Best thing: Wonderful build up and  atmosphere and a real sense that the main character has dark hidden depths.

Worst thing: The protagonist's "friends" have no depth at all, seemingly don't really matter and we ultimately cannot care less about them when the film turns into an uninspiring slasher movie towards the end.

Half way through this film I was loving it. A woman prepared to do anything for a chance to be a star, with heavily implied Lovecraftian themes and some cool atmospheric and suggestive effects indicating our protagonists transformation.

The problem is that the climactic third act requires us to care about our protagonist's horrible 'friends' and I just couldn't. Perhaps if we were able to be happy about those deaths it could have been fun. But we are clearly supposed to be shocked. Really I was just confused. Shouldn't she have transformed into a monster BEFORE she kills people? I wonder whether they couldn't get funding for an exciting monster effects filled third act and this third rate slasher rubbish was the cheap alternative.

Endings matter and the final third of this film is seriously unfortunate. However, there was a lot of potential here and the end product remains pretty watchable.

C-

P.S. Discovered this one through @catcavecinema and to be absolutely fair to them, they warned me. Still, their review intrigued me so much that I felt I had to see for myself....

Best thing: The central actor is playing two separate twin brothers. While I don't think his acting is especially mind blowing, it's pretty impressive that I am never confused as to which brother he is playing. There is a reasonably subtle distinction between his performance for each brother. - Except... now I come to look it up, they are actually played by two actors. I’m not sure why they always show them in separate shots, but I guess it might be a strength of the film that it kept me guessing on this issue?

Worst thing: The supernatural can very easily annoy me in films. Sometimes some crazy supernatural antics are all part of the fun, whether it's a cursed videotape or a magical cloak, but when we get to ghosts or psychics, sometimes films seem to take plausibility for granted. In "The Other" the boy apparently has some odd sort of power which allows him to inabit another person (or at least imagine he is doing so). With such a vaguely established power and confusing consequences, I found it hard to take seriously.

The Other is the story of two identical twins. One has a good relationship with his Russian grandmother while the other wants to do bad things and may have killed someone.

I originally heard about this film when looking into horror films about the fear of children. Films like The Omen, The Exorcist, We Need To Talk About Kevin and Who Can Kill A Child. So here we have a story about an evil brother. The performances aren't bad, but I don't know that the direction is really doing much to build up an atmosphere. This felt to me like a naff tv movie tone.

I will admit that the big revelation did feel genuinely creepy, but I also felt that the movie had no idea what to do next. Considering how slow paced and flat this film is, it's perhaps a little remarkable this was even as watchable as it was. Still, I can't say I was a fan.

D-

Best thing: I suppose the way the video teases the victims is quite fun. Now continue watching for the remedy for the curse... oh no, it's been taped over!

Worst thing: While I was initially quite pleased to see the quirky spiritualist mortician who sees the whole killer videotape problem as a game. But when he keeps jumping conveniently to ridiculous conclusions and berating the lead female character for not doing the same, this became incredibly irritating. "Black blobs on the video? Oh that must be because it's projected from the mind of a psychic who's blinking." Blinking? Blinking inside their mind? Their eyelids are getting in the way of a mental image? Oh what a unique brand of logic you display!

I was keen to rewatch the Ring movies in preparation for the upcoming Sadako Vs Kakayo film (otherwise known as The Ring Vs The Grudge). So I figured I'd go further and try to check out the entire series.

Since the Korean version does not appear to have any sequels I decided to try out this version of Ring known as "The Ring Virus" first. I was interested to see the Korean take on this material.

Much of the film is pretty similar to the original except for a few chracters having a bit of a shift. The mother is admittedly giving a compelling central performance and the mortician who did the autopsy of the first victims gets to be a consistent character. However, bizarrely, this mortician is now a bit of a pervert and a naysayer.

Also, instead of her ex-husband, this time our protagonist is aided by a spiritualist mortician dismissed from the case who seems strangely unconcerned about the video curse even after watching the central cursed tape. (He's unsympathetic enough that, if they'd gone on to adapt the second book, it would have made more sense than the Japanese version of "Spiral" did.)

These quirky characters are an interesting change (at least initially). The protagonist also has a daughter instead of a son, but that doesn't really make any difference.

The problem with The Ring Virus is that it is made in such a dull and televisual way. Sure, the music is pretty cool, but the movie is not edited well enough to excite the audience. All the plot points of Ring are here but they come across as flat or even silly. The mystery doesn't work all that well because the spiritualist mortician makes such wild leap of logic that I just felt I needed to blindly accept what he said. And there's not really any attempt to make the scenario creepy.

The Ring Virus doesn't deserve recognition in this series. Our spiritualist mortician is still not the psychopathic rapist from the book and the protagonist is the same single mother from the Japanese movie rather than the man with a wife and child. So this film isn't even a close enough adaptation of the book to gain legitimacy that way. This is simply a far inferior version of the film which kick-started the Asian horror boom.

D-

Best thing: While the third act is wonderful I hadn't noticed before how wonderfully the sound effects contribute to the atmosphere. The director takes full advantage of the creepy sounds and images in distorted film.

Worst thing: The pacing is a bit slow. While the parts involving the videotape are intense and gripping, I did nor feel the same way about the rest. The mystery is intriguing but so much of it is based in the supernatural that the audience basically has to wait to be fed the answers. I like the characters but they aren't larger-than-life characters to reel you in to the story.

This is only my second time watching Ringu. When I first saw this I mostly had it on in the background. Yet as the story progressed it couldn't help but pull me in and I was thankfully entirely ignorant as to what the final act would involve. (As someone who hates typical ghost stories I was happy to see the "save the ghost" trend shockingly subverted.)

While there are some very cool atmospheric effects produced by making use if the distortions of the audio and visuals possible on film, this film also features an intriguing mystery. The feeling that the investigation could be counting down to our protagonist's death does much to stir up the interest of the audience.

A scene which I think works especially well is where the central character finally watches the cursed videotape. It's the first chance for the audience to see the full content of the tape and it's like we are watching the tape with her. When the content of the video ends there's a feeling of "that's it?" but in a seriously creepy way. The character instantly regrets deciding to watch the tape and is horrified that a short sequence of creepy images could be a death sentence.

Ring is a classic piece of horror cinema and rewatching this film it was even better than I remembered.

A+

Best thing: There are a number of dream-like sequences, but the stand-out for me is when Ryûji Takayama gets up from the autopsy table when his chest has been entirely removed. That was a striking image.

Worst thing: While there are a whole series of issues with this film, it goes completely off the rails with its big third act reveals. Someone can contract a form of smallpox by reading a journal? Sadako is projecting her DNA? Sadako can be reborn as a full grown magic clone seemingly overnight (in the book, apparently it's a week)? But if those weren't ridiculous enough, the claim that the ex-husband from the first movie was in league with Sadako is particularly stupid.

This is such a slow and dreary film and while there are a few points which almost promise a horror movie there's just none of the atmosphere of Ring.

Rasen (English title: Spiral) was released practically simultaneously with Ring. It has the same actors as the first movie, as well as some of the same sets/locations. But in following the plot of the second book, it kills off the two survivors from the first movie in a car crash off screen.

Sadako is still evil, bit instead of the iconic image of her face obscured by her hair, her face is now shown. The attempt to give us a creepy sex scene comes off more weird than scary. Rasen does a better job of being creepy towards the beginning but it would appear that the story is more of a bizarre sci-fi story than a horror story and the director doesn't seem entirely clear what to do with the material.

To be fair, the material is utterly nuts and yet the storytellers expect us to take it all seriously. The bizarre explanation of how characters are reborn is posed as scientific, yet I was left wondering why our characters didn't need some kind of futuristic super-lab to achieve the results. (We see cells injected in a petri dish, so it’s not just magic, even though it feels like it must be.)

This is like a different universe than Ring and if there's a way to make this material palatable, this director certainly had no clue.

E

Best thing: I absolutely love the way they bring back a character we previously heard had been put in a psychiatric care facility. The 'water test' they do with her has always seemed very cool to me. But while that was probably my favourite aspect the first time around, this time the vision of Sadako climbing spider-like up the walls of the well wearing the clay facial reconstruction was the one I now found most striking.

Worst thing: The journalist from the mother's office seems like a central character initially yet mainly becomes a sub-plot later on. Not starting with the same characters as we finished with last time, yet not consistently following the characters we begin with instead, makes the story feel a little muddled.

Having mostly had Ring on in the background the first time I watched it, my first reaction to Ring 2 all those years ago was to prefer it to the original. Ring 2 has some cool imagery and is a more visually compelling film, to my mind.

This time around, I give the first film more credit for its simplicity. However, having now seen Rasen, I  have to give the filmmakers credit for the new direction in which they take that material in the sequel. Nothing in the first film had really suggested that the ex-husband's student was a psychic. That they were sleeping together was pretty clear, but in the first movie Sadako, Sadako's mother and the ex-husband were the only psychics. But this sequel embraces that briefly-seen girlfriend’s psychic powers and her connection with the ex-husband, forming a much fuller and more compelling character for her than she was ever allowed in Rasen. I like how the imagery also uses her connection with the ex-husband to bring him back into the story rather than introducing a previously unseen friend of his from medical school.

In fact Ring 2 successfully brings together all the loose threads. Last time we heard about a witness to a Sadako death who went crazy, so this time we visit her in a psychiatric unit. Last time we met a grumpy man from the island where Sadako grew up, convinced that she was still planning to kill him. This time around he sees her recovered body, as pretty much the only family she has left, and he's still coming to terms with the sense that Sadako must still seek revenge on him.

We do get an old friend of the ex-husband from medical school. A maniacal psychological researcher hoping to capture psychic energy. He's not exactly a bad person, but there's hubris involved in his experiments with Sadako's evil psychic energy.

I don't think I normally have a huge amount of patience of weird Japanese stuff, yet I thought this story was pretty straightforward and not the bizarre mess some seemed to suggest. I still think Ring 2 holds up and it definitely continues the high quality of the first film.

A+

Best thing: Towards the end, this features some of the creepiest and coolest Sadako shambling effects out of any of the Ring movies. There's a reason why Sadako is shown contorting more than ever and it's especially far-fetched, even for an evil psychic/evil videotape movie, but the effect/performance in that scene is awesome.

Worst thing: For much of the film, minimal background musical cues are used. This remains the case until a climactic moment over half way through where the story goes full-Carrie. The lack of music makes the story feel rather slower and drier.

So, in between psychically murdering a journalist and being trapped in a well, Sadako decided to join a troupe of actors? Seems a little far-fetched, but okay.

There's a bit of a Carrie-esque element  here, but there are pacing issues all the way through. The story feels slow and awkward in the first half and a bit jumbled in the final act. Also, if one of your characters kills someone in self-defence and feels like they should confess, waiting til tomorrow to call the police might seem more than a little foolhardy.

There are parts of this film I liked and it had the potential to be a really solid entry in the series, but there's something really off about both the storytelling and the filmmaking.

C-

Best thing: Naomi Watts plays a more self-assured and quirky version of the mother/journalist character from the original Ring. The original character felt a bit wet to me and that's certainly not true of Naomi Watts here.

Worst thing: The remake of Ring is much more of a jump scare fuelled affair, though not as much as I remembered. The first time I saw it the sound system had me really feeling all the atmospheric sound effects trying to make me jump, but this time around it didn't seem so insistent. Still the jump scare noise before Naomi Watts finds a millipede is still stupid. Another stupid jump scare is where one of the bodies is discovered. Also, particularly ridiculous is Brian Cox's death scene. (He set up a load of electrical equipment in his bathroom just because Naomi Watts showed up?) But the daftest part, to my mind, is where the film expects me to be creeped out by a ladder leaning against a building. Has our protagonist never heard of window cleaners?

Many seem to prefer this version to the original and I cannot even begin to fathom why. For me, the over-dramatic musical cues and the regular attempts to use loud noises to alarm the audience becomes incredibly distracting.

The filmmakers have tried to up the ante by using a range of creepy distinctive imagery/effects. The stand-outs are probably the runaway horse and the fly that escapes from a television screen. But in a way the imagery distracts from the central threat from Sadako (now renamed Samara). In the original Japanese film the imagery in the deadly videotape all acted as clues to the identity of Sadako, but it's not clear that a ladder is terribly relevant. The American movie of The Ring is much of a ghost story and not the unique supernatural mystery that characterised the original.

One piece of new imagery which I thought still pushed the mystery forward was where the ex-husband sees his face distorted in CCTV footage in a corner shop. That was an effective new piece of imagery which didn't feel superfluous to the story.

One reviewer I read praised the sequel for having a version of Sadako who actively misleads the protagonists. But in the original Ring, Sadako doesn't care whether the protagonists solve the mystery or not. She's not misleading them. She simply broadcasts her hatred and anyone who receives the signal dies. Making Samara a character that can be 'helped' is to follow the ridiculous idea of a ghost made more powerful by having died. (Ghost stories so often suggest that dying can give you superpowers.)

I'd also note that if the child in this film knows that they shouldn't help Samara, perhaps he could have mentioned that information earlier?  He really feels like the kid from the Shining if that kid were permanently stuck in RED RUM mode. He's such a creepy weirdo rather than sweetly quirky like the kid in the original film.

I find The Ring to be cheesy, far more generic than the original and a bit of a slog. Too many parts just strike me as plain stupid for me to give it much credit. And when its sole existence is to re-sell a great film to audiences who don't like subtitles, I feel quite justified in dismissing it.

D+

You can watch this short film here.

Best thing: A security guard for an electronics store stops our desperate 'ring' member from broadcasting the cursed video. It was a cool moment because the security guard's recognition shows how widespread knowledge of the evil video has become.

Worst thing: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake director (Jonathan Liebesman) made this and while the shorter runtime suits him, the film still has that same washed out look and the actors still look way too made-up as is often seen in Platinum Dunes movies (i.e. Bay-produced horror remakes). Some may remember that the Nightmare On Elm Street remake had incredibly well-groomed kids apparently suffering from sleep deprivation and the Friday 13th remake featured a girl who had apparently been kidnapped and kept underground for several months, yet looked like she'd just had a makeover. Rings isn't really so bad and the protagonist does look genuinely traumatised by his experiences, but the characters generally seem pretty flat, playing second fiddle to the snazzy (yet pale washed-out) effects work and everyone's fantastic hair just makes it all seem that much less real.

Well, whoever wrote this seems to actually understand the originally intended meaning of the word "ring". All this "before you die, you see the ring" stuff is just so annoying. The Japanese version didn't have a ring image in the cursed tape footage.

I actually think the way this short film makes use of the symbolism of the first movie is more effective. They even make the milipede work better by having our protagonist puke out a huge one that distorts in a way indicative of a television broadcast. Still weird but much more genuinely striking and creepy instead of relying on the jump-scare background noise.

This short film is a little unsatisfying, but it's still good enough to get viewers excited about the next movie which is essentially its purpose. Apparently the next American movie will have this title and I'm quite interested to see what is done with the concept.

The short film Rings is fine. Quite music video-y but a good appetiser nonetheless.

B-

Best thing: Great imagery. A bath scene where water rises to the ceiling is spectacular. We also have some awesome shambling Samara movements as she climbs the well in a climactic piece of imagery.

Worst thing: To up the ante from the runaway horse scene in the previous film, this time we have a big herd of deer acting strangely. The CG required for this scene does not hold up well. I still thought the scene in question was creepy and dramatic though.

So this was a flop? I don't get it. This has a genuine mystery, some great imagery, doesn't rely on stupid jump scares. Seems to me, they brought in the original Ring director and he upped the game in every respect.

Yes that's right, I thought this was BETTER than the first American Ring movie.

Are there problems? Sure. But apart from some unfortunately dated CG in one scene, I'd say all the problems were set up in the previous film.

We can't introduce the quirky doctor who knew Naomi Watts' psychic ex-husband in medical school because, in this universe, the ex-husband was neither psychic nor in medical school. Tying him into story through the girl in the mental hospital doesn't work so well either since Watts already pretty much tied up that loose end in the last movie.

So instead Naomi Watts needs to solve her problem with her son without a hare-brained plan to absorb the energy in a swimming pool. That solution simply wouldn't follow naturally. The alternative, which I won't spoil here, felt a little awkward. Still I am impressed by the decision to make use of the biological mother to keep the mystery going. Unlike in the Japanese films, the mother of Samara in the last film was a foster mother. That means Watts is able to track down the biological mother to get some extra clues.

The son is still a bit creepy, though I felt that at the start of the film they'd toned that down a bit, if only to contrast with his later behaviour when Samara possesses him. I get the impression that the spirit      possession plot threw American audiences for a loop. Having not only already seen the original Ring 2, but also the failed sequel Rasen (Spiral) before it, I find it hard to empathise with the negative response Ring Two has received. While I found some imagery like milipedes and ladders were unintentionally hilarious last time around, this time I feel Hideo Nakata did about as good a job as could have been hoped for in continuing that version of the mythology and I was impressed.

B+

Best thing: Sadako-shaped animalistic monsters with huge legs and bloodstained mouths. The only genuinely creepy thing in the whole film. The tension in the scenes where they appear isn't exploited terribly well by the filmmakers, but they are still a cool creepy design.

I also liked how the video screens where our protagonist sees Sadako taunting her keep reverting to a J-pop music video. It's a great example of this film's wonderful sense of fun.

Worst thing: Rather than collapsing with contorted faces (or dying of some unrecognisable version of smallpox, as was claimed in Spiral, the more faithful and yet utterly dire adaptation of the second Ring novel), the victims now commit suicide. But one victim appears with a ridiculous Sadako wig (having presumably sprouted Sadako-esque hair instantaneously after seeing the cursed video clip). In a film with a lot of ridiculous elements, that scene just went too far for me.

The Sadako 3D films seem generally recognised as trash so my expectations were lowered (though goodness knows why after how underrated I found Ring Two). Admittedly, Sadako 3D IS trashy, but in quite an enjoyable way. And yes, the cursed videotape is now a cursed video clip on the internet...

Sadako 3D's manga style is a blessing and a curse. It has a level of creativity that the movie series needed, but it's a little silly and melodramatic, yet the characters also have a wonderful charm to them. When the protagonist's boyfriend says encouraging words to her in a flashback to high school, I found my spirits lifted enormously in that scene. So sweet!

Sure we start the film with a maniacal cackling villain and we are very clearly in a comic book world, but I've got to say, I found it was a lot of fun. It almost doesn't matter that nothing in this film is actually even remotely scary.

Sadako's powers have changed a bit. Instead of just a corrosive grip or a symbolic shamble towards doomed victims, Sadako now leaps from computer screens and can also strangle victims with her hair. We even see her form a kind of hair cocoon at one point. Certainly it's a bit silly, but there's an intentional sweet and silly tone consistent throughout.

I also need to address some misinformation spread all across the internet in regards to this film. Every English-speaking website seems to claim that Sadako 3D is a sequel to Rasen. That is utter nonsense! Ring 2 ended with Sadako's body returned to ths sea, but her spirit clearly still tied to the well and desperate to be reborn. (The story is resolved with Sadako seemingly no longer a threat, but then in Sadako 3D she only becomes a threat again because the over-the-top villain invokes her.) Rasen, however, finished with Sadako already reborn (alongside one of the heroes from the first movie, now unexpectedly in league with her). If Sadako 3D were a sequel to Rasen, wouldn't we need some explanation as to where her fully grown clone with all her memories has disappeared to? No, Sadako 3D still has Sadako's spirit stuck in the well. It is clearly a sequel to Ring 2. If the filmmakers really intended it as a sequel to Rasen then they clearly forgot how that movie finished and couldn't be bothered to check (because nobody cares about Rasen).

Sadako 3D was very nearly a solid film and, while trashy and often daft, has a lot of appeal due to some serious charm. For fans of the Ring movies I would actually recommend checking it out. It's not all that great, but I don't think Ring fans will regret having seen it.

C+

Best thing: Occasionally this film goes full Evil Dead with Sadako victims acting like deadites. At one point we see Sadako's well overflowing with blood. My favourite Evil Dead moment features a possessed woman getting her hair trapped in a shredder only to start swinging a whole shredding machine at the protagonist by her hair!

Worst thing: Last time we had a man spontaneously growing long black hair. This time we have a full train of them! There are a lot of unintentional laugh out loud moments, often when the film is aiming to be creepy and a train full of overacting men in suits sprouting long computer-generated black hair while convulsing on the spot really took the biscuit. What was supposedly meant to be a horrifying string of Sadako victims came off as one of the daftest points in the film.

I feel like the filmmakers of Sadako 3D 2 don't quite understand what worked about the first movie. They seem to understand that the first film wasn't scary enough and whatever they still lack in fear they now make up for with gore. We have some really dark manga-esque moments related to our protagonist's memories of her mother's suicide. A bathtub full of blood is used as a recurring image.

Unfortunately there is little familiar here. The main character appears to have died and the boyfriend is constantly at work. His sister is now the protagonist dealing with a creepy Sadako-esque child who draws images of people dying giving all of them Sadako hair. We get a scene dedicated to the villain from the last film, even though he should be dead.

The story felt a bit repetitive and dull for the most part. The child seems more of a character than the sister looking after her, but she's too enigmatic and quiet for us to really relate to. Her father is infuriatingly neglectful, shocked by any suggestion that his child might be connected to the shocking deaths occurring all around her, yet seemingly not interested in looking into what is clearly a reappearance of Sadako.

When the sceptical detective from the last film outlines the situation to the new detective on the case I love how the new detective confesses: "I have no idea what you are talking about." It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge that the backstory of a psychic who wants to be reborn is batshit crazy.

As cool as all the suicide-related imagery was, it was a major downer. This film had more unintentionally funny moments too which made for an awkward contrast with the darker tone. The reveals in the third act get pretty nuts and sadly they also get pretty exposition-heavy.

Sadako 3D 2 isn't exactly terrible. Sure, it's not a good film, but it's still quite watchable. I'd certainly rather watch this than Rasen or even the Korean remake. But Sadako 3D 2 is one hell of a mess.

D+

Best thing: Our unfortunate father figure tries to not simply commit suicide, but to behead himself. This sequence is quite darkly comic.

Worst thing: The clown demon is not the interesting trickster villain or terrifying force of nature I thought we were building to. Instead we get a pretty run-of-the-mill humanoid monster.

When the clown cancels on the morning of his son's clown-themed party, the estate agent father doesn't know what to do. He feels very lucky to discover a clown outfit in the house he is working on. But the next day, he doesn't seem to be able to take the outfit off. The wig seems to be attached to his head. Even power tools seem unable to remove the clothing.

Peter Stormare is typically awesome as the source of the twisted Scandinavian artifact, but the real strength of the film is the family drama. With both this film and “Cop Car”, director Jon Watts has a knack for stories about children. In the background of the killer clown suit is the consequences for the marriage and the effects on their child.

Sadly, while the build up is fantastic, the final reveal of the monster does not live up to expectations. It's not bad, but it's fairly derivative. The clown monster is fairly by-the-numbers, while some footage of a previous host suggested something much more haunting and potentially with a richer mythology. If the basis of the clown is a colourful monster that lures in children, shouldn't the creature be something more than just a super strong clown with pale skin, sharp teeth and a growling voice?

This is an interesting little horror film with much to recommend it, but the reveal of the monster is underwhelming. The cool elements are the ways characters respond to the threat. The father dealing with his transformation or the mother wrestling with whether to sacrifice another child to save her own. Jon Watt’s "Clown" had potential to be an unmissable horror film and instead it's just a neat curiosity.

B-

I'd heard that this was an improvement on the original. The problem with the original for me was the incredibly slow pacing and the really long wait for not much payoff. I really couldn't relate to any of the characters.

Unfortunately the best thing about the original feels lacking in the remake. The original Mexican film felt deeply unnerving. That tension is mostly missing from Jim Mickle’s (Stake Land) version.

Within the original, the family had a sense of honour and shame connected to the ritual. The older brother was trying and failing to feel worthy of taking their father's place at the head of the family. Meanwhile the mother is angry with the dead father for going to prostitutes (though the twist on this somewhat more typical complaint is that he may have been going to prostitutes to ritually kill them and feed them to his family).      

In the remake there's not really the same intense family drama. In the original, the sons were prepared to do whatever they could to gain acceptance from their mother and it was all part of their family custom. In this film, the father seems to be recognised as unhinged and his daughters don’t seem to completely accept his activities as just “the way things should be done”. Even while upping the pacing and making the film more active, the new film all somehow feels tame. It’s not really doing anything terribly interesting with the original premise.

It's probably not a good sign that this remake has me looking back fondly on the prior film which I actively hated. Still, perhaps this is more enjoyable for those who come to it fresh. It's capably made and a great deal easier to watch without falling asleep. But even with the better pacing, I still find the film fails to properly hold my interest.  

D-

Best thing: Great sense of fun all round, but particularly Vincent Price.

Worst thing: I know it's part of the fun, but why do the old servants float across the floor?

Very silly and so much fun. House On Haunted Hill is a classic fun black and white horror comedy. It never really gets particularly scary, but the central premise of being locked in a haunted house as part of a rich couple's special event is a good source of tension.

The plot gets a little convoluted at times. Not complicated, but there's a somewhat unconvincing twist and not everything seemed to add up by the end. That doesn't really matter though. The important thing is the awesome sense of fun which persists throughout. Loved it!

B+

Best thing: Beautiful imagery e.g. witches with charms to make them beautiful see their real ugly faces in the mirror as they apply their make-up. (Also the trail of jelly babies leading to a jelly baby tree is very cool.)

Worst thing: Vin Diesel's central performance. He's not exactly bad, but he's a very uncharismatic hero and just seems to play this character  way too much like Riddick. Those of us who have seen "Find Me Guilty" know that Vin Diesel can play more interesting characters than this.

This is very much a simplistic blockbuster plot and the action scenes aren't all that exciting, yet this is a film which thrives on its effects work. It certainly helps that we have a smorgasbord of exciting acting talent: Michael Caine, Elijah Wood, Joe Gilgun (This Is England), Rose Leslie (Game Of Thrones). With the effects work and the performances we really get the sense of this intricate urban fantasy setting and I found myself getting quite excited.

There are a few too many scenes that make it feel like they are trying to set up a franchise, though I give them full credit for the amount of effort that went into this. I can barely believe this is the same director who made the Crazies remake.

There are so many wonderful distinctive moments in this film and they often tie well into the story. There's an apocalyptic vision of the city reclaimed by nature projected into the protagonist's mind. There's also a memory that Diesel searches for regarding his death and when we see it, we can see him as a burned up husk that is still inexplicably alive.

Visually this film is amazing. Apart from Vin Diesel in the lead role this also features a selection of powerhouse acting performances. Unfortunately Vin Diesel cannot carry this film, the action sequences aren't terribly inspired, and the story comes off, overall, a bit flat. But there was just so much potential here.

This was incredibly underrated, it was so nearly wonderful. And it's still a fun little film, in spite of its flaws. A very cool little fantasy movie.

B-

Best thing: Gene Hackman's quirky character who reconises the need to avoid being too idealistic, understands the culture of Mississippi and does a better job walking between the lines than his partner. Hackman's performance is full of energy.

Worst thing: The unbelievable fantasy ending which wraps up the story happily by dynamic between the characters set up in the first half and by giving the bad guys the comeuppance they deserve rather than the light slap on the wrist the real life figures received.

I was loving this film during the first act. Gene Hackman really puts on a hell of a performance and his Columbo style way of de-escalating tensions and taking people offguard was really clever. Willem Dafoe was also great as the highly idealistic partner whose over-blown actions often make matters worse. But the film loses all sense of how this dynamic works and by the end their roles are suddenly reversed. Gene Hackman's character is no longer interested in his subtle and more effective approach and Willem Dafoe becomes the one asking him to tone it down and proceed more carefully.

And the solution was to get a black guy to threaten the mayor and have the mayor promise not to tell anyone? Surely nobody with any sense is fooled by this script for one minute....

C+

Best thing: The child actor playing the little girl may actually be the best actor in the entire cast.
Worst thing: Marina Sirtis, mainly known for Deanna Troi in Star Trek TNG, is absolutely terrible and has some kind of offputting attempt at an American accent with a regular very English inflection coming into it. She plays the loud eccentric mad cat lady from next door. Not the most rewarding role, but a pretty terrible performance even taking that into account.

Well this is about as cheesy and lame as horror gets. The film barely even cares about its own mythology. The well-informed lecturer reminds us that the doll in the film is not a voodoo doll, only for the doll to function pretty much exactly like a voodoo doll. Boring jump-scares galore and no fun.

E

Best thing: There was a pretty cool creepy tone reminiscent of the Italian horror style. So dreamlike does the film become that when am attempt is made to convince a character that everything they saw was a bad dream, I almost believed it!

Worst thing: We needed more of a payoff. Even just shoving in more gore might have done the trick. This horror film is a bit slow and a bit tame and as a result it drags.

I found this quite interesting to check out, but in the end it dragged unnecessarily and didn't really have enough bite. But an intriguing low budget effort all the same. A Satanic cult, a creepy family, a girl with psychic abilities. Interesting ideas and some interesting execution in places, but not terribly satisfying overall.

D+

Best thing: The final trial brings everything together: The way our protagonist is misunderstood, the interplay between the characters, the sense of fun. A good ending can really make a film and this final third act climax helps to wrap the film in a much-needed bow. Reece Witherspoon's central performance is wonderful, but she can only take this cheesy film so far.

Worst thing: Where our central character recommends a move to attract men that she calls the "Bend and Snap". A whole bunch of characters act out this absurd move and a stereotypical gay man turns up to approve. Later in the film, the movie insinuates that all gay men know about fashion and that bisexual men basically don't exist. It's an unfortunate flaw in this fun silly movie.

Legally Blonde isn't on the same level as Clueless, but it has a similar brightly-coloured silly charm. It's also not on the same level as Reece Witherspoon's black comedy Election. However, Legally Blonde deserves credit as a better than average disposable rom-com. The performances help to elevate this so, despite the law lectures at the top-of-the-line law school often involving fairly basic law info, we enjoy following them enough not to mind too much.

It's a character-focused and fun film that is more than worth a look.

B-

Best thing: Marion Cotilliard is barely recognisable in her highly expressive and physical performance as Parisian singer Edith Piaf.

Worst thing: The timeline is incredibly confusing, with three parts of Edith Piaf's life being followed simultaneously. To make things more confusing, at one point late on in the film we have a title card of "five years later". I have no idea when half the scenes were taking place, yet I know that two of those scenes are five years apart. I'm not entirely sure whether they were claiming that Edith Piaf spent those whole five years deteriorating in rehab or not. It's a pity that the timeline is so jumbled.

Biopics are tough to pull off. They often try the same old tricks to make a lifetime into a three act story and inevitably the ending tends to me something to do with their death. La Vie En Rose mixes the structure up by mixing up the timeline, but the real thing that sets La Vie En Rose apart is the way it captures the central character, sometimes twisting reality to give scenes some real impact. Edith Piaf is an amazing character and her life story is gripping. This film captures her life story fantastically.

A+

Best thing: There are so many wonderfully funny moments in this film, but I think I particularly loved the fighting girl scouts.

Worst thing: One great recurring joke is the "I chose the wrong week to quit smoking" gag. My problem isn't so much with how often it is repeated as the way the actor makes faces for the camera in one of the later iterations. Acknowledging the audience can make for good comedy, but it was out of place here.

I think I now enjoy this film better than I did the first time I watched it. The humour seemed jarring to me the first time around. But I think it's incredible how well this still holds up for an audience who may not know any of the pop culture references.

Most people who enjoy this probably haven't seen Saturday Night Fever, never mind the disaster film where they start playing guitar to a sick child.

Though endlessly quotable, Airplane's greatest strength is its visual humour. Wacky and hilarious even if it was sometimes too random for me to get as invested as I would have liked.

B+

Excellent! I particularly love the street shoe shiner who "wouldn't know anything about that"... until he's given some money and then suddenly he's a world class expert on anything from crime to firefighting to surgery to existential philosophy.

Rewatching Naked Gun after this series, I couldn't help but find it had been diminished somewhat. So many of the gags are repeated. I still adore the movie though, but if you have the time - I'd say the tv series is actually preferable. (Though why not watch both?)

Best thing: Much of the pleasure of this film comes from sheer absurdity. One scene in particular was fascinating since it was clearly performed in reverse and then the voices were recorded with the film reversed. It must have been very carefully choreographed.

Worst thing: Val Kilmer gives a really underwhelming performance here. I know that he can be funny, but here all the humour seems to occur around him. I also found the regular musical numbers often interrupted the comedy in a way that was frustrating.

The funniest stuff is in the background. Val Kilmer isn’t funny at all. The musical segments are generally pretty boring. I wanted to like this and there are aspects that are great, but the film as a whole did not appeal.

D+

Best thing: The escaped zoo animals become a running gag and one lion attack in particular had me in hysterics.

Worst thing: The film takes a little while to get started. The opening fancy dinner scene isn’t as strong as the many other sequences later in the film.

Once it gets going, the sequel to Naked Gun reaches similar heights to the first movie. Comedy sequels often struggle to find an interesting way to repeat the same joke, but there were still a lot of gags left from the tv series. Richard Griffiths really brings a lot of charm as the environmental scientist.

So many great sequences and, after a slow start, this does reach the same heights as the first movie.

Great fun.

A+

Best thing: While the humour isn't nearly up to the same standard as the last two films, there are still quality moments. For me, the best moment is the prison riot. It's a scene chock full of creativity.

Worst thing: I'm so glad our culture seems to have moved past this now, but I'm afraid Naked Gun 3 1/3 has a joke about how disgusting someone transitioning to female must be. It includes our protagonist throwing up. I know it's showcasing what an idiot he is, but the problem is that it's simply not funny.

A lot of the sketches here don’t work quite as well as before. The film’s timing as a whole seems off and somehow the film seems a little overly goofy. Everyone is now playing up to the character, and even our protagonist seems to do so more than usual. It’s like they forgot to include straight man characters for Nielsen to play off. Also I guess Anna Nicole Smith was big back then, but her scenes really don’t work. I can’t say if that’s entirely her fault though. The fact that she is being objectified seems to be the joke in all her scenes, so she never really has much to work with. (Actually she has a lot to work with *insert boob joke here*.... Jeez, was that necessary?)

But despite that, much of what we enjoyed in the first two movies is still here. They’ve pretty much exhausted the gags from the tv show by this time, but in the right scenes this film still gets pretty inventive. Nothing like on the same level as the other two films and often a little cringey, but you won’t regret checking it out to complete the trilogy.

C+

Stalker

Some Russians wander around being pseudo-intellectual with dialogue that wouldn't be out of place in My Dinner With Andre. The film's world-building around The Zone is so enigmatic as to be pretty much meaningless. There's more colour in the zone and that's about it.

Sci-fi classic? Nah, just a waste of time.

Queen Of Earth

Such incredibly annoying, navel-gazing and totally unrelatable characters. "I love you more than anything in the world you little brat." The trailer made me think this was about a friendship that breaks down, but the two girls seem to completely hate each other from the start. Nobody seems to get along with anyone and nobody particularly feels like a real person. Both unconvincing AND boring.

Best thing: There are some very active scenes in Don't Breathe and the film gives us a great sense of where the characters are in the house. There's a great use of the setting and some great choreography.

Worst thing: In one scene it appears to be confirmed that all the windows are barred and yet our protagonist is somehow knocked outside. This is one of the very few points in the film where the action isn't fantastically clear. While I can presume that perhaps the wall was weaker at that spot, it's unfortunate that the action becomes unclear at that moment when everything was so carefully displayed everywhere else in the film.

Normally I don't like horror films that function by trying to make you jump, but what is different about Don't Breathe is that all the jump scare noises are real noises that the characters in the story would hear. There aren't any "this is a horror movie, throw your popcorn over yourself now"-type boom noises.

Don't Breathe does use the screetchy, whistley noises to build up tension and atmosphere but not obtrusively so and I was mostly too caught up in the action to notice.

The reversed home invasion premise is a lot of fun. Burglars dealing with a blind war veteran who is capable and ruthless with more concern with how to get out rather than how to stop anyone coming in.

Really gripping work from the director of the Evil Dead remake. It feels like he has more freedom here and the results are wonderful.

A+

Best thing: There are countless awesome visual set-pieces in this film and part of me thinks I should pick one of the action sequences where those visuals are particularly well choreographed. However, what really makes action sequences work is our investment in the characters, so I'm going to say that the performances of Kubo's companions by Charlize Theron and Matthew McConaughey (did anyone else think that voice was George Clooney?) and the wonderful way they interacted was best.

Worst thing: There's really not much I didn't like here, but (staying vague to avoid spoilers), doesn't the ending rather confuse the message of the story? If stories are a way people continue after they die, what does that say about made-up stories? Is he really going to tell stories about how nice that guy is? While that might be a good idea doesn't it defeat the message if you tell stories that are COMPLETE mistruths?

Kubo and the Two Strings is breathtaking stop-motion animation work from the studio Laika.

Right now I'd say Kubo is my favourite Laika film, but it's difficult to say since I've loved all Laika films. I feel that the films have been developing consistently better and better.

The performances are wonderful, the visuals are gorgeous and for the first time Laika are working on a fantasy adventure (though there are still plenty of horrifying monsters and creepy other-worldly entities).

With a mixture of sadness, comedy and general enthralling spectacle Kubo and the Two Strings is a very special cinematic experience.

A+

Best thing: When one character who deserves to be killed by demons more than anyone turns out to be fine, our protagonist seemingly can't believe it and takes what he believes to be the appropriate action. For me, that is the funniest gag in the film.

Worst thing: The villainous group that want the black hymn are a bit lame. It feels like the girlfriend could get more attention, but the character that really gets short shrift is the female member of the villainous Satanic group.

What if metal was really connected to demons? That's the suitably ludicrous premise of this hilarious horror comedy. At the centre is the friendship between him and his amoral fellow metalhead. The result is an excellent addition to the list of awesome horror comedies.

The filmmakers are able to make this work as well as they do due to a clear fondness for the metal genre of music. The film is able to play on the more ridiculous aspects of the culture while also showing a clear love for it. The humour gets better in the second half when the action really ramps up. The characters and premise are set up well in the first half so that by the second half the pacing just doesn’t let up at all.

A+

Best thing: When relatively early on the villain makes a big gesture to make very clear just how committed he is to murdering the protagonist. It's a very effective and dramatic moment.

Worst thing: At one point the protagonist chucks a light into the woods and the killer goes after it. I'm not entirely clear on why he does that considering how careful most of his other decisions are.

I quite liked Mike Flanagan's movie Oculus but Hush actually now has me excited to check out anything he directs. It's a fantastically well made movie. Very well constructed with a protagonist who clearly puts careful thought into her actions.

The premise of a deaf woman facing a home invasion situation felt like it could end up showing how easily a woman with a disability can be victimised. But on the contrary, her deafness simply adds a new aspect to her character and allows for a more creative script. A very neat twist on the genre with a fantastic central performance.

A+

Best thing: One sequence of events surrounding a mysterious banging in a flat resolves in a way that is both clever and horrifying. It's probably my favourite part of all the Ju-On/Grudge films I've seen so far.

Worst thing: The ending is unfortunate after such excellent horror beforehand. Introducing a new ill-defined character at the last minute needed to be handled better than this.

This is the first of the Ju-On movies to make use of the visual effect which makes Kayako's jerky motions seem particularly unnatural. I found it rather odd when I watched the first Ju-On: The Grudge movie and saw Kayako simply crawling down the stairs after already having seen this wonderful effect used in the remake. Takashi Shimizu seemed to have upstaged himself with his own effects. But this film has no such issues. The creepy special effects work is all top notch.

What didn't work for me so well here was the mixed up timeline. The curse strikes anyone who goes into the house, so you can imagine my confusion at seeing someone already affected by the curse later entering the house for the first time.

I felt that the first Japanese Ju-On: The Grudge movie was too slow without a decent payoff. The same cannot be said of the sequel. While the plot isn't up to much, all the different segments of the film feature very effective horror sequences expertly executed. If I hadn't been so disappointed by the ending I might be calling this my favourite Grudge movie.

B+

Best thing: The opening scenes involve a pretty cool death involving some quite cool effects.

Worst thing: While the drama scenes surrounding the kills are pretty well acted, they don't build up a horror atmosphere. We don't really get a horror movie. Instead, whiny soap opera antics tackling the difficulties of holding down a job seem entirely separate from the supernatural kill scenes.

I spent most of this film trying to work out where I'd seen the female lead before. Her face was really familiar. Turns out she's Johanna Braddy, the actress who plays Jenny Matrix in the online series VGHS. (I'd suggest you all watch that instead of The Grudge 3.) The actors are all pretty great here, but there is absolutely no horror atmosphere. We have a drama about a family that are getting their income through the now-haunted tenement building and there's a child with high medical bills who needs extra-special care. Meanwhile the older of the two sisters wants to move away to study. The oldest brother is looking after the family, presumably because their parents are dead. It's all very soap opera and not really fantastically exciting.

The deaths often involve some fairly neat effects, but there's not much build-up. The drama scenes feel mostly unrelated to the scenes where the grudge kills tenants. Quite early on there's some cool security   camera footage of someone being brutally murdered by the grudge, but like with all these scenes, the build up is too short and the creeiness quickly disappears when we get back into the more mundane family antics.

The Grudge 3 suffers from the loss of Takashi Shimizu. The new director simply doesn't seem to have the knack for developing a creepy atmosphere consistently through the film.

D-

Best thing: I give this a lot of credit for taking the cloning debate seriously, even while pushing a creepy horror vibe. We don't get the impression that the clone is evil. I was especially impressed with the handling of the initial press conference where the scientist responsible draws attention towards the question of malformed clones, but the media are too focussed on moral outrage. Perhaps a little unfair on the media, but at least the writers understand the issues.

Worst thing: When the story of the baby clone is completely hi-jacked by the story of a bizarrely super-strong earlier clone maddened by pain. The shift into a slasher format isn't a betrayal of the earlier part of the film, but it's pretty disappointing all the same. The absurd rantings of the religious protesters are pretty terrible too, but I can believe that religious protester rantings could easily be that stupid in real life.

The central performance of the scientist who develops the first human clone is pretty great. All the performances here are pretty good. The build up of tension is also very well-orchestrated. I feel like the only problem is the uninspiring third act.

A Frankenstein Story  (awful UK title by the way) is strongest in the way it handles the situation of the scientist after the clone is revealed. Avoiding their location being exposed to the media or opposing religious groups. When it turns into a slasher film, it doesn't feel earned. It feels like the main plot has been hi-jacked.

C-

Best thing: There are essentially two sources of comedy in this film. One is Ralph Fiennes and his relationship with the central protagonist Zero. Ralph Fiennes plays an incredibly charming and yet totally self focussed eccentric gentleman. The trailer had me expecting a Basil Fawlty type of hotel manager who complains about everything and everyone. Instead he turns out to have a very hands-on and efficient but overbearing management style; certainly not the Fawlty Towers incompetence. I also loved how he would regularly give up on politeness and start swearing. I think John Cleese is a definite inspiration for this performance.

Worst thing: The other source of comedy is the constant quick cuts.  The side characters don't really get much time for proper development and often one gag is stopped dead by a quick cut to the next one. Saoirse Ronan's character seems particularly stunted by the preference for quick cut visuals over  dialogue. But the worst use of this style is the framing device. This film seemingly would never start and took ages to end. Introducing us to a monument to the author and then to the author as an older man, then to the author as a younger bored-looking Jude Law, then to the protagonist as an older man. Then finally we get to see Ralph Fiennes and start the blooming story. The framing scenes are completely unnecessary and lead to excessive baggage to tidy up in the final scenes.

I've never quite understood Wes Anderson. I saw Royal Tennenbaums and I don't even remember what I thought of that. It just completely failed to make an impression. I liked the animated bits of The Life Aquatic and not much else, so I thought I might like Fantastic Mr Fox. I ended up hating the way Anderson's Fantastic Mr Fox ditched Roald Dahl's source material in favour of an insufferable version of Ocean's Eleven with animals.

But so many people LOVED The Grand Budapest Hotel, so I figured I should probably give it a shot. The upshot of that? It's okay. Ralph Fiennes is amazing, but I'm afraid the style seriously grated on me. It's so annoying that the film keeps pulling us away from Ralph Fiennes to watch Jude Law looking vaguely interested and punctuating the storytellers words with 'he saids' and 'he continueds'.

So nearly wonderful, but Wes Anderson is lacking a decent sense of timing. His quick cutting visual style makes the whole film jolt around, constantly dragging itself to a halt.

C+

I don’t get why they changed the title in the UK either. Weird.

Best thing: The fox character. Unlike the endless optimism of the protagonist, the fox is very cynical and it's interesting that it is a cynicism that has developed in response to prejudicial treatment including ritual humiliation.

Worst thing: Zootropolis is clearly supposed to be a comedy, but frankly its not very funny. Zootropolis involves a lot of different background details, some beautiful artwork and some great world building. But I didn't find much that made me laugh. (I wasn't tickled by the sloth scene, I'm afraid.)

Very nearly a good film, but this is a film I found more interested in its visuals and its message than in really pulling me in. I'm glad the humour worked for other people, but I wasn't all that impressed. (Is it me, or did Idris Elba have the best jokes?)

Of the recent 3D animated, non-Pixar Disney movies, I'm surprised to find that Tangled is still the one that appealed most to me. Wreck-It Ralph appealed to me a lot, but when it became stranded in a sweet-themed Mario Kart world I felt it lost its way. Frozen annoyed the hell out of me with its terrible songs, yet while Tangled also had that issue for me, I really loved the abusive mother connection between Rapunzel and the main villain. Also, in Tangled, the horse was BRILLIANT. (Actually Big Hero Six was Disney, so I guess that's actually my favourite.) But Zootropolis? Yeah it was fine. Nice world-building, but I could have done with more effective humour.

C+

Best thing: While the ending felt a bit sudden, the ambiguity makes for some interesting interpretation as to whether the wife needs to reanalyse their marriage or whether she is being unnecessarily paranoid.

Worst thing: It feels like we ought to be going to be returning to the location of the protagonist's youthful love affair. That wait ended up being in vain. That's not a terrible problem, but I felt the actual direction of the film left it essentially stopping dead without a particularly clear resolution.

While there are some awesome performances here, the story is pretty low-key. There are really interesting ideas under the surface, but that's generally where they remain.

The subtlety is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, the premise is fascinating and there are great messages about the nature of very long term relationships and raises questions about regrets and compromises in love and life. But on the other hand this is not a film with much of a plot.

B+

Best thing: The film creates a Star Wars-esque world with a chosen one and a evil villain evoking Nazi authoritarianism. Within that framework there's plenty of inventiveness.

Worst thing: The characterisationis mostly pretty thin, so the movie's attempts at emotional moments really don't work. The scene where the ship dances with the space stingrays dragged particularly badly, especially because of the cheesy music.

I can kind of see the Joss Whedon touches in this science fiction cartoon movie but overall the more charming moments can't quite make up for the unengaging vocal performances or the general feeling of naffness.

C-

Best thing: The colourful visuals. The filmmakers were clearly making maximum use of colour and so everyone is brightly coloured and there's a wonderfully distinctive style.

Worst thing: My goodness this is so ridiculously cheesy! And things really go off the rails when King Richard has to engage in a sword fight against his own palace guards. Much of what characters say about divisions between Normans and Saxons or about freedom of individuals is really so anachronistic, and yet so sincere, as to make it incredibly hard to suspend disbelief.

I received a recommendation for this film from two separate sources both around the same sort of time. One was the podcast "The Canon" and I've forgotten where the other recommendation came from. I've enjoyed older films quite often. I loved Casablanca, M, Double Indemnity, Citizen Kane and I even prefer the original Scarface to the version with Al Pacino. But while Adventures of Robin Hood was sweet, it was incredibly dated.

I know historical accuracy shouldn't be too important in a film like this, but it's incredibly frustrating. I mean, sure, King John made a lot of mistakes and the poor probably suffered under him like they did under most kings, but he wasn't the overbearing tyrant he is made out to be here. Eventually he'd be forced to sign the Magna Carta, which ended up being one of the most important human rights documents in British history. It established habeas corpus, the right not to be imprisoned without trial. In the  this would result in slaves being able to gain freedom simply by walking on British land.

Also the Norman/Saxon rivalry seems out of place. The royal family had been Normans since William the Conqueror since 1066. By the 13th century it's not really a central issue anymore.

And Richard The Lionheart returning?  Give me a break! He got out of Britain as soon as he could. He returned to France a few times but he had no interest in returning to England. Portraying this warrior from the Crusades, who actually mass-murdered prisoners of war, as the absent 'good king' is beyond absurd.

Robin Hood Prince of Thieves was clearly inspired by this film, particularly in the scene where Robin fights Little John at the river. But, as much as I didn't think Prince of Thieves stood up at all well last time I watched it, I can't help but feel that it improved on the original. Heck, Alan Rickman alone helped to improve one of the weakest aspects: the villain.

Adventures of Robin Hood is an sweet little film, but it's very dated and not really a film I'd recommend.

C-

Best thing: The film is set in the past and in the present and the parts in the present were brilliant. Charlize Theron is fantastic as the grown up massacre survivor, Corey Stroll is fantastic as the brother convicted of the murders, and Nicholas Hoult is great as the "kill club" organiser who is obsessed with solving old mysteries.

Worst thing: The resolution of the mystery felt far-fetched to me. A deal is struck between two characters which felt a little hard to swallow.  

Charlize Theron is a fantastic actress. Like with the movie Young Adult, she plays a bitter and somewhat selfish character, though with her character's childhood trauma the attitude is more understandable here.

This film is an adaptation of a book from the same author who wrote Gone Girl and personally, I much preferred Dark Places. The characters felt more relateable.

I don't really understand why this hasn't received more positive attention. It's a star-studded adaptation from the director that brought us Sarah's Key and while Kristen Scott Thomas' powerful screen presence gives that film the edge, this is a very capable follow-up all the same.

If anything the problems would seem to lie with the original story. In a investigation into a mystery like this, the solution needs to pay off. Perhaps with less flashbacks and more present-day detective work this
could have been more satisfying?

B+

Best thing: I'd forgotten how well the Rollerball games are portrayed. They don't have Tom Savini to splatter the arena with gore, but we get some serious violence all the same. How did I forget about the bit where one of the sportsmen is set on fire? But what really makes the games work is the way the drama surrounding the games builds the tension. (Rather like with real life sports I suppose?)

Worst thing: In the end, as much as I love dystopias, the one set up here doesn't entirely convice me. The treatment of women is one that I struggle to accept. In this world an 'executive' can arrange to be given an ordinary person's wife if he wants them. Major female characters in this film are almost always employed to spy on the protagonist so it's difficult to understand how they experience the dystopian regime.

I'd say that this was the real inspiration for The Hunger Games. A highly politicised sports game intended to distract from real life oppression and to send a message to the people about their own powerlessness.

While it's a very cool vision of the future, they didn't need to spend so long on building up that world. Rollerball feels way too long and not all the scenes outside of the arena were necessary to immerse us in the world. While I really like the scene where Jonathan goes to see the supercomputer, I do not think that scene was good for the pacing. With a runtime of over two hours, I think someone needed to trim some of the fat off this film.

Still Caan is awesome in the lead role, the games are really well handled and frankly it's insane to me that the remake was such utter trash. (I made the mistake of seeing the remake in the cinema.) With newer more expensive effects they could make the arena scenes even more spectacular. Then again they'd also need the emotional aspect to keep the audience on board. Who could fill James Caan's shoes?

B+

Best thing: Michael Shannon plays a complete scumbag. In the very first scene he is basically joking about a suicide victim, with the dead body right in front of him. But Shannon gives this character real depth and at times he even becomes someone who we could almost admire for his ambition and drive. Though he's still very much an opportunist making money out of taking people's homes. A perfect villain.

Worst thing: Our protagonist really feels like he should have made more of a fuss when he crossed a serious line towards the end. Sure, he's conflicted, but there should have been an argument over it.

99 Homes is an absolutely gripping tale of a man corrupted by an unfair system. When Michael Shannon evicts his family, Andrew Garfield finds himself working for that same man. Ironically working to evict others from their homes just to get his home back.

The drama is driven by the characters and that is what makes it an so exciting. After the global recession, Shannon's villain is fantastically poignant. Gaining the world through exploiting the losses of others and thus losing his soul, only to lure Andrew Garfield down that same path.

(Side note about Garfield. This is quite a different performance from in the Spider-Man movies. But you know what wasn't all that different from his Spider-Man performance? Tom Holland in Civil War. Andrew Garfield set the mould for Peter Parker and I wish he were given more credit for that.)

Also a shout out to Laura Dern. I hear there are some who have never rated her as an actress. Hopefully with her recent roles in Wild and 99 Homes they will be changing their tune? (Personally I've always thought she was wonderful in Jurassic Park.)

The ending isn't all that satisfying, but I don't think it's supposed to be. It left me thinking a lot and that may actually be a strength.

99 Homes is a very strong drama which I highly recommend.

A+

Best thing: The opening of the young Mr. Fantastic building his own teleporter (with a device that including N64 parts for some reason). The friendship between two kids trying out this incredible machine felt like something akin to the recent Stranger Things series. I must also point out that the villain, who is like a cross between Tetsuo (from Akira) and Darth Vader, going around blowing up people's heads is pretty great too.

Worst thing: The end scene where they have an incredibly badly written exchange where they choose their team name. Ugh!

Okay, so Josh Trank's first movie since his debut "Chronicle" is a mess. But then again Kate Mara's scenes wearing a blonde wig are a clear sign of how many late reshoots were involved.

The film feels drained. Trank never really lets things go off the rails, so this isn't a terrible blockbuster in the vain of a Transformers movie or Highlander 2. It's more of an indie movie problem. It's a bit slow and a bit dull.

While this is pure speculation, I think I know what the original plot was. I think the original film had more character moments and that the drama came from them being exploited by the government.

I think the response of Victor Von Doom when he leaves the other world is partly due to seeing how his colleagues are being treated. Perhaps particularly Sue, who he had a crush on. (What with Mr. Fantastic having left to work on a cure, that would mean we'd finally see what Sue really thinks of him, instead of just hearing the jealous comments towards Mr. Fantastic earlier.

Von Doom is unwilling to allow himself to be exploited (as was set up earlier). He isn't attacking the four because he sees them as victims, but he does attack the father because he sees their exploitation as a result of him betraying them. If we'd seen more of the exploitation from the government before Von Doom's arrival, the massacre he enacts might seem like overblown revenge instead of pure evil. In the final film his motive is unclear and I think that is because his motive is cut. We know he chooses to ditch our world in favour of the new world, but there are definite seeds sown to set up that change.

I think the anti-government sentiment along with the horrors of coming to terms with dramatic nightmarish changes to your body is what is missing here. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the first half seems to care about character in a way that isn't paid off in the second half.

Frankly this was still more enjoyable to watch than Man Of Steel. Everyone has more personality than Superman did in that film. But this is clearly a severely compromised work that had a lot of missed potential. And even sadder, the failure of this film has dampened plans to experiment with superhero concepts in ways which deviate from the source material.

With Chronicle Trank had already created one of the better superhero movies and I hope his misguidedly honest tweet doesn't prevent us from seeing more great films from him in the future.

D+

Learning about Scientology is always horriying. After watching a few docimentaries on Roman Catholic abuse scandals you wonder how Scientology could really be any worse. And certainly if you go to Islamist extremists groups and see IS training young children to be bloodthirsty monsters, it's clear that there are worse religious groups, but still Scientology is way scarier than it has any right to be.  

I hadn't ever heard the therapy ('auditing') sessions explained this well before. As well as explaining the problems of Scientology, the appeal of the religion is also expressed pretty clearly too.

This documentary also explains how significant granting Scientology religious status had. If they didn't get tax exempt status, all their assets combined would only have accounted for 1 quarter of the bill they were facing. It would have destroyed them.

They fought for tax exempt status by getting their members to bombard the IRS and IRS officials with endless lawsuits. When they discovered that just recognising Scientology as an official religion would be enough to stop this, the IRS gave in.

The FBI had been investigating Scientology for forced labour and human trafficking. But when a court case regarding these same issues was dropped on the grounds that the activities being referred to were legitmate elements of the Scientology 'religion', the FBI also dropped their investigations. It's horrifying!

We also get a lot of interesting interviews with L Ron Hubbard along with revealing interviews about the man. The religion has been run by David Miscavage (seemingly progressing into a kind of Stalinist style of leadership) since L Ron Hubbard's death, but Hubbard's approach has shaped what the religion became.

It's amusing to hear that the ex-Scientologists were dumbfounded by the insane 3rd rate science-fiction mythology for the Scientology religion. Yet interestingly the bizarreness of the mythology became a further source of guilt and anxiety. By the time they receive this mythology they are so invested in Scientology (and let's not forget the high fees for auditing sessions) that they can't really laugh away the 'secret information' the Church of Scientology hands to them.

This is a fascinating documentary and everyone should check it out if they want to know how Scientology works and the extent of the harm the organisation causes.

Best thing: Obviously the film is absolutely gorgeous, but the very best thing here is Fassbender's performance.

Worst thing: I know a lot of people have been concerned about mumbling here, but I think really all their problem really comes down to is a strong Scottish accent from the cast. I used subtitles and I think that was fine. This is actually a film with very little I feel able to fault. For worst thing, I'm going to opt for the opening child funeral. I know why that scene is included, but I think it's a bit of a flat way to start the film. (Though certainly not a deal breaker.)

A big improvement over Roman Polanski's version is that the film doesn't use voiceover. The lines are always delivered on screen by the actors, so we always get a proper performance rather than actors staring into space while their voice plays in the background.

This version of Macbeth shares the ambition of Polanski's version to be a movie rather than a play caught on camera, but here the solution is that characters are often talking to themselves when lines would originally have been directed towards the audience. (Expressions of betrayal are always stated neatly out of earshot of the betrayee.)

The blood, the passion, the violence, the madness. Everything is here, the performances are wonderful and this also doesn't include the random unnecessary nudity of Polanski's film. The story of Macbeth's opponents is also handled very well, capturing the full emotional consequences of Macbeth's cruelty.

This is an excellent adaptation and, from my experience, one of the better Shakespeare adaptations.

A+

Best thing: The central performance of Dick Miller is brilliant. I need to see more films with this actor. So far I've mainly seen him in Joe Dante movies but I also saw him in the original Little Shop of Horrors. He always gives an enthusiastic comedic performance and there's always a twinkle in his eye. It's so wonderful to see him in a leading role and it's actually strange to see him playing a low confidence weirdo rather than the confident out-spoken figures he normally plays.

Worst thing: Well actually the worst thing is how terrible the DVD transfer is. This was a very low quality copy of the film and I feel that will have had a real impact on my appreciation of this film. But dealing with the content, I think the opening is the worst part. We start off with a dreary beatnik poem set to annoying awkward jazz accompaniment. Even though our protagonist is in the foreground the insistent irritating drone of the onstage performer focus us to recognise it and I found it incredibly distracting. Perhaps it's necessary for us to recognise how ridiculously pretentious this art scene is, but wow, was there no other way?

I'm a sucker for horror comedies and this low budget example is a wonderful little gem. Sure it can be pretty silly but that's always intentional and always funny enough to be worth it. The comedy also relies on the tension, producing that wonderful blend of laughter and creepiness that makes me love this genre so much.

Our protagonist wants to be an artist so much he goes to unethical lengths, but he seems to struggle to understand the world around him. There's a sense of innocence to him. Like perhaps he doesn't understand what he's doing and, perhaps more realistically, lies to himself in order not to feel guilty about the positive attention he receives.

I'm sure anyone who has not seen the film yet is getting confused by this point, but trust me, this is one you will not regret checking out.

B+

Best thing: Michael Caine and Julie Walters are two incredible performers so seeing them acting alongside one another is almost enough to recommend this by itself. However, I really love the way this handles ideas of class. Both the characters have somewhat misguided understandings of class boundaries, but their respective journeys both reveal the deeper complexities and subtleties of class division. I've long struggled to understand how class works. Having come from a middle class background and left university to find myself stuck in fairly low wage positions, class has always felt like an odd concept for me to come to terms with. But I feel like Educating Rita really helped me understand class divisions better (as they stood in the 80s at least).

Worst thing: The synthy music is terrible. At certain points where it starts up that music is startlingly offputting. That the director felt it made sense to include music like that really dates this film more than anything else.

Julie Walters’ character believes that learning how to write academic English essays will make her higher class. Her boyfriend just wants her to marry him and have his children. Michael Caine is fascinated by her because she is so unlike his students writing identical essays about classic literature and he feels like he would actually be tainting her if he taught her how to churn out the same kinds of essays rather than enjoying literature for its own sake.

Funny, charming, fascinating and deceptively simple.

A+

Best thing: When Frankenstein is making his argument by shouting "BABIES IN VATS!" it absolutely cracked me up. I love how wonderfully manic and unhinged Victor Frankenstein comes across, making it very easy to see why his work would be dismissed.

Worst thing: When Frankenstein actually DOES come to question his work it felt a bit puzzling to me that he would do so at that moment. The way that scene plays out seems a bit awkward. Also the final act doesn't keep up the same energy and focus of earlier hi-jincks.

Another Max Landis script. I loved American Ultra and both Chronicle and Victor Frankenstein have been wonderful films somewhat diminished by their chaotic and rather less focussed third act.

The introduction of Igor is very cleverly handled and Daniel Radcliffe does a really good job in the role, but the real star here is James McAvoy with his excellently eccentric title character. A conniving untrustworthy figure driven by rather misguided ambitions.

There are some clever thematic flourishes. Igor parallels the monster in that he is a creation of Victor (in a way) and the spying detective parallels Victor in that he is driven by obsession. But on top of that, it's all very very fun.

B+

Best thing: At the funeral our protagonist makes a power play by offering everyone tea. One element of her transformation is emphasised during this fairly mundane act and it becomes a pretty tense scene as a result.

Worst thing: While a simple plot isn't necessarily a bad thing, I feel like there was room for fuller characterisation to make the story more interesting. The characters don't really talk much and while that's sometimes played to good effect there are points where it felt like our protagonists would be more relateable if they expressed themselves a little more.

On the one hand, When Animals Dream is a very interesting film with a really compelling take on the werewolf myth. On the other hand, this film feels way too slow and it could do with more interesting character development. If this is about the angst of growing up, does that really mean that our protagonist needs to be so quiet and withdrawn?

Well worth a watch but, with subtle tension rather than excitement, it might be a bit of a struggle for some (and I wouldn't say it was a walk in the park myself).

B-

Best thing: There are a lot of cool creepy elements here and, while the CG effects might be a bit hokey by modern standards, I really do love the floating skeletal monsters. (And I really appreciate that they are first seen on broad daylight, even though putting them in darkness might have hidden their computer-generatedness (I don't think that word exists but anyway...) However, the creepiest element for me is the smiley masks of the intruders in a later home invasion storyline.

Worst thing: In Southbound, one story moves directly into another, helpfully avoiding the wraparound element that was always so poor in the V/H/S films. However, not all segments feel played out when they finish and I found the worst culprit was the story of the all-girl travelling band. That felt like it could have led to a longer story and when it's cut short it's frustrating. Particularly when we then move to another couple of stories where the characters really don't seem to have the same level of depth.

(Interestingly I think it's a similar problem as I had with Ti West's House Of The Devil. The film had me gripped and yet just when the story is reaching a climax it suddenly stops.)

Southbound is a compelling horror anthology. I wouldn't say it blew me away and I sometimes found the way stories flowed into each other instead of clearly ending was frustrating. However, Southbound is undoubtedly creepy and consistently kept me on the edge of my seat.

If you enjoyed anything in any of the V/H/S movies you probably ought to give Southbound a go. Even if it doesn't reach the highs of V/H/S 2's Safe Haven segment, Southbound is more consistently high quality than the V/H/S movies were.

B+

Best thing: There are a whole array of colourful characters and they are all pretty great. The god-fearing inhospitable lady and her nervous but polite brother are very cool, but I also very much enjoy the chorus girl and her relationship with the boisterous northern businessman. These are all characters I felt pleased to be spending time with as well as a great source of fun.

Worst thing: The least interesting characters are probably the married couple, but even they are still pretty cool. The decision to have an actress play the elderly grandfather felt a bit odd. But I think the worst thing was when characters kept locking people in rooms. It was pretty much the worst thing they could do and while I understand this was to limit which people could play a part in the story at that stage, it was quite frustrating.

I say this having already rewatched a few of the classic Universal horror films for this movie marathon, so I think I can confidently say: this is currently my favourite of the Universal horror films.

The Old Dark House has a horror comedy tone which naturally makes it especially appealing to me. This isn't unusual for a Universal film though. What impressed me in particular about The Old Dark House was the depth of the characters and their interactions.

Even the more over the top characters still have a depth to them. The two main characters who live in the house are a religious mean old lady obsessed with sin and a polite nervous figure who does not believe in God.

When the brother is saracastically saying of his sister's insistence on saying grace: "She wants to thank him (God) for all the good fortune that has befallen this family." It sets up what we are walking into and is very funny at the same time.

If you enjoy films like The House On Haunted Hill or the original Little Shop of Horrors then you will love The Old Dark House.

A+

Best thing: There is such a wonderful nail-biting tension in so many scenes in this and this time around that was only exacerbated because I was waiting for THAT scene. But even newcomers to the film will feel like things are about to go very wrong.

Worst thing: It's a pity that they opt for the "Is the baddie really dead?" trope. This isn't a supernatural horror and I'm not convinced that the trope works very well here.

Misery is an incredible film and probably my favourite film that adapts Stephen King's work. It's cool to be rewatching yet another film starring James Caan. This is certainly very different from Rollerball.

Kathy Bates is amazing as our protagonist's greatest fan. Occasionally there's a shot from the protagonist's perspective showing her looming over him and the effect is chilling.

It was also cool to see Frances Sternhagen as the sheriff's wife. Some may recognise her from “Outland”, the sci-fi western with Sean Connery. Both films feature her sharp snarky line delivery.

Stephen King adaptations always seem to be about writers but in other films it's generally been less clear that the character needs to be a writer. Does the kid in Stand By Me need to be a storyteller/writer to habe his adventures with his friends? Does Jack Nicholson need to be a writer to act as a caretaker for the hotel? Does the guy in Tommyknockers need to be a writer?

But no, James Caan's character needs to be  writer. It is vital to his scenario that he be a storyteller of some kind. There's possibly a class aspect here too (or possibly an urban /rural divide) since the fan loves all the aspects of the novels that the writer values the least and she cannot engage with descriptions of inner city living. We can see how the fan seems to love the trashy romance world the author has created more than people in real life.

With the current trend of obsessive and protective fandoms often populated by inflexible and pushy fans, this film meant more to me than it did the first time around. I think I just thought the villain was simply evil when I first saw this film. Now I see a much deeper character.

A+

Best thing: Antonia Bird reunites with Robert Carlyle again after her film with “Face” with other UK talents Ray Winstone and Phil Davis. His fantastic performance really pulls together this new take on vampirism. Carlyle acts here as the Lestat figure with Guy Pearce as the reluctant figure being seduced into that same lifestyle. Wendigo is not the same as vampirism, but the parallels are obvious.

Worst thing: Antonia Bird is also reunited with Damon Albarn whose musical compositions here are a little bland and seem at odds with the tone of the film. Perhaps the intention was to be quirky, but while there are certainly odd aspects to this film and while there's a tongue in cheek aspect, this is still a film which gets very creepy.

I've long felt that Face was an underrated film and I feel the same about Ravenous. Great cast, great performances, great ideas, great film.

A+

Best thing: While on first watch the most exciting element was Bella Lugosi. This time I had more appreciation for Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing, though I think the 1979 version had a more intense face off between Van Helsing and Dracula. But this time the big standout was Dwight Frye as the unhinged and incredibly loopy fly-eating Renfield. Just such a great performance, particularly when you compare with his sensible normal performance at the start of the film.

Worst thing: The bat on a string. So many scenes feature that bat on a string and it’s terrible. Also, in one scene that is supposed to be depicting an outside balcony it is so obviously a set and you can even see the corner of the studio room.

Dracula has a lot of appeal but nobody has really been too upset about the way the original story is redone again and again. Each version has its own charms and its own odd quirks. Personally my favourites are the two 1979 versions  (the one with Frank Langella and the one with Klaus Kinski). But Bella Lugosi has a real charm to his performance and is portrayed here in a fantastic way.

The film as a whole is a bit hokey and and never actually ends so actually it relies in its performances all the way through. (It certainly can't rely on its special effects.) Returning to this film I was hooked by its charm.

B-

Best thing: The comedy scenes with the police officers are actually hilarious. Universal do like to give a bit of comic relief from the side characters and we get more than usual here.

Worst thing: Discussions on how to cure vampirism with the psychologist are a bit tedious and the ideas discussed don't really pay off terribly well.

I remembered this being rather dull, but I was actually pretty engaged with it this time. The practical jokes the male protagonist's secretary plays on him are more fun than anything Dracula's daughter does and the side-plot with Van Helsing doesn't play nearly enough into the main story, but overall this isn't too bad an entry in the Universal series.

C+

Best thing: The dog is incredible. All credit to the director and the animal trainers who were able to capture such a full-on character-filled performance. But I also want to call out the point where the protagonist confronts the old racist.

Worst thing: The female lead is pretty cool, but can come off a bit whiny when she's coming to terms with how bad it is to keep the dangerous attack dog alive.

White Dog is a very interesting film and remarkably intelligent considering how silly and cheesy the trailer makes the film look. I could never have predicted the deep social commentary in the background of this film. There is also consistent tension, wondering when the dog will stay docile and when it will attack.

A+

Best thing: Mark Duplass gives a very physical performance, distinguishing his real arseholish self and his doppelganger idealised self.

Worst thing: Towards the end things do begin to drag a little and the 'philosophical' aardvark example? Meh!

I feel like this was an interesting premise with some great performances, but the writing was missing something. I found it quite hard to warm to the characters and the film dragged a bit in the middle.

It also felt odd to me that the male doppelganger feels charming while the female doppelganger feels like a Stepford wife. I'm presuming this is intentional and perhaps it is to do with the boyfriend's personal unstated preferences regarding his girlfriend.

The final twist is incredibly obvious and telegraphed to hell, but I don't think that is much of an issue. It's the consequences of that twist that matter and the audience is also free to consider whether the characters can see the twist coming too. It's pretty interesting really.

Admittedly this is more of a sci-fi than a horror, but there's a clear ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ influence. Still, this is a very different take on the concept from ‘Honeymoon’. Almost the opposite concept in fact.

B+

Best thing: Boris Karloff is actually excellent as the monster. The dad/baron is also brilliant as a grumpy old man.

Worst thing: Perhaps if we'd been told that the little girl was blind, that scene would have made more sense. I was a little confused as to why she couldn't just swim back.

There's something very special about the Universal Frankenstein film. The initial creation of the monster is simply wonderful. The story does drag a bit in places though. The same charm remains here as we saw in Dracula. (I also like to pretend that Van Helsing taught Frankenstein and that Renfield became his assistant.)

B+

Best thing: Driller Killer has a very naturalistic feel and I really felt for the protagonist as a painter struggling to be taken seriously as an artist while suffering through poverty while he tries to perfect his masterpiece.

Worst thing: Too much time spent on the band that moves in to another flat and very little time spent on what drives the painter to go out driller-killing.

One special effect where it really looks like the killer is actually drilling into a man's head is especially effective. But we are never very clear on why the protagonist decides to kill anyone. I have a theory that he hates what he sees as failings in himself, as a man on the verge of being kicked out onto the street, but frankly the film never really tries to explore this.

The scenes of him working on his art and continuing his relationship with his hanger-on girlfriend and her own drugged up lover are the most interesting.

Listening to the commentary for this film you wouldn't think any thought had been put into it at all. The director sounds like he is on drugs when he discusses the film and seems to be most interested in how high people were when making the film. Nevertheless I think the main protagonist gives a really great performance in what ends up being a very shallow and poorly paced film.

Driller Killer was an interesting film, but in the end, despite a great central performance, it's pretty dull. But with some kind of genuine message rather than just random murders, I feel like this could have been something way more worthwhile. (To give credit where credit is due though, I didn’t realise until now that the central performance that I enjoyed so much is actually performed by the director himself.)

D+

Best thing: I was happily surprised by the ending. The female protagonist is going to alcoholics anonymous meetings and the male killer seems to regret each of his killings. It felt clear that there must be some connection, but I was apprehensive as to how the film would handle those kind of parallels. I was very happy with the way things wrapped up in a very satisfying ending.

Worst thing: There are a lot of atmospheric moments and shots which express the chaotic emotional states of the characters. Generally these work okay, but at one point it becomes especially clear that the camera is just being wiggled around wildly. The intention was to make clear that at this very dramatic point things are not right, but instead it rather took me out of the film.

Adam Wingard made a number of films before You're Next, but they are genrally very short. A Horrible Way To Die is also less than 90 minutes, but it seemed to be the most easily accessible of these early films. (Perhaps I’ll eventually see “Pop Skull” and “Home Sick” too.) There are a few familiar actors here from Wingard’s other films and there's a similarly good structure to the story too.

If Blair Witch (Wingard’s latest movie) is really as bad as some suggest then that's a real pity since their prior work has been so consistently solid. Even this small project is just so great.

A+

Best thing: The conflicted feelings of the wolf-man are wonderfully played by Lon Chaney Jr. in the central role. There's also a cool plot surrounding the father by the end, even if he doesn't look like he could possibly be Lon Chaney Jr.'s father.

Worst thing: The costume simply doesn't look like a wolf! Now that we have American Werewolf In London, the failings in the effects work are that more obvious, but the real problem is that the story expects us to believe that the werewolf could be mistaken for an actual wolf with genuine-looking wolf tracks. The fact is, as beastly as the wolf man looks, he couldn't possibly be mistaken for an actual wolf.

The Wolf Man is slow, a bit silly and the acting is better than the script. Still I feel the story really finds its footing by the end. The story comes full circle and the main protagonist, once we've got over his creepy pick-up lines and spying on a lady's dressing room with  a telescope (seriously!) keeps our interest through the story.

B-

Best thing: While the effects have dated and often look daft, I still want to credit the way the filmmakers make the most of what they have. Shadows on the wall, a face in the dark or the flailing man in a suit. At one point the creature is kept at bay by an acetylene torch.

Worst thing: The characters are dull. The opening premise is that the survivor of the original mission to Mars is suspected of murder. They don't seem to treat him even remotely like someone who might stab them in the back and he doesn't really feel like someone with any more familiarity with the alien threat than anyone else. Whether it's the script, the acting or the direction, that character's backstory feels completely mishandled and it just doesn't seem to play into the story beyond the occasional naysayer.

I have to admit that the effects are laughable, the characters are boring, the story is flimsy and I really can't recommend this film.

Even so, if you want the quintessential space monster movie with effects which were exciting at the time, even if they don't remotely hold up now, this is the film for you. The script isn't winning any awards but there's enough of a story here that it won't bore you to tears. So what I mean to say is: I don't regret watching this trashy dated sci-fi yarn.

Also it was nice to see the female crew had roles as scientists and doctors. Actually they seemed like they had the most professional expertise in the whole crew.

C-

Best thing: The premise is set up very cleverly as a mystery to be solved. It's very cool how the shots are composed so that we never see the maniac cop's face and we also can seriously believe that witnesses to his crimes won't have seen it either.

Worst thing: While it was disappointing to see Bruce Campbell playing it straight, he's fine in the role - if a bit bland. What was odd for me (and nothing was wrong with the performance) was the way the female officer who arrests people who pay for prostitutes by posing as one still has the same overdone makeup in her uniform. We are now pretty used to seeing female police officers with their hair tied back, but she seems like she's ready for a night out and it just makes her look unprofessional as an officer. Perhaps I’m blaming on her outfit what is really better explained by her performance. I never really get the impression that she’s had police training. (Or perhaps it’s the direction. Bruce Campbell seems distinctly lacking in decorum here too.)

Maniac Cop begins with a series of shots of a police officer dressing, putting on his gun holster, his badge and other accessories. I found it a little dull. I think living in a country where the police generally don't carry guns the image of a scary police officer isn't so creepy. That being said, I'd also note that most deaths here don't involve guns.

The central villain here is scariest while his face remains hidden. When finally his face is revealed, he doesn't look so intimidating. When the film moves away from its initial mystery to an all-hell-breaks-loose scenario I was reminded of the film The Hitcher. That film had a rather creepier Rutger Hauer in the lead role.

Overall this was a lot of fun but lost momentum in the second half when it crossed a line and became a bit too silly. But in the first half the mystery absolutely gripped me.

B+

Best thing: Dr. Pretorius is brilliant and has some great darkly comic moments. (And he’s played by Ernest Thesiger from “The Old Dark House”!) I love when Frankenstein asks the servant to send him away, she says "Right away sir!" and leaves through the door, only for us to see Dr. Pretorius immediately emerge from a completely different door.

Worst thing: I always find it very odd that Pretorius is so fascinated with Frankenstein's work when his own creations seems more advanced. I don't want to give away too much for newcomers but Pretorius appears to be able to create life from scratch, not from dead bodies.

Bride of Frankenstein is funnier than Frankenstein, darker than Frankenstein and has more emotional depth. This is definitely a sequel that improves on the original film.

B+

Best thing: The more Lou Costello imitates Frankenstein and Dracula the more it cracks me up.

Worst thing: It's great to see Bella Lugosi returning in the role, but with this comedy style he seems really sweet instead of terrifying. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a little disappointing.

I never thought I'd be so happy to see the same actor returning as the Wolf-Man. While Abbott essentially plays the straight man he's also the sceptic. Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolf-Man, being the most reluctant of the monsters, has to be the one to provide the exposition of an evil plot by Dracula involving Frankenstein. He is wonderful and works very well alongside the two comedic foils.

While I hope to see House of Frankenstein, where the different monsters are also reunited, as yet this is my first Universal horror monster mash. The recent plans of Universal to cash-in on the craze for shared universes make a lot more sense now, seeing how well the different monster worlds cone together here. That being said, Dracula's horror does feel a little diluted as a result (though that's probably because of the emphasis on comedy here).

Can Universal revive a shared universe like this? All these horror franchises have had a long history since the 30s and 40s. There were mixed receptions for Branaugh's Frankenstein and also for the more recent Victor Frankenstein penned by Max Landis. Werewolves are pretty big but while Ginger Snaps, Teen Wolf, and The Howling all have cult appeal, the straight adaptation with Benicio Del Toro was widely trashed. Dracula has had endless adaptations, but the attempt to make him a relateable anti-hero in Dracula Untold seems like a real misstep.

Part of me thinks they should just jump straight into a monster mash, but the film that comes to mind with that format is Van Helsing with Hugh Jackman where the whole thing went goofy as hell (think X-Men 3 levels of chaos. Fun enough, but kind of daft too).

Abbott and Costello's mash-up film is great fun and regularly had me laughing out loud. They have great comic timing and continue the same wonderful charm of earlier entries in the Universal series. It's worth remembering that the Universal movies often include a bit of comedy. Even Dracula has moments with the asylum staff, such as when one announces: "Sometimes it feels like we're the only sane ones here, and I'm not sure about you." Abbott and Costello is very much building on what has come before and carries the same fantastic charm.

A+

Best thing: While the ghoulies themselves look very cool, the best thing is the dwarf warrior spirits. In a supposed horror comedy, they were the only ones with any comic timing.

Worst thing: When someone has time to call out "Why?" before toppling to their death down the stairs a second or so later. So dumb!

If this was just plain old creepy it could have been a cool film, but there isn't really much of an atmosphere in this film. The protagonists' friends are pretty boring. Yet on the other hand this isn't really a comedy either. The ghoulies are disgusting and adorable but they pretty much unimportant to the story.

This could have worked but the script needs to be completely reworked, the dad needs to come back sooner (we all saw that coming), the ghoulies need to do something either funny or terrrifying and the deaths need to be way more inventive. But without all these changes? Meh, it's just about watchable.

D+

Best thing: The fools day pranks, such as the collapsing chair, are quite fun.

Worst thing: I heard this was a comedy, but there are no laughs to be had here. There aren't even interesting characters to follow. We have the actor who played Biff in Back To The Future being a bit of a clown and we have a bookish girl stereotype, but the script doesn't really go anywhere with those characters.

There were some really low points when I was working my way through the Friday 13th series. Sure, I'd say there are Friday 13th films worse than this, but even Jason Takes Manhattan is way more fun.

For a film about practical jokes and serial murder this is unbelievably dull.

D-

Best thing: I had always felt awkward about seeing this film because it is about a kidnapped abused girl/woman. It felt like the film would either be horrifying or it wouldn't be treating the subject matter with enough respect. But I hadn't realised that the real focus would be on what happens to someone after they escape from captivity. The way the child, who has always been told to stay well clear of the one person who isn't his mother, won't address anyone directly. Sadly the film doesn't really explore this terribly well by the end.

Worst thing: Every time the kid does one of his monologues it is teeth-grindingly irritating. It doesn't help that this quiet kid doesn't really seem much like the talkative child doing the monologues. And frankly, the monologues add nothing to the story and are really awkward because they trivialise the drama.

There are some wonderful moments. This is a very well directed movie. Unfortunately the script leaves much to be desired. There ought to be so much to say about the mental and physical consequences of a childhood spent in a small shed. But here that is basically just boiled down to an odd mythological understanding of the world and the real world ramifications are glossed over. There was potential here, but the film doesn't seem to explore the subject matter comprehensively enough to really convince me.

And the tv interviewer who seems to be actively trolling the kidnapping victim by trying to fuel their survivor's guilt? What is up with that?

C+

Best thing: What an ending! It's always good when a film knows how to finish and knocks your socks off at the last minute rather than dragging things out.

Worst thing: The story gets a bit repetitive. Not badly. But the protagonist keeps getting reasons to be suspicious followed by reasons why he shouldn't be so suspicious. This back and forth builds up tension but it's unfortunate when the pattern becomes a bit too obvious.

A man still struggling after a tragedy and a divorce is invited to a reunion party by his ex-wife. It turns out she has discovered a bizarre self-help group to overcome her grief. The party seems strangely sinister, in part because of the odd over-friendliness of the hosts.

It feels like something must be wrong, but our protagonist's fragile emotional state makes him naturally insecure.

A very compelling horror with a tense and subtle build-up and a great payoff. Wonderful.

A+

Best thing: A fantastic central performance of the badass blind war veteran.

Worst thing: Wouldn't the police be a little more concerned about an animal that can smash your door down?

A sense of fun and some great creature effects. This is another film I probably would have missed were it not for Letterboxd. There's a reason this is getting so many good reviews. It's a wonderful little film. If you liked Ginger Snaps you'll most likely love this.

Werewolves in the retirement community and a blind veteran who seems to be the only one who can work out what is happening. Our blind grumpy protagonist's abrasive attitude actually makes for a pretty compelling redemption story (of sorts).

Werewolves often don't look great, particularly in low budget features and I think even the cult favourite, Dog Soldiers, has this problem. Ginger Snaps also had its limitations. Late Phases has some exceptional effects work and also a pretty super transformation scene. Wonderful.

A+

Best thing: Well clearly the best thing is Boris Karloff as the Mummy. I don't know about anyone else but I always grew up thinking of the Mummy as a zombie-like creature in bandages groaning and following Scooby Doo down a corridor. But all credit to the Stephen Sommers films for transitioning the mummy from the bandaged undead creature to a revived healthy-looking human being with special powers.

Worst thing: It becomes repetitive, with the female protagonist switching between lying down in a daze or wandering off to see the Mummy again. I found myself feeling like she should just be allowed to go to him. While it’s stated pretty clearly that she is under a malign magical influence, the impression is often that she’s met an exciting man who she would really like to see again and, in the meanwhile, she’s kept essentially under house arrest by an unwanted admirer on the pretence that it’s for her own good. I still feel that it’s only a matter of luck that the boyfriend is correct in thinking she needs to be kept away from Imhotep. I think he’d be trying to keep her away from Imhotep regardless of whether she was being magically mind-controlled or not.

The Mummy suffers from being in incredibly slow and repetitive, but I do love Boris Karloff's performance as the villain. The opening is very cool but the rest of the film doesn't seem to know where to go next.

C+

Best thing: Great atmosphere, themes, acting, build up.

Worst thing: Not really a horror film.

I've long had a problem with ghost films and I actually liked that Ring wasn't really following the format of a ghost story. Dark Water IS following that format though and it's one of those ghost films where the ghost presumably represents something in real life but I'm stuck as to what the message is meant to be.

If you take your ghost stories literally then you'll probably be annoyed. As someone who prefers when ghost stories are more allegorical, I found the message never seemed to move beyond "divorce sucks". Wouldn't this film have made that point more effectively without the leaky-ceiling ghost story?

Dark Water is really well made. I just have no clue what the point was. I simply don't get it.

D+

Best thing: The performance by Basil Rathbone as the actual son of Dr. Frankenstein is great (and makes me think of Tom Hiddleston's performance in Crimson Peak), but the real star here is Basil Rathbone the inspector with the prosthetic arm who was once a victim of the monster.

Worst thing: Is the son of Frankenstein so stupid that he doesn't recognise when things are out of his control and he needs to come clean to the inspector? It would have been good if his stubbornness made more sense.

This film just started so well. The villagers are insanely suspicious of Frankenstein's son and the more they shun his father, the more inclined he feels to pursue his father's research. Igor is wonderfully creepy after his close brush with death on the noose. (Apparently everyone has forgotten that the character is called Fritz in the first Frankenstein film.) And the make-up job completely hid from me that it was Bela Lugosi providing this wonderful performance.

But after a while the film loses its way. The son of Frankenstein passionately pursuing his father's legacy is great, but when he is sitting around feeling unable to act for fear of being condemned by Igor's testimony, the film becomes rather dull.

Overall the first half makes this well worth checking out. If only it were a bit more consistent. One more thing to note though: I find it endlessly entertaining that the ultra-posh British parents have a child with what sounds to me like an American accent from the deep south.

B-

Best thing: The Ghoulies tormenting people on the Ghost Train was brilliant.

Worst thing: There turned out to be absolutely no character arcs by the end of the film. Nothing that happened really matters to thr outcomes for the characters. When we began it seemed as if the film was about trying to produce a successful Ghost Train. By the end of the film that clearly isn't the aim anymore.

Great intro, a bit of a slow start, sone excellent antics in the middle and a rather uninspiring third act. Ghoulies is a seriously mixed bag.

This is certainly a massive step up from the first film, but it never really lives up to the opening scene. The characters aren't terrible but they have defining traits and not a lot beyond those. There's the man with dwarfism frustrated that he's not taken seriously as a Shakespearean actor, there's the drunk who feels like he's a burden and there's a morally unscrupulous rich guy exploiting his limited power. They are all admittedly more interesting as characters than  anyone from the first Ghoulies movie, but there are no arcs for any of them.

When we reach the third act it's pretty obvious that we are simply wrapping up the story and while the effects work is fun it still makes for a pretty flat finale because there are no stakes beyond not wanting the characters to die (and it's pretty clear that they aren't going to be killed off).

I started Ghoulies 2 with such high hopes and there are some very fun moments, but it just runs out of steam.

C-

Best thing: The opening quarter of the film involving the reintroduction of The Wolfman was fantastic. Lon Chaney Jr is brilliant in the role as The Wolfman.

Worst thing: A medical doctor, Dr. Mannering, goes mad a little too easily. On top of that the film ends very abruptly.

The return of The wolf man is absolutely wonderful thanks to Chaney's super performance but I was wondering in the beginning how The wolf man would fit into a story about Frankenstein's monster. The answer is he doesn't really fit at all. There is no reason for Frankenstein’s monster to appear in this film and yet I very nearly bought into it. The idea that Frankenstein's work on life and death might hold the secrets for allowing the wolf man to die almost works. But the logic becomes hazy and the filmmakers ditch this premise so they can finish with the showdown the audience is expecting.

Once again we have the wonderful sense of charm from the universal horror films. The pairing of Frankenstein's monster and The wolf man cannot help but make me smile. Sadly some unconvincing over the top villainy from one of the villagers and an all too abrupt ending prevent this from being one of the better universal horror films.

C+

Best thing: All the performances are very effective and actually the film is directed very well. If only the subject matter weren't utter twaddle.

Worst thing: The film seems to want to have its cake and eat it. On the one hand it depicts something that simply has to be a real haunting. Characters witness and experience impossible things. Yet there's a sense that the characters know that it's probably not real and that maybe this is about something beneath the surface. However this can't be both a real haunting and an allegory. The way the film is set-up makes this impossible, particularly when
they bring back the medium for no reason other than to give Timothy Spall's character some closure. The last time the medium visited the haunted house she has terrified everyone. Why would they bring her back? Particularly when she herself said it was a bad idea. Yet Matthew Macfadyen's character mysteriously insists it is worth it and lo and behold, Timothy Spall's character benefits in a way that surely couldn't have been forseen. It was almost as if they staged that entire encounter for his benefit. If this is a story about people making things up, that calls into question everything we are shown.

Considering that I most often hate ghost stories, it's perhaps not surprising that the Enfield haunting didn't completely work for me. It was actually pretty well made, but I couldn't help but feel that its attempts to introduce ambiguity were surely only going to irritate everyone. If you believe in ghosts then it suggests people are making everything up, whereas if you don't believe in ghosts it just seems completely inconsistent.

Maybe it wasn't helpful that I kept imagining what would be really happening if there were no ghosts. Yet I think that is precisely what's the film makers expect us to do. When the mother explains, "There were more of us than you. You couldn't see everything," the suggestion is that she knows the children were tricking the paranormal investigators. It's a pity that they missed out the other part of the story I heard where the ghosts disappear because the children get really into the musical Grease (actually I’ve only heard that piece of trivia from Stuart NLA from the Now Playing podcast and I am as yet to find any mention of it anywhere else). It seems that essentially this is a story about a bunch of kids making stuff up, but I’m not entirely sure what point the film was trying to make about this. This is quite well made, but I can’t help but feel like I’m missing the point.

C-

Best thing: The action sequence with the numbered bullets was very cool.
Worst thing: The villain is played by Ed Skrein, the guy who was rejected from Game of Thrones before being a terrible knock-off Jason Statham in the failed attempt at a Transporter reboot. He's a terrible actor with no charisma and he plays an incredibly boring villain here.

The humour in Deadpool was really hit or miss for me. There were a lot of gags with pop culture references that I didn't recognise like when he calls someone "less-angry Rosie O'Donnell". Rosie O'Donnell is apparently one of the hosts on the American daytime television show The View, which seems like a pretty odd reference to expect to play for an international audience.

I quite liked the references to the X-Men universe, but Deadpool's story is boring. While I enjoyed Ryan Reynolds in The Voices, I don't think he had a terribly good script here.I know a lot of people had way more fun with this film than I did, but in a film that relies on one-liners I either need an interesting story or interesting character interactions to keep my interest. I didn't feel this had either of those.

It might be fun to have Deadpool break the fourth wall in the superhero world, but in this solo movie his own story did not feel interesting to me.    

D-

Best thing: The film often looks beautiful and our introduction to the world of the cartels as understood by a desperate American task force with carte blanche to do whatever is necessary is really tense and powerful.

Worst thing: Our protagonist doesn't get much in the way of answers and at a key moment Benicio Del Toro's character takes over as the focus of the film even though we know practically nothing about him. But my big issue is the scene where Blunt holds Del Toro at gunpoint. She has no idea what is really going on, yet she sees someone getting into a car and instantly reacts by pulling a gun on him? How does she know he's not just following the orders he was given?

Overall this is a solid thriller with some great performances and tension. The message feels a bit hazy by the end, but the central theme of a police officer frustrated by the task force's complete failure to follow any typical procedure was interesting. When the strict procedures of policing are ditched to allow some real progress to be made against the cartels, Blunt is troubled by the consequences.

I feel like the film seriously loses focus in the second half, but it's still a really interesting film all the same.

B+

Best thing: Anton Yelchin being charming and quite funny particularly alongside Toni Collette as his mother.

Worst thing: While I was very annoyed to find that Colin Farrell didn't feel terribly intimidating until they pulled out the crazy CG effects, he wasn't too bad. The real weak link here for me was David Tennant. He is so over-the-top and so completely failed to charm me. And he's not a patch on Roddy McDowell.

I like how Evil Ed's arc comes straight from the character's classic sarcastic quote from the original film: "You're so cool Brewster. I can't stand it." He represents the dark side of the geek. Our protagonist became less of a geek and is now friends with the popular kids while Ed resents him for it and that's what leads Ed to become a vampire to get back at him.

I found the third act of this film tedious and because I wasn't feeling invested the shoddiness of some of the visual effects work became more starkly obvious. (I'm glad they kept the distinctive ultra-wide toothy smile of the vampires, but fire effects seemed rather unconvincing.)

For me, this is another unnecessary remake  (and by "unnecessary" naturally I basically mean "I didn't like it"). The original Fright Night just seems so obviously superior to this bland studio film.

D-

Best thing: Olivia Cooke is great as the character with conflicted feelings about her illness and her unexpected friendship with the nerdy protagonist.

Worst thing: The protagonist is a quirky budding filmmaker, which feels very self-indulgent of the makers of this film. It's never very clear to me that their small parody films work very well with the rest of the story. It all feels somehow both pretentious AND a rip-off of "Be Kind Rewind". What is perhaps especially annoying about this is that the black friend seems thoroughly undeveloped. He clearly seems to be from a rough area, yet he is fully invested in working on pretentious art films. Outside of those two things we learn very little about him and our first introduction to him is hearing him confidently but inappropriately blurt out "titties". Compare that with Mos Def's character in "Be Kind Rewind" refusing to do a remake of Driving Miss Daisy and we can see a clear difference in the levels of characterisation in these two projects. The black friend here ends up falling into the wise black man trope (though fortunately not magical) and while it's nice that he has that level of character at least, he's still very much a sidekick and not a full character in his own right.

"Me, Earl and the Dying Girl" has a good cast trying to deliver a sweet and quirky movie and as a result it is very obvious that it is desperate to be a sweet and quirky movie. Every step of the way the film comes across as a film that wants to be sweet and quirky. It also wants to be funny, but rarely actually is. (Full credit to Nick Offerman for his remarkably amusing comic performance as what seems in context like a very contrived character. Then again, he’s basically doing what he did in the second series of Fargo and he was funnier there.)

Is it fatigue at having seen too many "creative, imaginative misfit male teen" movies? Or is it just that this is another dramedy that is neither very funny nor much of a drama? Whatever the problem, this really didn't grip me. It's fine and perhaps others will enjoy it more. Certainly there's nothing wrong with the performances. But it's a filmmaker trying to tell a quirky story about a kid who loves filmmaking - and the self-indulgence shows.

C-

Best thing: The Phantasm is a pretty cool villain. It's never really clear why he has magic powers, but he looks cool.

Worst thing: Incredibly dull and not helped by the way it flicks to regular flashbacks that entirely fail to increase the drama.

I must admit, I always found the Batman animated series pretty unengaging. I quite enjoyed the Spider-Man animated series even though it was a little naff, but despite enjoying the Batman movies that cartoon failed to interest me.

So perhaps it's not surprising that a full length movie didn't work for me either. It really is what you'd expect from the cartoon. To help the kids keep up with the story, there's endless expositional dialogue. But on top of that it's not even that exciting. Some of the scenes involving the Phantasm are quite cool, but for the most part this was remarkably boring.

The story of this incredibly uncharismatic Bruce Wayne punctuated with the occasional action scene feels like it is missing a whole bunch of commercial breaks. Also this is "tv show" artwork not "beautiful animated movie" artwork involved here.

E

Best thing: Lauren Hutton's central performance is awesome.

Worst thing: The opening theme and some of the music is more than a little dated. Couldn't John Carpenter have done the theme himself? Any tension set up in the opening scene is ruined by the cheesy opening titles sequence (though actually, I think the film could have done without that prologue scene anyway).

The final film to complete my John Carpenter filmography was the made-for-tv thriller "Someone's Watching Me". Leigh Michaels, played by Lauren Hutton, is a very interesting protagonist because she has a smart sense of humour, a consistently bouncy self-confidence and, even when put under pressure, this side of her does not deteriorate. She's interesting precisely because she isn't the sort of character to give in. Certainly, she is made to feel scared, but she is never hysterical. She's a very rational character and the story is more grounded as a result.

After the Elvis film had suffered from biopic-itis, feeling long-winded and bland, I was worried that this made-for-tv John Carpenter film would involve the same sorts of problems. But actually this film relies on the ability of the director to build tension and John Carpenter rises to the challenge. And he doesn't rely on showing extreme distress from the actress to bring out the tension. This is a realistic story about a true-to-life villain and Carpenter clearly takes inspiration from Hitchcock's filming style to produce this thriller. I actually felt that Lauren Hutton's character somewhat reminded me of Tippi Hedren's character who likes to pull pranks in Hitchcock's "The Birds".

Also this passes the Bechdel test. Adrienne Barbeau from "The Fog" and "Escape From New York" has several conversations with Laren Hutton where men are not the subject. Passing the Bechdel Test doesn't always mean a film has a less objectifying view of women. (Just take the 2009 "Star Trek" movie where it passes by virtue of Uhura and Gaila (the green girl) who talk about something other than men while Kirk is spying on them changing...) But in "Someone's Watching Me!" I think praise for the depiction of a strong female protagonist would be well-deserved. The protagonist is a live tv director, she's a successful woman and she's never passive.

Surprisingly enough, I think this final movie to complete John Carpenter's filmography may actually be one of my very favourites. Tv movie or not, it's a great film and I would highly recommend it to any John Carpenter fans.

A+

Best thing: The crazy visual effects. I mean sure, you expect great effects, but the kalaedoscopic patterns produced by the buildings are amazing. This may be similar to some of the effects found in Inception, but they are taken to such an extreme that this becomes something very different. Also when we have a fight scene while time is going backwards and the inventive effects make it one of the more effective third-act fight scenes in a Marvel movie. Oh and that awesome cloak-with-a-mind-of-its-own is visual effects too isn't it?

Worst thing: There's a big visual effects set-piece in the middle of the film where they really let things go a bit barmy and the suggestion is that in that moment the evil sorcerors have the upper hand. For that reason I'm a little puzzled as to why our protagonist isn't squashed like a bug. If your antagonists can bend buildings and the entire city scape is morphing around you, how can you possibly hope to run away. That moment of the film seemed to spend so long wowing us with effects that the filmmakers forgot that our protagonists were supposed to be in genuine peril.

I've often judged Marvel movies on how much they make me laugh and this Marvel film is chock full of jokes. Benedict Wong, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Cumberbatch and Tilda Swinton all get their funny moments. There's also real heart to the film.

Okay, so Mads Mikkelsen is another quiet villain and as a result he seems under-used, but I think we are left with the possibility that he could come back. When he's giving the "actually my evil plan makes sense when you think about it" speech, Mikkelsen is able to be much more convincing than a lesser actor could.

In some ways this feels like a re-tread of the story from the first Iron Man movie, but Doctor Strange is still a distinct character and the third act is a lot smarter. Consistent pacing, inventiveness and an awesome cast make this perhaps the best Marvel movie yet. I really wasn't expecting that from the director of "Sinister".

A+

Best thing: The female protagonist turns into a bit of a badass, doesn't she? Tough businesswoman with a no-nonsense attitude and prepared to kill a guy if threatened. It's good to see that change after her initial whiny character at the beginning. It’s just a bit odd that the film often seems to want me to dislike her for what seem to be her most positive traits.

Worst thing: The rape isn't a good moment obviously. And it's awkward that we are seemingly supposed to dislike the protagonist more than her dickhead rapist husband. But in the end the worst thing has to be all the title cards saying, "Remember the good old days of keeping slaves in the south? Isn't it terrible that it's all gone?"

There were some good moments but my goodness this film is so very long. There are old films that I think hold up very well, but Gone With The Wind feels incredibly dated.

I'm glad that the film perks up in places but there are so many parts of the film that drag like crazy. I was gripped by “Citizen Kane” all the way through (after the intentionally stilted fake broadcast at the start) but while the performances in ”Gone With The Wind” are great, the storytelling failed to keep me on board.

D+

Best thing: Well naturally Ian McKellen, but also Lynn Redgrave and Brendan Fraser. They are all wonderful. Whatever happened to Brendan Fraser eh?

Worst thing: There are points where the attempts to give Brendan Fraser's character an arc are a little too obvious. Essentially the main purpose of his character is to act as an outsider who is drawn in, just like the audience, as well as to provide a contrast between McKellen's portrayal of James Whale. He is young, Whale is old, he is heterosexual, Whale is homosexual, and then there's their differing experiences of the military. But what is Brendan Fraser's character supposed to have learned from the experience in the end? That he should settle down and have a family? That's the take-away from his time with an ageing homosexual film director with mental illness? Really?

Gods And Monsters is an absolutely wonderful film with an amazing central performance from Ian McKellen. All the character interactions are interesting, there are moments of humour and there are plenty of surprises. I like that when James Whale's condition makes him relive the past he is ashamed of his class background that he has spent his life trying to leave behind and he is not at all ashamed of his sexuality. This was a very refreshing perspective and, as understand it, true to the historical figure. I'm glad that common movie themes weren't allowed to trump historical accuracy in this case.

After watching all the Universal films it was easy to see how the big fan in the movie would be excited to see all the old movie stars together. Comparing John Betts in "Gods And Monsters" with Boris Karloff in "Black Sabbath" they clearly did a fantastic make-up job.

Gods And Monsters is a film that relies on the character interactions and the performances to make it all come together and they chose the right cast for that. I was gripped from start to finish. It's the same small and powerful drama as we see in Bill Condon's later film "Mr. Holmes".

A+

Best thing: Undoubtedly the best thing is the horrifying character that appears towards the end. He is intensely creepy and the third act of the film is utterly terrifying as result of his appearance.

Worst thing: I had a bit of trouble distinguishing between the characters in the early scenes. When you have a group of utterly despicable characters it can helpful in a film like this to be able to work out which ones are least despicable.

There's much that is original in the film Baskin; not least having frogs as an omen of doom. Frogs are a regular motif throughout the film.

Baskin is a genuinely horrifying film, but I feel a little lost on the meaning by the end. The film spends quite a while on the build-up but then things go very crazy very fast. So by the end the build-up feels like it was a bit chaotic. Nevertheless there's no doubting that by the end of the film we have a seriously creepy atmospheric climax. Yet even so, I feel that there was room for another stage in the film. Perhaps some clue as to the scale of the powers of the main villain or some further clues to his philosophy?

I'd be surprised if Baskin doesn't leave the majority of viewers a little puzzled, but you don't need to understand the larger meaning to have a great time. This is an intriguing horror film and deserves further scrutiny.

B+

Best thing: Towards the end we have  some somewhat out of place music, revealing to us that a character in the film has edited the footage together. That was a nice touch.

Worst thing: The film is chock full of false starts supposedly intended to build tension. The scene in the trailer where the granddaughter is asked to get in the oven in order to clean it is remarkably flat in the actual film. When the film is reaching its climax Shymalan still doesn't seem sure what to do with the tense moments.

Towards the climax, a character is fixed in fear.... and he gets a nappy put on his head. Perhaps that could have seemed threatening. In the movie it just felt silly and detracted from the creepiness.

While they say "write what you know" it can be annoying when writers write about writers and filmmakers make films about established or budding  filmmakers. Here, the two kids want to make films. The brother wants to be a performer (and unfortunately likes to rap) and the sister is more interested in the behind the scenes aspect. I find it harder to relate to these characters because the distinguishing characteristics of them are that they are filmmakers and performers. It also makes it harder to forget that these are actors.

I feel that people give this a lot of credit for being a Shyamalan movie that is capably put together. But while it might not be terrible, this remains a pretty dull film and the climax doesn't really seem to pay off as well as it should. The twist is fine, but it doesn't make up for the rest of the film.

More aspects that are set up feel they should pay off in the third act. Paying attention to what the old couple say they seem to have some weird mythology producingan internal logic. By the end it seems like they are just nuts and that's all there is to it.

This is a film that doesn't reward the viewer for taking it seriously and isn't crazy enough to amuse those who don't.

D-

Best thing: While not exactly a completely terrible movie, the best things about this film are its charming flaws. I think the best thing is probably the performance by Dudley Malove as the alien managing the zombie attacks. He has some of the most memorably terrible lines such as, “You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!” And what makes it better is that he delivers them so passionately.

Worst thing: There are any number of flaws to list here, but they are all such endearing flaws. The real problem with this film is the pacing. But then again, to give this faster pacing would have required the director to recognise that he was failing to build a spooky atmosphere.

Plan 9 definitely works better once you know the story behind it. Not least that this film shoehorns some ill-fitting footage of Bela Lugosi into the story.

Weirdly zombie Bela Lugosi swishes his cape like Dracula. Then again Vampira very much looks dressed as Vampira and not as Bela Lugosi's dead wife. And of course the narrator is very much still a cheesy fortune teller. Ed Wood clearly made this film by bringing his friends together and not worrying too much about the mismatched results.

Just considering his flying saucers on string. Most of the time the effect isn't so bad but when the wobbling of the saucers gets out of hand it starts to look ridiculous. What gives Plan 9 its charm is that Ed Wood genuinely wanted to make a great film and comes close enough to making a serviceable mediocre film as to make his ridiculous dialogue and production flaws charming and hilarious.

While this is certainly not a good film, anyone watching this with the benefit of proper context cannot help but be amused and fascinated by this heroic failure.

C+

Best thing: Santa's evil killer toys. An evil toy robot,  an evil teddy bear and an evil toy angel all terrorise the family in glorious Gremlins style horror-comedy violence.

Worst thing: Krampus is such a poorly realised villain. In Rare Exports the main villain is only seen as two enormous horns sticking out of a block of ice and yet it still feels like a more well-realised villain.

I've mentioned my hatred of ghost stories many many times before. One of many reasons a ghost story can frustrate me is the lack of clear consistent rules. I've heard it said that ghost stories are exploiting a fear of going mad, but that's not what is happening here. The family are perfectly clear thinking, but the situation they are in is distressing, as well as quite wacky. Instead of giving us a consistent villain we just see the protagonists barraged by wave after wave of different threats and the family antics aren't compelling enough to make up for the lack of a consistent villain.

It's really unclear what Krampus wants to achieve and so I was left frustrated. That's especially annoying considering the humour in this horror comedy feels a bit lacking too.

Krampus has a lot of potential and that's clear even before the monsters show up when we are presented with a horrifying vision of Christmas shopping. But instead of being drawn in, the family drama between  this catalogue of stereotypes just felt more and more contrived as the film went on. There were promising moments with the villains but without a consistently interesting human story it was hard to care.

A mostly cliched and unfunny comedy interspersed with some isolated moments of horror-comedy excellence.  A real pity.

C+

Best thing: There's a very original kind of car chase sequence. Sparks flying from a wheel with no tyre and a woman with her arm handcuffed to the wheel. So cool!

Worst thing: Is this how you go about assessing whether your officers are fit for duty? This is a seriously chaotic process.

I wondered how Maniac Cop 2 could live up to the original. The best part of Maniac Cop was the first half where the cop always seemed to be mysterious and in shadow and a big part of the plot was a mystery. When we get to see what he looks like and he turns out to be a Terminator-esque unstoppable killing machine, I felt the film became much less interesting.

However, Maniac Cop 2 starts again with the same trick of having the central villain's face in shadow again. And, as it turns out, there's a good reason for this. The villain's features have further deteriorated and he looks seriously badass as a result. The modus operandi of the maniac cop changes somewhat in this film and so we do get a new source of mystery and it's actually a bit more consistent this time around.

There are some very cool action sequences including the car chase sequence mentioned above and also a sequence where the maniac cop is on fire. And the maniac cop seemed more intense this time too.

While this lacks a compelling performance from Tom Ellis (who plays the central detective in the first film) , it still feels like the better of the first two Maniac Cop movies to me. The action is more exciting and the tone is more consistent. Maniac Cop 2 is a lot of fun.

B+

Wow, this is awkward. Look, I love The Producers, okay? I think that is a fantastic and hilarious film. And I grew up enjoying Mel Brooks' Star Wars spoof "Space Balls". But it seems that I don't like Mel Brooks most beloved classics.

I  saw Blazing Saddles nearly 10 years ago and I wasn't all that impressed. I wasn't sure whether the problem was a lack of familiarity with old westerns, a lack of familiarity with current race issues in America or simply not finding the comedy was to my taste.

Now rewatching Young Frankenstein, I think we've finally resolved that mystery. Young Frankenstein is Mel Brooks' spoof of the old Universal horror films. Thanks to recently checking out those films, there's no way that familiarity with the subject matter could be a problem. (And certainly many elements here are taken directly from Son of Frankenstein.) There's also no contemporary social context that could cloud the issue. And I was convinced that, despite being a bit non-plussed by Young Frankenstein when I watched it as a child, I would definitely enjoy it a lot more now I'm older and know the references.

Yet I found very little amused me. After "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" had me in stitches, it's baffling how little I seem to be entertained by "Young Frankenstein" where oddly I feel the 70s humour feels even more dated.

After Gene Wilder had finished screaming at the lightening, in what felt more like a typical performance as Frankenstein rather than parody, I decided to call it a day.

Best thing: As much as I'd love to pick a favourite monster, I feel it's really the amazing range of threats in this crazy film. I feel that the giant bat has a particularly big star turn.

Worst thing: While I know it's supposed to be weird and uncomfortable, the erotic dance just feels a little too close to the kind of film this is supposed to be critiquing. Then again, as a film critiquing horror clichés, the almost identical 'gratuitous erotic dance by the fire' scene in the Friday the 13th remake (a film entirely comprised of horror clichés) does rather vindicate this.

Cabin In The Woods is still such a wonderful exploration of the horror genre, if a bit harsh in its thesis that all horror is following a single formula. If anything the third act craziness shows what a vibrant array of villains the horror genre involves.

In many ways, mind you, Cabin In The Woods is actually a love letter to the horror genre. There are references to all sorts of ideas and tropes from the horror genre. To parody (or in this case, subvert) something well there really needs to be some affection for the subject matter and Cabin In The Woods has that. The outcome of the other horror film taking place in Japan is a particularly wonderful statement on the differences within the genre.

Cabin In The Woods is just generally a great time. Love it.

A+

Best thing: Boris Karloff as an evil scientist is awesome. Oddly he seemed to remind me of Jeremy Irons. Anyway his character is deliciously evil and I loved it. I only wish we could have seen his plans come to fruition.

Worst thing: Did they have bigger plans for the climax and no money for them. Our evil scientist is constantly promising to do some weird brain swap operations and instead the story just stops dead. It's a real pity because otherwise this could have been one of the very best Universal horror movies.

Can I just point out that Dracula gets into a chase scene on horseback? This film is crazy.

Sadly, after a really great first half, the second half really doesn't pay off. But Dr. Niemann is a fantastic new character played deliciously by Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney is an absolute delight whenever he returns to play the wolf man. The side-plot surrounding Dr. Nieman's Igor-esque sidekick also works very well. But for all that is good about this film, the ambitions of Dr. Niemann serve as a complete tease.

While it's nice to be able to say "this film leaves you wanting more", but I'd rather we actually had the payoff we waited for.

B-

David Cronenberg early work #1: Stereo

Some dull black and white footage of someone wandering around what is blatantly a university campus while a narrator lectures us.

I briefly thought it might be about to get interesting when the narrator mentioned a psychic drilling through their own head for release. This is a clear reference to Michael Ironside's role in Scanners. I thought we might be about to see someone drill into their own head...

But it was just an aside. We see someone rub their forehead and then we are back to the same endless dirge.

And when I gave up on this there was so much left to go. My goodness, this was unbearable

Best thing: It was almost funny and the quick cuts to different locations helped add to the surrealism.
Worst thing: It's all about a patient and his psychoanalyst and frankly it's not very interesting but, worse than that, the acting is terrible.

When I put on a disc of early Cronenberg I didn’t realise it would be some short student films where the characters discuss psychoanalysis. I guess I should have known better.

E

Best thing: There is actually a decent twist this time and the surrealism of having the whole thing take place in a bathtub is interesting.

Worst thing: If the acting was better perhaps this would be enjoyable. But while the amateur actor is clearly acting his heart out, I found he came across as annoying rather than funny. And the quieter actor was quite terrible.

A weird little short film set in a bathtub. The script is adequate but the performances are horrendous.

E

Best thing: There are a few little touches that work to subvert expectations. Such as a person licking their glasses clean or where it is revealed that the male physician just happens to be wearing bright red nail varnish.

Worst thing: It was just so incredibly boring and nothing really seemed to be all that important.

These short films by David Cronenberg are all just terrible and Crimes Of The Future is no different. It just feels so long and it's all blatantly just people wandering around a university campus. I give David Cronenberg credit for trying, but overall this was rubbish.

E

Best thing: The rotting head in the microwave? The victim in the wheelchair falling down the stairs? I actually think the best thing actually may be Lucio Fulci with a wild look in his eyes as he marches forward lunging with a knife.

Worst thing: While there are so many wonderful visuals, there are some points where the flow of the story is a bit awkward.

Apparently the horror elements here are all clips to promote other horror films. It doesn't make any difference to my enjoyment though. Combining Lucio Fulci's nightmarish surreal style with the excuse that the gory scenes are hallucinations makes for a pretty sensible plot when compared to Fulci's "The Beyond".

The wonderful opening scene portraying a literal cat clawing into a brain is a wonderful way to start this film about Lucio Fulci going crazy and being plagued by gory horror visions.

Thank you to everyone on Letterboxd who recommended this wonderful film. This is up there with “The Beyond” and “Zombie Flesh Eaters” as one of my favourite Lucio Fulci movies. This time it’s actually a “horror comedy” (my favourite genre!) and I adored it.

A+

Best thing: It's a pretty fantastic performance from Anton Yelchin and I'm all the more horrified by what happens to his character considering the horrifying real life suffering that would have lead to his recent death.

Worst thing: I was trying to work out why Patrick Stewart's claim that "this will not end well" doesn't seem so creepy as it did in the trailer. I think it's because there is very little use of a creepy soundtrack here. And while the situation is certainly pretty sinister without extra dramatisation, the decision not to use sound to heighten the audience's anxiety feels like a mistake.

Murder Party was incredibly fun. The 'failed McGuyver' scene is absolutely brilliant. Before I knew about Murder Party, I'd already seen Blue Ruin. Blue Ruin was a film that was often quite slow but had some great moments and it was a very novel approach to a revenge story.

Green Room is probably my least favourite of Jeremy Saulier’s films. It's fine, but it gets pretty talky without really building up tension. There is some pretty great gore but there aren't that many moments where we are really forced to feel it (one moment involving Anton Yelchin's character being a notable exception).

I must admit that as much as I enjoyed Green Room I felt oddly distant from it. I can't even quite identify why (is it the lack of background music, is that it?) but something here seemed to fall flat and the movie is diminished as a result. But yeah, it's a good film.

B-

Best thing: Admittedly the gore is great. This should be wonderful. Zombies surround our protagonists, some with maggots crawling over their faces, some set on fire, some biting off a woman's breasts. It's pretty crazy.

Worst thing: While the thing that frustrated me at the time was that the zombies are so slow (a character even overtly points this out), I think the real problem is that the shots linger long enough for us to clearly see how easy it is to get away from the zombies. Characters are able to burn zombies by going right up to them to cover them in (conveniently placed) flammable materials before returning to them with a carefully handled lit match. At other times characters seem to be pretty much offering their necks to be strangled. Quicker cuts might made the action seem more frantic. Also cutting away earlier might make it less obvious that the zombies aren't eating organs out of a dead body but are actually pulling red blocks out of a bag. The effects are fine but we linger too long.

I seem to be in a minority on this one. Pretty much all my friends seem to love Burial Ground. Yet while I can see similar elements to those I would enjoy enormously in a Lucio Fulci film, it just falls flat for me here. I think perhaps the big difference here might be the music. While Fulci amd Argento would have a rocking soundtrack with creepy chanting there's no such sense of urgency in Burial Ground.

I wanted to love Burial Ground but instead I was bored. Is there a different cut with better music somewhere? Did I watch the wrong version?

D-

Best thing: While this film certainly tries to be sparing with the special effects, the limited contact the protagonists make with the planet's surface is all the more magical as a result. That dramatic build up makes a final visual effects sequence particularly breathtaking.

Worst thing: Once we've reached the fantastic reveal near the end, there's too much time spent wrapping everything up. It rather undermines the impact of the climactic moment to have us hanging around afterwards.

It's been a long time that I've been planning to see this obscure sci-fi title. Reviews on Letterboxd have been fairly mixed but intriguing enough to keep me interested.

While this was definitely over-shadowed by the release of Gravity I don't think the filmmakers allow let the lower budget here to hold them back. The limited visuals outside of the ship only make us more excited for what we do see and sharing the experience of the astronaut on the surface is quite magical.

If anything it is the format of the film that lets the film down. Not the found footage sections, but rather the documentary-style expository wraparound sections. They seem to be trying to set up the mystery and they simply aren't needed. A title card is enough.

We do get some exploration of the characters but we could do with more and the wraparound sections detract from that.

Even with its problems this is still good, but it's a pity because aspects of this that are brilliant. Some aspects are awe-inspiring, some are deeply creepy and the scene that clearly SHOULD be the very end of the film absolutely knocked me for six. But sadly there are pacing issues here because they keep on interrupting the story.

B-

Best thing: I love all the effects work surrounding the flea. It gets pretty crazy in a way that I think needs to be seen to be believed.

Worst thing: In true fairytale style I’m often very unsure how to feel about what happens. This isn't a clear Disney fairytale format with clear morals, which makes this more awkward for the viewer but probably isn't actually a bad thing for the film.

I recently watched the old series of Jim Henson’s Storyteller and there are clear similarities between the kind of stories there and even the dark themes. However, while Storyteller was willing to make things sweet and cheerful and skew towards a happier outcome, Tale of Tales makes no such concessions.

Great performances, beautiful filmmaking, incredible effects work and, while there are fun moments, overall this film features a deeply unsettling tone. There's very definitely a resolution to the stories, but not one that is interested in skewing towards happiness or in necessarily tying up loose ends in a bow. (Not a neat bow anyway.)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I find Toby Jones to be one of the main highlights here. He's always brilliant and Tale of Tales is no exception. Vincent Cassel is in a role similar to those he has played before and he does that role just as well as ever. Shirley Henderson is also a very welcome presence here.

An all-star fairytale extravaganza. While it might leave you scratching your head, the ideas and visuals will stick with you. This is a film providing an experience unlike anything you are likely to see anywhere else. I should note, however, that the European sensibilities of the director mean there is quite a bit of nudity here. I think most will agree that this isn't really suitable for younger audiences.

A+

Best thing: The aliens: Both their appearance and their language script. I was wondering when watching the trailer how the alien could possibly live up to expectations, but it worked and I think both the visual and the sound design helps to really sell the otherness of what is essentially a giant octopus (albeit with Giger-esque elements).

Worst thing: Distracting the daughter from her own illness by calling her "unstoppable". She literally goes from saying to her daughter that both parents were arguing about an illness, then she says that the illness is "unstoppable like you" and the daughter exclaims "I'm unstoppable?" and smiles. Why isn't the daughter asking about the illness? Or even asking in what ways she's unstoppable? They just have a hug and the whole moment is completely unrealistic. Children aren't generally satisfied to stop with profound statements. They ask questions. They are persistent too. They don't shift from "why are mum and dad arguing?" to "I'm unstoppable? Let's have a hug!"

Is it me, or is Arrival incredibly similar to Christopher Nolan’s film Interstellar? An alien force provides us with a new opportunity, the state is not sure how to react, the protagonist's relationship their daughter is connected somehow and the result is a new era for mankind. Meanwhile we have some sentimental orchestral music in the background.

But frankly I thought Interstellar worked better. Perhaps less importantly, Interstellar has some action moments like a character being rescued by a robot, at least one space explosion, and some intense spacecraft manoeuvres.

I don't agree with the claims that this is a return to intelligent sci-fi. Certainly it's very well made in terms of the atmosphere it builds up, but it I don't feel that it remotely pays off on its central premise. Just as The Martian tackled the question of how practical engineering and botanical solutions could help you survive when stranded on Mars, Arrival seemed to promise to tackle the question of how to make first contact with an alien from a linguistics perspective. Yet sadly the film only really pays lip service to the problems its protagonist should be solving.

Wittgenstein's philosophy of language established pretty convincingly that meaning is use. You can't just write a word and point to it in order to establish meaning. It needs a social context in which it can be used and in which the rightness or wrongness of a term can be established. Otherwise we have what Wittgenstein referred to as a beetle in a box. If you and I both have closed boxes containing what each of us calls a "beetle" and yet neither of us shows the other what the object is, we have no real way of knowing whether we are referring to the same thing.

When discussing linguistics Amy Adams seems to acknowledge these problems. Kangaroo could mean "I don't know", the word 'purpose' could vary in meaning depending on who is refers to, the sankrit word for 'war' means "a desire for more cows". Language is more complicated than just pointing at something while a word is written on a notice board. And when Amy Adams realises that just showing the word "Louise" won't be enough to make a proper social connection and insists on putting her hand firmly on the glass screen which separates the aliens from the humans, that suggested to me that the film was taking these problems seriously. "Now that's a proper introduction," she announces. Just saying words or writing words for the aliens isn't enough to provide a meaning. There needs to be a social connection; a shared context in which those words attain a meaning for both parties.

Imagine I point at two nuts and say "booglavoo". What might booglavoo mean? It could mean nuts, but it might mean two. Or it could mean the colour brown (if the nuts are brown). It could mean food, or 'look over there', or dangerous, or poisonous. This is called ostensive definition; just pointing at things to establish meaning. Ostensive definitions are not enough to develop a language. It's easier to translate foreign languages because they often have similar grammatical structure and, even when they are further removed, humans already have similar purposes with which they use that language. Wittgenstein would say that if a lion (or in this case, alien octopus) were to speak to us, we would not understand him because lions are a completely different form of life. How could we possibly establish a common purpose with an alien life form which has an entirely separate culture, biology and thought process?

But what is Amy Adams' method anyway? "Ian Walks" is written down and then they watch Ian walk back and forth, so presumably they also did "Ian Runs" and "Louise Runs" and "Louise And Ian Jump". But later on their translations of the alien text seems to connect specific human terms to specific symbols and one of the terms is "death process". How did they teach "death process"? Did they point to something dying with the phrase "death process" written down? Imagine the opportunities for that to be misinterpreted! Am I weird in thinking that they glossed over the most interesting and intelligent aspect of the story and, frankly, the most central aspect of the story? If this is about how we would communicate with aliens, it seems to me that this whole concept was ditched in favour of cheap sentimental manipulations through the concept of a dying young girl.

Arrival has a twist that completely overrides the main concept. The main concept is how to communicate with an entirely different life form. Early in the film we are told that an expert linguist is required to solve this problem. (A white female linguist who apparently was the only person who they could enlist to translate what was being said by Farsi insurgents, which seems a little weird. Nobody in the military speaks Farsi?) By the end of the film any questions of linguistics and a shared meaning between humans and aliens are almost entirely irrelevant. The final revelations of the film do connect with a particular linguistic concept, but they reach so far beyond that concept that we may as well be talking about magic.

During the first half of this film I was still gripped. By the end I was thoroughly disappointed. So many other people seem to be able to just roll with what they are given here, but I just found it all way too frustrating watching the filmmakers give up on such an original and promising central premise.

D+

Best thing: The war story segments are great and it was interesting to see the encounter with the academic defending the bombing of Dresden even while our protagonist, an American soldier and survivor of that event is in front of him.

Worst thing: The weird luxury greenhouse he's transported to. This becomes a vital part of the story and I think it could have done with a more interesting filming style if it's really supposed to be other-worldly. It just looks like a sofa in a studio set. It's almost like we've been transported to a mediocre American sit-com.

I really ought to read the book at some point but it's pretty clear to me that this is a poor adaptation. The war drama is fine but the sci-fi elements just feel ludicrous. I don't feel like the film sells it to me.

I actually was pretty gripped by the war drama parts, but this is very much a sci-fi story and to enjoy the film to the end requires that you embrace the ludicrous sci-fi elements and I just don’t think the filmmakers pulled off that end of things at all well, leading to what I found to be a very unsatisfying finale.

D-

Best thing: Brilliant action sequences that are wonderfully exciting, as well as a very cool menacing villain.

Worst thing: The attempts at humour fell a bit flat for me. There's some very laddish almost homophobic humour here which I thought grated. When prostitutes are crowding round the protagonist to "make him feel better" it's quite a dumb attempt at male fantasy fulfilment, made more annoying by the fact that those unnamed prostitutes are quickly killed off.

"Shut your brain off" is never a good piece of advice when it comes to movies, but fortunately that's not exactly what this film asks you to do. There are interactions between characters as well as exciting visuals. The first person style is also used to full effect to produce some very neat adrenaline fuelled chase sequences.

People have compared it to a videogame and it certainly looks like a first person videogame, but to transfer that to live action is highly impressive. It's impressive enough when Freddie W does it on his Rocketjump youtube channel, but here the CG that I'm sure was probably involved at some point is completely unrecognisable. As cartoonish as the story might be, the world in which it takes place feels entirely real.

This is a strong found footage film. The adrenaline fuelled journey from place to place with a wonderful level of exciting variety in the violence and setting kept me consistently on the edge of my seat. The story is admittedly pretty simplistic and Sharto Copley's character can get annoying at times. (The attempts at humour with his character really didn't appeal.) I'm not entirely sure what Tim Roth is doing here either...

Anyway, it's a lot of fun.

B+

Best thing: The mother is absolutely hilarious. Were she in every scene she might have been able to single-handedly carry this film. It's not only her line delivery but also her reactions. She livens up any scene she is in.

Worst thing: Unfortunately the main protagonist is a scumbag. She is caught trying to steal an entire ATM machine to pay for her drug habit and she treats her parents horribly when she is forced into house arrest with them. Yet for some reason the story is from her perspective and we are expected to invest in this human vermin. Perhaps a better actress could have made us care about this character? Perhaps a better script would have made her obnoxiousness funny rather than irritating? But what we get is an unlikeable uninteresting central character.

Horror comedies are my genre of choice, so when I heard Housebound was getting some good buzz I was excited. But frankly I don't understand the appeal.

It's not very funny, it's not creepy and the story is ludicrous. Perhaps there was a good film in here somewhere, but the script and the filmmaking would need a complete overhaul. As it stands, I was bored.

Music would occasionally pipe up as if to say "look, that thing happened!" But with no investment in the scumbag main character (and not enough focus on the long-suffering mother, played by the actress with the genuinely brilliant comic expressions and timing) I wasn't pulled in by the drama at all.

D-

Best thing: The child performances are great. They feel like genuine characters and they are never irritating. We get a real feel for what these children are like.

Worst thing: The suggestion that one child's bad behaviour was his father's fault for being away in the army felt a bit unfair.

This is naturalistic filmmaking done right. It feels natural and yet there is never a dull moment.

I'm also impressed that what is essentially a courtroom drama is nearly as gripping and tense as being threatened by gun-toting Somali pirates. The director has a good feel for effective drama.

Awesome.

A+

Best thing: Paul Dano
Worst thing: John Cusack

Okay so my best thing, worst thing picks for this review kinda over-simplify things. But I feel that any of the scenes in the past where Paul Dano is central are brilliant, but generally the scenes where John Cusack is central tend to leave me less enthusiastic.

And the real problem here is that of the two stories being told, Paul Dano is central to the more interesting one.

While Paul Dano gets really interesting interactions between his grumpy sceptical and resentful father, his spellbound hired musicians, and his more outgoing  brothers with different priorities. All while being part of the Beach Boys phenomenon.

Meanwhile John Cusack gets an unconvincing romance while Paul Giamatti reprises his 'evil producer' routine from "Private Parts". John Cusack is no longer part of the Beach Boys phenomenon. We're supposed to be intrigued by John Cusack's story because he's not enormously successful anymore. It's really unclear to me why the movie ends where it does other than because it's the latest point chronologically. (Which doesn't seem all that important when the movie constantly jumps back and forward in time.)

There are parts of this movie that are brilliant and I think if you cut out the John Cusack parts I might even love it, but judging it as a whole I found it dragged.

Great performances and the Beach Boys stuff is fascinating (even speaking as someone who has never really taken much interest in the Beach Boys' music).

Biopics are tough to get right, but this does something very special with Brian Wilson’s story, regardless of my misgivings about the movie as a whole.      

C+

Best thing: I like the demon possession effects and the regular use of neon lighting.

Worst thing: The complete lack of humour. And possibly the song that gets written about her within the film.

The trailer for Ava's Possessions was hilarious and as a big fan of horror comedies I couldn't wait to see this film. The sorry-not-sorry attitude of the protagonist regarding her transformation into a demonic pea-soup belching creature just felt like it had so much potential.

But the film doesn't have that pacing, energy or comic timing. The story is simplistic and while there are some cool ideas, they don't come up often enough.

It's amazing that the trailer isn't just funnier than the movie, but somehow actually contains more genuinely funny jokes than the whole movie. Jokes should work better with a proper build-up, but here it seems like the trailer editor has a far better sense of comic timing than the filmmaker.

Ava's Possessions is unbelievably dull and bland and, considering that it is a comedy, I have to hold that heavily against the film.

D+

Seriously the trailer is MUCH better...

https://youtu.be/fyY2SupD49c

Best thing: There are so many great moments in this film. I'm going to pick the scene where our protagonists have to back up their vehicle on a rickety platform. I was just so tense during that scene.

Worst thing: Early on, when we first meet the love interest character she is shown acting like an animal and rubbing her face on the hand of her lover. She  seems to be badly objectified in those early scenes. Though in the second half she finally seems to become a character in her own right.

By the time this movie appeared I'd forgotten why I wanted to see it. I guess this must be a Letterboxd recommendation, probably discovered because people were checking out the original movie later remade as Friedkin's "Sorceror" (a movie whose chances of success were decimated when it was released at the same time as George Lucas' Star Wars which changed cinema forever.)

But I can't really see how Sorceror could really improve on this. Apart from perhaps streamlining the first quarter of the film, there doesn't really seem to be much room for improvement.

A simple story of four men driving two trucks of high explosives for a potentially huge payoff, knowing that one false bump in the road could leave them blown to smithereens. Wages of Fear is one of those unforgettable epics like Laurence of Arabia or Schindler's List. It is poignant yet fun and the central moments will stick with you.

A+

Best thing: Richard Jenkins is almost unrecognisable giving a wonderful performance as the bumbling acting deputy.

Worst thing: Shouldn't there be more background music to build atmosphere? Heck, James Tolkan, the overbearing teacher from Back To The Future, turns up as a drunken piano player and yet we never hear any piano music!

This is the year for violent Westerns starring Kurt Russell isn't it? First Hateful Eight and now Bone Tomahawk. While Bone Tomahawk definitely serves up the better violence, Quentin Tarantino clearly does a better job preparing dramatic tension.

Still Bone Tomahawk is an interesting film and a lot of fun with a very satisfying ending.

It takes a long while to see the villains up close, but when we get to them they are well worth the wait. But couldn't that wait have built up to the climax better? Perhaps some background music to compliment our character development, particularly in the earliest scenes when the film seems slowest.

Pretty good film all the same though. Zahn McClarnon (the native American character from Fargo season two) has a short but sweet appearance to clarify that the evil native American villains are barely human cave dwelling cannibals.

B+

Best thing: Possibly the best performance of William Shatner's entire career.

Worst thing: The ending feels a little forced. Not overly so, but when you have an out-of-control mob on your hands it's hard to see every one of them agreeing to dismiss their cause. Just look at Trump. His failings were broadcast across the media and he still kept his followers.

"The Intruder" is the film that persuaded Roger Corman to steer the films he produced clear of anything political. (He actually worried that Death Race 2000 was too political.)

A town full of white people convinced that, while they all opposed integration in principle, they are best off grudgingly accepting the law enforcing it. The characters use the n-word quite freely in a casual way that would naturally be demeaning to a black person in the room, but isn't expressed aggressively. But the hatred and inhumanity beneath the surface is stirred up by a reprehensible scoundrel who comes to town to use the racial tensions to set himself up as an influential and powerful figure.

The Intruder is incredibly poignant and intense film which, barring the very neat resolution in the end, doesn't seem to need to cheat. Compare this with Mississippi Burning where the filmmakers expect us to believe that a black man could get away with threatening the mayor or that an FBI agent could get away with attacking a deputy with a razor blade. The Intruder felt a great deal more plausible.

If you love Corman classics like Death Race 2000, The Little Shop of Horrors, X: The Man With X-Ray Eyes, or The Pit and the Pendulum, then why not see what a serious political Corman film is like?

It's quite sad to think what other gems we might have had if audiences hadn't shied away from this hard-hitting topical drama. What else might Corman have had up his sleeve as a follow-up? Corman is known for his stingy budgets, but a drama like this can rely on its script and performances. It doesn't need a big budget.

I'd also note that by the end there's at least one black character with a really strong role. Perhaps it's a weakness that there aren't more central performances from the black actors (though I'd note that Mississippi Burning  has that same issue), but the black children being integrated into the school do get their moments.

When Shatner does his big speech to rile up the local townsfolk (including casting accusations of communism) I actually think its incredible. Powerful, frightening, creepy. You can clearly see that this is a man both pretending to be civilised yet intentionally aiming to stir up a mob. That scene alone would be enough to recommend the film, but the rest of the story lives up to it that standard too.

A+

The complaint is often made regarding the original Total Recall that Arnold Schwarzenegger is obviously not the lowly construction worker he thinks he is. So I'm given to wonder why Colin Farrell is more toned and amazingly non-average than in possibly any other of his films I've seen.

I know you have to give sci-fi a bit of leeway for its crazy ideas and certainly I let Snowpiercer run with a lot of ideas that didn't really add up. However, the lift that goes through the centre of the Earth is not an interesting concept or at least, it isn't portrayed in an interesting way here.

The performances here are fine, but the direction just feels incredibly boring. It's remarkable how dull this manages to be. The stakes aren't built up properly.

At least they aren't in the first half. I didn't stick things out any further than that.

Best thing: The interaction between the new Imperial authoritarian character and Moff Tarkin (somehow played by Peter Cushing resurrected specially for the occasion) is wonderful and culminates brilliantly at one of the films best dramatic moments towards the end. Oh and Darth Vader's scenes are all amazing too.

Worst thing: Sorry Forest Whitaker. I had trouble understanding your character's motivations and history with the protagonist. I also found the voice you put on felt a bit forced. I still think you're great, but this role didn't work for me.

It's always important to get your endings right. The times when I often feel most annoyed by a film are when I've stuck with it only to feel like there was no payoff by the end.

So Rogue One has things the right way round in having a bit of an iffy first half where characters feel unformed, leading into a powerful second half where everyone has something to do and where the pace never slows, leading to an emotionally charged third act.

If you are a little concerned that this isn't the experience you hoped for after the opening scenes with Mads Mikkelsen have finished, just don't worry and stick with it.

One thing is for sure, this is the most beaitiful Star Wars movie ever made. Talk about 'out of this world', the visuals are spectacular.

I took a bit longer to get this review written than I'd hoped, so I've now seen a few people complaining about the depiction of Peter Cushing's Moff Tarkin using computer effects. Frankly I thought that was brilliant. How do you make us believe someone is specifically Peter Cushing's character? Put Peter Cushing on screen! And it's a great Peter Cushing performance too.

Another character who appears towards the end felt a bit too shiny to be real. But I was mostly convinced by Moff Tarkin here. (Personally I'd say he was heads and shoulders better than the cartoonish Snoak figure from The Force Awakens.)

Donnie Yen is especially great. Felicity Jones is cool in the lead role, but my favourite performance would have to be Ben Mendelsohn as an ambitious figure working for the Empire.

Star Wars has not been this good for a long time.

A+

Best thing: Zero gravity issues with a swimming pool? Pretty awesome visual trick.
Worst thing: During a key point in the film, a space suit turns out to be remarkably resilient. It felt like a bit of a cheat.

I may have had lowered expectations. Having already booked up our cinema visit in advance I was pretty shocked to see reviews mostly settling around between 2 and 2.5 stars out of 5. But I've got to say, I don't seem to share any of the issues mentioned.

The story is essentially of a man stranded in space. The difference is that he's actually stranded in time. While the crew hibernate for over a lifetime's trip through space, our protagonist awakes too early, doomed to spend the rest of his life in transit.

What results is a simple yet compelling sci-fi tale of people stuck in the hyperspace version of a luxury cruise-liner. But our protagonist is told that hyperspace hibernation pods never malfunction, so is something else at play?

Now it's on the poster pretty clearly that Jennifer Lawrence is in this film too. How does she end up awake too? Our protagonist makes a seriously dodgy decision and many people have held that against the film, but I feel the consequences of that choice are not ignored. Parrots are not on the same intellectual level as human beings, but it has been observed that they go mad if caged and ignored for long periods. Our protagonist is going through a kind of cabin fever and that leads him to make a horrifying decision.

One interesting suggestion was what the story might have been like from Jennifer Lawrence's perspective. I'm actually interested to know what it would have been like if she was the engineer and Chris Pratt was the writer. Or if she woke up first. I think this opens up a number of potential combinations, but I'm happy with the combination they went with.

There is an aspect of the third act resolution which pushes credulity a little bit, but Passengers has enough charm and humour to look past that. (Michael Sheen's contribution as the bartender robot cannot be ignored. He's awesome!) Like Gravity, this has a simple story, some fantastic effects, a sense of isolation and a few good characters to guide us through it. The story is arguably a little better here than in Gravity.

A+

Best thing: Zombie dogs and Milla Jovovich's awesome roundhouse to take them down.

Worst thing: Annoying flashback sequences which reveal a completely uninspired 'twist'.

I feel there would have been much more tension if the movie had followed the basic plot of the game. The moment we start the film we are told all about the evil Umbrella Corporation, but in the film we begin with a kind of haunted mansion setting and only later realise that biological weapons research underground is responsible. Admittedly fans of the game would know it was coming, but for dramatic tension it's a pretty neat structure.

The dialogue is stilted. And it's bizarre that the armed security for a secret facility decide to respond to a potential viral outbreak by taking a local police officer and two employees with amnesia straight into their top secret research labs without gas masks. But the most confusing thing for me is perhaps the mechanism which floods the mansion above with nerve gas to render the occupants (i.e. employees on the security staff) unconscious. Who's crazy idea was that?      

The first Resident Evil movie is incredibly dumb, but it has enough charm that I was willing to return for the sequel. The Marilyn Manson music is awesome and the world of Resident Evil has a lot of potential in spite of all the issues. Like with so many Paul WS Anderson movies, the strong filmmaking which gave us Event Horizon seems to be lurking in the background promising something more. Annoyingly, while the film ends on a high, it felt less like a careful build-up and more like the film took way too long to find its footing.

C+

Best thing: Milla Jovovich takes down a long-tongued monster by aiming a motorcycle at it, sending both flying in the air and then shooting the tank of the runaway  motorbike to produce a glorious mid-air fireball. That being said, perhaps the best thing is that we are introduced to characters who we can actually care about and will continue to do so in the third movie (which I have long considered the best in this series). We have a latino umbrella soldier with a heart of gold, a black character with an inflated sense of style who is often joking around, and then there's Jill Valentine the revealingly dressed (suspended?) police officer who has impossibly perfect aim with a gun.

Worst thing: The filmmakers keep using a sort of time lapse effect on shots of random hordes of shambling zombies in the street and it looks quite bad. Much of the film looks quite tacky but that's possibly the example that most annoyed me. Also, while much of the action is pretty cool, the main battle with Nemesis is mainly done through quick cuts which make the fight awkward to see (probably because Nemesis is a guy in a bulky suit who would struggle with fight choreography).

Resident Evil Apocalypse tries to increase the scope of the series and has some spectacular action sequences, yet it feels cheaper than the first movie.

When I first saw this film in the cinema I thought the ending was very confusing. This time it makes more sense, but it's a lot to expect us to swallow in such a short time.

Apocalypse looks cheap, feels naff and so the attempts to bring some fun to the series with some fun new characters are let down by stilted dialogue and mostly lame action sequences.

D-

Best thing: While this film has the best zombie make-up of the movie series so far, the best part was the clear reference to Hitchcock's The Birds. A huge swarm of infected crows settle around the survivors' vehicles before mercilessly dive bombing in order to peck at the human victims. Brilliant sequence and a surprising complement to the references to Mad Max and Day Of The Dead.

Worst thing: Unfortunately while the costume for the final villain is awesome, the visual effects work used for their special abilities looked very unconvincing. It's unfortunate that these distractingly fake-looking tentacles detract from a cool final showdown.

Yeah sure, Resident Evil: Extinction pulls ideas from other movies from Mad Max to The Birds and even lifts one scene pretty much directly from Day Of The Dead. But how is that a bad thing?

With Russell Mulcahy on board I feel he brings some real class to this series. Mulcahy doesn’t make award-winning films, but he does genre films very well. Highlander and Razorback are both on the more awesome side of trashy and I feel he pulls out that same magic here.

In spite of a few points where lines are delivered a bit flat and despite sharing some of the awkwardness of the previous two entries, I think Extinction is a genuinely great zombie movie in its own right. The character interactions are more interesting, each sequence is varied and fun, there's good use of the Nervada desert setting and there's a clear continuity with the prior films (leading to the most compelling climax of any of any Resident Evil movie).

B+

Best thing: I thought the zombie dogs that split themselves in half were very cool. (I also like the giant zombie with an absurdly huge axe, though he has no reason to be there.)

Worst thing: The flatly delivered monologues in the first half are incredibly dull. And after WS Anderson undoes everything exciting about the climax of Extinction we don't get a decent action scene until we reach the third half. The pacing is utterly horrendous and the monologues demonstrate the biggest problem. Too much talk, not enough fun.

Less "after life" and more "bored to death". I don't find this as offensively terrible as I did the first time around, but it just isn't remotely exciting enough because the pacing is so bad and the drama falls flat. And it annoys me so much that Resident Evil Afterlife squanders the clone army and Alice's superpowers set up in the previous film.

Also frankly Wesker is a terrible villain and his action sequences are boring.

E

Best thing: The music. Isn’t that theme song just amazing?

Worst thing: No consistency in characters, no real stakes, but perhaps the worst thing is the complete failure to capitalise on anything good. I'll discuss that further in the review so here I'll just go with Wesker's accent. I mean seriously, where the hell is he supposed to be from? He seemed to be American before, but now it seems like he's trying to sound English. The hell? (Is this to parallel his oddly fluid accent in the various games?)

Old characters are coming back as clones, so perhaps there's some question of whether they'll remember their old lives or share traits from before. Wasn't a clone army of Alice's really helpful before?

No, it just means the same actors get to guest star. There's no relevance to the plot.

Okay then, so an Alice is regularly being reborn in a peaceful suburban neighbourhood where she gets to have a happy life with her love interest from a previous film. That must have raise some important character-building issues for our heroine right?

Nah, it just gives her a little girl to look after because WS Anderson wants to rip off Aliens.

Oh alright then, but Umbrella have replicas of various cities which are regularly populated with people and subjected to the virus. That's got to be a game-changer, right?

Not really. It just gives us more locations for fight scenes. It's not even clear what Umbrella gains by re-enacting a zombie outbreak over and over again when there are no unaffected cities on the surface.

Okay, but this time Wesker isn't working with Umbrella. Does that change things around at all?

Not really. The appearance of Ada Wong in the movies for the first time is pretty cool (like in the games, she works for Wesker), but without Leon Kennedy to flirt with and seeing as her crazy stunts aren't that different from what Alice does every five minutes, this isn't really the same character we loved in the games.

As per usual Resident Evil: Retribution does nothing terribly new and continues to take the Resident Evil series nowhere. Okay, so the Russian zombies with guns and a tank are cool and the concept of the underground test areas is cool too, but I need some over-arching stakes to make me genuinely care about the outcome of this braindead action flick. Mind you, knowing in advance that there would be no actual plot and just an array of fairly uninvolving action sequences, made this rather more enjoyable this time around.

D-

Best thing: There are a lot of sweet little moments I could pick, such as our protagonist being coached on how to eat pasta for the first time. But I think I'm going to pick a character: the horrible shopkeeper our protagonist works for at the start of the film. (Though a near second place unsurprisingly goes to Julie Walters because, y'know, it IS Julie Walters after all.)

Worst thing: Is it me or does the Italian boyfriend feel a bit fake at times? Charming, sure, but in a bit of a fake way. It's not a massive flaw since this is a really great film, but I'd buy into the relationship more easily if he seemed a little more genuine.

Brooklyn stars Saoirse Ronan as an immigrant to America going through the cultural changes and the hurdles to start a new life. This isn't abcomedy, it doesn't get wacky or self-referential. It's a straight-up real life drama to capture the situation of an Irish immigrant to the US in the 50s.

It's beautiful and powerful and it's interesting how the story uses an ordinary character to capture the whole culture surrounding Irish immigration during that decade, rather than making a biopic about a particular famous person who arrived in the States this way.

Essentially I guess this is a romance, but this is not a film that lets relationships take centre-stage. Brooklyn is a simple yet gripping drama which pulls on the heart strings. It's not so much a story with heroes and villains, but rather one that captures humanity.

Brooklyn is a unique and beautiful drama and I highly recommend it.

A+

Best thing: John Goodman is regularly amazing and even in more ill-advised projects like King Ralph or The Flintstones, he's still wonderfully charming. Here, as the bunker-building conspiracy theorist, he portrays an unhinged character who presents as well-meaning, this id not so far removed from his performance in The Big Lebowski.

Worst thing: To be reasonably vague about a scene in the second half, if someone is wildly stabbing through the wall of a container it's a bit unrealistic for them to keep barely missing the way they do here. That being said, this is just dramatic license really.

10 Cloverfield Lane is a tense thriller. The film works pretty well as a stand-alone film and I'm pretty sure this involves some major changes to the Cloverfield mythology. (Wasn't the original Cloverfield creature man-made?)

Simple, effective, well-acted, tense, exciting, comedic elements; I also thought I saw a few homages to Psycho, even from the opening scene when our female protagonist starts by packing up to run away from her current home and relationship.

10 Cloverfield Lane is a massive mark-up in quality from the first movie in the department which matters most: the characters. I'm now pretty excited to see what this franchise throws at us next. Considering that I wasn't sure if I'd ever rewatch the first movie, that's a pretty big turnaround.

But even if the next few Cloverfield films were to turn out to be hopeless, I'd still be happy with this small independent instalment.

A+

Best thing: Honestly Alan Rickman is brilliant here. I was very impressed and it's all the sadder that is now one of his last ever roles.

Worst thing: Admittedly the liberal handwringing from the politicians becomes more than a little ludicrous at times. But then again, I think that is the point of the film. By bringing a perspective less confortable with warfare into the scenario, we get to explore the basic concepts more thoroughly - even if it possibly means that we miss out on some rather more realistic moral quandaries.

Can I have a remote control beetle camera? Wow, so cool.

There have been plenty of films now about the reasons that terrorists organise bombings and even when we enter Eye In The Sky with that information on our minds, it doesn't make the villain seem any less evil to me. It's quite frightening how realistic the main villains are here. (In fact, it seems that one villain here is based directly on Samantha Lewthwaite, the white widow, currently believed to be residing in Kenya and assisting Al-shabaab.)  I wondered whether the depiction of areas controlled by Al-shabaab might be a little unrealistic but it doesn't look like anyone is questioning that.

Eye In The Sky doesn't feel like a real scenario but it is an interesting exploration of the morals of global warfare and a great showcase of acting talent.

A+

Best thing: The performances in Foxcatcher are excellent and Channing Tatum perhaps deserves particular credit. He doesn't have all that much dialogue and so through his performance we see his character transition through rage, jealousy, admiration. C-Tates has come a long way as an actor.

Worst thing: The film is way too long. This is not a film that needs to take over two hours. Naturally this is subjective, but I really felt the length this time.

Can I just check, does this film involve sexual abuse? I feel like it might be implied but it's never terribly clear.

There are all sorts of clever little details such as when Channing Tatum's character is given a chalet to live in and yet he watches the tv crossed legged on the floor rather than using the furniture. Also when the rich benefactor adds two wrestling medals to his trophy room he bizarrely goes on a tangent belittling his mother's love of horse riding and everyone around him feels unsure how to react.

Still considering the extreme length of the film, much still seems unclear. As much as the film feels genuinely tense and we get a real sense of the extent of the rich benefactor's bizarre behaviour, the film seems to be missing any real point and after the stretched out 2 hour running time, I really needed some point to it all.

D+