Category Archives: Film reviews

Back to Black Review


The film adaptation of Amy Winehouse’s story is unsettling.While the film about her life seemed compelling, it spiraled downhill just like her life and left me with mixed feelings. Back to Black is written by Sam Taylor-Johnson and I had faith in her ability to direct this adaptation. Given her direction of Nowhere Boy in 2009, I felt Taylor-Johnson had the track record to make this type of movie a success. Back to Black is interesting, yet somewhat inconsistent. It is a deep and thorough look into the complicated life of Winehouse. The pacing is what causes it to not exactly hit the mark.

Marisa Abela plays Amy. She has the voice, the attitude, and the personality that sends electricity through the screen. Eddie Marsen plays Mitch, Amy’s father, who always looks out for his daughter. Jack O’Connell plays Blake, Amy’s husband, and the love of Amy’s life. Amy has people in her life who provide much support. Her life, however, is condemned because it is fueled by pressure, attention, and alcohol and drug abuse. Amy’s mentality fluctuates with the many hurdles of her instability.

The beginning of Back to Black features the happy moments of Amy’s life. This approach takes away the realistic point of view that the film could have had and jumps quickly to fame. The background of the Winehouse family is explored with in-depth writing, but Amy’s drug use is the hidden secret in Back to Black.

The pacing is what caused my mind to wander during the film.There was so much of the film focused on Amy’s musical fameand accomplishments, and then the spiral down to personal tragedies. The story picks itself up when her relapse into drug abuse begins to hover over her head. When that happens, Back to Black feels like an overwhelming array of overly done dramatics which does not work in the film’s favor.

The style of filmmaking does not do the story justice and is not as captivating as it could be. Amy says, “Music is my rehab.” Those words prove she was in denial about her addictions. Why make her addictions the primary focus?  The story could have had more layers by also focusing on art and empathy. Amy was such a deep character and reflecting that in the film’s writing could have led to an improved result.

My level of respect for the film was boosted by how managed to capture the reality of who Amy was. While she was growing popular, she was throwing it away. The movie painted a clear picture of her journey with addiction. People love Amy for her music but find it harder to accept the conflicts she fought within herself. While her story has some happiness, the downward spiral of sadness is pervasive.

Back to Black does reveal the extreme difficulty people face when fighting to overcome addictions. It also shows how fame becoming someone’s new normal can have negative consequences. The themes of addiction and fame are authentic in Back to Black, but I still give the film just two out of four stars. 

The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare Review


Directed by Guy Ritchie, audiences know there is a structured treat from his filmmaking. A film by Ritchie tends to be cheesy. That is the way that it works. In The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, the title is “cheesy.” The structure of it is also. The “cheesy” moments create a pattern of hilarity with inventive outcomes. The “inventive outcomes” are the depths of genius punchlines. The film consists of characters that appear to be amateur 007 soldiers. The lead soldier is Henry Cavill. Cavill is the king of witty gems throughout The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare.

I would define this film as a lighter version of Inglorious Basterds. It still has tons of mayhem and vulgar humor. It just is toned to the right amount. The setting is 1939, in the World War II era. Cavill plays Gus March-Phillips. His task is to assemble a team. Their mission is to take down the enemy lines coming from Germany. The men on his team are Anders Lassen (played by Alan Ritchson), Geoffrey Appleyard (played by Alex Pettyfer), Henry Fayes (played by Hero Fiennes Tiffin), and Freddy Alvarez (played by Henry Golding). The two spies on the outside are Marjorie Stewart (played by Eiza Gonzalez) and Heron (played by Babs Olusanmokun). The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is a true story. It is a film with the steps towards what created the modern black operations. The reason why March-Phillips is the one assembled is because he does not follow orders. The risk-taking soldiers are what is needed to take on the unexpected mayhem. Ritchie knows when to be explosive.

Is the film serious? It is with the mission. With the humor, it is spot-on and fun to laugh and vibe with. It is a spy operation foundation that has the galore of explosive dissipation. Infiltration is key. It is with classifications of egos. With Cavill as the captain, he has got that attitude that he is undefeated while also keeping that sarcastic mindset. 

To return to the elaborations, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare surrounds the objective of U-boats and warships. Boats and places are the targets in the World War II era. The founder of the operation is Churchill (played by Rory Kinnear). The other commander-in-chief is Brigadier Gubbins ‘M’ (played by Cary Elwes). The superior characters are ones of knowledge and risk. The attitudes and the dynamics have a chemistry of knowing the risks of the mission and creating moments of sanity that are to die for. 

The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare had me in thoughts of history. Was there accuracy to the film? Was there inaccuracy? Regardless, it kills with mind-blowing misdirection. The writing of the Allies keeps its flow. It stays focused. With a team of a force that goes by no rules, giving it their all is what the audience will find joy in with The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. Each team member has a mind-boggling quality. Richie gives his characters something to be remembered by before the action happens.

Will the mission go according to plan? What are the risks? Who is more skilled? The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare is a firework ride of history with killer personalities. Three out of four stars.

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes Review


A franchise that has stamina set amongst apes. Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes roars. This film is directed by Wes Ball. Thefuturistic setting is spot-on in a world of apes that are in the process of rebuilding. Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes has vivid scenery during a new beginning.  This movie is an adventurous ride with a story that combines both humans and apes. Who is to be trusted?

The main ape in the film is Noa (played by Owen Teague). Noa is living in the past after Caesar’s day. The apes’ villages have been tormented. He is determined to learn the ropes whichincludes getting to know humans. Noa embraces an adventure to find the answers with the help of another ape, Raka (played by Peter Macon). Their adventure leads to all different kinds of hurdles. The apes are in an apocalypse where their kind faces uncharted territory.

The writing combines the humans at the right time. Noa meets Mae (played by Freya Allen), and she is a human survivor. She knows the foundations, the background, and what went south. For Noa, however, there is still a lot to learn. How did the world get to such a tormented place? What caused an apocalypse? Why was the faith of Caesar betrayed? There are a whirlwind of questions where the answers are unknown. The emperor/enemy is Proximus Caesar (played by Kevin Durand). He has taken the thrown and made allies in politically incorrect ways. He has created apes to be slaves for the wrong purpose and thrownhumans under the bus. Noa must retain his allies who have survived the apocalypse. He must rebuild the kingdom to restore its sacred meaning for the apes and humans alike.

The story takes a turn for the worst when the apes find tools to be used for harm. The enemy apes use taser sticks as a tactic to injure others. Apes also have access to machinery and slowly learn how to use them. This film takes its time with establishing the foundation of where things went wrong in the franchise’s continuation. It is more suspenseful and enticing. New kingdoms will rise, old apes will fall, and new ones will evolve.

I truly love the background of the Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes. Things are not the same for the apes or anyone else in thisenvironment. The film is creatively designed to build a puzzle. Wes Ball directed The Maze Runner films, and he takes a similarapproach of innovative escapes which are visually enthralling in Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes. Ball’s field of expertise lies in creating the foundations of kingdoms which have collapsed and finding the pieces to fill in the missing parts. In some parts the writing was weak, but still this film is deserving of a considerable amount of respect as a new addition to the ape franchise. Three out of four stars for Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.