Another Selection Of Reviews....

Best thing: Frances McDormand's incredible expressive comic performance, regularly transitioning into heartfelt drama.  

Worst thing: I'm having trouble. Just generally the issue is that this is a bit light, but that's intentional. Amy Adams seems a bit inauthentic in roles like this, but here her cartoonishness fits with the cartoonish tone of the film as a whole. But if you aren't able to go with the light floaty unreal tone (and I initially struggled) you may find this is a problem.

Is there anything Frances McDormand cannot do? She has a perfect English accent and does the sort of great charming comic performance we'd expect from Emma Thompson - only better.

She plays the role of a nanny who finds herself 'accidentally' hired as a personal assistant for a highly sexed aspiring actress (Amy Adams) and finds herself oddly suited to it.

Always love to see Mark Strong do his thing and he's basically the villain here.

Just generally Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day is a delightful and hilarious comedy almost guaranteed to be a great time for anyone.

A+

Best thing: There are so many wonderful moments and superbly quotable lines. "I'm cooperating here. Darn tootin!" "I'm going crazy out there at the lake." It's not the lines, but more the delivery. There's an absurd calmness and ordinariness about the horrifying things that happen.

Worst thing: The scene with the old friend whose wife has died. What did that add to anything? What was the point of that scene?

People have mixed reactions to Fargo sometimes and I can understand this. It's my contention that the Coen Brothers are going for the same basic tone every time: black comedy. But it's harder to totally embrace the comedy in their darker films like No Country For Old Men or Miller’s Crossing.

The comedy is more explicit in Fargo than some of their films, but the instinct is to suppress that laughter when you've just been told (lied to) that this story is completely true. It's harder to laugh at supposedly true events. I think it's easier to enjoy this film knowing that the opening disclaimer that this is all being told "exactly as it occurred" is itself a joke. In the recent tv series the disclaimer joke is made much more obvious by announcing "exactly as it occurred" in big loud letters which dominate the screen, with the absurd events being montaged in the background, so hopefully this will help more people enjoy the film.

For me this is a film that has always improved in subsequent viewings. I think becoming more familiar with the Coen Brothers' style of comedy has helped me to love this film rather simply like it. There are more comedy-centric Coen Brothers films I like more, but this is definitely up there as one of my favourites.

The story is that a down-on-his-luck car salesman who gets involved in the crime world to improve his lot in life. Essentially this is the same plot as the tv series, but they are sufficiently different in where they each take that premise. I'm now really enjoying Fargo as an extended universe. I don't think anyone would have imagined that a tv series could enrich a classic film, but I really think that is what has happened.

A+

Best thing: Mel Brooks as the great grandpa vampire. Cool cameo and also a very funny character and his appearance is a good shot-in-the-arm for the third act.

Worst thing: The road trip with Dracula's buddies goes on a bit long. Adam Sandler's voice acting buddies like Kevin James don't bring much to their roles.

I mostly really enjoyed the first Hotel Transylvania. It didn't reach the Pixar magic we have now come to expect from animated movies, but I did feel engaged by the characters and I did find it funny. However, the songs (particularly the autotune) did bug me and monsters referring to a 'zing' between couples that are meant-to-be seemed a bit daft. This time around there are no songs and there's only a brief mention of zing in passing.

I must admit that much of this film's charm comes from being cute. The vampire/human couple have a new child and our Addams Family-esque gags, of monsters doing normal things weirdly, centre around a beaming young child with wide eyes and big bouncy red hair. The joke about his first words isn't exactly a laugh riot, but it's sweet and endearing and that tone helps to bring me on board with the film as a whole.

There are some real issues of identity here with a clash between the vampiric/Romanian(/Jewish?) side of the family and the human/Californian side of the family. I say "clash" but actually it's more like two groups muddling through their differences. One family has quirky old traditions while the other is totally at home with modern living but isn't entitely sure how to be welcoming to groups they see as quirky or quaint.

Naturally this isn't original. One need only mention the Addams Family to see this same idea arguably explored more subtly. But these themes are handled well, all the same.

I found this a lot of fun. I'd rather we'd had the Popeye film or the Dark Crystal sequel that director and animator Tartatovsky had promised, but Hotel Transylvania 2 proves that he can adapt. Perhaps the success of these Hotel Transylvania movies will eventually allow Genndy Tartatovsky to get a personal passion project off the ground. (His Clone Wars cartoons are still the best thing to come out of Lucas' Star Wars prequels.) In the meantime, this was fun.

B+

Best thing: I like how brutal it all is, but my favourite scene is probably the appearance of Banquo's ghost.

Worst thing: The voiceover. There's something engaging about an actor talking directly to the audience, like Ian McKellan does in Richard III. To make this more like a conventional film, the solo parts are delivered as voiceover in the background, but that makes these lines into less of a performance. It's much more interesting to see these lines performed than to see a blank face staring into space while their inner monologue speaks in the background.

While Macbeth is a great story and Polanski admittedly has interesting ideas on how to present it, I still find many points where the format made the story lag where a theatre performance would not. Voiceover is never going to be as engaging as a full body performance directed at the audience.

The fight/battle scenes towards the end aren't fantastically choreographed. But prior to that the fevered dream sequences are actually pretty effective and the inevitable fulfilment of the witches' prophecy of the moving forest is a bit amazing.

There's a lot to love here, but I think it's a bit of a mixed bag. I'll be interested to see how the new film with Michael Fassbender compares.

B-

Best thing: Jason Isaacs is awesome as Pan's nemesis Hook. Possibly my favourite moment in the film is when he deliberately kills a fairy by saying "I don't believe in fairies" right behind it. I also love Ludivine Sangnier's slapstick and mimed performance as Pan's fairy, Tinkerbelle.

Worst thing: The boy who plays Pan feels a bit out of place as the ONLY American in the film, but the bigger problem is that the his arc in the film is that he needs to love Wendy. Seriously? He clearly loves her from the moment he turns up! If the point is that Wendy needs to get Pan interested in girls, then that's very uncomfortable. These are clearly children and I'm not sure I'm on board with a plot about awakening Pan's sexuality.

A fun live action adaptation of the story. Weirdly I actually saw this in the cinema when it first came out. I remembered it pretty fondly, but not enough to return to it before now. The visuals and the performances were as good as I remembered, but the writing isn't so impressive. Even though this version of Peter Pan is very well presented and the acting is great, it's still very much a "shove your kids in front of the tele for a few hours" kind of affair. There was potential for more here, but it's too cheesy, too formulaic and the final act just completely lost my interest.

D+

Best thing: All performances are great, but I love Elizabeth Spriggs and Imelda Staunton's roles as a well-meaning but gossipy mother and daughter.

Worst thing: Kate Winslet's character walking in the rain too long because she is so sad. It comes off as a bit ridiculous, which is perhaps an intentional part of her character, but it feels odd at that moment.

This Jane Austen adaptation from ultra-versatile director, Ang Lee, is just as great as I remembered. Probably my favourite straight adaptation of Austen's work. (Though I have a special place in my heart reserved for Clueless.) Great cast, great storytelling and a good sense of humour.

A+

Best thing: The fantastic immersive and gory Normandy landings sequence.

Worst thing: While there are a lot more problems than I remember, the biggest issue might actually be the ultra-patriotic music that regularly swells in the background. This film is schmaltzy enough as it is without the music almost sending it into self-parody.

I hadn't seen Saving Private Ryan in a long long time. I knew it wasn't perfect, but my memory was that the biggest problems were the American flag/modern day sections at the start and the end and the way the film drags in the middle. This time around though, I realised that I don't particularly like the climactic battle in the third act either. I was able to go with a lot of the somewhat tiresome banter in the middle of the film and those scenes have their moments, but the third act simply isn't a strong enough payoff after such a long wait.

Still, I was caught completely off-guard when they discovered the wrong Private Ryan. It was Nathan Fillion! Captain Mal Reynolds from Firefly is in this. That was pretty cool.

What is still absolutely brilliant in Saving Private Ryan is the opening Normandy landings sequence. This is a fantastic piece of cinema and will always be worth returning to. It's just unfortunate that this level of quality dips irretrievably after the first half hour is over.

A blockbuster with one awesome action sequence, even one on a level of genius like this, still remains a flawed film overall. Saving Private Ryan is comfortably bearable to watch, but it really drags. The only really worthwhile scene is the opening fight on the beach, but that sequence is REALLY worthwhile - even if you don't bother with the rest of the film.

C-