Reviews

If this is supposed to be a Christian movie it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As some have suggested, it sort of starts off like some horror, or alien invasion movie, but then goes off to be some sort of end times Christian film, though it is sort of trying to be subtle about it. The problem is that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, particularly if you happen to have an idea of what it is talking about.

Basically it is about a group of people who are caught in what is supposed to be the end times. All electrics shut down so they have to walk, and then they discover that they can't eat or drink anything because if they do they are struck down with some horrid disease. Then every so often some strange thing appears in the sky and starts zapping people. Oh, and some creatures are slowly advancing on them, and when they get close, you explode.

Yeah, it makes no sense, especially with the lightning parts of it. Like, are they supposed to be taken to heaven because if so, why does the Christian character always hide from it. Also, why are people that aren't Christian, like the leather clad dude, zapped? So, the wife decides to become a Christian, and then walks out to be zapped, as if she realises that it is the escape, but the woman who explains everything to her decides to stay behind.

To be honest, there is only one good end times film out there, and this isn't it (and it certainly isn't Left Behind either). Mind you, it landed up on Tubi, so that probably explains everything. Oh, and I just checked, and it seems as if the director happens to be a pro-Trump apologist. Enough said.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and actually suggest that this reminds me of a Shakespeare play. Okay, there are certainly some cultural differences, namely that losing one's virginity wasn't something that people would write plays about in his time, and I'm not sure whether T&A were a particularly big thing back then either (though honestly, there is a lot we don't know, though considering that women were forbidden from appearing on stage probably says a lot). However, when it comes to dick jokes and toilet humour, well Shakespeare certainly abounds in that.

Like, the film seems to start off as being your typical nerd has to get laid type of film, that is until they get to Palm Springs and run into their rivals from back home. Sure, they are trying to get the nerd laid, but that seems to be a bit more of a side plot to the rivals making a bet as to who can sleep with the girl Ashleigh first. When they made that bet the first thought that came into my mind was 'I bet Shakespeare wrote a play along those exact some lines' (I don't think he did, but it sounds like something he would do - though apparently in Love's Labour's Lost there is a competition as to who can get married first).

In fact, as I watched it, I could pick the two princes and their lackies, of course the lady that they are trying to court, and the mean duke in the form of the Sheriff, who while being defeated, is humiliated as opposed to being killed. Of course, the way that they attempt to woo Ashleigh has some intelligence about it as well. Mind you, I'm not sure whether you can put Wendel into a Shakespearian play since there didn't seem to be the concept of the nerd back though, though there are some suggestions that you might have the bookish philosopher fall into that category (though that doesn't seem to be a Shakespeaian trope).

Mind you, I'm not sure what Roger Ebert meant when he referred to the women as being objects because I thought that Ashleigh did have a character beyond being a pretty face. Like, yeah, there were characters there that were the pretty faces, such as the two girls that hung around the two rivals (in fact the male characters seemed to be less memoriable, what except for Mother Tucker, but that was actually a pretty cool name).

Look, despite my arguments that you could literally rewrite this as a Shakesperian play, it is still a college sex comedy, and it is pretty much what you would expect from the eighties. Yeah, just because you can say that the plot comes across as Shakespearian, doesn't mean that it has been executed in a way Shakespeare would.

I guess I ended up seeing this film because I did rather like The Dry, and wanted to see the sequel, though in part I wasn't really all that enthusiastic about rushing out to the cinemas to do so. Mind you, what ended up happening was that we weren't doing anything else, so yeah, we decided to kill some time while watching the film.

Look, it is similar to the previous film where there are a lot of flash backs. It involves a group of women that go out hiking and end up getting lost. It is set in a fictious national part that is pretty much cut off from the rest of the world, so it is somewhat different from the previous film. Also, there happens to be a storm rolling in, so the search for the missing woman has a time limit applied.

Okay, normally the federal police wouldn't be getting involved in a search and rescue, except for the fact that the missing woman is an information source in regards to a fraud and money laundering case that they are involved in. As the film goes on, you actually start to really dislike this woman, and of course the whole idea of why she is helping them out comes clear as well.

Mind you, it isn't your typical murder mystery, namely because there are quite a few twists and turns. The whole idea, and the way that the film is constructed, is designed that you really shouldn't be taking any of the statements of the people involved at face value. The idea is that they are supposed to be unreliable narrators, and you are meant to be suspicious of everything. Mind you, I suspect that this is what police should be doing as well.

Look, it wasn't bad, but it certainly wasn't as cut and polished as some of the other films that I have seen, even Australian films. It certainly does have some good parts about it, but, yeah, it did fall down in parts.

This movie pretty much changed everything, but ironically a lot of these low budget films have the habit of doing that. Sure, it might not be the first film to have a bunch of students getting progressively killed of, but rather it has more to do with the methods Rami used to make this film. In fact, it has since become a cult film (though I have to admit that I prefer the next films, where it went from being a serious horror movie, to being much more tongue in cheek).

As I mentioned, it is about five students who go to a cabin in the woods for a holiday. What we know though is that there is something lurking in the forest (though we never actually see it - despite the fact that the characters know that something is there - particularly at the end). In fact, this method has a name - Rami vision - namely we are watching from the point of view of something, we just don't know what it is.

In a way, it works much, much better, than actually seeing the thing, because for some reason, when we see the thing, the mystery, and the horror, actually disappears. It's like that mystery film that when everything is revealed we sort of roll our eyes in the way that it was better when we didn't know, as opposed to when we did.

Like, I could continue with this, but the story is pretty common knowledge. One of the main reasons that I wanted to watch it again was because I wanted to see where it all came from. Like, yeah, it certainly pushed an awful lot of boundaries (and the use to the term Dedites doesn't really work the same in a serious horror movie than it does in a spoof). Also, you don't have the demon possessed people crawling on the ceiling, but that has more to do with it being a low budget film. Still, quite a few things that were done in the film does go to show how it is possible to push a small budget.

A part of me is wondering whether some of these super hero films really need to be made, though I suspect that there won't be as many made from this point on because, well, the scene has become so saturated with them that I suspect people are starting to get sick of them.

This is one of those films from Sony where they are basically making films from characters that have appeared in the Spiderman universe. Mind you, a lot of them happen to be anti-heroes, though I'm not sure if that is the case with Madame Web. Actually, it seems like she is pretty much a minor character in the universe, though it appears that maybe they were trying to create the spider-women. However, I suspect that this won't be going much further.

So, the story is about this woman that was born in the Peruvian Amazon where her mother was on the hunt for a spider whose poison would heal her unborn baby. It also turns out that the venom of this spider also gives people bitten by it super powers.

The interesting thing that I only discovered afterwards is that some of the characters are actually from Spiderman. Like the ambulance officer is actually Peter Parker's uncle Ben (and as such the baby that is born at the end of the film is actually Peter Parker). Honestly, I didn't realise it, though it turns out that the film is set in 2003, which would make Peter 20.

Anyway, the bad guy in the film had stolen the spider, but is haunted by dreams of his death. As such, he decides to go and attempt to locate the three women who would kill him, though it turns out that they are teenagers. Mind you, the whole thing about attempting to prevent his death is that he actually brings it forward, as well as bringing the three women into contact with each other.

Okay, look, I didn't actually hate the film, but honestly, it certainly isn't one of the greatest, and I can see why people are starting to get sick of the whole genre.

This is basically a documentary about how Christian nationalism, and how this concept and the Bible don't actually see eye to eye. However, I can't necessarily say that it is a good documentary because I don't feel that it provides enough of a commentary as to what is going on. Like, at the beginning we have a number of people speaking who believe that the Bible supports violence, and provide bible verses to support that view. This is confusing because it is starting to come across as a documentary that supports right-wing Christianity.

Mind you, my realisation changed when I discovered that one of the people they were talking to was Preston Sprinkle who, while he is conservative, doesn't subscribe to that brand of Christianty. In fact he has written a number of books about how we have got it wrong with dealing with the LGBTQ community. From the standpoint of this documentary though, it has more to do with his book on pacifism than on the way we treat non-Christians as the enemy, and act violently and aggressively towards them.

Anyway, the main purpose of this documentary is to demonstrate that it is actually nothing new. Like, Christianity was on the fringes right up until Constantine claimed to have had a vision before going to war against one of the other Emperors. He then proceeded to make Christianity the dominant religion in the empire. However, the problem is that for a pacifist religion, running an empire doesn't quite work. As such, a lot of theology came out around the idea of the just war, and this has come down to our time.

The problem with the just war theory, and fighting a war against Satan, and claiming that the enemies of the church are a part of the war against Satan is that it leads to the justification of violence, which doesn't sit quite well with loving your neighbour. Mind you, the last president that actually took a pacifist stance, Jimmy Carter, only lasted one term. So, it makes you wonder if you can actually be a political leader when a part of your job is going to war.

Another problem that arises is the idea of creating a safe environment. We need police to make sure that we live in a safe society, and to be honest there are a lot of countries out there that have police forces, but they are only violent when it needs to be. Like take England for instance, where the police wander around unarmed. Some teachers have argued the need to keep the country secure, but this leads to the idea of fighting your enemies before they can get to your country, which is the doctrine the US follows. However, that leads to some controversial wars.

As I said, it is an interesting documentary, but the problem that I found is the lack of a narrative. Sure, the idea is probably for us to listen to the people that are talking and to come to our conclusion, but I would have liked there to have been a narrator to build up the argument better.

It is a bit of a shame that some good films seem to be falling really short these days of actually making their money back, which mean that the hints at the end (which I stupidly didn't see because I didn't expect there to be a mid-credits scene, and that the credits are more for resumes than anything else) are probably going to just fall by the wayside. Like, it just seems that these days, post pandemic, people just aren't going to the movies anymore. Well, they are, but not to the extent that they did prior.

Mind you, it isn't as if this film had a new idea. In fact, the premise reminded me a lot of the TV series Chuck. Basically we have this woman who writes spy novels, and is very popular as well. However, as she is travelling to visit her parents, she is approached by somebody who claim to be a spy, and that another agency is hunting her down. It turns out that the books that she has been writing are actually a lot closer to the truth than she realises.

This is sort of one of those over the top type spy films, much like Kingsman. Then again, that probably shouldn't be surprising considering Matthew Vaughn was the director of those films as well. In fact, I found out that there is a hint that maybe this film is actually connected to the Kingsman films, though I suspect that we won't actually be finding that out.

Anyway, yeah, I actually liked this film. It had a lot of charm about it, and it kept me interested right through to the end. Mind you, the other thing is that it suggests that Henry Cavill is actually the leading actor, but it turns out that he doesn't actually have a huge amount of screen time. Still, personally, I would recommend it, and honestly, I hope it does end up becoming a cult film.

There is two aspects to this film, namely the role of the photojournalist in war, and what a modern civil war in the United States would be like. The thing is that if the focus was simply on the role of the photo journalist there are plenty of modern wars where this could have been explored, yet Garland seems to want to delve deeper than simply that.

Like, there are a number of impactful moments in the film with regards to the photo journalist, such as not being involved and simply recording situations. It raises the question of whether a good person doing nothing is just as bad as a bad person, and this is captured in the scene where she photographs a person being burnt alive. Of course, the other problem is that she simply could not intervene because if she did, well, she would have landed up in the same situation, so, as is stated a number of times in the film, the act of recording this can have an affect on making people understand the nature of war.

However, the aspect of a civil war in the United States I believe is playing this role as well. We notice a number of things in this regard. First of all we are not told how it starts, though we are given some hints. We know that there were a couple of massacres, and we also know that the president is in his third term. Another thing that people have commented on is the unlikely alliance between Texas and California, but the reality is that first of all they are pretty independent states and it is likely that they will put aside their differences to deal with a dictatorial president. Further, at the beginning of the film it is mentioned that even if DC falls, it won't be the end because what will happen is that they will fight for control.

Actually, I thought that this was a great element with the film - the whole idea is to explore the horror of war, but rather than being elsewhere place it in the United States. By not mentioning political parties, of the origins of the war takes us out of the current politics and the divisions we are currently seeing and focuses instead on the war itself. Like, we see extra-judicial killings, mass graves, and suicide bombers. In fact that suicide bomber at the beginning actually came across as something that could actually happen in the United States.

What we are seeing is a complete breakdown of law and order. We are told that the US dollar is practically worthless, so they use Canadian dollars instead. People are simply killing each other, and there is even an instance where some Cambodian style genocide has taking place. Yet what is scary is that it could actually happen. In a way this film serves as a warning as to what could actually take place. Like, notice how there are no UN peace keepers anywhere. The idea is almost that a Civil War breaking out in the US, with the weaponry that the US has would make it difficult.

An interesting thing to think about was would would the rest of the world be doing. Like, I suspect that everybody would simply be staying out of the situation. Sure, the world economy would have collapsed, but I suspect that the Canadian and Mexican borders would have been closed (and Mexico is probably quite happy that there is now a wall separating them from the US). The refugee crisis would be massive, though I suspect that many, if not most, of the wealthy would have already fled.

It is a harrowing film, but as some have also indicated, it is also an indictment of what modern journalism has become as well. However, my focus was on the nature of war, and the fact that it has been brought into the middle of the most powerful country of Earth. Let this serve as a warning to us all.

Like my first thought with regards to this film is that it's Frankenstein, but in another way it isn't. Like, Frankenstein's monster is a hideous beast, but the version of the monster in this film is anything but. In fact, she is a very attractive woman, and I suspect there is a very good reason for this. When I think about it, you could say that this film is the opposite of Frankenstein, namely because while both are exploring the world, in the book, the monster is rejected, but in this film the monster is actually accepted. No doubt this is because the monster is actually a beautiful woman.

The story is that we have this scientist, but it turns out that his father had been experimenting on him (and it is actually possible, though never said, that he could be Frankenstein's monster). Anyway, he brings in an apprentice to take notes on an experiment that he had been conducting. Once you enter his home you discover that he has been performing lots of experiments, and it appears that this one could actually be his greatest. We quickly find out that what he has done is that he has taken the brain of a baby and implanted it into the body of its mother. As such, it turns out that we have a child in the body of a fully grown woman, and of course this leads to some rather interesting, and sometimes quite humorous, events.

The film has a very fantasy feel about it, but that is because we are actually seeing the world through the mind of a child, in all of the child's innocent. At first, the professor is doing his best not to corrupt the child, but it reaches a point where they have no choice but to let her go. The ironic thing is that this innocence leads a trail of destruction everywhere she goes.

Well, moreso there are people that try to control her, but not only do they inevitably fail, they destroy themselves in the process. The difference between the protagonist and most women of this era is that grown women have been conditioned to understand that in Victorian England they are property. However, she has not have this conditioning, and as such she reveals in her freedom, and fights back whenever anybody attempts to control her. In fact you could say that the main antagonist of the film is literally driven insane trying to make her his.

This is a great movie, one that reminds me of a lot of other great films in the past, and great directors. In fact it felt a lot like a Wes Anderson film, though the characters were no where near as stilted as his characters can be. It's certainly worth seeing, and Emma Stone has already won one award for such an outstanding performance.

This is another one of those films that I've basically got to sit down and write about how bad it really is. Honestly, I just didn't find it at all funny, though I guess my humour has changed quite a bit since I first watched this film back when I was a teenager. Yeah, this was one of those films that was replayed on television, though a number of scenes I suspect were cut, namely because there was quite a bit of nudity in it (which, ironically, isn't all that much in vogue any more).

Basically, it is a sketch show, but has been extended to the length of a film. It seems to be linked together by a news report, though there doesn't seem to be all that much of a reference to it in the title. There is a larger segment in the middle, which is basically a mock kungfu movie. Actually, there are a few mock sketches based upon what was popular at the time (included Blaxploitation).

Still, as I said, this is a pretty bad film, and honestly, I wouldn't try finding it on the internet because it seems as if nobody really wants to touch it. The only reason I watched it was because it was on the list of cult films.

Well, it's an action movie and it stars Jason Statham, so that should probably say everything about this film that you need to know. Actually, I should probably just say that this film stars Jason Statham which should pretty much tell you everything you need to know about this film. Like, he is this guy that is basically invincible, and he is on a quest to revenge some wrong done to a friend of him, and they send thousands of people up against him and they all lose.

Yeah, it's a typical Jason Statham film, but honestly, that is pretty much what I go and see his films for. Apparently, in these films he can't even get beaten up because apparently that is in his contract (I believe the Rock has a similar clause in his contracts as well). So, he's like this beekeeper and has been helping out this old lady. However, some scammers manage to steal all of her money, and all of a fund that she manages as well, so she kills herself.

Well, it turns out that this beekeeper like happens to be a highly skilled agent, though he has retired, and he's pretty upset, so he tracks down the outfit (which happens to be in the United States) and burns it to the ground. This upsets a few people, and they go out of their way to attempt to deal with him, until they work out that he is not the type of guy that you want to deal with. In fact if he is on your tail, well, you better run away really, really fast.

Mind you, when I noticed that it was about scammers, all I thought was that it didn't make sense because all of these outfits are in India, that is until you realise that there is a lot more behind this outfit than meets the eyes. The other thing is that it always surprises me how pigheaded people happen to be, but that is actually quite realistic. A lot of people, especially security guards, simply use their uniform, and their authority, to fulfil their duties, and it usually works - until it doesn't. Mind you, with a lot of these films you either see some bad guy security guard who you cheer when he gets beaten up, or the good guy security guard pleading for his life. Sometimes it will be nice to see some security guards (and bad guys) who have a lot of sense knocked into them, as opposed to simply being killed. Yeah, despite my beliefs, having bad guy killed just doesn't seem to do it for me.

Yeah, it's a pretty cool film, a fun action movie to watch to kill the time.

Sometimes the story of the person that gets frozen in time and wakes up years in the future can be somewhat interesting. I'm not sure if I can consider this to be one of those films, but in a way it is fun. Actually, half the reason that I watched it was because it was a Seth Rogan film, though sadly it doesn't seem as if it is like some of his older ones, the ones that have become cult films.

Anyway, it is about this Jewish immigrant to the United States. He and his wife come over due to the village in which they live constantly being ransacked by Cossacks. So, he gets a job at a pickle factory, and one night falls in and is pickled. Years later, in the modern day, some kids break into the abandoned factory and open the vat to discovered the pickled man. This causes quite a stir, and after a while they find his one and only descendant, who happens to be an app writer.

The film really has a lot to do with the really conservative guy from the past attempting to come to terms with the modern world. Actually, it seems to more have to do with the great-grand son and his pickled relative coming to terms with who each other are, and their relationships. Like, it is as if they guy is thrown into his life, and is so conservative they end up rubbing up against each other.

Ironically, he ends up being quite a good businessman, but also cuts lots and lots of corners. His grandson, jealous of his success, looks for ways to continue to undermine him, and it gets to the point where he is literally about to be thrown out of the country. However, as I mentioned, it really is about getting to know oneself, and ones heritage, and as such, they end up making peace, and have a happy ending.

Like, it wasn't a bad film, and yes, it was funny in spots, but it is still a trope that has been done many, many times before (like Rip van Winkle), so yeah, it really isn't anything new.

The thing is that when it comes to Clint Eastwood movies a part of me really doesn't want to necessarily write them off as flag waving patriotic show pieces. Then again, people seem to think that the song 'Born in the USA' is America's unofficial national anthem when it is actually anything but. Sure, this film does explore the life, and the tragic death, of an Iraq War veteran who has notched up the most confirmed kills of any US soldier. Mind you, there are some questions regarding the accuracy of the source material, and of course the film, like a lot of films based on real people, also is a bit liberal with the material as well.

However, I didn't actually think it was all that bad. In part, it sort of reminded me of Blackhawk Down, but to be honest, Blackhawk Down was much more of a feel good film than this one, though I do feel that it may have held Chris Kyle up in a much better light. Still, the reality is that, like similar films (such as The Hurt Locker) there is a idea that war is an addiction. There is also this idea that war has a habit of sucking you in to looking at the world in a very black and white way. That, sadly, is unavoidable.

The main motivation we see of Chris Kyle is his overarching desire to protect people. That is certainly a noble motivation for going to war. However, I believe that when you happen to be in the military, you really don't have much of a choice, though there does seem to be this suggestion that you don't necessarily need to do four tours in Iraq in the same way that Chris did. The funny thing is that even when he returns home, he simply wants to get back there, as if he has unfinished business. Even after he decides that he has had enough, he still wants to return - as I have mentioned, war in an addiction.

The problem with some biopics though is that they don't necessarily have a plot, however some film makers do weave one into it. Like this one, where a conflict is set up between two snipers, and it comes down to attempting to best the other. Apparently this wasn't actually the case, but it does make for good cinema. Sure, it might not be anywhere near as good as 'The Hurt Locker' but I still liked it.

As I was watching this film I could almost picture that it was no doubt based on an earlier work, and quite possibly a play. It turns out that is was, but it was also a rather obscure Hungarian Play, whose title was translated to 'The Shop Around the Corner'. Actually, that is probably being a little bit harsh because, as it turns out, it was actually quite a popular play to the point that it was turned into a major Hollywood movie. Mind you, in the original story, the medium of communication was by letter. So yes, this was just a modern remake, using modern technology, of a story that had been around for a long time.

Anyway, the story goes that a couple meet online, but they have no idea who the other is. In fact, they make a pledge that they will be as anonymous as possible. Mind you, in a city the size of New York that shouldn't actually be all that difficult - in fact that is one of the main reasons I moved to Melbourne, and that is because a larger size means a greater amount of anonymity. Anyway it turns out that they do know each other, it is just that they are in competition with each other - she owns a small, independent children's bookshop, and he is the son of a family that owns a corporate chain.

As you can imagine, which is the case with a lot of these romantic comedies, it is all about how they get together. Mind you, he works out who she is before the other way around, but that is sort of how things panned out at first (they were meeting up, and she was supposed to have the signal). Mind you, after a bit of pushing from friends, he ends up having to, not so much as to get into her heart enough that when the big reveal comes about, she is relieved as opposed to being put off.

Like, I have to admit that I really am not a particularly big fan of romantic comedies, but the thing is that this is almost as if it is done in an old style element. There isn't even the fact that they end up having affairs namely because the partners that they are with at the beginning of the film end up disappearing as the film progresses. I have to admit that this is actually quite a sweet film, and I'm not surprised that Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks came back together after Sleepless in Seattle (not that I've actually seen it, but I'm sort of inclined to).

I wasn't really sure about this film at first, though I watched it because it was one of those films that had been on repeat when I was young, but that is no doubt because it was really popular. Anyway, I decided to actually give it a go one evening, and at first it just seemed to be way too confusing, but the bait and switch at the end turned out to be really good, and everything actually fell into place.

I suspect that they did that on purpose, making you wonder how this con was going to play out, and what the actual sting was going to be. You see, this film is about a couple of con men. They don't necessarily run small time cons, but one of them happens to make a habit of getting caught out in rigged gambling games (and of course the other turns out to be easily able to turn the tables on the others).

Anyway, when one of the mentors is killed, he is sent to Chicago to meet up with another con-man, and while there they plan one big con. Mind you, it is pretty difficult to work out how it is going to play out, and of course there are a couple of side plots going on, such as a hitman being sent to kill him, and him having to avoid him.

Yeah, in the end though, it turns out that this pretty elaborate con turned out to actually be a pretty good con. It's definitely a movie worth watching, and I have to be honest that it is a shame that they don't make films like this anymore.

Well, as it turns out, this will be the last of the DCEU films, and while I didn't think they were all that bad, it seems that people just really aren't wanting to spend money to go to the movies anymore. Mind you, I suspect that it has more to do with Marvel simply flooding the market with super-hero films and DC was just trying to play catch up, but doing it just that little too fast and thus ruining everything.

Or it could be that Zack Snyder had to leave Justice League, and as such his version of the film, and the direction that the DCEU was heading sort of ended up going all over the place. Oh, and they were also spending too much time just copying Marvel, and thus people just, well, saw it as a more disjointed Marvel offering. Well, that and probably they are just getting sick of super-hero films.

As for me, well, I have to say that I did enjoy it. Mind you, it was one of those films with a message, and that that is global warming is really bad, and for both the surface and the undersea realms. Anyway, I won't go into here but rather look at the film. Except, as a message, it is a good one to remind us of, but the reality is that we spend too much time wanting other people to solve it than to actually give up the goodies that we have (like our cars - but we do need public transport).

Anyway, one of the bad guys from the last movie, who has a personal grudge against Aquaman, gets his hand on an ancient trident that reveals to him oricalcum (which is a real substance, just not as sexy as the movies make it out to be) and he starts using this, and it causes the world to heat up much faster. As such, Aquaman, and his brother, whom he makes amends with, have to go and stop him.

Hey, I enjoyed it, so I'll give it that, but as I have said previously, I suspect people are just starting to get a little sick of super-hero films.

You know, after watching the first film a part of me really wanted to watch the next film to see what actually happens (and whether they actually stick with the continuity). Well, it turns out that they do, and at first it sort of appears that maybe the kids won't play as big as role, but of course, like with a lot of films, one shouldn't make too many assumptions. Anyway, this film ends up having the kids playing a significant role.

However, where the first film was about Gru becoming a father, this film is about him becoming a husband. You sort of work this out pretty quickly, especially since at the beginning, where he is throwing a birthday party for the kids, there is an insinuation that maybe he should look at hooking up with somebody. I do actually appreciate this with Gru because, well, as it turns out during the film, hooking up with randos generally does not work. Actually, having people play matchmaker is certainly a lot like that.

Still, it was a enjoyable film, and yeah, it does maintain the pretty same standard that the original film did. Mind you, we have Gru being recruited by some agency that is set up to fight villains, and of course there is a suggestion that Gru is a bumbling idiot. Well, okay, maybe he is, and the way that he tracks down the villain is dubious at best. However, it also raises questions about the agency who, well, falls for the fact that somebody has actually been set up, and that Gru is on the right track.

Yeah, it's fun, and it's also cool how we get to see Gru's further adventures, as a villain and as a father.

Well, I finally got around to actually watching this film, despite the fact that it has been around for quite a while, and it is hard not to actually see Minions, well, everywhere. Like, it is sort of like Megamind, in that we have a supervillain who turns good, but it is somewhat different to that. Actually, the main reason I wanted to watch it was because they had a short before another movie I saw, and I decided that I would watch it to see what is about.

Anyway, the film starts off with somebody stealing one of the Pyramids. Everybody thinks that Gru did it, but it turns out that he didn't. Anyway, he wants to go one better and steal the moon. It turns out that there is another, younger, villain named Vector who also wants to steal it as well, so the boss of the Bank of Evil decides that Gru is too old and gives the money to Vector instead.

It also turns out that Vector's hideaway is impenetrable, except that he has a love of cookies, so he adopts some girls to sneak some robot cookies in there. Well, that is where all the fun begins because Gru, a super-villain who only has a horde of minions as his companions (as well as an old , evil doctor) suddenly must learn to become a father. Well, okay, he doesn't want to learn to become a father, but having the girls hanging around him starts to transform him.

I guess the idea of the film is that children have an ability to make hard people become much softer. Mind you, I don't buy it, but it's one of the feel good films, one where as the film progresses we actually discover more and more about Gru. Like, he always wanted to go to the moon, but his mother told him that he couldn't do it. That is certainly something I, and I suspect many others, can relate to. Namely we want to do something, somebody (usually in a respected position) tells us we can't, so we go out to prove them wrong. In the end it was something else we were looking for, and in Gru's case, all he wanted was to be loved.

Yeah, it's a pretty sweet film, and I can certainly see what it was so popular. Sadly, reality is much different, but I won't go down that road. Instead, I'll say that sometimes we need to actually dig to try and find out what we really want, and sometimes going to the moon just isn't it.

Oh, and another interesting thing is how orphanages are portrayed as being pretty horrid places. Actually, I really wouldn't be surprised, especially considering that children that land up there are considered to be unwanted and forgotten children. Like, there were some horror stories that came out of orphanages in other countries, yet here in the western world, they are still portrayed as being pretty nasty places. It is almost as if they are one of those necessities that nobody really wants. Sure, I have known people who have gone out of their way to adopt children, but the reality is, especially those who scream the loudest on the pro-life side, are probably the ones that aren't wanting to provide a strong and stable family life for these children.

The main reason I went to see this movie was because my brother wanted to see it, and the reason he wanted to see it was because it was about birds. Well, to be specific it is about a family of Mallards (ducks) who are happy in their pond, but the kids bug the father to go on a trip (no doubt because his girlfriend has decided to migrate to Jamaica for the winter). It turns out that they are heading in the wrong direction and find themselves in New York City.

Basically the movie is a kids movie, but it is fun. It's really an adventure where some ducks get caught up into a whole heap of trouble, including having to rescue a parrot from his cage, as well as being chased by a celebrity duck chef. Mind you, I did like the definition of a chef, namely a predator who kills birds for lazier predators to eat.

It is an interesting movie, though I suspect that it is getting more difficult to come out with new things. Actually, the interesting thing is that it opens with a short clip which explores what happened to the bad guy at the end is Despicable Me. That actually made me get off my butt and actually go and watch that film because, well, the Minions seem to be so ubiquitous these days that it is impossible to actually get around without seeing them, so of course I wanted to find out about their origin as well, or at least the first film in which they appeared.

Apparently this film is based on a party that actually happened here in Australia, and the thing was that it was released something like two years after the event. Mind you, I'm actually not sure of how much truth is in this statement because it isn't the first movie about a big party, and it certainly isn't going to be the last either. Honestly, these extreme parties really seem to be nothing new in Hollywood.

Ironically, though people have apparently tried to replicate it, and with the alleged party that this film was based on, the guy simply announced it on Facebook not realising that posts like these could easily go viral. In fact, at the time, people didn't really understand the reach of sites like Facebook (it was actually Myspace that he posted it on) and how fast things could spread.

The thing about the movie is that it is about a kid whose parents are going away for their anniversary, and that it also happens to be his 17th Birthday. Well, his friends want to break into the cool club at highschool, and the plan is to host a huge party. Interestingly a lot of films have the underaged kids attempting to get beer from the liquor store, when in reality, especially when they are the hosts, they pretty much just let other people bring it along.

Yeah, you could say it is a coming of age film, but it is also a party film. The interesting thing is that a lot of these party films seem to have the party occur at a very specific time and place, in which a very important event happens. Sure, he gets together with his girl at the end, but we also know that that was always going to happen. Sadly, though, the police and authorities are all over these events now, so it is a lot more difficult to organise them.

Oh, and as can be expected, the house gets trashed.

Did I also mention that it is a found footage film. Yeah, it is, but the fact that I mentioned it as an afterthought sort of indicates how, well, unimportant it is.

This is another one of those films that seem to be on those 'highly worth watching' lists that you see throughout the internet (especially if they pop up to distract you from work). It's actually based on a Harold Pinter play called the Dumb Waiter, and it is about two hitmen who are sent to Bruges to await further instructions from the boss. Like, it is actually pretty funny, in the way that you would expect from a British black comedy.

Look, I actually don't want to say all that much about it, namely because I really don't want to give away all that many spoilers, which is a shame because there are some interesting ideas that arise. Like, for instance, the nature of hell, and what happened at the end. Well, we know what happened at the end, but it still leaves us wondering, because honestly, for somebody to take that many bullets to the chest, he has to be dead, but they sort of leave it up in the air, particularly with some of the comments.

Like, as I mentioned, the idea of hell, and this is explored though, well Bruges. One of them thinks that it is a lovely city, and spends his time doing touristy stuff. The other thinks it is a boring hell hole, and while his opinion of the city doesn't change, events in the film do soften his resolve somehow. Yet, like hell, there doesn't seem to be any escape from Bruges. Even if you try to escape, the city literally flips you around and sends you back. However, it is also interesting that we see that everything happens in the film has a point. Like, for instance, the Americans in the restaurant, or the actor that he keeps on running into. Doing it that way actually makes the entire film, and moreso the entire story, to be very compact, concise, and that nothing happens without a reason.

As I mentioned, it is certainly worth watching, and it's quite funny as well, having that rather dry British wit that I love so much.

I was going to suggest that if you had seen Asteroid City then you will probably understand this film better, but the thing is that this film came out first, and Asteroid City was done in a very similar style to this film. Basically it is a story being told by a writer about his encounter at a hotel with the eccentric owner, who then tells the story of when he started at the hotel as a bell hop. To further distance the audience from the action, the film enters with a woman laying a wreath at the grave of the author.

It is interesting how Andersen distances the audience from the actual events of the film, and this has certainly been done in cinema previously, and throughout history. In a way it creates a much more magical, and fantastic feel to the story. Personally, I feel that Anderson did an incredible job with this film, and in fact it turned out to be much better, and funnier, than I initially expected.

The main action is set in the hotel during the first world war, and is about the owner who happens to be quite a womaniser. He has had an affair with a wealthy heiress, who then dies, and he is given a priceless painting as an inheritance. A lot of the film involves getting this painting, and the owner of the hotel is quite a well loved, and well respected, person, so he manages to get out of issues that many others will fall over, particularly in what appears to be a dictatorship. Oh, he also ends up in gaol.

The focus is the painting, and the antagonist of the film, Dmitri, is not so much trying to get their hands on the painting, but rather accusing the concierge as being the murderer. I won't go into too much detail with that because there are a series of twists and turns, and it is actually a pretty cool movie to go into without actually knowing anything about it (as was the case with me). However, what I can say is that Anderson's use of colour is magnificent, and the idea of telling the story through multiple layers gives us a sense of nostalgia of a time gone by, but also of the fact that with the lovely memories, were also many painful ones as well.

It's a great movie, and definitely worth a watch.

Well, what can I say other than the fact that this is another one of those Ridley Scott historical dramas. Sure, the main reason I saw it was because of Scott, and because of Phoenix (who I discovered is actually River's brother, but that is beside the point). Well, that and the fact that I have always found that Napoleon is one of those quite enigmatic individuals that was never the boogie man that the English have made him out to be. In fact, it wasn't until I actually studied the French revolution that I discovered that Napoleon actually wasn't a boogie man.

The one thing that I found interesting with this film is the focus on Napoleon's quest for peace. This is certainly something that one would not expect from a guy that conquered all of Europe. Mind you it was more than that, though his prominent battles were portrayed in the film, such as the battle of Asterlitz and the battle of Waterloo (though the over dramatised the idea that Napoleon won the battle by forcing the enemy onto a frozen lake). However, there was a focus on his use of artillery in winning his battles, as well as the fact that unlike many generals he actually fought with his troops.

Like a lot of historical epics, there are inconsistencies, which while to be expected, does have the habit of creating an inaccurate view of history. I guess that is one of the reasons my history lecturer didn't want to show us Platoon (and anyway, if we wanted to watch it we could have easily got it from the video store - it just would have been better watching it in the classroom with others). Mind you, there is also Phoenix's distinct American accent, which I honestly found odd because I actually expected a lot better from him, and it does seem odd at times, especially when the good actors are able to cover up their accents effectively. Mind you, Napoleon no doubt spoke French, and the only reason it wasn't in French was because it was directed at English audiences.

Anyway, I have to admit that yeah., the movie actually wasn't that bad. I guess a lot of the exploration was with regards to Napoleon's rise, and of course his fall from grace. However, it is also interesting that we were seeing his attempts at establishing a dynasty. It seems that case that despite the revolution, France quickly slipped back into autocracy. However, it seemed more to do with who the autocrat was as opposed to there being autocrats. Like, they overthrew the restored monarchy in 1848, but shortly after installed Napoleon's nephew as emperor. I suspect, like a lot of us, the French simply didn't appreciate the entitled attitude of the Bourbons.

The funny thing is that I developed a fascination with the idea of mixtapes, and discovered that there was a film about them, which is no doubt why I wanted to watch it. The thing is that I grew up in the 80s, during the era of mix tapes when we would sit in front of the radio waiting for our favourite songs to come of so as to record them. The funny thing is that Hollywood seems to think that mixtapes were shared when in reality we simply kept them for ourselves (with a couple of exceptions - one being that a friend would give them to other friends to get them to listen to different types of music).

Anyway, this film is about a young orphan who lives with her grandmother. He parents died in a car accident and she wants to learn more about them. Well, she finds a mixtape made by them and decides to listen to it, but it gets eaten by the walkman, so she goes on a quest to find all of the songs. During the quest she makes new friends, and also has to fight with her grandmother who is scared of losing her in the same way that she lost her daughter, and the grubby world of pub rock in which her parents were involved.

It's basically one of those feel good films. In fact, I have to admit that it was quite enjoyable. Sure, being the age I am I probably relate more to the parents, who we never actually meet, with the exception of their voices on the tape. Actually, this is one of the good things about the film, namely that we never get to meet the parents - there are no flashbacks, so all we know about them is what the hero of the piece are told, so of course we are left guessing, in the same way that she is left guessing, as to who they are and what actually happened.

Yeah, it was fun, and it certainly was a feel good film. Oh, and it also had a decent amount of music, which you would certainly expect from a film about a mixtape.

I'm not really sure why I insist on watching some of these films, but then again it was on my Netflix to-watch list so I thought that it might be an idea to sort of give it a go. Look, I will admit that there are some good parts to the film, particularly where Buddy is sent down to the mail room and gets everybody dancing. However, in the end it is really just another Christmas film where a childlike adult comes along and teaches everybody that they have to be childlike.

So, it is about Buddy, a human that fell into Santa's sack as a baby and was taken to the North Pole where he was raised among the elves. However, he discovers that he is human and decides to travel to the human lands to meet up with his father. The catch is that his father is on Santa's naughty list.

Yeah, so it is basically one of those films where one of the characters, namely the father, is so obsessed with his work that he finds it difficult to find time with his family. Mind you, this was a while ago, and the sad thing is that while back then managers seemed to be the ones who worked ridiculous hours, it is pretty much getting to the point that all employees are expected to work pretty much all the time. This is especially the case where American's really don't get holidays like we do, and moreso these are the ones with stable, full time jobs.

Like, sure, these films certainly do have a good message, but in reality they simply do not understand the situation that many people in the US face. The scary thing is that they actually don't know what it is like in the rest of the world, and as such just assume that this is the case everywhere (which no doubt is also why education is regularly being cut).

As I said, the film had some charm about it, but I honestly can't say that it is really one of the greatest that I have seen.