The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim (2024)

It’s weird to think that its been 10 years since the last Hobbit film came out and apart from the Amazon TV series, there hasnt been much in the way of stuff from Middle Earth but despite us getting a Gollum movie (at some point) we now get an animated film which is set 183 years before the Lord of the Rings trilogy and sees a war between Wulf and Helm Hammerhead and Helm killed Wulf’s dad and that is the simple enough plot. It’s nice that there isnt world ending implications in the plot and that its a self contained story.

GOOD POINTS

Nice to be back in Middle Earth

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the greatest trilogies in movie history and whilst the Hobbit trilogy had issues (it shouldn't have been a trilogy), it was nice to be back in middle earth and after a decade away, its good to be back in familiar places. Even though it's 183 years before we would be back here in The Two Towers, the animation manages to take us back there and despite it not being live action, I still felt like I was there.

Brian Cox is a good Helm Hammerhead

It’s nice to see Brian Cox do something where he is playing a nice guy. Having watched and enjoyed him in Succession and his instantly recognisable voice is great to hear and it fits the character perfectly. It's so easy to get casting wrong in animated films but they struck gold when they cast Cox. The character is a likeable person and Cox’s voice makes you like him and want him to be victorious.

Animation is beautiful

The animation does have a feel of a Studio Ghibli and it's stunning from start to finish. The only thing I wasn't keen on was the fire which looked like live action instead of animated. This felt like a weird choice because it didn't need to look real and looked really out of place. That’s the only real criticism with the animation because as I said it looks beautiful and the colours are nice and the grading all add to give us what we have in the film.

Wulf is a good villain 

A film can be successful or not depending on how effective the antagonist is and in the case of this film, Wulf is an effective villain. He is focused on his goal to the point where he forgo logic just to win his personal battle. It might come across as a bit weak to other but sometimes personal motives work just as well as wanting something for power and if its done well then I dont mind personal motives for moving a story along.

BAD POINTS

Bit too long

At 2 hours and 15 minutes it is about 40 minutes to long. It didn't need to be any longer than 90 minutes. Animated films work better when they have a shorter running time. Toy Story is only 81 minutes long so why this film is over two hours is a mystery to me. A shorter run time can lead to a pacier film and that is something that could work in a film's favour.

Slightly pointless

As much as I loved being back in Middle Earth, the film did feel like it was slightly pointless. It doesnt lead into anything that is coming out soon, it doesnt connect to anything beyond the Lord of the Rings films and so it doesnt feel like its a must see thing which is a shame and it is worth seeing but I dont think many people beyond Lord of the Rings fans will bother even tracking it down. 

OVERALL

I enjoyed this animated film. It had a good story which would have benefited from a shorter running time. We are suppose to be getting a Gollum movie at somepoint which will get a lot more attention than this film has received which is a shame because it is worth your time but it might be quite low in your rankings of best Middle Earth stories.

Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1992)

It was inevitable that we were going to get a sequel to Home Alone but in 1992, a 9 year old me didn't care or think about that sort of thing. I was just excited to get back to Kevin and whilst this is basically the same plot as the second one. The thought of Kevin being lost in one of the biggest cities in the world was still something exciting. The plot is the same except Kevin makes it to the airport but gets separated in the rush and if there was a sign this was a pre 9/11 film, Kevin is able to get on board through a series of events that require a suspension of disbelief. The rest is the same as the first although there is no John Candy.

When Donald Trump had his cameo, I am sure I heard boos. It wasn't loud but it was noticeable and that seemed a bit silly because he is on screen literally for 5 seconds and doesn't impact the plot and regardless of your political beliefs, booing a 32 year old film is childish.

GOOD POINTS

Clever twist on the familiar plot

Whilst there are many similarities to the first film, moving the setting to New York does have some benefits. Starting the time in New York at the hotel allows for the film to be different enough. Once the stuff is finished at the hotel (in hilarious fashion), the action moves to Kevin’s uncle and I would say that there is enough different to justify this movie although the basics are the same.

Traps are still as good as the first

Even though the traps dont happen at the hotel, the traps at the house are just as good as the first film. The one where Marv is pelted with bricks and then gets electrocuted does show that the traps have increased in their terms of severity. I know that some programmes and people try to take the fun out of whether Marv and Harry would survive because thats taking the fun out of the film. Of course they wouldn't survive but its cartoon violence and they take the step up in brutality that they needed to after the first.

Another great performance from Culkin

After two years, Macaulay Culkin is still great as Kevin. He is less whiney as he was before but still manages to capture being a kid really well (not much of a stretch really) but there a lovely side to his performance especially when Kevin has scenes with Pigeon Lady and Mr. Duncan. The scene where Kevin and his mom reunite might be the same as the one in the first but they have such a lovely bond that it still got me teary eyed.

Hotel staff are a nice bit of comedy (even Schneider)

I think that Rob Schneider is a humourless hack and owes his entire career to Adam Sandler but in this he is the good part of a gang of hotel staff that are excellent to the hotel side of the plot. Led by Tim Curry’s Concierge, everyone is fun as they try to get the upper hand on Kevin which takes the inevitable path but there are plenty of laughs along the way. Even ‘actors’ as terrible and unfunny as Schneider have the ability mostly through luck to star in a great film.

Toy Shop subplot was a nice touch

It might be a b-plot but I thought the Toyshop subplot was very good and sweet. Its weird to think that this sort of toyshop would be in business in 2024 without becoming a faceless corporate toyshop but the individuality and innocence of the owner makes the subplot appear on the same emotional level as the old man from the previous film.

Pigeon Lady was a suitable replacement for the old man from the first

Despite the fact that Brenda Fricker does look like Piers Morgan in this film, I still think that she is a suitable replacement for the old guy from the first film. I was aware that Fricker was in a UK show called Casualty around this time and it was my first experience of someone I saw on TV in a movie and she plays the pigeon lady rather well. It’s sad that she doesnt really have a moment where she reunites with family like the old man did in the first one but the interactions with Kevin were lovely to watch.

BAD POINTS

Same plot as the first

This is really nitpicking and I already stated it at the beginning but this is the same plot as the first one just changed and its a trick that most sequels in other films not named Home Alone would try for the rest of time.

OVERALL

Despite the minot bad point, Home Alone 2 is a great film and one of the best sequels in movie history. The setting works and despite not really seeing much of New York beyond the initial shots at the start, the film have a different vibe to the first one and the first two Home Alone films are the best by quite some margin and are regular watches at Christmas time. Lovely stuff.

Home Alone (1990)

Home Alone is not just a great movie but its a great Christmas movie. I remember seeing this film in the cinema when it was released back in December 1990. Now 34 years later I get to watch this film on the big screen and like The Dark Knight Trilogy, I see this film followed by Home Alone 2. It was nice to see this film with an audience where a good portion of the audience were not born when this film was released. So the plot is that Kevin McCallister is left home alone by accident as his family go on a Christmas holiday to France meanwhile two burglars are trying to break in and Kevin has to fight them off.

GOOD POINTS

Great Story

It might be rather straightforward by today's standards and there are plot holes and easy ways to have wrapped this story up very quickly but I still think that it's a great story done really well. All aspects of the film make this story seem better than it actually is. This is made obvious by the fact that the rest of them (apart from the second one) have tried to replicate the formula and failed to various degrees. The subplots of Kevin trying to do everyday things and watching them go wrong is funny and nothing seems like it could have been cut out. Everything is relevant.

Funny double act performance from Stern & Pesci

The double act of Pesci and Stern is really good and whilst they don’t come off as the biggest villains ever, the chemistry they have works and it’s weird to think that Joe Pesci could do a character so different from what he would normally do. It’s great we see Pesci in the very first scene pretending to be a cop and its quite unusual to see the villain so early even if we don't see the twist until a couple of scenes in. Watching a sweary Pesci try to act in a PG film is a sight to behold and Daniel Stern isn't just there to make up the numbers, he is the nicer of the two and I think gets the 

Macaulay Culkin is great and I wanted to be him

I saw this when I was seven years old and like most kids that age, I wanted to be Macaulay Culkin. We all had the dream of being left home alone (maybe not whilst my family went on holiday) but watching this film we were watching Culkin living the dream of most kids and he’s great as Kevin. Yes he’s a bit whiny and pouty but when he realises that he has been left home alone it is like he becomes a different person. 

Nice performance from John Candy

I have a thing called ‘the Samuel L. Jackson effect’ which is that no matter how many times I watch Jurassic Park, I forget (briefly) that Jackson is in it. So I apply this to a few other people and it applies to John Candy. Its a lovely role although I would always argue for more John Candy in any film he is in. It’s a role that anyone could have played (that could apply to anyone I know) but Candy brings a personality to a rather small role and the speech he gives in the van to Kate is lovely and heartbreaking.

Traps are funny and feel like they hurt

When I watched the most recent Home Alone film, a complaint I had was that the traps didnt feel like they hurt. That definitely isn't the case with this and even at 41 years old, I find the traps look like they hurt, especially the one that Marv experiences with the micro machines and baubles which make me wince as well as the nail on the step. Also not being a fan of spiders, I always think the spider on Marv’s face whilst not being painful is still horrible.

Lovely heartfelt ending

Some might say that this film is quite smultzy and whilst that might be true, I think that the film has earned it. We have a complete character arc for Kevin as he goes from not valuing his family to wanting them back and I don't mind admitting that the hug between Kevin and his mom does make me teary eyed. Also the fact that a sub character (Marley) reunites with his son and family was also just added to the teariness. The film ending was perfect and nothing would have been better.

There are no bad points

OVERALL

This is a perfect film. Normally I would say that nostalgia is affecting my judgment but that is a small factor to my overall enjoyment of the film. When I went to the cinema to see this again, there were plenty of people who were probably the same age as Kevin and still enjoyed the film. A film can still entertain an audience even 30 years apart if its told well and is fun and that is something that is missing from a lot of films today. They have forgotten how to entertain and think that lecturing and pushing a message counts as entertainment in 2024.

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. 

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).