Reviews

A couple years ago, it was widely reported that Disney acquired Lucasfilm and all of its IP's for a staggeringly large sum of money. What was more of a surprise is that within hours of sealing the deal, Disney had announced to create a further 6 Star Wars movies all to be released by 2020. Maybe it's all too much but look at it this way, the House of Mouse owns male interests for pretty much the rest of their lives, this and Indiana Jones.

To Star Wars fans it was a bit of shock when announced that the Expanded Universe had been written out of the series canon, and moved to a new label: "Star Wars Legends". Many wonderful twists and turns for beloved characters and events disappeared (As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror). With canon now being the main movies, Clone Wars, Disney animated show and Marvel comic line (Also owned by Disney), so began the search to find out who would be responsible for starting this new trilogy. It was good to know that Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy would oversee production, "Little Miss Sunshine" (2006) writer Michael Arndt wrote an initial script and series creator George Lucas served as creative consultant in the early stages of production, using cliff notes from what was originally meant to be a film series over 10 Episodes or so.

Many were approached, finally it was announced that J. J. Abrams would be the first director to helm the new Star Wars movie (Initially reluctant as he wanted to enjoy them as a fan). Seeing his work with the latest "Star Trek" movies, it was safe to say that the man knew how to create exciting movies, especially when it comes to actors interacting with each other and their surroundings (Check out interviews where he talks about building hallways to the Enterprise control room just to get a dynamic shot). With Star Wars somewhat having lost confidence with the audience in recent years (Myself included), two vital decisions from the start was to hire unknown actors to helm these new films (Much like Hamil, Fisher and Ford were back in 1977) and finally go back to more practical methods of special effects and film-making rather than just digital. Trailers launched, segments of film both nostalgic and new appeared as John Williams's sweeping music overwhelmed. It seemed not only a new movie in the franchise was born, but the beginning of something unfamiliar and exciting was about to be told.

With Star Wars not only being one of the biggest franchises of all time, it is of course very personal to every member of the audience. I attended the midnight screening on the day of release, sat down with a full house and saw the wonderful tagline in blue font. The screen fades to black, horns blare out and a big nerd tear left my eye. Suddenly Act 1 is over and I'm impressed, Act 2 wraps up and it's overall satisfying. Finally Act 3 concludes and I'm overwhelmed. The places we visit and the creatures we see all point to exciting possibilities for the future. But it must be mentioned that Episode 7: The Force Awakens is pretty much "A New Hope", with some darker elements of "The Empire Strikes Back" (Which makes sense as Lawrence Kasdan, writer of Episode 5 and 6 rewrote some of Arndt's script with Abrams). It wasn't a bad film, far from it. It was actually lovely to see our favourite classic characters essentially give their blessing to the wonderful young talent who easily reassure they could helm the rest of the trilogy themselves. Upon reflection a few villains though intimidating proved to be a little underwhelming for now, but I look forward to seeing what this new threat will develop into given where we leave off at the end of this chapter.

Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Oscar Isaac deliver wonderful performances of already now memorable characters. Though there yet stands to be a larger interaction between all three of them, Rey (Daisy) and Finn (John) generally come across as well developed young adults thrown into their situation, and the friendship between Finn and Poe Dameron (Oscar) is undeniably unique and fun. Daisy Ridley stood out as a leading lady and the much needed female presence for this franchise (It has felt like a much longer time without a Princess Leia), for a first time big performance I sense a great future career ahead of her. But ultimately the highlight, glue, heart and soul of the movie belongs to Harrison Ford, who returned to the Han Solo character as if he never left. For a man now 73 years of age who moved on from the franchise long ago, to see him return on top form and dare I say better than ever, will most likely melt any cynical heart. Andy Serkis, Gwendoline Christie and Adam Driver provide enough to make the mysterious "First Order" genuinely come off threatening, and new droids like BB-8 remain very expressive thanks to great puppeteer work. Carrie Fisher warmly returns to ever provide reason and for those wondering on the absence of Mark Hamil will definitely be surprised or find solace until Episode 8 in 2017.

Final Verdict: What is the greatest strength of The Force Awakens? Harrison Ford to be exact, but its greatest strength is that the Force actually feels mysterious again. Though there are many twists and turns and throwbacks to the original trilogy, to actually see this magical plot device become present again all whilst having this heavy foreshadowing just looming over the story makes it all very engaging. Hopefully the next instalment will pretty much say goodbye to nostalgia and leave it entirely in the hands of our new characters. To wonder and see where all this will be leading to by 2020 leaves me extremely optimistic. J. J. Abrams and Co. you did it. 9/10.

"Hard to be a God", is a production with quite an interesting back story. We'll get to that in a second, for now here is all you need to know should you want to endeavour its lengthy 3 hour running time. It is a hypnotising spectacle in terms of visuals and camera techniques, but the glaring absence of a decent plot structure will certainly be the big turn off for most people. Again as I found myself thoroughly absorbed with what I saw, lord knows how many times I came out of that trance when words were spoken, actions were taking place and very little consequences came from those results. It is a science fiction tale of no grand revelations, just brutal depictions of a violent time.

The story comes from famed Sci-Fi authors Arkady and Boris Strugatsky (Whose 1971 short story "Roadside Picnic", became the basis for Andrei Tarkovsky's 1979 classic "Stalker"). Published in 1964, a group of scientists from earth in the future have travelled to a planet also inhabited by humans who have not progressed beyond the Middle Ages. Forbidden to interfere with the particularly bloody progress of the time, all Anton (Our main character) can do is bare witness to the state of horrors around him and hopefully not lose his values and reason in the process. Though the film adaptation is very well acted and every extra grabs your attention, unfortunately there is nothing of a stand out performance and no character has any depth whatsoever.

While some of this remains in the adaptation, it is stretched extremely thin throughout all its 3 hours. I could easily say half the time is spent on the mannerisms of townsfolk, extreme depictions of violence, torture and thank god this film is in black and white because the amount of dirt, feces, organs, blood and unidentifiable sludge's make for one hell of a grizzly depiction. Unfortunately it is to be last for director Aleksei German, who passed in 2013. With the filming starting back in 2000 and embracing a lengthy on-off production, German's Wife and Son had to finish the final cuts a few months before the movies late 2013 premiere date (It has only just had an international release in 2015). I now wish to seek the previous work of the director, as the creative and lengthy shots in this movie are so well crafted. Picture the camera gliding through doorways, broken walls, dungeons, rain and mud soaked landscapes. It is reminiscent of any old Werner Herzog movie, and no way would you ever see any of this from a Hollywood production.

Final Verdict: It is a very hit and miss work and guaranteed to divide people's opinions. I've heard readers of the novel have been less favourable towards it, and others have praised it rightly so as this rare breed, all most lost kind of film-making. I've been eager to see it, and it has satisfied my curiosity more than I thought and set in stone my ambition to read the book (Hopefully the narrative is way more forward). At three hours however, I would preferably recommend Andrei Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" (1966) for a strong depiction of 15th century Russia. Extremely rude of me to suggest another work in my final summary of a movie I'm critiquing, but do see this film as the effort is too jaw dropping to slip away and go unnoticed. 8/10. A stunning final work.

Ah "The Martian", you kind of crept up on me. The last big must sees for the end of the year is the next James Bond feature "Spectre", and of course a return to the great long running space opera "Star Wars Episode 7". It's been kind of nice just to have the first trailer peak my interest enough to go see it, and now all I want to do is read the book and see any differences between them. Upon leaving the theatre a few reactions I heard from the audience were "On the edge of my seat, but way too technical for me to understand it". Really? I am in no means a scientist at all and have no deep knowledge on NASA protocols, but I feel Drew Goddard's script did justice in simplifying it well enough therefore keeping it fairly smarter than the average blockbuster overall.

Matt Damon stars as an astronaut who in a sand storm is presumed dead and left behind on Mars, and then has to fight to survive on a planet where nothing grows (Luckily he's a botanist). What proceeds is a fun 2 and a half hours of you either die or just get on with it, and luckily everyone in the movie has something to get on with. Even though there really is quite the ensemble cast Damon's character and scenario is the only stuff I really cared for, so much so his positivity is sickening (In a good way). Just to say we've seen Matt surprisingly pop up in many space movies recently such as Neill Blomkamp's "Elysium" (2013), and Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" (2014). All have been visually stunning and again it has been nice to have him in a strong lead role again.

If anything I was particularly overwhelmed at the production quality and just how well Mars had been portrayed. Apparently Wadi Rum in Jordan has been used in many movies set on Mars, and the fact that Ridley Scott used only 20 sets and filmed it all in just 70 days just shows how effortlessly the man still produces great quality movies after making so many. Other than that, the space suits had a bit of "Prometheus" (2012) nostalgia to me, and the music by composer Harry Gregson-Williams (Known mostly for the Metal Gear Solid video game series) led itself to many great moments of character reflections that didn't include famous disco hits (Not that I think anyone will complain).

Final Verdict: Just to extend the review out a little longer, it is nice to see some of these movies are somewhat encouraging peoples interest in NASA again, especially since the recent discovery of water on Mars has led to the debate of some real exploration going on. I enjoyed the movie a lot, but I'll possibly find the movie harder again to watch a second time. The stuff on earth is nowhere near as appealing as the stuff happening on Mars, and Matt Damon's character is so infinitely resourceful I found no real conflict in the scenarios as he has this infectious "MacGyver" can do attitude. Maybe the film would have benefited with a little more desperation or isolation I don't know, but I'm sure in the future it will enjoy a "Silent Running" (1972) level of cult classic. If you care for a level of real science with your entertainment it's certainly more than worth your time. 8/10.

It is an incredible age for the comic book fan. Obscure characters are finally managing their way to the big and small screen, and obviously certain companies are grossing large amounts of money because they have put the right talent and creators to work on these mega franchises. Unfortunately "Fantastic Four" still remains to be done right, especially with the respect it deserves. I don't really wish to dive into what has been reported as a wealth of behind the scene problems, but in the end how could you not be frustrated with the resulting picture?

Of course early trailers promised a much younger cast and some controversial casting choices, more importantly however it offered some very drastic storyline decisions that was sure to disappoint hard core fans of the comic book series. None of this ever really bothered me, I just wanted to see the characters done justice and see something with more edgier material than 20th Century Fox's last two outings. The comic itself was more Science-Fiction than Super Hero to begin with, and by the time of this movies release every actor had gone on to receive great acclaim in other projects. Director Josh Trank had already shown great confidence with 2012's "Chronicle", displaying great camera movements in a genre that doesn't really lend itself to much (Found footage to me has many ups and downs). The first 20 minutes reaffirms that Trank can confidently work in this genre fine, so just how bad could it all get?

Well it wasn't screened early to critics and the cast hadn't seen it, that's a good sign right? Child prodigy Reed Richards, introduces new friend Ben Grimm to a machine he has built that can transport small items he believes to somewhere else on the planet. Cut to seven years later, shady government scientists decide to recruit Richards (Now played by Miles Teller) to perfect his device that is actually capable of something much more special. This scenario introduces Susan Storm (Kate Mara), Johnny Storm (Michael B. Jordan) and Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), who will help construct the device that will obviously lead to the powers we all know and love (Ben Grimm later played by Jamie Bell, just kind of fits into place somewhere).

Again, while the first 20-30 minutes moves along at a brisk pace, the film slowly builds towards a disappointing 2nd act, to an absolute abysmal 3rd that manages to do something special most bad movies make me do. I reassessed everything from the beginning and saw that there was no real development between characters, and no great events that made me feel connected to these people as a family unit. No depths explored enough when it came to their predicaments, and the effects were so awful the first 20th Century Fox movies actually offered more in terms of action and payoff (I cannot believe that the shallow 2005 movie is actually better than the darker re-imagining a decade later).

To explore a little bit of the controversy, Fox had reportedly cut 3 big important action scenes and most clips of the trailers don't actually appear in the final product. The editing of this movie is so atrocious the re-shoots of Kate Mara's many wigs and hairstyles are blatantly forced into scenes that obviously don't match. I don't know who was responsible for wanting to hit the 1 hour 40 minute mark so poorly, but I would sit through more of anything just to stretch out what was again a horrendously rushed final battle where Doctor Doom himself acted and looked ridiculous (Seriously, one of the worst costume designs ever created for a film, and I thought the concept of his space suit fusing to him was a good idea).

The final script was also atrocious, cutting some many promising first draft ideas by Jeremy Slater. Whatever dialogue remains is poorly executed among characters and actors I slowly became less interested in as the movie progressed. Doom became evil for the sake of doing so, and Reed fled because he was afraid, but coming back a year later (I.e. captured) was enough for Ben and everyone to ultimately forgive him (Who knew?). I could go on forever, but what I will say that I enjoyed about this mess is that the directing was good at the beginning, the music by Marco Beltrami & Philip Glass worked wonders, and the David Cronenberg-ish "body horror" moments were actually very well done and the best thing about all this.

Final Verdict: I don't know who is to blame for this mess, but this is just unacceptable and the critics have spoken. Obviously money has been lost as a result, and I hope that it wakes someone up at Fox to realise that your audience demands more from this stuff nowadays. Of course I was upset as enough was marketed to me to hope for the best, but to not put a substantial amount of footage you marketed in a trailer a month before release into the final product, you have essentially LIED to everyone (I cannot recall a current movie that has ever done that, and that is this movies downfall). Just watching the film it felt like I was in the editing room watching 30% of footage quickly clumped together. It's broken, lazy and falls apart in every aspect. 2/10. I hate being mean, but everyone involved in the production is better than this. Grab a shotgun and take this movie round the corner Fox.

The end of Marvel's "Phase 2", work began on an adaptation of "Ant-Man" in 2006 with Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish. Wright had unfortunately left the project in 2014, creative differences between him and Marvel has been cited as the reason (A shame as Joss Whedon of "Avengers" fame declared it "Not only the best script that Marvel had ever had, but the most Marvel script I'd read"). Director Peyton Reed was brought on to finish the project, along with more script work by Director Adam McKay and the films leading actor Paul Rudd. At the end of all this unfortunate mess Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish still share a co-writing credit, and while I loved the final movie and its many spectacular sequences I was in my seat wondering how much of Edgar Wright's unique visual flair survived, or what could have been.

Still I will not be rude anymore and give credit where credit is due, Peyton Reed absolutely nailed it. Marvel has managed to actually pull off a thrilling heist movie, and the comedy is a fine balancing act between dialogue and action sequences. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), the 1st Ant-man has done well over the years keeping his kit away from those he does not deem worthy. Enter Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), a recently released convict planning to clean up his act for the sake of his daughter. Problems arise where he must return to crime for financial reasons and Hank finally sees potential in Scott as the next Ant-man, much to the dismay of Pym's daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly). What follows is a daring plan against an old protégé Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), and with help like Luis (A hilarious performance from Michael Peña) how could things go wrong?

While unfortunately the plot unfolds with moments you have seen done to death in cinema history, the pro's far out way the con's. As a reader of the comic I would have loved to have seen the more arrogant and brutal depiction of Hank Pym that is usually given (Remember that this character accidentally created "Ultron" in the books), but Michael Douglas does a wonderful job and as soon as I saw him up on screen I remembered why the man has such a strong presence on camera. Paul Rudd finally gets a break with somewhat serious leading man material and he does splendid with it, I could not agree more with this casting decision. Evangeline Lilly did good as well, but the forced trauma between her character and Douglas's is such drivel I got tired of it pretty fast. It gave minimal depth to their characters, and don't tell me it was powerful stuff when it can be cleared up in a 2-3 minute "your Mother" scene every blockbuster seems to have. Stoll as the main villain suits the mood of the movie, but again is underdeveloped and evil just for the sake of chasing profit and spite against Pym (In writing all this down maybe they actually did more justice to Hank Pym than I give them credit for).

So after discussing casting, what redeems this movie for me is how creative all the action sequences truly get (No kidding, quite possibly the best I've ever seen from the Superhero genre). As soon as that suit powered on I was reminded of classics like "The Incredible Shrinking Man" (1957), and there was even a little "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) nostalgia for me. The CGI ants surprisingly look and move the right way what with the 10, 100's or 1,000's that eventually show up on screen, and after everything I've said the only serious disappointment I had is that Ant-man never got to grow super huge (I'm pretty sure that wasn't a budget thing, and I doubt someone at Marvel would've found it too "outlandish" given all the preceding events so far).

Final Verdict: Marvel continues to play the game well when it comes to popularising somewhat obscure characters, and every actor delivered on the action and comedy in a smart and clever way. Easily I look forward to seeing this character in his next appearance, and this could be the most fun and accessible movie Marvel has made yet. 7/10.

What is there to say about "Jurassic World"? Did we really need it? And will it stand out from any of the other noticeable summer blockbusters of 2015? Well I'll get this out in the open first and foremost, I didn't really plan on seeing it. Let's just say "The Lost World" (1997) and "Jurassic Park 3" (2001), didn't really leave the franchise on a high note 14 years ago. I could only hope that this one would prove to be popular enough to make its obvious large amounts of money, and somewhat shake up the narrative of "Dinosaurs escaping captivity".

Though the dates are never referenced throughout the movie, there is a line that really bugged me when the park's operations manager says something to the effect of "People have lost interest in Dinosaurs", to which I could only react with a highly raised eyebrow and a chuckle. My thoughts after leaving the theatre that night, was that the original "Jurassic Park" (1993) continues to hold up extremely well (Even in the effects department thanks to Stan Winston), and I was surprised at how much I did enjoy "World" even with its many, many flaws (The movie just had the highest grossing opening weekend of all time with over half a billion dollars, Bravo!).

So in what is possibly one of the worst cut and paste scripts ever made, two brothers are sent to the fictional Isla Nublar to enjoy "Jurassic World", a Dinosaur theme park built upon the disastrous grounds of the first movie (A rather clever reference is made). They are there to visit their aunt Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), the park's operations manager who is obviously far too busy to see them and must prioritise on the large, new and exciting "Frankensaurus" they have created as (Here we go again) "People have lost interest in Dinosaurs". The inevitable happens, the electric stays on unlike the original movie and somehow the situation is made worse when there really should be some failsafe protocol given the tech this movie has. Aid is needed by the likes of Owen (Chris Pratt), who has somehow managed to command some form of alpha-male bond with the Dino's. Throw in a ruthless, corrupt head of security (Vincent D'Onofrio), too many clichés that throw back to the first movie (Which was sad when I thought the movie was actually doing well as its own thing), and some of the most blatant brand advertising I've ever seen. Ladies and Gentleman, welcome back to the park where brand loyalty IS priority.

I don't really think there is anything here that will allow this movie to age as gracefully as its origins, and not one character is well developed enough to the point where their performance stood out. There were moments where so many subplots were left unanswered, and the dialogue wasn't particularly rich with sentences that gave a deeper thought of "Man playing with nature" (Though let's be honest, none of the movies really have). A hilarious moment I had to myself was when comments are made about using Raptors in War (An image of one came up suited and booted for combat on screen), to which I thought of the "Helicopter scene" from "Apocalypse now (1979). Instead of Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries", send a bunch of Dino's into Warzones with John Williams's "Jurassic Park" score ("Jurassic War", that'll be the day).

But in all honesty, there were some moments that did win me over. I like that most of the casting decisions were spot on, and though I was expecting some terrible CGI we actually got some really good moments and set pieces that helped made me appreciate the efforts the filmmakers went to. The film wastes no time getting into the heart of what made the series so appealing to begin with, and I also thought a certain aquatic dinosaur should've really been the "big top" of the show. When all is said and done, I came out of it satisfied when I was almost certain I was going to downright hate it.

Final Verdict: Dumb fun. I've given my two cents, and I hope you enjoyed them. The movies a huge financial success, and there was plenty enough that would make me look forward to a next instalment as much as consistently dread it. Obviously I feel I have referenced the previous movies far too much, and for that I apologise. But in the end, Dinosaurs are popular again. Touché movie, touché. 6/10.

"Thunderdome", doesn't really hold up as well as the previous "Mad Max" movies (Topping 1981's "The Road Warrior", is a pretty hard feat to accomplish). However upon repeated viewings I rate it as good as the first movie, just because it surprisingly does have a lot to offer the franchise in terms of style and pacing. Unfortunately production began with sadness, as the series producer Byron Kennedy died in a helicopter crash in 1983 whilst location shooting. Director George Miller was somewhat obviously distraught and reluctant to continue, thus leading to the employment of George Ogilvie (Whom Miller worked with prior) as a Co-Director.

Set 15 years after the events of "The Road Warrior", Max (Mel Gibson) is now navigating the wasteland by a camel-drawn wagon. It is eventually stolen and the trail of the thief leads him to "Bartertown", a seedy community ran by the somewhat eccentric Aunt Entity (Tina Turner). As Max soon learns things are not all as they seem, his exploits in the towns gladiatorial arena "The Thunderdome" eventually leads to exile, discovery and redemption.

Probably the most campiest of the series, and considering everything we've seen so far that is saying something. "Mad Max 3" definitely is a lot more kid focused in this outing, but the style is delightfully exaggerated given that the budget (12 million Australian dollars) was the highest the series had seen yet. Unfortunately the car chases have taken a back seat this time around, therefore the other action sequences do a somewhat decent job making up for it. "The Thunderdome" itself remains unique and exciting, maybe in the future we too will suspend weaponry on the roof of our cage fights (One can dream). Mel Gibson is still a strong leading man, but Tina Turner's hammy performance steals the show and she easily holds her own as one of the most memorable characters of the series.

Sadly series composer Brian May doesn't return this time around, then again is it actually possible to go wrong with Maurice Jarre (The man responsible for the music of "Eyes Without A Face", and "Lawrence Of Arabia")? Either way the soundtrack does the job, but Tina Turner steals the show blaring out her songs over the opening and closing credits ("We Don't Need Another Hero" would go on to be one of her biggest hits).

Final Verdict: Fans have openly criticised "Beyond Thunderdome" for being more obviously "Hollywood-ized" then the previous outings, but I think there remains just enough here to not label it as the black sheep of the franchise. Though a light, Peter Pan-esque tone certainly doesn't suit a series originally inspired by car accidents and high speed chases, there is enough here I remember fondly to keep me coming back. Essentially it's like an old episode of TV's Batman (1966), it's rusty but there's a certain charm reflecting back on it. 7/10.

"My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos... ruined dreams... this wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called "Max." To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time... when the world was powered by the black fuel... and the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now... swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war, and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel they were nothing".

Possibly my favourite quote from the series lies in the opening narration of "Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior". Mel Gibson has little to no dialogue throughout the film, and the whole movie has the feel of the circus. Made on a budget of 400,000 Australian dollars, Director George Miller was somewhat unhappy with his time making the first "Mad Max" (1979). The budget was very small for the many hefty stunts, and after failing to make a "rock and roll" movie titled "Roxanne", he decided to return to Max knowing he could do a better job. The result is "The Road Warrior", complete with a 4.5 million Australian dollar budget, influenced by the works of Akira Kurosawa and making "Apocalyptic Punk" popular in many other forms of media (One fan in Australia has an entire museum dedicated to it).

Max (Mel Gibson), is now driving aimlessly across the wasteland in his V8 Interceptor with an Australian Cattle Dog as his only companion (Whom production actually saved from being put down). Fuel is now very, very scarce and ammo for his weapon of choice (A sawn-off shotgun) is practically gone. After successfully chasing off certain marauders (Among them is 1985's "Commando" villain Vernon Wells), Max stumbles across the chance to hopefully gain fuel from a group at an oil refinery. Unfortunately all are under threat from a pursuing biker gang led by the villainous muscle-bound 'Lord Humungus' (Kjell Nilsson).

That could easily be a plot to a Kurosawa movie (It even includes a few classic screen wipes). The beauty of "Mad Max 2" is that the plot is so simple, yet the style is so unique. Australian composer Brain May returns from the first movie to score this one, definitely incorporating much more of a faster pacing into the many spectacular chase scenes. Costumes range hilariously from hockey gear to "assless" chaps, and characters and personalities are established swiftly even with no real development. Lastly the stunt work becomes even more daring and intricate as the action continues to progressively one up itself.

Final Verdict: I know this is easily the most boring review you have ever read, and I've struggled hard to find something negative but I just can't. "The Road Warrior" is a masterpiece in simplicity and I can simply watch it again and again without hesitation. I'm sure someone rational could easily sit me down and tell me what's wrong with it, but every time I watch it I am simply glad every minute exists just the way it is. 10/10. "Mad Max 2" is certainly somewhere in my top 100 all time movies.

One of the most financially successful movies of its time (With a Guinness world record to prove it), the original "Mad Max" (1979) would go on to gross 100 million US dollars on a 400,000 Australian dollar budget. Director George Miller was particularly interested in making a film based on his experience as a medical doctor in Sydney hospital, and screenwriter James McCausland drew particular influence from the 1973 oil crisis. Easily similar to any Roger Corman feature at the time (Most obviously 1975's "Death Race 2000"), Mad Max's stunt work continues to pack a punch even today with a style that spawned an extremely popular series of movies.

Set in the near future, the MFP (Main Force Patrol) are losing control and jurisdiction over renegade motorcycle gangs who have taken the Australian outback. The top cop Max Rockatansky (A then unknown Mel Gibson), poses a serious threat to these gangs led by the villainous "Toecutter" (A delightfully over the top performance by Hugh Keays-Byrne). As the MFP fight a losing battle will Max be able to stop this madness around him, or will certain events sadly consume him?

Miller and producer Byron Kennedy went hardcore independent in order to finance the flick, with actual biker gangs making up most of the extras and the destruction of the cars all had to be done in one take (There's an absolute plethora of movie trivia I'd advise you to check out). Acting here is unfortunately hit and miss, but then again the casting of bikers and unknown actors speaks for itself. Mel Gibson is a great actor who somewhat fell into the role during casting, but here he is still growing and somewhat fails to convince me here and there. Saying that, he does hold up well considering this is the only film in the series where Max really talks often and faces severe trauma. Hugh Keays-Byrne's wonderful performance just makes me laugh, but I'll say it hear proudly that all the villains of Max's world are somewhat highly campy and certainly eccentric.

Upon release the response was highly controversial, according to Wikipedia: "The Australian social commentator and film producer Phillip Adams condemned Mad Max, saying that it had "all the emotional uplift of Mein Kampf" and would be "a special favourite of rapists, sadists, child murderers and incipient Charles Mansons". What is even stranger to me was that the Australian dialogue was dubbed for the American release and the original audio wasn't re-issued until 2000.

Final Verdict: The pacing falters here and there, but if there's anything definitive to say about the original "Mad Max", it's that the stunts are great, Miller certainly knows how to up the madness and Australian composer Brian May creates a fantastic Bernard Herrmann-ish soundtrack. 7/10. It's a hell of a debut movie, but who knew that George Miller would eventually outdo himself and create one of the best action movies of all time with "The Road Warrior" (1981).

2015 is gearing up to be an interesting year for Hollywood. A couple of anticipated comic book movies as usual, a few remakes and reboots of course and finally the next instalment of the "Mad Max" franchise after 30 years of absence. We've all been anticipating it for too long, as a fourth in the series was to be released 8 years ago with Mel Gibson returning as the titular character. Unfortunately 9/11 happened and the Australian dollar collapsed, the Iraq War caused problems via travelling to Namibia and Gibson lost interest. After series creator George Miller finished the "Happy Feet" series, he finally returned to the project with five storyboard artists producing 3,500 art panels, a $150 million budget and then co-writing a script with 2000AD comic writer Brenan McCarthy, and Australian actor Nico Lathouris.

The world is an Apocalyptic wasteland, desert for miles and miles. Max (Tom Hardy) experiences lucid hallucinations of a troubling past, and is soon captured by a pale skinned cult ruled by the tyrannical leader King Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne, who played the lead villain "Toecutter" in the original 1979 "Mad Max"). While off on a usual gasoline run, Joe's right hand woman Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), drives off course holding certain cargo that leads Joe and his assembled army to go after her with Max strapped on the hood of a car along for the ride. An epic chase ensues, with all the traps of the land and various gangs not so far behind.

What sets this apart from every other movie at the moment? Miller took particular influence from silent movies, 85% of the stunts are ALL practical and 480 hours of filmed footage has resulted in a 2 hour spectacle that delivered way beyond what I ever expected. For all the trailers we've seen with Giuseppe Verdi's music blaring out loud, the level of Punk in this movie is far beyond anything Hollywood has produced in years and surprisingly more violent than your average 15 rated feature (Even when it's off camera). It was like a mix between an old John Waters and Alejandro Jodorowsky picture, and recent Japanese extreme cinema was the only modern comparison I can think of (Something Miller wanted to somewhat approach).

Tom Hardy is our new Max and does fine work as always, though he somewhat plays a supporting character rather than a leading role this time. Max to me has always sort of represented the everyman rising to the situation, and I'm already enthusiastic should Tom return to the character again. Charlize Theron somewhat stole the show for me (Which has led to some hilarious Anti-feminist responses from "men"), and really was every bit as strong as they made her character out to be. Nicholas Hoult's character was surprisingly charming, and no other actor or actress turned in a bad performance. The criticism I would have is that while Hugh Keays-Byrne turned in a good performance, the villain wasn't particularly imposing, memorable or even felt threatening (A discount "Lord Humungous" from Mad Max 2, if you will).

I admit to having a weakness when it comes to the "Mad Max" franchise, because I have surprisingly enjoyed all of them but never really experienced them for the acting or even the cars. I simply am a lover of Punk, and I adore the outlandish style over substance Miller has crafted and exaggerated as time goes on. While "Fury Road" has made improvements over the predecessors, I still only saw a movie of style over substance. The blue-orange colour scheme was gorgeous, music by Junkie XL was suitable and the stunt work was so phenomenal it made me remember why I loved these movies so much. Miller stated in an interview that "Fury Road" contains 2,700 cuts over two hours (Apparently that's 22.5 cuts per minute), and while it all adds to this movies fast one of a kind style, some of the clarity in the stunt work is sacrificed as a result (Studio movies gotta look like a studio movie).

Final Verdict: When all is said and done, Mad Max came back with a large budget and I fell in love with it all over again instantly. While "The Road Warrior" remains my favourite of the bunch, this certainly ain't your daddy's Mad Max. Gone are the desires for gas and bullets, this one somewhat deals with human trafficking and surprisingly remained refreshing, new and somewhat nostalgic. Loud and furious, when the credits rolled I wanted to stay in the seat and watch it again and again. "What a lovely day" indeed. 10/10.

"We want to make good movies, and make them cheap. The two are not incompatible" - Stanley Kubrick.

The first of a collaboration with Producer James B. Harris, "The Killing" is Kubrick's first movie with actual financial backing from the studio United Artists (Everything prior was financed by Kubrick and his family). He was 28 at the time of the movies release, and it continues to hold up incredibly well for a cheap, heist movie (Reportedly Quentin Tarantino said it was very influential when it came to his 1992 debut "Reservoir Dogs", both of which use non-linear time-lines). Though its praise was high, the movie unfortunately bombed at the box office. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer however, was so impressed with the film they offered Kubrick-Harris $75,000 to write, direct and produce the spectacular "Paths of Glory" (1957).

Based on the novel "Clean Break" by Lionel White, a thief plans to commit one last daring heist before retirement and marry his lover. With his crew assembled, one of them reveals the plans to his wife, who has also made significant plans of her own.

The Killing's cinematography is certainly memorable with its larger sets that gets filled with extras when things all come to a head. I bring the cinematography up because of the infamous tale when Lucien Ballard moved a camera against Kubrick's wishes, almost leading to Ballard's firing. The music particularly excels, the scenarios and failures of communication between men still leave an impression and even though Sterling Hayden remains the best actor in the movie, the scene where wrestler Kola Kwariani (Who was also Kubrick's old chess friend) fights off a series of policeman, shirt ripped and all could possibly remain the best overall scene of the movie.

Final Verdict: "The Killing" remains one of those old movies that I grow more and more fond of when reminiscing particular moments. Certain scenes dash hopes, but in a tale of greed ever player gets his overall comeuppance. 8/10.

Note: This isn't really a review, more of a shout out to a series I would recommend to any film lover.

This Documentary is the work of Irish film critic Mark Cousins, and is based on his extremely thorough 2004 novel "The Story of Film". Though it has only recently been released, it is a production that really deserve to be looked at as it examines some of the very best and more obscure choices of world cinema rarely mentioned in the history books (Most pointed out are wrote by rich white men and can be considered "racist by omission").

There are obviously many Documentaries that exist on making a movie, but few tend to explore a series of movies and take an "essay" approach to dissection and interpretation. Jean-Luc Godard's "Histoire(s) du cinema", featured a short but diverse list that has interesting points to make, though it remains a somewhat small production I feel is limited in what it has and could say. "The Story of Film" spends its first few hours covering the origins of technique, the recurring images film makers pay homage to and the start of the Hollywood business. As the series progresses, we see how countless innovations have been tooled with across the world as Mark either narrates or comments over many relevant clips. The running commentary also offers a short and sweet sentence on the state of the world at the time, and any other interesting notes behind the camera.

I can really only see this series becoming tedious if you have no desire to eventually see these movies. At the moment I can somewhat agree that the series falters somewhere in the middle, only because I've yet to really explore Indian and Iranian Cinema in depth. I have no idea how long this production took to make, but many people are interviewed including directors ranging from Stanley Donen to Lars Von Trier, and even seeing actress Kyoko Kagawa was very pleasant as I've been watching her movies only recently.

Final Verdict: I suppose this series isn't for everyone, but for those who are really passionate about cinema will definitely learn a thing or two. In 2011 I was 19 the first time I saw it, and I found it to be this wonderful 15 hour film course. Now I'm 23, and having seen a larger majority of these movies I come back to this series yearly and would recommend it to just about everyone. It will possibly start a new trend of how film history is remembered, but for now it stands as the great reminder of what the medium can be, and just how it continues to grow with us emotionally as well as technologically. 10/10.

Lo and behold, Akira Kurosawa! His 1943 debut shows promise, and this man has a thing for the use for weather and screen wipes. After spending 5 years as a second unit director, work began on this production trying to appeal to the Government requirements of a Wartime film. It has since been remade five times, and Japanese censors cut 17 minutes from it that has never been recovered.

Based on the life of Shiro Saigo (Who one of the earliest disciples of Judo). Sanshiro is a hot headed young man, who travels to the city in order to learn Jujitsu, only to discover a new form of self defence: Judo. Among the path there is love and rivals that would make your typical high school teen movie blush.

Though there is nothing wrong with the movie, I personally wouldn't rush yourself to see it. Whilst it has moments and methods Kurosawa would be particularly know for, it somewhat remains a relic given the censorship he faced from the times. One scene in particular that lasts when reminiscing is our hero chucking himself into a lake in order to prove himself. But I would only recommend this film to certain enthusiasts of Mr. Kurosawa's work, and even then I would rather sit you through one of his more famed masterpieces. If you really want to see Kurosawa put through obscure limitations then check out "Drunken Angel" (1948), where he managed to cleverly work around some U.S Government censorship.

Final Verdict: A harmless story that proved popular among audiences enough for a sequel. Big things have small beginnings. 7/10.

Only a year after "Drunken Angel" (1948), Kurosawa continues his collaborations with Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura, for what could arguably be the first "buddy cop" movie. Though Kurosawa himself considered the film "too technical", in his autobiography he warmly remembers "no shooting ever went as smoothly".

Right after the opening credits of a dog panting due to the blistering heat wave our story begins. Whilst riding a tram a detective's gun is stolen and after giving chase he loses the thief, setting in motion a hunt into bombed-out post-war Tokyo and various sinister trades.

As the story progresses, the situation becomes dire. While there is plenty to enjoy from the movies bustling crowds, locations and banter between Mifune and Shimura, I believe that the film is too lengthy for its narrative. The acting is consistently strong and the payoff in the final act was worth the wait, even though I found it rushed within the final 10 minutes or so. The characters get by on a vague optimism that things can get better or worse now or in the given future, which is a seldom point that I took from my experience with this movie.

Final Verdict: The suspense is a little lacking, but definitely come for the dialogue and acting. 8/10.

"This film brought awareness and somewhat changed laws when it came to child kidnapping in Japan, and is easily one of Kurosawa's finest outside of his period dramas". If I could end this review with just that statement I would be very happy, for those who have seen the movie know exactly what I'm talking about.

Based on the 1959 Novel "King's Ransom" by author Ed McBain (How amazing and American is that for a name), the first half all takes place in a living room. Shoe executive Kingo Gondo (Toshiro Mifune), who was about to craftily claim a decent position within his line of business, must soon carefully consider his next possible choices to not give in to anonymous demands from a phone caller who has abducted a child as a means of leverage. The next half is a police procedural's nightmare lead by another fantastic actor and Kurosawa regular Tatsuya Nakadai, to find this elusive caller in hopes of discovering how and why these events started in the first place.

The two things that will sell you immediately is Toshiro Mifune's incredible performance, the other is the pacing and dialogue which is crafted so well never has the nature of a situation been so apparent. The directions in which the narrative takes never falter as they progress, and the camera-work by Kurosawa is easily one of the sharpest of his Black and White movie era. Whilst this all leads to an "anti-climactic" situation of sorts, the simplicity of the surprises and revelations lead to one of those movies that leaves a deep impression of just how meaningless and out of hand such a situation becomes (The Western title "High and Low" refers to Gondo's house upon the hill overlooking the slums of a city, the movies exact title "Tengoku to Jigoku", literally means "Heaven and Hell").

Final Verdict: Impeccably crafted, almost endlessly re-watchable and influenced countless crime drama we see on Television today. It certainly stood for something for its time, and presents a scenario where unfortunately none of our characters can seem to find any middle ground. 10/10.

Three years later and the team returns. Come to see this movie completely up to date with the story, because "Avengers: Age of Ultron" barely gives you time to breath among its many spectacular action sequences that start even before the opening credits. Die hard fans will love that all the main characters and supporting heroes make an appearance, and by the end you'll definitely be excited for what is to come before the 2 part finale in 2018 & 2019.

An unspecified time has passed since the events of the first movie, and the Avengers have learnt to somewhat bounce off each other and utilise the best of each others powers significantly. Among various missions across the globe, they storm across compounds with enough various technologies from previous movies that Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) can finally work upon the "Ultron" initiative. Like any comic book narrative, things are jumped into too hastily and suddenly plans to attempt world peace and security could ultimately lead to its extinction.

Those familiar with the comic books know that "Ant-Man", famously created "Ultron" (A character who is about to receive his own anticipated film release in a couple months). However the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been doing its own setup for a while now, and they've flawlessly worked their choices into a movie that definitely does justice to the destructive capabilities "Ultron" is known to be capable of. Joss Whedon returns from directing the first movie and I really enjoyed the speed and pauses they've incorporated into this lengthy movie, considering that while I still enjoyed the first movie I also felt like I was watching an episode of "Firefly" in terms of patient waiting (FYI, "Firefly" is a truly great show). Some of the action is a little obstructed from being so up close, but the particular sequences and outcomes will guarantee to leave you enthralled.

"Age of Ultron" has its slow and tender moments also. Nothing that falls into overall cheese, but some stuff incorporated feels a little underdeveloped or unnecessary (The "flashback" sequences were a nice touch). Ultron is voiced and motion captured very well by the always charming James Spader, whose villainy is somewhat established right from the very start and I found that a little jarring. The only two downsides I saw (As a fan) is that I wish they had somewhat introduced a naive mind that eventually turns evil (A later introduction of a certain fan-favourite android was handled this way perfectly), and that they incorporated the design of Ultron from the comics onto the main "body". Alas we have the somewhat face we've seen similar to the "Transformer" movies, but his minions have the comic book look so I was happy nonetheless to see it somewhat done. Regardless, James Spader did wonders for the part, and brought a real presence to one of Marvel's most memorable foes.

Final Verdict: It was loud and extremely fast, and surprisingly that wasn't really a bad thing this time around. Every actor and character new and old delivers greatly, and the footage from the trailers of the last previous months lived up to the hype and more. The 3-D felt a little unnecessary for the many dark sequences of the film, and I don't think you'd be missing anything regardless. But all in all, "The Avengers" are most definitely back for a superior follow up. It's gonna gross unfathomable amounts of money, and by the time the credits roll I was more than happy with the intelligent directions taken and the foreseeable future of the series as always looks promising. 7/10.

There are statements that say "The Mirror" (1975) began its conception way back in 1964. Numerous screenplay variants, original titles labelled "Confession" and constant approvals and disapproval's had Tarkovsky wait several years before he could finally bring his work to fruition. Extremely non-linear but very engrossing from beginning to end, the film (Somewhat) deals with the nature of thoughts and feelings placed throughout the life of a dying poet (Modeled after Tarkovsky's father) and the many other lives he reminisces.

What is particularly impressive with this narrative is that there lies several hints of the harsh realities Russian people had faced in the recent decades, but also an extremely engaging tale woven for those unfamiliar with Tarkovsky's upbringing. Therefore I must state that I was somewhat aware of what influenced these embellished surreal decisions, be it research or words from the man's mouth in many engaging documentaries. But I would think that those unfamiliar with the actual director's history will also find something within this movies dreamlike consistencies and unpredictability. As always his movies drift into seamless tracking shots, colours and even newsreel footage this time around.

The gaps between history remembered never falter as we are taken far into the Russian woods, then the close knit corridors of the city. Large grey slabs of concrete walls are pitted against traditional log cabins, and why is it always that the grass has never looked greener than in a Tarkovsky picture? What remains to say is that the acting is as fine as ever, but the time changing nature of the picture allows the locations to speak more this time around given that we are ever switching to characters old and new at any given point.

Final Verdict: All of the subject matter in this movie leads to a meditative, self reflection piece that remains just as powerful and unique as ever. Tarkovsky's incorporation of old familiar traits as well as new makes "The Mirror" one of the most important pictures he ever made. 8/10.

"Stalker", I can only describe as a love it or hate it experience. Its narrative and hidden motif's I'll get to in a second, but what I want to say upfront is this. "I enjoyed the "Heart of Darkness" like attitude in it, but I also think this movie is grossly overrated considering Tarkovsky's earlier works". I want to say upfront immediately it is not because of the movies quiet, linear storytelling. I really enjoyed "The Mirror" (1975), and that was so ambiguous had you no knowledge of its autobiographical moments you wouldn't nearly enjoy it as much. It's not my least favourite Tarkovsky picture, but it certainly is an acquired taste and even its meanings remain shrouded today. Is it about the Gulags? The eventual Chernobyl disaster? Even some have made comparisons to "The Wizard of Oz" (1939). What I can say with assurance, is that "Stalker" feels somewhat more connected to nature than any other fiction movie out there.

An expedition takes place led by a man known only as the 'Stalker' (Aleksandr Kaidanovsky), who has the ability to navigate the "Zone", a site that has a specific area that has the supposed ability to fulfil desire. His task is to escort two clients into the area, one is a writer (Anatoli Solonitsyn) seeking motivation, and the other a professor (Nikolai Grinko) seeking scientific discovery. The trio travels through these areas filled with ruins of modern society, whilst arguing with each other about the practicality of the "Zone", and the arguable aura around it.

The infamous history behind this film is that Tarkovsky and Cinematographer Georgy Rerberg, had already spent a year filming all the outdoor scenes only to return to Moscow and find all the footage unusable due to a defect in film stock. Tarkovsky of course was despondent and wanted to abandon it, and soon Russian film boards were about to write it off until Tarkovsky hired Cinematographer Aleksandr Knyazhinsky, and began work again after making a deal with the company. The finished narrative was drastically different compared to the original vision.

Its Sepia tones hauntingly fit its urban settings well, the "density" of time actually feels present and the colours of the natural world look astounding. I found the talks of philosophy nowhere near as deep as "Solaris" (1972), even with that movies large quantities of "techno-babble" I enjoyed them. I'll also admit that the payoff and my expectations on the discoveries made felt underwhelming. Tarkovsky was approached about the nature of the movie and how the audience may react to it, to which he uttered this quote I somewhat adore the man for saying: "I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman".

The film is crafted with particularly well executed long takes, and its sounds never betray the atmosphere the creators desired. The acting is strong and the dialogue is somewhat delivered well, given such an opaque narrative. There are moments where the fourth wall is broken both directly and ambiguously, and the film leaves many pleasant questions for you to decipher as Tarkovsky (I guess) intended. I suppose the final piece of trivia to mention is that several people involved in the film production including Tarkovsky, had met tragic deaths which has been debated that it was due to the fact this movie was filmed near a half-functioning hydroelectric station (Tarkovsky, his wife and actor Anatoli Solonitsyn all sadly died of the same cancer).

Final Verdict: I believe it comes off as a little pretentious, but on repeated viewings I warmed up to it a little more. I stand by what I've said in this review, in no way did I hate it, but I would advise you to seek out the other directors work before seeing "Stalker". I don't know why, but a lot of production notes come into my reviews when it comes to Tarkovsky. All his movies are visually stunning works of art, but I also found his later pictures to be somewhat colder. 7/10.

(Vague spoilers ahead that will not ruin the whole movie. I will be putting information from other references and interpretations into the review, everyone will be named should you wish to read into these authors interpretations).

"Solaris", stands as one of the great philosophical movies ever made. There is no grand spectacle to behold, no blaster rifles or even sparkling utopia's etc. Just a wild ambition to pit the terms "Science" and "Fiction" against each other. The production began as Director. Andrei Tarkovsky, wished to bring more emotion and intelligence to the genre, which he found lacking in Western Cinema. Upon seeing Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968), he describes the experience as "Cold and sterile", being too enamoured with polish and looking like a museum of futuristic gadgets. An admirer of Polish writer Stainslaw Lem, Tarkovsky began work on an adaptation of Lem's novel "Solaris" (1961), a narrative dealing with themes on the nature of human memory, experience and the ultimate inadequacy of communication between human and non-human species.

Psychologist Kris Kelvin (Donatas Banionis), spends his last day on earth preoccupied by the lakes and nature around his childhood home with his elderly father. He is about to set off to a space station orbiting a planet named Solaris, a sentient planet whose surface is entirely made up of water and after decades of studying no progress has been made. The crew on board have been sending back erratic messages of emotional crisis, and people arrive to debrief Kelvin who will help determine if the project should continue. After discussing his thoughts with his father, their departure is particularly bittersweet.

Kris travels to the Solaris space station to evaluate the situation, to see the halls ravaged and the electrics destroyed. Only a few scientists are there and seem very hostile towards each other. Puzzled at what has befallen them, only to then encounter the same mysterious phenomena as the others. Solaris begins to send "manifestations" of Kelvin's dead wife Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk), who committed suicide some years before. Originally shocked as he tries to dispose of her (It), he eventually begins to accept her (Its) presence, leading to debate amongst all those around them as the planet's surface begins acting very peculiar.

Adapting roughly 80% of the novel, "Solaris" has been adapted three times in Cinema (1968, 1972 and in 2002, starring George Clooney). Stainslaw Lem (Who passed in 2006), had expressed that none of them really got to the heart and message of "Solaris" itself, stating that no adaptation decided to question the planet's motivations and man's encounter of the unknown. Stating that his ambitions were to exceed what could be reduced to human concepts and emotion, hence why he never named the novel: "Love in Outer Space". It was reported that while Tarkovsky and Lem had a close friendship writing the script, Lem was furious when production company "Mosfilm" had it drastically changed. Tarkovsky was adamant to have his space station in ruin, various scenes would allude to Rembrandt whilst rooms of recreation would contain iconic art such as "The Hunters in the Snow" (1565), by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (Giving Hari an idea of how humans act).

It is by discussing Kelvin's Wife Hari, do we get to the heart of this adaptation. Slovenian Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek, points out importantly that she is only a manifestation of Kelvin's memories and not her own, a man's dream or guilt realised. Film enthusiast "Kogonada", has also noted that the dialogue is keen at tackling "Science" against "Fiction" (With Kelvin stating "You mean more to me than any scientific truth" to the erratic Hari). It was a role that had much difficulty getting casted, and Natalya Bondarchuk had finally won it even though she was initially turned down. Her performance could easily be one of the greatest in all of Science Fiction, her tears are genuine and her naturalism blends into the story effortlessly (An example of life imitating art, Bondarchuk revealed in 2010 that she fell in love with Tarkovsky during the filming of Solaris and, after their relationship ended became suicidal).

The dialogue I feel particularly stands out as extremely well structured and layered, an element Tarkovsky would later state as his biggest regret saying that in having to explain all the technicality it removed a lot of artistic choices that would feature prominently in his later work. Continuing to re-incorporate classical works, "Ich ruf' zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ (BWV 639)", by Johann Sebastian Bach was incorporated as the main theme, plus and a haunting electronic score by Eduard Artemyev. Tarkovsky's long takes and Vadim Yusov's cinematography is as gorgeous as ever. Elemental things from earth such as lakes and plants, to waters and flower pots aboard the station constantly occupy Kelvin's mind, and whereas I feel this deliberate slow pacing will be a turn off for some people, I implore you that there is a deep well of thought here worth your time. The last thing to mention is that all this was made with the equivalent of $829,000 (Given the repressive times the company couldn't afford to put more money into it, no movie should possibly be this good).

Final Verdict: There's a beautiful quote I love attached to this film, "We don't need other worlds. We need a mirror". Whereas I personally wish we continue to explore space to its fullest, It's the little things like that in movies like this that can be dissected and interpreted endlessly. I've brought a lot of outsider quotes and trivia into this review, but "Solaris" to me is one of those few films that lead to endless analysis and enjoyable discussion among newcomers and cinephiles alike. It's about love, it's about regrets, "Andrei Rublev" could be Tarkovsky's masterpiece, but this is my favourite among his works and a crucial statement on what it means to be human. 10/10.

An epic that succeeds in all of its three hours (I say this because several versions exist), Tarkovsky's preferred vision stands as one of the greatest Russian movies ever made. Because only little is known of Andrei Rublev's life, a heavier focus is made on the hardships and violence of medieval Russia. In doing so the film can approach themes such as artistic freedom, religion and (Ironically) repressive authority (As the film was banned in the Soviet Union, until a few years later when they released a censored version).

Though it strangely begins with an unexpected hot air balloon ride, surprisingly in these few short minutes the film has featured many of the themes that will be present throughout the picture, such as life and creative hopes dashed. Religious icon painter Andrei Rublev (Anatoly Solonitsyn, in the first of many Tarkovsky productions), and other wandering monks seek work as they travel across the fields and treacherous landscapes of 15th century Russia. Ever the observer, Rublev is forced to hear the arrogance and shortcomings of his companions, as well as the locals whose lifestyles can be seen as sinful to others, and will eventually fall to the wrath of Prince's and Tartars. It's a long narrative where more hopes are crushed than realised, but ultimately depicts the violence and hardships of the time effortlessly.

I've come to respect that the film's focus switches from Rublev and his surroundings, as the cinematography and shots that Andrei Tarkovsky and Vadim Yusov employ just blend the multiple narratives seamlessly. As for music I can only really remember the last 6 or so minutes of the film, but the hundreds of extra's, set pieces and moments I don't want to spoil has its own kind of musical rhythm. The recurring themes are ever present, and the early moments of Tarkovsky's references to classic paintings start here (Such as "A detail of The Hunters in the Snow" (1565) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, though it features much more prominently in "Solaris", 1972). Of course there is the small amount of infamous animal abuse of a cow and a horse, but I also sternly believe that it was kept to a minimum and handled very well given that the cow was covered in asbestos, and the horse was heading to the slaughterhouse regardless (Trust me, it really isn't all that terrible considering some other movies).

Final Verdict: Actions speak louder than words in "Andrei Rublev". Whilst not deeply ambiguous, it certainly fulfils an artistic purpose that never comes off as arrogant. It is as epic and grand as the paintings themselves, and whilst not my favourite of his works it could most definitely be Tarkovsky's masterpiece. 9/10.

"Ivan's Childhood" feels like a propaganda film. Based on the short story "Ivan", from 1957 by Vladimir Bogomolov. It was actually one of the few Soviet Films of the 1960's that looked at the human cost of War, rather than glorify it. Saying that, the determined Ivan and his mannerisms still convince me of this "propaganda" notion, and unfortunately it's kind of impossible not to see how blatant it feels and would be for any other country to tackle similar material. I greatly respect that the film itself actually has a sense of urgency and conflict about it, but of course the highlights would be how clever the atmosphere is depicted in such small things, be it a crashed aeroplane or a vivid message on the bunker wall (Or more famously wooden beams of a destroyed house looking as they've torn into the picture frame).

Told in a non linear fashion with a few flashbacks, 12 year old Ivan Bondarev (A stunning performance by the young Nikolai Burlyayev) drifts between memories and reality as he races across War-torn landscapes and murky swamps to report to Russian soldiers. In a subplot many of these young soldiers find themselves in moments of self-gratification and unrequited love, and it is also revealed that Ivan has a burning desire to exact revenge on the German's after many personal loses.

Tarkovsky's peculiar way of shooting water and natural surroundings starts here (With thanks to his regular Cinematographer Vadim Yusov), and it's as impressive here as it will be again and again. There is also a great deal of restraint when it comes to music that really helps in showing how empty the forests are around our protagonist. Whereas the original scripts ending drew criticism for a more uplifting scenario, I applaud that the films ending did not draw away from the cold realities of war, or the loss of more innocent times that will definitely stay in your mind for a long, long time to come.

Final Verdict: "Ivan's Childhood", has received much praise from master film-makers. Whereas I feel the quality dips a little in the subplot, and lacks more of the deeper themes Tarkovsky is particularly renowned for. It certainly has enough of an impact that ranks as one of the best from this avant-garde director. 8/10.

Though somewhat controversial in its depiction of certain events, once you sit through the first 30 minutes or so of David Lean's masterpiece you ask yourself "How can I not love this movie"? From its outstanding "matchstick" cut, Freddie Young's cinematography and Maurice Jarre's phenomenal score, "Lawrence of Arabia" continues to be one of the most astounding practical effect movies ever made. Costing only $15 million dollars, to which Steven Spielberg claims that if made today shot for shot, it would be way over $250 million.

Told in two parts, The film awkwardly begins by depicting the last moments of Lawrence's life and the attendees of his funeral who claim to have known his daring exploits. I don't feel like I've spoilt anything for you, because we are then immediately thrown into the beginning of the adventure. Following Lawrence on his travels with the Arabians on their revolt against the Turkish. An epic weave of unification, somewhat sadism and pleasant egotism amongst the characters has a scope way beyond that of a camera lens.

There has been a somewhat controversy on how Lawrence has been portrayed in the film, but Peter O'Toole's performance is phenomenally impressive, and to me somewhat revolutionary considering certain acting sensibilities of 1960's Hollywood and World cinema (Then again, this was also the same year Gregory Peck astounded audiences with the Oscar winning performance in "To Kill A Mocking Bird"). Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins and Omar Sharif do extraordinary work also (I wish Gertrude Bell had made an appearance somewhere). There's just too many great quotes uttered in this movie, and all the dialogue from ever actor is impeccable.

Allow me to ramble on just a little bit longer, but the frontier is gorgeous. Whether it fades in from a previous scene, or emphasised by Maurice Jarre's score, it's one of the few films that makes me believe that when someone is dehydrated they really are. Lean's vision is vast through both its establishing shots and hundreds of extra's, reportedly he looked at John Ford's "The Searchers" (1956) for ideas and even some have made narrative references to Orson Welles's "Citizen Kane" (1941).

Final Verdict: Regardless of what version you see, "Lawrence of Arabia" is one of the great epics that truly deserve the title. In the years that will follow is it destined to remain as one of the tops? Let us just say that "Nothing is written". 10/10.

In many ways Kubrick's "Trench-Drama", is one of the greatest movies about World War 1 ever made. Life and times of those who fought on the battlefield are depicted radically for the time, fear and morale's are ever present and the lives of soldiers from multiple points of view are deemed crucial and worthless. Fantastic tracking shots move across the barbed wire and holes of a visceral "No man's land", all the way to the courts and firing squads depicting Kubrick's use of one point perspective. Truly this film still packs a punch that really depicts how much a soldiers life meant back then, and in saying all this I want to point out that I'm not only addressing the French, everyone had a certain cause and reaction in the War which can be deemed "inhumane".

After a voice over addresses the current situation of 1916, French Generals plan to send their men on a suicide mission to claim the "Anthill". Though there is doubts, promises of prestige quickly removes them and affirms the mission. The film stars Kirk Douglas as Colonel Dax, A commanding officer who leads the mission aware of the odds against them. Though a valiant effort they must withdraw, Dax then attempts to defend a trio of soldiers against a charge of cowardice.

In the aftermath of events, a lot of emotion between soldiers lead to moments of babble and solemn dignity. The somewhat conflict on the battlefield and court rooms are eerily similar, but there are also glimmers of hope to be had for the future. Kubrick's second of many War movies remains one of his greatest black and white classics, it is also the first well known account of Kubrick's infamous amount of re-takes that lead veteran actor Adolphe Menjou, to do the same scene 17 times with fury and anguish.

Final Verdict: Unflinching in its portrayal. There is no hidden agenda in this movie, or at least one that is insultingly blatant that comes off shameless. It continues to be extremely re-watchable, as well as a well crafted movie that continues to hold up. 9/10.

The techniques of "Killers Kiss", shows a lot more familiarity when it comes to your expectations of a Kubrick picture. A young boxer towards the end of his career, eventually begins to grow closer to a woman who lives in the apartment blocks next to his. A relationship then begins as the two grow closer, as they also plan to collect money from her violent employer. Does things ever go smoothly in these scenarios?

I found myself enjoying this work much more than Kubrick's earlier effort "Fear And Desire" (1953), which Kubrick himself tried to remove from circulation. Shot when he was 26 years old, it shows a fantastic use of light when it came to emphasis and also a lot more confidence in narrative and framing. There is a long dance sequence where the Ballerina is played by Kubrick's second wife (Ruth Sobotka), and the sound was post dubbed as the microphone would interfere with the lighting system.

Final Verdict: Unfortunately I can't say much about it compared to his previous and later works, as well as only talk mindless movie trivia. But it is worth your time if you can find it, it is usually boxed as an extra in the Home release of Kubrick's next picture "The Killing" (1960). 6/10.

At a 2 hour 30 Minute running time, "The Bad Sleep Well" dips and dives as its narrative progresses. When I left my seat at the end however, I realised I had suddenly felt extremely satisfied and particularly moved at how events unfolded and how brutally honest they were portrayed in its characters and presentation.

At a lavish wedding, a birthday cake is anonymously sent depicting an office building marked with a cross on the window where the groom's father committed suicide some time prior. This of course leads to discomfort for all attending, and in the next few weeks more and more unusual schemes seem to be affecting the company and some target officials. Who could possibly be doing this and for what gain or reason?

What has remained particularly strong throughout the years is how Kurosawa has staged his conversations in this movie, there's a lot of them and rarely does he often cut from one face to the other. It's all done in superbly staged medium close up shots, and the performances of Kurosawa regulars Takashi Shimura, Toshiro Mifune and return of Masayuki Mori from "Rashomon" (1950), is all wonderfully worth checking out.

Final Verdict: Not much to say other than it's another one of Kurosawa's best outside of his Samurai epics, and a great "pseudo" Shakespearean tale also. 9/10.