Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 129 minutes
Directors: Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg
Writers: Jeff Nathanson (story and screenplay), Terry Rossio (story)
Cast: Johnny Depp, Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites, Kaya Scodelairo, Geoffrey Rush, David Wenham, Kavin McNally, Martin Klebba, Stephen Graham, Golshifteh Farahani, Orlando Bloom

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures and will open in Australian cinemas on Thursday May 25 and in the United States on Friday May 26.

How did we ever get a fifth Pirates of the Caribbean film?

14 years after we first met Johnny Depp's eccentric buccaneer Captain Jack Sparrow in The Curse of the Black Pearl, the franchise is still plodding along with impressive box office returns, but unable to hold a candle to the original first film. The good news is that while Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales may be blatantly imperfect, it is nevertheless entertaining, enjoyable and a rewarding return to the spirit of the first film.

The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has it's fair share of critics and those who wonder how in the world it got to a fifth film, but it's loyalists understand the fascination with the series and why Jack Sparrow continues to intrigue. One only has to look at the inspiration for the original film to understand it's staying power.

The Pirates of the Caribbean ride at California's Disneyland was opened to the public on March 18, 1967, which was 12 years after the park was opened and it was the last ride which Walt Disney himself had a hand in designing. Despite the New Orleans Square ride being one of the oldest in the theme park, it has drawn steady crowds since it's opening and is still considered by many to be  their favourite Disney attraction. The Pirates ride is by no means the best way to get your adrenalin pumping at Disneyland, but the boat ride which takes you through the wild and scandalous Audio-Animatronic world of the Caribbean never fails to delight park-goers.

The reason for the ride's ongoing success is that the concept and world of pirates has and always will excite and intrigue. Along with that unmistakable Disney magic, this is exactly why the film franchise is still going strong and attracting audiences over a decade later. In recent times, Disney are the only one's who have been able to successfully convey the dark and dangerous world of swashbuckling pirates to the big screen and combine it with the light-hearted humour and enjoyment that makes pirates simultaneously fun and thrilling. They do this so successfully that a fifth film is not surprising nor a terrible idea.

Despite the worry that the franchise was starting to tire, Dead Men Tell No Tales is the strongest in the series since the original film. Depp returns as Captain Jack Sparrow to search for Poseidon's trident with new allies, Henry Turner (Brenton Thwaites) and Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelairo), when an old and menacing enemy, Captain Salazar (terrifyingly portrayed by Javier Bardem) reappears.

The new film is far from flawless with it's complicated story that is initially hard to follow, it's tendency to be goofy rather than funny at times and evident holes in it's screenplay (much like The Curse of The Black Pearl). However, it is nevertheless entertaining, enjoyable and painless viewing. As well as being perhaps the most visually attractive of the franchise so far with it's incredible special effects, cinematography and production design, it rewards the loyal Pirates of the Caribbean fans by building on the stories of past characters (including Orlando Bloom's Will Turner) and giving more background to others, specifically Jack Sparrow and Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbossa.

While the resounding question is made about whether Pirates of the Caribbean is still relevant, the same is undeniably being said about Depp and his Captain Jack Sparrow. After Depp was nominated by the Academy for his portrayal of the beloved antihero in The Curse of the Black Pearl, the screenwriters for the past four films (including Dead Men Tell No Tales) have given his character many recurring quotes and eccentricities...many of which have become tiresome and lack the amusement they once did. Depp is fine in Dead Men Tell No Tales and truth be told, starts the film a great deal more irritating than he finishes it. However, the inevitable question is whether it is now time for Depp to hang up his pirate hat and say goodbye to Captain Jack Sparrow?

For many the answer would be yes...but there would almost certainly be no other pirate protagonist quite like Jack Sparrow. Love him or hate him, there is no one quite like him and it would almost be impossible to reimagine a character like him to lead future Pirates of the Caribbean films..presuming there will be more. The reason fans will be praying for me is the fact that Dead Men Tell No Tales only scratched the surface of Jack's past and there is so much still to be told.

However, one would also not be disappointed for another film if Paul McCartney was to reprise his role as Uncle Jack, as it is undoubtedly one of the best scenes of the film.

We may not have needed a new Pirates of the Caribbean film, but Dead Men Tell No Tales is a thoroughly entertaining and rewarding experience for those who have stuck around hoping that the franchise is able to return to the glory days of The Curse of the Black Pearl.

7/10

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 127 minutes
Director: Tim Burton
Writers: Jane Goldman (screenplay), Ransom Riggs (based on the book written by)
Cast: Asa Butterfield, Eva Green, Terence Stamp, Chris O'Dowd, Samuel L. Jackson, Judi Dench, Allison Janney, Rupert Everett, Ella Purnell, Lauren McCrostie

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by 20th Century Fox.

With a title that deceives you into believing that it is just another film based on a piece of young adult fiction inspired by Harry Potter, Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is deliciously dark and twisted while at the same time being stunningly atmospheric.

For those who have not read the novel or are yet to see the film, a little about the origins of Ransom Riggs' twisted world. Author Riggs found his inspiration when collecting vintage photographs and he discovered that the most intriguing and bizarre photos he came across were usually those of children. Among these photos included a levitating girl, a boy lifting a rock larger than himself, twin's identically dressed in disturbing clown-like costumes, a department store Santa Claus with white for eyes and a suit that seems as though it is being worn by an invisible boy. Although these are all probably achieved using photography tricks, the unsettling nature of them allowed Riggs' mind to wonder and they each became inspiration for characters in his novel.

Screenwriter Jane Goldman has taken a number a creative liberties which make the Tim Burton directed film different in many ways to the novel and many of these changes will not sit well with fans of the book. Several characters have been omitted from the film and other key scenarios, which would have been beneficial for the film's flow and depth, have been discarded. One could guess that come time for the DVD or Blu-Ray release we may see some of these scenes appear in the special features or as an extended edition, and if so, the editing leaves the screenplay feeling somewhat sluggish and badly edited. However, despite these unfortunate and needless changes, it's intriguing and odd heart remains consistent.

Jake (portrayed by Asa Butterfield) is a seemingly average Floridian teenager who begrudgingly works at his local Smart Aid store, which is where he is when he is one day instructed to leave and check on his slightly mad grandfather (Terence Stamp). He arrives at his house to find his grandfather has been murdered in an incredibly gruesome fashion and briefly lays eyes on the horrific creature that murdered him. Jake is then swept into a world he dismissed as a figment of his grandfather's imagination where there is an orphanage of sorts filled with extraordinary children with uncanny abilities run by the enigmatic Miss Peregrine (Eva Green). As is the case with all things unusual, there are those who live in pursuit of the children...an unimaginable and for most people besides Jake, an unforeseeable horror.

The story of Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children has found it's kindred spirit in Tim Burton. He is absolutely in his element making this film and his direction is perfection. Although it does not reach the heights of his acknowledged best films, it is a story that was just screaming for him to place his stamp on it. Despite the screenplay not being as strong as it should have been, Burton does wonders with everything he can control with his superb direction and gives the film the dark and twisted, but beautiful edge it deserves.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children has a slightly X-Men-ish motto behind it that declares different as being a blessing rather than a burden, but it doesn't shout this loud and clear. The film focuses more on the power of narrative and just like Abe's stories to a young Jake, it allows a swift suspension of disbelief as you become engrossed in this fantasy world. It is extremely atmospheric at all times with the sterile Smart Aid, the worn down feel of Jake's Florida hometown, the tiny Welsh fishing village and, of course, Miss Peregrine's home. The second half of the film is a great deal darker than the first, but still maintains a colourful façade which is particularly Burton-esque. The production design by Gavin Bocquet is sublime and the costume design by the ever impressive Colleen Atwood for the children of the 1940's is wonderful.

In a role that could well have been exaggerated and overplayed, Eva Green is absolutely superb as Miss Peregrine. She performs the role with complete dignity and poise and manages to maintain the balance of harsh, but maternal. Her scene with Victor is particularly touching. Asa Butterfield is perfectly cast as Jake with his scenes involving Terence Stamp incredibly moving and sweet as they highlight the strong bond between grandparent and grandchil. Ella Purnell as Emma is also a stand out, who's role is a great deal more physical than the others. Although her peculiarity is flying, the hard part of her role is when she is walking and wearing heavy shoes to keep her on the ground, which she is continuously convincing of by way of her gait throughout the film. Samuel L. Jackson is also at his most terrifying as the evil Barron.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is a return to form for Tim Burton with a story that seemas as though it was made for him to put to screen. It exists in an incredibly colourful imaginative and intriguing world, which is twisted and unsettling in a welcomed way.

7/10

Pan (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 111 minutes
Director: Joe Wright
Writers: J.M. Barrie (characters), Jason Fuchs
Cast: Levi Miller, Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara, Adeel Akhtar, Amanda Seyfried, Kathy Burke, Jimmy Vee, Cara Delevingne

Pan open in Australian cinemas on September 24 and is distributed by Roadshow Films. To be released in the United States on October 9 and the United Kingdom on October 16.

Pan comes in with the tidal wave of prequels and sequels to much loved family classics gracing our screens this year. J.M. Barrie's "Peter Pan" has already met it's sequel in 1991's Hook, but the idea of a prequel does spark interest as there are questions that need answering from the original. How did Peter Pan come to be the beloved warrior and leader of the Lost Boys? How does Peter Pan fly? Was he born in Neverland? What did become of his family?

There is a great deal of potential there for a strong origins story about the boy who never grows up, all it needed was a good screenplay that answered these questions. The questions are absolutely answered, but the screenplay encompassing the story is incredibly weak and bitterly disappointing. Joe Wright's direction of all things intriguing and beautiful does little to enhance the flat dialogue he is faced with and what results is a film that knows the story it is trying to tell, but isn't sure how to tell it.

During World War II, many children in London were orphaned and among them a rather mischievous small boy named Peter (Levi Miller), who was left on the step of an orphanage by his mother when he was a baby. He starts to notice that other boys have been disappearing at night and it is only a matter of time before he is one of the chosen ones who is shipped off to Neverland to serve the formidable pirate, Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman). Peter is one of the lucky ones who makes it out of Blackbeard's clutches alive and sets out on a journey across Neverland, as he is convinced that this is where the mother he has been searching for so long is living and waiting for him. What awaits for him is adventure like he never imagined and the realisation of how important he really is.

The original story of "Peter Pan" was a tale for all ages and over the years has inspired many remakes and variations. Pan will inevitably draw comparisons to several of these films and while the production design and special effects are particularly stunning and superior to the large majority of predecessors, what it lacks in comparison is being a film for families as a whole. It is true, the screenplay is extremely basic in both dialogue and story so it is easy for children to follow. However, the film is also quite dark and can also be quite intimidating for little children on the big screen. Despite beautiful production design, the film lacks a great deal of well deserved colour, which is something the film is screaming for. The only scene which does impress with it's colour through lovely costume design is with the tribes, but this is not an appropriate scene for children as it is quite violent.

On the other hand, Pan does come across as too basic for adults to fall in love with. The film is not an emotional experience nor are there any underlying themes to bring further meaning to it. There's also the especially strange inclusion of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana and "Hey Ho, Let's Go" by The Ramones which are sure to raise a few eyebrows due to their bizarre appearance in the film. Pan also presents one with frustrating unanswered questions in its final moments and inconsistencies between the film and the original story. No sequel for this film is on the cards, so one cannot help but feel cheated when a gap in story is left between Pan and when he meets Wendy, Michael and John in "Peter Pan". Another strange decision by writer, Jason Fuchs is to include hints of flirting between Hook (Garrett Hedlund) and Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), which seems a lame attempt purely to include some romance in the film.

The characters themselves are also problematic. While Levi Miller is fine as Peter Pan and rather enjoyable, Blackbeard and Hook are badly constructed characters and Hook in particular is given some strange characteristics. Hugh Jackman's Blackbeard is not given much of a background story as to who he really is and how he came to be the evil man with no consideration for human life. Although Blackbeard does have some of the best lines in the film and it is Jackman's comedic timing that provides a source of entertainment. Garrett Hedlund's James Hook is incredibly exaggerated. Physically and vocally he resembles Indiana Jones more than the traditional idea of the man he is yet to become.

Pan is a disappointment to it's film relatives. It acts as an adolescent who is still not quite sure who they are, but is attempting to be everything to everyone...which ultimately never works when you are trying too hard.

4.5/10

Insurgent (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 119 minutes
Director: Robert Schwetke
Writers: Veronica Roth (novel), Brian Duffield, Akiva Goldsman and Mark Bomback (screenplay)
Cast: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Miles Teller, Ansel Elgort, Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts, Jai Courtney, Octavia Spencer, Zoe Kravitz, Ashley Judd

Insurgent is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Entertainment One.

Insurgent is a fine follow up to it's predecessor, Divergent (2014). After escaping from Erudite's ruthless leader, Jeanine (Kate Winslet),  Tris (Shailene Woodley), Four (Theo James), Caleb (Ansel Elgort) and Peter (Miles Teller) are hiding out with the members of the faction Amity as fugitives while they decide what their next move against Jeanine is. A twist of fate results in three of them encountering and lodging with the factionless, a group much bigger and better equipped than they ever thought possible who are led by Evelyn (Naomi Watts). Tris finds that Evelyn is just as keen to declare war on Jeanine, but first she has to battle her own demons and make peace with herself for how her and her Divergence have impacted the lives of those around her.

As the second film in the series based on Veronica Roth's novels, Insurgent is just as action packed and thrilling as the first film. The story continues without a lapse in momentum as it wastes no time in restarting the intensity experienced in the first film and reacquainting the audience with the characters. The film does not for one moment allow itself to settle and there are no moments of tedium as there is continuous suspense and unpredictability for those who haven't read the books.
Insurgent is exceptionally strong for what it is and that is a second film. As a first, final or stand alone film it wouldn't be of substantial quality, but it is a well done second film.

Again like the first film, Insurgent's production design is extremely impressive. The city turned wasteland is visually intriguing and extremely detailed. The musical score is a perfect fit for the overall suspenseful atmosphere of the film and adds to the intensity of the story. The CGI for the most part of the film is fine, but towards the end of the film starts to look purely computer generated and not realistic, which is never what viewers want to think even when they are well aware of what is computer generated. One has a hard time taking the final scenes in which Tris is at a height seriously as the unrealistic feel of some of the images is so distracting.

The characters themselves are really quite stereotypical of the young adult novel series turned film trend that is prevalent in cinema of this day and age. However, as a result of the cast being so good in their roles the normality of their characters is both forgiven and forgotten. We have the ballsy female protagonist, the male hero, the smart mouth and the bad guy, all typical characters but well portrayed by Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Miles Teller and Jai Courtney. Each brings a great deal to their character while not overplaying the less than original character traits. The Divergent series of films are extremely well cast for this reason. Woodley once again proves her ability as a leading lady and shows so much strength in every scene throughout the film.

However, Kate Winslet's Jeanine has the opposite effect. Her character is full of normality and it isn't her acting that overdoes the character, it is the accompanying cinematography (particularly towards the end) that makes her evil characteristics laughable. Naomi Watts' Evelyn is an enigma, but not a tremendously exciting one. She does not come into intrigue until the final moments of the film and even then she does not show any particularly interesting character traits.

What one is left with at the end of Insurgent (unless they have read the complete series of books) is a loss as to where the last two films are going. The moment that can be described as the cliff hanger doesn't give away enough to make one really excited about the next film. Therefore as strong as the rest of the film is, the finale arrives and with it delivers a sense of indifference for the next film. Insurgent is a strong follow up to Divergent and a fine film in it's own identity, but unfortunately doesn't provoke a sense of excitement for the next two films.

7/10

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1 (2014) film review

Year: 2014
Running Time: 123 minutes
Director: Francis Lawrence
Writers: Suzanne Collins (based on the novel by), Peter Craig and Danny Strong (screenplay)
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Julianne Moore, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Sam Claflin, Natalie Dormer, Jena Malone

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1 will be released in Australian cinemas on November 20 and is distributed by Roadshow Films. To be released in the United States on November 21 and the United Kingdom November 20.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1 takes place in the days following the dramatic finale of The Hunger Games in which Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) was rescued and taken to the once thought destroyed, District 13. While Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) expect Katniss to be grateful for her rescue, all she can think of is how Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) is now in The Capitol as a hostage and must be rescued. They inform her that they wish to make her the Mockingjay, the face of the rebellion against the Capitol to free the people of Panem. Katniss is hesitant at first, until she sees the destruction of her home, District 12 and agrees to become the Mockingjay with the condition that the victors being held hostage are brought to District 13.

Unlike the first two films in The Hunger Games franchise, Mockingjay- Part 1 has lacked the excitement and feeling of importance in the lead up that one feels it should possess to maintain the enthusiasm for the phenomenon. Making the final book in The Hunger Games trilogy written by Suzanne Collins into two separate films was always going to be problematic from a narrative and excitement point of view as it is only the half telling of the explosive final book. As the third but not final film in the series, the release of Mockingjay- Part 1 isn't as anticipated as the first and second films and without a doubt as the final film to be released late 2015 will be. The initial The Hunger Games film was highly anticipated as the popular and much loved novel was being introduced to the screen, as was Catching Fire because of the pressure to maintain the high standards set by the first film and the finale is always awaited for the obvious reasons.

What this has meant for the film is that it was going to have to be something truly special to prove that just because it is only half of the finale, it deserves as much love as every other film in the franchise. The verdict is that Mockingjay-Part 1 is a fine film, but still has the resonating feeling that it is a bridge rather than an island. It merely feels as though it is connecting Catching Fire and Mockingjay- Part 2 rather than it being a film that could stand alone if it wanted to. This was an inevitable problem of the final book being split into two and one that was always going to be an enormous challenge to overcome. However, it is easily recognised that Mockingjay would have either been incredibly rushed or at a running time of close to four hours had it been one film so the idea of having a two film finale cannot quickly be dismissed as a negative. Writers, Peter Craig and Danny Strong have done a fine job of fleshing out the right aspects of the book for the film and have left the story hanging promptly for the final film.

Mockingjay- Part 1 has a rather different feel to it than the first two films as Mockingjay is more about the aftermath of The Hunger Games rather than the games themselves.  The film gives an accurate depiction of the hardships inflicted on civilians by warfare and of the creation of hope in such times. The visuals of the destroyed District 8 and 12 are incredibly moving, but they are also a spectacular CGI creation. The action that ensues is brief, but well constructed and suspenseful. The film also does a wonderful job at demonstrating how hope is built in such a time, which includes an interesting insight into the creation of propaganda. The process can almost seem comical at times, but the end result is one of the utmost sincerity. The scene in which Katniss sings "The Hanging Tree" is a beautiful, peaceful moment in the film and the musical score throughout the whole film is quite beautiful.

In Jennifer Lawrence's third outing as Katniss Everdeen, she proves that she has not lost momentum with the character and that she is growing with her. From the opening moments of Mockingjay-Part 1, Lawrence once again gives a wonderful performance as a character who has trouble relating to most people as a result of the hardships she has been through and has incredibly complex internal battles taking place. It is a rather solemn and cheerless performance, which is exactly what the film calls for.

Mockingjay-Part 1 has an incredible cast and the majority do a wonderful job. Josh Hutcherson is on screen for a very short amount of time in comparison to his co-stars, but makes a great impact with the time he has. Liam Hemsworth, on the other hand, doesn't give much in his performance, which is surprising as he has a great deal to do in the film.

Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket gives a performance quite unlike that of the past Hunger Games films. As times have changed, Effie doesn't seem to be the same woman she was as she has been deprived of her luxurious clothes and make-up. However, Banks proves that it is not the clothes that make the character as she is still the complete embodiment of the eccentric Effie in manner and posture even when wearing the plainest of outfits. Natalie Dormer as Cressida becomes a character quite unlike those she has been known to play and proves her versatility as an actor.Donald Sutherland is the perfect brand of evil as President Snow and one looks forward to seeing a great deal more of him in Mockingjay-Part 2.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1 is placed in an interesting situation in relation to the other films in it's series. It's anticipation isn't as great as it's place and existence ensures that it will not be the strongest nor most entertaining film of the franchise, which is proven to be true. However, the subject material is fleshed out as much as it can be and what the film does well, it does very well.

7/10

Divergent (2014)

Year: 2014
Running Time: 139 minutes
Director: Neil Burger
Writers: Veronica Roth (novel), Evan Daugherty and Vanessa Taylor (screenplay)
Cast: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Kate Winslet, Ashley Judd, Jai Courtney, Zoe Kravitz, Miles Teller, Ansel Elgort, Maggie Q, Tony Goldwyn, Ray Stevenson, Ben Lloyd-Hughes, Christian Madsen

Divergent is perfectly tailored to it's young adult target audience, without neglecting the needs of the older audience. While many aspects of the film are stereotypical to it's genre and predictable as a result, it sets itself apart from the rest with it's suspenseful plot and intense action sequences. Fans of the book will have no complaints (or only very minor ones) about the bestseller's transition to screen, but for those who haven't read the book there may be some confusion over particular aspects of the dystopian world of Divergent.

Set in the future in the city that used to be Chicago, all inhabitants are divided into five factions based on human virtues. These factions are Amity, Erudite, Abnegation, Dauntless and Candor. When they turn sixteen, the young of each faction face an aptitude test to find out where they really belong. When Beatrice Prior (Shailene Woodley) completes her test, she is told that her test was inconclusive and that she is Divergent, meaning she exhibits behaviour typical of all factions rather than belonging in one. She is told how dangerous it is to be Divergent, and instead chooses Dauntless over staying in Abnegation. In Dauntless she must face a number of initiation tasks in order to stay in that faction, but more importantly, she must do her best to convince everyone that she is not Divergent.

The novel of the same name by Veronica Roth is a piece of fiction targeted towards the young adult audience. Yet, like many young adult novels these days, it is extremely popular with older audiences as well. The film works in much the same way as it is enjoyable for people of any age. On the other hand, it cannot be mistaken as a film in any other genre as all the things that have become known as being stereotypical parts of a YA novel turned film are there. Of course, the main character is 16 which places it in the YA genre territory straight away, but there is also the obvious romance between Tris and Four (Theo James) and the dystopian living with a fight for survival. All things which we have seen in one or two YA films before. So there really is a great deal of predictability regarding what will happen to who.

However, this doesn't matter when it comes to the film overall. It is still very entertaining and has made the transition well to the big screen. Those who have read the book will notice that the violence has been toned down a great deal from the book and there are a few things that are missing, but that is to be expected considering the film was already over two hours long without these things. In the latter half, Divergent becomes extremely action packed and the physical fighting scenes are very well choreographed and entertaining to watch. However predictable it can be at times, the film is still very suspenseful as a result of these battle scenes. The idea of the five factions and being Divergent and factionless can be a bit of a task to take in and understand, especially for those who haven't read the book.

The physical world of Divergent is wonderfully brought to life. From the beginning shot just outside the city with the deserted ship on the open plain, you are blown away by the reconstruction of Chicago to make it look as though it is futuristically war torn. The whole film is so visually intriguing, especially the images of the train and during the flying fox scene. The musical score is also perfectly suited as it has an edgy, suspenseful and futuristic feel to it, but can also feel as though it is trying a little too hard to add to the atmosphere of the film.

Shailene Woodley is perfect as Beatrice, or Tris as she becomes known as. Her character development throughout the film is perfect, as she changes a great deal from when we first meet her. When Tris is first met at the beginning of the film, it is not expected at all that this meek and curious little girl could become who she is at the end of the film, but she does so gradually and believably. Woodley, although good throughout the whole film, has one particularly memorable and powerful scene which is quite hard-hitting and emotional.

Woodley works well with Theo James, who plays her love interest. There is a great amount of chemistry between the two. James is perfectly cast as Four, who has a great deal of charisma due to his mystery. Jai Courtney, who plays Dauntless leader Eric, is also very well cast as he is just as charismatic, but in a dangerous way. Zoe Kravitz and Miles Teller also do very well as Dauntless initiates who have a great deal of character. It is great seeing Kate Winslet in such a different character than what she usually plays, and she is wonderful as Jeanine Matthews, Erudite's leader.

Divergent is an entertaining watch and although not the most unique and creative of the young adult novel turned movie category, is certainly not the least enjoyable.

7/10

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Year: 2013
Running Time: 161 minutes
Director: Peter Jackson
Writers: J.R.R.Tolkien (novel "The Hobbit"), Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh and Guillermo del Toro (screenplay)
Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Aidan Turner, Lee Pace, Benedict Cumberbatch (voice)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is now showing everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Roadshow Films

There is a lot to talk about when it comes to The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Funnily enough this reflects the film and the series of films quite well. There is a lot going on in the film so it is only to be expected that there would be a lot to discuss. However, unlike the book to film adaptation, we don't have that much to talk about to make three posts about it.

There is absolutely no denying that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a very well made film and has intended to make the most of everything available to it. After the incredible success of Peter Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's  The Lord of The Rings, The Hobbit is extremely reminiscent of the former and maybe even trying a bit too hard to be it. It really depends who you are as to how you feel about this. Some people will be over the moon that they are lucky enough to be indulged once again with Middle Earth, while others just won't be able to get past the fact that three films are being made out of one book and therefore have added so much which wasn't in the original film. For a Tolkien fan, this film holds a lot of emotional baggage, both good and bad.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug begins where The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey left off, as Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and the band of dwarves make their way to Erebor to reclaim their homeland. Along the way they come into contact with the elves and the people of Lake-town, while they try to avoid capture and death at the hands of the Orcs who are following them. As Bilbo tries to resist the power of the ring which he is carrying, he also must gather all the strength he can as according to the dwarves, he is the thief who must venture into the mountain and at all costs try to avoid being noticed by the fearsome dragon, Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch).

It is true that if you didn't like The Lord of The Rings you won't like The Desolation of Smaug. However, if you did like The Lord of The Rings, it doesn't necessarily mean that you will like The Desolation of Smaug. Taking the prior knowledge into the film that Peter Jackson and his team of writers have taken a reasonably short book (as opposed to the three book in The Lord of The Rings trilogy) and made three films out of it does tend to suggest that the film makers are indeed trying to reach for the stars. It is certainly trying to be another Lord of The Rings and in all honesty it does do well enough in doing that. The Desolation of Smaug really does have the same atmosphere as the previous trilogy and the story (with all it's additions) does play out in a similar fashion. Unlike it's processor, it does feel at times like there really is a little too much going on at once and one too many subplots. Comparing the film so much to The Lord of The Rings does seem like a sin, but given The Hobbit is basically part of the Lord of The Rings story, it is extremely hard not to.

The computer generated images used in the film are spectacular. The creation of Middle Earth locations such as Mirkwood, the Elf Kingdom and inside the mountain are incredible. The final scene in which the dwarves and Bilbo are taking on Smaug really is a visual masterpiece with the CGI perfecting the location as well as the enormity and magnificence of the dragon. The make-up used for characters such as the Orcs and the skin-changer, Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt) is very well done and in the case of the Orcs, very scary. The action sequences are also enhanced by CGI and although very impressive, can get to the point where they seem just a little too far fetched and ridiculous. For example, the scene where the dwarves are being swept down the river in barrels and trying to escape the Orcs while Legolas (Orlando Bloom) holds them off is just way too choreographed to be taken seriously.

Martin Freeman once again does well as the lead character, Bilbo. He gets very much into character and is very consistent with this character from the beginning to the end of the film. The role doesn't call for any huge emotional scenes in this film and all of his establishment of character is done in the first film, but he does as well as anyone could in the role. Ian McKellen is always an absolute thrill as Gandalf and every scene he is in is enhanced by his presence.

Richard Armitage, who plays the dwarf Thorin does well, although his performance borders on corny in the final scenes. Luke Evans as Bard is actually quite an interesting character and has a real sense of mystery to him. Evangeline Lilly's performance of the female archer elf Tauriel feels very overdone, while Orlando Bloom doesn't do too badly even though his Legolas doesn't have a great deal to work with. Benedict Cumberbatch's gives voice to both Smaug and also the Necromancer is quite interesting and fitting, particularly for Smaug.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will and has already done well due to the intrigue that Peter Jackson has created in his adaptations. His film making is known by all for being ambitious but successful and this film is a perfect showcase of his skills.

7.5/10

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

 

Year: 2013

Running Time: 146 minutes

Director: Francis Lawrence
Writers: Suzanne Collins (book), Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (screenplay)
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Stanley Tucci, Lenny Kravitz, Willow Shields, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is now showing in Australian cinemas and is distributed by Roadshow Films. Opening in the UK on the 21st of November and in the USA on the 22nd of November 2013.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is without a doubt one of the most highly anticipated films of the year. Fans of "The Hunger Games" book trilogy by Suzanne Collins and 2012's The Hunger Games have been anxious to see whether Francis Lawrence's direction do the second instalment to The Hunger Games the justice it deserves.

Everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. Catching Fire is a wonderful follow up to the first film and in many ways actually better. Francis Lawrence has done a great job directing a very well adapted screenplay by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt and has created a suspenseful and very emotional at times film. Jennifer Lawrence shines in her second venture as Katniss Everdeen and is surrounded by a number of intriguingly well-rounded characters.

After winning the 74th Hunger Games, District 12's victors, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are about the embark on their victor's tour of the districts. Although the two are still carrying on their love affair for the cameras in order to stay alive, Katniss is confused about whether she does have feelings for Peeta outside the arena, or if she is meant to be with her long time best friend, Gale (Liam Hemsworth). However, Katniss has more pressing matters than her love life at the present time. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has his eye on her every move as his citizens see her as a beacon of hope and her actions have inched the districts closer to a rebellion. With the 75th Hunger Games approaching, Snow does the unthinkable and announces that the pool of tributes will consist of past Hunger Games victors, which means that Katniss is definitely heading back into the lethal world which haunts her dreams every night.

With an influx of young adult book series being made into films and not all of those adaptations praise-worthy, Catching Fire is in a class of it's own. Not only is it a wonderful adapted screenplay, but it is one of the rare second films that may well be better than the first. Lawrence was a perfect choice for director for the second film as he has brought out the best in his actors and by doing so has made the characters personalities stronger by showing their raw emotions in a more powerful way than what we saw in The Hunger Games.

A lot happens in Catching Fire's 146 minutes. Such a running time would normally seem like an eternity in a movie theatre, but every scene is essential and contributes to the greater picture. In addition to that, every scene is intriguing and creates some sort of emotion. There is also a great deal more tension and suspense leading up to the finale than in the first film. The ending is done absolutely perfectly as you feel you are at the very height of suspense, and it leaves you wanting more and wanting the third film, Mockingjay Part 1 to be released sooner rather than later. It is an incredible thing for a film to be two and a half hours long and to leave you wanting more.

There are a great deal of close-up camera shots of the characters throughout the film, particularly of Katniss. These close-ups allow the audience to grasp every bit of emotion the character is feeling and you are able to tell so much by looking closer. There are also some very fast camera movements whilst in the Hunger Games arena. Although these can be a tad dizzying at times, it feels as though they were employed to represent the mayhem that the Hunger Games arena creates and the sense of always being on the look out and on edge. The actual landscape shots of the Hunger Games arena are also quite stunning.

The centre and heart of the film is absolutely Jennifer Lawrence. From the very first shot, Lawrence is perfection. When we first see her sitting beside the lake, we understand so much just by looking at her. Just from seeing her facial expression, we can tell that she is psychologically exhausted and still very much recovering from her time in the arena. Her performance packs a bigger punch than that of the first film and is much more emotionally charged. She is truly brilliant and the perfect heroine. What is so great about her Katniss is that she is effortlessly strong and a beacon of hope by being the person she is. It would be so easy to seem corny when acting as a symbol of strength, but there is absolutely nothing corny about this performance at all. Lawrence is just a powerhouse from beginning to end and her last scene is a perfect example of this strength.

Josh Hutcherson does well as Peeta, and continues to be such a likable character. Liam Hemsworth has a greater role as Gale than in the first film, and he also does very well with what he has been given. Both Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks, as Haymitch and Effie are both full of character and are a pleasure to watch. Donald Sutherland is particularly terrifying in such a subtle way, and it is the subtlety that makes him so unsettling as President Snow. Lenny Kravitz is an audience favourite as Cinna. His performance, like Sutherland's, is subtle rather than over the top, but his loyalty and love he shows for Katniss is so endearing. Jena Malone is also wonderful as tribute, Johanna Mason. Johanna was again a character that could have been made to seem corny, but Malone is so natural and real in this role and her obvious anger actually makes her very likable.

While Catching Fire is a wonderful film, it is still not a stand alone film and it is absolutely crucial that you see the first film before you see this one. That shouldn't come as a huge surprise as this is part of a trilogy, not a sequel so it can hardly be seen as a negative aspect of the film. For those who love The Hunger Games movie or books, there is no disappointment to be had here.

8.5/10



You may have also seen Jennifer Lawrence in.....
Silver Linings Playbook as Tiffany
X Men: First Class as Mystique

You may have also seen Liam Hemsworth in.....
Paranoia as Adam Cassidy

Percy Jackson: Sea Of Monsters (2013)

 

Year: 2013
Running Time: 106 minutes
Director: Thor Freudenhal
Writers: Rick Riordan (book), Marc Guggenheim (screenplay)
Cast: Logan Lerman, Alexandra Daddario, Brandon T. Jackson, Jake Abel, Leven Rambin, Stanley Tucci, Douglas Smith

While Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters feels and looks what would happen if Harry Potter and Greek mythology collided, there is no denying that it is fulfilling the void of adventure films that are absent in our cinemas at the present time.

Percy Jackson is the perfect example of how a film can be original without being completely original. It borrows from various past films in a big way, but throwing in Greek mythology makes the film interesting, a lot of fun and even a tad informative . Percy Jackson fans will love it and those who have never encountered Percy before will still have a good time with this film.

When we this time meet Poseidon's half-blood son, Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman), he is suffering from a lapse in self confidence as he is unsure whether it was just luck in saving Olympus or not. When the barriers of the camp for the children of the gods are broken and Percy is reunited with his nemesis, Luke (Jake Abel), he and his friends, Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario), Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) and his half brother, Tyson (Douglas Smith) set off on a quest to find the Golden Fleece to save the camp's barrier tree. While on this quest, they also try to stop Luke and his followers from bringing an ancient evil back to the world.

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters looks so much like a redoing of Harry Potter that it is crazy. The first Percy Jackson film had similarities to the Harry Potter films such as a boy who doesn't know that he has these incredible powers as a result of having extraordinary parents, is sent to a school for those such as him and is part of a trio of best friends. The similarities grow in the second film with the revelations that Percy may or may not be part of a prophecy, there is a "magical" cab driven by three freaky women (seems very much like the Night Bus in HP) and a world within a world that ordinary people cannot see. There is also a scene reminiscent of Pincocchio in a grand way.

The great news is that the second film based on Rick Rordan's book series come at the perfect time for cinema goers. While there is certainly no lack of teenage supernatural romance films at the present time, there is a lack of adventure films, especially those aimed towards the younger audience. Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters fills this gap in the release schedule and gives audiences of any age a bit of fun and a thrill. Given it's similarities with Harry Potter, it is also released at a time long enough after the mentioned to avoid direct comparisons by all.

As the series of books are for children/ young adults, there is nothing confronting or harsh about the film. It is just plain and fluffy fun with a simple and a tad silly story. Although there are some very touching moments throughout the film and they come as a complete surprise. For those who do not know much about Greek mythology, there is quite the lesson with the Percy Jackson film, as long as you remember that it is just the back story based on mythology.

The opening scene of the film, which takes place at the camp's tournament is a great start to the film. It is an action packed start which reminds you of a school sports carnival, except a bit more original than your typical athletics. The soundtrack is also perfect. It truly is a great start to the film as it captures for the audience an atmosphere of fun  that is going to continue throughout the film. The CGI is also impressive, especially the great scene where Percy surfs the wave he has created.

Logan Lerman is wonderful once again as Percy Jackson. The great thing about Lerman's performance in this film is that he gives so much without going over the top. In the scenes where the opportunity arises for his character to be overly emotional and one would normally expect the actor to do so in such a film, he is so subtle but in doing so is far more effective. Some of his later scenes with Douglas Smith and Alexandra Daddario are really quite beautiful because of Lerman's powerful subtlety. Daddario also does well, again not over acting, but being natural and achieving so much more by doing so.

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters is the perfect example of how a film can be original without being completely original and be a success while doing so.

7/10


You may have also seen Logan Lerman in......
The Three Musketeers as D'Artagnan
The Perks of Being A Wallflower as Charlie

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Year: 2013
Director:  Gore Verbinski
Cast: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, Helena Bonham Carter, Tom Wilkinson, William Fichtner, Ruth Wilson
The Lone Ranger is now showing in cinemas everywhere

Not much good has been said about  Disney's The Lone Ranger since it has been released.

Straight off the bat, the expectations for The Lone Ranger were always going to be incredibly high for the fact that it's production company is Walt Disney Studios. Disney are one company who are always capable of creating a classic. It is true that The Lone Ranger may not be a classic, but it is definitely not the worst movie of 2013. It is far from the best, but there is something about this bunch of silliness that does make it entertaining enough.

In 1866, a train chugs towards the future carrying lawyer, John Reid (Armie Hammer), as well as prisoners, convicted criminal, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) and Indian, Tonto (Johnny Depp). Cavendish escapes in what appears to be a set up, which leads to a man hunt by John's brother, Dan (James Badge Dale) and the deaths of all the search party at the hands of a traitor. In a strange turn of events, John starts working with Tonto and finds out more than he would have liked to have known about the dealings of the white people with the Indians of the land.

Based on an American legend, The Lone Ranger is all just a bit silly. It is so over the top and cliché in it's execution and there is really nothing you can take seriously about it. The romance aspect of the film adds nothing to the story and really could have been cut out of the film entirely, which would have shortened it's 149 minute running time. The idea of having an elderly Tonto tell a young boy at a San Francisco fairground the story is also completely useless and the film would have flowed a lot better if it was told in real time rather than a series of flashbacks. Therefore, it is the screenplay, written by Justin Haythe, Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, that is one of the key factors in what fails to make this film a Disney classic. The story itself isn't too bad as it does have some unpredictable revelations, but the screenplay tries to do a little too much.

As it is promoted, The Lone Ranger is from the same people who have brought us Pirates Of The Caribbean. So what a lot of people are saying and quite rightly so is that this is a western version of Pirates Of The Caribbean. Chances are if you weren't a fan of those swash-buckling films, you won't be a fan of this film. Johnny Depp's Tonto is a native American version of Captain Jack Sparrow and the choreography of the action scenes is also very similar. The good thing is that if you are one of those people who did love the Pirates films, then you may be a fan.

However, the good news is that with all it's faults, The Lone Ranger is at least entertaining. The best part of the film is the last half an hour which is almost like a cleverly composed dance number set in the west. The musical score is almost strangely selected, but does serve its purpose by setting the scene and creating a feeling of suspense and excitement. A great film needs to be this the whole way through, but the last 30 minutes is worth watching the whole film for.

Johnny Depp has always been the actor who loves to perform "different" roles and has made different his norm. He may not be the best native American ever on screen, but he still pulls off the role believably enough. He is also, of course, entertaining as we all know Depp to be. Armie Hammer does fine as John Reid, but it is arguably not a very hard role to play and does not require too much emotion. Helena Bonham Carter's character is not particularly needed in the film, but she is always a treat on screen. Ruth Wilson is another who's character as Reid's sister in-law/ romantic interest is not particularly needed and not a particularly exciting character on screen.

The Lone Ranger perhaps doesn't need to be accused of being as big a disaster as it is being made out to be, but it is not a Disney classic. Just a splash of entertainment for the here and now.

5/10



You may have also seen Johnny Depp in......
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides as Captain Jack Sparrow
Alice In Wonderland as The Mad Hatter

You may have also seen Armie Hammer in.....
The Social Network as Cameron Winklevoss/ Tyler Winklevoss

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Year: 2011

Director: Guy Ritchie

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Rachel McAdams, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry

Before I begin my review….

                Personally, I have so much respect for Robert Downey Jr.

My husband will tell you it is because of his looks that I say this. Don’t get me wrong, he is a very good looking man, but this isn’t the main reason I am such a fan. I think he is an amazing actor who brings his quirky streak to his performances and when you go to see a Downey Jr. movie, you know you are never in for a dull and lifeless performance.

                I also have tremendous respect for his marriage to Susan Downey. I love these two as a couple. Any footage of these two tells you that these two are the perfect type of couple, they are best friends who are clearly in love and infatuated with each other. Robert is always complimenting Susan and Susan is continuously glowing every time she looks at her husband.

                As we know, Downey Jr. has not always been the golden boy of Hollywood with several visits to jail and drug addiction in the late 1990’s. Yet, life just seemed to get better and better for him once he met producer, Susan Levin on the set of Gothika in 2003. The couple married in 2005 and Downey Jr.’s career started to take and upward turn not long after. I am not saying that Susan is the sole reason why his career has been so successful in the past few years, but it does no harm being in a happy and supportive relationship, especially when she is also the producer in the majority of his films.

                The happy couple are expecting their first child together this February and we wish them all the best!

Anyway, onto my review of Downey Jr.’s latest film, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,

Review

                A sequel is a sequel, you can’t expect too much more than what you know a typical sequel is.

                This doesn’t mean that Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a bad movie, it just puts the words into your mouth that you often hear after most sequels, “It wasn’t as good as the first”. Yet, do we expect it to be? If you normally think like this with a sequel, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. If you go in not expecting it to be as good as the first film and just appreciate it for what it is, you avoid disappointment and just enjoy what has been given to you.

                However, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is better than your typical sequel. Director, Guy Ritchie has bought across to the new film what made the first film work such as amazing cinematography and a killer score by Hans Zimmer, but has enhanced the comedic value of the film.

                In the second of the latest Sherlock Holmes films, Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his ever trusted companion, John Watson (Jude Law) are in pursuit of Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris), who Holmes believes is behind a series of disasters across Europe. Moriarty makes Watson and his new wife, Mary (Kelly Reilly) his target in response thus forcing Holmes to retaliate and set out to overthrow his plans to unleash havoc on all of Europe.

                There is no doubt that Ritchie knows how to direct a film. He proved the perfect choice for the first Sherlock Holmes and he has carried on into the second instalment what works. The film is very entertaining and is visually fantastic to watch. There are several “wow” scenes such as the chase through the woods. The editing and cinematography in such scenes as this are breathtaking.

                However, the story and script are nowhere near as strong as they were in the first film. This Sherlock Holmes doesn’t have the same air of mystery that a Sherlock Holmes story traditionally has, it is more an action film than a mystery. The story isn’t very strong and feels a bit jumpy at times.

                It also feels as though the script by Michele and Kieran Mulroney is trying to be a little too funny. What made the first Sherlock Holmes work was the subtle humour involved and the witty script. A Game of Shadows tries a little too hard and works too much on the comedy side rather than on a tight script and story. Granted, it is funny so it does work in that way and it does make it entertaining, but it would have been nice to have seen the focus shifted to a cleverly written script.

                However, the film’s story does strengthen towards the end and it is actually an ending most people will not see coming.

                Robert Downey Jr. is still perfect as the lead role in this film. He has the right amount of quirkiness, strength and belief in his character to bring Holmes to life and make him likable. Downey Jr. and Jude Law’s best friend/ partner in crime relationship peaks at the right time in the story and in the right ways. They feel distanced and without chemistry at the beginning when Watson is preparing for mystery retirement and marriage, but they work as one again by the end of the film.

                Noomi Rapace still looks a tad lost in the film and there really is no strength in her performance, even in moments where there should be.

                A great holiday movie and an above average sequel.

6.5/10

Sources
The Internet Movie Database
RadarOnline.com

The Three Musketeers

Year: 2011

Director: Paul W. S. Anderson

Cast: Logan Lerman, Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Milla Jovovich, Christoph Waltz

Before I begin my review……

                It’s insane how many times The Three Musketeers can be remade and the characters can be featured in different films, and they can still be a huge box office draw.

                I did a quick search and The Three Musketeers have been made into nearly 30 films in at least four different languages including English, Spanish and Danish. Disney have, of course, had a go at it, as has Japanese anime. The characters of Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D’Artagnan also appear in such films as 1998’s The Man In The Iron Mask. 

                The words The Three Musketeers are known to everyone, whether you have seen the films are not. They still capture the heart of adventure lovers from every generation.

                I guess The Three Musketeers is like many other remade adventure/ action movies these days. Film makers want to remake them as when they watch the original, they think to themselves “Imagine what we could do with thus film with all the film techniques we have available to us these days”.

                The 2011 version is definitely an example of “Hey! Look what we can do now!”

Review

                2011 seemed about time to make another The Three Musketeers, so why not? Just don’t expect too much different from other films of the same name as far as the story goes, visually except so much more!         

                Young D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman) is the son of a once Musketeer and travels from country France to Paris to become one himself. When he arrives, he finds that the three Musketeers, Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans) are not quite as popular and heroic as he once thought. However, when Lord Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) visits from England, he and Athos’ once love, Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich) scheme to steal a diamond necklace from Queen Anne (Juno Temple). The Musketeers embark on an adventure to England to claim back what belongs to France.

                The Three Musketeers is one of those adventure films with plenty of corn cheese to it. It is very unrealistic with fights in air ships, fighting on top of English and French landmarks and blowing these landmarks to pieces. But hey, true story adventures were never this fun, right?

                Everything is very over the top, there is backing music to accompany every situation, even if it makes everything just seem all the more ridiculous. The graphics and special effects are very good and enhanced by 3D. However, some special effects visuals don’t look quite as realistic they could be.

                The musical score is very good and the sword fighting scenes are impressively choreographed. 

                Logan Lerman does well as the young D’Artagnan and Macfadyen, Stevenson and Evans are all very good as the Musketeers. Lerman, Macfadyen and Stevenson do very well with each of their characters and you know the true self of each of them. Evans lacks a tad in this area as you don’t really know where his character fits in personality wise with the others.

                Christoph Waltz is, as always, at home in the role of the villain. Not quite as evil as his previous roles of late, but still convincing as the Cardinal. Orlando Bloom impresses as Buckingham. Bloom isn’t known for playing the villainous roles, but he is completely convincing here and actually very entertaining to watch.

                Milla Jovovich is perhaps the most over-emphasised character. Absolutely everything about her character is completely overdone. Every facial expression and line she says just has a little too much in it.

                The Three Musketeers is this time around just as entertaining as the previous versions. Nowhere near the best version and not really very memorable, but entertaining enough.

6/10