The debut film of Bradley King does not appear to have received any kind of release in the UK at all, nor is one imminent. However it has appeared online. I first heard about Time Lapse when

Bradley King appeared as a guest on the Slashfilmcast and I couldn't help but feel intrigued to check it out.

Time Lapse has a surprising similarity with "Shallow Grave". It's about a group of three flat mates (one woman and two men) whose friendships become tainted when they discover something left behind by a dead resident.

What makes the film different is its use of time travel. Though actually 'time travel' is a misleading term since the device doesn't actually allow you to travel through time, unless you count the typical way we travel through time on a daily basis.

The characters aren't especially developed, but they have clear motivations. However, there's a very cool twist which brings the content of the film together nicely at the end, revealing some neat hidden depths to the characters.

I love a good sci-fi movie and Time Lapse was very satisfying. A cool low-profile debut from director Bradley King.

A-

Trigger warning for r*pe

Like a combination of The Exorcist and Demon Seed. The Entity is about a woman who finds herself sexually assaulted in her bedroom. When her children clearly cannot see any evidence of the culprit making his escape, the best explanation seems to be some kind of 'entity'.

It's actually a pretty compelling idea. Albeit utterly horrible. Sexual assault is particularly horrifying because of the sense of powerlessness of the victim. But at least you can see your assailant coming. But here, the assailant can appear at any time and can never actually be seen.

The film also establishes early on that this entity is not confined to the house. This is important because, moreso than ever, it would be bizarre if the victim didn't want to leave. The extent of the trauma to the victim is so great that sticking around for the sake of intellectual curiosity would be utterly absurd.

The question is raised though: If the entity isn't connected to the house, is he (the ghost appears to be a 'he') connected to the victim? As such the next stage is seeing a psychiatrist. This film is based on a true story and it seems that the family weren't happy with natural psychological interpretations, so the psychiatrists get pretty unfairly represented. Still the film still explores some interesting interpretations and takes them seriously enough that at times I could have believed the film wouldn't end with the inevitable supernatural conclusion.

For example, I remember thinking that the mother was a little overly touchy-feely with her son. Nothing twisted mind you; a lot of parents are more touchy-feely in general - with pretty much anyone in fact. But when it's later suggested that the assaults are nightmarish fits where the protagonist harms herself, the theory that those fits represent repressed feelings towards her son we are not as sceptical towards this diagnosis as we might have been.

The Entity has a powerful atmosphere, akin to that of The Exorcist. But it's also faster paced without sacrificing any tension and I'd say it was a smarter movie too.

While the caricatures of psychiatrists are annoying at times, the big issue is the third act climax. Liquid helium is involved and the boast that this film is 'based on a true story' becomes laughable. That being said, the effects are pretty cool in this sequence.

The Entity is an awesome ghost story. And I say that as someone who normally hates ghost stories. The central actress is excellent, the tension is high and the creepy premise is handled in a way that is smart and compelling. Some annoying caricatures and an over the top climax are the biggest issues for me here.

B+

Leonardo Di Caprio is great, but this is Casino all over again. A guy gets involved in a dodgy line of work and then suffers for it.

That being said, an update of Casino is not a bad idea. Stockbrokers are like the new gangsters. In "The Wolf Of Wall Street" stockbrokers are villains who set up an organised system to rip people off left and right, breaking all the rules and yet avoiding prosecution by the authorities.

I'd heard strong recommendations for this film and I can see why. The performances are fantastic all round and there are some incredible scenes.

However, I have some issues:
1. Every single character is horrible. DiCaprio's lead role is utterly despicable and it's very hard to even empathise with him when the film wants us to.
2. The pacing is screwed up by long scenes of debauchery which are done so often and take so long that they become boring rather than shocking.
3. While starting a film part way through can be effective, we are told that the lead character will become super rich, will remarry with a young model and will give up on all moral principles right in the opening of the film. I guess the point is that he is always a douche bag, not that power corrupts, but that's just one more reason why I have trouble caring.
4. There are over-the-top scenes which go on way too long which are essentially gross-out comedy scenes. I'm afraid people losing their minds on drugs isn't funny to me. People having sex isn't funny either. And people shouting at each other also isn't funny. So while I watched these scenes I was sitting and tapping my foot wondering why, in a movie with so many great scenes, they felt they had to waste my time with this.
5. The movie is three hours and that is just WAY too long!

There's an excellent scene where Leonardo DiCaprio talks with the FBI. Matthew McConnaughey's brief appearance, while having a dodgy masturbation joke, is nevertheless one of the best scenes in the movie.

If they wanted a serious drama, then Jonah Hill is completely miscast. But I think what they were going for here was basically a raunchy sex and drugs comedy. Jonah Hill fits right into that style of film, but it's not a style of film I'd ever have elected to watch.

The Wolf Of Wall Street could have been a great drama, but instead it keeps trying to be a gross out comedy and whenever it does, I get bored.

C+

The vampire is kind of awesome. It's an excellent performance. The vampire is wearing a headscarf and her modest muslim clothing is not drastically different from a traditional vampire's cloak.

Unfortunately the rest of the film is annoying and dull. There are a few good songs on the soundtrack, but much of the movie feels too quiet and lacking in character. None of the people we meet are very interesting and there is pretty much no plot.

This film had potential, but I need characters, story and interesting themes. “A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night” has none of these

D-

Essentially a kind of vampire movie. This adaptation of the Oscar Wilde story sees Ben Barnes (perhaps best known for his performance as Prince Caspian) as the titular figure.

Beginning as a mild-mannered and somewhat naive figure, Dorian is introduced to a more sordid lifestyle and is encouraged to put his own pleasure above all else by Colin Firth's character.

I think Ben Barnes' performance is remarkably subtle. I've seen one reviewer claim that Ben Barnes' expression is flat, but on the contrary, I think he expertly portrays the innocent-seeming exterior of a worldly character who nevertheless appears unmarred by experience. There are constant subtle reaction shots from Barnes indicating a rich inner life to the character, but Barnes also manages to convey the duality of the character. First innocent yet corrupt, then later also young yet old.

The change of era makes it hard to recognise some of Dorian's worst crimes. I found it too easy to forgive Dorian for his pregnant fiancée's suicide because we do not have the same harsh level of stigma on pregnant unmarried women these days. In modern day, some man dumps you and, while still horrible, it's not really so big a deal as it was back then. I also feel like our society is no longer so prone to shock when we hear about wild orgies.

There's a somewhat televisual feel to this film and the ending isn't quite as hard-hitting as it could be. But nevertheless this is a wonderful adaptation.

B+

Reece Witherspoon gives a great performance in this true story. It's perhaps a little unfortunate then how closely this follows in the footsteps of the film “Tracks” starring Mia Wasikowska.

To get the points of comparison between the two out of the way. Tracks doesn't constantly flashback and try to make those flashbacks relevant to the trip. Tracks also doesn't involve the main character trying to forcibly insert life lessons in voiceover narration over the journey.

Both movies are about women who go on long life changing journeys. But Wild is not so much about the  journey as the reason for the journey. We are gradually shown the elements which led up to the journey and the things our protagonist is running away from / coming to terms with.

The pre journey story is pretty interesting and so are the parts with the mother (played wonderfully by Laura Dern), but combining the two didn't seem to work so well. The attempt to make the death of a horse in flashback relevant to simply seeing a horse on the journey felt particularly forced.

I wonder whether Wild might not have benefited from more linear storytelling. As it is, wild felt like a laudable mess. A very pretty unfinished jigsaw puzzle with the unfilled sections filled in with crayon. Very well acted but not nearly so mind-blowingly philosophical as it seems to believe.

C+

Oscar Isaac has played an arrogant out of work musician (Inside Llewyn Davis) and an ex-convict (Drive). Now he plays a struggling businessman transporting oil.

The film is very dry and really my biggest issue is the ending which seems to cut the drama short just when it is getting interesting.

Still the film is clever and subtle in its exploration of a well-meaning businessman fighting a losing battle to stay legitimate and avoid corruption in the face of mounting pressures.

Jessica Chastain is interesting as his wife with gangster family connections and Elyes Gabel is also great as one of Oscar Isaac’s vulnerable drivers in fear of roadside attacks from people trying to steal the oil.

The big problem is that, for all the cool subtlety, very little actually happens. Having loved J.C. Chandor’s first film "Margin Call" which managed to push a lot of atmosphere into a mostly inactive film, I was bored to tears by "All Is Lost" about one man's struggle for survival at sea. "A Most Violent Year" is half way between the two. It has exciting moments, but it's still missing the atmosphere of J.C. Chandor’s debut. I was interested by much of what happened, but I wish the story had a more interesting payoff.

B-

Mommy (2014)
It turns out that it doesn't matter if you are abusive towards your mother, start fights in bars, act completely selfishly and set another boy on fire. If your dad died years ago, you come from a poor family and you were diagnosed with ADHD as a child, then BAM! - You are now a sympathetic character.

Initially this appeared to be a film where everybody is utterly horrible. Which is strange, since the 'mommy' figure (played by Anne Dorval) actually seems to change character entirely after the initial scene where she seems utterly unphased by her son Steve's horrifying behaviour. It's not long into the movie before she starts actually caring how her son acts and finally spends less time making excuses for his behaviour and more time actually trying to insist he correct it. Still, Steve remains the central focus of the film (on top of being a character who wants to MAKE everything about himself) and no matter what he does wrong, the filmmakers seem to want me to feel sorry for Steve.

While the mother is a properly rounded character and there are points where I felt genuinely sorry for her or appreciated her character, there are scenes where neither her nor Steve are easy to like. There's a scene where they are going to ask a neighbour for financial and legal help. They need this because Steve set another boy on fire and they are being sued. In this scene the mother is going on about how they need to 'protect themselves' and Steve is grumping because he knows that the neighbour wants his mother to have sex with him. No one is ever in the least bit sorry for the poor boy suffering from horrific burns due to the son's wreckless behaviour. And that's the biggest problem with the character of Steve. He never takes any responsibility for his actions and seems to think he can do whatever he wants. To make matters worse, the movie wants us to praise him for this.

The film is weirdly limited to a square. There's a big black border on either side of the screen for the majority of the movie. This gimmick is solely so that on certain more 'positive' moments the screen can be pushed open to full size. One of this more 'positive' moments involves Steve cycling in the middle of the road and throwing the fruit and vegetables his mother can barely afford at the cars behind him while shouting "I'm free!" So this supposed 'high point' in the movie still involves Steve being selfish and inconsiderate and being praised for it.

The one point in the entire film where Steve is seriously berated for his obnoxious behaviour, he breaks down into tears and shouts some curses and then it seems like we are expected to feel sorry for him. Though none of the arguments or confrontations in the movie ever feel properly resolved, presumably because of Steve's ADHD. (One commentator questions whether Steve's behaviour isn't more indicative of bipolar disorder. ADHD may imply a lack of self-control, but surely not these kind of free-wheeling mood swings?)

At the beginning of the film we are told that this film is set in a fictional Canada where there is some kind of new law allowing adults to put their children into care without any legal barriers. It should come as no surprise that Chekov's fictional law comes into place during the storyline. Unfortunately it serves little point other than to allow the script to separate characters more quickly and conveniently.

I'd be keen to see Anne Dorval again, hopefully in a film where her character is more consistently written. Unfortunately I thought her performance was wasted in this love letter to irresponsible scumbags. Okay, so Steve is a pretty realistically portrayed irresponsible scumbag and some people might not mind the way the film mostly leaves his behaviour unchallenged. I am absolutely willing to admit that the film was well-acted and a conversation starter. However, I was very annoyed by the lack of a storyline or any kind of genuine message.

C-

When it arrived, the film turned out to be essentially a Buffy the Vampire Slayer rip-off. And that's fine; these films are very clear about their influences and makes many pop culture references towards Buffy and other movies and shows. The acting wasn't always brilliant, but there were some pretty neat low budget action sequences. Also a central performance from Daniel Ross is a particular stand out (in all three films actually). As promised, it was fun.

When the previous film in the series was released on Lovefilm (yes, releasing those back to front was confusing), someone had made the bizarre decision to rename the film "Zombie Contagion". This was particularly dodgy since the zombies are magical zombies who follow one master zombie's commands, not a viral outbreak. The first film in the series had less impressive fight choreography, but better jokes so I actually preferred it.

So, after an extremely long wait, we finally have the final part in the trilogy. Though the film leaps straight into the action I was surprised by how confused I was about the details of the earlier movies, since it turned out that continuity matters. The action is pretty cool though some characters seem very quick to become friends after trying to kill each other. Some melodrama in the first half of the movie is a little poorly judged and poorly paced.

Yet strangely when the movie turns into a kind of Mortal Kombat style tournament half way through, it gets a second wind. A busty axe-wielding warrior who appears at this stage and looked a bit out of place in the trailer turned out to be my favourite character in the film. The actress (Alexia Poe) brings a great comic performance.

Ninjas vs Monsters still has the same budget limitations, pacing problems and inconsistent humour of prior films in the series, but it still has the same wonderful sense of fun. What can I say? If you liked the first two films I'd be surprised if you were disappointed by this finale. Not a step up in quality or a step down. Just the same old loveable silliness.

B-

This foreign (Argentinian/Spanish) anthology film had a fair bit of critical praise, yet it seemed like a pretty low profile release. It turns out that the film is violent and hilarious and achieves that rare feat in anthology movies of making every single segment a gem.

After a fairly relaxed opening discussion between strangers on a plane the film quickly ramps up the adrenaline levels. There's a consistent dark sense of humour, but without the misery that often accompanies black humour. There are no passive protagonists like you'll find in movies like "The Double", "A Serious Man" or "Calvary". Characters are unwilling to let events unfold out of their control.

I've heard some suggest comparisons to Tarantino. But, while certainly stylish, Wild Tales is not as stylised as Tarantino's work. It also doesn't fit in pop culture references or give characters time for long eccentric rants. But like a Tarantino film it is not shy about letting events escalate into violence and presenting such scenes in a way that gleefully encourages laughter. That's not really a uniquely Tarantino-esque style though.

Wild Tales is unique and delightful from start to finish. If you enjoy films with a darker comedic edge, this is a must-see.

A+

Adam Green is a director with a clear passion for horror comedy. So far I had only seen his Hatchet movies (he only made the first two) and, while I disliked the second, they both featured some very creative low budget gore effects and a great sense of fun. However, Digging Up The Marrow is a suspense-based story and doesn't involve so much gore at all. I must admit that for some of the film I wasn't convinced that the director was suited to this style. Nevertheless, Digging Up The Marrow is very tongue in cheek and whenever I felt the movie was losing its way it was always quick to win me back over.

I probably should mention that Digging Up The Marrow is a found footage film (well, faux documentary, but it comes to the same thing really). In the film the director plays himself, starting out apparently pursuing a documentary about monsters, only to settle on unpacking one guy's crazy notions about 'the marrow', an underground community of monstrous misfits. Ray Wise is excellent as the enigmatic man who proposes these crazy ideas.

Since Adam Green is playing himself, as a director of horror movies who regularly attends conventions, there are some cool cameos from real people in the industry. There’s a very neat little scene with Kane Hodder (stuntman most well known for his work as Jason Vorhees in the Friday the 13th movies) playing himself.

While there are slow parts in this film, the payoff in the third act is well worth the wait. If you liked either of Adam Green's Hatchet movies, you should definitely give this a shot.

A+

On the one hand, we're back where we left off with the Angela storyline at the end of REC 2. On the other hand this is probably the worst movie in the REC series.

I didn't think the third movie was the disaster some made it out to be. But I think coming the pros and cons of both 3 and 4 shows us just why the combined talents of the two directors gave us better results.

REC 3 is funnier. That isn't to say that REC 4 isn't trying to be funny too. It's just not successful. In REC 3 we had characters like the man in the costume that isn't Spongebob because they don't have the rights. In REC 4 we have a man who mans the security cameras, perving on wome while eating lots of sweets. He's quirky but he's not funny. The final line of REC 4 is definitely a joke which fell flat for me.

REC 4 is creepier than REC 3. Once again that's not to say that REC 3 wasn't creepy, but it didn't commit to it like this one did. I'm a big fan of the monkeys in REC 4.

REC 3 was more character based, while this is more story based. Unfortunately for all the creepy build-up there's not really much story to work with.

Basically, even more so than REC 3, this is a film to watch for completion's sake. It's not a disaster but it's a serious missed opportunity. When disappointed by REC 3 many were convinced that the real master on the first REC film must have been Jaume Balaguero. But REC 4 seems to indicate that what made REC 1 and 2 so special was the crazy chemistry between Balaguero and his co-director Paco Plaza. With only half the team missing, this sequel suffers and I think while Balaguero is the grittier director, Plaza provided that vital ingredient in horror (particularly in a film about zombies): a sense of fun.

C+

Wow, this was kind of ridiculous. Perhaps the most annoying thing was that there were plenty of awesome sequences, but the plot was completely inconsistent.

We begin by following one girl, then we are following another girl too. Then we are following neither of those and instead we follow the second girl's sister.

The film makes clear early on that it is centred on a mystical pregnancy. But in the end, the actual pregnancy takes place while the mother is in a coma. Little of the film really addresses the issues inherent in a mystical pregancy even while that remains the central focus of the film.

There are short snippets of important emotional character moments, yet the characters are mostly flat and impersonal. This is a film which mostly about mood and atmosphere. I'm prepared to imagine that with a better script the characters would have more depth, but it's just as possible that the character development in the script was butchered to make way for more moody set-pieces.

While it began promisingly the aimless progression of the story became tiresome. When the creepy story elements were tied up, it all felt a bit dumb.  

D-

Not about an actual duke! The Duke of Burgundy is a type of butterfly. This film is about a dominance and submission relationship between two women, one of whom is an expert on insects.

Of course you shouldn't expect things to be too straightforward. This is from the director of Berberian Sound Studio, a kind of horror film about Toby Jones as a sound designer working on an Italian horror film.

Here there are two refreshing elements which give this a definite edge over, say, "Secretary". Firstly, no attempt is made to explain why the submissive girl is submissive. It is not relevant. Secondly, a major interesting element in the relationship is that the more dominant woman is actually less confident in her role. Unlike in Secretary or even the recent 50 Shades of Grey, this is not a submissive who needs to be led into the submissive lifestyle. She knows what she wants and actually becomes impatient at times with her dominant lover. There are plenty of instances of 'topping from the bottom' by the submissive, which the dominant just doesn't know how to handle.

It's all very interesting but it's not a story. It has similar issues to Berberian Sound Studio in that it tries to go all cryptic and atmospheric in the third act to compensate for the lack of a definite ending. Except unlike BBS, TDOB is not a horror film. It's more of a love story or a romantic drama. Which is actually one advantage it has over BBS where Toby Jones is very isolated. Here we actually see two characters develop together rather than just one character who faces his situation alone.

That being said, there's a fatalistic sense in both films. The protagonists aren't able to make a  real change. Perhaps that's why I find myself frustrated by both of these films despite being fascinated by the style and the subject matter.

B-

While in some camps people were kind of appalled by this cheesy so-called origin story for Dracula, others  moderately praised it as trashy fun. They're both right.

Personally I think they shouldn't release any sequels to this. Believing that this well-mannered morally-upstanding ruler is a terrifying embodiment of evil is just ridiculous. Admittedly the contrast between these two personas might be the point, but there's my immediate problem with Dracula Untold: What contrast?

The opening to Dracula Untold gives us an unconvincing history lesson about how Vlad was only doing his impaling because the turks forced him to. Wow. What a way to undermine the legend of Dracula and the film hasn't started yet!

Dracula isn't the villain. Not at the beginning, not in the middle, not at the end. In this film Dracula is a superhero, gaining incredible superpowers from a creepy monstrous figure in a cave (played by Charles Dance). While it makes for a good spectacle setting one vampire against an army, it still feels strange being expected to feel sorry for Dracula.

The special effects are great, the acting is good, the story is tosh and the historical setting is contrived. And if this is supposed to be the Dracula origin why do local monks know all about vampires? Because it's in the script...

I quite liked the idea that Universal were going to do a Marvel-style series of horror movies leading to a big monster mash cross-over film, but that’s not what we are presented with here. This isn't a horror movie about Dracula; it’s a superhero movie about Dracula. We all know of Dracula as the most powerful vampire. Confident, seductive and a force of evil. The guy in this movie just isn't the same character. There's no way.

Trashy, silly and not very good. However you probably won't regret checking to see what you're missing.

D+

Fred Cavayé's first two films both dealt with ordinary people in desperate situations. His first film "Pour Elle" (or Anything For Her) was about a man who decides to break his innocent wife out of prison. (Unlike in the remake with Russell Crowe, the audience is shown that the wife is innocent early on.) "A Bout Portant" (or Point Blank) a man is forced to follow the demands of people who have kidnapped his child.

But in Cavayé's third film "Mea Culpa" the protagonists aren't 'ordinary people'. They are one police officer and one ex-police officer. I felt that not only should they know better, but that they had legitimate access to resources which could help solve their issues.

At one point the protagonists walk straight into a gangster-owned nightclub with guns asking to see the relevant gangsters. Your average episode of Burn Notice already lets me know that this is ridiculously stupid, so I am utterly frustrated by these idiotic police officers. They have a background in law enforcement that previous Cavayé protagonists did not have, and yet they are utterly reckless.

The twist is unsatisfying and the story is poor, but there's no doubt that Cavayé brings a special something to the material. This is Cavayé's worst film by far, but it's still quite watchable.

D+

Miyazaki's last movie (so far) is as much of an emotional rollercoaster as you'd expect from his work.

Even though the subject matter here is not enchanting supernatural spectacle, Miyazaki includes regular dream sequences where our protagonist's visions for the planes he wants to design are fully realised. In his dreams he's even able to walk along the wings and muse over their design while the plane is in flight.

But the animation is still pretty incredible when the film deals with real life too. Still while limited by real life the ending isn't able to be a magical curse being lifted or a character returning to their home world. The film never seems quite sure where to end and, while hinted at, there's something disturbing
about the damage the protagonist's dream planes would eventually inflict in the upcoming war.

This story is about the dreams of a plane designer being realised and his compassion for the people around him. That he doesn't think about the military purposes for his planes in too much detail is just a quirky detail really. Nevertheless with a firmer ending this film could have been one of Studio Ghibli's very best.

B+

If this were a spoof it would probably get top marks. This film is illogical and ridiculously stylised in a way that just screams 80s.

The protagonist is constantly undermined by detectives as he proposes blatant truths about the case that they are too dumb to consider. Please note, the protagonist is not a detective.

He's assigned to look after a key witness after she identifies one member of a gang involved in a series of murders. What's ridiculous is that while she doesn't know she'd seen a killer when she first sights him on the side of the road, she does when he tries and fails to murder her too. By the end of the film the entire gang are trying to kill her, all unmasked and in full daylight, clearly visible to the public.

Finally we get the main villain armed with a knife claiming that, as a cop, Stallone isn't allowed to kill him. Excuse me? The villain then insists that he'll be able to get off with an insanity plea. (Erm, you want to be stuck in a maximum security asylum?)

Sadly Stallone's ridiculous fashion of wearing sunglasses indoors seems confined to the opening action scene. Particularly since, besides being entertainingly daft in clichéd ways, the film itself is actually pretty terrible.

You need to go into this film expecting it to be terrible. If you do, you're in for a great time.

C+