The marketing and trailer of the film suggested a horror movie with a creepy monster. That may well be the case, but this is not a conventional horror film at all - there is far, far more to this outstanding film than that. To say more would give away the plot, but clear hints as to the identity of the “Babadook” and how it fits into the narrative ensure the reveal and resolution are unsurprising. That, though, misses the point - here the journey the audience is taken on is so compelling that the reveal and resolution to the story don’t need to surprise. Essie Davies plays a single mother still coming to terms with the death of her husband and the young Noah Wiseman is her son who is exhibiting behavioural issues. They both give outstanding natural performances and the film is rooted in such verisimilitude that the introduction of the horror element almost feels intrusive. Not that this is unsuccessful either - the “monster’ initially lurks in the shadows, creating a palpable sense of foreboding and dread and the sound design of the film helps to emphasise this, creating some wonderfully creepy moments. Fortunately, rather than worrying about horror conventions and gimmicks to scare, the filmmakers explore far more gripping issues and concerns - that of a mother’s struggle to raise a child on her own and cope with unresolved grief, loss, isolation and helplessness. If there was a minor criticism, it is that the final act occasionally focuses more on the conventions of horror and suspense that had been so carefully balanced throughout. But this is a nitpick at best and doesn’t detract from one of the finest films of the year and a strong message that true horror is as firmly rooted in reality as it is in the supernatural and fantasy.
It’s often daunting to come to a classic film and try to explain why it works so well. Obvious elements spring to mind - the peerless design work, both of the central creature and the sets themselves; the beautifully haunting score; the creation of one of the greatest female action heroes; the perfect pace of the film (slightly spoilt by the Director’s Cut, but the original edit still shines); the “birth” of the creature that may have lost its ability to surprise over time, but still horrifies largely down to the performances that sell this moment so well; the masterful build-up of tension as each character confronts their fate. But, more importantly, this is simply a story that is well told and a reminder of how powerful an experience film can be when all the elements come together so perfectly. Is it any wonder that Alien has been oft-imitated, parodied and copied, but rarely bettered, if at all?
As a film intended to introduce the Star Wars world, the design and special effects that went into this are beautiful and add scope and detail to the original trilogy. The score is also a wonderful addition to the already iconic music. As an introduction to a new set of characters, the story of the discovery of Anakin Skywalker is poorly paced and lacks urgency, despite characters consistently reminding the audience that time is short. Too many cameos and bit parts for extraneous characters and dialogue telling us what is already being shown slow the film down considerably. Better editing would have resulted in a better film. Liam Neeson however carries the film with a great performance as Qui Gon Jinn and the villains are equally compelling, culminating in a stunning duel between the Jedi and Sith which is still one of the high points of the whole series.
Walking out of Warcraft, the overriding feeling is one of a missed opportunity - this is by no means a disaster and there is plenty of potential here. The scope of the film is impressive and it's clear there is a lot of world-building going on here for future sequels. Part of the problem, however, is there is simply too much plot going on with not enough time devoted to a central thread - the director's admission that some 40 minutes have been cut is not surprising. This is a film that has ambition to be an epic, with many threads introduced to carry over to potential future films and glimpses of many different settings in this new world, but consequently there is a rushed feel to the central plot of this film with not enough time devoted to developing the relationships and motivations of the central characters, Thus plot developments and twists whilst potentially interesting do not have the emotional impact desired making it difficult to really care about what happens. It is a shame because what there is here works surprisingly well - Jones' ambition is to ensure the audience is invested in both sides of the conflict rather than the obvious human side. Perhaps there may well be a future director's cut that restores some much needed character work and slows down the pace a little.
The trailer suggests something very generic, the film itself is anything but. There is a real sense of unease that is gradually built in the first half of the film, but it is all done through character interaction rather than attempts to scare, with awkward conversations and hints of unspoken histories that make this film intriguing. Edgerton seems intent on subverting every genre cliché you would expect to see, with the result that the audience is never quite sure where the film will ultimately go. And in an age of generic slash and stalk horror films, it is great to have a film that relies on ambiguity and uncertainty to create tension. The performances are all great, especially from Bateman. whose character embodies the gradual subversion that the film is playing on. There are a couple of nods to the genre with some well timed jumps, but they feel oddly superfluous. It is a shame then that the ending doesn't quite have the same tone of ambiguity and uncertainty the preceded it - it is not a complete misstep as it drive home the themes the film has been exploring, but there is finality and certainty offered at the end that feels unnecessary to emphasise a point. Still, this is well worth a look and Edgerton is now an interesting director to watch out for as well as an actor.
The problem with coming to a popular film like this later on is that hype gets in the way. With no awareness of the brand or comic, yet having been told numerous times how great this is, it is difficult to approach this in the right manner to review. There is no doubt that it is a lot of fun and a large part of this is down to Pratt who nails the lead, Quinn. Its bright and colourful (a welcome change to the lived in feel of many other sci-fantasy films) and confident in it's execution. Yet equally it is part of a Marvel formula that started to wear thin after the first Avengers movie - for all the talk of how different this film was to the usual Marvel film, it's only real surprise is just how tied to the Marvel template the film is - everyone trying to get hold of a MacGuffin of unspeakable power, culminating in a large scale battle and fight scenes that unfortunately lead to very little of consequence, with all our heroes surviving to fight another day and a tease as to where this is all leading to. Admittedly, the fun here is in the different characters they have created. But If Marvel are serious about creating a cinematic universe where all these stories are interconnected then at some point they are going to have to take a risk in the storytelling - this isn't it!
A film that rewards on repeat viewings, this has great performances from everyone, in particular Byrne and Spacey, and a script that is brilliantly constructed. It may well be more remembered for its final resolution which works well no matter how many times the film is dissected, but the dynamics between the "suspects" are fun to watch, with each of them bringing a distinct persona to the film that is memorable. John Ottman's score is also wonderfully atmospheric. A modern classic
It is hard to come to a film like Psycho without at least some awareness of the likely surprises in store - the famous moment in the shower is so indelible in pop culture that it has lost its shock factor. Yet, in the context of the film it is still a surprising moment. What is so clever about Psycho is that the first half of the film suggests an entirely different genre and approach. Hitchcock creates a fascinating set-up and moral dilemma that keeps the audience intrigued so that by the time our heroine makes her decision to resolve this issue, you could be forgiven for forgetting the title of the film. But it is the arrival at the Bates Motel and Perkins’ entrance that immediately signals a change in tone, specifically a fascinating conversation between Perkins and Leigh in the motel parlour. It is Perkins’s nuanced performance throughout the film that suggest both a softly spoken innocence and a creepy underlying darkness to Norman Bates, and this is never more clear than in his introduction, as the focus of the audience shifts from Leigh’s character to Perkins. There is little to be added to the already iconic shower scene other than it is a masterclass in editing, music and performance (the shot that pulls back from the victim’s eye is still both horrifying and utterly mesmerising). The second half of the film could have struggled to live up to this and to a certain extent it does, but in the ensuing investigation, Hitchcock of course has one or two more surprises in store that are best left unspoiled and Perkins’ performance ensured that the loss of one great character would not be detrimental to the overall film. It is a shame the final scene feels the need to over explain the events of the film, but the final shot certainly leaves a great impression.
The most mainstream film Gilliam has probably made, but also one of his best. Whilst the central mystery of how a deadly virus is unleashed on the world is compelling, it's Bruce Willis that holds the most attention, and whilst the ending is telegraphed well before, it's the journey to that end that becomes the most important part of the film and Willis makes the audience care about his character's fate. One of the best time travel stories ever made!
More so than either of the other Hobbit films, the titular character is virtually a supporting player in the film and, whilst in the previous two films, the expansion of the book did not overwhelm the central story it was based on, it is here that Jackson's desire to frame this trilogy as a prequel to the Lord of the Rings is far more prominent. Perhaps the lack of material left to cover from the book is the reason for this ( the rousing opening sequence held back for this film would clearly have played equally well as a finale to the previous entry ). As an adaptation of the tone and focus of the book, this is as far removed as you could get and it is evident that two films would have been more than sufficient. There is equally a sense of déjà vu in some scenes in the build-up to the battle that is reminiscent of Return of the King.
Yet the book is its own thing and as a film and finale to the previous entries, this is a fitting conclusion and a largely successful segue into his Rings films. Importantly, the elements that are from the book itself are the strongest part of the film - Freeman again is excellent as Bilbo and his scenes with Armitage as Thorin are certainly the best and most emotional moments. This is as much Thorin's film as anyone else and the resolution to his arc is well handled. Despite initial similarities to the finale of his Rings trilogy, this becomes less of an issue as the film progresses and Jackson manages to create a near hour long action sequence that never becomes confusing or repetitive. If there is a one criticism that stands out, it is that some characters are lost amidst the sheer number fighting for screen time, but this has been evident throughout the Hobbit films, especially with the Dwarves, and Jackson wisely chooses to keep the focus on those characters that made a impression in the previous instalments. Elements that tie the films more closely to the Rings trilogy are cleverly done, even though they do feel a little episodic in nature, with cameos from characters that play a much more prominent role there. Jackson's decision to include Legolas and create a new character in Tauriel may annoy book fans, but it has a strong emotional pay off here and serves as an interesting personal backdrop to the character of Legolas. If nothing else, it is fun to see Jackson create another action beat for the character. The film is beautifully shot throughout and Jackson's penchant for sweeping camera moves capture the stunningly realised environment.
Equally, it is difficult to review this film without looking at it now in the greater context of the six film saga that it has become, and this is some achievement for Jackson to have accomplished. Fellowship of the Ring remains the strongest film ( and fittingly it is probably the one that sticks the closest to the original story ). But, Jackson has created a series of films that will be the benchmark for future fantasy films and this final entry can hold its own with the rest.
The greatest film ever made ? Depends what you are looking for in a film but for sheer entertainment value there are few films that can match it. This is the film that turns Star Wars into a saga. Not content with simply rehashing the original, here we get a greater scope as new worlds and characters are introduced, but more importantly the returning characters are all developed logically. Crucially, the chief villain becomes something much more significant and the final confrontation has lost none of its power regardless of the prequels. It is a rare sequel that can take practically everything introduced in the original and improve on it in every way, especially when the original is already so highly regarded.
Tarantino’s debut is still one of his best films. The opening sequence has been often imitated and referenced, but it does showcase Tarantino’s use of banter, natural dialogue and pop culture to bring his characters to life. Here it works well, immediately giving the audience a sense of all the important personalities within the film and the relationships between them. By dropping us into the aftermath of the heist, the film’s strength is in the use of flashback to build intrigue over what happened, but equally important is the hook that there might be an insider. This allows Tarantino to gradually develop his characters in the flashbacks beyond simply focusing on how the dilemma they find themselves in will be solved. Buscemi and Keitel in particular stand out and whilst Madsen has repeated himself ad nauseam in other films, he is still effective here. The soundtrack and costume design all serve to emphasise how hip and cool the characters are, but this is punctuated with the violence that remind us they are brutal too. Its this juxtaposition of coolness and violence that marked the film out as something different, no more so than in the still shocking scene of Madsen torturing someone. Some of the flashback scenes do occasionally outstay their welcome, though there is a lot of humour drawn out from them and the authenticity in his dialogue that Tarantino appears to strive for is sometimes stretched as characters vie to show who is top dog. But these minor quibbles don’t stop this from being a tightly edited and well paced crime thriller.
At 210 minutes in length, this Director's Cut of the film is Petersen's best film one of the best war films ever made. The film may run the gamut of submarine thriller conventions that you would expect to see, but Petersen takes a more interesting approach in handling them. The film spends a lot of time showing life aboard the submarine, constantly emphasising the limited set with characters climbing over and around each other and their supplies, allowing the audience to feel the claustrophobia that this environment would have. The film never breaks from the point of view of the sailors aboard the submarine and is focused solely on their characters as they go about their routines, giving the audience time to get to know them and highlighting their nervous anticipation initially and thereafter, the boredom, tension and repetitiveness of their work as they dive and surface, waiting for battle. When the battles do occur, Petersen is keen to emphasis the reality of these moments for the sailors aboard the submarine, focusing on their reactions to the constant bombardment and drawing out these sequences to build tension, but also to demonstrate the relentlessness of the attacks against the submarines. It's a great approach that really makes you feel for these characters and offers a reminder that the horrors of war are visited on both sides. The final act doesn't wholly satisfy emotionally in that it feels a little tacked on, but it does fit with the themes of the film.
A dull film that rushes through a threadbare plot and barely developed characters, the surprise here is such a talented cast is wasted, though Matt Damon seems at pains to admit in interviews he just wanted to work with the director. A shame then that the director's strength in visuals is nowhere near as impressive as his other films - sure the costumes and design are very well done but this is all lost in a mess of poor special effects and editing. If you're questioning plot developments from the opening scene then you know the film hasn't clicked and when the final resolution is straight out of the "How to stop a drone army with a Queen" manual, you know the film has problems. Very disappointing it is mercifully short and watchable only due to Pedro Pascal and Willem Dafoe who seem to be in just as much of a rush to get this over with as the audience.
By no means the terrible film that many critics suggest, this is a rather generic action film, that was unfortunately hugely spoiled by the marketing, but is still a lot of fun. The plot as a standalone film makes little sense and ties itself into knots trying to explain a timeline that was already confused enough. Perhaps future films may explain some of the key questions raised, but ultimately the story shown here should work on its own, especially given the nature of the central villain and his importance to the overall story arc of all the Terminator films. Indeed, there is an interesting core concept created here in the identify of the central villain of the film, but the potential is largely wasted after the reveal in favour of a slight variation of the T-1000. That said, there is certainly a lot of fun in seeing elements of the timeline only hinted at in previous films as well as the recreation of various scenarios from the original film. The action sequences are all largely well done, apart from a terrible helicopter chase near the end of the film. Surprisingly, given his 12 year absence, the best part of the film is seeing Schwarzenegger in his signature role and it his relationship with Clarke's Connor that form the strongest character moments, despite treading similar ground covered in Terminator 2. Whilst Emilia Clarke does pretty well as Sarah Connor, Jai Courtney unfortunately is no Michael Biehn and his rather bland take on Kyle Reese makes it difficult to care about such a key character. Whether there will be any future films to take this story forward is uncertain - the biggest failing of all the Terminator sequels after Cameron's films is their efforts to continue a storyline that was essentially completed at the end of Terminator 2. But this film is a step up from the previous two sequels and there are hints that future films may explore other elements that don't simply rely on the Terminator as protector/killer.
The flaws of the previous sequel are more readily apparent here as the focus shifts to the “real” world which is populated largely with uninteresting characters that were poorly developed in the previous film. As before, the film is stronger when it focuses on what is going on in the Matrix and Neo’s own struggle to understand his role and the fallout from his discoveries. It is a shame then that most of the plot centers around a large scale assault on Zion that quickly becomes tiresome as characters who we care little about face off against an overload of CGI machines that really needed cutting down. That the film grinds to a halt in its biggest action sequence says a lot about how badly thought through this part of the film was and without the juxtaposition of scenes within the Matrix that made the “real” world sequences bearable in the last film, it never really recovers from it, even if it does improve slightly as it shifts its focus back to Neo. It doesn’t help that whereas in the last film plots elements from the “real” world were rushed, here it’s the elements related to the development of the Matrix that feel rushed and forgotten about for large parts of the film which make the final sequence difficult to care about. It’s not unwatchable by any means, but as the culmination of a trilogy it can’t help but disappoint.
There are a lot of qualities that make The Thing work so well as a horror film. It has been rightly lauded for its set-piece moments and striking practical effects, but what keeps this timeless are the same elements that can be found in a similar classic film of the time, Ridley Scott's Alien - the beautiful yet harsh outdoor locations photographed to stunning effect, creating a sense of scale and isolation that remind the viewer how cut-off the characters are and contrasting sharply with the claustrophobic interiors ; the minimalist score from Morricone that adds to the tension ; the great production design that ensure the setting feels like a realistic working environment ; the memorable characters, notably of course Kurt Russell's Macready ; the efficient script that introduces the personalities of the main group quickly and the camaraderie between the characters that ensure the audience believe in the group as a working community and care about their survival. But this is no mere retread of another film - the alien presence here working from within to split the group apart rather than bringing them together. Unlike Alien, the central villain is harder to define and from the opening moments, Carpenter creates a sense of unease and paranoia that permeates the whole film right through to the final frame, ensuring the audience like the characters themselves are never quite sure who to trust. The effects may have dated to a modern audience (though the tangible feel to the practical work is creepier than anything that could be created in CGI) but it's the quieter set-piece moments of tension and mistrust that remain just as strong as ever and make this Carpenter's best film.
As an origin story, this still has all the hallmarks of a Bond film, but this is one of those rare Bond films that successfully attempts to delve a little bit deeper into the character. It is a bold step taking the audience back to the beginning of Bond as a 00 agent, but credit to the writers and director as it allows them to focus on how Bond developed into the character seen in all the other films. Craig is perfect for the role of a Bond at the start of his career. In his work, Bond is much more a force of nature, raw and brutal, and there are doubts over his ability to remain detached. Its his emotional state that the film explores which makes this a much more interesting take on the character. Consequently, there is a greater stake in his relationship with Eva Green's character, who manages to make a far more memorable Bond girl than many of the recent ones from the Brosnan era. A great start to a new cycle of Bond films.
A slow burn of a horror film, this shares many of the characteristic of Hereditary (2018) not least from being a damn fine film. Like the latter, the film takes its time to build up a palpable sense of dread, but also explore the normality and mundanity of its characters and location, mining a lot of humour and goodwill from its central flawed character who only wishes to protect his family. It’s also expertly crafted with beautiful cinematography and a haunting soundtrack. But the tension lies in the film keeping its audience firmly in the same mindset of its hero, completely unsure throughout of where the film is going and what the truth is, right up until a final moments. Great stuff!
Carrie is an incredibly dated horror film, but it also remains an incredibly relevant story despite this. The shocks and attempts at surprise are largely jump scares that don't work as well anymore, yet the film has become a somewhat different kind of horror film as a result. Right from the beginning, the title character cuts an incredibly sympathetic figure and the cruelties and humiliations endured by her at school makes it easy to identify with her. But the underlying themes of bullying and cruelty and the repressed rage and anger that Carrie's abilities represent, together with the religious extremism that she suffers at home is equally a stark reminder of how society can create its own monsters that can explode into violence at any given moment and the filmmakers wisely don't hold back and attempt to lessen the impact of this nor do they attempt to justify Carrie's revenge - everyone and anyone is affected by Carrie's reaction, regardless of how they had behaved towards her. It doesn't take much to see the links with modern day real-life violence carried out by disturbed individuals and the film asks its audience to consider difficult questions as a result.
Over 30 years since its release, this is still the high watermark of the series and, indeed pretty much any adventure film. Ford is the lynchpin of the series, and unlike James Bond, it is difficult to imagine anyone else taking on this role in the future. What makes Indiana Jones works so well as a character and instantly connect with an audience (apart from being Han Solo in disguise) is his world-weariness and that he does indeed seem to be "making it up as he goes along." He makes mistakes and gets himself into trouble more often than not. The sheer pace, the reliance on practical stunts and Ford's performance here sets this film apart from some of the more ridiculous elements that mar the sequels and Karen Allen is a great foil. Every film of course has a great score from Williams, but the theme created for the Ark of the Covenant elevates the music to another level. But it is Ford that embodies Indiana Jones - the looks of relief, panic and determination that cross his face, sometimes all in one shot, is often priceless and he is the key to making this character work so well.
An intriguing film based on a short story, it is rare to find a time travel film that brings something different to the genre. It is therefore difficult to review without giving some of the plot details away and this is a film best seen knowing as little as possible about it. The first half of the film has little to do with time travel on the surface as someone recounts their life story to a barkeep. Essentially an extended flashback, this on its own is beautifully played by Snook and it is almost a shame the film's introductory scenes clue the audience in to potential surprises as the flashback works by itself as an emotional and fascinating character study. But the revelations when they come are still worthwhile for their resonance to the overall story, though anyone paying attention may well work out certain beats to the plot. In addition, while there are certainly paradoxes galore, the film embraces them and makes them central to the story it is trying to tell. Well worth a look.
Simple plot, brutal action sequences, stylised choreographed fights. What more could you want ? The initial part of the film is tense and exciting and the action sequences are all beautifully choreographed and edited. That being said, the film does being to suffer a little in the final part as fatigue over the relentless action begins to set in. The director seems to realise this as the film is quite short but including some twists into a plot which was barely there in the first place seems superfluous and a little forced. Still entertaining though, but lets hope the sequel just doesn't repeat the formula.
Whilst not having read the source novels, Divergent desire to be the next "Hunger Games" style franchise is evident in its dystopian setting, purportedly strong intelligent female characters ( they're not ! ) and sequel baiting in its resolution. What is disappointing is the lack of any originality to distinguish itself from other similar ideas - it's faction based society heavily influenced by films like Gattaca and others of that ilk. The film also spends an inordinate amount of time with one faction, and probably the least interesting one at that, devoting the bulk of its plot to the heroine being trained, and of course, falling for one of her trainers. You would think that the focus would be on the so-called Divergent group, given the title and the vague ominous warnings from several characters about their threat. Perhaps the sequels will develop this better, but here it is simply a plot device to touch base with typical themes of individuality, free will and teen angst over being pigeonholed, as well as provide a motivation for the villain's plot. That it rarely explores these within any great depth is the film's main problem, preferring to focus on the developing romance between the two leads. There are no surprises in the story, but the central leads do their best with the thin material and it is watchable enough.
For anyone paying attention, the central mystery at the heart of the film is quite obvious, but even though the film tries to maintain the element of surprise, it is equally as interested in exploring how the characters deal with the consequences. Anchored by three great performances, especially the two boys, it remains quite unsettling throughout, not least because even if the audience guess what is going on, the filmmakers play on the audience's sympathies and use this to explore increasingly darker themes and create some very unnerving moments. Well worth a look!
Like the director’s previous documentary on Ayrton Senna, this is a fascinating look at an unbelievable talent with a tragic outcome. Equally, this is a film that is accessible to anyone and as someone who had only seen Amy Winehouse in the media and had not heard her music, it was a fascinating, but devastating film that depicted a troubled and vulnerable young woman thrust unwillingly into a media frenzy that she was simply unable to cope with. What makes the film so powerful are those fleeting moments in the story where there was an opportunity for Amy to get the help she so desperately needed. Kapadia tries hard to give a balanced viewpoint of the people around Amy, but it is difficult not to judge some of the people closest to her. Hindsight may be a wonderful thing, but the outcome of this story seems so inevitable from the start. Where Kapadia doesn’t hold back is in his depiction of the media as a relentless and merciless behemoth and ultimately this film is as much a sobering look at the reality of being thrust into the media spotlight as it is on a truly amazingly talented musician who simply wanted to be left alone to express her talent. One of the highlights of the year so far.
Perfect family film, this has everything you would expect from a fairy tale story, but with added dry wit and humour that adds a huge amount of fun. Even the framing device, with a boy being told a bedtime story, initially seems unnecessary, but cleverly draws you into the story and is used throughout to add a lot of clever narrative touches and ultimately warmth and a fitting conclusion. There is an array of brilliant supporting characters here, with Peter Cook, Wallace Shawn and Billy Crystal standing out, but though the film strikes this fine balance throughout of threatening to undercut the plot with its humour, it never crosses the line and ensures the audience are just as invested in the outcome of the story and the fate of the central characters as they are in the jokes. This has something for everyone young and old, which is just "inconceivable!!!"
It's a testament to the quality of this film that you soon forget what a technical marvel these ape characters are and become much more focussed on the story. Caesar, once again, is at the forefront of this film, and the exploration of the ape community is fascinating to watch. Yet rather than simply focus on Caesar, Reeves is more interested in showing the fragility of peace between the human and ape communities, the distrust and hatred that can develop between two opposing factions and how easy such emotions can tear down any attempts to bring an end to hostilities. It's as relevant an issue that you could find to explore in modern society and it works wonderfully well here. Although the human characters are not as well developed, Reeves doesn't rush the story and the tentative steps to building trust between the two "families" in the opening half are beautifully played and help to ensure that the audience has some investment in both sides when all hell breaks loose. And whilst there are no real surprises in where the story is going, it is this focus on the characters like the previous film that help to make the action sequences tense and exciting to watch, even if the finale strays a little into CGI overload.
Often decried for being unsuitable for children (presumably based on the ridiculous notion that animation is purely for children), this is a film that can be appreciated at the right age for not talking down to its audience and presenting some pretty weighty themes. Whilst many project their own adult sensibilities onto how children might react and deem the film inappropriate, for adults of a certain age, however, it is one of those memorable film experiences from childhood that did not leave you mentally scarred, much to the surprise of modern viewers. Rewatching the film as an adult, it is one of those rare occasions that those memories of seeing the film from childhood remain untainted. Rosen deserves a lot of credit for ensuring that both the cruelty and beauty of nature were given equal footing in the film when it would have been so easy to create an animated film about talking rabbits that pandered to the audience. He never shies away from depicting both the sudden, unexpected nature of the violence and the physical and mental consequences of it - it's a cruel world out there and nature is often unforgiving, his characters often bearing the wounds and scars to remind us. In doing so, he immediately endears us to the central characters, with Bigwig and Fiver, in particular standing out. Equally, whilst the violence is presented in a realistic way, Rosen doesn't dwell on it - life goes on and characters move on too. There are haunting images to be sure that the very young should probably avoid - an abstract sequence of rabbits being poisoned and a particularly memorable villain still disturb. But in context they lend the film an edge and a tension that is often missing from animated films. With a stellar voice cast, beautiful artwork and a memorable score (even without the famous "Bright Eyes" sequence), this is a film that reminds people that animation is medium that can work for everyone.
A highly romanticised version of the Superman mythos, and a continuation of the first two originał Reeve films. Singer adheres to a lot of elements from these films, perhaps a little too much as he attempts to continue a story over 25 years old. There is a distinct melancholic feel to the film as Superman's sense of being an outsider and need to connect is emphasised, but this is brought full circle in a twist that many didn't like, but makes perfect thematic sense and allows for a touching heartfelt scene at the end. Whilst Singer also struggles with the Clark/Lois relationship owing to the story needs, he gets the Superman/Lois scenes right and these form the emotional backbone of the film. The complaint of a lack of action is moot as there is plenty of it with a stunning plane rescue sequence being the highlight and an emphasis on Superman saving people rather than simply fighting (take note Man of Steel) although Luthor's plan is again ridiculous. The flying sequences are often beautiful to watch, a minor quibble being the overuse of CGI to depict Superman. Both Routh and Bosworth do a fine job, if a little imitative of Reeve and Kidder, and it is a shame they don't get more to do as Lois and Clark as their characters don't get the chance to display the spark and fun seen in the originals. John Ottman's score wisely includes William's themes, but he adds enough of his own memorable moments that are in keeping with these themes. Ultimately this forms a nice if imperfect trilogy with the Reeve classics.
