Reviews

The Assistant is such a truly singular viewing experience. It's one of those films where seemingly nothing happens, but in reality it is bristling with microaggressions and subtle power plays that are just fascinating to watch play out.

Julia Garner is superb as the eponymous Assistant, giving such a subtle and understated performance with so much emotion beneath the surface. It's barely worth mentioning the rest of the cast as this is purely Garner's show, but Matthew Macfadyen pops up with a great role in one of the best scenes of the whole piece.

There isn't much to comment on regarding the story as there isn't much of one so to speak. It follows a day in the life of Garner as an assistant at a movie production company, charting the toxic work conditions that exist. It's a film devoid of any big set pieces. It has no real peaks or troughs. No raised voices. No fancy camera work. It is just a frank and stark exploration of the hell that this woman goes through.

In this way I think this film is so immensely gripping. Every interaction has so much to take from it. So much to dissect. It's utterly absorbing in every way.

The Assistant is a very intense and unique viewing experience. I don't think I've ever seen a film that achieved such suspense, drama, and tension, with so little. A remarkable achievement in film making.

'The scariest movie of the decade'

Or at least that's what the poster claimed as I walked into the theatre. In reality I don't think this film is particularly scary at all. The people in the test screening who cooked up that quote must have had some very nervous dispositions indeed.

That isn't a criticism of the film in the slightest though, I just think it is being marketed all wrong. This is not some bombastic, graphic, blood curdling horror. Instead it is a more measured, slow burn, cat and mouse mystery, more akin to the likes of Se7en, Zodiac, or Silence of the Lambs.

It follows FBI agent Lee Harker (played very intensely by a brilliant Maika Monroe) as she pursues the mysterious serial killer 'Longlegs' (an always magnificent Nicolas Cage), identified only by the cryptic notes left at his crime scenes. At its core this isn't an overly original story for the genre, but it is executed well for the most part. I'm not entirely sure the third act did the rest of the film justice, but I will reserve those comments for the message boards so as not to divulge any spoilers. I do think though that it is one of those films where the reveal feels a little too left field.

One thing that truly can't be faulted about this film is the exquisite atmosphere cultivated by Oz Perkins. The moody, dark, gloomy tone and lighting of this film makes the whole thing feel very oppressive. It's unsettling in this way, with every scene and every frame dripping with tension and oozing suspense.

As mentioned already, the two lead performances are terrific in very different ways. Monroe is aloof and distant and gives a commanding lead performance. Cage on the other hand is deranged and gives himself wholly to the performance as he always does. The two of them are superb.

So, should you 'Believe the Hype' with Longlegs? You should believe that it is a very good film that commands your attention from the off and is a sufficiently sinister watch. But is it the 'scariest movie of the decade'? Not a chance.

A Quiet Place: Day One is a bit of a mixed bag, but a mostly positive and entertaining experience.

Lupita Nyong'o and Joseph Quinn are both magnificent and their story and connection was the most surprising thing about this film. So often human characters and their emotional grounding can get lost in these monster films, but they get it absolutely spot on here. You so quickly and easily get invested in them as they try to survive across a decimated New York City. Add into this dynamic an incredibly cute cat and you really are on to a winner.

The story is very simple but pretty effective. It doesn't waste too much time getting into the action and it maintains a decent pace throughout. I do think the story is maybe lacking in showing how things collapsed from day one. It could have done with maybe another perspective or more insight into how things escalated. Because of this it feels a little too similar to the first two A Quiet Place films and other films of this ilk. This still makes for an engaging film, but it doesn't add as much to the franchise as I'd hoped.

The scale of this film certainly feels grander than the other two, benefiting from the playground that is New York. There are some really effectively staged set pieces, notably a subway sequence that will have you holding your breath and not wanting to make a sound. Some of the set pieces feel a little too generic and chaotic but they play well.

So overall this is a really solidly enjoyable film. Nyong'o and Quinn and the dynamic between them is the surprisingly sweet highlight, and there are some well worked set pieces. The story could have been stretched and expanded a little, and some elements of the film revert to cliches, but this never detracts too much from the great tension and very watchable character moments.

'MaXXXine' caps off Ti West's horror trilogy in style as he delivers an exciting, noir, atmospheric and bloody finale to the story of Mia Goth's Maxine Minx.

In the same way that Pearl and X were very stylistically different, MaXXXine stands out on its own in terms of its style. Out of the three films it perhaps feels the least like a conventional horror, taking on more aspects of a crime thriller. As a result I think this is the most suspenseful film of the three even if it does lack the killer instinct of X or the visual flair of Pearl.

In terms of the story it is thoroughly engaging and far more sprawling than the other two films. It follows Maxine as she tries to break into 'legitimate' film making, crossing the line from adult entertainment into a potentially breakthrough role in a horror film. The Hollywood setting is a great choice, giving the film a seedy and sinister quality. My only criticism with this film is the highly telegraphed reveal, but everything else about it is spot on in my opinion.

But the greatest thing about this film as it has been throughout this entire trilogy, is the power house that is Mia Goth. Across these three films she constantly gives Oscar worthy performances. Every single second she is on screen you barely want to blink so as not to miss a frame. She is magnetic in every possible way and I hope her partnership with Ti West continues and she fills our screens for many years to come.

Horror is such a hard genre to get right at times, so to produce three top tier films back to back is a truly remarkable feat from Ti West. In both Pearl and Maxine, he has created two horror icons brought superbly to life by an outstanding Mia Goth. Run, don't walk to see this great piece of cinema in theatres!

It's quite hard to review 'Horizon' as it is clear that Costner is cooking up an epic and sprawling Western across multiple theatrical releases. There are so many story threads across the film and none of them are resolved at the end of Part 1, so it's hard to comment on the story too much.

What I can say though is that this is a very promising start to Costner's project. As mentioned there are multiple story threads and they are all intriguing, exploring different aspects of American expansion and the conflicts it generated. There's a range of characters from different walks of life and professions, maybe a few too many to really connect with any of them yet, but hopefully as the story develops more these connections will form. Similarly the story threads feel very disparate but this will likely be resolved once the later instalments are released.

A faultless aspect of this film is the production value of it all. The sets and costumes are fantastic, but perhaps most impressive is the capturing of the landscapes. The film looks magnificent to the point that it will make you want to leave the theatre and get out into the natural world asap. It's so easy to get lost in each frame due to the detail that is captured.

For a 3 hour film I also thought the pacing was very good. The different story threads mean that things feel quite dynamic as it jumps between them, and the long list of new characters to get to know will keep you on your toes.

Speaking of the characters, none of the performances necessarily jumped out at me as being particularly strong. Costner was probably the highlight, flexing his Yellowstone cowboy acting skills, but they all did a good enough job of finding their characters.

So ultimately this film did what any good first part does, which is to draw you in and get you excited for the next part. It's a beautiful looking film with epic scope, and if manages to continue along this track then we are in for a treat of a series I have no doubt.

In a Violent Nature is certainly a film that grew on me, because at the start I was not convinced at all. However once it finished and the credits started the roll I think I was left reasonably satisfied.

It's a hard film to review though because all of its strengths are simultaneously its flaws.

It centres the action on the 'slasher' rather than the victims, which is a unique and intriguing approach and makes it stand out from other slasher films. However this does create a distance between the viewer and the events of the film as there is no protagonist to root for. That being said, usually the victims in slasher films are thinly sketched out anyway, so was the lack of any non-murderous protagonists a great loss? Perhaps not.

Another strength of the film is the atmosphere. It takes a no bells and whistles approach, with no score and plenty of long takes which command your attention. The action takes place nearly exclusively outdoors and often in daytime which adds an extra sinister quality to the piece. Again, I say that the strengths of this film are also weaknesses, as the lack of diversity in pace or sound or setting do make sections of this film feel relatively repetitive.

The story is as simple as they come so there isn't much to comment on there. It is simply a vehicle for violence as with most slasher films, and that is where this film really shines.

In a Violent Nature indeed because this film is VIOLENT. Maybe I've been sheltered from some of the more graphic corners of the genre, but there are a couple of kills in this film that are genuinely the most gruesome I've seen on film. Some people in the cinema were laughing, some walked out, so wherever you lean on the squeamish spectrum it will be sure to illicit some sort of reaction.

So ultimately I think this film is a solid slasher. It feels unique in many ways, but occasionally it feels a bit too ploddy and repetitive. But if you like your gore and want to be truly grossed out, this is the film for you.

Kinds of Kindness is such a bizarre, absorbing, and impressive piece of cinema and potentially one of Lanthimos' more out there films if you can believe such a thing.

It tells three separate tales that are each absurd and dark and humorous, united only by a core cast and similar themes. They are tales that on the face of them are just intriguing and weird, but will have you sat in your chair as the credits roll sifting through the pieces to assign meaning to it all. It makes for a very fun experience, which is heightened significantly by the outstanding cast.

Jesse Plemons is the highlight as he so often is, acting as the male lead across the three stories. He brings something different to each performance and creates such distinct and memorable characters. Lanthimos' favoured muse Emma Stone is likewise superb, bringing such freedom to her roles much as she did in Poor Things. The brilliance continues as we are treated to excellence from Margaret Qualley, Willem Dafoe, Hong Chau and others. It's so great to see a director bringing the best out of his actors in such unique ways, largely due to the curious scripts which inspire such brilliance in their delivery.

A film such as this will likely not appeal to some, as the plots and characters are all very particular, and the more absurd elements may turn many off. However the split into three distinct stories softens the runtime, and the performances shine so strongly, making Kinds of Kindness an absolute treat in my opinion. It is one of those films that will get inside your head and have you thinking about it for a while, which is always fun.

I try to be a positive person so I will attempt to highlight a couple of good points about this film.

Firstly, the performances are perfectly decent. Cage isn't anywhere near his best but he gives a convincing enough turn. There is a good score which feels very out of place given the quality of the other aspects of this film. I also think the premise, whilst relatively derivative is good enough.

However, anything remotely good about this film is devalued by the atrocious lighting and the awful camera work. Maybe this was intentional, as it's hard to criticise what you can't see. Large sections of this film were utterly unwatchable as they were so dark. The camera was never steady so put these two together and it was nigh on impossible to actually take in what was happening. I genuinely do not understand how a film that is being released in theatres can be this poorly shot and lit. It really is diabolical.

Arcadian is easily the worst experience I've had in a cinema recently, and I've seen some shockers lately (I'm looking at you Madame Web).

I have to commend Triangle of Sadness on the completely unexpected story and the strange avenues it took me down. I really wasn't expecting it to pan out the way it did which was such a real treat. It has a relatively meaty runtime but it doesn't feel like it, with it's story well mapped out and navigated. If you don't know anything of the story it's best to keep it that way so as to appreciate the series of events completely fresh. It will suffice to say that it contains a multitude of themes and genres and deals with them relatively well.

I will say that I think the social commentary and satire isn't as well navigated as it could have been, and I have seen other films that have done it better, which is what lets this film down the most for me.

In terms of the performances and characters I think this film shines, particularly Harris Dickinson and Charlbi Dean who both give spot on performances, often quite nuanced, sometimes bold, and always right on the money. The entire cast are all terrific with the characters all written perfectly.

So ultimately this film is a blast, if maybe a tad overrated. The social commentary and satire is good but I do think it could have been stretched further, but the absurd story and great performances more than make up for this.

The Watchers is a decently watchable film in the moment, but one that doesn't really leave much of an impact.

Ishana Night Shyamalan cultivates a pretty good atmosphere throughout with a solid directorial debut. The whole thing feels like a sufficiently creepy film which is very important as the story is lacking in a few areas. Certain parts of it feel inventive and unique, but in many ways it also feels quite derivative. The result is a film that ebbs and flows but ultimately makes little impact.

What does make an impact though is the performances, which are all pretty solid. Dakota Fanning is very watchable and the small cast all put in equally commendable performances.

So while this film is very watchable and does have its perks, there just isn't enough to really draw you in and give you a real fright or any real interest. I had fun watching it, but it's an easily forgettable film that won't make much of a splash.

Pixar has such a strong record with its output, with Inside Out being a particularly shiny jewel in that crown. However, aside from Toy Story 2 it's rare for one of their sequels to rival the original. Thankfully though I think Inside Out 2 does a great job of recapturing the magic and creating a worthy successor to Inside Out.

We pick up the story with Riley as she approaches high school, which brings with it a whole new bunch of emotions. Enter Embarrassment, Ennui, Envy, and everyone's favourite Anxiety, as they shake up Riley's world and clash with returning emotions Anger, Sadness, Fear, Disgust, and Joy.

Much like the first film, the story of this movie is really sweet, special and heartwarming. There is so much to take away for people of all ages about how to navigate our emotions, and how all of our experiences and feelings shape us. I don't think it is as much of a tearjerker as the first film, but it builds to an emotional climax that is really endearing and sweet.

As always with Pixar films the imaginative elements are brilliant. The world inside Riley's head was so beautifully crafted in the first film, and this is extended in fantastic ways in this film. We explore new areas all of which are well designed and beautifully animated.

The humour throughout the film is really solid. As you'd expect from a Pixar film there are jokes for all ages which will keep kids and adults entertained.

In terms of the voice acting I was super impressed. A couple of changes in the main characters from the first film was a shame but the new actors performed well. Particularly impressive however was Maya Hawke who gives a terrific performance as Anxiety. Amy Poehler is of course fantastic.

All of the above means that if you enjoyed Inside Out then you will love this follow up too. It captures all of the wonderful magic of the first film, and even though it doesn't quite have the emotional punch that the first film did, it still has a heartwarming and important message, great acting, and just brilliant vibes throughout!

How this film is currently sitting at a 7.0 score in IMDb I don't know. It really is woefully bad in every way.

The story is so cliche, lazy and feels like it overstays its welcome. It just doesn't feel like there's much flow to it and it makes for a bumpy ride. It peddles so many tried and tested action film tropes and doesn't bring anything particularly new to the genre.

Then there is the acting which I must say is some of the worst Will Smith has ever done. He really feels like he is phoning it in on this one and it makes for an excruciating watch at times. Martin Lawrence gives a fine enough performance but his character is given dire dialogue that really grates. In fact all of the dialogue is either just cringe or cliche.

Then there's the villain of the piece who is a bland cookie cutter attempt at an antagonist. Him and all his goons are boring to watch and go through the evil guy motions.

I will say that there are a couple of half decent action set pieces, but the camera work doesn't always do them justice.

Maybe I'm in the minority here but this film just felt very lazy, boring and formulaic. Perhaps time for this franchise to say goodbye.

As teen movies go this one is perfectly decent if largely forgettable.

There are elements of it that are woefully dated and that do not hold up well at all, but aside from that the story is pretty entertaining.

There's a decent collection of performances, again nothing particularly standout but nothing awful either.

The direction is nothing to shout home about, but the story all flows pretty well and zips along at a decent enough pace.

So overall there's nothing major to complain about with this film, but nothing to really excite either. It has a fun enough story but doesn't have the appeal of other similar teen movies.

Sting is a perfectly adequate if relatively uninspiring and formulaic creature feature.

There are some good positives to this film which deserve mention. I think it is quite atmospheric and well shot. The creature design is also good and I appreciated the use of practical puppetry to create the larger monster which was a nice touch. The overarching story of the film is also perfectly decent and relatively entertaining.

However, the nuts and bolts of the story are full of tired old cliches, boring characters, and dodgy pacing that really makes the film drag. Unfortunately it's quite easy to get bored of this film as it just stays on the tracks and doesn't break new ground in any way.

Still, if the idea of a pretty simplistic and moderately gory giant spider film, then Sting will certainly give you some satisfaction. There was a better film that perhaps could have emerged from this idea, but it just about does the job.

In a world of Hollywood formulas and studio safe bets, there's something refreshing about Hit Man and it's quirky out of the box story.

It follows Glen Powell as the eponymous Hit Man who gets into a complicated relationship with one of his clients. I won't go into any more detail as there's lots of fun layers to unravel with this film which are best discovered in the moment, but as mentioned it feels quite fresh and unique. It has really solid comedy, drama and romance, and will keep you on your toes throughout.

Rising to occasion of the great story is Glen Powell who shines once again in a leading role. His charisma always shines through and there's an instant connection to him and his character that never wanes. Matching him perfectly is Adria Arjona, the chemistry between them absolutely electric.

My only real complaints with this film are that it took too long to get going and was over far too quickly. Aside from these pacing issues there really isn't much to complain about with this film.

So if you are in the mood for a funny, sexy and dramatic film that will draw you in to it's weird and mysterious story then look no further than Hit Man.

Tarot is one of those films where the more you think about it the worse it gets. Everything about it just feels lazy and uninspiring. It's very generic and bland and is just a big old mess.

The dialogue is the worst offender. It is so grating and cliche and just awful to listen to. The poorly written characters who spout these awful lines make things even worse. There's a few half decent performances in the mix so I won't necessarily blame the actors. They made the best out of an atrocious script, but none of them come out of this well.

The plot isn't actually bad per se, but it's lacking any real intrigue or depth or excitement. Sometimes horror films really thrive on simple plots and clean screenplays, but somehow this film manages to make a simple idea a bit of a mess.

I wish I could at least say it was atmospheric and scary, but it's so derivative and bland that it doesn't even have that going for it.

In fact as I'm writing all of this I'm wondering why I was so generous as to give it three stars, so I'll stop writing before it gets even worse!

I do feel a little bad giving this film a 5 because it isn't bad per se, but it's just very uninspiring.

The original The Strangers film is brilliant because it felt quite fresh and original at the time. This film however feels like exactly the same thing 15 years later. There's nothing new is being brought to the conversation.

In a world where there are some brilliantly inventive movies like 'Hush', this film just feels bland in comparison.

So as not to be completely negative, there are some positives. It feels quite atmospheric, and there are some good scares (albeit very predictable ones). The performances are also perfectly decent.

The promise of a trilogy stemming from this film might save it if the second and third films can pull something more original and exciting together, but as a standalone film this is a pretty mediocre and tired affair unfortunately.

There's a lot to admire about Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes as I think it had a very difficult task. It had to follow the great Matt Reeves Apes movies, whilst also trying to carve out it's own path. Ultimately I think this film managed this very well, making for a great stand alone experience but with some nice throwbacks and references to the rest of the wider Apes franchise.

Taking place generations after the Reeves movies, we follow the increasingly developed apes as the memories of Caesar and his philosophies have fallen into legend and myth. We navigate this new world through the protagonist Noa, who finds his life and that of his tribe upended by the ruthless and power hungry ape Proximus Caesar. From a story perspective I think this film is really strong. It taps into some interesting and pertinent themes about prejudice and power and manipulating ideas to suit one's own will. There are some good character dynamics, particularly between Noa and human Nova, who become unlikely companions. The pacing is perhaps a tad off but I can't fault the plot too much.

There's a good smattering of action throughout, although nothing that is remarkably groundbreaking. It is less action heavy than the Reeves films so temper your expectations. This is a more character driven affair than an action epic, but there are still some great set pieces.

What really shines through in this film is the incredible effects. The apes are so life like it really is unbelievable how these effects are being achieved. How they interact with the environment and how everything feels so rich and real is remarkable.

So although this film might not quite live up to Reeves' two apes films, or the underrated Rise of the Planet of the Apes, it is certainly not far off. There's a lot of heart in this film, and aside from a few pacing issues it has very few flaws.

George Miller knocks it out of the park once again with a riotously entertaining and rich follow up to Fury Road.

Serving as a prequel, Furiosa follows the titular warrior in her earlier years, tracking her journey from the 'place of the abundance' to becoming embroiled in the power struggle between Immortan Joe and newcomer to the franchise Dementus. It's a thrilling story with great world building and a wildly entertaining collection of characters. It's final act is a tad drawn out, but aside from this the story and pacing are near flawless.

As mentioned the characters are superbly crafted. Furiosa was played so well and written so perfectly in Fury Road, yet somehow that brilliance is matched in this film. It's rare that a prequel genuinely adds interesting and important layers to a character, but Furiosa really does get under the skin of this character and makes Fury Road a much better watch as a result. Anya Taylor Joy gives a powerful performance, but is upstaged by the maniacal performance of Chris Hemsworth. Miller gave him a peach of a role in Dementus and he rose to the challenge and then some. It's just terrific in every way.

The action is probably one of the main things drawing people to this film and you won't be disappointed. The sequences are long, loud, and incredibly entertaining and inventive. Watching a film like this makes you realise how many other films coast by with their action sequences. The standard is being set by Miller in these Mad Max films that's for sure.

Stylistically this film is very similar to Fury Road, which is only a good thing as the creative choices made in that film were outstanding. Everything from the costumes, colour palettes, tone, energy of this film is just spot on. It makes for such a rich and engaging experience in every way.

If you had any kind of positive feeling towards Mad Max Fury Road, then you will share that sentiment for this film. Lightning really does strike twice as Miller shows once again that he is at the vanguard of the big screen action epic.

After the success of Saint Maud, Rose Glass proves she isn't a one hit wonder with another really impressive film in Love Lies Bleeding.

It is a curious film as it straddles a few genres, but manages them all very well. It intertwines a compelling love story with an engaging crime story, and also introduces some surreal elements which add an intriguing extra layer. In a way the bones of the story feel a little like something the Coen Brothers could conjure up, in the way that it brings kooky characters together with this crime element running through it. Not to say that it is a rip off at all, but just to give an indication of the vibe of the film.

The performances are all terrific. Kristen Stewart once again proves that Twilight will not define her career as she emerges with another brilliant leading performance. Katy O'Brien is a revelation with a great physical performance, and Ed Harris is as always great.

Another great thing about this film is how stylish it is. Not in the conventional way of being shiny and dazzling, but it has a certain crisp class and quality to it that is just really appealing.

Rose Glass is fully on a role with this film, so you should rush to see it and keep an eye on what she turns out next!

Boy Kills World joins many of these 'one person crusade' type films, and I must say it is a pretty presentable example of the genre.

The most important thing with any of these films is the action, and it is pretty impressive in this film. It is brutal, gory, consistent, and well shot throughout. There's nothing about it that is particularly revolutionary but it is all very effective. I don't think I can really fault the film from this perspective.

Then there is the story which is again relatively decent. There are some good twists and turns and it keeps a decent momentum throughout.

The characters are a bit 2-dimensional for my liking so there isn't much to get stuck into in this respect. The performances are all decent enough, particularly Skarsgard in the lead with a strong silent performance, but there's nothing too remarkable.

Another thing that just didn't click for me was the humour. This, alongside large parts of the script, just felt a bit awkward and cliche. This isn't necessarily a deal breaker but the script could have been tightened up.

Overall though I was thoroughly impressed and entertained by this film. If you're in the mood for some riotous action and a propulsive plot, this is the film for you!

Sunshine is a film that maybe slips under the radar a little too much. When people talk about great sci-fi films it rarely gets mentioned, but it should definitely be in those conversations.

It is tense and gripping with a phenomenal atmosphere throughout. I think Boyle is quite hit and miss as a director but for the most part he absolutely nails it with this one (apart from some atrocious camera work in the final act).

Firstly the cast is absolutely stellar. It is a small cast of only 8 or so people and they all have moments where they shine. The characters are also really well written to the point where it all feels quite authentic. Their actions and motivations and emotional beats all feel so real and how people would actually react in this situation. It gives the film a really grounded feel thanks to the writing.

Then there is the plot, which is so simple but so effective. There aren't really any bells or whistles outside of the central premise and the film is all the better for it. It also transcends several tones and genres which is masterfully done. I think any film set in space can easily feel like a horror, but there's a real unease and tension injected into this film before it devolves into more full on horror territory.

Another huge positive of this film is the set design and costuming. It all looks very real and authentic and adds a certain richness to the experience. As a final positive note the score is sensational and fits the movie so well.

As mentioned I do think there are a few missteps from Boyle. The camera work in the final act is so choppy and messy and just not a style I enjoy at all. I do think the runtime is also maybe slightly bloated. Shaving off 10 minutes may have kept things going with a bit more momentum.

That being said these are small blots on an otherwise brilliant film. It is jam packed full of tension, great performances, stunning visuals, and an engaging plot.

On paper I. S. S has an incredible premise. As war breaks out on earth, the astronauts onboard the International Space Station receive covert orders to seize control of the station by any means necessary. A premise that would lend itself to a brilliantly tense and breathless thriller.

Unfortunately the execution just doesn't live up to this great idea, and that seems to be the general consensus across a lot of reviews.

It's a shame because the performances were all actually very solid, and the set design was strong and felt very realistic, but the story just seemed to fizzle out towards the end. It also never felt particularly tense which is a real shame as there was so much potential to really play on this and create a pressure cooker environment.

Still the film does have a few strong points. As mentioned the performances are strong and even though the idea isn't fully realised, it is still intriguing enough to keep you engaged, even if it does feel a tad underwhelming.

Road House is a solidly entertaining film that will give you some good 80s nostalgia vibes.

It's essentially a western movie, with Swayze acting as the new sheriff in town hired to clean up the local bar. It's in no way a complicated plot but it's very effective and fun.

Swayze's charm and charisma does a lot of heavy lifting, but it's a task he rises to well. The supporting cast aren't much to write home about apart from a fun performance from Sam Elliott.

The actions is really over the top and incredibly fun, and there's a good amount of it throughout the film.

The overall vibe of this film is probably one its strongest points. It has a vibrant and lively tone like so many 80s films which is really fun.

So ultimately this film is just really fun. Not overly serious but it will keep you entertained.

Based on the trailer I expected to really enjoy this movie, and very happily it lived up to expectations!

Considering it forms the backbone of the movie it seems appropriate to first comment on the stunt work, which is so impressive and creative and fun. There are so many great stunts ranging from hand to hand combat, driving set pieces, parkour etc, and they are just such a treat to watch. Stick around for the end credits to watch some behind the scenes footage of the stunts being performed which is a nice touch.

The plot is really fun, although it maybe takes a touch too long to really get into gear. The fact that the plot focuses on a movie production creates opportunities for lots of meta moments which are all executed pretty well. It is jam packed full of action, good humour, a pretty engaging love story. It has everything you could want from a big blockbuster.

Maybe one of the best things about the film though is the lead performance from Ryan Gosling. Easily the most charismatic actor in Hollywood, he just lights up the screen with impeccable comedic timing, line delivery, and physical performance. His chemistry with Emily Blunt is superb and she is brilliant in her role as a movie director trying to forgive Gosling's Colt for past mistakes.

Not only are the stunts, performances, and story line really solid, but the film also has a killer soundtrack. The music choices compliment every story beat perfectly.

So aside from maybe a slight pacing issue at the start this film is an absolute hoot. Gosling is magnetic, Blunt is charming, the stunts are electric, the soundtrack is on fire. It is a real love letter to stunt performers and old school Hollywood blockbusters. An absolute treat best experienced in the theatre!