Off the Cuff Reviews Dead Poets Society (1989)

There are some movies that you just know ahead of time what you'll think about them by the end. Those movies that are so integrated with pop culture that it's statistically anomalous for you to be one of the few who doesn't like them. I've reviewed such movies in the past: The Shining, Pulp Fiction, The Dark Knight, and so on. Dead Poets Society (1989) is another one of those movies, in that I'd heard enough references to and parodies of it that going into this movie wasn't going to be all that surprising. Or so I thought. Turns out, I knew far less about this movie than I thought, and I was really shocked by the end. I wouldn't say that this movie is better than any in the above list, as there are a few issues I found with this one, but all in all, this was a great movie. Starring Robin Williams as John Keating, Robert Sean Leonard as Neil Perry, Ethan Hawke as Todd Anderson, Josh Charles as Knox Overstreet and Gale Hansen as Charlie Dalton.

Dead Poets Society (1989)

I'm not going to lie: I was a little worried when the movie began. I was concerned this movie was going to adhere to the typical formula you see a lot in movies like these: a new thinker comes in to challenge the tired establishment, they get their knickers in a knot when he starts succeeding, they threaten to kick him out or discredit him, but all his students show their support and end up converting things from the old ways. And the fact that there were little elements of that story sprinkled throughout the first and second acts was all the more worrying. Because, whether or not this was the first movie to do that or not, that story is a little tired, and when it's not done well it can be overbearing and corny. I guessed the fact that said story was only sprinkled throughout should have put me at ease, since not only was it not the focus at all when it was in the movie, but they actually do a lot to divert from that formula. Normally the big focus would be on the new thinker, but in this case it's on the students. We see more of how his teachings affect his students than we do of how it shakes up the system, and I like that. It's a more personal story, which you know I love, and it's honestly a little more realistic. Of course, the result of which is there are a lot of stories the movie decides to tell, and it does jump around a lot. Some of these stories are consistently great, some of them are a little shakey in places. Not all of them are even fully resolved by the end, but in this instance, that's actually a strength of the movie. The focus isn't on whether or not these kids achieve what they set out to do; the fact that they're setting out in the first place is the point.

Robert Sean Leonard as Neil

The film does a great job of really showing us the impact Keating's teachings have on his students. I like that not all of them take to the philosophies right away and treat the whole thing as a joke. Hell, I like even more that by the end not all of them are won over. It's more realistic that way. The entire more feels so very realistic. Watching the classmates pal around with each other is so real, seeing their banter, the roles they play in their friendship circle. Neil is given a big focus for the most part, since he's the one who takes to the teachings right away. Robert Sean Leonard does an excellent job here, and he's just so damn likeable right from the start. How he tries to get Todd to come out of his shell and open up, but you can tell it's never malicious. The scene with the two of them talking about the desk set is honestly really great, and the dialogue throughout is fantastic. Todd himself is also handled really well, and Ethan Hawke is excellent in this role. With this character we see a lot more of the progression, and the build of this character arc is really nice. I love the scene with Todd having to stand up in front of the class and read a poem; it was such an effective way of showcasing Keating's philosophies. I like Knox as a character, but I felt parts of his story were a little... eesh. With him trying to win over the girl who's already in a relationship, bits of that storyline really haven't aged well. Bits are fine... charming, even. Others are a little off-putting.

Josh Charles as Knox

But, let me get straight to the point: Robin Williams is marvellous in this movie. I don't want to make this review all about him, but this is the first review I've done which features Robin Williams, so I'll say it here. I still remember exactly where I was when I found out Robin Williams had died. I was in a car, on my way home from uni with a friend, and we heard people on the radio talking about him. I was worried they were talking about him in a posthumous manner, and getting home to look it up confirmed my fears. I'm not going to act like everything the man did was perfect, but when he got it right, he got it really right. Everyone loves to talk about how funny he was, and, of course, he was. But I think it's important to mention how well he could deliver the heart when he needed to, as well. It would have been so easy for him to slip right back into his traditional stand-up style in a role like this. But he kept it grounded. He kept it pure. The way he was talking to his students; it was the perfect depiction of a wise teacher with unique and important philosophies to impart. And it's the best performance I've seen him give. It wasn't his funniest, or the one that gave him the biggest character to chew up, but it was real. It was filled with sentiment and passion and... Robin Williams. I'm getting a little nostalgic here, and I assure you, it's not affecting my opinions of the movie at all. I just think it's important to address stuff like this here in his most powerful movie I've seen. 'O Captain, my Captain' indeed.

Robin Williams as Mr. Keating

And I did say 'powerful'. Because, yeah, by the end of this movie things get heavy. It starts to deal with some dark subject matter, and I'm not going to lie, it did sort of spring up right out of nowhere. It was a little jarring, actually, and it initially didn't sit right with me, and not in the good way. It felt a little much, like the movie was trying a little too hard with itself. It didn't take me long to be won over, however, as I then saw why the movie waits so long for this 'third-act' twist: devoting too much time to this plot point would have been overkill. They let us see how it affects the characters, and it gives just enough time to each character for it to be impactful, and then they go straight into the plot ramifications. And, since not a lot could happen in a story like this after such an event, it doesn't take long for the movie to draw to a close after that. What we see in that short, maybe, 10 minutes, is enough. We see why Keating meant so much to these kids, and, thankfully, we also know enough not to blame Keating or assume his teachings to be incorrect. Then we get the emotional climax with the famous ending. And, yeah, it lands. It's touching. It didn't make my cry, or even shed a single tear, though I feel that's likely because I knew the reference and saw it coming. I don't hold that against the movie; even with what I knew it still hit me. I still feel like the big twist could have been a little better built up. When it happens, you're not even sure if it really happened or not, since it's such a dramatic turn to take. Although, I suppose that was the intention, so I don't know. In the end, it didn't bother me too much, and it made for a powerful ending, so I can look past it.

Ethan Hawke as Todd

Dead Poets Society (1989) truly is a must-watch. It's not perfect, there are a few things in it that aren't all that great, in fact. It is an important movie, however, in that not only does the good far outweigh the bad, but when it's good, it's a special kind of good. The kind of good that stays with you, the kind of good that almost teaches you something. The kind of good that truly is powerful cinema. 9/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Spotlight (2015)

I don't normally tend to focus on Oscar-bait movies. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's just because I never hear about them as much as I hear about the big blockbusters or the family movies, which are honestly more fun to focus on, especially leading up to a release. After watching today's movie, however, perhaps I should broaden my scope, as Spotlight (2015) proved to be an excellent movie that showed me a different side of cinema that I really should have exposed myself to a long time ago, for one simple reason that I'll get to in due time. Starring Mark Ruffalo as Michael Rezendes, Michael Keaton as Walter 'Robby' Robinson, Rachel McAdams as Sacha Pfeiffer, Liev Schreiber as Marty Baron, John Slattery as Ben Bradlee Jr., Brian d'Arcy James as Matt Carroll and Stanley Tucci as Mitchell Garabedian.

Spotlight (2015)

When retelling a true story on the big screen, it's important to find the right balance between fact and fiction. It's a movie, and it needs to be entertaining, so there are going to be discrepancies between what actually happened in any 'Based on a true story' movie, but finding the line is important, and that's very much based on what the content of the true story is. Telling the story of a never-ending game of Tag isn't quite as important to get right as the story of widespread paedophilia in Boston. This movie gets it about as accurate as I think it could have. Not that I know for sure, since I didn't live in Boston in the early 2000s, but everything seems like it was handled with care. Every aspect of this situation was looked at, every angle explored to some degree. The movie has a disclaimer at the end of the credits that certain names, timelines and characters were changed for the movie, and that seems to be the best way to go about it. It's also not like the movie is campaigning for one particular viewpoint over another. I mean, it obviously takes the stance that paedophilia is wrong, but it doesn't argue that religion or faith is inherently bad, and it doesn't showcase the press as a shining beacon of light when it comes to this issue either. More on that later, though.

Michael Keaton as Robby

What I think I probably love most about the way the movie presents this story is the escalation of it all. It runs at an absolutely perfect pace, and they drip-feed exactly the right amount of information about this issue to keep us engaged. Using the number of priests as an example, it starts out with just the one priest, which you obviously know is a big enough deal as it is. Then, over the course of the first act, the number rises to 2, then 3 then a potential fourth, so there's a small rise here. Then, we learn that the number is 13. That's a huge bombshell, and it's treated with the level of severity that it should be. This is a massive tonal shift for this story, and it goes from just a curiosity in the press to a must-tell story. And the great part is that it's still not done. When the number hits 13, you think to yourself how huge that number is and it couldn't possibly get any higher. Then it hits you with the likely probability that the number is closer to 90. If 13 was a bombshell, 90 is an atomic warhead. And it's not even the number of priests, since as you keep learning about more and more people who have been affected by the crisis and the story gets more and more warped and we learn the ways the church attempted to cover it up and how blatant everything is and... there's an awful lot here, let's put it that way. Learning all this information in one go would honestly be too much, and they do a good job of spacing it out over the two hours the movie has.

Rachel McAdams as Sacha

And we also see how each new piece of information affects the Spotlight team. It's weird to say, but I'm honestly glad we don't learn everything about their personal lives as the movie goes on; the story itself is what's important here, and it's too big to take time out to show a living situation or a parent relationship that probably would have been made up in the first place to add unnecessary drama. The focus is where it needs to be, and it's through the story that we get little bits and pieces of information about our main characters, and those little bits and pieces are really all we need. We learn about Sacha's relationship with her Nan, we learn about Matt's neighbourhood, we learn about Robby's past and we learn about Michael's strained homelife. The main cast do an excellent, if subdued, job in these roles, and the fact that the performances are subdued is once again fine. They're newspaper reporters, they don't need to be giving big grand speeches and emotional outbursts every five minutes; this is reality we're talking about here. When things do come to a head and they do get emotional, it's once again relating to the story and it all feels completely justified. Mark Ruffalo in particular delivers perhaps the best performance I've seen him give. His character was set up so well as someone who likes telling important stories, and his frustration by the end feels completely well built up given the information we learn about not just the scandal itself, but also the nature of the press.

Mark Ruffalo as Michael

Which brings me to what makes this movie so powerful: the story itself. This movie has shown me that if you find an important and fascinating story, that can be all you need. I don't know why it took this movie to teach me that; I'm a storyteller myself, after all, but it's the way this particular story is told here that really got to me. It showcases the power of the press, and how good journalism can change the world, but it also shows how ignorant journalism can cause more harm than good. I like the fact that the movie takes it's time to comment on how this scandal could have been told years ago and it might have saved lives; addressing that legitimately elevates this movie to something more, as a less intelligent movie would have idolised the Boston Globe and called it a day. And, of course, it's not just the journalism angle that makes this story so powerful. The fact that hundreds of officials in the Catholic Church in Boston were involved in paedophilia and no one knew about it would have been a compelling story in and of itself, but the fact that hundreds of officials in the Catholic Church in Boston were involved in paedophilia and everyone knew about it, or bits of it at the very least, is almost morbidly interesting. I haven't been this shaken by a story in a long time. And the fact that this isn't even 100% a work of fiction adds another layer, as evidenced by the movie's closing text. It lists cities in the United States which have had numerous problems with paedophilia in the Catholic Church over the years, and the list they give could have been enough. But, then they list the international cities. And, I expected to see Sydney on the list, at least based on what the movie told us, but to actually see Wollongong on that list was chilling. I was raised Catholic, and even though I'm not devout and don't really practice Catholicism anymore, I still consider myself Catholic on some level. Seeing the words 'Wollongong, Australia' shook me to my core, and not just because I assumed no one in America even knew about Wollongong. Of course, seeing how big the list was is terrifying enough, but to think that there could be people I know that have been directly affected by this sort of thing? That's why stories like these are worth telling, and when they're told right, they can change the world.

Stanley Tucci as Garabedian

Spotlight (2015) is absolutely told right, and is a movie that has affected me more than pretty much any movie I've reviewed for this page. It is a must watch, especially since the problems the movie addresses haven't really gone away. This movie won Best Picture in 2016. I whole-heartedly agree with that decision. 10/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Avengers: Endgame (2019)

I hate you, Marvel. I mean, it was absolutely the right call to keep the trailers for this movie as vague as possible, but you've left me with the absolutely Herculean task of attempting to review this movie without spoiling anything. And, there's a lot to spoil. I mean, a lot. More than any other Marvel Cinematic Universe movie before now. And it was all wonderful. Avengers: Endgame (2019) does good on its promise of drawing to a close the story that Marvel have been telling over the last 11 years. There is so much to talk about here. And I'm going to attempt to talk about as little as possible. Starring Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron Man, Chris Evans as Steve Rogers / Captain America, Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner, Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow, Jeremy Renner as Clint Barton / Hawkeye, Don Cheadle as James 'Rhodey' Rhodes / War Machine, Paul Rudd as Scott Lang / Ant-Man, Brie Larson as Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Danai Gurira as Okoye, Bradley Cooper as Rocket and Josh Brolin as Thanos.

Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Goddamn, did those trailers keep things vague. How many pieces of footage have been officially released, and everyone still had wildly different interpretations of the order of events and theories on how to solve the devastation of the Infinity War? I'll say this here: you think you know how this movie's going to go? You don't know shit. That's right, I didn't censor that one. I want you to know how serious I am about that. Now, you may have accurately guessed bits and pieces of it, but you're still largely wrong. I know I was. The strange thing about me saying that is the movie doesn't really take all that many twists and turns. Once the story well and truly begins, it's basically that. There are curveballs and bombshells, certainly, but none that deterred the Avengers from their goal overall, all things considered anyway. The movie is three hours long and it never bored me. Let that sink in. There was a point where I looked at my watch, thinking we were about halfway through. It was a third. There's a lot going on, and, admittedly, the opening scenes do feel a little front-loaded, but I don't hold that against the movie. It does the most it can with the time it has and that's commendable. You can see how strained I'm being trying to not spoil this thing, right? It's killing me. I want to be able to talk about specifics and how certain characters were handled and how the story affected certain people in certain ways, but I can't. I mean, I can, but I won't, because you deserve to go into this movie with as little information as I did.

Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye

I will give away little pieces of information about certain characters, but I feel these are all things that are made abundantly clear from the trailers, so it's safe to talk about these. First of all, the movie gives a great deal of focus to the original 6 Avengers from the first Avengers movie. That shouldn't be a surprise, and that certainly isn't to say the other remaining characters don't get a focus, because they do. They just know who to give the screentime to when, and for a majority of the movie, it's the original 6. Cap gets far more of a focus than he got in Infinity War, but, again, I feel like that was a given. This is also the best Hawkeye's ever been. Given the story, that should be obvious, since big things have happened, but I do feel like it's been building up to this since the start, much like a lot of things in this movie, for that matter. One last thing I'll say about the characters is that if you're going into this movie expecting to see a whole lot of Thanos, don't hold your breath. His movie was Infinity War; Endgame focuses on the Avengers. Again, that isn't to say Thanos gets nothing to do, or he's not still a powerful threat, because both of those are true. He still does a lot and he's still the biggest villain the Avengers have ever gone up against; his role is just a little different this time around.

Josh Brolin as Thanos

I usually don't talk about performances beyond an actor's first appearance, since the acting has been fairly consistent across the entire MCU, but I need to make a special case here, since this is an important chapter in this story. And, let me tell you, absolutely everyone is firing on full cylinders here. Downey, Evans, Hemsworth, Johansson, Renner, Rudd, Gillan, Cheadle, Ruffalo, Cooper, all of the above give their best performances in the MCU to date. We get to see a lot of these characters in situations they've never been in before, and it's always perfectly handled. One of the things I especially love is how they show the impact events have on people. How each character deals with the aftermath of the Decimation is important, and it was all well thought out and well performed. You can tell that an awful lot of thought and consideration was put into the script here, not just the story but the dialogue. When people talk, it feels natural. When people are at odds with each other, it feels deserved. I've mentioned this several times in the past, but the MCU is first-and-foremost character driven rather than plot driven, and nowhere is that more obvious and called for than in this movie. I will say that people going into this who might not be as familiar with the MCU as others may not get as much out of it, but they'll still enjoy themselves. I would normally mark a movie down for this, since it's not as accessible, but this movie was never shy about what it wanted to be. This is the final chapter to the saga that Marvel has been telling for 11 years. There are going to be references. There are going to be things that happen that do so because of something that happened in a previous movie. The great part about this is that it's never gratuitous or self-obsessed. Everything still happens for a reason, however fan-servicey it may be, and this balance is one of the most impressive things about this movie.

Paul Rudd as Ant-Man

The visuals are stunning also. That might seem like a weird way to begin the final paragraph, but I'm really just doing a quick recap of everything else I physically can talk about. Yeah, this is a good looking movie, and it goes beyond the characters and what they do. The way the movie is shot, the landscapes, the lighting, the mo-cap, the powers, the f***ing lighting, it's all superb. The soundtrack is also used really effectively, and it knows exactly when to use a familiar motif to bring out the fanboy in me. Uh... what else, what else... Okay, I know I have another half a paragraph to fill, but I can't do it. I can't talk any more about this movie. It's just too good, and I don't want to risk ruining anything for you. Seriously, this movie had it all. I was laughing, I was gasping, I was clutching my seat, I was tearing up, I was giddy... I was giddy. The movie had me jumping in my seat on occasions. The action scenes are absolutely amazing. Much like Infinity War, they know exactly how much to show of each character and which pairings, powers and match-ups we want to see and it's all amazing. Bits of it had me giggling like a little kid, bits of it had me sombre and truly feeling for the characters. And the best part of it all? It achieves all of this without disrespecting its audience. It would have been easy to retcon absolutely everything from Infinity War and call it a day. But they don't. There are stakes. Things matter. Things are different because this movie happened, and in big ways. The Marvel Cinematic Universe as you know it is no more. Moving forward? Who knows what we'll get. As for the story of the Infinity Stones, that 22 chapter tale has come to an end in the only way it could have. In the way that Marvel have clearly been building towards for 11 years. They kept saying they had a plan all this time. Guess what? They had a f***ing plan all this f***ing time. Take notes: this is how you build a legacy.

Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark and Chris Evans as Captain America

Avengers: Endgame (2019) is everything you think it will be and nothing you think it will be. A movie with this level of ambition really shouldn't pay off. It shouldn't have worked. Everything and everyone who worked on this movie made it work. This movie is absolutely deserving of the highest rating I can offer it. I cannot wait to sit down in a few months' time and watch all 22 chapters in this epic story all over again. This is the defining cinematic achievement of our generation, and I'm thrilled to be able to say they absolutely, definitively stuck the landing. That final chapter was easily the best. 10/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews George and the Dragon (2004)

I like going into movies like this with no expectations whatsoever. Especially with movies I've never heard of before, I've got no idea what to think of it going in. With something like Whiplash, I'd already heard bits and pieces about it and knew it would likely be great. So, when a movie like George and the Dragon (2004) rolls around and I know nothing about it beforehand and walk away having enjoyed myself, I know for sure the opinions are my own. Not that I'm easily influenced by what other people think of things; I can draw my own conclusions and have frequently gone against the masses. This seems to be the case here, as with a 47% Audience Rating on Rotten Tomatoes, I find myself in the minority once again. Starring James Purefoy as George, Piper Perabo as Princess Luna, Patrick Swayze as Garth and Michael Clarke Duncan as Tarik.

George and the Dragon (2004)

First off, I'm such a fan of stories told in the world of fantasy medieval England. I don't think I'll ever get tired of them. The way knights talk in these stories; I could listen to polite knights talk about honour and duty all day. And the dialogue in this is really strong. There's a lot of back-and-forth, some philosophy, all the stuff you'd expect, but it's all done really well. I will say that the majority of the movie is the stuff you'd expect, which some would see as a problem, since it can be very samey if you've seen a lot of these stories before. Most of the time, the stuff that you've seen before is done well enough that it either feels fresh or is at least good and entertaining, so there's that, though there are moments where the familiar tropes are just there to be the tropes and not add anything new, at which point it does become repetitive and, let's be honest, a little boring. That's not often, though, as for the most part, there's enough in this story that it feels fresh. What really is a nice touch is how they handle the princess character. She's not a damsel-in-distress, she's tough, she actually does things to service the story, she occasionally takes a moral high ground over the hero and it doesn't feel forced or contrived. It's refreshing, especially in a medieval England story, to see a princess character that isn't just a foil for the hero to rescue. It occasionally dips into that territory, at which point it loses me a little, but she's involved enough even then for me to forgive it somewhat.

Piper Perabo as Princess Luna

The entire cast of characters really feel strong. James Purefoy is a great lead for this story, and he's got the right balance of charm, heroism and even stubbornness to really make this role his own. I really like how he's not the knight-in-shining-armour that would otherwise be portrayed in a story like this. He has his fair share of heroic moments, but he's not in the right all the time. He goes on a journey throughout the movie, and comes out the other side a better person, not that he was a bad person to begin with, but he still has growth, and I like that. I mentioned Princess Luna earlier, and Piper Perabo does a great job in this role as well. A character like this could easily have come off as whiny or annoying, but a combination of the strength of the writing and Perabo's delivery stops that from happening. Her accent is also really good, which I only mention because I had no idea she was actually American until I looked her up afterwards. She can do a good English accent. So why were Patrick Swayze and Michael Clarke Duncan speaking in their regular American accents? Don't get me wrong, I liked both of them in their roles here, but why didn't they even attempt English accents? This movie is set right after the Crusades; the American accent was nowhere close to being invented by that point in history. It really kept taking me out the experience until about the halfway mark when I got used to it. Anyway, accents aside, Swayze plays a great prince and Duncan does a fine job as the best friend character. I always love it in movies like these when you can get a sense of the kinship and comradery between two friends right from the opening scene, and this absolutely sold me on that front. I got a sense of George and Tarik's friendship immediately, and Duncan had amazing chemistry with Purefoy. I only wish we got more of Duncan's character in the movie, as opposed to him sailing off right at the beginning.

James Purefoy as George and Michael Clarke Duncan as Tarik

The supporting cast also do a great job here. Bill Oddie is great as the barkeep, Bill Treacher is an excellent comic relief, Paul Freeman and Simon Callow have a commanding presence and dignity they bring to their roles which I adore. Caroline Carver did well acting across from Perabo and Joan Plowright was an excellent Mother Superior. Val Kilmer's even in this. Yes, Val Kilmer appears uncredited as El Cabillo, and he was really great in this role. There's not really a weak link in this cast, everyone does their jobs and does them well. What really stands out about this movie, however, are the fight scenes. Holy crap, these are so well choreographed; better than I was expecting actually. In that first big fight scene, when George and Garth are tossing the axe back-and-forth, I was so ridiculously entertained. And that final ambush on the keep was excellent. There were occasionally too many balls in the air for me to follow, but they did a good job keeping the focus. When it's down to that last fight and it's a 1v1v1, I have to admit, that was something I hadn't seen before and it was great to watch. Whoever choreographed these fight scenes, my hat is off to you. The majority of the movie may have been standard-to-good, but these fight scenes were amazing, and really saved the movie in the final act.

Val Kilmer as El Cabillo

Alright, now let's talk about what didn't work so well, and only now am I realising it's been a while since I've done this. I've gotten a lot better at structuring my reviews so I don't start the final paragraph with some variation of 'So here's what I didn't like', but it does feel necessary here. I mentioned that Patrick Swayze did a great job as the prince, and he did, but I felt the character's motivations were poorly defined. We never really get a sense of what his goals and ambitions are, which does become a problem by the end, since his character arc is the one that is easiest to predict, but without knowing why he's doing the things he's doing, it just feels rushed and bland. At about the halfway mark, you can basically predict every turn the character's going to take, but without really understanding why, which is a problem. Also, as much as I've gushed over the final fight scene, I am curious as to why every single side character had to show up to the battle. It just seems a little unnecessary, and there surely could have been other ways to get a crowd together to witness George's dragon conquest. And, finally, let's get to the elephant- er, dragon in the room: the CGI of the dragon. Look, usually if things look fake in a movie, I'm not too opposed to that if it still looks nice, and the dragon liked fine enough, but not to the point where it didn't stand out like a sore thumb whenever it was on screen. I get that it's low budget, but they surely could have made it look better than this. I mean, it's not terrible, it's just a little bad, especially when it's in the same frame as another human character.

Patrick Swayze as Garth

Overall, however, I really enjoyed my time with George and the Dragon (2004), and, yeah, I'd probably watch it again. It's got just the right amount of new material to keep from being stale, and what's familiar is mostly the good stuff, so do with that information what you will. Me? I liked it. Maybe you'll be in the 47% of people that like it too. 8/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Whiplash (2014)

This movie's had a pretty profound effect on me. I can't listen to my own typing right now without hearing drums. I know that's a pretty small effect to be considered 'profound', but overall, that's the best way I can describe this movie. Whiplash (2014) will stay with me for a long time now. I figured it might, based on what I'd heard about it, but I was still not prepared for what I'd witness. What an excellent f***ing movie. Starring Miles Teller as Andrew Neiman, J.K. Simmons as Terence Fletcher, Paul Reiser as Jim Neiman and Melissa Benoist as Nicole.

Whiplash (2014)

I'm finding it really hard what to say to fill the bulk of this review. I mean, it's not action heavy. It's not hilarious. It's not huge in scope. It's not feel-good. It's just the story of one man trying to become the best at his craft. And it's so. F***ing. Intense. This is absolutely the most intense movie I've ever seen where no one's life was in danger, and may even be the most intense movie I've ever seen full stop. This movie is proof that you don't have to have a huge, expansive plot to be compelling, heart-wrenching and suspenseful. In fact, the opposite is true. More often than not, a more focused story about one person is far more interesting, as is the case here. The movie really makes you feel for Andrew Neiman, and Miles Teller does an absolutely superb job in this role. He crushes it, and what I love about the character is how he wasn't this beacon of light that I thought he'd be. He's as flawed as anyone else, and he lets things get to him. His treatment of his family, deserved or not, is honestly pretty harsh, and I love it, because he's a real person. A less intelligent movie would have made him this infallible prodigy, but he's just a guy who has a lofty dream and is prepared to work ridiculously hard to achieve it. It's honestly more inspiring than just having him be a magic drum genius.

Miles Teller as Andrew

But, to the surprise of no one, Terence Fletcher is what makes this movie. This is such a compelling character. J.K. Simmons fully deserved the Oscar he won for this movie; he's amazing. Apparently, between takes he was the nicest guy on set, and based on interviews I've seen him in, I don't doubt that. I dread to imagine what it would have been like to work on that movie with a method actor playing Fletcher, especially since the entire movie was shot in 19 days. It would have been hell, but Simmons brought the character to life expertly and magnificently while still being pleasant and professional when the cameras weren't rolling and I love the man for it. It was jarring to watch his acceptance speech for the Oscar he won for this movie and how nice he was in that clip right after watching him play the most abusive, mean-spirited a**hole on Planet Earth. There was the abuse, the torment, the name-calling, but the most dangerous thing about him was how psychological his warfare was. The places he pushed Neiman throughout the movie, the relentlessness of his onslaught, and it took a visible toll on him, not just physically, but mentally. His treatment of Nicole is proof of this, and I'm glad that subplot was in the movie just to show how the abuse of this horrid man had a deep impact on Neiman that he would treat her like that. Also, Melissa Benoist is great in this role and I wanted to see more of her, but this wasn't the movie to show us her story, so let's move on.

Melissa Benoist as Nicole

Staying with Fletcher for a moment, something I absolutely loved is the moment about halfway through where we get to see him at his lowest. Something has had a deep impact on him, and the scene where he's talking about it to his band is honestly really moving. Of course, he's still being a dick here, and what we learn about the significance of this moment later is honestly pretty chilling, but it's moments like this that suck us in to Fletcher. When he's explaining his methodology later in the movie, you almost end up agreeing with him. It of course helps that the entire thing is expertly delivered by Simmons, but he almost wins you over. He very nearly gets you on his side. Then the final 10 minutes happens. And, holy s***, this was one of the best finales I've seen in a movie, no questions asked. I keep coming back to this, but it was so goddamn intense, and it was drumming. Just drumming, and I was on the edge of my seat for almost the entire movie, but especially when the final scene begins, that hit me hard. Right when I thought the movie was turning a corner with a 'story-book' ending, it hits you with the harsh reality of who Fletcher really is. And through all of it, there's still something about him that makes you really want Neiman to impress him and win him over. I honestly have no idea what it is, other than Simmons' performance. You cast any other actor on the planet in this role, and it's nowhere near as effective. That Oscar was rightfully his as soon as he was cast, and he's easily the best thing about this movie.

J.K. Simmons as Fletcher

I've talked a lot about Simmons, but there is a lot more here to contribute to what makes this film so gripping. Not only is well written, but it's exceptionally well directed. The close-ups, the pans, the sound mixing, I swear this is a psychological thriller in disguise. The way the music drowns out as Neiman starts feeling the pain, the quick pans between Neiman and Fletcher in the final showdown, that last 10 seconds; I know I'm focusing a lot on that final scene, but the entire movie built up to it almost effortlessly. Right from the opening shot, zooming down a long hallway to see Andrew at a drumkit; that's all you need. The movie never really goes into why he wants to be a drummer so much. Quite frankly, it doesn't need to. That's not what this story is about, which is weird given the entire f***ing thing is about drumming, but it's honestly not important. Another movie might have given us an explanation, but it's not necessary here. In fact, so much of this movie is not doing what other movies would do. Another movie might have done the tearful reconciliation between student and mentor, the father telling his son he's proud of him after all, the love interest showing up at the last minute to watch the show, we get none of that here, because the movie knows how unnecessary it all is. You don't need all these subplots, you don't need complex character motivations, you don't need any of it. The movie is first and foremost about Andrew Neiman, a young drummer who wants to be the best in the world, and Terence Fletcher, an a**hole teacher who wants to make Neiman really, really work for it. Anything else in this movie only works to service that story, and that story alone. I love how laser-focused it is, it's honestly really refreshing. And did I mention intense? And did I mention in-f***ing-credbile.

Paul Reiser as Jim

Whiplash (2014) is a masterpiece, and is easily the best thing I've seen so far this year. Is it the best thing I've seen altogether? I'd have to give it some thought. Is it top 10? Easily. Is it top 5? Maybe. Whatever it is, it's a feat of storytelling I will remember for a long, long time. 10/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

So, here we are at the MCU review I'll have to push personal bias aside for the most. Purely subjectively, this might be my favourite Marvel Cinematic Universe movie. I know there are problems, and I will be considering them for the purposes of this critical review, but all the stuff that's good here really speaks to me. Thor: Ragnarok (2017) is probably as close to a reboot as this franchise will get, and it does a fantastic job overall. Hey, just because I said I'd be objective doesn't make the movie bad. It's a really good movie. Great, even. Starring Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as Loki, Cate Blanchett as Hela, Idris Elba as Heimdall, Jeff Goldblum as Grandmaster, Tessa Thompson as Scrapper 142 / Valkyire, Karl Urban as Skurge, Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner / Hulk and Anthony Hopkins as Odin.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Alright, starting out, the visuals are insane. Drop dead gorgeous. There is so much to look at, so much variety, and it all looks stellar. Right from Surtur in the opening scene to the bright, pastel streets of Sakaar, and Asgard looks immaculate as always. I love how much colour is in this movie, and Taika Waititi does an excellent job in this regard. I know everyone likes to talk about his sense of humour, but his visual style shouldn't be overlooked. Stuff like the reverse crane shot through a mirrored floor; that's why you get the relatively more obscure directors for movies like these: they do the things big-budget directors might not. I was already a fan of his after Hunt for the Wilder-People was such a surprisingly amazing movie (and I'll get to that one at some point, don't worry), and this just made me fall in love with him. The soundtrack is also great, and I love how the orchestral themes we've come to expect from a movie like this blend with the 80s synth prevalent on Sakaar. Also, this film uses Immigrant Song flawlessly in my absolute favourite battle entrance in the entire MCU. It's so fun; it's a fun movie overall. A movie's first and foremost job is to entertain, especially a movie like this, and this is a damn entertaining movie. It never really stops, right from the moment it begins, the film moves along at a breakneck pace and doesn't really let up.

The action scenes are great, too. Any time Thor is in action, it's just so entertaining, but this film gives us a lot of variety with its Thor scenes. Taking away the hammer was a great idea since, as much as I love seeing him use it, it was starting to get a little old. Ramping up his lightning powers is more visually interesting, allows for more varied battle strategies and is just plain f***ing awesome. Also, the Thor vs Hulk fight is perfectly staged, and gives us a really great blend of action, suspense and comedy. And, finally, let's get this out of the way, the thing that absolutely everyone has said about this movie: it's funny. It's bloody hilarious. I've always made the case that Chris Hemsworth is at his best when he's being comedic, and this movie gives us the best showcase for that. Apparently a lot of this movie was improvised, and I wouldn't say that it shows, but it wouldn't surprise me. Basically everything out of Korg's mouth was fantastic, and a character like that was really unexpected in the first place, which just made it even funnier. I know it was a departure from the comics, in fact a lot of this movie goes against the comics and even Norse lore, but who cares? It's an adaptation. Any adaptation is going to take liberties, and this is far from egregious. The changes suit the style, tone and director better, and made for an entertaining movie and more unique MCU experience, so I see no reason to complain.

Taika Waititi as Korg

The cast are great here, too. A lot of them look like they're really having fun here, as they should be. I mentioned Chris Hemsworth already, and, yeah, he's great. I love how the Avengers have clearly rubbed off on him by now, as he's far less serious than he has been, but you've still got that aspect of the character there underneath, as well as the cocky warrior hero. All the different aspects of the character come together wonderfully. The Thor/Loki relationship continues to be strong, and it actually evolves more here, as there's more respect than there ever was from both sides. There's a great moment where Thor tells Loki he's accepted Loki will never be the brother he wants him to be, and that level of acceptance really hits Loki, as does Odin truly accepting him as his son. It's moments like that in this otherwise silly movie that really ground the film and give it the depth that makes it truly great. This is also the best Hulk's been. Years of no 'puny Banner' have turned him into sort of a toddler, and it's a great change of pace, and really impacts the Banner/Hulk dynamic moving forward, which is also really needed after so many movies. Even Dr. Strange's brief appearance at the beginning is great, as it shows us how far the character's come in his training since the end of his movie, which is something that helps us accept it when he's holding his own so much in Infinity War. 

Tom Hiddleston as Loki

As for new characters, they all do their jobs well enough, too. Tessa Thompson plays a great Valkyrie, and though I felt the character was a little flat at times, what we get of her backstory more than makes up for it, as it's compelling and beautiful to look at. Jeff Goldblum basically just plays himself, but it works for the character and the movie, and is still entertaining, so that's fine. Moving on to our villains, and Cate Blanchett plays Hela really well. I like how she really hams it up, and it helps to stand out from the silly antics that are going on elsewhere. I also love how powerful she is, as not only is she a true threat to Thor and Asgard, but it makes the extent of the ending all the more called for. That being said, I do find the scenes on Asgard that focus on her to drag a little. Seeing what we see of her backstory is really compelling, and is enough to stop me from calling her a 'bad' or even 'meh' villain. She's a good villain, she's just not a great one. I think it's also because she shares most of her scenes with Karl Urban, and you can see his character arc coming a mile away. I almost wish he had more scenes like his ones at the beginning of the movie before Hela arrives, since once she gets there, his role is to watch things happen begrudgingly until taking a stand right at the last minute. You know it's going to happen from the word 'go', and Karl Urban does a fine job, it's just not a compelling character. These are things I can look past for the most part, since the rest of the movie is so entertaining, but critically they are problems, and do stop me from giving this film the perfect score I selfishly think it deserves.

Cate Blanchett as Hela

However, Thor: Ragnarok (2017) is still a great movie, and easily the best movie in the Thor trilogy. I still consider this #1 on my personal, subjective list, and while it's not quite there critically speaking, it's pretty dang close. 9/10.

Next, it's the movie I'll try my best to review as spoiler-free as I possibly can but I promise nothing: it's Avengers: Endgame. Goddamn, I'm so excited for that one.

Off the Cuff Reviews Hop (2011)

Well, I've been trying to hit most of the major holidays this year, and today I get to tap into the well of Easter-themed movies. There weren't many to pick from, hence this choice. Illumination Entertainment's Hop (2011); a movie so boring I actually forgot I'd already seen it before until about two thirds of the way through. At some point it just clicked. "Wait a minute, I've seen this already, when I was babysitting my cousin several years ago." This, uh... this explains why there aren't many Easter-themed movies. Starring James Marsden as Fred O'Hare, Russell Brand as E.B., Kaley Cuoco as Sam O'Hare, Hank Azaria as Carlos, Gary Cole as Henry O'Hare, Hugh Laurie as Mr. Bunny and David Hasselhoff as himself.

Hop (2011)

Okay, where to begin? Honestly. I have no idea. Do I even need to explain why this movie is bad? Basically everyone who saw the trailers came to said conclusion. Who is this movie even for? I'm usually hesitant to call a movie a 'kid's film', since I legitimately enjoy a majority of movies I've seen that you could argue are made for kids. Admittedly, those are more 'family movies' than 'kid's movies'. The Lego Movie is made for families, but something like Barbie & the 12 Dancing Princesses is clearly for kids. This... it's difficult. Kids aren't going to appreciate James Marsden's story arc or the family dynamic, but families won't come to a uniform opinion on the bunny s***ing jelly beans. You do that, and you've lost the right to call yourself a family movie as far as I'm concerned, but there are a lot of things in here that will just go over kids' heads. Not in a clever kind of way, but a 'They won't understand this' kind of way. It's so confusing; it's a movie about an easter bunny who plays the drums, you don't have to appeal to multiple demographics here. But, of course, Illumination loves appealing to multiple demographics as that's what makes the big bucks. It works for Despicable Me, it doesn't work for jelly bean s***s.

Russell Brand as E.B.

The story isn't even really all that interesting, or, at least, what we see of it isn't. Can we please just retire the story of a magical creature entering the human world and coming across a down-on-his-luck guy. It's getting old. It is old. It's no mystery why, on iMDB, people who liked this movie also said they liked Alvin and the Chipmunks and The Smurfs. It's the exact same story, although I will admit, this is probably the better of the three movies. I don't know, this one does the most to subvert that particular story thread, though it doesn't do nearly enough and it could have done so much more. The chemistry between James Marsden and E.B. is not believable enough to sell the bond between the two. The main problem is how obnoxious and unlikeable E.B. is; the first two thirds of the movie is just him being selfish and ruining James Marsden's life for no reason. It's not charming, it's just annoying. But, then, with 31 minutes of the movie to go, James Marsden realises he wants to be the Easter Bunny, and this honestly should have been the plot the entire time. Yes, it's ridiculous, but it could have worked. Here's how you fix this movie: E.B. doesn't run away (in fact, it's debatable whether or not E.B. even needs to be in it), and instead, James Marsden runs into the actual Easter Bunny. They give the 'human Easter Bunny' thing a crack and that's the movie. You have the Easter Bunny training this guy to take over for whatever reason. You can still have the chicken coup, that's fine, in fact it's actually more appropriate here. The movie just decides in the third act that it needs a villain, even though we don't see Carlos really doing much of anything in the first hour other than pretending to be a bunny. That should have been Carlos' story: a chicken who wants to be a bunny would have played off James Marsden's character much better in my version of this story. You don't get any of the boring drumming scenes, David Hasselhoff doesn't need to be forced in here, and the family could actually be more involved. That dynamic was somewhat interesting, and could have been much better if it was given more of a focus, instead of playing backseat to Russell Brand the entire time.

James Marsden as Fred

Okay, let's talk about the acting, starting with Russell Brand. I... like him. I do. I like Russell Brand. He's not for everyone, but from what I've seen of him in various British panel shows, I like his style. It's unique and can be funny; I've seen it be really funny. It just doesn't translate here. It's so painfully obvious the entire time that it's Russell Brand's voice that you just can't take him seriously. In fact, when he's actually talking like Russell Brand would, it's actually a little funny. Again, probably not for everyone, but I chuckled occasionally. James Marsden does the best he can, bless him, but it's just not enough. He's charming enough, he's a believable lazy sod and he sells the situation as best he can; he's just let down by a bad script. He gets the most 'funny' moments in the entire movie, by far. 'Funny' is in air quotes, by the way, since the comedy could have been much, much better. Again, I chuckled in moments, and it was more than I though I would, but the fact that I can't really remember a single joke now is a little telling. The Pink Berets were funny, I'll give them that, and fittingly adorable, so there's that. Anyway, the rest of the acting is fine. Kaley Cuoco basically just plays Penny again, Gary Cole is your typical disappointed father, Hugh Laurie read his lines well, and Hank Azaria continues to get shafted by Hollywood. Nothing new in any of the above, so let's move on.

Kaley Cuoco as Sam

I've been putting off talking about the animation, because I'm a little conflicted about it. Whenever we're on Easter Island, the animation's great, and the beginning scene of watching the candy get prepared was actually really good, and got me in too good a mood for the rest of the movie to get progressively boring from there on out, but in general the animation was fine. When in Los Angeles, however, we get the biggest showcase for why the 'magical creature visits a real world city' trope needs to die: it just does not look good. The Smurfs, the Chipmunks, and now E.B.: not once did the illusion of animation convince me they were really there. In fact, having the bunny be animated and everything else be CGI just drew attention to it even more, as it always does. Why couldn't the entire thing have just been CG? They could have made James Marsden's slapstick moments much more comical instead of just cutting away, and they could have been more creative when it came to the magic of Easter. Why did they just have Santa's sleigh, but with a palette swap? Also, I say 'magic of Easter', but even though there is Easter magic here, it's hideously unclear what it is. Fred needs the magic of Easter to be an Easter bunny, but we never see what it does to him once he gets it. How does it make him better at being an Easter Bunny? Why didn't it turn him into a half-bunny like it did with Carlos? Why did the movie stop after he became an Easter Bunny even though that's the most interesting thing the movie did? Why was absolutely f***ing everyone in this movie so ridiculously calm at seeing a talking rabbit? These questions, and many more, are things the writers just didn't think about when making this movie, and just churned out a movie they hoped would please the masses and appeal to that rabid Easter-movie audience that definitely exists.

Hank Azaria as Carlos

Seriously, why is this movie? Hop (2011) is just a mess. I've definitely seen worse, but I've absolutely seen better. I'm tempted to give this movie points for no Minion-esque side characters, given the studio's reputation, but that shouldn't be a benchmark for quality. Do better, Illumination. Just... just do better. 3/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

With this review, I have covered every big screen Spider-Man adaptation that currently exists. Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, Shameik Moore, and now Tom Holland gets his turn as today I cover Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), the first Spider-Man movie I ever saw in cinemas and Peter Parker's first solo movie as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This one had a lot riding on its shoulders, and I'm relieved to say it delivered in a big way. Starring Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man, Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes / Vulture, Jon Favreau as Harold 'Happy' Hogan, Zendaya as Michelle 'MJ' Jones, Donald Glover as Aaron Davis, Jacob Batalon as Ned, Marisa Tomei as May Parker and Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron Man.

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

First off, let's talk about what this movie does differently than other Spider-Man adaptations we got before this one. Because this movie actually does quite a lot different than those that came before it. There's no scene where he gets bitten by a spider. Uncle Ben is nowhere to be seen, the Osbournes are non-existent, and I love all of those choices. We've seen it all before. You don't have to show us Batman's parents dying again, we get that it happened, so we can move on. And we know all the traditional Spider-Man stuff still happened in this world. It's all mentioned, either directly or indirectly, and the movie feels no worse off for their not being there. I also like some of the other, more subtle changes that differentiate things from Spider-Man adaptations we've seen already. I like that Flash is now a smug rich kid; that's just a far more accurate representation of what bullies are like today. It's not about brawn anymore, it's about status. I also love that there's no 'Peter embarrasses Flash' scene, since that would be really out of place here. Lastly, in this world of Avengers and aliens, I love how commonplace Spider-Man is treated. He's not this big neighbourhood icon or a local celebrity, he's just some guy in a mask giving directions to old ladies. In terms of where we're at in the MCU currently, it's probably the most realistic interpretation of Spider-Man we could have gotten.

Tom Holland as Spider-Man

Peter's journey is also really unique. Coming off the back of Civil War, having Peter fed up with his routine life while waiting for the next mission is a good idea, as well as his general tedium with being treated like a kid. He, of course, is a kid, which is something that shines in this story more than once. Tom Holland absolutely kills it in this movie, and he's really the only Peter Parker we've gotten that's nailed the dichotomy between nervous kid and wise-cracking hero. I also love his suit, and you can complain that it's too powerful, but that's the point. The whole idea of the movie is Peter figuring out who he is without the suit; it's not wonder the suit is overpowered initially only for it to be taken away later. To that effect, I was initially worried that the movie would focus too much on Tony Stark, but it really doesn't. He gets, maybe, 5 minutes of total screentime in the entire movie. Peter's drive to impress Tony is far more present in the movie than Tony actually is, and, again, it all feels completely natural. Tony really is Peter's 'Uncle Ben figure' in this universe, and having him at the forefront of Peter's mind more than he's actually in the movie is a good touch. Downey does an excellent job, as usual, and he has great chemistry with Holland. But, really, all the actors are great. Tomei, Batalon, Zendaya, Favreau, they're all excellent in their roles.

Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark

Like other MCU movies, this one merges another genre with the tropes of the classic superhero movie. In this case, it's a coming-of-age, high school story. The two genres blend almost effortlessly, and each work off the other in great ways. The comedy is abundant, as you'd expect, and there's not really a joke here that doesn't work. The humour comes from a typical MCU sense of humour, but there's a little more to it than that. At times it can get really dark, at times it can be really goofy, but it's the one-off throwaways that really stand out, like the school news bulletins or the Captain America PSAs or Donald Glover's throwaways. The man had 2 scenes and he killed it. The action scenes are also excellent, and we get a lot of really great Spider-Man set pieces here. There's a lot of scenes that feel like variations of classic Spider-Man situations, and they all do their jobs great. There's the chase scene, the elevator scene, the 'saving a crashing piece of public transport'... scene, they're all great. I don't think I'm ever going to get tired of watching Spider-Man do Spider-Man things. They found a winning combination with his powers way back in the original comics and I just keep wanting to watch it over and over again. I think, of all super-heroes, Spider-Man's powers look the most fun. In fact, that's another key word here: fun. The movie has fun with itself, it knows what it is, doesn't take itself too seriously, and yet still somehow nails the emotional beats.

Jacob Batalon as Ned

And, finally, the villain. Michael Keaton as the Vulture. This is one of the greatest Spider-Man villains ever put to screen. I love everything about this guy. The entire premise of this movie is showing what happens in everyday life in the world of the MCU, so having the villain initially be some white-collar guy sticking to petty crimes mostly is a unique one for sure. I've heard arguments that he's not actually a villain and just got dealt a raw hand. I don't know, once you start threatening little kids with their lives, you've kind of crossed a threshold there. And those scenes can get really intense. I almost find him more interesting when he's just Adrian Toomes. He's a threat as the Vulture, but he's legitimately threatening as Toomes. And Michael Keaton is the best thing about this movie. His intensity, his drive, his bounce from everyday guy to menacing murderer, it's all perfect. The scene in the car might be the scene that had me gripping my chair the most out of any MCU movie of them all. It was just such a surprise. I didn't see it coming, and for a movie that people went into saying the trailers spoiled too much to still surprise them is a huge feat. Honestly, guys, I really don't have any bad blood with this movie. It's honestly amazing. Is it my favourite Spider-Man movie of all time? Well, no, that distinction still goes to Into the Spider-Verse because how could it not. But there's no shame in a silver medal.

Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) thoroughly impressed me, and honestly was the movie that made me interested in going back and watching the other Spider-Man movies to begin with. Does it have little issues? Maybe here or there, but I can't think of any now, and they didn't affect the movie overall, so there's only one rating that feels appropriate. 10/10.

Next, it's Thor: Ragnarok.