Reviews

Like any Ridley Scott film, Exodus promised big budget, big action, big story culminating into what can only be described as a traditional'epic' blockbuster. Unfortunately, Exodus fails to meet this status, bringing to question whether the stigma attached to the director is still justified.

The film, based on the story of Moses, follows the same beaten track of films and stories before. The story is both familiar but repetitive with only small twists which attempt to relate to a modern and largely un-religious audience.

Its on this I must make a side note, films based on religious beliefs instantly ring alarm bells; they either are ridiculous (Noah for example), overly religious or tame. Exodus is the latter, tame. It attempts to carefully tiptoe around anything that could be controversial resulting in a product that falls short of even the 1998 cartoon 'Prince of Egypt'.

However, a familiar but tame story can usually be saved by inspiring acting and interesting character development. Unfortunately, this is exodus' biggest failing. The story focused on two individuals, Moses and Ramses, with almost no development of any other character. Christian Bale's performance as Moses let much to be desired and was completely unsuited to the role of an inspirational leader. Its because of his un-remarkable acting and script that results in large pieces of the film being instantly forgettable. The same can be said about all of the main supporting actors whose only role was to provide exposition when the story required it. The multiple award winning Aaron Paul barely has a line of speech throughout the one hundred and fifty minute film as an example.

In spite of this Exodus does have a few redeeming features that return it from a disaster. The graphics and special effects are fantastic and coupled with the more down to earth and modern portrayal of the ten plagues of Egypt its creates a more relatable film. This results in that feeling of grandeur and 'epicness' one expects from such a film. A special note must go to the acting of Joel Edgerton, Ramses, who breathes fresh life into the film, or at least his part of it, through immersive and inspiring acting. He plays the role of an increasingly desperate king perfectly and is a joy to watch.

Overall, Exodus leaves the viewer with mixed opinions. It is not a bad film, its well constructed and had a mixture of good and bad points, but its not a good film either. The biggest criticism is that its boring. I was very rarely gripped and never excited as to what might happen next. Too often does the film descend into slow, uninteresting and unnecessary plot development scenes which became a chore to get through. After the similarly disappointing releases from Ridley Scott in the last few years I have to conclude that he may have seen his best days. I have given this film a 6/10 as it does have the essence of an 'epic' blockbuster but its delivery poorly done.

There is no doubt about it, Fury is perhaps one of the best war films to come out in the last few year, but unfortunately for either film buffs or history buffs this film disappoints on many levels.

As a film, Fury does a good job of building the characters and the environment that they are in. This has to be the strongest part of the film, its ability to portray the war and the crew of Fury, the tank, in a human but gritty manner. Through this, it presents a number of unsettling scenes which help pull the audience into the character development and general war time environment. However, by doing so its falls into a number of cliché's that we expect from a modern American war film; young recruit, alpha dog sergeant, shocking gore, a love interest and a heroic jingoistic final battle. By following these cliché's I cant help feel that the film was already written and that too much time was spent developing the characters rather than what the audience is there for, to watch a war film.

On this, Fury mostly does an great job. The battles place you on the edge of your seat, the graphic are superb and the sounds are some of the best I have heard. Combining this with overview and crew point of view camera angles its immerses the watcher completely into that world. We also see the current fashion of attempting to shock the audience with gore. This current fashion suits Fury well as it compliments the gritty cinematography, however, I can't help feel that they have over gored it at times.

However, for any audience, film or historical backing, the film falls apart in one main area, the portrayal of the Germans. It is because of this the film will never be a war film classic and will quickly be forgotten about in the coming months. The Germans are depicted as faceless, brain dead, incompetent idiots and plays the roll of a target for Pitt's crew's machine-guns. Some scenes are more comparable to a zombie movie than a WW2 war film! There is also no need for this apart from supporting the film's American patriotic hero vibe.

In summary, Fury is a immerse, gritty and largely enjoyable film, however, the ever increasing jingoistic wave reaches a tipping point in the film leaving many bewildered audience members disappointed.

The Desolation of Smaug can be seen as a new high for both Peter Jackson and the Middle Earth Saga. From beginning to end this film entertains and immerses you into Tolkein's and Jackson's world. From the actors to jaw dropping environments that the band travel through this film is very well delivered. Having said this, there are times that the director's artistic design does leave you questioning the decision making, of which chief of these is the over use of CGI.

The use of CGI in the film may be my only negative point from the new Hobbit films. Unlike the Lord of the Rings trilogy, almost every aspect of film has been touched upon by the rendering teams. This is most obvious during the numerous fight scenes where over emphasised movements are replaced by a CGI model. I feel that this will not only cause the films to age quickly but it throws the audience out from their immersed state as they recognise the unnatural movements and graphics of characters.

Despite this, Jackson has hit a near perfect note. The second part seems to be more mature and refined that the first in almost every way. For example, the 3D never took away from the overall production like it did at times for the first.

For many people, they will be drawn to this from the book. Of which I must defend the director rather than the hardcore Middle Earth enthusiasts. There are 'new' parts to the film which Jackson has added himself that the book does not cover. As we know, legolas' return was a surprise to many, but in no way does it take away from the overall feel. Jackson has done a very good job to build upon the short remarks and comments that Tolkien only mentions in passing and this not only adds to the film but arguably the story of the Hobbit.

Overall, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is bounds ahead of its predecessor in terms of design and production. The added story lines only adds to the narrative and the cinematography is consistent with our expectations of a Peter Jackson production. Whilst disappointed with the over indulgence in computer graphics I would still highly recommend this film in either mode, although the 3D does have some truly spectacular moments which should not be missed. I give this a 8.5 - 9 as Jackson has excelled himself with his latest release.

Where to start a critical review on something that IMDb has given a 7/10 for? In a film like this you are looking for two key things, a robust story line, but more importantly, comedy. This film failed to deliver on both.

First, I will comment on the story line. In films like this I do not expect this to be great. The apocalyptic hell that has arisen created a setting of which the meat of the film, being the comedy, could bounce around in. The survival aspect is where the actors attempt to provide a semi-comical and drug focused positive out of a desperate situation. Story line wise, there is nothing new here. If you have watched any horror or zombie films you will quickly release where the story line is taking you. Apart from being mediocre for most of the film the plot line deteriorates very quickly towards the end of the film and boarders on completely ridiculous.

The main issue I have with this film is the comedy. I must draw to the fact that this is a Seth Rogan film. The 'marmite' love him or hate him factor will be the audience's main decider on the quality of the film. As a British audience we generally do not understand why the Americans find Rogan funny. His drug centered comedy and slow and sluggish delivery of unfunny lines is something we can neither relate to or find amusing. The only dim light that appeared through this comedy smog was that of Jay Baruchel who's more interesting and articulate voice brought my attention back to the screen.

Without giving away spoilers it is difficult to describe the truly tedious and boring film that I wasted a few hours of my life on. I will give this film a 2/10 as I think I laughed once during this film. Perhaps ironically, the only way to enjoy this film is with the use of narcotics, as without them you will wish that you had been one of the lucky people that was dragged into the abyss in the first ten minutes of this film.

Act of Valour set out to create a film with 100% authentic and realistic action sequences and promote the lives of US Navy Seals. In that aspect it succeeded, however, failed everywhere else.

The advertisement of using real navy seals as the main characters creates a level of military authenticity and accuracy that I have not seen in a film for a long time. All equipment and vehicles used are used correctly whilst dialogue and radio chatter inside of combat shows detail that inexperienced eyes might miss. However, acting is not something these Seals train for at basic! Dialogue outside of combat is weak at best and any scene trying to get some form of emotion out of the audience is lost as soon as one opens their mouth. Not many good things can be said about the story line. A rather unimaginative plot coupled with the stereotypical 'bad guy' does little but create a backdrop for the numerous fire fights and special forces insertions. Lastly, it should be noted that the film was shot in a noticeable High Definition that creates specular grandeur on wide pan shots.

Those looking for a well constructed war film should look else where. The predicable storyline and patriotic American stance will put most viewers off. However, if HD fire fights, good military realism can be taken with a pinch of salt this film does not disappoint.