The Imitation Game - Film Review

The Imitation Game is directed by Norwegian Morten Tyldum and starts Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing, a key figure in the efforts towards cracking the Nazi's Enigma code that helped the Allies to victory in World War Two. Turing is employed by Commander Alastair Denniston (Charles Dance) and sets about creating a complex deciphering machine called "Christopher". Along with a team of code-breakers (Keira Knightly, Matthew Goode) based at Britain's top secret Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park, they have to race against the clock in order to get the machine up and running before the Nazi's inflict more pain and suffering to the already battered front lines of the Allied Forces. The film spans across various stages in Turing's life, highlighting his battles with his emotional state of mind, his relationships with people and how his awkward but genius personae shaped the course of his rollercoaster life.

Back in the glory days of school, we had a science lesson about the iconic Professor Stephen Hawking and watched a BBC TV drama on how he came up with the "Big Bang Theory." As a young teenager who's only interests in life were the pursuit of gaining trophies on PS3, Derby County and peeking at lads magazine's thinking they were the Holy Grail, I took no interest in anything that the film tried to teach me. Little did I know that Cumberbatch's performance as the professor got him nominated for a BAFTA and put him on the map as an upcoming TV star. Since then he has become in my eyes the strongest all round actor in Hollywood today. He has a captivating screen presence and an engaging voice which is hard to ignore. His acting skills are phenominal and they are on show in this excellent biopic.

Benedict Cumberbatch's performance in this film is staggering. From the moment the film kicks off to the very end you can't help but become invested in his character. His portrayal as this quirky, unique character grips onto you as he takes you for a complex ride through his difficult life. I couldn't imagine anybody else playing his immensely complicated person yet Cumberbatch uses his talents to full effect not necessarily to show off and be flash but instead to be gentle, delicate, humorous and heart warming. You can't help but feel pure sympathy for Alan Turing and by the end of the film manages to fill a tear to the engrossed eyes. Pure brilliance. The performances don't stop there either. Keira Knightly, who plays Turing's love interest Joan, manages to pull out a strong performance even though the material she was given wasn't up on the same level which really impressed me. Matthew Goode, Charles Dance and Mark Strong all gave solid performances and brought a good level of humour and charismatic charm to the film, A special mention as well to Alex Lawther who plays a young Turing. He was awesome in his small role and he's one to watch out for. Great stuff! The direction is flawless at times and it was fascinating to see the film from an outsider's point of view of a deeply British historical moment. Morten Tyldum found a tone that was melancholic yet managed to celebrate the achievements of this great man who ultimately shortened the war and saved many innocent lives.

What unfortunately let the film down slightly was the script. It was pretty bland dialogue at times and without the help of a superb cast glossing it over, could have been picked apart to the death by critics. It made Keira Knightly's character look like a non existent female sidekick with no substance. I felt like the actors were at times battling to try and give quality performances against the boring material they were given. Thankfully it's not too noticeable, I'm just being picky!

The Imitation Game is a delightful biopic and Cumberbatch's masterful performance should land him an Oscar nomination at the very least. He and the rest of the cast deliver acting at the highest standard and a story which makes me proud to be British. An engrossing drama which you should definitely give a try.

8/10

Toy Story 4 - Cash Grab?

In a big surprise announcement last week, Pixar legend John Lasseter announced that a fourth feature length Toy Story was in the works and has been scheduled for release in 2017. There had been rumours spreading on the internet that a couple of months ago actor Tim Allen who voices Buzz Lightyear had agreed to a pre-contract with Pixar to sign up for a new Toy Story project. John Lasseter, who will director the new film, released a statement and said the following; 

"We love these characters so much; they are like family to us. We don't want to do anything with them unless it lives up to or surpasses what's gone before. 'Toy Story 3' ended with Woody and Buzz's story with Andy so perfectly that for a long time, we never even talked about doing another 'Toy Story' movie. But when Andrew, Pete, Lee and I came up with is new idea, I could not stop thinking about it. It was so exciting to me, I knew we had to make this movie and I wanted to direct it myself." 

 

Sounds promising. However as soon as the news was announced, film fans were immediately split on the studios decision to create another Toy Story sequel. Social media became an intense battlefield of divided opinions. Some fans expressed their delight at the plans for the iconic toy group to come back into theatres whilst others unleashed their fury, calling Disney and Pixar a boardroom of cash grabbing sellouts and are purely doing it for the benefit of their bank accounts. I can fully understand both sides of the argument. I can see why some fans are beaming with cheesy white smiles, Toy Story is a phenomenal creation and is a towering landmark in animation history. However the way that the third installment ended, smartly wrapping up a perfect conclusion to the story, I can see why people are quick to jump on Pixar's back. Here are my thoughts on the idea of Toy Story 4.

I love all the Toy Story films. They changed the way audiences viewed animated feature length productions. Family films which delve into more difficult adult themed topics such as jealously and being abandoned, consequential not feeling wanted. Pixar truly created magic twenty years ago and have continued to do so from that day onwards. What moment sticks with me the most was the conclusion to the third film. The trilogy showed the timeline of a boy who had a deep love for his toys as a child and how that love grew further apart the older he became and the strain that had on the toy's relationship with each other. At the end of Toy Story 3 when Andy passes his toys to a young child, he expresses his love for his childhood friends and how the memories will always stay him no matter how old he becomes and that is all his toys wanted to hear. That he still loves them. That ending reduced grown men to floods of tears. It was powerful, emotional and so beautifully told. Pixar produced the greatest ending to an animation I've ever witness. It was the perfect way to end the beloved characters journey. Incredible doesn't do it justice. So why would Pixar want to explore new territories with Woody, Buzz and the gang after ending on such a poignant high. John Lasseter statement doesn't make much sense. Pixar created the best ending to a trilogy possible, why bother making more Toy Story films? One word folks. Money.

I don't think John Lasseter intended to make a fourth Toy Story. The conclusion to the third film showed us that was the end to the characters story. It had gone full circle. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney executives were banging on Pixar's door everyday for the past 4 years to try and get a fourth installment into production. Toy Story as a franchise is a goldmine for Disney. It has generated more money than sense for the company. I believe this was fueled more by Disney for the purpose of increasing their already bulging bank account. Toy Story 3 made around a $750 million profit, a fair old amount. But is it a straight out cash grab? I don't think so.

A cash grab for example is a big studio making a small budget completely dreadful horror film, that sadly happens too often these days. A quick money making scheme with no thought nor effort hence creating a piece of garbage. Pixar sets far better standards than that (just forget Cars 2 for a sec!). They delivery quality for audiences and that's why we invested so much in their characters stories. In the interests of the original trilogy and how that story was told, I don't see a reason to expand upon that. I'd personally rather see an Incredibles 2 because I've only been waiting for a sequel 10 years! I don't see the necessity for a new Toy Story but money talks in the film industry. They couldn't care less about the fans interests, only the size of their wallets. Fair enough, it's a business. But Disney have been too greedy with Toy Story. Let Pixar create something else magical and not milk more money from a superb franchise which doesn't need to be touched anymore.

Interstellar - Film Review

Hooray!! This is it. The film I've been waiting for all year. Christopher Nolan's Interstellar staring Matthew McConaughey as Cooper, an astronaut assigned to search for a new habitable planet as Earth is no longer able to sustain human activity. Earth is now a dying planet, ravage by dust storms and with a limited food supply expected to run out within the next 30 years. NASA's head of operations Professor Brand (Michael Caine) explains to Cooper that a wormhole has been discovered near Saturn which allows the aircraft to be transported to another galaxy in the hope of finding a new planet and allowing the continuation of mankind. Cooper and his crew (Anne Hathaway, David Gyasi and Wes Bentley) embark on a quest to find this new world within a relative timescale and save the human race from extinction.

Christopher Nolan is a darling of the film critics and the film going community. In our eyes he seems to do no wrong. For all his flaws and problems, we gloss over them as he is a pioneer of cinema. He managed to adapt a well known comic book character Batman into a sublime trilogy which change the way we view comic book films. Subsequently the success of the Nolan Batman franchise has lead to studios attempting to copy his style in an attempt to rake in the cash. Dracula Untold which I reviewed not long ago tried to create a Nolan atmosphere giving the film a very serious dark tone which ultimately didn't work. Because the director wasn't Chris Nolan  His unique style is only something he can pull off and his box of tricks never gets tiring or repetitive. He's an explorer looking to push the boundaries and give the audience a memorable experience. He is the main selling point of a film and not many film makers can say that about themselves. A legend of modern cinema. Is Interstellar another Nolan mystery ride? Absolutely.

As per usual with a Nolan film, the direction is done to perfection. He creates a fascinating space exploration story which at its core is about a father and daughter relationship between Cooper and his daughter Murphy. McConaughey is superb as the lead character, for whom you have so much sympathy for because he is an emotional family man who isn't doing the mission for the glory, he's doing it for his children and one scene in particular did make me tear up which is unusual for me! My man wall got bulldozed. Powerful performance. The imagery and cinematography at times is beyond gorgeous. I only saw this in at a normal screening and I thought it looked excellent. I keep wondering what it'd be like in IMAX. Mind blowing. That brilliance mixed with Hans Zimmer's beautiful spine tingling score makes the long run time of nearly 3 hours fly by, even with the urge for a wee break which I had for an hour! There's even a surprise performance from a well known A-list actor who has a quite predictable role but is executed perfectly for what purpose it did to enhance the story. Anne Hathaway's performance is heartfelt and sincerer without being too melodramatic and she was top notch in her side character role. There is comedy relief in the form of two robots who gave a few quality one liners. This is exactly what you expect from a Nolan film, a compelling cinema experience. But his well known flaws which I gloss over without thinking are unfortunately exposed and is much more apparent the longer the film progresses.

One factor that's a bugging problem is that there are too many conveniences in the plot. How things coincidentally happen at just the right time. One or two you can get away with and you don't mind but it got out of hand especially in the third act of the film. The science behind the mission is complex even for folks who love a good dose of scientific explanation. I had to concentrate extremely hard and if I'd gone to see this film after I'd finished work I don't think I would have stood a chance. Again this got more and more difficult to understand and the last 15 minutes make you think that hard that your head starts to explode. It's interesting to listen to but it feels at times like a drawn out physics lecture. With all the futuristic science references and the insane intricate detail that the film goes in to, Interstellar maybe does deserve to be in the future. I don't think we're quite ready for this film simply because we don't yet understand it. If this came out in the next decade, we'd might appreciate it more. It reminds me of what Apple did with their apps and music software. The early models they released in the 90's weren't quite ready for the audience at the time and now they're one of the most successful technology companies. I feel like this film will get better the older it becomes. Similar to 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Interstellar is an ambitious project which in true Nolan style sets the bar for what is technically possible. A majestic film that spends too much time trying to be a crazy science lesson and forgets to concentrate on the heart of the story. It's not the masterpiece which I and many others expected it to be but it is an excellent space film which I think with age will become a landmark which will be talked about for years to come.

7/10

The Babadook - Film Review

The Babadook is an independent horror directed by Jennifer Kent and stars Essie Davis as Amelia, a lonely single mother who is trying to juggle various difficulties in her life which is mentally taking a grip of her. She has a full time job as a carer, has a young son Samuel (Noah Wieseman) who has behavioural problems which as a consequence is affecting his schooling as well as trying to grieve for her husband who died in a car accident before Samuel was born. Samuel behavioural problems revolve around him having visions of monster trying to harm the household. Amelia predictably dismisses this as nonsense at first however she soon discovers a mysterious presence taking control of her surroundings, potentially trying to harm her and her son.

I first came across a trailer for The Babadook at the cinema in the previews before Eric Bana's horror/thriller drama Deliver Us From Evil. Though I thought the trailer looked pretty solid for a horror, the buzz from film critics was unanimous in high praise. The film has been around the film festival circuit scene all year in an attempt to drum up support for a bigger wide release. After winning numerous awards including Film4's Frightfest Best Horror, it finally got a release date in the UK this past Friday. I was perplexed at first. A horror getting massive praise from critics nowadays is unheard of. Most critics to put it kindly crap all over horror films and I completely understand why. Minus As Above So Below which I thought wasn't too unwatchable, the majority of horrors this year have been the same set up since the likes of Paranormal Activity and Saw were released a few years ago. Predictable jump scares with ear deafening booms and bangs which after awhile make you wanna go ape, awful completely stupid characters which you couldn't care less about and mindless gore which would be fine if it wasn't so over the top. I honestly don't think I've been to the cinema and seen a horror which I thought was great. They're are some good ones since 2009 (the year I turned 15) such as Sinster, Let Me In and the Evil Dead remake, but they aren't great films. But after 5 years of endlessly waiting, it has finally come to an end.

The Babadook is a superb, clever physiological horror film. It has an engaging story about a mother and son's difficult relationship and Amelia's battle with her son's out of control behaviour which slowly withers her down into a depressive state of mind and how that struggle ultimately becomes the target for The Babadook creature. The annoying jump scares have vanished and been replaced by skincrawling sound effects which make you squirm and disturbing creepy imagery which build layer upon layer of tension filled fear. Very old school, old fashion horror techniques which in an era of recycled predictable scare sequences was refreshing on the eye. The film had a very bleak, very grey visual pallet that reflected the feelings of the mother perfectly. It also set in a well built foundation for all the scares which when called upon pumped up the fear inside you. They may not be the most gruesome shocking scares you'll ever see but more of the type of scare like a horrendous nightmare when you were a child. Very personal and I think that's why it shook me up so much. The classic monster under the bed scenario still works in the right hands. The Babadook monster when unveiled was an old fashion classic creepy monster that sent shivers down my spine. He was the best designed monster I've seen for many years, just darn right creepy by not only its appearance but the way it controlled the two protagonists was like a couple of puppets on strings being pull around like a toy. It preyed on both character's fears and it was awesome to watch. The acting was the biggest surprise for me. For a horror production it was terrific. Essie Davis played her character in such a grounded manner that you felt so much sympathy for her character. All her struggles and her way of life felt realistic and as an audience you can easily relate to her as a normal hardworking single parent. The child actor Noah Wieseman was also terrific as Samuel. He had the annoying kid personality but again managed to portray sympathy because he clearly felt the effects of not having a father figure in his life. Such clever directing from Jennifer Kent, who managed to piece everything together perfectly. A brilliant directorial debut and I can't wait to see what she produces next.

The only slight issue had with the film was that it built that much emotion and fear that sometimes it unintentionally create some humour that was came across as quite silly and some audience members laughed at shocking moments that shouldn't have happened. Weird. But that's it, everything else is perfection.

The Babadook is a masterpiece of modern horror. It should be a standard that every horror should be aiming for. This is what real horror is about, not stupid loud noises with cats jumping out a cupboard. That's utter crap which is getting so predictable now. Sick of it. This film makes you feel like there are pins in back of your seat. An uncomorftable thrill ride that has a powerful story, compelling characters and scary scenes which pack a big punch. This is the horror of the year so far and the best for a number of years. If you wanna see a horror that's a little bit different, check this gem out. Fantastic film!

9/10

Fury - Film Review

Fury is directed by David Ayer and stars Brad Pitt as the commander of a Sherman tank named "Fury" and its five man crew consisting of Logan Lerman, Shia LaBeouf, Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal. Set in the last year of World War II, the team are at the spearhead of the allies advance into Nazi Germany with the task of eliminating the enemies artillery. The team minus Lerman's character Norman are war veterans who have been together through many campaigns and have lived a life of war and brutality. Norman joins the team with no experience and as a result with the assistance off Pitt's character "Wardaddy", has to learn quickly, painfully and truthfully what it takes to be a man of war.

David Ayer has directed quality low budget action films in the past, such as Training Day and End Of Watch. He also directed Arnie Schwarzenegger's comeback film Sabotage which came out earlier this year. I must admit I've not seen it but apparently Arnie cracks off some new amazing one liners which are hilarious as usual. I've always found with war films that then tend to be too hollywoodised. What I mean by that is that many directors of war films try to set out a realistic blood and guts visual setting but to impressive studio execs they have to incorporate a fantasy happy ending or a manic plot twist that is too complex for it's own good. I've always found that the best war films have quite simple but gripping stories, memorable characters and insane action sequences. Fury without doubt has those qualities. What I loved about this film is the honest brutality that it portrays. There are so many disturbing shots and sequences that goosebumps will be a reoccurring event during the run time, I've not felt that moved by a film since 12 Years a Slave. The film doesn't sugar coat any aspects of war life and gives you a hard look at what it does to men. The disturbing imagery not only makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, the action sequences get the heart racing. Fury boasts amazing tank battles which I've personally never seen of that magnitude before. They don't feel fake and with clever sound editing gives you a first person taster of being in that terrifying position. The geek in me did start to emerge from the shadows and I swifty had to restrain myself at that point from looking like a fruitcake. Aside from the astounding dark and gritty visuals, the performances were a shining beacon and in particular from Brad Pitt and Shia LaBeouf. The veterans of war weren't exactly lovable dreamy rouges but instead were resilient, courageous and had a brother like friendship with one another, an area which is one of David Ayer's big strengths as a director. Pitt isn't quite as over the top as he is as Lieutenant Aldo Raine from Inglorious Basterds but he certainly brings his gruff, commanding charisma to the screen. Labeouf might be a massive a-hole off screen but when he gets focused on a character he can bring plenty of emotion. He has a lot of potential but as with some people, they can't seem to synchronise their brains with their mouths at the best of times. Speaking of potential, Logan Lerman gives his best performance of his young career. You had clear sympathy for his character and understand why he has different views from the other soldiers.

As much as the film tries to retain that realistic vibe, it does have a couple of niggles which made me scratch my invisible bald patch in the third act of the film. Firstly Lerman's character goes from one extreme to another in a very short space of time. It's not completely random, there is substance behind the change in character but it's so fast and rapid that it doesn't make sense. The film has the timescale of a couple of days and I don't think his personality would change that quickly. The third act was shot masterfully but the end set up is very predictable and quite cliched. A slight anticlimax to what was a superb last thirty minutes.

Fury is a great war film that has perfectly shot action sequences, interesting dialogue and engrossing performances. Thought provoking and chilling, David Ayer manages to stick with core war film principles without over stepping the mark, Although a couple of flaws are apparent, this shouldn't put you off on what is a brilliant production. If you're up for this cinema this weekend, this is one you should keep an eye out for.

8/10

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Film Review

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is directed by Jonathan Liebesman and stars four of my childhood heroes; Donatello, Leonardo, Raphael and Michelangelo in a reboot of the original 90's film franchise. Instead of 4 men in rubber turtle suits, they are now gigantic 9 feet tall CGI creations from a talented tech team. The film also stars Megan Fox as April O'Neill and Will Arnett as her creepy colleague sidekick/love interest Vern. The turtles live with their master Splinter who raises them as his sons in the sewers and with the help of April must defeat the evil Shredder who plans to take over New York with his footclan army. And that's the plot. Simple and easy. No brain work required.

Now before I get down and dirty with my review, I'm gonna explain the film's age rating certificate. It's rated 12a. I'd like to know how it received that rating because TMNT is the most child friendly 12a I've ever seen. It's a straight up kids film. The trailers beforehand had 3 adverts selling the various types of turtle merchandise ready for the Christmas period. I must admit some of the toys did look fun. I fancied the look of the turtle van which reminded me of a big Action Man badass off road truck I had as a little lad. And that's what the film did for me, reminisce about my childhood memories. The turtles in this reboot just like in the previous films and TV series are great to watch. The entertainment value all came courtesy of the turtles and in particular Michelangelo, who's a typical creepy yet idiotically funny teenager. The best one liners directly came from him. All the turtles had clear distinctive personalities, making you care about them as characters. If I lived off pepperoni pizza all day like they do, I'd be one seriously obese but blissfully happy man!

When I am sucked into watching a kid orientated film, I try to cut it as much slack as I can because it's not aimed at an audience like myself. It's for the enjoyment of children and fingers crossed the parents can endure some pain and suffering for 90 mintues. Throughout the film I was wondering why the film was shot in a similar action style to Transformers. And then in a flash I remembered Mr Michael Bay was the film's executive producer. And he brings all the awfulness along with him. There are a number of comparisons to the Transformer films. Firstly the human characters. They're painfully horrendous in Transformers and in TMNT it's a mirror image. People were complaining beforehand that Megan Fox was completely miscast as April O'Neil. I can see why. Her acting is something I'd expect better from the person being the rear end of the donkey in the primary school nativity play. I'd rather have seen someone at an amateur dramatics play mess up there lines completely and the audience have a wild laugh about it. Appalling. Her character was the ultimate damsel in distress that needed to be thrown off the cliff to stop her getting in the way of everything. Speaking off useless, Will Arnett. His character was eyebrow raising creepy and was like an awkward relative who talks random crap and you don't know if they're trying to being funny or not. I haven't got a clue why he was in the film. Brought absolutely nothing. Another couple of Michael Bay traits in which he brings to the table are having an abysmal script and horrible camera work. The dialogue made me cringe back so hard that my face developed 3 separate chins. And annoying shaky cam to cover up any lazy CGI work wound me up after a while. Not to forget Shredder, who was the most wooden, boring villain they could have created. He kicked the turtle's backsides on numerous occasions but never once did he feel like a genuine threat. His armour looked impressive, but the man behind that was just a one dimensional bland bad guy. Nice one Michael Bay, you've done it again.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is not only just a film intentionally created for a kids audience but feels like it was produced by them too. Nasty horrible work on and off screen overshadows any laughs and fun that the turtles bring. I'm sure kids will adore this film but sadly I'm not that age anymore, as much as I want to be. This film is 10 years too late for me.

3/10

The Maze Runner - Film Review

The Maze Runner is yet another teen novel rolling off the Hollywood production line and is directed by Wes Ball. The plot consists of a group of teenage boys who are trapped in an area they call The Glade which is surrounded by huge maze walls. Their memories are wiped clean with the only information that the boys can remember is their first name. Whilst trying to figure out how to escape the ever changing labyrinth, the boys create their own society with set jobs for each member who arrives, establishing a sense of normality. When a boy named Thomas (Dylan O'Brien) arrives, their way of life starts to change due to Thomas' curiosity and intrigue for what lurks inside the maze and sets on trying to escape, ignoring warnings from the rest of the group. This causes a rift with the group's enforcer Gally (Will Poulter) as the two battle out on what is the best way for the group to ultimately survive.

I went to see this with my mate at an advanced screening on the Tuesday before the film's release date. The screen was packed out with over excited teenage girls. I must admit I wasn't quite as hyped as they were, even with two bottles of Pepsi at my side. It again highlights why teen novels are a huge market for the film industry. They're the new cash cows. They without doubt always make a shed load of money. The quality of the film doesn't even come into the minds of the studio executives. Instead they're blinded with the cash signs, lighting up their boardrooms like a Christmas tree. That's my reason as to why I'm always sceptical with these films. They can quite easily rob you of your money with no satisfaction in return. Armed with my Sour Patch Kids and Pepsi, I was ready for the onslaught of The Maze Runner. An easy way out or a horrible dead end? (I'll try to resist the urge for a terrible pun-infested review).

What was apparent from the start was the surprisingly intense dark tonal feel to the film. Wes Ball skillfully sets up impressive sequences particularly inside the maze, in which he used his experience as a visual effects artist to his advantage. The film felt sleek and fresh, It created good amounts of tension and suspense at the precise moments which kept me invested in the story for a large proportion of the run time. Dylan O'Brien and Will Poulter were both excellent and carried the rest of the cast in a very mature fashion. The quality that they managed to pull off from a very standard, unimaginative script was impressive. The sign of two future stars in the making, Poulter's character could have easily come across as a typical "I'm the big man" teenager with no substance but you understood his reasons of anxiety and why he was hostile towards Thomas throughout the film. Their chemistry was the highlight for me.

And for all the great things about the film, it was stupidly hindered by little things that really took a big hammer blow on the story and the overall quality of the film. Firstly there are two 10-15 second flashbacks within the first act which Thomas experiences that completely destroyed any mystery the film had in the first place. They meant you could quite easily predict as to who was behind the maze set up, even if you're not a film buff.  If you haven't read the book, these daft flashbacks would ultimately ruin any mystery you may have as to who the antagonists were. For all the great CGI work carried out, some of it looked like it'd been done by a ten year old messing around on Mircosoft Paint. But worst of all, the final scene really annoyed me nearly to the point of hatred. It's the most blatant "we're having a sequel" scene I think I've ever witnessed. Now some may say that the ending is being loyal to the book. Fair enough, however this isn't a book, it's a film adaptation which needs to be handled differently. I understand that you need a some sort of set up for the next installation for a series, but don't throw it in my face that it feels like I'm being held at gunpoint by the studio to watch the next film. If you're gonna to do that at least give some respect to the audience who've just paid a good chunk of money to watch your first production. Some people were laughing sarcastically behind us and I don't blame them.

The Maze Runner is one of the better teen novel films that have been released and if you're a fan of the books I'm sure you'll enjoy it, especially the performances. But sloppy editing and a cringe-worthy ending sucks any potential the film had.

5/10

Gone Girl - Film Review

Gone Girl is directed by David Fincher and stars Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike. It's adapted from the book Gone Girl written by Gillian Flynn, who also did the screenplay for the film. The film begins with Affleck's character Nick Dunne returning home to find that his wife Amy (Pike) has gone missing. Nick's awkward behaviour is immediately latched upon by the press and media, who assume that he was involved in his wife's disappearance. So it comes down a very simple cliche mystery murder question, did he or didn't he? That's as much as I want to tell you about the plot of this film, otherwise I'd feel like I'm spoiling the film's mystery and intrigue. Why? Because this film to put it simply, is incredible.

David Fincher is one of my favourite directors of all time. He hasn't made one sore thumb film and that's down to his perfectionist personality. He demands quality performances from his cast and that's exactly what he receives. If he was a football manager he'd be Alex Ferguson. A man who has great people at his disposal and purposefully milks every bit of energy from them until he get what he needs. Fincher always seems to get that extra 20% from the actors. When I first saw Ben Affleck on screen, I admit I was thinking of the upcoming Batman vs Superman. He's looking in superb shape, he is the next Bruce Wayne etc etc. That ended after about 5 minutes. I was engrossed in his character. He felt completely natural and it proved again why the bloke is such a talent not just behind the camera but as a top quality actor. Brilliant. David Fincher as ever immerses the audience into this story and puts us as the films jury, We collect the evidence and we're left guessing with all the sharp, clever twists and turns that certainly kept me on my toes throughout the two and a half hour run-time. The intention to detail is immaculate as ever from a Fincher film. Everything you visualise is there for a purpose. Sets haven't been thrown together by a couple of production managers with a "that'll do" attitude. The tone that has been created by the film is very realistic. It's not all serious melodramatic dreariness which many mystery films tend to fall into the trap off. There are times when there's some good humour thrown in at the appropriate times. Tyler Perry who plays Affleck's defence lawyer certainly adds to that humour without going over the top, which is a first for him. His best performance by far. I loved how this film had so much to say on the current media. How much they influence our opinions and how we assume that we should believe everything we hear from a person in front of a camera who we don't personally know. Very thought provoking.  But who impressed me the most was Rosamund Pike. If anybody just thought she was a Roger Moore "I can only act with my eyebrows" actress, this performance blows any doubts away. She is terrific in this film. The woman can act. I couldn't believe how good she was at times, My jaw dropped thinking to myself "Is that the really naff Bond girl I'm watching here?" Superb. Potential Oscar awaits.

My only niggle with this film is the ending. It's like a train that slams on the emergency brakes. The conclusion is very sudden and it cuts off very quickly. The last ten minutes could have easily been trimmed off and it wouldn't have made any difference to the plot of the film. And to be honest, that's nick picking at best.

Gone Girl is a magnificent mystery thriller that at the heart has David Fincher superb direction, which keeps this amazing mystery ride speeding along to the point of where you don't want it to end. Two and a half hours wasn't enough David!! Amazing performances in particular from Rosamund Pike cements the film as one of the best of the year so far.

9/10

Before I Go to Sleep - Film Review

Before I Go to Sleep is a British mystery thriller written and directed by Rowan Joffe and stars Nicole Kidman, Colin Firth and Mark Strong. The film centres on Kidman's character Christine, a middle aged woman who wakes up every morning with no memory of her life from her 20's onwards. Her husband Ben (Colin Firth) has the endless task of telling Christine who is he is, what happened to her and why she has amnesia. She also receives a mysterious phone call everyday from a Dr Nash (Mark Strong) who explains that she has been the subject of a brutal attack and tells her to keep a secret video diary so that she can remember the events of the previous day and hopefully re-jog her memory to find out who was responsible for the attack. She has the task of trying to decipher her flashbacks and figure out who ultimately is telling the truth.

This film on paper had plenty of potential. Nicole Kidman and Colin Firth were both central characters in The Railway Man which came out in January this year and they showed effortless chemistry. They both however had a couple of big stinkers this year, which I had the pleasure of seeing. Kidman starred in Grace of Monaco, which was the aftermath of a wild house party and Firth starred in the most boring film I've witness for a long time, Devils Knot. Happily this film is far more interesting and entertaining. The film's visual style fits the mystery genre mold perfectly. It looks exceedingly grey and depressing, creating a very bleak atmosphere which parallels Christine's situation. Her character is in a difficult situation hence her shaken personality and tentativeness which Kidman expressed really well. She does cry for about 75% of the film but it doesn't feel melodramatic and that's where her experience showed. The only upside to her amnesia is that when she does wake up every morning, she's next to Colin Firth which if you're a female isn't too bad I guess! Firth and Mark Strong both gave shifty performances so it kept me guessing who to believe as the story unraveled. It was a side of Colin Firth that I haven't seen before and it showed how much depth he has as an actor. I'm a big fan of Mark Strong. He has a menacing on screen presence and it's easy to see why American studios always seem to cast him as the villain. I'm sure he's a decent bloke in real life but he does look like if you got on the wrong side of him he'd rip your face off. Overall all three were terrific and they enhanced on what was a very average script.

When eventually the film hits the climax, it's a big shift in pace that definitely caught me off guard. The film is in cruise control for the majority of the second act which wasn't slow by any means. But when the villain is finally revealed, the film's pace goes into overdrive and I thought that initially was a clever move. It's from that point onwards however that the film starts to scratch heads. To put it bluntly, the way that Christine's attack is explained and how she got it into the situation that she's in, is absurd and absolutely barmy. I'd love to explain how it happens but I don't want to spoil the plot. It's mental. Did that detracted me from enjoying this film? Not really. You won't be annoyed by the reveal. Instead you'll be in disbelief and in a good way. Like a crazy magic trick that you can't get your head around. There are a few plot holes that you can easily pick on and for a mystery thriller that's a problem because you want everything to be explained at the end and the film doesn't quite do that fully.

Before I Go to Sleep thankfully has no irony attached to it. A fun film that has a good pace and intriguing plot along with quality all round performances. It's not a masterpiece and not that original but it certainly has entertaining moments and twists which will keep you guessing. A good rainy day film if you've got nothing else better to do.

7/10

As Above/So Below - Film Review

Horror found footage films are from my experience not exactly masterpieces of the cinematic universe. They're made for about twenty quid and that cheapness glares out of the screen. Many critics and film fans are sick of them. And I have to agree. I've seen 2 horror found footage films this year, Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones and Devils Due. Both are horrendous. The latest Paranormal Activity did attempt a new twist to refresh the franchise but it was so random and ridiculous. At times it looked like a rip off Chronicle and it followed the same formula as every other found footage horror. Boring. Devils Due was a dump fest of cliches, dumb characters and a terrible storyline. I remember going to see this film with a mate who loves horrors. He turned to me and started laughing when the main female character started to eat a deer. Bet she smelt nice next to her husband in the morning. Would As Above So Below fair any better and finally bring something new to the table to this tired overplayed gimmick?

As Above So Below is directed and written by John Erick Dowdle and stars Perdita Weeks as a young, intelligent and adventurous archaeologist who has spent her career searching for the Philosophers Stone after her father's suicide. She leads a team down into the Paris catacombs to find this artifact which consequently leads them into the bowels of hell and they have to try and escape. The plot does sound like a Harry Potter and Indiana Jones crazy cocktail and it does pay homage to them films. Thankfully the found footage element does pay off due to the location of where the majority of the film takes place, inside the narrow claustrophobic catacombs. If you do have that phobia, this film will definitely make you feel very uncomfortable. I'd never heard of any the cast, which for a horror rings alarm bells but they did a solid job with the material they had. I loved how the film used sound effects especially towards the end of the film. They do creep you out and it creates plenty of tension which many found footage films fail at miserably. There was some scary imagery and it did make me jump a few times. The last 20 minutes had me on edge and it reminded me of a theme park scare maze. A big surprise which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Set ups for horrors are never their strongest features. Plenty of them do take a third of the film to get going. But the set up for As Above So Below was absolutely shocking, and not in a good way. It was completely pointless and an utter snoozefest. I think the director didn't bother and couldn't care less about introducing any of the characters, apart for the lead female. It's just a load of random peeps that were thrown together and as per usual with horror films used only as cannon fodder for Satan, so the audience can see them get annihilated. It was pretty pathetic. The story is very generic and doesn't have an ounce of creativity which is a shame because I reckon this film had the potential to be a breath of fresh air for the found footage genre. Laziness however sinks the film into mediocrity.

As Above So Below is a decent horror film which utilises the found footage gimmick to good effect. The scares are satisfying but a boring story and cringe-worthy set up makes the film pretty average and forgetful. It's frustrating because the potential was there to be seen. Grrrrrrrr!!

6/10

What If? Film Review

What If? (also known as The F Word) is a romantic comedy directed by Michael Dowse and stars Daniel Radcliffe and Zoe Kazan, as two young adults Wallace and Chantry (what a name by the way) who bump into each other at a house party and they form an instant connection, striking a close relationship. Wallace is a very sad, seemingly lonely character who has been deeply hurt by his past relationships and his life seems to have no direction. Chantry on the other side of the coin has a very settle life. She has a job as an animator that she loves and lives with her long term boyfriend Ben (Rafe Spall). The film explores the idea that if it is possible that your best friend is actually the person you really love and how that affects your relationships with other people.

Now I'll admit that I'm not the number one fan of rom-coms. I'm just more of a mans man wanting to immerse myself into big action scenes and heroic battle speeches, not investing into mushy, sappy horrible dialogue that makes me want to spew my guts out onto the cinema floor. Thankfully this is not the case for What If? It's actually not too bad. Daniel Radcliffe has tried to distance himself away as far as possible from anything remotely like Harry Potter. He's picked different, more versatile roles and I like that. It shows how much of an acting talent he really is. The way he plays the character of Wallace is very natural, down to earth and very likable. You feel sympathetic for his character throughout the film and you understand why he makes certain decisions because of the constant battle with his feelings for Chantry. A very controlled performance. The same can be said for Zoe Kazan. She and Radcliffe have solid chemistry and the witty dialogue completes a very engaging on screen couple. Cute may not be the greatest adjective in the world but I can't think of another word that reflects their relationship. The film did make me laugh with a few random morbid jokes (because I'm such a child) so the film tries its best keeps you entertained whilst trying to throw in the romantic loveliness at the same time.

The film does however fall under the same rom-com cliches that you've seen multiple times before and that at times takes the comedy out of the film. It's a very paint by numbers story which is uninspiring and a little boring. It's very predictable, even if you're not a rom com fan. A number of scenes felt very stretched especially in the second act of the film, which dragged for far too long and didn't offer anything new to the story nor develop the characters further. The film ideally should have been 20mins shorter and for what the film offered in terms of the story would have been the right run time. As result you're waiting an age for the conclusion, which again is cute but very blubbery. If you're a female or romantic male you'll love the ending but sadly I didn't.

What If? is a perfectly fine film with great chemistry between the lead characters and a solid script but it follows a formulaic, uninteresting story which we've seen done before numerous times. It's a good film for couples, I'd recommend it for you because it'll be a fun night out at the cinema and you'll appreciate it more than I did.

6/10

Pudsey: The Movie - Rant and Rave Review

Sometimes in life you feel like you've made serious mistakes and made poor decisions. Decisions which fill you with overloading amounts of pain and anger that you cannot forget about. It really shatters your soul into a millions pieces. Your friends and family constant interrogation which wants you to just curl up in a ball and shut yourself away from humanity. Sadly this happened to me last month when I decided to spend 8 quid of my money, which I earned with my blood, sweat and tears, at the cinema to watch Simon Cowell's production's masterpiece, Pudsey: The Movie. From looking at the trailers it scared me. It shook me to my core. It looked like something that CBBC was about to commission the 1990's and then bosses thought, "Do you know what? I think we should re-run 3 episodes of Chucklevision instead." Whoever had to do the marketing for this film must have felt like an absolute tool. What redeeming features could they possibly find to promote this film to the masses. Well by the looks of the trailer, they couldn't be bothered anyway. What they did was summarise the entire film in 2 minutes, so there was no need for anybody to bother going to the pictures and give Simon Cowell any of their hard earn money. What was also highlighted in the trailer was that the film was from the director of Horrid Henry: The Movie. Wow what a quality and successful film that was. Cost £10 million and made £10 million. Cowell definitely picked the best director for the job. Mr Nick Moore. Who by the way couldn't create a good film even if he had Christopher Nolan in one ear and Steven Spielberg in the other. Awful choice.

The plot is simply a family who adopt Pudsey. They move to the countryside into a grotty old house which is owned by an evil businessman who plans to demolish the house and build a shopping centre on the land. Pudsey has to save the day. Fantastic, I bet that story was months in the making. Hours of careful planning went into that storyboard. The villain's motives are copied directly from Mrs Browns Boy's D'Movie. Not only did they copy somebody else's idea, they copied it from an appalling cinematic atrocity! The film is shot so poorly that I think the director only took one shot of every scene and said "That'll do." It screams out laziness from the very beginning of the film and it continues throughout. The story is so horrifically boring, that even the actors looked like they were day dreaming on set. Being the back end of the donkey in the Christmas play might have been a better role to go for. I feel deeply sorry for Pudsey, who sadly had to endure the agonising pain of being the star of this film, because he's such an intelligent dog. I love what dance moves he can do, it's timeless entertainment. The film to put it bluntly, insults him. Not only does David Walliams make him sound like an utter inbasul but he does some really idiotic things along the way, which are not funny or clever and make his character like the typical average stupid dog e.g. obsessed with sausages and having to reference that every ten minutes. That's horrible. Poor Pudsey. Not only does the film insult Pudsey, but it insults it's main audience too. Children. The writing is ridiculously cheesy and makes you question what age the person is. I wrote a better script in primary school with my mates, doing a role play on the playground killing orcs with my crooked stick. The kids in the theatre were bored out of their minds, even this lad in front of me got up and told his mum, "I'm waiting outside, I hate it." He had the guts to walk out, which I didn't have. Good lad! Stupid cheesy scripts just don't work with kids anymore. Quality family films such as How to Train Your Dragon 2 is something which I'd take my child to see. It teaches them more about life and certain morals which can help them to do the right things. This film at least teaches them that pigs can't actually lay eggs, they drop big poo's out instead. That genuinely happens. A pig who believes it's a chicken. Nobody laughed by the way, not even the smaller kids. Embarrassing. Just summed up the movie for me.

This film is a middle finger to anybody who has the IQ higher than a turnip and treats a brilliant dog like a moron too. I'm glad this film lost a million quid. Good on the general public for not coming to watch this piece of diarrhea. You might be thinking "But Dan it's only a kids film." It is but then so is Frozen, how good of kids film is that? The Lego Movie is a kids film and that's terrific. These are the films that you should spend your hard earned money on. Don't put it in Simon Cowells deep pockets. Hopefully the flop of this venture will make sure his entertainment company stays well clear of any film material. Because nobody gives a dog turd. 

1/10. That 1 goes to Pudsey himself.

Rant over! :D 

Lucy - Film Review

Lucy, is the new action thriller from director Luc Besson and stars Scarlett Johansson as a woman studying in Taipei, who incidentally gets captured and forced to test a new drug which enhances more of the brains capacity, as humans currently only use 10%. As Lucy unlocks more of her brain's capacity she in turn becomes more powerful and can be a Jedi it seems and use force like powers to move objects and change her surroundings. Morgan Freeman plays a scientist who is researching the brain and it's usage and how it can be expanded and potentially become more powerful and his and Lucy character come together to stop the drug from getting into the wrong hands.

Besson has previously produced a number of action films such as the Transporter series, Hitman, Colombiana and the Taken franchise. He also directed The Fifth Element, a classic sci-fi starting Bruce Willis. The man has plenty of experience with creating an action film. And from the way the film looks, this is definitely the case. The film looks very sleek and crisp has been shot with care and attention. The editing is flawless so there is a very consistent tone throughout. The film is very fast paced, similar to Taken, so you're kept on your toes with plenty of action sequences to satisfy the adreneline. Scarlett Johansson's performance is excellent. She is charming whilst being an absolute badass for 90mins. You buy that she is a killing machine, firing guns left, right and centre at all the bad guys. Pretty heavenly. She has been on a big roll the last couple of years with films such as Under the Skin, Don Jon and Captain America : The Winter Solider. She is proving to be a top actress. I don't fancy her at all by the way....

Lucy whilst being entertaining, does have many glaring problems which can't be glossed over with a hot girl with guns. Firstly there is no clear plot. I really tried hard to figure out why certain scenes were happening to advance the story but it's so confusing and nonsensical, that it really forces you out of the film to the point of not caring. On the subject of not caring, the main character Lucy. She's too overpowered too quickly so within the first 30mins, she really could have instantly killed all the bad guys (they don't have any development as characters, they are just bad guys) and that would have been game set and match. After her brain goes over 20% you really don't care about Lucy because not once after she's has the drug is she ever in any real danger. Even the biggest action characters in cinema e.g. John McClane, Indiana Jones are always at some point up against the odds and that's why you get behind them characters, you want them to fight back.

Another big problem is the science involved. If anybody who has an interest in science and goes to watch the film, they will harp on that the 10% brain capacity idea is a complete myth and it's utter nonsense. I don't think I would have had a problem with that aspect of the film but for some reason, somebody decided to include these wildlife clips from a David Attenborough documentary, which came across as trying to be too clever and completely took me out of the film. It didn't look stylish at all, it completely missed the mark. A poor decision. Morgan Freeman plays Morgan Freeman. It could have been any actor but he did what he had to do. It's the same role as he had in Transcendence earlier this year. The film is also too much like the film Limitless with Bradley Cooper which was released in 2011. It's a very similar plot idea which Limitless executes better as an all round film.

Lucy is such a polarising film. It has some brilliant aspects such as Scarlett Johansson's acting and the well crafted action scenes but there are so many problems, that it really affects the film on a huge scale. The issues just anchor the film from what could have been a fun and exciting summer action thriller. But annoyingly this isn't the case.

5/10

Remembering Robin Williams

2002. Back then I was very short 8 year old, who worshiped football and pretended to be a massive WWE wrestler with crazy badass moves from the top rope aka the arm of the sofa. Now I still love football but I've realised grappling with half naked men in tight pants isn't my future. It was also the year I watched Mrs Doubtfire for the first time. The lead actor was a man who had me giggling constantly for 2 hours, running about in drag, creating all kinds of wacky antics that I couldn't get enough of. I watched the film about a month ago. In my head I was thinking...... a man has lost access to his kids so he becomes a tranny nanny in order to see them...... yeah how on earth could that absurd plot become a comedy classic. Only one man could have made that film work, Robin Williams.

Robin Williams was such an icon. Many top name comedians look up to him as a huge inspiration for their work. I wouldn't blame them. The man had so much talent. He was so quick and witty that the jokes just naturally flowed effortlessly. His random sporadic improvising style worked in a way that didn't make come across as arrogant and he could make crowd after crowd roar with laughter, selling out gigs all over the planet. Not only was he a naturally gifted comedian, he was an amazing actor who had unlimited charisma on screen. He was credited in over 100 films, some of which are excellent and some are utter tripe. But no matter how poor the film was, you'd rarely see somebody criticise his performance, because of his likability. I have so many great memories of Robin Williams films. Mrs Doubtfire was one of them. Here are a few more.......

I remember having Hook on video back in the day. Me and my sister used to watch it most weekends. It stars Robin as Peter Banning/Peter Pan, a very successful lawyer who becomes out of touch with his family, creating many broken promises. He forgets everything about his childhood. Neverland, The Lost Boys and his old foe Captain Hook, played by Dustin Hoffman. When his 2 children are captured by Hook, Peter must learn to reclaim his youthful spirit that he lost in order to challenge his old enemy and become a father again. It's such a fun 90's film that had so many quotable lines and you could only smile at Robin's warm and comforting presences on screen. Watching a man who had such a very bland, stilted lifestyle find who he really was inside was really uplifting and I still think the film is very underrated.

Jumanji is another childhood film which I still remember fondly. A board game coming to life and creating utter havoc was great entertainment and the film was scary at times. Robin Williams wrestling a crocodille and getting sunk into the attic floor whilst being attacked by massive spiders. Argghhhhh hide! That was the stuff of nightmares. I used to think the CGI was amazing, which now does look a little dated but it still felt real to me! It's still a great family film.

A film that I saw recently wasn't the typical Robin Williams film that I was use to growing up with. It's the film that he won an Oscar for his perfect portrayal as psychologist Sean Maguire, Good Will Hunting. He was so perfect in that role even real life therapists learnt from his penetrative deliverance. I don't think I've ever heard that been mentioned about an actor before, incredible acting. It was the first time I saw him in a dramatic role and it showed how much of an all round talent he was. Not many actors can be a brilliant entertainer and switch into a very serious but controlled character. The film is brilliantly acted and written by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. A very powerful and uplifting movie.

The final film on my list is mine and many other people's favourite Robin Williams performance. And he wasn't physically on screen but it felt like he was there with you, being that warm character and friend that you need in your life. The Genie in Aladdin. His improvising skills are the best I've ever heard and they shone through in this Disney classic. The jokes, the impressions and references to pop culture were for the most part completely off script. He created an entirely new script by rolling it off his tongue. Disney recorded a days worth of recordings from Williams and they somehow had to pick his best lines for a 90 minute feature. Where would you even start?! He made that film his own, he was the star. If you look at posters for Aladdin, the Genie tends to be the main character that draws your attention and not Aladdin himself. Completely unheard of for a Disney film. The secondary character was the selling point. It also meant that more well known actors began to get involved in animation projects. A pioneer.

The term there will never be a person like this gets thrown around far too much, but Robin Williams was a unique character. He was a absolute genius that all generations beloved. A great man who sadly brought so much happiness to everyone in the world but not himself. Rest in peace Robin. I'll miss you dearly.

   

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - Movie Review

Motion capture technology is continuously advancing year after year. I remember watching The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers in the cinema when I was 8, not remotely bothered by Gollum because all I wanted to do was be Gandalf. Just watching him lead the Rohirrim into the battle of Helms Deep like an insane old badass blew my tiny little brain away. Even though I'm meant to be an adult, deep down I still want to be Gandalf. It was only until my teenage years and read the LOTR books that I appreciated Gollum so much more as a character. Gollum was a big breakthrough in film and for motion capture. It was the first real time motion system that imputed the actions of Andy Serkis into the computer generated Gollum whilst he was acting. I have massive respect for Andy Serkis. The amount of effort he has put into developing motion capture has been immense. He is the pioneer of this type of technology. I remember him saying in an interview that when he first went onto the set filming in a spandex suit with sensors all over him, people couldn't stop laughing and didn't take it seriously at all. A gimmick. The gamble for him paid off and now he's being recruited as a consultant to many films attempting to use motion capture. There has been numerous debate between the film community on how much of Serkis's character success is down to himself as an actor with the various body language and voice overs, and how much assistance does the technology have with his performances. The prequel to this film Rise of the Planet of the Apes showed me that Caesar, played by Serkis, was a not only a brilliant visual character but that the acting shone through. This new film should put any doubters to bed.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes continues the story from its predecessor 10 years later, with Caesar and the apes creating a new home just outside San Francisco, home to the remaining human survivors of a deadly man-made virus who try to regain some form of power by using the old dam, which is sitting on the land occupied by the apes. A power struggle ensues between the humans and the apes, as well as a power struggle between the apes themselves. Firstly this film looks absolutely fantastic. Every single scene is shot with so much care and attention, that it creates such a engrossing atmosphere that keeps you hooked. The film's visual effects are in a different league.  The apes look incredible. The motion capture work is so detailed that you immediately buy into them as characters, because they all have different faces and expressions. You can tell that they aren't just CGI creations made with just the tech guys, they're actual actors. It's a break taking experience that I've never seen in a cinema before. The character of Caesar is so interesting and intriguing, that you care about him so much. Andy Serkis is faultless as Caesar. He has acting talent in abundance. If there are still critics who believe motion capture isn't true acting, you're wrong. This is one of the best acting experiences I've seen this year. It's not just Caesar who has character development, the entire main cast has a back story, so you can understand where the character is coming from and why they feel in certain ways. Because of this, you feel sympathetic towards the "villains" in the film and you understand the motives for their actions. It's fantastic writing. The human performances lead by Jason Clarke and Gary Oldman are very natural and feel grounded. They don't try and hog the spotlight because ultimately it's Caesars film and they do a great job. Oldman in one scene showed his acting class that brought out so emotion without even saying a line. Not only is it a quality film, it still has the popcorn summer blockbuster action film aspects, with the big fight scenes and the apes shooting weapons on horses, which again are shot to perfection. 

The director deserves the biggest credit for this film's success. What Matt Reeves has done is combine a powerful story with compelling characters and still have a big summer film feel with well crafted action scenes, which have so much entertainment value. It's very hard to achieve but he has done it. Faultless acting, great story, crazy action. It's my perfect kind of movie. Best film of the year so far.

10/10

Will The Purge become the next big horror film franchise?

Horror franchises go on massive rollercoaster rides. Usually the first film is top quality, followed by a mediocre sequel. Then after that you get even more sequels or remakes and unfortunately they tend to be utter toilet bowl material. Take the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise. The original 1974 film is a classic piece of cinema. It mixes the gore and brutal terror with fantastic acting and is the creator of the "slasher" horror film. The second film released in the 80's wasn't initially well received. however it now has a cult following with horror fans. However the other sequels and the recent remakes are absolutely shocking and not in a good way. Texas Chainsaw 3D released last year was that bad, I just had to laugh at the pure idiocy at some of the characters. Everyone in the cinema was laughing, popcorn was flying and I can't fault them for that. What a terrible film. My personal favourite horror franchise of the 21st century has to be Final Destination. The absolutely insane and ludicrous ways that the characters get killed off are brilliant. I wanna know who comes up with these death ideas. Whoever you are, you're a sick but creative human being and I love you because it's hilarious! 

The Purge came out last year and I was quite exciting for it. The concept of having a 12 hour period every year to do whatever you pleased, was unique. It had plenty of potential going for it. And it turned out to be one of the most frustrating films of the year. The film plot was created by a completely stupid 7 year old kid, who's Dad ironically made his living from selling purge proof security systems, deactivated their home's systems to let a random bloke into their house, whilst there are people running around in the streets committing murder. Great idea! So without that incident, their wouldn't be a film. Annoying. The film then turned into the generic slasher horror film, it wasn't anything special. Plus the main villain looked like a wannabe Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. The film however did make huge return. With a budget of only $3 million, The Purge made just shy of $90 million. With these numbers, Universal was quick on the case to get a sequel into development, with release due for July 17th.  The sequel sees the return of the previous director/writer James DeMonaco, who has been quoted as saying that if this new film is just as big of a success, more films will be released. As I've mentioned, there's is potential for this film franchise. It's cheap to produce and people seemed to have interest in this sequel. The plot this time is set in L.A so this film is going bigger, which I think is what it needed. The original just didn't feel suited to a claustrophobic house setting. A bigger city setting = more carnage and that's what I wanna see. 

Will this be as successful as the SAW and Paranormal Activity franchises? I reckon it will be. It's got plenty of different avenues to explore. It won't be an iconic film in terms of being groundbreaking, but with the momentum and interest that The Purge has, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a new film every year. Fingers crossed it won't get any worse the longer the series goes on, but like the majority of horror sequels, I highly doubt it.

What do you think of The Purge? Do you think we'll see a conveyor belt of these films? Let me know in the comments below :D

Transformers: Age of Extinction - Film Review

The Transformers film franchise has divided opinion. The majority of critics hate it, mostly pointing the finger at director Michael Bay. However the films have made over $3 billion at the box office, making it one of the most successful franchises of all time, on a level with Pirates of the Caribbean. I really enjoyed the first Transformers film. The special effects were great and it was a proper big summer action blockbuster where you could fill your face with popcorn and make a massive mess all over the floor. Then it dramatically it went downhill. The 2nd film was a trip to the toilet after having a bad kebab and the 3rd film was just about watchable. They were far too long, a stupid cheesy script, crappy acting and storyline that had been recycled from the first film. Two proper cash grabs. But the public still liked them and they still want more. Maybe people just like the same repetitive film over and over again. Transformers 4 however was looking a different prospect. Shia LaBeouf has been ditched for Mark Wahlberg to lead a brand new cast included the talented Stanley Tucci. So was this a new fresh start that might see the critics persuaded to get on board the Transformers train? Ermmmm..........no.

The big selling point is that people want to see the Transformers fight in big action scenes and that aspect of the film was really impressive. The CGI was brilliant at times. There's a very talented special effects team which Michael Bay has at his disposal, so big thumbs up to them. I was delighted that Mark Wahlberg replaced Shia LaBeouf as the leading actor. If I had to listen to LaBeouf scream OPTIMAAAAASSSS or BUMBLE BEEEEEEE again I would have cringed so hard into my seat that my face would get buried into my knee caps. Mark Wahlberg on every level is so much better. He has the presence and charisma which was missing from the previous films and he actually uses some weapons, so he doesn't stand there really awkwardly and watch the action bypass him unlike LaBeouf''s character. Wahlberg plays an inventor, who is down on his luck and inadvertently buys Optimus Prime. The government are on hunt for the Transformers after the destruction of Chicago in the previous film and now Wahlberg and the Autobots have to escape from the government as well as fighting off the Decepticons. Sound familiar? Because it's exactly the same storyline as the last 3 films! We've seen the corrupt government storyline before. It's such lazy filmmaking and Michael Bay knows it. The film is ridiculously over the top. I know it's meant to be like that but the amount of explosions in this film is unreal. Everything in sight explodes. Film lovers know Michael Bay likes his explosions but this was his own wet dream. I like explosions but when they're constantly getting shoved into your face, you just get sick and tired of the same routine. I reckon secretly he's a pyromaniac. The script was horribly cheesy and may as well been from a bad 1990's action film. Bay tried to throw in his style of humour as well, which isn't funny at all by the way, and you could see the actors were battling to somehow make the dialogue sound reasonable but not even the quality of Stanley Tucci could pull it off. When the Transformers came on screen, it was a completely different story. Watching them battle it out was really entertaining. Optimus Prime riding a DinoBot into action was exciting even if it was only for a brief time. It was frustrating to watch because the Transformers were great but the human side of the film again was terrible. If only we could have a badass Transformers film with just them in it, sod the humans! I blame this all on one man, Michael Bay. Get rid of him and bring in another director that might actually make a quality Transformers film. The potential is there.

Transformers: Age of Extinction sadly gets an extra Michael Bay overdose and that unfortunately ruins what could have been a decent film. Mark Wahlberg is solid as the lead and the Transformers are by far the biggest plus point of the film. The action sequences are terrific and fun to watch but the idiotic script and humour drag the film down like an anchor. The film is way too long for it's own good and the films repetitive set up gets tiring and boring. If you haven't seen Transformers, get the first one on Blu Ray. Watch it at home because it's by far the best film of the franchise and you can have plenty of fun with that. Don't waste your money on this one.

4/10

Chef - Movie Review

To say I'm a skinny shrimp, I love my food. My earliest memories are of me devouring my Grandma's jam sandwiches like the Tasmanian Devil after a weeks starvation period. I consume more KFC's, Subways and McDonalds meals than one of those rather obese people as seen on a Channel 5 documentary. But strangely, I still have the appearance of a lifeless twig, who on first look only seems to eat when close to dying. So as I walked into the cinema Monday afternoon, with good knowledge that the film Chef was going to be 2 hours of food heaven, I prepared myself with plenty of food to munch on whilst attempting to digest (comedy genius) the film's story.

Jon Favreau stars and directs this feel good comedy as Carl Casper, a chef who due to unfortunate circumstances gets slaughtered by a food critic and attempts to rebuild his reputation selling his own street food from a food truck. By going on this food journey, Casper rediscovers his passion for food and rebuilds his relationship with his young son. Jon Favreau, both as the director and as the lead star was terrific. He apparently went to train in a top restaurant chef, just so he could look more convincing as a well renown chef, which he pulls off brilliantly. That extra effort he put in showed on screen and it paid off. The way Favreau directed the film, made you feel like you were in his culinary world and the adventure of going on a food truck, experiencing different food cultures in America. There's a massive amount of heart in this film and the feel good factor is pumping throughout, that even the grumpiest possible humans would raise a smile at the majority of these scenes. The way the film uses social media throughout the film was refreshing to see, even if at times the first act of the film feels like a constant product placement for Twitter. Because the direction is precise and screenplay of the film is sharp and witty, the characters feel like real people. The scenes don't feel set up, they effortlessly flow together and at times the film has the tone of a documentary, which is massive credit to Favreau. Casper's son, played by EmJay Antony, was one of the best child acting performances I've seen for a long time. The way the two play off each other was very touching and didn't feel cheesy once. John Leguizamo's sous chef character brought plenty of comedy to the film. His dynamic with Favreau was brilliantly natural. Casper's wife Sofia Vergara was very sympathetic and sweet in her role as was Scarlett Johansson. Even Dustin Hoffman and Robert Downey Jr make an appearance and their cameos were top notch.

Chef is the perfect film for anyone who wants a break from the big action summer blockbusters. The passion and heart are the key ingredients to a feel good comedy and this delivers. The food looks amazing, the acting is great and the improvisational feel to the script makes Chef a class act and it's charm makes it impossible to not bring a smile to your face. Jon Favreau's best performance as a actor and director and hopefully every now and then when he takes a break from directing big movies, he does more of these low key films. I'd highly recommend the film because I don't believe the film will get enough credit as it should do. Definitely check this one out. 

Rating : 9/10

Mrs Brown's Boys D'Movie - Film Review

The Mrs Brown's Boys series has been a massive hit with audiences in the UK & Ireland. The loud mouth mammy has gone from a little radio series to prime time TV with millions tuning in and achieved sell out stage tours. With it's popularity growing, it was only a matter of time before it hit the big screen. However is this just one step too far? Could they adapted the show from a live audience to a film set? At first glance I was unsure. I saw the trailer for Mrs Brown's Boys D'Movie about a month ago and it to put it bluntly, it looked crap. Recycled jokes that you've possibly heard before if you've seen the TV series and it did look like a cash grab with no care whatsoever, only to get fans on seats. I walked into the cinema and it looked like the elderly had be released from their retirement homes. I've never seen so many over 70's in my life, it was really nice to see. I didn't know Mrs Brown's Boys was so popular with the older generation. However a few of them in front of me did need the loo a fair bit throughout so I was having to move my head like a seal trying to catch a fish. 

So Brendan O'Carroll and the family are back and the plot is very simple, consisting of Mrs Brown's fruit and veg stall being under threat from developers wanting to buy the land to build a shopping centre and the family attempt to save it. The first 5 minutes of the film was very entertaining, the last 5 minutes at the end was very entertaining. However everything else was dreadful. The big screen just doesn't suit the Mrs Brown's Boys style of comedy. The majority of the jokes were that bad that I had to laugh at some of them. On a par with Bruce Forsyth's jokes. The main reason why Mrs Brown's Boys works well on stage and on TV is the way the show works with the live audience. The cast know how to work with them and get the reaction from the crowd and you just can't do that same routine with film. The bloopers that you see whilst they perform the show, which are hilarious, don't work whilst watching the film. It's something you put on the end credits. And they did put the bloopers on at the end so why were they actually in the film. It made no sense. The feel of the film felt like it should have been put on BBC One as a special. It didn't have the tone of a big comedy film because they didn't invest anytime in creating new material, it was the same old comedy you get from the TV show. Unfortunately I think the film was originally was intended for TV but they decided to get Universal on board and gain as much money as possible. Apparently Brendan O'Carroll has said 2 more films were in the making. And with this showing it tells me he's more interesting in making even more money rather than caring for his audience.

Mrs Brown's Boys D'Movie sadly fails to deliver any new jokes and the recycled material is poorly executed. The jump from TV and stage to film, to answer my earlier question, is one step too far for the franchise. It should stick to what it does best and not explore the world of cinema again. However this film will make plenty of money so expect more awful films like this in the future.

Rating : 2/10

22 Jump Street - Film Review

21 Jump Street really surprised me when it came out in 2012. I expected it to be a really dumb and goofy Adam Sandler style film with guns and idiotic humour that made no sense whatsoever. However it turned our out to be a really funny and vastly entertaining film with fantastic chemistry between Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. Their bromance was incredible and they were so likable. You could tell they were having such a laugh and it reflected in their performances. It was the funniest high school teen movie I've seen since American Pie. The way it was written just felt new and unique and that blend of smart writing and hilarious moronic humour worked. It's very rare to see in this type of comedy. I wanted to see what 22 Jump Street brought new to table and to be honest, very little. However this film is still very funny indeed.


22 Jump Street sees Hill and Tatum back as 2 undercover cops and their assignment is to go undercover as college students and locate the supplier. So exactly the same plot as the last film. Sounds odd but because this film makes the it work, it surprised me yet again! Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum couldn't be any different but the relationship they have feels so natural and they compliment each other perfectly throughout the film, just as they did previously. It's gag after gag after gag and it's non stop jokes. Even when some don't quite pay off  the next joke does. Ice Cube is back in this film as the Captain and he kills it when he's on screen. There's a couple of scene where he makes it his own and I couldn't breath for about 5 minutes. The film in terms of comedy doesn't disappoint, you'll be gasping for air at times. There's one character however who got on my nerves and that being Jonah Hill's love interest's room mate. Her comedy just didn't work at all and she didn't fit in with the rest of film. She was annoying but in a bad way. And there's a ten minute part in the middle of the film which seems to drag a little and was pretty pointless in terms of progressing the story. If you have seen 21 Jump Street you may be disappointed that this film plot is more or less exactly the same and find that tedious at times. 


22 Jump Street is so laidback like the previous film, ripping itself constantly in the process which was entertaining and it makes fun of sequels in general, which is shown in the end credits which you stick around for. Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller have already had another success this year with The Lego Movie so they are definitely up and coming. The lovable chemistry between Hill and Tatum are what sells the film and I hope they do more projects together.

Rating : 8/10

The Fault in Our Stars - Film Review

It's quite clear now that Hollywood insist on making films which are adapted from best selling books aimed at a young female audience. It's easy money, as they flock to see their beloved books created into big screen movies, hoping that the film is good as what they see in their imaginations. However with the vast majority of these adaptations, the film makers really couldn't give a crap about the quality as they get whipped by studios to create these awful movies in a very short space of time. They all have the same cliches and terrible dialogue that makes you want to cringe and throw up whilst you're painfully watching sappy bullshit thrown in your face. So when it came to sitting down to watch The Fault in Our Stars, expectations were low. Mainly because of the fear pointed out in the previous points mentioned and that their was plenty of teenage girls queuing outside the screen, all wanting to cry before the film even started. Great. So as I sat their with my friend, who she looked at me in deepest sympathy whilst crying with laughter at my situation, being in a supposed teen movie ( the cheeky cow!), I was preparing for yet another blubbering cheesy teen movie. Wow I was wrong, very wrong.

The Fault in Our Stars has a talented cast headed by Shailene Woodley as Hazel Grace Lancaster, a 16 year old cancer patient who has terminal thyroid cancer. Her mother played by Laura Dern, believing her daughter has depression, sends Hazel to a support group who she subsequently meets Augustus Waters, played by Ansel Elgort and as a result the two fall in love. What impressed from the very beginning is that you felt connected to the character of Hazel. You understood her situation that she's accepted that she has cancer and the realism of that makes her very relatable. And so were the rest of the characters in this film. They all felt like they could be the neighbours on the street, which is down to the brilliant acting from the cast. Gus has to be on a level with Samwise Gamgee from Lord of the Rings in terms of being an amazing male human being. He's so positive about life even though he's had an awful time with his cancer. His charm that he brings could have came across as a little arrogant and smarmy but because Ansel Elgort plays the character so well, you gain so much admiration for him. The chemistry between Hazel and Gus wasn't mind blowing but the connection was still really good and that's down to the heartfelt script. The way the film was written could have meant the film coming across as really over the top cheesy emotion, which without any care for detail would have butchered the film. However even though the film at times comes across as a little sappy, the mixture of good direction from Josh Boone, the cast understanding their characters and the script makes the films unique style work.

The Fault in Our Stars is handled with plenty of care and it avoids that problem with the vast of majority of these types of films, that they're too much like fantasy and fake, meaning it doesn't hit on an emotional level for the whole audience. This film tries so hard to avoid the same old cliches and I admire that because it could have easily been thrown on the skip pile with the rest of the rubbish. As soon as the bloke on the same row as me borrowed some of his missuses tissues, this film had truly succeeded. It's a film that you can easily watch again at home, even though I would recommend investing in a box of tissues....maybe another one just in case. Any manliness I had has truly gone with this film. 

Rating: 8/10