Killers Of The Flower Moon: Hours Of Your Life You Aren’t Getting Back

Summary

A long and pretentious trip to the cinema that leaves you with cramps.

I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this one, hell its up for best picture as I write this, but I just thought that this was a Scorsese film that just didn’t hit the way you would want it to. Maybe it is because I just found it quite hard to connect to I don’t know but I found this film to be a slog.

I think my main issue with this and the Irishman is that they feel so indulgent and yes you can make the argument he has been making masterpieces for a long time doesn’t he deserve a victory lap but I think if anything he is risking his legacy by making these projects. There was a lot of stuff in this film that could easily have been cut and it would have been just as good if not better, I think this film is done a disservice being as long as it is.

The performances are all fine, they aren’t bad it is just it feels like it is awards bait the whole film suffers from that and as such just isn’t fun to watch.

Overall, overly long and damaging to the legacy of a great director

2/5

Pros.

It has an interesting premise

Robert De Niro is good

Cons.

A lot of the performances and the film itself feels like awards bait

It is pretentious and self-indulgent

It is far too long

If you enjoyed this review, then please head over to my Patreon to support me, I offer personalized shoutouts, customised film recommendations to suit your personality and tastes, the ability for you to pick what I review next and full access to my Patreon exclusive game reviews. Check it out!

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Napoleon: Ridley Scott Gets His History From The History Channel

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

An origin story for Napoleon, Joaquin Phoenix.

So first off this film has nothing at all to do with history, literally nothing. It may take a few events and dates that actually happened but that is all, for the most part it is badly researched toss that never happened, so if you are considering this film for its historical merits go elsewhere.

Outside of that this film is a decidedly mixed bag. The battle scenes are visually impressive and the scale feels right, it feels like an epic. However, these sequences aren’t as long as you would like them to be and they don’t really show off Napoleon as the tactical genius he was really quite the opposite.

In terms of the rest of this film it is fixated on Napoleon’s relationship with his wife Josephine, Vanessa Kirby, at times you will forget you are watching a historical epic and think you are watching a period drama film instead. Both actors play their parts well perhaps Kirby even one ups Phoenix, but it is a weird choice to have Napoleon so emasculated in his own film, in many ways this film seems to go out of its way to make Napoleon look as weak as possible. Take this sequence for example, Napoleon has been away in Egypt fighting, and whilst gone Josephine has taken a lover, now when Napoleon hears of this he is furious as one would be but then when he gets back to France he is angry with her but still immediately takes her back and everything is fine, it is an odd choice for sure.

The questionable historical accuracy within this then makes the film almost come across as a historical hit piece on Napoleon and with that in mind you can see why the French don’t like this film, or some don’t, as this film takes one of their biggest historical figures and turns him into kind of a joke.

Overall, Ridley Scott misses again, maybe instead of taking so many interviews where he swears at those that don’t like his film he should crack a book it will save embarrassment like this.

2/5

Pros.

The battle scenes were good

Phoenix and Kirby both try their best

Cons.

The history is shot

It makes Napoleon look weak and pathetic

It is far, far too long

If you enjoyed this review, then please head over to my Patreon to support me, I offer personalized shoutouts, the ability for you to pick what I review next, bespoke film recommendation to fit you as a person and full access to my Patreon exclusive game reviews. Check it out!

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Air: Born In The USA

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A film about the making of the Air Jordan

If this film proves nothing else it proves that Ben Affleck is a hell of a director. Whilst I wouldn’t say this is perhaps to the same level as Argo I would say it was a very fun film that worked on pretty much every level.

I found more than enough to like about the plot to keep me engaged even though I am not interested in Basketball. The business aspects of the film felt almost like classic Sorkin, and I thought that the scenes between Damon’s character and Davis’ character wherein they discussed Jordan’s future with Nike were easily the best of the film.

In a lot of the more dialogue heavy scenes the terrific performances that Affleck is able to get out of his cast really come through. Not only were the previously mentioned Affleck, Damon and Davis great, but I also really liked Chris Tucker and Jason Bateman. Bateman in particular had a number of really strong dramatic scenes that connected with me emotionally, in particular his scene about how his daughter only wants to see him because he can give her shoes.

However, the feather in this film’s cap is its soundtrack. All of the Eighties hits that you could possibly want are featured here at every turn and it is glorious and helps the film to feel lively and keep you engaged.

My one complaint of the film would be that, as is so often the case, the pacing isn’t good. Like with many modern films this out stays its welcome and would have been a better film if it was shortened.

Overall, bar the pacing issues a great film and a directorial comeback for Affleck, though I personally liked Live By Night.

4/5

Pros.

The business scenes are really sharp

Everyone is bringing their A game

The soundtrack

The unexpected emotion

Cons.

The pacing issues

If you enjoyed this review, then please head over to my Patreon to support me, I offer personalized shoutouts, the ability for you to pick what I review next and full access to my Patreon exclusive game reviews. Check it out!

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Pinball The Man Who Saved The Game: An Unexpected Delight

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Telling the story of the man who overturned New York City’s ban on pinball.

I thought this was a tremendously fun film. I personally don’t really care at all about pinball, but this film had me rooting for the ban to be overturned. It is hard to put it into words but there is something special and winning about this film, it managed to play with my heart in a way I wasn’t expecting it to whilst also making me laugh every step of the way.

On the subject of comedy, I particularly enjoyed the meta jokes wherein the walls of the film where broken down and the narrator of the tale came in and addressed us directly. There was a good number of funny lines delivered by Mr Sharp, played by Dennis Boutsikaris, as he clashed with the wider team behind the scenes.

However, what I will say was the films strongest element was the story of Roger, played by Mike Faist [and playing within the narrative of the film a young version of Mr Sharp], and his relationship with Ellen, played by Crystal Reed, and her son, played by Christopher Convery. I think this is one of the best romantic pairings in a film I have seen in a long time and that both Faist and Reed have great chemistry together and that this is what anchors the film.

Overall, an unexpected treat which does what Tetris tried to do but bettered it.

4/5

Pros.

Faist

Boutsikaris

Reed

The humour and the heart

Cons.

It was a little rushed in places

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

A Field In England: Taking Drugs In A Field

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

An alchemist’s assistant, played by Reece Shearsmith , and a group of deserters try and navigate the battlefields of the English Civil War.

I like the films of Ben Wheatley for the most part even though sometimes they miss the mark. However, this film I think may be his worst and misses the mark by a large degree boiling down into pretentious nonsense that feels like the sort of thing a first year film student might make if they couldn’t decide on a narrative direction for their film and instead decided to throw everything at the wall.

This is clearly most experimental work but that isn’t a good thing as it makes the film feel far too art house for its own good, coming across as an effort in pretention. Additionally, this decision to be experimental means there are big sections of the narrative that make little to no sense and don’t really fit with the tone of the rest of the film, this doesn’t come across as some brave stylistic decision but rather a lack of ability to write narrative and an attempt to disguise lazy writing by being pretentious.

The only thing that really gripped me about this film is the occult focus which I enjoyed and which did deliver some good scares, we could have done with more of this and less silly art house nonsense.

Overall, Wheatley pushes the boundary into how art house he can be and still maintain audience interest and arguably goes too far.

2/5

Pros.

A few good scares

The occult stuff later into the film

Cons.

It is pretentious

Some sections of the film don’t fit

It has awful pacing

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Medieval: One Man’s Rise To Greatness

2.5/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A band of mercenaries become bound up in the future of Bohemia.

On the one hand I praise this film for telling a new and fresh tale, and one in which many outside of the area, myself included, would have probably never heard of. It is nice to see lesser known historical figures get their screen adaptions over yet another film about Robert The Bruce or some Wild West Outlaw.

However, on the other hand this film is a very cliched sort of historical epic and the way in which the story is told, and more importantly acted, is nothing to write home about and lacks any kind of freshness. Ben Foster is doing his best to try and hold things together, an argument could be made that they should have got a Czech actor to play a famous national figure, but they wanted the star power of Foster to try and boost the profile of the film I’d guess. Michael Caine and Matthew Goode, both have some good moments of scenery chewing, but are used far too infrequently to have any real impact.

Overall, watchable and fresh to a degree but sadly weighed down by epic genre cliches.

Pros.

Showing lesser known historical tales

It is watchable

Foster, Caine and Goode

Cons.

Pacing

It feels very cliched

Some of the cast are very underused

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

The Woman King: Revisionism

2/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

The story of an all-female warrior unit that fought to protect the Kingdom of Dahomey.

I thought this film was at times a slog to get through. I know that historical epics are often on for a long time and feel like a mammoth task to watch, but this film just seemed to never end. I think there are a lot of scenes which could have been cut from this film that would improve it and make the pacing better.

Moreover, I didn’t care for the historical revisionism that was in play within the film, with the fictious lead character, played by Viola Davis, trying to preach the evils of slavery to the King, played by John Boyega despite the fact that in real life Dahomey played a large role in the slave trade. To me this felt like the film was trying to virtue signal and rewrite history rather than deal with troublesome truths.

Additionally, a lot of the reviews I have read for this film praise its action, but I thought that the action actually looked quite bad. This can be seen to come down to two things, firstly that the sword hits never quite seemed to land and were often a few miles off, and secondly the choreography was just all over the place often challenging in baffling ways what people will believe to be realistic for a tale with real people not superheroes.

I would say the cast was a saving grace for the film. Lashana Lynch and Viola Davis both had a number of great moments and delivered instantly memorable performances. Both of their characters felt fully rounded and interesting to get to know.

Overall, a historical epic that has some interesting moments but mostly misses the mark

Pros

Davis

Lynch

Cons.

The fight scenes

The historical revisionism

The pacing

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Elvis: Tom Hank’s Worst Performance

3/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

An Elvis biopic featuring a career worst performance from Tom Hanks.

Who thought Tom Hanks character here was a good idea? Whoever that person is should be fired, being subjected to Hanks’ performance here is nothing short of cruel and unusual. From the horrible over the top accent, that moves around constantly, to the awful facial prosthetics that become hilariously distracting at times, Hanks is destined for a Razzie nomination for this one.

Moreover, though I enjoy Baz Luhrmann’s style to a degree it is too much here. With the awful pacing and frequent needless asides this reeks to me of a director who was given carte blanche over proceedings and decided to fully embrace their style to the detriment of the film more widely, sometimes it is good to reign in a director. Truly, I think the most egregious thing about this film is its runtime, which is frankly absurdly long.

On a more positive note, this film does include all of the classic Elvis numbers that many of you will be coming to this film to hear, and in that respect you will be happy for the film’s obscene runtime as it gives you a chance to hear more of them and even to hear some totally needless remixes of them as well.

In addition Austin Butler gives one hell of a performance and manages to salvage this film from being a total dumpster fire fueled on by an unchecked director. Butler really becomes lost in the role and by the midpoint in the film you almost entirely forget that he isn’t Elvis himself. To further push that point home, up against Hanks’ ghastly performance Butler looks like he should be winning next year’s Oscar.

Overall, a good time if you like Elvis, otherwise fairly mixed.

Pros.

Butler

You get to here all your old favourites

Quite a detailed look into the life of Elvis

Cons.

Hanks’ performance and everything about his character

The runtime

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Hairspray: John Travolta’s Finest Hour

2/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

A group of teens sing and dance to protest segregation.

This review might be controversial to some people, as in some circles Hairspray is a beloved classic up there with Grease, however I think this is far from true and that by having far too much on its plate this film becomes a mess.

Overstretching can be seen as the film does not just try and be a fun breezy musical, but also a socially conscious narrative that brings in topics such as racism and sizeism. The film struggles to develop all three of these aspects simultaneously and as such often neglects one or the other of them. Moreover, within the film’s first act there is a an incredibly awkward transitionary period where these racial themes are injected into the film and it diverts from being simply a silly musical, as the film takes this turn the whole narrative slows down and it feels as though the film you are watching has ended and a new one begun.

The songs aren’t anything special either, for the most part it just feels like you could be watching any musical and if you close your eyes it could even be Highschool Musical. They did very little for me.

Overall, seeing John Travolta sing and dance in a fat suit made it worth my time.

Pros.

It was watchable

Travolta

Cons.

The songs aren’t very good

The tone is inconsistent

It’s message is generic and has been said before

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer

Mothering Sunday: Prepare To Be Depressed

1/5

Written by Luke Barnes

Summary

Set in a post WWI Britain this film tells the tale of Jane, played by Odessa Young, a maid who falls in love with a wealthy man, played by Josh O’ Connor.

This film was fairly bleak across the board. With the amount of death and heartbreak in it one questions whether this is even a romance film, or whether it is simply a drama about the impacts of post war trauma and gilded cages. I was so depressed by the end of this film that I had to watch something happy and upbeat almost straight away, be warned.

Moreover, the film has a needless amount of nudity throughout. This goes in both directions and feels as though it has just been stuffed in to give a shock to the older market that would usually come out for this sort of fare. Rather than feeling daring, or perhaps subversive, this instead feels incredibly try hardy.

For positives I would say that this film is certainly watchable, Colin Firth and Olivia Colman both give strong performances even if they are only featured infrequently. However, The leads seem far too detached for most of the film, which makes it hard to care about either of them, or even the film itself at times.

Overall, I am curious who this was made for?

Pros.

It is watchable and Firth and Colman give good performances

Cons.

The excessive amount of nudity

It is depressing

It is hard to care about any of the characters

It is terribly paced

https://www.patreon.com/AnotherMillennialReviewer