Martin Scorsese is a very high quality director. When people talk about his films, more often than not, The Wolf of Wall Street is the first thing on the agenda. And rightly so. It’s a good film, incredibly fixating (at some points it would be rude to take your eyes off it), with some absolutely legendary lines. The upshot of it is, that every modern teenage boy wants to be Jordan Belfort. Starting from the bottom and working up to be one of the richest people ever, all the while having more fun than could be possibly imagined. Of course, Jordan Belfort was a criminal, but only in the sense of ripping people off and making them pay him for it. You wouldn’t really call him a gangster though, would you? A gangster would be someone who doesn’t need all the money in the world, because when he goes into a restaurant, all the staff know him, so they give him the best seat in the house, free wine, and a three course meal waiting for him. That’s the guy people should want to be like.

Goodfellas, released in 1990, opened people’s eyes to what life as a gangster could be like. Far be it from the old movies, where Al Capone shot a tommy gun at hordes of police, screaming as he did it. No these gangsters own the police, not that they do anything blatantly illegal. Ok they might be avoiding tax, defrauding the government, and setting fire to people’s cars, but nothing that illegal. That’s what people want to really be. Rich, surrounded by like-minded people, and safe from any major consequences.

The film has a killer soundtrack, excellent cinematography (the Copacabana continuous shot is just sublime), and sensational writing. So many classic lines that are replicated in meme and parody today, which in my view, indicates that they did a fine job in the script department. Of course the film is an adaptation of the book by Nicholas Pileggi, but as adaptations go, this is one of the greatest homages Hollywood has ever seen.

“As far back as I can remember, I’ve always wanted to be a gangster.” The opening line really sets a majestic tone for what is to come. Ray Liotta plays the main man, Henry Hill, and does it well. Not amazingly, some weird acting in parts (he can’t laugh, for example), but overall he portrays the anti-hero very well throughout. But it’s his two supporting actors, Joe Pesci and Robert De Niro, who really shine through. Pesci actually won an Oscar for best supporting actor, and he is spectacular. It could be construed as easy to play a terrifying character in a movie, when that character is a villain (Hans Landa, John Doe, etc…). But Tommy De Vito (Pesci’s character), is not a villain, in the truest sense of the word. He plays the best friend, the comrade, and is a hilarious character, with memorable lines. But at the same time, he is a loose cannon that makes anyone who is in a room with him have their blood run cold. Excellent actor, excellent performance. The same can of course be said for De Niro. The only reason he won’t have clinched the Oscar was because Pesci got there first. He plays Jimmy Conway, the real character every kid wants to be. Oozing with class, more money than he needs, and a sheer talent for anything not quite legal. But what a performance again from him. Few people can sit, smoke, and stare at someone off camera for 30 seconds, yet still encapsulate the audience for that length of time.

Like any good Scorsese film though, things start to fall apart at around the halfway point. It’s a feature to look out for. It happens in Casino, in Wolf of Wall Street, and in Goodfellas. It’s the tipping point, where the main character is on top of the world, and cannot go any higher. So the only place is down. Crashing down. Suddenly Goodfellas goes from an inspirational movie for wannabe gangsters, to a vicious warning for anyone considering it. Members of the gang die, or get arrested, or turn to drugs. Any one of these three could cause a downfall of a crime empire. Unfortunately, all three happen in quick succession, and it is a wonderful display of filmmaking then to see it all come down. There’s not any fighting, no action scenes, that’s what makes it all so brilliant. No shootouts or fancy cinematic tricks like slow mo or CGI (they were fancy in 1990). Just showing the aftermath of some brutal murders to show the sheer terror that the gangsters of old could instil in people.

Of course in amongst this chaos there are still moments of beauty. I still cook my pasta sauces based on the techniques shown to me in the prison scene. A scene that makes you wonder why we have prisons in the first place, if all the criminals do is drink fine wine and eat steak. But these cannot be appreciated amongst the downward spiral the main characters face. The death, beating and betrayal shows the film as more than a flick about gangsters having it all their own way. I do believe it’s one of the greatest films ever made, and no matter how many Jordan Belforts or Henry Hills there are in this world, there won’t be a movie quite like this one, ever again.

Rating: 85%

(I have decided to start rating the films afterwards, as sometimes my writing won’t convey what I really feel about the film, so this should be a helpful hint,)


The Hangover

Modern(ish) comedy films can be a bit hit and miss. Anchorman was certainly a hit, due to its quotability, every Adam Sandler movie is certainly a miss (they just are), for example. But I feel that the movie that really epitomised the bright era of those slightly rude, also very silly, films, is The Hangover. Say what you like about the sequels, of course they’re unnecessary and money grabbing, but the reason we still watched them is because of that first one. The brilliance of the film wasn’t just in the jokes, or even the cast, but the fact that the plot was very unlike any other comedy in recent years.

Sure, a premise of four blokes getting drunk, not remembering what happened and getting into some hilarious capers along the way sounds basic, but The Hangover is able to pull it off very well, and produce quite an interesting story. This may a slight exaggeration, but there is an element of detective work throughout the film that wouldn’t be out of place in a very serious, very B-list cop movie. The way in which they attempt to work out what happened, how it was allowed to happen, and trying to find their friend under the deadline of getting back for a wedding. One of the great things with a plot like this, and the fact that they’re in Vegas, means that if something seemingly ridiculous happens like a naked Chinese man jumping out of a car, then it can be tolerated. Why wouldn’t they have Senor Chang locked in a boot after a drunken spin through the centre of Las Vegas? Compare this with Anchorman, for example (Good movie, not dissing). In the big news corporation fight, Steve Carrel kills a guy with a trident, and this is then confirmed in the hilarious discussion afterwards. This is very funny, but makes the film suddenly change format. It goes from “quirky flick about rival co-anchors”, to almost like something out of Epic Movie, or anything equally bad. The hangover doesn’t do this, or anything remotely similar to this, and that means that while funny, it can also be taken seriously.

The funny parts of the film are down to two factors. The writing, and the actors. This isn’t exclusive to this movie of course, that’s kind of the requirement for any comedy, but The Hangover gets it so right. Zack Galafikinakaakas is very funny, obviously, as everyone always points out to me, but I really don’t think he’s the main man in amongst the jokes. Of course, his character, Alan, is the one saying and doing the stupid things that gets the posse into worse trouble, but it’s the excellent acting from Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms, and the way in which they react to the foolish words of Alan, that makes each and every joke memorable and funny. For example, it’s not the fact that Alan has a man purse that’s funny. It’s the fact that the guys tear into him, as any good group of friends should, that makes it funny. More importantly this makes it relatable, as males are notorious for identifying the weak among their wolf-pack, and ripping into any aspect of them, as best they can.

The movie is also brilliantly written however. The back and forth between the main cast and the excellent cameos from Tyson and co, really makes it a laugh a minute movie, which there aren’t many of recently. Lines that are crude but not vulgar, cheeky but very inoffensive, and building characters that will live long in the memory. Some of the little quips aren’t even there to be remembered, but are just funny and witty, for example the doctor, when directing the boys to the church. “Yeah go to the corner of get a map, and ****off”. Anyone hear that without being offended? Yes. Could you imagine a stressed out doctor saying that to get rid of nagging patients? Yes. This is something that a lot of comedies are missing, dangerously veering us towards spoofs and drug abuse (the films I mean, not us).

Of course the execs behind this great film shouldn’t have added in the sequels, which now kind of tarnish the original masterpiece, but there is no doubt that of all the comedies that Hollywood has poured out, and my lord there is a lot of them, The Hangover must surely be placed among the gods, with Life of Brian, Hot Fuzz, and sat at the right hand of the father, Airplane.


Everyone loves a good James Bond film. That does imply that there are bad James Bond films, but I feel as though each one, even Quantum of Solace, has something special, that puts it apart from other action films. I think Quantum of Solace may have been considered a good film in its own right, but because it was a James Bond movie and wasn’t considered traditional enough, it got slated and hated and should think on its sins. This isn’t an invalid opinion to have on the movie. If they had changed the cast slightly so that Daniel Craig and Judi Dench weren’t the head honcho’s, then the writers could have gotten away with releasing it as its own film entirely. As it is, they didn’t do that, released it as a 007 thriller with more action and death than ever before. And lost the global following it had taken over forty years to build.

People were therefore bracing themselves for the worst when Skyfall went into production. People had been blaming Daniel Craig for the poor quality of QoS and Casino Royale, which I think is unfair. He didn’t write the scripts, or direct the thing, he just stars as the main man, very well in my opinion. People claimed that recent movies, with the heavy lean on action and destruction, a lot was being lost from the plot itself. Losing its tradition was the main critical point for recent Bond pictures. And that’s where Skyfall came in. Promising to bring back the classic Bond movie, with quick witted remarks, sexy Bond girls and a megalomaniac criminal who wants to end the world with a laser or rocket. We heard Adele singing months in advance, which got us all hyped up for what we thought would be the greatest 007 movie for years.

And it was. Wasn’t it? An all-star cast, including the excellent Javier Bardem, a well thought out plot with twists and turns throughout, and a weird-ass opening credits sequence where the beloved agent survives a gunshot and a million-foot drop. Making no logical sense and a hero who just won’t die, it is a classic after all. People fell in love with the films all over again, and the world went mad for it. And rightly so. It’s a good film, but what it is at the same time is another product of modern Hollywood, even though it’s now three years old. With Quantum of Solace, or even as far back as Die Another Day, they could have the exact same plot and be repackaged as an independent film, and still reap the rewards. Skyfall however is nothing without the 22 films before it. It’s a reboot.

I really enjoyed Skyfall the first time I watched it. In the cinema, in all its glory, and I cheered when they revealed the Aston Martin, and when Q mentions the exploding pen, and when Moneypenny revealed herself to be Moneypenny. Fantastic! Finally some classic James Bond scenes. By the second and third viewing though, I realised what the film is.

Very few people have conversations anymore without referencing a piece of pop culture. I’m guilty of it too, we all are, but in order to make someone laugh, smile or just be interested in what you have to say, you have to reference a film or TV show that they like.* It’s not a bad thing, and when used wittily it’s a very clever conversation tool. But for a movie to use it so often, hiding in plain sight, is quite the opposite. At first and second watch it seems as though Skyfall is another classic Bond film. But look closer, and the Aston, the pen, the gun, the drinks, it’s all just references to the previous, properly classic 007 movies that we all became obsessed with as kids like Goldfinger and Live and Let Die. The film makes us think we’re watching the other films with these little side-notes, and that’s cheating. And all this is the same in films like The Amazing Spiderman and every new Marvel reboot/sequel. Little reminders of what brilliant originality these films once had, so you remember them, and enjoy the film you’re watching.

And that’s why Skyfall, with its changing of the guard (although I am excited to see Fiennes as M) and rekindled love for tradition, is nothing more than one of our favourite things, Hollywood cashcows.

*If you have seen the Robert De Niro film, The Family, you may understand what I’m talking about. About halfway through, De Niro’s character (A classic 80’s gangster trapped in 2013) masquerades as a film critic (much like myself), and ends up at a town hall with hundreds of villagers, who are all gathered to watch a film. At the last second, the film they were planning to watch (Some Came Running) is lost, and instead they watch Goodfellas, by Martin Scorsese. This made me so happy at first, but then realised that this story had no relation to Goodfellas, other than the same leading actor. My point is, The Family is a mediocre, De Niro gangster film. Nothing special, but it can still make you think you liked it, by throwing in a reference to one of the greatest gangster films of all time.

The Matrix

A lot of people that I know have not seen The Matrix, and half of me fully understands why, while the other half just cannot fathom the idea of having lived life without seeing it. It’s one of the most legendary films of its generation, not necessarily for being good, but is simply a global icon for sci-fi. Memes up and down the Internet, the punch-line for so many jokes in so many spoofs, and packed full of memorable scenes. Accomplished actors, slightly less accomplished actors, a hugely revolutionizing plot for its time, and special effects that hadn’t been utilized quite the same before. Why is it then, that not everyone has seen this film?
I feel the main reason is that its reputation precedes it. I’m not saying that people either love or hate the movie (I mean what is it, Pulp Fiction?), but when asked about The Matrix, unless they’ve watched it a few times, or fully understood it from the off, people tend to say that its either boring or confusing, and they feel its boring because they were too confused by it. This is not the greatest advert in the world, and hence, no one has seen this film. I feel the issue is that when people are told about the film, they are told about the mega action thrill ride that all happens at the end. So therefore the hour or so of confusing, metaphorical and seemingly endless talking, people get to the action having already switched off, and so it becomes yet another standard action movie. But what if I told you, that that hour or so of talking holds some of the most interesting plot to a film that you will have seen in years.
Modern sci-fi action films have plots that involve humans vs. humans, or humans vs. aliens. I’m not saying that this is bad, or that The Matrix is the only humans vs. machines film, but its at least slightly unusual, and less generic. If you follow the plot, which is admittedly a tough job, you will finish the movie having questioned your own existence at least once. So why does that happen with this film, but not with others? It’s believable. Ok it’s not, but if you run it through your head, there’s no real reason why it couldn’t happen. That’s how much of a good job the Wachowski Brothers (Siblings) did, to alter the realm of sci-fi. Hopefully, if you haven’t seen this film and all you know about it is that it has a “meh” storyline and Keanu Reeves leans backwards slowly, this might make you realize that it is so much more than that.
On the subject of Mr Reeves, I’m not sure if his larynx works to full effect. I don’t want to call his voice monotone, but I have to, because there’s nothing another fitting word. I’m certainly not saying that he shouldn’t have been used, he’s still the face of all action movies for me, but it would have been interesting if the alleged almost-casting of Will Smith and others had gone through. I say all this, but in his defence, how many ways are there of quietly saying “woah”? Not many, but I still think he managed to pick the wrong one. There is only one way of saying Mr Anderson however, and didn’t Elrond get it right every single time. Not often does it occur throughout movies that it’s easy to root for the outright bad guy, but in this instance it definitely is. How could you want him to get hit by a train or shot by a Gatling gun or suddenly entered by a flying man, when you just know he has even more killer lines and speeches waiting to be delivered? The writers did a stunning job on Mr Smith, but I feel they knackered themselves out a touch then when it came to writing the rest of the film. I will be the first to admit that some (a lot) of the lines are a little (very) clichéd, and while this doesn’t take away from the film as a whole, it does take the edge off some of the more tense moments.
But, the film has one thing going for it that no one can take away. In the first Matrix at least, not one action scene is over the top, prolonged for unnecessary periods of time, or in any way realistic. That’s why the plot has to be listened to throughout, because otherwise each fight scene is just a guy Kung Fuing his way around a city, and fingering a guy’s throat (You know the one I mean). That lobby scene is action movie gold, and just gets better and better to watch every time. And, as there is a heavy chunk of so called “meh” in the 20 minutes before it all kicks of, the feeling of excitement when you see Neo’s shoes slow-moing through a revolving door is second to none. That is until you see Neo about to get shot on a helipad and he starts having a seizure in midair, but also dodges loads of bullets. But it makes no sense if you don’t get the plot. You end up calling it unrealistic and therefore discredit the film as ridiculous. Of course the scenes are ridiculous, but the plot shows how the rules of physics as we know them are not present, therefore they can get away with making a man fly. And I think that’s why people tend to dislike this film. I’m among them, I wasn’t convinced at first. But once id seen it enough to understand it, and therefore not have to worry about trying to look smart in front of the people I’m with, it can be enjoyed, and lap up the final 30-45 minutes of arse-kicking mayhem.
This is not an advert for the film, as much as it sounds like one. But this picture is one of the greatest out there, and it pains me to want to chat about it with people before realizing no bugger has seen it

Django Unchained

Just to get it out in the open, I have a slight fixation with Quentin Tarantino films. This isn’t unusual, as many people are also fans of the Oscar Winning director, however I have reached a point where all of his films just seem to be unbeatable. When he brings out a film, it’s almost guaranteed to an academy award nomination, and more often than not will indeed get an award, be it best picture or original screenplay. There are many aspects to his films that impress film fans globally, but it’s the way in which these components bind together that make his films what they are. And this is brought together gorgeously in what is one of my favourite films, Django Unchained.

Of course, the director tends to pick the cast, but occasionally an actor/actress does such an incredible job that as a viewer you just have to watch in awe. We all knew that Christoph Waltz was a great actor, primarily from his performance in Inglorious Basterds, as the terrifying Col Hans Landa of the SS. But there was a sense of wonder then when he played an entirely different role as Dr King Schulz in Django Unchained. People anticipating an equally chilling performance (myself included) were left in shock as he manages to pull off a character with not a poor quality to his name. This is allegedly the condition the Waltz gave to Tarantino in order to take the part. And wow did he deliver. But it is not a one man show. The chemistry between Waltz and the main man, Jamie Foxx, is a phenomenon only witnessed in top drawer films. Foxx plays the rambunctious Django Freeman, the anti-hero who, in the space of a year, goes from innocent slave, to a bounty hunting legend. Foxx manages to play both sides to the character with consummate ease, and will have been disappointed not to pick up an Oscar himself. While many people were excellent in the film, the other standout performance came from the Oscar allergic Leonardo DiCaprio. The delivery of his lines, the effortlessness of immersing himself in the role of Calvin Candie, and of course the infamous Hand-Cut-Face-Rub incident. His introduction via a Tarantinoesque close up was excellent, as it is over an hour into the film and (upon first viewing), it is easy to forget that he was billed for the picture at all. So his introduction, with a polite nod and smile, really sets up the remainder of the film for a fine second half.

Tarantino films are well known for the dialogue. The plots and actors get people to fall in love with the film, but it’s the endless quoting of fantastic lines from friends that make people watch a 2 and a half hour film. Django is no different, with memorable lines from Foxx, Waltz, and of course Samuel L Jackson. Tarantino was interviewed (sworn at) many times by many different people for Django, due to the incessant use of the so-called “n-word”. Don’t get me wrong, it does crop up a fair few times throughout, and it is not delivered by the people that popular culture has led us to believe can use it (for example, no rappers or vine personalities are present in this film). People accused Tarantino of simply using the word because it invoked controversy, but I beg to differ. One of the best, most memorable lines comes towards the end of the movie, from Django, explaining how many guns he has in his hand. This quote would not have the same effect, would not roll off the tongue in the same way if the writers had listened to the hundreds of people planning to get medieval on their ass. It’s this willingness to ignore critics that makes this film so great. The world is dominated by people on social media prepared to scorn anyone who even considers stepping a toe into vaguely offensive waters, and these people have a worryingly large amount of power between them. But this is only the case when the accused in question bow down. Tarantino doesn’t, didn’t, made his film, and picked up millions at the box office from people who were willing to put aside their political correct personalities, and pick up their love for a good film.

Like all good films, the soundtrack to Django Unchained is pure gold (of course some films have no soundtrack at all and are still stunning spectacles, but we’ll get to No Country for Old Men at a later date), but arguably the best instance of this comes in the huge slow motion shootout towards the finale. I remember watching this film with a friend, and he hadn’t seen it previously, and we’re watching the shooting and the blood painting the walls and the over the top action, and it’s all well and good, but when the film breaks into Django taking the fight to the enemies, and Tupac is blaring out of the television, I had to look over at my friend, whose mouth was agape, and was just drinking in the exquisitely cool scene. This is not an action film, yet it has a scene that can cause speechlessness in even the most talkative of people. That what makes this film so good. Not too much of any specific thing. It has no genre, so can appeal to anyone and everyone. The action/drama/love/comedic balance is all just right.

I’m not one to slander all modern movies (Lie), but many directors could take a leaf out of Django’s book. Of course there’s rather too many sequels, reboots, book adaptations…etc. But even then, I’m almost certain when I see a trailer for a new film, it’s the same trailer I’ve seen hundreds of times before, just this one’s got a slightly different looking actor to the previous. And far be it from me to suggest that only the best directors produce great films, I’ve seen After Earth, but sometimes, like Django, they use a paintbrush, rather than the glue and scissors of modern Hollywood.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

I was unsure about which film I would use as my maiden voyage into critiquing. Should I write about one of my favoured films, that I know so much about, and can therefore explore every detail and angle to the picture? Should I take a film that already has so much written about it, as the movie-loving society cannot determine whether they enjoy it or not? I instead figured it would be easiest to analyse the film that I watch most recently, which so happened to be the latest and final instalment from Middle-Earth, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.

I am a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings. Of course I am not unusual in holding this opinion, as millions of people worldwide have at least seen the original trilogy, and millions more cannot get enough of the merchandise, memes, and of course the films themselves. It therefore comes as no surprise then that, as many other franchises are doing these days, another Tolkein book was to be immortalised in multiple films. We all know they did it for the money, as three films tend to rake in more money than one. Once the Middle-Earth lovers got over the fact that three films were going to be made, and no matter what they would end up going to see all of them, there was a global air of excitement for what Mr Jackson and his Fellowship would have in store.

Number 1: Slow to get going, but then once it did get going, it still wasn’t interesting. Number 2: Promising, some subplots that were a touch unnecessary, but of course the excellent Benedict Cumberbatch kept it together. Number 3: Crashes back down to being worse than Number 1.

I will admit it is partially my fault that I disliked the final film. The day before I went to see it in the cinema, my friend and I foolishly watched The Return of the King. I remember watching it and pointing out that each and every scene, just managed to get it right. Whether it was the soundtrack, the acting or the writing, it was four hours (Extended Edition) of joy that I didn’t want to end. However fast forward to the next day, being 1 hour into The Hobbit and being unable to wait for the film to get in some way interesting. It sounds harsh but every scene just seemed dull. The opening sequence, which followed on instantly from the end of The Desolation of Smaug, was excellent, and got me very much in the mood for the remainder of the film. Unfortunately, it was not long after this point that the film slowed down dramatically. There were three major problems that I had with the picture as a whole. Problems that simply didn’t and had no chance of occurring in The Lord of the Rings. I know it’s not right to compare the two, but it’s tough not to, and the issues I’m going to raise here make the final Hobbit a poor film in its own right.

The first problem was the inclusion of so many subplots, that were either not present in the book, or were drawn out to make them “interesting”. The primary one was the character Alfrid Lickspittle. This was a man very similar in appearance and personality to Wormtongue, from The Two Towers. However at least Wormtongue had an air of chilling cold-heartedness to him, and furthermore, his actions actually advanced the plot. Mr Lickspittle however is portrayed as a comic relief character, and perhaps I’m being harsh, and the humour emitted by him is rather hilarious to the younger viewers of the film, but I find even that unlikely.

The second issue is of course, the CGI. The viewers are drowned in it. The majority of the film I couldn’t tell what was filmed and what was created on a laptop. There was one moment where I literally got angry watching, as a battle ensued between some dwarves and orcs, and it looked like the fight had been produced by Dreamworks. If the special effects in The Lord of the Rings are a fine masterpiece written by Beethoven, the CGI in Battle of the Five Armies is a dubstep remix produced on an apple product of some description. I’m certainly not saying that CGI (or dubstep) is a bad thing, but it should only be used in moderation, and can only really be endured properly when bored or drunk.

The final problem links to the first, and is the issue of the ending of the film. The final Lord of the Rings film was heavily criticised for being too long at the end of the film, or at least having “too many endings”. While I agree that adding more time to The Hobbit would have only served to annoy me further, what resulted from only having a two hour film was that very few of the subplots that were built up and toyed around with for so long throughout the trilogy, were left unanswered, or given such a poor finale it made me wonder, again, why I had paid the money to watch it. While Return of the King had a lot of endings, it needed them to be able to round off the trilogy. Something tells me that the lack of a proper finale to the franchise indicates that the crew may have realised their problem, and in trying to round off their story, found that they had nothing of any interest or importance to round off.

About Me

Like so many people, I love watching films. While the industry is not where it could be at this point in time, the excitement of going to the cinema to see a newly released picture is always second to none. Of course there’s always the risk that it’ll turn out to be a waste of £6.70, and I’ll wish I spent that money on two months of Netflix, but sometimes, I come out of the cinema thinking that all is not lost for movie making world. I wouldn’t say I’m a connoisseur of films exactly. I have my preferences, as do so many, so I tend to steer clear of some genres. But the films I do enjoy, have led me to develop a certain snobbishness over the last few years of my life. I will not take the blame for this however. What has happened is I have become exposed to a number of new films, ones I would not have dreamed of watching previously.

Over the last few years, as I turned 17, and therefore could pass as 18 in a number of HMV stores, I started to buy a host of 18 rated films. And these are the films that hit the awards, and have the best directors and actors, and I suddenly became obsessed with the quality of these movies. Classic Scorsese, Tarantino and Fincher, each movie wittier and more gripping than the last. They managed to open up a new world of filmmaking to me, that I didn’t realise was possible. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with the big action sequences in a 12 rated film, or the crude hilarity of a 15 rated Seth Rogen comedy, but there’s something about the pictures made by the above directors, back in the 90’s, that they fall into their own category, their own genre.

It’s these films that made me fall in love with cinema. Previously, I would have said I enjoyed watching films, but now I have reached a point where once I watch a film, that’s not enough. I need to talk about it. I was chatting to someone the other day over a meal and I spoke at her for around 10 minutes straight about the sheer genius of The Usual Suspects. She couldn’t get a word in, as I raved on about the foreshadowing, suspense, and of course the dramatic twist. It was excellent just to be able to talk about a film that I had seen and loved.

That’s why I spend £6.70 to go to the cinema and watch a movie, instead of spending half that on a month of Netflix. So I can talk about the film I had just witnessed, with someone else who had also just seen it. We can discuss it, the good, the bad and the ugly. And I realised I enjoy talking about a film in great detail, sometimes (more often than not nowadays) more than I enjoy watching the film itself, which is why I have decided to start writing about my musings over some movies.