Movie Reviews: Star Trek Beyond ★★★★☆

Star Trek Beyond (2016) 

Director: Justin Lin
Genre: Science Fiction, Action
Running Time: 120 minutes 

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Idris Elba

I loved the new Star Trek! I was quite skeptical after finding out that J.J. Abrams would not direct the third film in the rebooted series and the first trailer was not very convincing for me, but I enjoyed myself immensely in the theater! It was fun, it was esthetically pleasing, it was just really exciting!

The cast is, just like in Star Trek (2009) and in Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013), a huge asset. First of all: Chris Pine is enormously charismatic as Captain Kirk. Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban are hugely amusing as Spock and Bones, who form a brilliant couple stranded on a deserted planet. Simon Pegg as Scotty seems to have been bumped from supporting character to one of the main characters (it's very coincidental that that would happen in this film, as Pegg co-wrote the script). Zoe Saldana's Uhura is the only character I felt was let down a bit, in comparison to the rest she didn't have much to do here. Newcomers Idris Elba as the bad guy and Sofia Boutella as Jaylah (who is apparently based on Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone (2010), according to Pegg) are also very solid, but the chemistry of the familiar cast is what's the heart of the film. For that reason I got quite emotional when I saw Anton Yelchin as Chekov, because the young actor passed away a little while ago. Abrams has (fortunately) stated that Chekov won't be recast, but that he'll be written out of the story.

Enough about the cast! The film itself is quite good as well. The story was, for me, not as inventive as the first or the second one, but the film felt like a very authentic Science Fiction film. Going back to its Sci-Fi roots, so to speak. In comparison to Star Trek: Into Darkness, this film doesn't have a lot of twists and turns, but an excessively difficult story is not needed for a brilliant film (ask Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)). I do think it's a little unfortunate that Justin Lin didn't take any risks, something that I'm missing in almost all recent blockbusters. To be honest, considering the immensely hateful reaction to a 'risky' decision such as a female cast of Ghostbusters (2015), it's quite understandable that filmmakers stay a little safe. The 'coming out' of Sulu was even criticized by the original actor. Am I the only one who doesn't really care about the personal appearance/life/preferences from a character?

Nonetheless, it's a good film that continues the high quality of the 'new' Star Trek films. The cast is outstanding and it looks beautiful. I would like to see more risks in the next one, but I was very happy and content with Star Trek Beyond.

★★★★☆

Movie Essays: The Lack of Objectivity of Movie Reviews

People love reading reviews. Lucky for them, reviews are everywhere. In movie magazines, in newspapers, even in fashion magazines. I’ve always found the great diversity in appreciation very interesting. A film can get up to 5 stars in one newspaper and 1 star in another. It got me wondering about the objectivity of movie reviews and whether it’s all just about personal taste or not.

Different degrees to appreciation for a film between two very different magazines, is quite understandable to me. I understand that a film like Magic Mike XXL (2015) gets much more attention from a magazine like Glamour, than GQ, but even professional movie reviewers don’t have the same opinion. The biggest movie site IMDb uses Metacritics to score their films, besides the IMDB users. These critics are from all over America (and Canada) from different big newspapers. The Magic Mike sequel gets an 8.8 from The Globe and Mail (Toronto), but a 2.5 from the Chicago Sun-Times. That is quite a big difference. A very popular film like Intouchables (2011) is given an 8.6 by audiences on IMDB, but the metascore is 5,7 (with marks from 8.8 to 2.0). Almost every film has this huge variety of reviews and I think this is a little problematic for the image of movie reviewers.

Every critic can say anything about every film, as long as they give relatively good arguments. This is not just about movie critics, it's about all critics: from art to music. The problem is that there isn't a perfect standard, a film that reviewers can compare every film to. There is no 'perfect film', no 'perfect song' and 'no perfect piece of art'. It seems like it all comes down to taste, but I don't think that is entirely true. Professional critics have spent most of their lives in cinemas and thinking about films. They don't just see three films a year, write something random about them and go on with their lives. Most have studied Film and have a lot of knowledge in aspects like cinematography and art direction. Because of the huge amount of films they've seen, it's also easier to rank films on a scale (though it's a subjective one).The more films someone watches, the more material for comparison someone has. Ideally a movie-fan should find a specific filmcritic with the exact same taste as him or her, but that's easier said than done.

Another website for movie critics, called Rottentomatoes, has a big problem. This site gives every film a percentage (all films above 60% are 'fresh' and below 60% are 'rotten' (hence the 'rotten' in Rottentomatoes). Critics can say a film is either good or bad and this will end up in a percentage. I don't think this is an ideal way to rate movies, because a film is often not just 'good' or just 'bad'. For me (and I guess for most people) there is a huge difference between perfect films and 'all-right'-films, but both are, in the eyes of Rottentomatoes the same, both reviews are called 'fresh'. Edgy and daring films oftentimes get lower scores than safe films and public pleasers. For example: Avengers: The Age of Ultron (2015) somehow got a 75%, but a film like The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), a creative Wes Anderson films, gets a 54%. I think that these unique movies have more often negative reviews than crowd pleasers. Most people are fine with conventional films, like everything from Marvel. Nobody really hates them and people give these films mostly a 'fresh' review (even if it's just 6/10), hence a higher score. There is often, with more different films (from directors such as Lars Von Trier), a greater variety in appreciation. It's a shame, because this way there is not a good representation of movie-quality. With their method, films that aren't anything special could get the same score as an absolute masterpiece, because all their reviews are 'fresh' (not taking into account that the actual marks differ enormously)

An interesting case that's been all over the news, the past few weeks is Ghostbusters (2016). It started out with a 3.7 as user score at IMDb, which is really low (normally new films start with extremely high scores between the 8 and 9). There were countless angry fanboys that just started giving the film a 1/10. I've seen the film and, although it's not brilliant, it's by no means horrible. The critics are also relatively positive (6.0 Metacritics and 73% Rottentomatoes), so such a low score is not 'fair'. Luckily the score has picked up a bit (at this moment it's 5.3), but it still proves that people actually shouldn't watch at those user scores, because they are mainly decided by the people who give a film either a 1/10 or a 10/10 (I don't think that should be an option, because no film is perfect and no film is completely garbage). It also prove, that most professional movie reviewers are capable of letting their prejudices out of their reviews.

Rottentomatoes and Metacritic might not be the perfect means to objectively rate/rank movies, but it's for the moment the best we have. It's inevitable that critics review films based on their taste, but most have enough knowledge and 'film-watching-experience' that, for me, their reviews can pass for 'objective'. As long as personal grudges against actors or positive or negative feelings towards a subject matter stay out of their review, I'll be happy to read it.

Movie Actors: 5 Actresses who Deserve an Oscar

Everyone was so happy for Leonardo DiCaprio after finally winning an Oscar for The Revenant (2015). Personally, I disliked both the film and his performance. He was way, way better in What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993). Here are some female actors who I think deserve an Oscar at least as much as Leo.

1. Amy Adams - 5 Nominations

Amy has been nominated for an Oscar for a whopping five times. She's never a liability in a film and always very solid. She's capable of doing very different roles. From a Disney princess in Enchanted (2008) to a nun in Doubt (2008) and a sexy woman in American Hustle (2013) (although American Hustle wasn't particularly my favorite film). She seems very humble and professional. Unfortunately, she's a lot less famous than Leonardo DiCaprio. So nobody seems to notice that she's been nominated just as many times as him, but hasn't won an Academy Award yet.
Best performance so far: Enchanted (2008)

2. Glenn Close - 6 Nominations

Cruella de Vil in 101 Dalmatians (1996). Need I say more? No, I don't think that I do. But besides that masterpiece, she's been nominated 6 times! Screw Leonardo DiCaprio and please give this woman the Oscar she deserves!
Best performance so far: Albert Nobbs (2011)

3. Sigourney Weaver - 3 Nominations

I don't think there will ever be a better, stronger, more badass female action hero than Ripley in the Alien films. Weaver was a revelation in Alien (1979), which is still one of my all-time favorite films. She's done so many smaller (very funny) films and it's beyond me why she hasn't been granted an Oscar (well, probably because she doesn't really do 'Oscar-bait-films', but just give her a lifetime achievement Oscar, please).
Best performance so far: Aliens (1986)

4. Laura Linney - 3 Nominations

Everyone knows her solely from her role in Love Actually (2003). Her British accent is incredible, I was surprised when I learned back then that she was actually American. She's done a lot of smaller films and she's often overlooked. She's got a wide range and she can do both emotional drama and comedy which come perfectly together in The Big C (2010 - 2013).
Best performance so far: You Can Count on Me (2000)

5. Joan Allen - 3 Nominations
I remember the first time I saw Joan Allen. It was in Pleasantville (2004) and I remember being moved by her performance. Somehow she brings class to every role she plays. She is a very underrated actress, who deserves better and bigger roles than she gets at the moment.
Best performance so far: The Contender (2000)

Honorable mentions: Keira Knightley (Atonement), Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn) and Toni Colette (Little Miss Sunshine)

Movie Suggestions: Comedy

Honestly, I'm quite picky when it comes down to comedy films. There are so many terrible comedy films out there. The few comedy actors that I adore are female (Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Maya Rudolph, Amy Poehler a.o.). Here are five comedy films that I think everyone should watch.

1. Bridesmaids (2011) - Paul Feig

I can watch this film over and over again. The six leading ladies are so funny, especially Kristen Wiig. They make this film both surrealistic and ridiculous, but also very recognizable. There are a few scenes that are brilliant (the plane scene and the bridal shop scene). The film (and Wiig) was nominated for an Oscar for Best Script and Melissa McCarthy snatched up a nomination for Best Supporting Actress! 

If you liked this you should definitely watch: Mean Girls (2004) and Spy (2015)

2. Away We Go (2009) - Sam Mendes

This is such a sweet, little film from Oscar winning director Mendes. John Krasinski (from The Office (2005-2013)) and Maya Rudolph (from Saturday Night Live) make an adorable, pregnant couple. There are some delicious supporting characters (the standout is Maggie Gyllenhaal). It's not only very funny, but also quite emotional and the ending will probably make you cry.

If you liked this you should definitely watch: Little Miss Sunshine (2006) and Garden State (2004)

3. Love & Friendship (2016) - Whit Stillman

Hi-la-ri-ous. Absolutely hilarious. Kate Beckinsale is absolute perfection in this Jane Austen film. The movie is based on a novella of Austen and it is viciously funny. Laughing out loud in the cinema is something I rarely do, but this time I was basically laughing for the full 90 minutes. The cast is outstanding and it is a very modern film (despite taking place around 1800).

If you liked this you should definitely watch: Pride and Prejudice (2005) and Austenland (2013)

4. Pride (2014) - Matthew Warchus

For some reason I prefer British comedy over American comedy and this is another example of a great British comedy. It is quite a serious subject (gay rights), but it's such a joy to watch. The impressive cast, led by Ben Schnetzer, is clearly having a blast. Especially Dominic West in a brilliant dancing sequence and Imelda Staunton as an older activist. Again, just like Away We Go (2009), it does have some emotional moments, but often those moments set a film apart from the hurdle of conventional comedy films.

If you liked this you should definitely watch: The Kids are All Right (2010) and Eddie the Eagle (2016)

5. The Lobster (2015) - Yorgos Lanthimos

I don't want to give too much away of this interesting film. It takes place in a alternative world where there are some very strict rules about relationships. It's funny, it's different, it's great. Colin Farrell and Rachel Weisz play the two leading characters who fall madly in love. Unfortunately, the film weakens a bit when it goes along, but the beginning is so strong and funny that for that reason alone you should definitely watch it!

If you liked this you should definitely watch: The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) and Her (2014)

Movie Reviews: The Purge: Election Year / The Legend of Tarzan / Independence Day: Resurgence

Well, over the last few days I went to a lot of different films. Unfortunately, they were not all great. These three tiny reviews are from films that disappointed me (in order from worst to 'best').

The Purge: Election Year (2016)

Director: James DeMonaco

Genre: Thriller, Horror

Running Time: 105 minutes

Starring: Frank Grillo, Elizabeth Mitchell and Mykelti Williamson

This was utter shit. The reviews were relatively positive, which I just cannot understand. I cannot find one single good aspect of the film. The concept of 'the purge' has been taken completely out of context. There are no scary or exciting scenes at all. All the characters are uninteresting. I almost walked out. So please do not go see this one.

★☆☆☆☆

The Legend of Tarzan (2016)

Director: David Yates

Genre: Adventure, Action

Running Time: 110 minutes

Starring: Alexander Skarsgard, Margot Robbie and Samuel L. Jackson

Alexander Skarsgard is a good-looking man, but he has so little screen presence. It's just not that interesting to watch him. Margot Robbie, on the other hand, has some serious screen presence, but she's stuck in the damsel-role of Jane. The movie is quite flat in general with a lazy script. It's not really bad, because it looks beautiful and has some nice cinematography, but as a whole it's a bit boring. I don't think I'm going to see this for a second time any time soon.

★★☆☆☆

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

Director: Roland Emmerich

Genre: Science Fiction, Action

Running Time: 120 minutes

Starring: Liam Hemsworth, Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman

All right, I loved that this film didn't take itself seriously. And I love Jeff Goldblum. And I love Aliens. That's it. The rest is just a big pile of impressive-looking nothing. This was, in comparison to The Legend of Tarzan however, not boring. It was a fun, dumb blockbuster with ridiculous characters and a shockingly thin plot. But who cares about a plot when there is a gigantic alien trying to destroy the world, right?

★★☆☆☆

Movie Screencaps: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows II (2011)

In 2011 the Harry Potter series ended, a climax that millions of people from all over the world waited for. I've already talked about the consistent quality in a tiny essay, but I've decided to use the final chapter of the Harry Potter saga for 'Movie Screencaps'. The film is one of the most esthetically pleasing films out of the series. Especially the memories of Alan Rickman's Snape is stunning. The sequence gets even more emotional after the passing of Rickman.

Movie History: Week 3 - Taxi Driver (1976)

A few months ago, two friends and myself participated in a film quiz. Unfortunately, half of the questions were about films before 1980. This is an area of cinema of which we all knew basically nothing. I've seen a Hitchock film of two, but we've never taken the time to watch all classic movies everyone always keeps raving about. So what to do about that? We started a little club and aim to watch one old/classic/vintage film a week. 

Week 2: Taxi Driver (1976) ★☆☆☆☆

I was truly, thoroughly disappointed after watching this film. Everyone loves it, it's 'one of the best films ever' and 'one of the best performances ever' and both me and my two friends just didn't get it. I started looking for reviews afterwards, because I needed to know why it is 'such a good film'. But I found the reviews, just like the film itself, quite vague. Apparently, the atmosphere of New York at night is amazing in the movie. I believe that's true, but not having been in New York, it's a little difficult to judge that. Plus, in the description at the back of the DVD it said that Travis Bickle (Robert DeNiro) was a Vietnam veteran and has insomniac/mental issues. These aspects of his life are barely covered in the story (he says 1 time that he's been a soldier). I think that, because the film delves into his psyche and his downfall, that these issues should be brought way more often. This way, the viewer would actually understand why Bickle is going through his drastic transformation.

I was looking forward to seeing Jodie Foster in the role that got her an Oscar nomination at a very young age. Unfortunately, her role was very small and not that impressive. The only reason (we thought) that she got an Oscar nod was because she took on a very gutsy and mature role at a very young age. It's not that both DeNiro and Foster are acting badly, but just not as (shockingly) good as everyone says they are. 

A final problem, which I've had with all older films I've seen so far, is the representation of women. Besides Jodie Foster there is one prominent female character and the naivety of her is unbelievable. She meets a guy who has been stalking her for a while and she gladly goes out with him (to a Swedish sex education film)? Seriously, who on earth would even consider doing that. In Citizen Kane (1941) the women were also very one-dimensional, but Taxi Driver is more than 30 years later. And the film industry is not a stranger to strong women, because in the next year Star Wars IV: A New Hope (1977) would come out with Carrie Fisher as the feisty and confident Princess Leia. 

All thing added, I cannot (and believe me, I've tried) come up with great aspects of the film. It has a leading character that I have truly no sympathy for whatsoever and I don't care what happens to him, boring supporting characters, an over-the-top ending (why, seriously why, is Travis Bickle suddenly a hero for shooting a few people to death? All right, they weren't perfect citizens, but it's still cold blooded murder!) and a very limited and superficial storyline. I realize that I'm basically the only one who strongly dislikes Taxi Driver, but I would love to someone to explain to me with specific arguments why exactly is actually a good film.

Movie Actors: Taron Egerton

In august 2013 Taron Egerton had never been on a movie set. Now, three years later, he is one of the most popular and talented young actors around. His breakthrough role in Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014) was a huge hit, it grossed over 400 million dollars. What makes Taron more interesting than many other young actors, is his choice of movies. After playing a handsome spy, it would have been 'easy' for Egerton to stay the new heartthrob and continue starring in flashy, popular movies. This is, fortunately, not the path that the 26-year old guy from Wales has chosen. His next films were a supporting role in a costume drama, Testament of Youth (2014) and a role as Tom Hardy's lover in Legend (2015). It shows some guts to not take on conventional roles. 

After watching Eddie the Eagle (2016) I was even more convinced of Taron's very bright future. His character is in real life not quite a looker and Taron makes throughout the movie a permanent (effective) funny face and wears very unflattering glasses. It's dangerous for actors to not look attractive and handsome in movies nowadays, because Hollywood is so focused on whether an actor looks good enough. Egerton is making quite a statement by choosing yet another unconventional role. What I find rather interesting is that basically all his projects so far are very British. Unlike fellow British young actors like Jack O'Connell (Money Monster (2016)) or Richard Madden (Bastille Day (2016)) he stays in Great Britain. This does say something about his ambitions. If he would have taken some American projects impulsively, it would show that he really wants to get as famous as possible very quickly. By doing smaller projects he seems more humble and grounded.

But that doesn't mean he won't star in big budget films in the future! First of all, there is the second film with Taron as Eggsy: Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017), which has added Julianne Moore, Halle Berry and Channing Tatum to its already impressive cast. Also, he will star as the title character in Robin Hood: Origins (2017) next year. So it's not like Taron hasn't got ambition, but at least he's not starring as random superhero (which 75% of Hollywood is doing at the moment).

Taron is not only a talented actor, he is a genuinely nice guy. He had to do a lot of interviews with Hugh Jackman (for Eddie the Eagle) and Colin Firth (for Kingsman) and he comes across as funny and a pleasure to be around. He is very candid and he makes it very noticeable that he isn't as experienced at talking to the press as other actors. It doesn't feel like he's putting up a show (but he might just be that good of an actor).

I'm very interested in seeing how Taron's career will unfold in the next couple of years. I think he really is going to make it, because he's got it all: the talent, the looks, the personality and the drive.

Movie Reviews: Finding Dory ★★★☆☆

Finding Dory (2016) 

Director: Andrew Stanton and Angus MacLane

Genre: Animation, Comedy

Running Time: 97 minutes 

Starring: Ellen DeGeneres, Albert Brooks, Ed O'Neill

Looking at the last six years of Pixar films, I have to say that they haven't impressed as much as they have in the 2000's. Back then, there were basically only great films with Monsters, Inc. (2001), Finding Nemo (2003), The Incredibles (2004), Wall-E (2008) and Up (2009). The only brilliant films of the last couple op years were Inside Out (2015) and Toy Story 3 (2010). There have been a few good films, but these aren't really that special, like Brave (2012) and The Good Dinosaur (2015). Finding Dory is also a good, but not a great film. It lacks, for me, the imagination of the standouts of Pixar. Because of the increasing quality of other animation films (Dreamworks), I think that Pixar really has to step of her game. Pixar has won 'just' two of the last five Oscars for Best Animated Feature. This is by no means bad, but it is disappointing, compared to winning every Oscar from 2007 to 2010.

But back to Finding Dory (2016). Although I'm being quite negative here, Pixar is still by far my favorite animated studio. I did enjoy Finding Dory a lot! Dory was the best character from Finding Nemo (2003) and Ellen DeGeneres' fish is still as funny as in the first one. It is, as we can expect from Pixar by now, beautifully animated and the supporting voice-cast is great! With standouts from Dominic West and Idris Elba as sea lions Rudder and Fluke and Kaitlin Olson as whale shark Destiny. The story is very similar to other Pixar films, with an emotional (on the verge of depressing) beginning and a road to a happy end with some bumps along the way.

So, what didn't I like? First of all, for some reason I thought Finding Dory was more aimed at children than a lot of other Pixar films. I get that the main audience of animation films is (usually) children, but the humor, storyline and characters all felt much more childlike than, let's say, Inside Out (2015) or Wall-E (2008). As a result, this film lacks some emotional depth. Normally, I weep during every Pixar film, but I wasn't remotely near to crying during Finding Dory. I'm not saying that I feel like I need to cry, but I do think it's a result from a relatively superficial story. Because it is of course a sequel there isn't as much originality as in original story (obviously), but where the Toy Story sequels managed to be creative, Finding Dory has some troubles with that. For example the chase by a giant squid is almost exactly the same as the chase by the deep sea monster in Finding Nemo. I think that renovations are crucial for a sequel and, because it's an animation film, there are very few limitations to the visuals of new ideas. I'm afraid Pixar won't be extremely inventive with the third sequel to the widely hated (except for six-year-old boys) Cars (2006), but I would love to see an incredible Incredibles 2 (2019) and a smashing Toy Story 4 (2018). Most of all, however, I would love to see new original story, because that what Pixar does best!

 ★★★☆☆

Movie Screencaps: Green Room (2015)

Green Room (2015) is a horror thriller and one of the last films of Anton Yelchin. Seeing him as the punk rocker Pat, made me more sad about his passing than I already was. The cast is very stellar (with Patrick Stewart in a very uncharacteristic, but splendid role), but it is Yelchin who carries Green Room. An original film that is a thrill to watch, from beginning to end and aesthetically very pleasing.

  

Movie Essays: The Consistent Quality and Internal Development of the Harry Potter Series

Yes, I'm very biased. Harry Potter is to me sheer perfection, but even as an 'objective movie-reviewer wannabe' I think that the films are quite unique. Every film manages to feel both very different from the last one, but at the same time there is a strong feel of similarity. It's the perfect mix between authenticity and renovation. I'll try to explain why the Harry Potter series isn't just of great sentimental value for me, but that it is the strongest films series of the last few decades. 

Four years after the first novel came out, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) hit the theatres. It was an instant hit, and it made almost 1 billions dollar at the box office. Chris Columbus, the director, worked very closely with J.K. Rowling (who insisted that the whole cast would be British) that the magical feeling of the books would translate into film. The three young actors, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, became worldwide stars within months. These actors were as good as an actor of 11 years old could be. In comparison to the outstanding supporting cast (Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane) they do fall short, but that is to be expected. The growth that these three young actors went through, throughout the eight films, is amazing. Around the third film Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) they are not a weaker aspect of the film anymore, they are part of the very stellar cast.

The growth of the three main actors is an important part of the development of the films. The older they get, the more mature the films become. The atmosphere from the first film (2001) is so different from the last one (2011). It's not only because of the more advanced possibilities of special effects in 2011, but the latter films are darker and more serious. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010) and Part 2 (2011) are no children's films anymore, because there are truly frightening and mature moments in them. The development of the films is also accented by the darker soundtracks. The four composers (John Williams, Patrick Doyle, Nicholas Hooper and Alexandre Desplat) add more maturity to the films as they go along. Characters and the feel of a film often change throughout various films series like The Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Caribbean, but the changes that the Potter universe goes through are unmatched.

The crew is an important part of why the whole film series feels like a whole, despite its internal differences. There have been four directors, but the production designer, screenwriter and producer have been around from basically the first film to the last. The role of especially Steve Kloves as screenwriter has been a crucial one. With one main screenwriter the characters can be given a consistent voice in all films. It is therefore notable that he didn't write the script of the fifth film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007), because that film is, in my opinion, chracter-wise one of the least. J. K. Rowling has stated in various interviews that she felt like her story was safe in the hands of David Heyman, the main producer of all films. Because all of these consistent factors, watching any Harry Potter film, is like coming home.

There are not a lot of other film series with more than five parts. And the series that have multiple parts, are quality wise by no means consistent. Part I, II (and III) of the Star Wars Saga were highly disappointing and there are enough bad movies in the Star Trek series, the James Bond films and X-Men. All these series lack consistency and that is why Harry Potter is something special. The worst reviewed film (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)) still gets solid reviews, a 6.3 by 'metacritics' (professional critics) and all films are between a 7.4 and a 8.1 on IMDb (general audiences). In comparison: the Star Wars films are between 6.5 and an 8.8. I think that it's better to be consistently good, than to have very high peaks and low dips. Also, the last two films have proven that the splitting of a story doesn't always have to unnecessary (because The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, The Hobbit and Twilight: Breaking Dawn really weren't that spectacular).

In short, the Harry Potter series is unique because of the huge development and changes the films go through over the course of 10 years. It is also unique because of the incredible consistent quality and appreciation of both general audiences and movie critics. There has never been a series like Harry Potter and quite frankly, I don't think there ever will be.

Movie History: Week 2 - Citizen Kane (1941)

A few months ago, two friends and myself participated in a film quiz. Unfortunately, half of the questions were about films before 1970. This is an area of cinema of which we all knew basically nothing. I've seen a Hitchcock film or two, but we've never taken the time to watch all classic movies everyone always keeps raving about. So what to do about that? We started a little club and aim to watch one old/classic/vintage film a week. 

Week 2: Citizen Kane (1941) ★★★★☆

The only thing I knew about this film, is that it was directed by Orson Wells and that Rachel talked about it in Friends (1994 - 2004) (Rachel: Relax! It’s not like it’s Citizen Kane! Joey: Have you ever tried to sit through Citizen Kane? Rachel: Yeah I know it’s really boring, but it’s like a big deal). It has got a reputation of being boring and pretentious, but I totally disagree. It was surprisingly good. This film is now 75 years old (!), but it didn't feel that way at all. Especially compared to 12 Angry Men (1957) that's over 15 years older. Even though the end wasn't really satisfying, the film as a whole was really good.

The story is basically: Various people trying to find out what the final words of the famous publishing tycoon, Kane, meant. His last word was Rosebud. The film is sort of like a detective, because the audience is shown more and more about Kane. At first, he looks like a very sympathetic man, but that changes quite quickly. Without spoiling the film, I can say that the ending (the actual meaning of Rosebud) didn't live up to the expectations. It's not horrible, but it didn't really make a huge impact. 

Orson Wells is really impressive. He plays Kane in his 20's to his 60's. It is truly remarkable how well his make-up and clothes work to make him look older. It is proof that one doesn't need a whole bunch of CGI to make someone fifty years older. (Yes, I'm talking directly to you, Ridley Scott. For making Guy Pearce look 80 in the most unrealistic way I've ever seen in Prometheus (2012)). He doesn't just look good, but he's a great actor. The personal development Kane goes through is amazing. Funnily enough, Wells doesn't just act in Citizen Kane, he's also the director, the producer and the writer. There are so few men or women who do take on so much responsibility nowadays (with the exception of Xavier Dolan). I have to say that Wells was the standout. The other actors are nowhere near as good as he is, especially the female cast (but they are trapped in very sexist roles, so I don't necessarily think it's their fault).

Citizen Kane is a really good film. It's is way ahead of its time with art direction and cinematography. It is truly a beautifully made film and it is after 75 years still very watchable without being too dated. Orson Wells is absolutely brilliant and he really is the shining center of this movie.

Movie Suggestions: Action

What exactly is an Action film? A lot of genres have a little action in them. From Thriller to Adventure and from Science Fiction to Comedy. Is it people fighting? Is it people using guns? I think Action films are just exciting films and here are a few you have to see!

1. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) - George Miller

I remember being very excited to see this, because the trailer looked awesome. And it didn't disappoint at all! This reboot of the original series with Mel Gibson (ugh) is visually stunning. The action sequences are so real (the majority of the film were actual stunts with very little CGI). Tom Hardy's Mad Max was maybe a little underwhelming, but Charlise Theron's Furiosa was absolute perfection. One of the greatest female actions stars of the decade.

If you liked this you should definitely watch: Doomsday (2008) and Riddick (2013)

2. Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014) - Matthew Vaughn

This film came out of nowhere, a few years after the outstanding James Bond film Skyfall (2012). This is a classic spy film, a very British spy film. Colin Firth is basically playing himself (a nice suit and extremely polite) and Taron Egerton makes his debut in a big film as Eggsy. There are a lot of really exciting action scenes. Only Samuel L. Jackson is a bit unfortunate in this film.

If you liked this you should definitely watch: Skyfall (2012) and The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

3. The Dark Knight (2008) - Christopher Nolan

By far, the best superhero movie out there. Forget The Avengers (2012) and rewatch this one. The whole trilogy is truly impressive, but The Dark Knight stands out. Mainly because of Heath Ledger's The Joker. The opening scene is so strong, I like watching just those ten minutes when I have no faith in movie making anymore. Christopher Nolan hits all the boxes and I cannot think of a single bad aspect of the film.

If you liked this you should definitely watch: Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012) 

4. Salt (2010) - Phillip Noyce 

I needed at least one Angelina Jolie- action movie in here. Because all of them are worth watching because of her. Salt is not only exciting, but has some interesting twists (maybe too many). The story might not be very realistic, but that doesn't change the fact that Angelina kicks ass (quite literally) and you can really see that Angelina did most of her stunts herself.

If you liked this you should definitely watch: Wanted (2008) and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

5. The Bourne Trilogy (2002 - 2007) - Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass

The consistently of high quality of these films is incredible. Matt Damon is brilliant as Jason Bourne. The storyline keeps the viewer interested until the very end. One of the greatest assets is that the film is very realistic. There is no end-of-the-world plan that make most film a little dumb. The supporting cast is also great with David Strathair, Daniel Bruhl, Julia Stiles and many more. Standouts are Joan Allen and Franka Potente. (By the way, this year the sequel Jason Bourne (2016) will be in theatres).

If you liked this you should definitely watch: Mission Impossible series (1996 - 2015) and The Italian Job (2003)