sean-ramsden

Maybe it's not the most appropriate to suggest that a film with 'men' in the title was a much better discussion based film than Women Talking. Sure, they're both different films on different topics so maybe they shouldn't be compared, but I think they should so that you can see why one is a classic and the other will be forgotten.

I must say I did still like this film, but that's because it would be a great stage play. It was interesting to hear the discussion and to learn of what had been going on in this place, and I did want to find out what their final decision was going to be from their discussions. However, it didn't tell us enough. We have a very brief scene of exposition at the beginning though even that lacks all the necessary information. Women Talking would be a great documentary, and if it was then it would be told in parts, giving the audience one piece of information at a time and exploring the people involved. However, Women Talking gives us all the information we need straight away which leaves us with only one question we want answered throughout the entire film. Audiences need much more than that to keep them interested. Also, we knew very little about the characters, they had no introduction. We know as much about the women as we do from reading the seven dwarfs names. Clair Foy is vicious, Jessie Buckley is angry, Rooney Mara is calm etc. '12 Angry Men' also doesn't give us too much character information, however, their discussion isn't regarding themselves, it is about whether someone else committed a crime; the Women Talking discussion is regarding the women who are talking and so we had to feel a connection with them but unfortunately we did not.

The film is no rollercoaster ride at all, unless that rollercoaster is one that goes in a straight line for almost 2 hours with two 1-foot dips at the beginning and end. Sarah Polley's direction didn't do too much to keep us visually interested either. Most of the film was set in a dark barn and the colours had almost evaporated.

Again, although I have pointed out a lot of bad points from the film I did still find the movie interesting to watch and listen to. Can't really believe that it was nominated for the best picture Oscar though.

This is a good film with an outstanding performance from Austin Butler as Elvis. The scenes in which Elvis takes the stage are the most captivating, mostly due to the exciting camera work and editing along with Butler's almost perfect portrayal of the King of Rock and Roll.

The downfall of this film is that it tries to tell too much. It is already almost 3 hours long, but if they wanted to tell us all this information then the movie needed to be almost 4 hours. It is full of montages. 20 minutes in and I wasn't sure that a single scene had been played out, it was all snippets of moments including an unnecessary narrator in Presley's manager played by Tom Hanks. So many montages unfortunately led to a lack of focus in the scenes that the movie did pay attention to. I wasn't always sure how these characters got to this point or why it was so significant for them.

Altogether, I enjoyed Elvis. The accuracy to the production design, costumes, and makeup is amazing to witness. Butler's final scene had me in awe, I wasn't sure whether the film had cut to real archive footage or not. Elvis fans will love it. Movie fans find some faults.

Indy Jones number 2 arrived in 1984 after the huge success of its first movie. I liked Raiders of the Lost Ark but my criticism was that all the characters are very 1-dimensional, they lack depth and because of this I struggled to feel any attachment to the story. Temple of Doom seems to have understood this by being fully aware of the flat characters and outdated view of women it has created. It's as though the film is laughing at itself for this matter, and so we laugh with it. Temple of Doom is my favourite of the Indiana Jones franchise because it completely acknowledges its ridiculousness and because of the inclusion of the lovable Short Round! Kate Capshaw plays the perfect ditzy blonde. It isn't an unbelievably laugh out loud hilarious performance, but her habitual goofy behaviour is ideal for this adventure. The film gets going straight away as Capshaw fabulously comes out of a dragon's mouth to the tune of 'Anything Goes'; already we know we're in for a fun ride! Then just like the other movies we get going straight away and there is a constant flow throughout. Temple of Doom does have its dark moments, but the absurdity of it makes it comical instead of horrific.

There's no time wasting in telling us that this is an Indy Jones movie. Not only do we get the familiar Paramount logo fade in, but Spielberg and cinematographer Douglas Slocombe also bring us back to the camerawork of the first film. While Jones and his enemy slide each other treasure across the table, the camera follows the transactions without breaking shot. This is a brilliant and obvious call back to the notable scene where Karen Allen's Marion out-drinks her drunk contender.

Many critics said Raiders was like an e-ticket ride to a theme park rollercoaster, and I didn't come away from the movie feeling like I discovered any more than a great theme park ride. This is captured perfectly with the mine cart chase, almost a literal rollercoaster. In fact, there is one in Disneyland. Set pieces like this are synonymous with Indiana Jones movies and Temple of Doom is filled with them and I cannot see how anyone could get bored.

Overall, this is the ultimate Indiana Jones movie for me because of its self-awareness to what it is doing. It's made to be a crazy, comical rollercoaster ride waiting for us to step in.