lloydmorgan111222

'Mad Max: Fury Road' is a very entertaining action movie that has a lot of style to make up for its lack of substance.

This is mainly due to its visuals and action. The film is one of the most visually captivating I have seen in a while. A combination of great cinematography, fast pace editing and creative uses of colour kept my eyes fixed to the screen. For example, I liked how George Miller tried to sneak monochrome into this action blockbuster with the black and white bursts during lightning strikes and the blue-tinted monochrome during the nighttime scenes.

The first car chase in particular was extremely engaging. It is edited at such a fast pace that it accentuates the calmness of the moment after it. The fast paced action is accompanied by Junkie XL's score, which sets the mood and makes the film feel "epic."

I also liked that, despite this being given $150 million, Miller was still able to create a unique film. On top of the costumes and vehicles, idiosyncratic details like the morbidly obese man with the weird foot, the blindfolded guitarist and a scene involving a doctor (saying anything more about it would reveal an important plot point) help make this film feel like a creation instead of a product.

Although I like this film a lot, what's stopping me from loving it are the characters. They aren't as much of a problem for me as they were in 'Carol' or 'The Revenant' since those films were more character-driven while this film is more focused on action. However, the action does need to stop for the story and the moments in which the film takes a break would be more enjoyable if the characters were more fleshed out. Plus, the chase scenes would have been emotional and intense instead of just visually captivating.

The only other problems I have are that the acting could have been better and some of the dialogue felt dubbed. These are quite small in comparison to how impressive the visuals are and how entertaining the film is as a whole. Even if you are not a big action fan, you should see this film.

'Spotlight' is a good film but it doesn't go beyond just "good" because it is interesting but not very engaging.

The film adopts a straight-to-the-point approach to telling the story of The Boston Globe's investigation into the cover-up of multiple incidents of child abuse within the Catholic Church. This is a good way of recounting real life events but not the best way to make a film that engages and resonates with an audience.

The biggest problem I have with this approach is that it neglects the development of the characters. And I don't just mean character development, in which characters change or learn something over the course of a story. I mean characters that are well rounded and engaging in some way. None of the characters stood out to me. I missed most of their names so I just referred to them in my head by their actors' names. My lack of investment in the film made the ending feel anti-climatic. From a logical point of view, it isn't, but there was nothing really substantial to hook me in and feel the arc of the story.

The actors all do a fine job by their way. My favourite scenes were the ones in which the members of the Spotlight team interact with survivors of these abuse cases. The actors who played the two survivors (Neal Huff and Michael Cyril Creighton) were believable and made me invested in their scenes. It's possible that my lack of familiarity with them helped sell those scenes but they were well suited and made an impression either way.

In at least one review, the visual style has been compared to that of a TV drama, and I can understand why this comparison was made. Tom McCarthy's directorial decisions seem to be based mostly on capturing the actors instead of making the film more engrossing. The directing is still good, but it doesn't do anything to balance out the flat characters. The generic music that felt too bland for a theatrical feature also didn't help matters.

Overall, 'Spotlight' is a good film that stands out mostly due to its cast and subject matter. I wouldn't really recommend it unless you find the topic interesting or you already want to see this film.

You can read more of my reviews at: http://letterboxd.com/lloyd_morgan/films/reviews/

I'm not really sure what to make of 'The Revenant'. It has been a week since I saw the film but it sort of feels like a distant memory.

I definitely have respect for the film. You've heard this before but I have to say that the cinematography is pretty fantastic. I was never in awe at its beauty but it pretty much captured the perfect look for the film. I can't help but feel that it looks "correct". The long takes and hand-held shots are also pretty impressive. The acting is great all round. Pretty much every actor does an impressive job in the roles that they are well suited for.

However, I wasn't really that engaged. I wasn't bored out of my mind either, but the great craftsmanship can only go so far. The characters aren't very interesting or relatable. This is especially a problem for Hugh Glass. He didn't feel like much of a person, which meant I couldn't feel his desperation or the brutality of the more violent or gory parts of the film. I will admit that there were a couple of moments where I looked away from the screen to see who in the cinema was talking. I'm pretty sure I missed one of the dream/flashback montages earlier on in the film because of this, which could have resulted in me not caring much about the character, but I still feel that we didn't learn much about the character throughout the rest of the film.

Overall, 'The Revenant' is a bit of a disappointment. It is a technical wonder but there was too much focus on making it look real and not enough focus on laying down the foundations that would make it actually feel real.

(In case you're wondering what happened to the people in the cinema talking, it got the point where I had to shush them. One of them glanced over at me as if I was being rude and they left a few minutes later.)