1917 is shockingly good. It’s easily the best war movie in recent memory, even though it follows almost none of the conventional war movie tropes or cliches. This movie is incredibly unique in more ways than one. It features very innovative cinematography, some unbelievable scenes, and, despite the fact that this is technically a war movie, the main character, Schofield, only ever fires his gun nine times.

1917 takes place in World War I, and it follows two British soldiers tasked with delivering an urgent message to call of an attack. If they fail to deliver the message, the attack will go through, and come across a German trap, killing thousands of British soldiers.

I absolutely love this movie. And it has some marvelous scenes. In particular, at the end, there’s an amazing scene where the main character, Schofield, has to run in front of a British trench, in no-mans-land, while a charge is occurring. The music, as well as the pure “epicness” for lack of a better word in this scene is utterly incredible. I actually felt chills during this scene. Another great scene happens after Schofield has just outran some Germans by jumping into a river, he comes across a British unit, listening to a lone soldier singing “Wayfaring Stranger.” This scene is incredible, and offers relief and rest to both Schofield, and the audience, as up until this point there has been essentially nonstop tension.

However, despite 1917’s incredible use of tension in some scenes, the movie overall is paced slowly. I actually quite liked this, as it offered relief in between moments of action. However, this may turn off fans of more “Gung-ho” war movies like Fury or faster paced movies like that. 1917 is also unique among war movies in that it doesn’t glorify or hallow it whatsoever. If anything, 1917 tries to elicit the futility and horrors of war. It doesn’t always show the good guys winning. It shows some truly horrifying depictions of war. And in some scenes, it humanizes the enemy by having the main character get so close to them.

Another interesting thing 1917 does is it’s cinematography. The whole movie is presented as a single shot. Although they did do cuts, they stitched it together to make it look like it’s a single take to the audience. But even when filming, they took some incredibly long takes. The average shot in cinema today is about 2.5 seconds. 1917 took one take that was 8 and a half minutes.

All in all, if you can handle a movie that’s a little slow, and you enjoy war movies, 1917 is perfect. This is an incredible film, and probably the best war movie of the 21st century, at least so far.

I liked this movie a lot more than I thought I would. Although The Last Samurai seems like it’s just Dances with Wolves starring Tom Cruise, it actually somewhat breaks free from other “white savior” movie tropes such as those found in avatar. The film follows an American army captain named Nathan who is hired to train a newly formed Japanese army to combat the samurai during the Meiji restoration. However, over time he starts to sympathize with the samurai, and eventually joins them.

For the most part the acting in this movie is fine, there’s really nothing particularly standout or amazing, but it’s acceptable. The main things that stand out in this movie is the armor, weapons, and combat overall. The combat in particular at times, is surprisingly good, and at other times ridiculous. There are some training scenes, where they use realistic parries and winds, deflecting the opponents blades, rather than blocking them. With a katana, this is very important, as one can damage or even break a katana very easily by simply blocking using brute force. The movie gets that right, and that should be commended. However, they also show katanas cutting through lacquered plates, and fire arrows, both of which are impossible.

The main thing that’s inaccurate about this movie, in a historical sense, is that it shows the samurai as being stark traditionalists. Refusing to use firearms or any modern weapons, and instead opting to arm themselves with only swords and bows. It also implies that’s the samurai rebelled for altruistic reasons, wanting Japan to remain more conservative and grounded in tradition. In reality, the samurai of the satsuma rebellion did rebel using firearms, and the reason they rebelled was because they were losing privileges they traditionally had that were not present in western societies. However, this change is understandable for dramatic effect.

The script is overall fairly predictable, but it does break free of “white savior” tropes in one interesting way. Unlike a movie like Avatar, Nathan knows the samurai cause is a lost one from the beginning, this makes his decision to fight and die with them much more powerful and dramatic. Sadly, the movie figuratively shoots itself in the foot a scene later. The last samurai spends a lot of it’s time establishing that the samurai will die down to the last man, and they even have Nathan get shot three times with a Gatling gun. However, in literally the next scene he is fine, and instead presenting a sword to the emperor. By establishing that a main character will die throughout your movie, and then having said main character survive, you don’t subvert expectations, you undermine your entire film.

Despite my thought about the ending, I liked the Last Samurai. It’s portrayal of the Meiji restoration isn’t egregious, and the combat is fun to watch. I would recommend it for those looking for a fun, dumb, sword fighting flick

Apocalypto is a 2006 movie directed by Mel Gibson. It takes place in an unspecified time in Mayan history, although strangely, it has both the cities of the classical era, and the conquistadors arriving at the end, which is a huge in accuracy, as those events are 600 years apart. Apocalypto basically feels like a Mayan version of Die Hard. It follows a villager named Jaguar’s Paw, who is the sole survivor of a Mayan attack on his village, and must consequently evade his pursuers through the jungle.

This is a very unique movie. It tried to present a historically accurate experience, and it succeeds in some aspects, but fails in others. In the movie, they actually speak the correct Yucatan dialogue, however, the movie also implies that the Mayan empire will end very soon after the Spanish arrive, when in reality, if the Spanish had just arrived like the movie shows, then it would’ve taken almost 200 years for the Mayans to fall.

Historical nitpicking aside, this movie is ok. It’s very entertaining to watch, and it has some great scenes, but the movie just lacks anything beyond some surface level entertainment. Still, it’s a fun, if not brutal at times, movie to watch. There are some very unique scenes, such as depictions of the Mayan religion, and the human sacrifice that comes with it.

But beyond the uniqueness of the setting and the brutality that this movie exhibits, there really isn’t anything. Ironically, It takes a lot of risks with it’s setting, but basically none with it’s script. Once you remove the Mayan layer of paint on this movie, it’s just a standard man vs everyone film, and that’s probably this movie’s greatest weakness.

Despite that, I still liked Apocalypto. It’s a fun movie to watch, if you can handle some of the intense scenes. If you’re interested in history, and don’t mind movie depictions not always being accurate, then I’d recommend apocalypto.

The Town is a 2010 movie directed by Ben Affleck, who I am normally not a fan of at all as an actor or a person. However, both him, and this movie, are surprisingly good. The movie is about a group of professional bank robbers in the city of Charlestown. After a bank robbery, the leader and mastermind of the group, Doug, begins dating one of their ex-hostages, while at the same time being roped in by the mob to carry out even more robberies.

The Town feels like a combination of The Departed, and Heat, both of which are absolutely incredible films. It takes the high tech realistic bank robberies from Heat, and places them in the setting with the mob from The Departed. This turns out surprisingly well, particularly with the setting of Charlestown. The world building is very good in this movie. Charlestown feels very poor, seedy, and the perfect place for a crime group to operate in. Sadly, with the exception of Ben Affleck’s character Doug and the hostage Claire, the rest of the characters feel very one dimensional. Jeremy Renner is the only other character with personality, but sadly that personality is just angry all the time. Still, he at least has a climactic death. Similarly, the FBI agent played by John Hamm that’s pursuing them really isn’t given any characterization. In Heat, which this movie is clearly basing itself off of, the cop pursuing the bank robbers is given an entire domestic life, and is a very interesting character because of it.

The action is good overall in this movie, if not a little inconsistent. In the ending shootout, one of the robbers is hit in the chest by a rifle and is knocked to the floor. However he survives because he was wearing a vest. But Later In The shootout, another robber is hit twice in his vest and completely shrugs it off like nothing happened. This is really the only goof or misstep with the action that I can think of however, and it’s pretty solid overall.

The plot is fairly average as far as robber movies go. The only real unique things are the setting of Charlestown, and the relationship between the ex-hostage Claire, and the leader of the group Doug. The movie utilizes both of these very well however, and it gives it a very interesting tone overall. The plot isn’t as complex as The Departed, but still, it works.

The Town is an above average bank robber movie. It’s fun to watch, even though it is maybe a little too long. I’d definitely recommend it, especially to fans of The Departed and Heat.

Swiss Army Man is a very unique film, and also one that I am conflicted on. It features great acting, some incredibly interesting ideas, and good chemistry between the leads. However, it’s really held back by it’s desire to be ponderous and pretentious.

This movie is about a man named Hank stuck on a deserted island. One day, just before he is about to hang himself, a dead body washes up on his shore. Upon closer inspection he realizes the dead body (played be Daniel Radcliffe) has strange powers, such as being used as a jet ski, an oxygen tank, a lighter, or even a machine gun. Later in the movie, the dead body, named Manny, also begins to talk. Using Manny, Hank tries to get back to civilization.

Let’s start with what’s good about this movie. For starters, the acting. Both leads are very good. Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe really come across as being buddies with each other. It’s one of this movie’s greatest assets, as the chemistry between them is exceptional and really holds the entire experience together. Some of the ideas featured in this movie are also very unique and original. Some of Manny’s powers are genuinely funny and interesting to watch. Particularly the grappling hook by pulling on his arm, or the lighter by snapping his fingers together. If this movie was purely a comedy, I think it would’ve been really great. But unfortunately, it also tries to be a social commentary on societal norms.

Throughout the movie, Manny constantly asks questions about love, and what’s considered weird by society. The movie seems to be trying to say that we should all shed our societal norms about what’s considered weird or rude. Now, having a message in a movie isn’t a bad thing at all. But, this movie has some of the most pretentious speeches since “Mr. Nobody” with Jared Leto. They’re also constantly happening throughout the movie, and frankly it gets annoying after a while. If Swiss Army Man could maybe be less blunt and in-your-face about its delivery of this message, it could’ve been a really good movie. Because the potential is absolutely there with this film, but the pretentiousness really holds it back.

I see why some people like this film so much. And I would recommend watching it as it’s entertaining at points, and I liked it overall. But still, this movie could’ve been so much better if it could get over itself and stop trying to talk about life so much.

Recently, I discussed this movie with my friend Augustus on our new podcast, Cinemix. However, I also want to post a review on this movie, because it’s kind of underrated and I think it deserves more attention.

Interstellar takes place in the near future, when humanity is undergoing a blight on crops that is essentially killing off the human race. In order to find a new planet for humanity to settle, an ex-pilot named Cooper must travel to a new galaxy with his crew on their ship, the endurance. The plot gets much more complicated as the movie goes on, and I don’t want to spoil it so that’s as much as I’ll say.

Interstellar is not a perfect movie. There are some absolutely incredible moments. One example is when cooper goes to a planet where he only ages by an hour, but everyone else ages by 24 years. When he gets back to ship, he opens 20 years of audio messages from his children and breaks down crying. The acting in this scene is marvelous, and the audience feels like crying. But on the opposite end of the spectrum, another astronaut gives a dumb speech about how “love is quantifiable,” and it makes me question this movie’s script. Interstellar has some dumb moments like these, where it’s ambition is bigger than is good for it, but overall, these don’t detract from the movie.

At the core of Interstellar is the relationship between Cooper and his daughter Murph. He leaves her to go into space and find a new home planet, and on earth, Murph tries to figure out a way to transport the planet’s population to the new home world. Even though these characters don’t see each other for most of their lives, their relationship is very well done, and leads to many emotional moments, that could’ve felt forced in other movies, but thankfully don’t in Interstellar. That’s another thing with this movie that I really like. With a few exceptions (the aforementioned “love is quantifiable” speech,) it never gets ponderous or pretentious, and the emotional moments that it does have, feel very natural. However, not all characters get the sam treatment. Besides Cooper, Murph, and Cooper’s astronaut companion Brand, literally nobody else in this movie is given any characterization. Cooper has a son, who he basically just forgets about, and there are two other astronauts that are killed off, and I can’t even remember their names. You’re telling me, that in an almost three hour long movie, you can’t give a single scene about Wes Bentley’s character before he dies?

This brings me to Interstellar’s biggest problem, and why I think it receives so little attention from general audiences compared to other Christopher Nolan movies. Interstellar is incredibly complicated at times. Not “Primer” levels of complication where you need a flow chart to figure out the plot, but the movie expects you to remember a lot. This isn’t a dumb action movie that you can just sit down and scroll through Instagram while you watch. No, Interstellar tries to be very smart both with its plot and science, and it expects the audience to be paying attention through the entire experience. Plot threads are tossed in left and right, and if you’re not paying attention you might miss a crucial moment. That being said, the movie is in no way boring, and it’s engrossing and not overly hard to pay attention to or follow, but it does expect you to be a very active audience.

Now, I have to talk about the ending of Interstellar, as I am conflicted about it. On one hand, it’s basically the only way to tie the whole experience together. But on the other hand, it’s stretching quite a bit, and can be hard to follow and accept. However, upon thinking about it more, I’ve come to the conclusion that I like it, and it works. In an epic movie of this scope, of course the ending is going to be a little insane. Thankfully, it isn’t like the ending of 2001 and Cooper doesn’t turn into a space-baby or something.

Overall, although it has it’s flaws, interstellar really is criminally under known and underrated. It’s a great movie, and one well worth watching.

I am a huge fan of the writer Steven Moffat. The early reboot Dr. Who episodes he wrote were fantastic, and ever since he stepped down from that show, the quality of Dr. Who has been terrible. Thankfully, Moffat worked on another show which I only recently found out about; Sherlock.

Sherlock, as you might’ve guessed from the title, is about Sherlock Holmes solving mysteries with his partner John Watson. However, this iteration takes place in modern times. Other characters from the original Arthur Conan Doyle novels show up as the show progresses, such as Inspector Lestrade, Mycroft Holmes, Irene Adler, and of course, Moriarty. There are also lots of references throughout the show to the original books. At one point, Watson references a case they solved off-screen which he calls “The speckled blonde.” This is alluding to another Sherlock Holmes case found in the books, called the speckled band.

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman respectively. Both are very well cast and suit the roles perfectly, but Martin Freeman is given more opportunity to show his acting abilities in some emotional scenes, as for most of the show Cumberbatch simply has to play Sherlock as incredibly reserved and anti-social. The main villain however, is by far the best character on the show, and that’s saying quite a bit, because the characters on this show are all-around very likeable. Andrew Scott as Moriarty is incredibly funny as well as unpredictable. One moment he may be eating an apple and discussing his master plan like a cliche villain while the next moment he’ll be yelling at Sherlock and calling him a “Doofus.” He absolutely steals the show, and the audience is glued to him whenever he’s in frame. The writers even had to bring him back after his death in the form of video recordings, because he does so much for the show.

For the most part, Sherlock’s episodes follow a typical mystery formula. There’s a puzzling crime that makes no sense to the police, they bring in Sherlock to solve it, and he proceeds to do so. There are however, a few exceptions to this formula. The season two finale, the “Reichenbach Fall,” is maybe one of the best episodes in tv history, and it has twists and turns that no one ever saw coming, and that I’m not going to spoil for you here. Another exception is the last episode of the show, “The Final Problem.” Sadly, most of the episode is a saw-esque gauntlet that Sherlock, Watson, and Mycroft are trapped in, and it’s kind of boring. The end of the episode partially redeems it, but it’s easily the worst episode on the show.

Overall, Sherlock succeeds mainly because of it’s characters being well written and fun. Most of the episodes are great and very entertaining, even if the last one makes you leave the show with a bad taste. I highly recommend Sherlock, and one can find it on Netflix.

Stalker is a 1979 post apocalyptic movie by Andrei Tarkovsky. It’s regarded as being one of the best movies ever made by critics, having a perfect score on rotten tomatoes. That being said, although I’m probably in the minority on this one, I really didn’t like or enjoy the movie.

Stalker takes place in the unspecified near future in an unspecified country. In this country, a meteor landed, and created something known as “the zone.” People are forbidden from going into the zone, as it’s apparently incredibly dangerous. However, within the zone, there is a place called the room, which is said to grant your deepest desire in life once you reach it. Specialized people called stalkers illegally take people into the zone to reach the room so that they can fulfill their wishes. The movie’s premise is that a stalker is hired by a writer and scientist to guide them.

This scenario is incredibly interesting, and I was looking forward to seeing all the dangers the zone had to offer. But instead of seeing monsters, or hallucinations, or literally anything scary, the only thing the zone ever does in the film is make the writer imagine the scientist called him. That’s it. Nothing else happens in this film. The rest of the movie is incredibly slow and revolves around monologues about life, religion, and choice. Now, I’d be fine with monologues and themes in my movie, and I’m also fine with movies being slow, however I’d also like something, literally anything to happen. Stalker’s just too full of itself and trying to be ponderous, that it forgets to also be a movie.

The problems I have with stalker are essentially the same problems that I have with 2001. Both are trying to make a statement, although it’s not clear what about, and both in the process of trying to make their statement end up compromising their own movie. Perhaps this is just me, as both of these are incredibly praised films, but really, what the heck is the ending of 2001? And what is stalker trying to say? Just because a movie tries to say a message, doesn’t automatically mean it succeeds. Interestingly enough, both of these films have modern movies that take inspiration from and emulate them, but in my opinion do so even better. Interstellar, takes a lot of ideas from 2001, but in addition to having a clearer ending, and more fleshed our characters. Recently, the movie Annihilation came out, and it’s clearly borrowing a lot of ideas from stalker. However, unlike stalker, annihilation actually shows the terrors of it’s zone. The result is that annihilation has some truly horrifying scenes, like the bear scene in particular, and that scare-factor is something stalker so clearly wants to impart, but simply fails to.

Not everything is bad in stalker however. Some of the cinematography is truly unique, such as one rotating shot where the audience can’t tell what direction up or down is. There are also some great scenes, such as the ending scene where the stalker’s daughter is revealed to have psychic powers, or the tunnel scene, where due to good sound design and tight camera angles, the audience feels very claustrophobic and compressed. Sadly, that’s really all I can think of that redeems this movie

In case it wasn’t clear, I really didn’t like this movie. This could just be me acting like an uncultured philistine, but I can’t recommend this film, it’s not good or deep; it’s just overrated.

I absolutely love samurai movies, and no I don’t mean weird Netflix movies about ninjas. I mean good, classic, samurai movies. Harakiri perfectly encompasses and exemplifies all traits of good samurai movies, and for that reason, I believe it’s the best samurai movie out there.

Harakiri was a type of ritualistic suicide that samurai committed in order to preserve their honor with their death. The movie takes place towards the end of the age of the samurai, in the 17th century. At this point the samurai clans are beginning to die out. A retainer from a dead clan named Motome shows up on the Li clan door asking to commit Harakiri in their courtyard, so he could die as a samurai. However, it is revealed that he actually had no intention of going through with the suicide, and that he was actually hoping for a job with the Li clan. After being found out he is forced to commit Hara-Kiri by the Li clan. Months later, and older samurai named Hanshiro (played by Tatsuya Nakadai) appears to the Li clan, and just like Motome, claims to want to commit Hara-Kiri. The plot has many twists and turns, and almost feels like a whodunnit, in that it maintains an air of mystery throughout the movie.

The acting in this movie is fantastic. In particular, Tatsuya Nakadai and Akira Ishihama as Hanshiro and Motome. Both are excellent in their roles. Ishihama in particular, as he has to act an incredibly hard scene. I’m not going to spoil it, but suffice to say it must have been just as hard to film as it is to watch. The combat in this movie is few and far between, however both the duel near the cemetery and the final battle of the movie are both incredible thanks to Nakadai’s acting, as well as this movies cinematography. In fact, the cinematography in Harakiri is perhaps one of it’s greatest assets. Some shots in this movie are downright jaw dropping. The final duel especially, virtually every shot could win an award.

There really isn’t much I can say against this movie. The only thing I can think of is that it’s a little slow in the beginning, with most action and combat occurring later in the film. However, if you’re watching a samurai movie and you can’t handle slow movies, you’re in the wrong genre.

Overall Harakiri, while not my all time personal favorite samurai, is probably in my opinion simply the best samurai movie ever made. If you can get through some of the incredibly tough-to-watch scenes, then you’ll find that you’re watching a masterpiece.