FFS, I was hoping they could make a decent sequel, but the Maze Runner: Scorch Trials reviews are all dire. The first film was solid as far as franchise starters go, especially for a YA adaptation.

I thought the first film was stupid and made little to no sense so the chances of me watching the 2nd were pretty slim anyway.

Yeah just got halfway through the first film and no one had done or said anything remotely interesting, so I gave up.

It was very much an introduction, but then that's exactly what I expected, personally. Apparently this new film purely exists to link to the next

Just finished the rather good Ex Machina.
Worth watching, perhaps the best thing I've seen in some time.
Beautifully shot, great casting and a good script. Enjoy.

Yip, self-contained, straight to the point too.

Straight Outta Compton - really good! 7/10

The first part of the Millenium Trilogy, "Infatuation" (that is the translation of the German title, I think the English title is "the girl with the dragon tattoo"? - how did they get from "the man who hated women" to either of those titles?).

I like the short, snappy titles in German, Verblendung (Infatuation), Verdammnis (Damnation or Perdition) and Vergebung (Forgiveness).

Anyway, the US remake of the first film, starring Daniel Craig. I managed to get through the first ten minutes of the film. They butchered the introduction so heavily, I just couldn't watch it. Funny, the first minute, with Vanger on the telephone to the retired policeman had me full of hope, then it just went downhill from there. Salander had already hacked Blomkvist's computer, something which happened much later. Her character reacts totally differently to the book, the whole solicitor scene is a Verarschung.

Jurassic World 3D

I thought I'd missed my chance to catch this on the big screen but online searching revealed one cinema in London showing this movie. It's very much along the lines of the first in the series with a new theme park opening on the site of the original one. In the intervening 20 years a lot has been learned about the management of the recreated dinosaurs but when you've got commercial pressures compelling you to come up with something bigger, better and more scary than humdrum old T Rex, something's going to go wrong somewhere.

I enjoyed this almost as much as the first movie and certainly more than parts two and three. However if you're familiar with any of these movies (and who isn't?) then there's not much new to see here in terms of story. The effects work is amazing and seeing Jurassic World in 3D was very impressive both for the dinosaurs coming out of the screen at you and for the depth you get in the jungle scenes as poorly-equipped soldiers head out to take down the new super-dinosaur.

The only times when the 3D was detrimental were when there were distant shots of the park or the landscape. There are a few sequences when helicopters fly above the trees and in them the helicopter looked like a small radio-controlled model green-screened onto jungle footage, an effect which would not be apparent in the 2D version. Likewise, swooping shots over the theme park showing thousands of visitors also looked like model shots in the same way as a Tilt and Shift effect does.

Overall though I enjoyed it and it was well worth watching in 3D.

As a movie 7/10, as a 3D experience, 9/10.

Age of Ultron - Watched this again last night. It's flaws are even more noticeable on the smaller screen. Some of the bad CGI sticks out like a sore thumb because your view's more focused. Compared to other Marvel films some of the dialogue is seriously clunky, as is some of the action. On the plus side, your brain takes in more of what the characters are actually saying sometimes instead of feeling overwhelmed by it all.

It really doesn't leave me feeling hopeful for Civil War, but I really want to be proved wrong.

Dartmoor Killing: 2/10.

Ok, so this film is obviously of local interest to me.
Dartmoor Killing: A review, with spoilers. If you're considering going to see it, I will not apologise for including them. I'm doing you a kindness.
Ok, so this isn't going to be kind, but it will be honest.
Perhaps I'll set my stall out from the start, that might be best.
If, through connections, luck, or hard work, you find yourself in a position to make a feature film I personally believe you have an absolute duty to everyone involved, and the audience, to make it as good as you possibly can.
And sure, things happen between the script and the theatre, there are edits and maybe performances may wobble.
But the backbone of any film has to be the script.
So, with that in mind, let's talk about Dartmoor Killing.
I'm all for supporting films made locally. There is, however, a large caveat with that - make it worth your audiences time.
If you can't do that, honestly, don't unpack the camera.
I've sat through 94 minutes of work that should've really been a 45 minute ITV drama at best.
As beautiful as Dartmoor is, and as lovingly photographed as it was, there's no excuse for your editor wasting time including shots of a focus pull across some granite. Or close ups of leaves blowing in the wind. We got the idea with the principal photography. These inserts do nothing but stretch out the time, because I honestly think you knew. You knew the story didn't fill the time. So now you're wasting mine.
Ok, so let's get back to the story for a moment. The entire film could've been wrapped up in the first 10 minutes. The premise is that two girls are lured to a remote Dartmoor farm to be killed in an act of revenge, at the hands of a lonely bloke who liked sex with his sister (because Game of Thrones? Incest is so edgy right now, right?). During a residential stay by a school, in the bunkhouse the kids were using. Our baddie's sister is stabbed to death, and apparently, for reasons never explained, the father was sent to jail despite him not being present at the scene of the crime. But that's ok, because he was let out due to ill health. Is that a thing with murderers by the way?
Anyway, if during the opening section our baddie had simply pushed the girls off the tor and made it look like an accident we'd be 84 minutes better off.
But no, he embarks on a convoluted plan that involves an incredibly awkwardly shot sex scene, some skinny dipping because you know, *reasons*, and a mad old father who's apparently suffering from dementia but is perfectly lucid beyond his introductory scene.
Also, if you're pushed into a bedroom by a bloke with a shotgun who appears to have murderous intent, I'm guessing 'just try and get some sleep' probably wouldn't be the first words out of your mouth. Literally nobody questions or challenges the villains motives; everyone seems to be happy to play along.
Ah, there's more things wrong than I can be bothered to type. If you made it this far, then kudos.
Bottom line is simply this: Peter Nicholson, you wasted an opportunity. You had the chance to make a film and squandered it on this script. And I personally find that immensely frustrating. That script shouldn't have made to the shooting floor. To complete a feature is indeed a challenge and well done for getting it made.
I just wonder if it was worth it.
As one of the characters said in the final act, "I just wish it was over", and right there, I finally felt empathy.

Right. Well, I have no idea why Nicolas Cage was in this film.
He pretty much just sleep walked through the whole thing.
None of his personality came out, none of his previuos exhuberance that he has displayed in pretty much every film he's ever been in was on display here. I can only assume it was a pay day gig, but I can't imagine he either A) got that much or B) needs the money.
The standout role in this film belonged to the main female lead (Lea Thompson). If she was in a better film, I suspect she'd do really well.
She did great here with what she was given, but the script was full of one-dimensional characters and some truly terrible dialogue.
There was so much wrong with this film, it's actually difficult to start naming them all.
I'd never not recommend a film, but there's really no need to watch this, not even for laughs - because there's none (well, one unintentional one, involving a light aircraft), and that break-in scene referred to in the article above? It's certainly not the worst of this film.

Mark

Lol, it's bad when Nic Cage seemingly knows he's in a stinker.

Your capacity for such a film is admirable mate.

I watch them so you don't have to.

Mark

The Martian.

Actually Quite Good. Obviously even a two hour film can't include the level of detail the book did, but it makes a pretty decent fist of it. The script is good, the acting uniformly excellent - props to Jessica Chastain and Matt Damon in particular - and it's a rattling good yarn pretty well told, with very few 'BUT SCIENCE SAYS THAT WOULDN"T HAPPEN' moments - there are a couple, but they whistle by so fast they don't jar too much.

I'd say possibly scores slightly lower than Gravity on the 'artistic cinema' scale, although there is one fantastic slow motion shot, but I'd say a more enjoyable film overall. It's also surprisingly funny, including one incredibly geeky joke that nevertheless doesn't seem at all out of place.

It is Hollywood and it does conform to the cliche's somewhat but like a bad joke from an old friend, you forgive it.

Jon