Film Reviews by MD

I am sure I will not be the first to mention "All the President's Men" in relation to this film, but the comparison is both understandable and appropriate, as this is very much in the same mold, if not quite the same league. Put simply, the film does nothing but tell the story of The Boston's Globe's expose of the abuse of children by Catholic priests, and that is both its strength and weakness.

Strength, because the story is so powerful and so in need of being told, weakness because it is a bit of a one trick pony that any intelligent person could outline without seeing a frame of the movie. Personally, although I found it a bit slow at times, and uneven in quality, I thought the story very compelling and the performances spot on. I am glad it got made, and I am glad I saw it. Though not without its faults, it is far, far better than most of the rubbish out there these days.

I had never heard of this movie until I saw it on the Cinema Paradiso website, but I am very glad I discovered it. Rip-roaring yarn it ain't, nor is it a classy thriller, riveting romance or whatever, but it is a very interesting bio-pic, well told and always compelling. The background will be familiar if you have seen films like "Good Night, and Good Luck", but I doubt the titular character Dalton Trumbo will be, and I simply enjoyed seeing his story played out in familiar David and Goliath fashion. The period detail is great, both the stars like Helen Mirren and the many unknowns in leading roles give excellent performances, and the whole thing adds up to a very pleasant 2 hours viewing. Thank you, Cinema Paradiso, for alerting me to its existence.

The only thing I can say about this film is that it proved to me what an idiot I can be. I never particularly liked the original series of movies, but against my better judgement I thought I'd give it a try as it got pretty favourable reviews in general.

Talk about dumb. Yes, me as much as the movie. This made the originals look intelligent and thought-provoking, and I have to admit to both fast forwarding large chunks and finally giving up on it. Even by the low standards of modern action movies, this was a new bottom for me.

It is fascinating to watch this film again after nearly 40 years; you realise just how much movies have changed in that time. It is a violent film that is not really at all violent. It is a thriller that is not just all-action, but thoughtful and provocative, too. It is a movie not made to a formula, but strangely quirky and offbeat. Most of all, it is a film that focuses on people and characters more than mere plot and technical wizardry.

Of course, it won't be to everyone's liking, and certainly it looks dated, ponderous and almost daft when set alongside slick modern blockbusters. Nonetheless, it holds it own very well, and can be enjoyed both as a "museum piece" and as a decent film in its own right. If you have not seen it, it is worth a look.

This is a wholly European-funded film directed by a trendy, up-and-coming Italian, which means you can almost guess in advance what sort of experience you will get.

On the plus side, it is refreshingly different from mainstream Hollywood fare, with a quirkiness that often amuses and entertains, and some great scenes that only a European mind could possibly dream up. It is generally very well played by a pretty starry cast, and it was nice to see a film that actually tried to make you think a bit about what you were watching.

On the minus side, "pretentious rubbish" will be the most common reaction. That is too harsh, but understandable, because there are far too many moments when the quirkiness is overdone and very annoying, and also far too many either completely unnecessary or ridiculously arty scenes. It is at times slow and tedious, a touch overwritten, and by the end I was not sure what the point of it was. For a film titled "Youth", it was mostly about "Age".

Overall, just about worth sticking with for its entirety, but much better in parts than as a whole. If you do see it, watch out for the short scene where the Diego Maradona character plays 'keepy-uppy' with a tennis ball - quite amazing!

This film is by turns intriguing, enlightening and disturbing. Let me say straight away that it is very well made, and beautifully performed, which is why the story - based on real events in the 1920s - comes across in a way that draws you in and informs you about the reality of transgender people.

Ultimately, however, I found it hard to enjoy fully for the simple reason that it is so intimate a portrayal of the emotional and physical changes that the Eddie Redmayne character undergoes you feel like a voyeur intruding on something too personal to be made public.

There were several scenes where I found myself almost not wanting to watch, which is pretty amazing for a non-horror movie, and the whole movie has what I term a "Titanic" feel, i.e. you know exactly what is going to happen, yet you have to sit through all the gory details awaiting the inevitable ending.

I think it deserves 4 stars if judged purely as a piece of film making, but I can only give it 2.5/3 based on my personal reaction.

This film has received almost universal praise, and let me say straight away that several things about it, notably the performances of Brie Larson and Jacob Tremblay, are worthy of that praise. However, taken as a whole, I think the film is decidedly mixed, with a contrived and manipulative plot, a script that veers far too often into unbelievability and unwarranted melodrama, and a rather-too-neat and simplistic finale all being key weaknesses that offset the good points.

Essentially, it is a film of two halves, the first excellent, the second poor (and increasingly annoying!). The set up in the first half is quite believable, and despite the 'difficult' subject matter, very watchable and engrossing. This all changes with the ridiculous nature of the boy's escape.

Thereafter, it seemed a wholly different film. The set up now was the opposite, very unbelievable. There were all manner of plot contrivances and character changes in behaviour that seemed merely the whim of the author/scriptwriter, with a TV interview scene that even for American television seemed completely OTT. Despite the feel good ending, for much of the second half I felt the film was suggesting that the world outside Room was worse than Room itself, which just made no sense to me.

I sat down to watch this in a very positive frame of mind because from all I had heard I genuinely thought it was going to be a pretty special film. I came away feeling I had been conned; the ingredients were there in the first half for a truly great film, but the direction it then took was at best disappointing, at worst simply dead wrong.

I think people are right to say this is a lot of fun, but how you react to it will depend on whether you are happy to see the same old formula trotted out, because this is just as daft and unbelievable as ever, with all the same characters and mostly the same situations, twists and turns, etc. Frankly, I thought this one was over-plotted (way too many twists and turns!) and overdone in general, appearing at times almost like a spoof of itself, and never quite sure whether to emphasise the serious side of things or the lighter side. TC still looks like Peter Pan and does great stunts, they threw in a Bourne-like plot line for good measure, and managed to get a leading female who could really act, so it definitely has its moments, but like I said, whether that does it for you will come down to your tolerance for repeats. Did someone say "Star Wars - The Force Awakens"? Forget sequels and prequels, just make the same film over and over again seems to be the new Hollywood mantra.

I believe this is now the highest grossing film ever, finally knocking "Titanic" and "Avatar" off their top spot, and it is easy to see why. It is two hours of fun for the under thirties and a big dollop of nostalgia for those older than forty who (mostly) remember the original three episodes. The story has been brought bang up to date with a coloured male lead and a feisty, Katniss-like, female as the new Luke Skywalker. The technology is streets ahead of the original, and Harrison Ford gives his best ever performance as Han Solo, dynamic, witty and poignant.

For all that, I can only give it three starts personally. My biggest gripe as an over-forty is that it is just a huge re-run of the original film, right down to the idea of a huge "death planet" instead of a death star. If you watch the footage of the attack on this planet, it is shot for shot the same as the original, and sorry, that's taking reverence too far. Furthermore, I found it all rather lacking in "soul", by which I mean it just did not grab my imagination any more. Come the last third, I knew exactly what was coming, and I just did not really care what happened.

I'm sure everyone will watch this film at some point because it is the ultimate "must see" movie, and I hope that you enjoy it more than I did. In my opinion, though, there are so many better films out there that deserve your money and time.

Quite frankly, this seems a strange choice of role for Streep to play, and much as she gives a very convincing performance as an ageing, "failed" rock star, the rest of the film around her is totally unconvincing. It all starts too slowly, the set-up is ridiculously clichéd, and there are some very forced, unrealistic scenes of family dysfunctionality in the middle section. The ending is a joke - we are expected to believe all problems will be solved by the healing power of rock music! Okay, so it's not a complete disaster - Kevin Kline gives a nice performance, too, and it's well enough made to paper over all but the worst cracks - but who the hell thought it worth making in the first place, and what did they imagine anyone would get out of it? It will last all of 24 hours in your memory.

I recently applauded the film "A Most Wanted Man" for being completely unlike the usual gung-ho, bang 'em, shoot 'em up Hollywood thriller, but here is a Hollywood offering that, despite the violence, is almost as good - a really engaging, fair-minded and realistic look at the USA's war on the drug cartels.

Emily Blunt is rapidly becoming the 'go-to' actress for challenging female roles, and here the challenge is to make her character, nominally the main lead, relevant and meaningful when in fact she is just a small pawn in a far bigger story/game. This she does very well. The story deliberately exaggerates her being sidelined because that is the point - she is the law-abiding FBI officer being used as cover for a highly illegal operation - and watching her growing concern and impotence as she gradually realises what is happening is what gives the movie its edge.

The story that flows around her is well written and believable; the stock characters, shady good guys, normal folks who get run over, etc, are all better represented than usually in such films. And, hey, even the violence, graphic at times, seems reasonable in the context of the reality of this "war".

Definitely one of the better Hollywood thrillers of recent times, enjoyable and eye-opening in equal measure.

Remember the days when Pixar could do no wrong, and every movie they turned out was different, engaging and a thoroughly pleasurable experience? Ah, nostalgia! Since Disney aquired the studio, things have got a lot rockier, what with sequels to the earlier big hits, the pretentious and far too self-important "Inside Out", and now this.

It is not a bad film, and certainly younger children should enjoy the dinosaurs, but it is so lightweight in comparison to previous offerings. The story is really too thin to fully engage you, there seem far too many scenes that are forced and jarring - part of the problem here, I think, is that they were trying to spoof famous scenes from other animated films - and the theme of a weak, unvalued individual proving himself in a series of tests and trials just comes across as, well, unoriginal and uninspiring. Also, the amazing humour and nod to adult sensibilities of the major Pixar movies has gone completely AWOL.

Maybe I am being too harsh; even Shakespeare did not write masterpieces every time he put pen to paper! Unfortunately, though, having raised the bar so high, Pixar is now looking like just any other animated film maker, and that is sad.

We've had "Margin Call" and "99 Homes" looking at aspects of the 2008 financial crisis, but this is the film that will bring home most forcibly exactly what happened, and why. Given that we are still labouring under the consequences of that time, and most likely heading for a repeat in the not-too-distant future, this is essential viewing. It is an intelligent film about complex issues and ideas, but it is never anything other than absorbing and entertaining.

It has a rather quirky style in parts that can be annoying, but for the most part the story tells itself, and what a story it is. An all- star cast play it very straight, and some of the lesser known players have a real impact; Steve Carrell was not an obvious choice to play the lead, but he carries the film really well, and you'll find yourself growing equally amazed, angry and peed off as he uncovers the truth.

Based on a true story, the written summary of what happened next (at the end) is almost as powerful as the film itself, and very worrying.

I wonder if it's time we had a poll among members of this site: how often do you find yourself disagreeing with the professional critics? This is another film that comes with a high rating on Rotten Tomatoes, yet it really is very disappointing. What did the critics see in it? The story is a most curious affair, certainly not one that grabbed my attention and kept me riveted, and the whole link to the Holmes films/TV series we all know is tenuous at best. The acting? Mediocre. The script? A few neat touches, otherwise bland and far too prone to go off the point. Entertainment value? Low - there is really nothing in this to excite or stimulate. Ultimately, the film is too slow, too unengaging, and has nothing much to add to the wonderful oeuvre of work about this great detective. Splat - a rotten tomato indeed!

It's great to see that all reviews of this film so far are positive, either 4 or 5 stars no less. Why? Not because it is Seymour Hoffman's last film, though that does add poignancy, but because it is the sort of thriller that just does not get made any more. By that I mean it has none of the lame bang 'em, shoot 'em up action of your normal Hollywood offering, it is intelligent, it is believable, it is relevant, and it packs an altogether more satisfying punch because of that. I thought the script and directing were excellent, and there is class acting throughout. Even that old ham Willem Dafoe is good, and as for Rachel McAdams, what a revelation! Watch for the "explosive" ending - extremely rare to see one that is so relevant to all that has gone before, yet still catches you unawares. All in all, a great film, up there with The Lives of Others.