Gladiator II (2024)

Gladiator II concludes the mini-series I like to call ‘Films where the last instalment came out 20+ years ago’. Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F, Twisters, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice have all been good instalments and now Gladiator II brings up the rear and this is the one I was unsure about because I didn’t know what they could really do with it but if anyone is going to try and make something of Gladiator II then it would be Ridley Scott. The film takes place 16 years after the first film with Rome now run by Emperors Geta & Caracalla who use tyranny to stay in power with Lucius from the first film on a course to exact revenge on General Acacius but is being used by Macrinus.

GOOD POINTS

Paul Mescal

I was never a big fan of Mescal. I don’t think he’s a bad actor I just don’t think he commands the screen but this film managed to make me change my opinion. Over the course of the film he seems to grow in confidence as an actor and the character becomes more believable as someone who could lead people. His fights were all well done and his final showdown with Macrinus was 

Denzel Washington

I had heard that Washington steals the show and I can confirm that this is true. He doesn't overshadow Mescal too much but he is clearly enjoying playing a manipulative monster and the way that he doesn't raise his voice or get into a fight once apart from shooting and bow and his fight scene with Mescal in the final act. He speaks when he has too and 

Good Action Points

All the scenes in the coliseum were very good and on par if not better than in the first one. The water battle was one i was looking forward to and even 

Violence/Gore was perfectly done

I watched the first film the previous night and worried that the violence and gore would be toned down for a 2024 audience but that was proved wrong because there are several moments where the blood is seen in glorious splendour and they didn’t shy away from it.

Tapped into the previous film enough

Being a sequel it was inevitable that there would be references to the first one but I was surprised how they didn’t go overboard with it. There were instances where they reference Maximus and the opening credits was a nice nod but I think that it was folded into the new film a lot better than I was expecting. I thought it was a very good screenplay from David Scarpa who is a Ridley Scott regular. 

I thought at one point they were going to dig up the figures that got buried at the end of the first one but thankfully they didn’t as it wouldn’t have made sense to anyone who hadn’t watched the first one in recent memory.

BAD POINTS

Pedro Pascal was wasted

The film makes it seem like Pascal was going to be involved a lot more in the story than he ended up being. Essentially his character gives Lucius motivation and they add something that he is romantically involved with Lucilla. But he is behind a plan to take power from the twins but once his plan is revealed in rather simplistic fashion, he becomes almost surplus’s to requirements as far as the plot is concerned. Pascal is a great actor but he deserved better.

OVERALL

This was the best Ridley Scott film since All the Money in the World. The film did a great job in telling the story and I was engaged from start to finish. The film was 2 and a half hours and the run time was perfect. It’s not as good as the first one but as long as you go into this film not expecting that then you will enjoy things a lot more. This is by far my favourite film of the year and that isn’t what I was expecting when I sat down at the cinema.

Conclave (2024)

For the first time in a while, I was debating between two films to see at the cinema. The first option was Juror #2 because it will probably be the last Clint Eastwood directed film and then second option was this. I chose this because I thought that this might have more going for it. There aren’t many films about the election of a new pope. I think the last film I saw about the Conclave was Angels and Demons about 15 years ago. I was keen on this not just because of the premise but because it was directed by Edward Berger who won the Best Director BAFTA in 2023 for All Quiet on the Western Front. 

GOOD POINTS

Ralph Fiennes & Stanley Tucci

There aren't many famous faces in this film but Fiennes & Tucci are two of them and they do a very good job. Fiennes drives the story along and Tucci pops up every so often and plays his role perfectly. Is he manipulating things to get the top prize of is he a victim of circumstances. It's obvious to say that Tucci is great in a role because he always is but as Megalopolis has shown, even top actors can have an off day but this doesn't apply to Tucci. Fiennes' performance is quite understated but still strong and the role of Lawrence is only made to be as interesting as he is due to Fiennes' performance.

Good Supporting characters

The rest of the familiar names also help. John Lithgow's Tremblay is portrayed as the ambitious and slightly sinister of the candidates for Pope but its never quite pulled off to make me feel like he is a proper villain and instead he is almost like a red herring. The other big name is Isabella Rossellini as Sister Agnes who is the one person that Lawrence can trust even though its not a typical relationship but it helps the story and the idea that Lawrence is a good man in a difficult position.

Very Good Plot

Some might argue that its a simplistic plot or even one that has been seen in films before and that may be true but it doesn't matter as its still very good and it kept me interested throughout. I don't know too much about the process of selecting a new pope and this film manages to make what is probably a rather dull process and turn it into something mildly entertaining and when you add in a dash of conspiracy into the plot then it leads to something that most people can enjoy.

Beautiful Looking Film

Despite most of the film taking place indoors, the film manages to look stunning from the costume design by Lisy Christl to the cinematography by Stéphane Fontaine, the film feels like a lot of attention has been given to making this setting feel important and dare I say it expensive. Sometimes people would say that this film is style over substance but I would disagree, the way that the film looks helps add to the enjoyment.

Perfectly Paced

At two hours, it might seem like the film is going to drag with the plot of a new pope being selected but Edward Berger manages to make the film feel like it was the perfect running time. I don't think that they could have really lost anything without affecting the film but had the film go on for even 10 more minutes then I would have probably not included this in the good points. Very rare do films know what the right duration is for a film but Berger times it perfectly.

BAD POINTS

Revelation of Benitez Felt Pointless

Once Benitez had been become Pope, there is a scene with him and Lawrence and its revealed that Benitez has male and female genitals and its not made out to be a big deal so I wondered what the point of it was. Aside from tying up a loose end in one of the sub plots, this revelation achieves very little. This is a nitpick really but because the film worked so well that any flaw would stand out a lot more 

OVERALL

I wont know for sure until I see Juror #2 but I think I made the right choice. I was very impressed with this movie. Not knowing too much about it probably helps and if you are interested in the mechanics behind the election of a new pope interesting then you will like this film but if not then this will be tough to get through. Easily in my top three of the year.

Heretic (2024)

Heretic is an A24 film so you know that its a slightly more intelligent horror film and one that I had been looking forward to for a long time because the trailers made it look like at worst a decent horror film but at best the film had potential to be one of the best horror films of the year. The set up of the film is that Sisters Barnes and Paxton visit a house and Hugh Grant's Mr Reed answers and before we know it Mr Reed tells the Sisters to pick a door to leave but there would be consequences.  Its a pretty simple story but what makes it interesting is that this film is about belief and questioning what you see and think.

GOOD POINTS

Hugh Grant
I thought that Hugh Grant might rival James McAvoy for best horror performance of 2024. This didn't happen but it came pretty close. Grant has really entered a great phase in his career where he seems to be having the time of his life and its a far cry from the floppy hair drip of the 1990's. Here there is a menace that is slightly over the top but not to the point that it ruined the film. 

The Sisters
This film features just three characters with Hugh Grant's Mr Reed being one and the two Sisters making up the other two. Sophie Thatcher (Barnes) and Chloe East (Paxton) are great on their own but together they work very well. Paxton is willing to see the good in Reed even as things start to turn weird whereas Barnes is being a bit more sceptical whilst maintaining a polite appearance. The sceptical side would normally be an irritation in this sort of film but because this film is about faith and accepting what your told, the sceptical part worked a lot better and both Thatcher and East deserve a lot of credit with being just as good as Grant.

Isolated Setting
I'm a big fan of isolated settings because I think that it forces everyone involved to be creative and think about how the story was going to work. Apart from the opening few scenes and the occasional cut away, the film sticks to the house and its basement. It doesn't feel claustrophobic but it does feel atmospheric and credit to Scott Beck and Bryan Woods for keeping things going so that the isolated setting didn't become a hinderance.

Tense
It's very easy to think that it doesn't take much to make something tense and that's simply not true. The way that the subject matter is discussed, Hugh Grant's performance and the house and basement all help to make the film feel very tense and this doesn't really let up until the very end.

BAD POINTS

Hammers home the religious message
When Reed is explaining what he is doing to the Sisters and there is a discussion, there are a couple of instances about iterations and Monopoly and Radiohead and after a while it did feel like they were just reiterating a point and I wanted the film to get going again. This doesn't last for very long but it was noticeable that they lingered on the point too much. 

OVERALL

I had high expectations for this film and I am relieved to say that they were met. This is probably going to be the best horror film of 2024. I really like Speak No Evil but the ending slightly ruined it for me. This doesn't do that. There is an ambiguous ending which I thought worked quite well and in my opinion I think she's in the process of dying and the butterfly was the final moment of her life. The setting was great, the performances were great and the film didn't end on a disappointing note. I thought the Topher Grace character was a bit of a waste of time really but that aside this was a highly enjoyable film. 

100 Favourite Horror Films 2024

Earlier this year, I started a list of my 100 Favourite films that I have watched and rated on Letterboxd. Now I have decided to do that with horror and this is the list of my 100 Favourite Horror films that I have watched and rated. Now before anyone gets angry, I am not saying that all these films are great but they are my favourite horror films for one reason or another. They also go in chronological order not order of quality.

• Frankenstein (1931)
• Dracula (1931)
• The Invisible Man (1933)
• Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
• Psycho (1960)
• Night of the Living Dead (1968)
• Asylum (1972)
• The Wicker Man (1973)
• Theatre of Blood (1973)
• The Exorcist (1973)
• Don’t Look Now (1973)
• The Vault of Horror (1973)
• The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
• The Omen (1976)
• Eraserhead (1977)
• Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
• Halloween (1978)
• Dawn of the Dead (1978)
• Alien (1979)
• Friday the 13th (1980)
• The Shining (1980)
• An American Werewolf in London (1981)
• The Evil Dead (1981)
• The Monster Club (1981)
• The Thing (1982)
• Poltergeist (1982)
• Psycho II (1983)
• A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
• Gremlins (1984)
• The Fly (1986)
• Critters (1986)
• Chopping Mall (1986)
• Aliens (1986)
• Evil Dead II (1987)
• Near Dark (1987)
• Child’s Play (1988)
• They Live (1988)
• The Exorcist III (1990)
• Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)
• The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
• Ghostwatch (1992)
• Alien 3 (1992)
• Death Becomes Her (1992)
• From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
• Scream (1996)
• Event Horizon (1997)
• The Faculty (1998)
• Sleepy Hollow (1999)
• The Sixth Sense (1999)
• The Blair Witch Project (1999)
• Ravenous (1999)
• From Hell (2001)
• 28 Days Later (2002)
• Shaun of the Dead (2004)
• Saw (2004)
• The Descent (2005)
• Noroi: The Curse (2005)
• The Host (2006)
• The Mist (2007)
• Paranormal Activity (2007)
• Let the Right One In (2008)
• Cloverfield (2008)
• Haunted Changi (2010)
• Grave Encounters (2011)
• Prometheus (2012)
• The Woman in Black (2012)
• Chernobyl Diaries (2012)
• Sanatorium (2013)
• As Above, So Below (2014)
• What We Do in the Shadows (2014)
• The Witch (2015)
• Hell House LLC (2015)
• The Gallows (20150
• Always Watching: A Marble Hornets Story (2015)
• The Similars (2015)
• The Visit (2015)
• Hush (2016)
• 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)
• Get Out (2017)
• One Cut of the Dead (2017)
• It (2017)
• Ready or Not (2019)
• The Lighthouse (2019)
• Midsommar (2019)
• Saint Maud (2019)
• #Alive (2020)
• The Invisible Man (2020)
• Last Night in Soho (2021)
• Censor (2021)
• V/H/S/94 (2021)
• Pearl (2022)
• Speak No Evil (2020)
• Deadstream (2022)
• X (2022)
• No One Will Save You (2023)
• MadS (2024)
• Speak No Evil (2024)
• V/H/S/Beyond (2024)
• Azrael (2024)

Venom: The Last Dance (2024)

I am fairly new to the Venom series having ignored the first one in 2018 and never getting round to watching the sequel. Here we have the final part of a trilogy which only time will tell whether it will be the final part. The film sees Eddie and Venom on the run from multiple people whilst Area 51 is being shut down. They are on the run because apparently Eddie/Venom have a key that someone is after and thats pretty much it but its clear throughout that they are trying to make this the final film.

GOOD POINTS

Tom Hardy

It’s hard to dislike Tom Hardy as an actor. He is always able to deliver a solid performance even if the film isn’t the strongest (Bikeriders jumps to mind) but he manages to make Eddie seem like a likeable person and Tom Hardy can do comedy quite well which is surprising considering some of the roles he has played over the years. Tom Hardy has carried this series of films which is another surprising thing and its hard to imagine someone else pulling these off quite as well as Hardy did.

The Moon Family

On the face of it, a family where the dad wants to go on a road trip to Area 51. I didn’t even realise it was Rhys Ifans who played Martin. I knew he looked familiar but it wasn't until the credits started that I made this discovery. The family work so well because even though the daughter is clearly sceptical and the son is almost blindly believing in his dads beliefs, they still feel like a lovely family and almost made me wish we followed the Martin family. It doesnt mean Sony that I want a Martin spin-off movie. 

The ‘weird’ bromance

To say that there is a bromance between Eddie and Venom is one of the weirdest points I have made in a review. They do a lot of bickering like they have done for most of this trilogy but when it was time to say goodbye, there was some sadness as if they didn’t want to say goodbye especially until they had seen the Statue of Liberty which became a weird sub-plot in this movie. Tom Hardy is creating a bromance which a CGI creation that is voiced by himself and it works very well as it has done throughout the three films.

Well Directed

This is Kelly Marcel’s debut feature as a director although she is familiar with the series having written the first two as well as this instalment and she handles in pretty well. The pacing is what it needs to be in the first half (a little slow) but then picks up when it has to (when they get to Area 51). There are a lot of effect scenes and they are entertaining and more importantly I could tell what was happening as there was very little shakey cam and thus hard to see what I was suppose to be paying attention to. Hopefully this is the start of a long career behind the camera because if she can handle this type of film then she can handle pretty much whatever she wants.

BAD POINTS

Tonally all over the place

Tonally the film is a bit of a mess. The film seems to want to be a comedy, then it wants to be dark but then it wants to have emotional moments and sometimes it his doesn't work. Things seem to be thrown in for the sake of it such as Mrs. Chen who pops up in Vegas for some reason and doesn't add anything to the story.

The General and Dr Teddy (also Stephen Graham)

I take no pleasure in saying that Chiwetel Ejiofor is not great in this film. It’s been a rocky year for actors not being their best (Megalopolis) and whilst this isn’t a terrible performance from him, it’s just an average performance from him. It’s a general that can be a bit unlikeable which we have seen a hundred times. I also thought that Stephen Graham's character could have been given a lot more to do because he was wasted in this film. I also thought the Juno Temple's character wasnt the greatest because the whole thing about her living her brother's dream by working for NASA is not very well fleshed out so just feels like a second thought.

OVERALL

The Venom trilogy wont go down as the best in movie history but for what they are they are quite a bit of fun. I would maintain that the second one is the best one and this would be a close runner up. Tom Hardy is the best part of each film and gets the send off he deserves in this film which has a lot off good stuff going on.  The action scenes are well done and the time flies by which isnt something that has been the case for a lot of Marvel films over the last couple of years (yes I know its a Sony film).

Smile 2 (2024)

Smile became a surprise success when it came out in 2022. When I first watched it I really didn’t think it was that good but in preparation for this film, I decided to rewatch the first film and was surprised how much more I liked it. So I went into this film feeling a lot more optimistic about this film. The film follows Skye Riley (Naomi Scott) who starts seeing people with smiles on their faces just as she is about to launch her tour a year after nearly dying in a car accident. 

GOOD POINTS

VERY GOOD OPENING SCENE

There is no real reason to watch the first film except for the first few minutes of the film. It takes place six days after the first film and we follow Joel (Kyle Gallner) as he forces his way into some drug dealers house and attempts to kill one in front of the other to pass on the ‘curse’ but things go wrong and I like it simply because it appears to be one continuous take. 

NAOMI SCOTT IS THE BEST PART OF THE FILM

You would expect this to be a given really as she is all over the film but I thought that she was likeable despite the fact that Skye does not appear to be a nice person. Admittedly she admits that she isn’t a nice person but it's fair to say that despite this, I still found myself wanting Skye to get through to the end. The rest of the cast is perfectly fine but the film relies on Scott to do a lot of the work in this film and she does it quite easily. 

INTERESTING CAMERA ANGLES

The camera work in this film is very good. As mentioned, the opening scene was a good use of camera work because it's one single shot but there are countless other moments where the camera is moving along like a slow Wes Anderson. I kept thinking that Wes Anderson must have been an influence for Parker Finn because he does it a lot. It’s only because it's done when needed that it gets a good point. There are plenty of moments where the camera follows action and there is no shakey cam which I appreciated.

DOESNT RELY ON THE FIRST FILM

Normally sequels rely on the previous instalment but this film didn’t. I honestly don’t think you need to have seen the first film as this one doesn't really have anything to do with the first and if they hadn’t stuck 2 in the title then you would have been none the wiser (although the six days later caption might be confusing). To have nothing to do with the first was a brave choice and yet it worked. 

GOOD GORE

Normally I am not great with gore although I am getting better but will never be at the stage where I could watch Saw or Hostel but the gore was sporadic and was done very well and effectively. Despite the fact that the trailer shows a lot of good stuff that would have been better had we not known it was coming, the best gore moment occurs when Lewis smashes his head three times with the weight from the weightlifting thing. The squishy noises used throughout help make the gore even more effective.

BAD POINTS

JUMP SCARES DON'T ALWAYS WORK

There were a couple of moments where the jump scares worked but for the most part the jump scars felt a bit lazy and the sort of dumb scares that you would see in a Blumhouse film. No effort seemed to be used in making most of these scars effective which made the ones that did work all the more confusing. It was like they were thought of by a different person. 

FINAL ACT IS A WASTE OF TIME

Perhaps the biggest issue I have with the film is the final act of the film. The film relies on the false narrative plot device because it shows us Skye killing her mom, driving to Staten Island to meet us with Morris who says that if she basically fakes her death then that will defeat the demon, he then walks out and never returns and then Skye appears on stage and kills herself infront of 15,000 people and then the film ends. This raises many questions such as ‘is the mom really dead?’ and ‘What was the point in that whole section?’. 

LACK OF A CONCLUSION

The fact that the film doesn't have a clear ending means that this could be strung out for several films and become the new version of the Insidious series. I understood why the ending of the first film happened the way it did but this film felt like a cop-out and everything that led to the ending was slightly eye-rolling.

OVERALL

There is a lot to like about Smile 2. It manages to avoid the traps that a sequel normally falls into but the lack of the clear ending means that it comes very close to being a frustrating film. It wasn't Trap level of frustrating but it was very similar to Civil War which was good for 80% of its running time before it completely went off the boil and this film was 90% before it went off the boil for me which is pretty good.  

Never Let Go (2024)

Sometimes not knowing anything about a film is a good thing. The only thing I knew about this film going in was that it started Halle Berry and there was suppose to be something in the woods. 

GOOD POINTS

Central Performances

This film is basically a three parter with Halle Berry (Momma), Anthony B. Jenkins (Samuel) and Percy Daggs IV (Nolan). There are other people in but they are only in it briefly and the three central performances are all really good. They felt like a family and that they cared for each other. Berry’s performance is intense at times. Jennings and Daggs IV are particularly impressive because for a large chunk of the movie they are carrying the film and they work well enough together that I found myself not missing Berry

Atmospheric 

It might seem easy to make a house in the woods seem atmospheric but its harder than it looks and Alexandre Aja does a good of making it feel like there was something in the woods even though we see very little. If you have seen enough B-Movies where they film in the woods then you know that its can easily be done badly.

Interesting Setup

All we know at the beginning of the film is that something happened and Momma, Samuel & Nolan might be the only people left and they have limited resources. We don't know too much and the film works on the plausible idea that less is more. You don't need to spell it out for the audience. Leaving some blanks can work well and the set up is enough to make the story interesting and it allows the characters to get on with it.

Good Pace

The film is 1 hour and 40 minutes long and its the perfect running time. Even five minutes more might have slowed things down and ruined it. The story gets in, tells us what it needs to tell us and then ends. It was a very satisfying pace. There are a lot of films that seem to thing more is better but find the right duration is not that difficult and this film proves it. 

BAD POINTS

Predictable Twist

Normally I can’t predict things that might be obvious to most people but I guessed fairly early on that this was all in the head of Momma but it wasn't until the grandmother appears and it cuts to another shot and she’s gone. This is being harsh on the film to put this in the bad points section but I often thing that its a fault of the film that make it so obvious that I can pick up on it

Ambiguous Ending

I think that the ending was too up in the air with not having a clear answer as to whether its all their heads or there really is an evil force. Just when I thought that it was clear this was all happening in Mama's head and then Samuel's before we see the helicopter with Nolan and Samuel on before the last shot being of the polaroid with Samuel and a hand on his shoulder. I would have like a more clearcut ending.

OVERALL

I enjoyed this film overall. Not knowing too much was the right way to go into this film. It's probably not going to work for everybody because it doesn't  explain what's going on and there arent explosions or excessive gore but I think that works in the film's favour. I like Aja as a film maker having been a fan of Crawl and really like Oxygen and this continues his good run. Defintley worth your time and worth seeing at the cinema.

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

Joker: Folie à Deux was already a film that had garnered a certain amount of negative response from reviewers similar to Megalopolis. Similar to that film I went to see if it was as bad as the reviewers were saying and unlike Megalopolis I can say that I don't agree with them. I understand why they don't like it but I left the cinema feeling good about it. Set two years after the events of the first, Arthur is being put on trial for killing 5 people and is being 'supported' by Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga).

HONOURABLE MENTION

Continuity Issue

Fleck is charged with killing five people but admits killing his mother which would make it six but in fact it should be seven as the woman he speaks to at the end is implied to have died because of the blood footprints. I took it to mean that she died so that would make seven murders but if it isn't a continuity error then she's just been injured in which its slightly undermines the ending.

GOOD POINTS

Lady Gaga is quite good

Bearing in mind that Gaga isn't known for her acting and also isn't the Academy Award Winner (as well as the Movie Addict Award Winner), she was surprisingly good. I say surprisingly because she has shown in A Star is Born and House of Gucci that she can act and she does well as Lee. It would have been nice to have her in a bit more of this so the character could grow a bit more than she did. 

Phoenix & Gaga have good chemistry

The partnership of Phoenix and Gaga was a big selling point of the trailers and considering they spend a large chunk of the movie together, the chemistry is there and they work very well together. The chemistry between Phoenix & Gaga is as strong as it is for Quinn & Fleck. 

Nice redemption for Fleck

By the end of the film, Fleck has pretty much got Joker out of his system. In his scene in front of the jurors he says as much and Fleck has undergone a nice contrast to the anger he felt when he shot Murray Franklin. It was subtle and it wasn't until the very end when he is dying that it occurred to me that this is what they were doing. It was very clever writing and hats off to the writers.

Was never bored of the film

At 2 hours and 18 minutes, this film is exactly the same running time as Megalopolis. One felt a lot longer than the other and this film did not feel long. The story was interesting, the performances were strong and when those two things come together time flies. Six days since Megalopolis and both are great examples of how to utilise a decent running time.

Brendan Gleeson and Steve Coogan

I knew Steve Coogan was in this film as he featured in the trailer and whilst I would have liked him to be in it more, it was a good performance and it was in a nice scene where Arthur basically calls out the media for only being interested in the headlines and not the actual story. Brendan Gleeson is always great in whatever he is in and he continues that in this  as Jackie the guard who is your typical scumbag guard but when Gleeson does it, he does is to the degree that you still like him despite what he does.

BAD POINTS

Felt very disjointed

Despite the fact I was never bored, the musical moments did make the whole film feel disjointed and makes the fact that I enjoyed it as much all the more remarkable. The film is a musical although the people involved seemed reluctant to call it a musical its not structured like a musical because normally scenes build up to a song whereas the songs seem to be chucked in whenever it suited the director.

Songs felt amateurish

Musicals have songs that are created specially for a film and flow in nicely with the film but they didn't sound professional even the Lady Gaga songs didn't come across as particularly great. I think that using songs in films have been made popular because of Guardians of the Galaxy but they have to be used well and they didn't in this case.

Phoenix cant sing

Joaquin Phoenix cant sing at all and is a far better actor than singer. He is bad when is sings on his own but when he is next to a professional Grammy Award winner then he sounds like he is doing karaoke at a bar. I applaud the fact they didn't try and get someone else to sing for him but it did remind me of Russell Crowe in Les Miserables.

Not enough Gaga

Even though we get a good amount of Lady Gaga, due to how good her performance it would have been nice to her more of Gaga. Never thought I would write that but its true and it may have meant that we got less of Phoenix singing. She seems to be in it a lot in the first half of the film but as the court scenes take over then we seemed to see less of Gaga.

OVERALL

This was a good film. Not a perfect one but one that I thought was generally very good. It's clear that they didn't really want to make this sequel but when the first made so much money and won an Oscar, then it was either do it yourself or get someone else to make it and hope for the best. Phillips was at least smart enough to do it himself and that is why it was better than it probably had any right to be. If this is the last time that Joaquin Phoenix plays this character then that's fine but if they carry on with someone else (like they hinted at the end) then that would be fine too. Joker 2 isnt as bad as some people would have you beleive but I think there is enough to like about it and would be happy to watch again.

Megalopolis (2024)

This film has gained a bit of a reputation because it was suppose to be really bad and I wanted to go and see it because I was intrigued by it and also wanted to see a Francis Ford Coppola film at the cinema. I had read in trivia about this film that he had to sell his winery to pay for this film because he didn’t want any studio interference and never has a film needed more studio interference as much as this film did.

GOOD POINT

Esposito, Emmanuel and Fishburne

Giancarlo Esposito, Nathalie Emmanuel and Laurence Fishburne are the ONLY three that give good performances. They seem to somehow make sense of this madness and deliver some good performances. Emmanuel is the weaker of the three but that's because the character wasn't the best written and I think to make her as good as she was is down entirely to Emmanuel herself and not Coppola. 

BAD POINTS

Terrible Performances

I don’t think i have seen a film waste a cast as badly as this since Cats. 

Jon Voigt looks like he was woken up from his afternoon nap and told to say lines into the camera. Dustin Hoffman looks like he was dug up from a cemetery which is ironic as he replaced James Caan who had passed away before filming. Aubrey Plaza is normally very good in what she is in even if the film itself is not and yet she was totally terrible as the terribly named Wow Platinum which must seem like a amusing name to Coppola but to me it was eye rolling and showed that the film isn't as smart as it thinks it is. Adam Driver is another who normally gives a good performance even when the film isn't great and he delivers one of the worst performances ever. If I didn't know better then I would say it was cry for help aimed at Disney.

Shia LaBeouf

No one is as bad as LaBeouf. I don’t think a word exists for how bad he is. I think he had an idea of what he wanted to do and the director just said yes because there is no other explanation that makes sense for why he did what he did. The Madison Square Garden scene is by far the worst part of a terrible outing and was the point where I thought the film had lost the literal and figurative plot. Even by his low standards, LaBeouf excels himself in being terrible and utterly slappable. 

Looked Cheap

This film reportedly had a budget of $120 million dollars and looks like it cost about $20 million. Most scenes seemed to be filmed in front of a green screen and looks terrible. According to IMDB trivia, Coppola fired most of his visual effects team cause Coppola wanted to use technology similar to what was used in The Mandalorian TV series. I was reminded of The Creator which has a budget of $80 million and yet looks like it cost $200 million.

Two People walked Out

There were five people in this screening (including me) at 7:15 on a Monday evening and two people walked out. I was considering it for a good 20 minutes but decided to persevere. I have never walked out of a film before but came pretty close. I had given up on the film after 15 minutes which was bad for me because I still had another TWO HOURS left.

Weird Directing & Editing

It’s a shame that the director of The Godfather directed this. This film has so many weird directing choices and also some poor editing choices. Scenes just happen out of nowhere then end and move onto something else. Normally this is so that the audience doesnt have time to think about what was happening but in this case I think it’s because they didn’t know what they were doing.

The Worst Vanity Project

This film has being in production hell since the 1980’s and Coppola has been trying to get it financed and struggled and to be honest, it wasn't worth the wait. I think vanity projects are fine if they cost less than $10 million but $120 million shows that he doesn't really value money because he wouldn't have spent that much money and be so lacking in quality control.

OVERALL

This is one of the worst films I have seen at the cinema since I started keeping track in 2016. Fantasy Island was the worst film that I had seen but this easily beats it. The reason is that it’s longer than Fantasy Island and at least I could see what they were aiming for in that film. This film doesn't know what its doing, the director doesn't seem to be giving his cast any instruction. This film isn't so bad its good, its so bad that it should be avoided at all cost. I spent £5 and still felt like I was robbed. Had I paid the full £12 then I would have been fuming. 

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

 The first part of the Cornetto Trilogy is an ‘homage’ to the horror films that were made by George Romero. Having not seen the ‘of the dead’ series of films all the references that are littered throughout this film are lost on me. The setup of the film is that Shaun (Simon Pegg) and his friends are trying to survive a Zombie Apocalypse and get his girlfriend back who has recently dumped him. 

The film is funny because the film doesn’t take itself too seriously. There are plenty of references to George Romero films that most people would get and that is perhaps another reason why people would like this film. Having not seen these films, I still find the film entertaining and that shows why this film is so good. 

The performances are really good with Simon Pegg being a notable highlight. Even though he isnt the most successful person in the world. There is a likeable quality about Shaun, he does try to do the right thing but just seems to find being next to Nick Frost’s character as the easy approach. Nick Frost is funny in this film but he is one of those people that can be annoying at times. His character is suppose to be a stoner waste of space and yet becomes quite useful as the film progresses. When he turns into a Zombie it is handled quite well and nobody plays a monkey as well as Nick Frost. The other performances are all work and no one lets the film down.

Shaun of the Dead is a funny and entertaining film. Whether it’s the best film in the trilogy is something that is open for debate. Personally I think that Hot Fuzz is the better film but this is still a great film with great performances and shows that you can do horror comedies well. Admittedly the film hasn’t aged that well in some respects but in terms of humour and pacing, this film continues to be an entertaining film.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

 The final part of the Dark Knight trilogy is the weakest. This was the third part of the triple bill and by this point in the cinema experience, I felt like things were going well. I wasn't feel fatigue or getting uncomfortable with the seat I was in but I always knew that this film was going to test me. Set several years after the events of The Dark Knight and Bruce Wayne has become a hermit but a psycho called Bane is going to cause more damage to Gotham than anyone could imagine.

GOOD POINTS

Some good scenes

Despite the run time, there are some good scenes throughout the film.  The opening scene with Bane on the airplane immediately comes to mind but there are plenty which show that Christopher Nolan might someone who likes the big philosophical ideas but he knows how to put interesting scenes together. Also the scene at the football match when Bane launches his masterplan is also very good because its simple and not flashy but to the point and does what it needs to do.

Tom Hardy as Bane

Tom Hardy saved this film for me. Back in 2012, the headlines were that Bane's voice was hard to hear and I don't know if time has fixed that problem (I don't think its a restored cut) but I didn't have any problem hearing Bane. Tom Hardy gives a personality to what is a fairly one dimensional character. Back in 1997, he was just Poison Ivy's hired help but in this he is breaking things up because he believes to be right and doing things for the right reasons. The character and film would have been weaker without Tom Hardy.

Michael Caine is heart-breaking

Michael Caine has been brilliant throughout these three films but he really steps it up in this one. The way that Alfred feels like is breaking his promised to Thomas Wayne is one of the saddest moments in the film and its because we care about Alfred because of what Caine has done with the character. Some might argue that Michael Gough is the best Alfred but in my mind, Caine manages to make Alfred feel like a loyal but integral part of Bruce Wayne's life.

BAD POINTS

There doesn't feel much enthusiasm for it

The first film felt like it had a point to it and the second one also did. This one felt like it was being made because the previous one took $1 billion dollars and Warner Brothers. It feels like there is no real discipline to the flow of the story with Nolan allowing himself to let philosophy take centre stage of the film when it didn't really have any need to.

I don't care about Cat Woman

I think that Selina Kyle isn't a very interesting character. She worked when played by Michelle Pfeffer in Batman Returns but in this she just feels like an irritation. I think it isn't really Anne Hathaway's fault although I don't think she really helped. 

Too Long

At close to three hours, this film is too long. Plain and simple. The whole Gotham under Bane's rule goes on so long that it feels like the film doesn't really belong in the film. You could have cut a bit of this and it would have been a much better product as a result.

OVERALL

This is a disappointing film if you compare it to the previous films in the trilogy but on its own it is ok. The film is too long and the film feels like it has to be something it doesnt want to be. I have no problem with moral messages in a film but the film has to be entertaining for it to work and despite the best efforts of everyone involved, they never manage to pull it. off.

The Dark Knight (2008)

The second of the Dark Knight trilogy is the best. After the teaser at the end of Batman Begins, the most iconic villain in comic book history (probably) makes his first appearance in a movie since 1988. The plot sees Batman take on the Joker as he tries to dismantle the corruption and crime in Gotham whilst Harvey Dent is trying to clean things up in his own way.

Good Points

Heath Ledger steals the show

This has always been my opinion and is the case upon watching again. Every scene is great and its perhaps the biggest loss in this franchise that Ledger died. The face paint along with the manner in which he talks helps create a version of the Joker that is completely different from the version that Jack Nicholson plays. His best scene is in the interview room when Batman is beating him up and then he has that great speech with the detective about why he uses a knife instead of a gun. Every scene is great.

Bale is great as Batman

Due to the plot, there wasn't very much of Bale in the Batman costume and he makes up for that in this film. He has some great moments in the costume most notably with Joker but he is also more confident as Bruce Wayne. He has got the swaggering playboy part down quite well and it makes a clear distinction between the two sides of the character. 

Pace is better than the previous despite longer run time

The first part of Batman Begins was perhaps slower than it should have been but this version doesn't have a problem with pacing. Each scene has something going on and even when the Joker isn't involved the acting helps you forget that and everyone (almost) is on the top of their game.

Rachel 2.0 is a big improvement

Katie Holmes was the weak link in the performances in Batman Begins and Maggie Gyllenhaal is much better in the role. I think that she makes more of the opportunities the character is given than Katie Holmes would have done. The love triangle between Bruce, Rachel and Harvey worked very well and only lasted as long as it needed to. It's a shame that Gyllenhaal wasn't in Batman Begins because I think that she would have made that film just that bit more entertaining.

Much more enjoyable

This film shows what can be achieved when you inject a bit of thought into a film. At this time Marvel was just gearing up for Iron Man and so was what comic book movies should be aiming for. This film deals with many things but still has the action stuff that people would expect. Batman and the Joker don't meet each other too many times and that works for the better so that when they do it means something and those scenes are great. 

Bad Points

Boat scene is too much

There are some high stakes scenes and they work but the final one on the boats is one too many. It goes on too long and doesn't really lead to anything and in the final act this really slows things down and 

Aaron Eckhart not great

When a lot of the central performances are so good, anything not as good will stand out and unfortunately Aaron Eckhart does stand out but not in a great way. I think that he is fine but next to the Joker he isn't as good. I think that he is there more so that the Joker can prove a point that be there for anything good. 

Overall

This is a great movie with a great cast and a story that works very well. The directing isnt flashy but is still great and everything works perfectly. This film was great when I first saw it in the cinema in 2008 and its still great in 2024.

Batman Begins (2005)

For the first time ever, I have seen three films in one day at the cinema. I had seen two films in one day but there was a gap of a couple of hours between them. I have always liked the trilogy and saw them when they originally came out, but there was something about seeing them in one go that proved to irresistible to turn down.

The opening part of the trilogy is not as gritty as people think it is. It is gritty compared to the Batman films that have come before it but its not that gritty and perhaps feel more grounded than gritty. The film follows as Bruce Wayne goes away to understand the criminal underbelly to try and exact revenge on the person who killed his parents all while the corruption of the city tries to stop him and the League of Shadows tries to get Wayne to be one of them.

The horror of the neon campiness of the Joel Schumacher which nearly killed the franchise is consigned to the history books with a film directed by someone who has a vision and a plan for bringing this character back from the dead.

Good Points

Strong Central Performances

Christian Bale is very good as the caped crusader, we see him through all stages of grief and he is believable as Bruce Wayne and as Batman. This version of Bruce Wayne feels the most grounded out of all the versions that we have seen in the movie. Bruce Wayne in this movie has the playboy lifestyle that has always been there in the character but Bale makes it seem a facade and hiding his true character. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are great as Alfred and Lucius Fox respectively and are as awesome as ever. Gary Oldman makes the character of James Gordon feel a bit more important than he has in the previous films.

Good Action sequences

Despite this being a more grounded version of Batman, there are still the action sequences which are all very good. Christian Bale never stuck me as an action star or someone who could do them but he manages to pull it off. This version of Batman is a more talkie incarnation of the character but it is still lends itself to the action sequences that cinema-goers would expect.

Visuals are good

We have the dark gritty version of Gotham in the Tim Burton films, the camp neon light version in the Joel Schumacher versions and now we get a better version in this movie. It has a futuristic feel and yet current. It does feel like it was film in a real street in a real city that is doubling as Gotham which is a nice middle ground from the two previous versions. 

Bad Points

Villain could have been stronger. Scarecrow was a better villain

I liked that there was some personal backstory for the character of Ducard but I would have liked to see more of Scarecrow because I think Scarecrow was a more traditional villain for Batman and he was played brilliantly by Cillian Murphy. Liam Neeson is great don’t get me wrong but I think that he was overshadowed by Murphy. 

Katie Holmes is not a great Rachel

Trying to be kind to Katie Holmes but she isn’t very good as Rachel. Rachel is suppose to be this form of support to Bruce and yet there isn’t that connection with Bruce Wayne that there should be. This was her only performance and it was a good thing. 

Overall

This is an underrated Batman movie, it’s the middle of the trilogy in terms of quality but it zips along at a good pace. This being the first part of the trilogy at the cinema. It has a story which it takes time to tell but doesn't feel like there is any padding or rushing at the end. An enjoyable film which even nearly 20 years later holds up and should be a film that people watch.