Change Your Image
welshone-17339
Reviews
The Critic (2023)
Terrific
Like many people under the age of 40, I first encountered Ian McKellen as the villain Magneto in X-Men. From then on, I admired him as an actor, and a person, with a commanding presence. I always thought he cannot be unlikeable.
So when I tell you that Jimmy Erskine is one of the most unlikeable characters I've ever seen, believe it. He weaves his way through the film making bad decision after bad decision, and McKellen plays this villain perfectly. There's no hint on remorse for the people he drags into his schemes.
This is absolutely McKellen's film but the rest of the cast deserve a mention too. Gemma Arterton is great as the aging actress who just wants Erskine's praise. Mark Strong as Erskine's boss is perfectly understated (though him playing Romola Garai's father was a big surprise; I automatically assumed they were siblings). I wished Ben Barnes, Alfred Enoch and Lesley Manville had more to do but they were brilliant in their respective parts.
Blink Twice (2024)
Two Wrongs...
So I'll start by saying that the bulk of the film was good. The cast were great and I thought it built at a nice pace.
But now to the problem. The first and final scene changed the entire movie for me. Take those out and there's ambiguity about what she's going to do with Slater, you feel sorry for Frida for stumbling into the situation, etc. Add them back in and what you have is a predator willing to swallow mountains of trauma for the sake of money and total control of their spouse.
I know that a conviction without evidence would have been too unrealistic. But didn't Frida deserve a healthy relationship? A life doing something she loved? Or maybe she didn't, given that she was clearly a gold digger.
I'll definitely look forward to Zoe Kravitz's further movies as director, but I hope they have better resolution.
Civil War (2024)
Powerful
I will preface this review with two things: 1) I am not an American, 2) I do not enjoy war movies.
This movie terrified me; I would hope that most people would agree with that. The horrors of war are all too easily glossed over when it's 'out of sight', when you can turn off the news and go about your day. I can't even begin to imagine how people in war-torn countries survive day after day. Seeing a global superpower, seeing the locations familiar to so many movies, being ravaged by war is very disturbing. And it's all too possible.
Alex Garland does a great job of diversifying the combatants. There's no obvious right/left divide to the ones doing the shooting, everything is morally grey (one scene excluded, we'll get to that) and maybe that will drive a larger audience to it. And it hits hard. The one thing that struck me was how loud the gunshots were. And how war photographers must have nerves of steel in order to do what they do.
But that one scene... If you've seen the trailer, you know that Jesse Plemons appears, you know that he asks our heroes 'what kind of American' they are. Frankly, this is the scariest scene in the entire movie. And I hope most people will agree with me about that too. Sadly, I believe there are a certain amount of people in the US who will see nothing wrong with how the scene plays out, and maybe even find that they can't wait for the world it takes place in.
In another scene, Kirsten Dunst's character laments that every time she sent photos back to the US from war zones, it was a plea to not end up in that same situation. Civil War is the equivalent of that - it's an extremely powerful movie, but I don't think it can change anything that may happen in the future.
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Beautiful, but...
Positives out of the way first: this film is gorgeous. The scenes under Giedi Prime's black sun are so beautiful that it's almost a shame when the Arrakis colour returns. The stark contrast is perfect for the two warring houses. Everyone plays their roles well; I adored Javier Bardem's devout Stilgar and Zendaya's defiant Chani. Of course, this is definitely Timothee Chalamet's film, though Austin Butler steals every scene he's in.
So what are the problems? Well, I understand that it's hard to adapt such a huge novel into just two movies. The pacing felt right, up to a point; another movie would have been just right, imo. And doing away with the character of Alia (cameo and womb-voice notwithstanding), that feels like a mistake to me. When I read the book, it felt like Alia was the most dangerous character in the whole story, the culmination of the Bene Gesserit's scheming. I understand it's hard to find a young actor who could pull that off (they'd need Fanning levels of maturity) but there were surely ways around it, rather than just omitting her altogether. Chani and Paul's relationship was also rushed. Again, I understand not wanting to add in young Leto, but I think condensing the second movie into a few months was a mistake, especially when Princess Irulan comes on the scene; it gives the impression Chani was simply a fling, when she absolutely wasn't.
TL;DR: If I hadn't read the book, this would be a 10. I would watch it again tomorrow, but I will always be disappointed at the lack of time skip and all that comes with it.
Doctor Who: The Dominators: Episode 5 (1968)
Better than expected
I don't know why people dislike this serial so much. Personally I found it rather fun, especially compared to some of the previous storylines. Patrick Troughton continues to excel as the silly yet brilliant Doctor (he's definitely in my Top 3 for favourite Doctor). And his chemistry with Frazer Hines is perfect as always. Not sure about Zoe yet, all the early female companions seem too screechy for my taste.
I enjoyed the characterisation of the peaceful Dulcians, and the Quarks are sort of adorable. And the girls aren't the only ones in short skirts this time!
Plus as a Millennial it was fun to see a young Brian Cant as Tensa in some episodes.
Napoleon (2023)
Thug, brute... tyrant.
When biopics are made, they usually take one side or the other - when they don't, this is the result. The whole film is so neutral that it's boring. It feels like the scriptwriter read a textbook article about Napoleon and wrote from that; Napoleon did this, then he did that. He floats from one situation to the next with no real motive, even becoming King is someone else's suggestion that he runs with.
Napoleon is called a thug and a brute in both the trailer and the movie, but honestly I saw no evidence of either. And I certainly saw nothing tyrannical about his behaviour. He seemed like a normal leader, for any time in history. Joaquin Phoenix does what he can but he's better than this; he gives little glimpses into the man behind the labels but spends 90% of the movie glowering. I ended up struggling to see what was so powerful about this man clearly at the mercy of the women in his life. Maybe the 4 hour cut will tell me, if I can ever bring myself to watch it.
Bodies: 'The World Is Yours' (2023)
Brilliant, except...
Look, if you want a huge twist mid-show, don't make it obvious from the start. Gabriel Howell is doing a great job as Elias. But making him wear blue contact lenses just makes it clear that he's the younger version of a different character. I mean, maybe it wasn't supposed to be a twist but I didn't see anything other than vague hints until this episode.
Aside from that, and the Ouroboros concept of his birth, I'm actually really loving the show. I have my theories on how it'll end but I freely admit there are multiple ways it could go. I also have a bunch of questions that I really hope will be answered in the final two episodes, nothing worse than being left hanging.
Appendage (2023)
A mental health allegory not for the mentally ill
I went into this movie completely blind. Now, I've suffered with mental illness (depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts) for roughly 20 years, so I was impressed with the initial use of the appendage as a sort of paranoid conscience, spouting all the worst thoughts we have about ourselves. But then it lost me. I'm sure I'm just too deeply into my own s**t but the idea of someone taking over my life and doing it better than me is way too compelling to feel horrific to me. Maybe people who've recovered can understand the peaceful coexistence that happens at the end; I can see that's the 'cure' easily enough, but getting there isn't simple, especially if you don't have support. And a single moment with her parents makes everything OK between them? I hate pointing out unrealistic things in a movie about absorbed twins striking out on their own, but if you're gonna be hard-hitting, stick with it. 6 stars because it's a good horror outside of the allegory, and I'm sure people who can't relate will like it better than I did.
Comedown (2012)
I think some people missed bits
I wasn't even watching that closely but it seems like I'm the only one reviewing who realised it wasn't just about the pigeons? They literally admitted to terrorising the guy as kids, then the last straw was murdering all his pigeons (and from the look of the burns on Grady's face, he was in the fire too).
Now, as others have said, the characters are absolutely not likeable. Lloyd maybe gets a little pass because it seems like he's maturing. And poor Col. But honestly, that kinda works to the film's advantage. When it's the nice kids getting murdered, people have sympathy. But what if it's the bad kids? This could have been a huge moral tale, delving into the backstories of these kids and pointing out how the system is so broken it shaped them into these little terrors. But it doesn't. We get barely any backstory at all, we know they lived in the tower block, we know Grady was the caretaker. We don't know why the building is now derelict, we don't know why Grady stayed. But we don't need to know.
The ending is set out from the start, no surprises with the false accusation. If you want a happy ending, pretend that Grady gets caught in the process of trying to kill Jemma and her newborn, exonerating Lloyd and allowing them to live happily ever after. But the ambiguity works for me.
The deaths were gruesome enough. The characters at least try to escape and find every attempt thwarted. It's not like you spend the whole movie yelling at the screen because they're doing something stupid.
All in all, I liked the movie. Maybe it's a basic premise but I thought it was well-crafted, and since I live in an area surrounded by chavs... well, it wasn't far-fetched.
Hereditary (2018)
Could have been great
I'll preface this by saying I'm not a horror fan, so feel free to take my review with a pinch of salt. But I enjoyed Midsommar so I thought I'd give this a try. Turns out that was a mistake. (And if you haven't seen Midsommar yet, stop reading right now)
For most of the movie, I thought it was great. I also thought I knew where it was going. C'mon, the grandmother has DID, the mother sleepwalks and the movie is called Hereditary. And tbh, I was perfectly content with that being the 'twist'. Pretty much everything would have been explained by Annie having a mental illness and terrorising her family. And Peter getting it too, understandable. Would it have been a scary thrill? No. But it would have been satisfying. And it would have made sense in the context of the movie. Instead we get a cult situation where the only character left alive at the end is crowned and worshipped. See the mistake now?
Bones: The Hope in the Horror (2017)
What?
No, really, what?! Look, I love Bones, but this episode is a mess. Zack breaking out to prove his innocence is more in-character than I expected but now after nine years we're supposed to believe he never killed anyone? Sweets visiting him every week never yielded this revelation?
As for the Puppeteer... lazy writing. The shrink looked good for it, he knew at least three of those involved (the victim Melissa, the suspects George and Zack) and he had the medical background (he said in the S11 finale that psychology wasn't his original job). Was it a bit too obvious? Perhaps. But it would have been a far more satisfying conclusion. Did they only switch the murderer to a new character just so the end scene where he's caught could happen? We're to believe this random doctor just found victims and people to manipulate on a whim? No hint of explaining the motivation from the original episode.
Seems like the conjoined twin thing was another afterthought by the writers, who then realised the therapist couldn't have hidden that information from the FBI's original background check. Seriously, I'd have bought Delfs as the Puppeteer if that was the case.
It gets 2 stars because the cast do what they can with the awful writing. And I liked that Zack tried to help Hodgins. Those are the only redeeming aspects of this episode.
Bones: The Strike in the Chord (2016)
Fatphobia?
Most of these reviews are complaining about the 'real' woman being fat-shamed in this episode. Firstly - I'm fat and I can tell you I saw no references to weight at all. The intern was incompetent. The Jeffersonian is for the best of the best, the squints have to be geniuses. Yes, the others make mistakes but if you can't see the difference between their behaviour and Sammy's, maybe you should go back and watch the 11 previous seasons. Second - enough with the 'real' woman BS in the comments. It's seriously offensive. What, a woman can't be real because she's skinny?