MrHlad

I like Judd Apatow's films, but almost all of them have a problem with the running time and should be about half an hour shorter. And that’s especially a problem with Trainwreck, because following an hour and a half of thumbs of self-absorbed cow who's been carrying around a bunch of traumas since childhood and blaming them on everyone around her just isn't fun. Sure, it all turns into a Hollywood romantic cliché towards the end, but thanks for it. I'd rather have that cliché than thirty extra minutes with this woman. Amy Schumer should keep doing stand-up, where I can ignore her there much easier than if she tries acting or screenwriting.

Peter Hyams didn't always make silly movies like A Sound of Thunder, and he did make some interesting stuff in the seventies and eighties. Outland may have aged and the first half is too dull and talky, but design of the base is great, even Aliens would like it, it has a thrilling conclusion, a charismatic Sean Connery and a great Frances Sternhagen. Because who needs a sexy babe to have the hero's back when you can have a chattering cynical 50-something with a penchant for alcoholism?

Meh The Fifth Terminator pretty much disappoints in pretty much everything. Arnold is pushed to the background at the expense of Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese's story, which admittedly isn't very compelling, nor are the two actors. The script makes virtually no sense and the paradoxes and problems associated with time travel are all openly disregarded, and when it stops playing on a nostalgic note after half an hour, it ends up being a generic action sci-fi flick that relies more on quantity than quality. There's plenty of action, but it is usually no more than average, and at some points they go way too over-the-top (the helicopter chase was something truly terrifying). The film plays second league in all aspects and hopes to bludgeon you with references, Arnold, and lots of explosions, shootouts, and fights. And it doesn't quite work. The result is a more or less uninteresting hundred and fifty million action sci-fi flick where there's always something going on, but you probably won't be entirely sure you're enjoying it. Not enough for Terminator, but speaking for myself, I'm not too surprised.

I kept telling myself the whole time I'd much rather read it, because as a movie this is pretty boring. Mainly because Libby is basically an asshole and I more or less didn't care what happened to her thirty years ago. The actors are great without exception, but when the whole thing is incredibly drawn out, long and cold, it can't be enough. Gilles Paquet-Brenner can't build tension, though there are obviously moments when he could and when it probably worked in the book (the scenes with the father), but from the halfway point on I was more or less just waiting for it to end to see if there was some major twist that would make the previous hour of tedium look brilliant. I didn't notice any.

For a while it looks like a slightly bitter comedy about a middle-aged guy with ordinary problems, then like a crap variation on Eurotrip full of cheap and not very well-functioning profanity and tired jokes. Vince Vaughn plays the same character he's been playing for the last decade, Tom Wilkinson clearly doesn't want to be in front of the camera much, and Dave Franco is a moron. I was quite a fan of the Ken Scott/Vince Vaughn duo after the cool Delivery Man, but this is a severe borefest.

I love these intimate sci-fi and dialogue pieces. Time Lapse is not without its flaws, but the two decent actors, the great music, the interesting idea and the pleasantly disturbing atmosphere were actually enough to satisfy me. Still, this science fiction variation on Shallow Grave would probably have been better suited to a forty-minute format, as it was often apparent that Bradley King sometimes didn't know what to do with it all and didn't have enough ideas to entertain for an hour and three-quarters. Definitely good for a feature debut, though, and I'll be on the lookout for the director's next projects.

A generic spy caper with a 90s flavour, and I don't mean that in a good way. Survivor wants to be a variation on Bourne or The Fugitive, but it has too many weird coincidences for that, an extremely inept villain, and a heroine who survives not by intelligence and her abilities, but by dumb luck and the art of scratching her opponents' eyes out. That Milla Jovovich and James McTeigue are stooges I more or less knew, and I give Pierce Brosnan two more films like this and rank him right up there with them. Survivor is closer to the new Steven Seagal movies than it is to quality action thrillers.

As a detective drama, it's pretty lousy; as a psychological drama about people who have to live a lie and can't even rely on their loved ones, and risk jail or a bullet in any attempt to leave the system, it's surprisingly fine. But the running time is excessive anyway.

Rough, smart, well-written, well-directed, surprising and incredibly funny. I really wouldn't have expected any of those adjectives in a Melissa McCarthy movie a week ago, and while there are a few weak spots and some of the jokes don't quite hit the mark, the funny ones are still significantly more. And Jason Statham is absolutely awesome!

If I have to sit in the cinema for almost two and a quarter hours for a story with boring characters, boring twists and an ending that doesn't make much sense, it would be nice if there was at least something to watch. But there's only about fifteen minutes of Tomorrowland in total. The rest of it is mostly driving an old car around the countryside and babbling about nothing. This was probably meant to be a family film for everyone, but nobody will like it.