives try to protects their homeland. The style of the rest of the narrative is just all a bit too bitty, though. Costner doesn't really appear until hour two and the substantial elements of the plot draw heavily from a very well established genre that it was always going to be difficult to reinvent or reimagine. The score helps it along rousingly at times and dialogue is sparingly used by most of the characters which is also quite a sensible tactic as we quickly realise we are in for just as long a slog as the settlers. It's the necessary character establishment part of this story which we can only hope will pad out the people more and rely less on the visuals as the story progresses. Otherwise, it's not really much better than a series of episodes of "Bonanza" bolted together.

'A Complete Unknown' is a biopic worth watching. I only know of Bob Dylan by name and possibly some vague recognition of a few of his songs, as is usual for me it seems; uncultured swine. Therefore, I was only coming into this to see how it came out as a film - it's very good!
Timothée Chalamet's portrayal is impressive for the large majority, I will say his schtick comes across as a little forced in one or two parts (only one or two) and I also had difficulty totally understanding him in a few moments (only a few). Edward Norton is good too, I thought he'd feature more; if only because I saw him on the promo trail with Chalamet a lot.
Elle Fanning and Monica Barbaro offer noteworthy performances, everyone on the cast is perfectly fine to be fair. The music seems well done to me, again I'm not someone who definitively knows Dylan's work but it felt well shown. It's possibly too prevalent, which is a weird thing to say about a musician biopic but there's a lot of music in this.
The end at the festival is the scene that I'll remember most from this, the sound design is particularly excellent; was practically bouncing in my seat due to the noise. If I was to mention any negatives, or at least things that aren't proper positives, it would be the pacing and run time. Not that I'd explicitly class those as bad parts of this though.

Tribute biographies have become an increasingly popular film genre in recent years, though, truthfully, they’re not all of the same caliber. Content and authenticity play significant roles in their overall quality, but, as experience has shown, these traits can vary widely, depending on the picture. As for writer-director James Mangold’s homage to musician-folk singer-songwriter Bob Dylan (Oscar nominee Timothée Chalamet), the film presents viewers with a mixed bag on these fronts. While this effort seems to mostly get things right in matters of authenticity, it comes up somewhat short on content, despite its protracted 2:21:00 runtime, what should amount to sufficient duration to nail down the most crucial cinematic particulars. “A Complete Unknown” follows Dylan from his arrival in New York in 1961, where he quickly became the latest sensation on the Greenwich Village folk music scene, through his rise to stardom as an emerging music industry icon and culminating in his controversial performance at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, where he traded in his acoustic guitar for an electric model, a switch met with mixed reactions but that launched him in innovative new directions musically. Along the way, viewers are let in on passing scenes from his personal life, such as his friendships with fellow musicians Pete Seeger (Oscar nominee Edward Norton), Johnny Cash (Boyd Holbrook) and Woody Guthrie (Scoot McNairy), as well as his passionate but stormy romances with Sylvie Russo (a pseudonym for real life love interest Suze Rotolo) (National Board of Review Award winner Elle Fanning) and fellow folk singer Joan Baez (Oscar nominee Monica Barbaro). But, regrettably, much of the narrative is little more than a loosely strung together collection of sequences designed to showcase an array of Dylan’s greatest hits from the early days of his career, as well as those of his peers. While the songs are indeed capably performed by the actors themselves, after a while though, the film feels more like an anthology of music videos than an insightful biography. In fact, Dylan’s character comes across as largely enigmatic and inscrutable, a take on his persona alleged to be true to form but that doesn’t offer a great deal of enlightenment into his nature – that is, other than often making him look like a first-class jerk (the noble content of his social activism compositions notwithstanding). Consequently, this candid but somewhat unflattering approach almost makes one wonder whether a protagonist like Dylan is innately worthy of such an homage, even if the finished product is on point (and ironically lends credence to the meaning of the film’s title, whether intentional or not). All things considered, on balance, the filmmaker’s effort here is passable as a capably made tribute bio, with generally fine performances (especially Fanning, who genuinely should have earned supporting actress award kudos over her somewhat overrated co-star), commendable period piece production values and a fine soundtrack (if one is an ardent Dylan fan, that is, something I honestly can’t claim to be). But is this release really worthy of all the awards season attention it has garnered? That seems like something of a stretch to me, but, given the lackluster nature of the crop of 2024 awards season candidates, the pickings have admittedly been somewhat slim. Devotees of the protagonist are virtually certain to come away from this offering suitably impressed, though the rest of us are more likely to heave a modest shoulder shrug and move on to the next movie.

I grew up in an household that loved Bob Dylan and Joan Baez (though not equally from parent to parent!), and I think it really only instilled in me a sense of contrariness. The more my dad banged on about how great Dylan and his lyrics were, the more that fell of deaf childish ears. Sitting down now I was worried I'd revert to my self of fifty-odd years ago, but thanks to a pretty convincing effort from Timothée Chalamet I actually found my feet moving - and not towards the door! It doesn't do him any harm that he resembles the man, and he manages to convey something of the spirit of this poet who, upon hearing that Woody Guthrie (Scoot McNairy) is on his last legs in hospital, travels to New York to track him down. He finds Pete Seeger (Edward Norton) at the bedside of a sick man, plays him a song he's written about his hero and now thanks to some patronage from Seeger he starts to get gigs, meets "Sylvie" (Elle Fanning) then the already successful Baez (Monica Barbara) before taking the world - and Johnny Cash (Boyd Holbrook) by storm. It's a classy biopic that, though chronological, isn't just a straight history of the man. It shows his character, warts and all, as he comes to terms with his success and some of the temptations and fickleness that goes along with it. Many critics say Dylan is the worst singer of his own songs and Chalamet keeps up that tradition offering some authentic sounding, but different enough, interpretations of some of the man's most recognisable songs. Barbaro also turns in well as Baez, though I found her voice just a little too operatic and not quite as effective. The production is clearly high-end with loads of attention to the detail, but essentially this is really a chance for Chalamet to show he is more than just a (very) skinny boy with floppy hair. Purists of the artiste may hate it, but I think it quite powerfully characterises this group of free thinking individuals in a 1960s America dealing with a presidential assassination, communist threats and a general sense of paranoia amongst a public that was clearly crying out for something to hope for. Dylan et al delivered some of that, and this comes across well.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/the-accidental-getaway-driver-review-sundance-2023
"THE ACCIDENTAL GETAWAY DRIVER overstays its welcome, but Sing J. Lee brilliantly directs an emotionally bittersweet, compassionate story about the human need for deep connections. A grounded crime thriller turned into a compelling father-son drama that starts and ends strong."
Rating: B-

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ movieswetextedabout.com/captain-america-brave-new-world-review-anthony-mackie-deserves-to-wield-the-shield/
"Captain America: Brave New World may not reach the high bar set by its direct predecessors, but it's far from the disaster some claim it to be.
Despite its evident production flaws, Julius Onah still manages to deliver moments of real entertainment, supported by a charismatic cast and well-crafted action sequences. Most importantly, Anthony Mackie's performance as Sam Wilson proves, without a doubt, that he was the right choice to wield the shield left behind by Steve Rogers. The actor perfectly captures the duality of being both a global symbol and a man still searching for his own path, bringing a unique approach to the legacy of the titular hero.
It may not be top-tier MCU, but it's a film worthy of being experienced on the big screen."
Rating: B

“Brave New World” but same old yarn, sadly. Morgan Freeman clearly didn’t fancy this one so Marvel have resurrected another ex-president in Harrison Ford to put together a treaty that will deliver the old save the globe type of thing. It’s all about this giant hand-shaped structure that has emerged from the ocean and that contains “adamantium” - and that’s even more indestructible than “Vibranium” (how can something be more indestructible?). Anyway, before this accord can get signed off by a curious quadrumvirate of the USA, India, France and China a shipment of this new material gets pinched and it’s down to “Capt. America” (Anthony Mackie) and his new sidekick “Torres/Falcon” (Danny Ramirez) to retrieve it. Loads of end-to-end fisticuffs later and the goods are secure which earns our dynamic duo and their inspirational trainer “Bradley” (Carl Lumbly) an invitation to the White House. That’s where the wheels really do come off as their pal starts taking potshots at the President and we discover that the erstwhile somewhat militaristic and temperamental “Ross” and “Cap” aren’t exactly on the same page. It’s pretty obvious that there’s a third party pulling the strings so it’s going to need all of his patience and guile if the shielded wonder is to retrieve his mentor from solitary, rebuild his relationship with his president before that man really sees red, and also get to the bottom of a dastardly scheme that seems bent on causing international strife between the USA and Japan. Mackie’s a charismatic man and he does what he can with this, but the story comes across as little more than an hybrid of “Top Gun” (1986) meets “Tomorrow Never Dies” (1997) with an unremarkable cast, including Ford’s “Ross”, that struggles to make any impact as it races along for two hours without presenting anything original or particularly entertaining. It passes the time, but is yet another bland offering from a studio that is increasingly resorting to it’s creative technicians to design something that looks great but resonates not remotely. Disappointing, sorry.

'Captain America: Brave New World' came close to pleasing me, but in the end I think it is not consistently enjoyable enough to be classed as something I'd want to watch again and/or recommend. There is quite a bit about it that I did like, but the down moments hurt the ups.
The cast and their characters are positives. I'm a big fan of Anthony Mackie's as he has done many roles in films that I've highly, highly enjoyed; interestingly, he has appeared in three of the fourteen films I've given a total 10/10 to. Here, he is very good in the titular part.
I'm not someone overly attached to Marvel and therefore Chris Evans' Captain America, so this new era doesn't hinder my interest in the lead character. I'm admittedly not wholly convinced Mackie is undoubtedly a perfect fit for the role, though his performance itself is perfectly watchable and fun enough.
Carl Lumbly's performance as Isaiah is great in this, he genuinely made me care quite a bit about Bradley; especially in the more emotive scenes. Danny Ramirez, Harrison Ford, Giancarlo Esposito (a little typecast still, sadly) and Tim Blake Nelson (albeit the weakest) are also pluses that I have for this movie.
My main issues lie with the plot and how it is told. There were too many moments where I could feel myself losing interest in events onscreen, most notably across the first half. The second half is better paced, if still not making for superb viewing. I was firmly awaiting the credits, which is never a good sign.
When I was locked on to the story, I did dig it. I particularly found the interactions/dynamics between characters to be solid, for example Cap with Carl, Joaquin and Seth. I just think what lets this down, unfortunately to a somewhat damaging degree, is that the plot just isn't quite good enough. A shorter run time (even though it isn't that long) may have helped, but I'm not sure.
I just realised that this is the first MCU film that I've scored below 7/10. That feels harsh, it isn't as bad as that sounds at all, but thinking about this and the other flicks from the franchise that I've rated similarly it is actually merited. 'The Incredible Hulk' and 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' were my bottom two, both are better films.

'The Monkey' has a great concept and I enjoyed the wacky nature of it, I did almost lose interest in the human characters towards the end though. That isn't the best sign given the short 90 minute run time, but the end does come when desired so that saves it.
Theo James is pretty good in this, for sure the most I've liked seeing him. I haven't seen him act much (five films now), my main thought of him is actually with human excrement up his nose (yep) in 'The Inbetweeners Movie'... hopefully this performance will override that memory (it won't).
The gore shown for all the titular character's escapades is very cool and rather creative to be honest, the 'freak accident' angle is a fun one to watch play out onscreen. Everything with the red-eyed fellow is definitely what makes this movie, as it ought to really. A stronger overall story and I probably would've loved it.

“Chatila” (Mahmoud Bakri) and his cousin “Reda” (Aram Sabbah) are Palestinian refugees grifting in Athens trying to raise the cash to pay for some fake passports that will get them into Germany, where they hope to set up a family-run café. They engage in some petty larceny and the latter man turns a few tricks in the local park. With their goal in sight, though, “Reda” uses some of their stash to buy drugs from the untrustworthy “Abu Love” (Mouataz Alshaltouh) which causes friction between the pair but also inspires “Chatila” to concoct quite a cunning plan. They’ve befriended the young “Malik” (Mohammad Alsurata) whose aunt lives in Italy and so relying on new-found friend “Tatiana” (Angeliki Papoulia) - who actually has a valid ID card, they hope to provide their own people smuggling service to fund their own journey. This doesn’t quite go to plan, but suggests another - more hands on approach. With tensions mounting on the men and with “Reda” struggling to deal with the pressures of his drug addiction, is there any way for these two to make it to their dream land? Initially, there’s something of the loveable rogues about these two men as they try to accrue the money they need. They look after each other and even take the young lad under their wing. That changes, though, as their sense of desperation starts to grow. Pressure from families at home start to mount; both men realise that this is a process riddled with crookedness and untrustworthy people and surely it’s only a matter of time before the authorities cotton on. It’s that sense of tension that’s engagingly captured here by two actors who charismatically present flawed characters that even at their most devious, it’s hard not to sympathise with. It’s a testament to desperate times calling for desperate measures and uses a rather innovative narrative to illustrate the plight of illegal immigrants; of their ingenuity at finding ways around security arrangements and of just how perilous this whole process could be. There are plot holes, and some of the film doesn’t quite add up, but the gist provides for a point that’s well made and provides us with quite an human story of brotherhood that’s not without elements of plausible tragedy too.

'Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy' is a fourth walk-through this particular universe and I have to say that it is a positive return to the world of Bridget Jones. It is funny in parts and features a noteworthy cast, though its more sombre side somewhat surprised (s)me.
I'm not someone who has read the books (obviously... me read a book, come on now!) so I didn't know where this was going to go, I did hear before watching that it had been praised and that it had a more emotive plot - and it does. It conveys its messaging about loss convincingly.
The ending is the point that that element reaches its pinnacle, I could hear a few sniffles amongst those around me in a packed out cinema. For me personally it was a bit too on the nose, but there is no doubt that it is a touching moment nevertheless; sold well by youngster Casper Knopf.
Renée Zellweger continues to fit the role of the titular character perfectly, anything said about her peformances in the preceding three films can simply be repeated here. Elsewhere on the cast, Hugh Grant's Daniel remains very creepy but the actor undeniably makes it work.
Chiwetel Ejiofor puts in a solidly good showing, I do like watching him act. Leo Woodall is a new name to me and he is decent, his character isn't really much of anything but no issues with Woodall himself. Other than those, it's nice to see all the familiar faces from the prior flicks.

If only this had just had the courage of it’s convictions! It’s four years now since a land mine rendered “Bridget” (Renée Zellweger) a single mum with the lively “Billy” (Casper Knopf) and “Mabel” (Mila Jankovic) keeping her on her toes and giving her an excuse not to meet new people. It’s when she uses some chocolate buttons to lure her kids to the heath that she quickly finds herself stuck in a tree trying to rescue her children and in turn attracting the attention of their teacher “Wallaker” (Chiwitel Ejiofor) and the hunky ranger “Roxster” (Leo Woodall). Now she’d already met the whistle-obsessed tutor but the younger man, well he just sent her heart a flutter! A bit of internet flirting later and she’s “Bridget” reborn, reanimated and refocussed. Her friends are delighted, especially at his dog-rescuing skills. Thing is, though, there’s the age gap. There’s the children who miss their dad. There’s nerves and the ghastly millennial trait of “ghosting”. Meantime, “Billy” isn’t doing so well emotionally at school. This means that she must deal more with his teacher, and with the school in general - which leads to a revelatory school trip where it’s not just the marshmallows that get toasted. With choices galore, will anyone end up happy? Zellweger is in her element here and just exudes an enthusiasm for the part, and the kids also deliver quite naturally as they contribute to her daily maelstrom, but the whole selling point of this film just peters out and I found myself thinking her a rather cruel and selfish individual as a degree of more pedestrian predictability took over. Hugh Grant earthily livens up a few scenes but the old guard of Jones/Broadbent/Imrie don’t really feature enough to remind us of just why we ever really cared about “Bridget” in the first place. The television aspects with Neil Pearson are almost entirely devoid of humour and though Helen Fielding still has an entertaining grasp of what makes people tick and giggle, the spark has largely gone from the mix. Woodall is perfect eye candy and brings an engaging normalcy to his role but that rather sums this up - light and fluffy, worth a watch, but just a bit too cowardly for my liking.

The “Bad Guys” are finally on the road to rehabilitation. So long as they can make it to the parole office in time, then their freedom is their’s. Of course, the best laid plans and all that and their journey to said office is full of challenges and escapades as they have to thwart some criminal activities themselves. Luckily, they manage to get into an office and regale it’s occupant with their daily adventures thus far, but… Yep, Houston - they have a problem! For something that’s barely five minutes long, this packs loads in with plenty of light-hearted action and a surprising amount for each of the wolf/snake/spider/shark and piranha fish to get through, and I did like the denouement. You could make an ad out of that!

'Thandel' has its issues, though to be honest I enjoyed it for the majority - largely thanks to a stronger second part. The pre-interval stuff is solid but doesn't feel as well constructed or as interesting as what follows. As for the story, the thriller outdoes the romance.
How loud is this film, by the way? Too loud, in fact. I thought it was the cinema's 'fault', though based on a quick browse online it's a thing with some releases (e.g. Tamil's 'Kanguva') from this part of the world. I don't overall mind the loudness, my ears disagree though!
Nice that I got to see my first Telugu-language movie on the big screen, surprised I haven't seen one before. Naga Chaitanya stars in it and has good screen presence, he is the standout; his character is fun to watch. Other pluses include Sai Pallavi, the dance chorography and the action.

I suppose it’s my own fault but when I saw this I thought it might be a gangster thriller. Nope, it’s about the on-off relationship between tattoo artist “Rule” (Chase Stokes) and his friend “Shaw” (Sydney Taylor). She used to date his brother “Remy” but we quickly learn that he was involved in a car accident with his brother and so now we have our requisite dose of family baggage to explain why “Rule” is a bit of a commitment-phobe. Meantime, she is supposed to be dating millionaire drip “Gabe” (Michael Bradway) to keep her rather wealthy but venal mother sweet, but in the end it’s her bit of rough that she really craves. Can they sort things out and get past his fear of being called her boyfriend? There’s the odd bit of sensitively photographed sex and it does pay slight homage to the artistry of some creative tattooists but for the most part it’s a weakly constructed romantic will they/won’t they drama that didn’t really engage me at all. There is plenty of eye-candy on offer, including from the sparingly used, wooden as a picket fence, Alexander Ludwig as his elder brother “Rome” and Ella Balinska tries to inject a little bit of life into things as her best pal “Ayden” but neither Stokes nor Taylor do anything like enough with the, admittedly pedestrian, script or the story to bring this to life. Quite how it got a general release in the UK is, as Yul Brynner might have said, “a puzzlement “. It looks good and there are a few power ballads to help it along, but it’s really just a mediocre television movie, sorry.

In the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, four gifted British musicians took center stage as the biggest rock band in the world – Led Zeppelin. Born in 1968 out of their predecessors, the Yardbirds, the quartet of lead singer Robert Plant, guitarist Jimmy Page, bassist John Paul Jones and drummer John Bonham took the US and UK by storm with their unique fusion of hard rock tinged with blues, folk and supernatural influences. The band subsequently became the first group to unseat the Beatles from the top of the music charts – quite a feat, even if the Beatles were on the verge of breaking up at the time – and released a string of blockbuster LPs that eschewed the typical “singles” approach previously employed by other artists, a shift perfectly timed to cater to the emerging “album rock” format of many underground and independent FM radio stations. Their origin story is now brought to life in writer-director Bernard MacMahon’s documentary feature, chronicling how Led Zeppelin came together and running through the time of their ascendancy as the premier rock band of a new decade. The key to appreciating this film, however, is understanding a key word in its title – “becoming.” The filmmaker specifically focuses on the careers of the four musicians before they came together as Led Zeppelin and what happened during the newly formed band’s infancy, amassing a following that exploded over the course of roughly two years. In recent interviews with Plant, Page and Jones, as well as excerpts from a previously unreleased archive conversation with Bonham (who died in 1980), viewers learn about their diverse upbringings, their various musical influences, the impact of a volatile and radically changing culture at the time and their respective performance careers prior to the group’s formation, largely as studio session musicians. Through these dialogues, audiences can see how these elements came to characterize them both individually as artists and collectively as Led Zeppelin. This material reveals a number of interesting tidbits about the band and its members, such as Jimmy Page’s work as a session guitarist on the theme song to the James Bond film “Goldfinger” (1964), as well as the little-known source of the renamed group’s new moniker, a suggestion made by drummer Keith Moon of The Who. Diehard fans are sure to appreciate the meticulous level of detail presented here, though casual followers and the unfamiliar might just as easily see it as overkill. That’s especially true given that the film’s narrative feels like it stops short of its potential. Wrapping up the picture early on in the band’s career may leave some viewers disappointed, especially since the film pays no attention to the group’s later (and perhaps better-known) work, such as details about their classic cuts on subsequent albums. Consequently, some might see this film as being “incomplete,” almost as if it were the first installment of a longer production, such as the kind of documentary miniseries that one might view on PBS or one of the cable network music channels. Nevertheless, there are also qualities that make this a stand-out work, such as showcasing the arguably underrated virtuosity of the band’s four members, musicians whose talents likely haven’t been regarded as highly as they maybe should have been over the years. It also makes clear how the band was more than the sum of its parts, how each of these performers came together to create something greater than just the fusion of four individual talents. And, for those who grew up during the period of the band’s birth (as I did), this offering truly is a finely constructed piece of nostalgia, one that definitely tugs at highly personal memories of a remarkable time that hasn’t been repeated since. So, when considered in total, “Becoming Led Zeppelin” is probably best viewed as a mixed bag that some will likely worship as much as they do the band itself, while others may find it a modestly engaging, albeit “unfinished” introduction to one of the most monumental rock bands of all time. And, in that sense, then, the picture might be best typified by a paraphrase of one of Led Zeppelin’s iconic song titles – what is and what will never be.

I grew up in an home where folk music reigned, and a bit like with those folks at the Newport Folk Festival who recoiled in disgust at Bob Dylan’s shift from acoustic to electric, my parents wouldn’t give this band house room in their collection. Therefore, save for the odd rendition of “Whole Lotta Love” or “Stairway to Heaven” I knew precious little about this band when I watched this documentary. It starts by introducing us to each of the members, and rather poignantly uses an interview with the late John Bonham as all four take us through their own musical influences before they met and make musical history. There’s some serious archive research gone into this film providing an astonishing array of material from not just those who inspired these men but of some of their own early appearances. There’s an especially enjoyable scene from London’s Roundhouse theatre where, already having had success in the USA, they perform to a bemused collection of Londoners - some with their fingers in their ears! I didn’t love all of their music, and as one journalists quoted here declared - they can be a bit self indulgent. So what, though? That old adage about serving others best when you serve yourself springs to mind. If you can’t enjoy making music your own way, you can’t expect others to enjoy listening to it - and that search for a musical style that resonates with an audience is clearly important to these blokes. Interestingly, after fifty-odd years, they still appear to respect each other and look back fondly not just on their days touring and making music, but also display a touching affection for their lamented drummer who’s comments elicit a genuine emotion from Messrs Plant, Page and Jones. It features very little by way of noises-off comments, instead focussing on the band’s own insightful narration as well as plenty of actuality material - including some long form performances from their gigs up until the release of “Led Zeppelin II” where our history rather abruptly concludes. These are three erudite and engaging men who who have clearly lived life’s ups and downs fully and energetically, and emerged remarkably sanely out the other side of a music industry that they refused to be consumed by. There music won’t be to everyone’s taste, but as a history of an industry, a band and a genre-busting style of rock this is an easy film to absorb for two hours.