Best thing: At a key moment in the film the boy finally knows why he is different and what he needs to do. When he reveals this information his companions at that moment are all amazed, but they also have to accept that they may lose their child forever. I don't think I missed the subtle touch at the very end of the film where a kind of magical glint is reflected in a characters eyes, but this time I better recognised its significance in relation to that central scene.

Worst thing: I still wish the kid had more explicit character traits. I'm glad that the film is not from the child's perspective and I like that the film doesn't waste time with backstory. However I feel the boy should get a little more chance to express himself more than just quietly reading Superman comics. (I think that makes 'the satellite scene' cool though, because it shows that while the boy is quiet, he is still reacting to his surroundings in ways his father and any other human companions can't see.)

I often leave quite a gap between seeing a film and reviewing it. That's not because I'm carefully gathering by thoughts. It's because I make a point of reviewing every film I watch and I struggle to keep up. (As I write this I have a further 20 films I am in the process of writing reviews for. With plans to see Logan at the cinema very soon.)

I remembered thinking Midnight Special was an A grade film, but I couldn't remember why. The characters don't have standout character quirks or quotable lines and many elements are not expanded on leaving them feeling like unfinished loose ends.

The basic plot is essentially the same elements of any Spielberg-esque magical alien film pitching kids against government authorities (like Attack The Block, which I quite liked, or Starman, which I really didn't).

However, Midnight Special actually pulls a lot of emotion into the cold world it builds for us. And watching a second time, my interest did not lessen. Having already been given all the clues made it quite exciting to see the story unfold with an understanding of where the story would go.

In fact, I now feel like I understand the scene where Adam Driver 'solves' the problem of where the child is going. All the clues are actually there and importantly we don't need to know Adam Driver's complete solution. He has a whole load of coordinates on the board and Driver's character comes to realise that those are all taken from the child listening to radio waves. He realises that the coordinates are all narrowing in on a single location. His discovery reveals why the cult have multiple sets of coordinates revealed by the child; one of many puzzle pieces involved here.

Midnight Special is a fascinating and magical take on the concept and os all very cleverly put together. The story is played for drama, not for comedy or action. That's inevitably a bit jarring, but it's also what makes this unique. This never goes silly or schmaltzy. It elevates the concept above the cheesy Spielberg portrayals by never telling us how to feel or insisting that we should find some emotional meaning at the end. These are ordinary people who are as spellbound as us because what we see them discover is amazing and without the over-dramatisation we'd normally expect, this feels much more plausible as a result. I severely underrated Midnight Special in my first review. This film is one of a kind.

So yeah, anyone who was commenting on my original review when I posted it on Letterboxd, I was listening to you. But I needed to rewatch the film to really figure this out for myself. I had trouble believing that I could have really loved the film all that much and yet be unable to remember WHY I loved the film that much. But having rewatched Midnight Special now, I think I love it even more. (I’ve still no idea what the title means though...)

A+

P.S. So Jeff Nichols latest film got a release date in the UK for February and it has already been and gone at the cinema? How in the hell did that happen? I feel a bit silly having now left it out of my movie guide for this year.

Best thing: Having the horrors of the holocaust only visible at the edges of the frame or out of focus in the background is interesting. I was surprised how well it immersed me in the setting and part of that is because important elements are always pulled into focus so we are not alienated from the protagonist's journey even though our mind is left to fill in the blanks on the violence occurring out of view.

Worst thing: Perhaps the struggle to understand the protagonist's motivation is part of the point of the film, but just as hard to work out is how he keeps on wandering all over the place and doing the wrong tasks without any consequences.

Yes it's a depressing holocaust movie. Yes it's very well shot and put together. Did it feel worth watching? Eh, not really. Pretty weird film. All credit to those who enjoyed it, but this isn't a film with wide appeal really. This is probably (hopefully) the nearest thing we'll ever get to a holocaust found footage movie so I guess it has that going for it...

D+

Best thing: When a character from the school asks to see the kestrel he is amazed and astounded and we in the audience share in that. At that moment it is clearer than ever how amazing it is for this awkward schoolchild to be a kestrel trainer. Without that context its a nature documentary, but when we are immersed in the story the kestrel scenes are awe-inspiring.

Worst thing: Is it me or did the ending seem a bit predictable? The trailer on the DVD appeared to suggest that this movie offers some deep revelations about society and I didn't feel that was present in the actual film.

I feel the ending is less interesting than the main body of the film. Ken Loach leads us into a pretty miserable ending, but at its core we have an deep look into the character of Billy as he trains a kestrel even while doing very very badly at school.

I certainly understand that he is held back by his home life, but the idea that a troublemaker from a poor background can do something great when they are interested and focused is not the massive revelation that the trailer for this movie (also on the DVD) seemed to expect me to think. It also doesn't change how terrible the boy is sometimes. When he steals from the corner shop owner who employs him to deliver papers I felt that was pretty low.

Then again, he's surrounded by a lot of people who are horrible and this film does fulfil an important aspect of a naturalistic film in that it genuinely feels real. For me that's a distinct improvement on, say, Mike Leigh's Another Year. Yeah, I'm not normally a big fan of this sub-genre but I must admit this was pretty cool.

B+

Best thing: Any time Angus Scrimm is on camera, he's just amazing. It's really sad that this is his final turn as the Tall Man, but it feels entirely worth it. His performances are always chilling.

Worst thing: The ambiguous ending followed by cooler content after the credits. Seriously, I know Phantasm movies always have a dream-like quality, but the dreams just seemed to make the ending meaningless. And if there were some more fun characters to introduce, couldn't they have appeared before this 'story' ended?

I won't complain that we got another Phantasm movie before Angus Scrimm passed away. This is by no means a travesty and it has its moments. Still, the film is so meandering and the Slaughterhouse Five time/dimension jumping just feels so pointless.

I mean seriously, arguably the best part of the film (besides the occasional Tall Man scenes) is all found after the credits. What kind of sense does that make?

It was nice to return, but I wish this could have been a better send off.

BOOOOY!

C-

Best thing: The evil orc mage is genuinely very cool. Also the half-orc character is interesting because she's able to emphasise the differences between the cultures due to not fitting in with either.

Worst thing: None of the characters are interesting. The half-orc, Ben Foster's Guardian and the central orc chieftain character all make a stab at it, but the script is just so bland they haven't got much to work with.

I can see how some people would think this isn't all that bad. But it's just so incredibly unengaging. I can see how this story COULD have been one that I cared about but I never felt terribly immersed. Perhaps this would have worked better if the film had settled on one character to be the main point of view character.

Frankly I had more fun with Fant4stic Four. We have an evil orc mage here who steals life force to fuel his magic but personally I thought the Darth Vader-esque Dr Doom figure in Fant4stic was creepier. We also have some big colourful magic powers being used, but I was more excited by the out of control fire and rock powers in Fant4stic.

I'm not sure how Duncan Jones managed to make a film that feels so emotionally flat. It feels like it must be something to do with the structure of the film since the acting seems fine. What with all these disappointing films from promising directors (Fant4stic Four, Noah, Get Santa, Sin City 2, War On Everyone) Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla movie is looking pretty good by comparison.

And hang on, the orcs have killed every living thing in their world and NOW they are wondering whether perhaps they are the bad guys? Seriously?

And if you are making a fantasy adventure film, perhaps make it a bit more fun?

D+

Best thing: Baby Dory is adorable and once again this leads to a Pixar movie where the heartstrings are tugged like nobody's business.

Worst thing: Towards the end of the film we kind of jump the shark (so to speak). I know Finding Dory isn't exactly going for realism but when we have a huge stunt that should essentially kill everybody that cannot help but take me out of the film.

I was pretty excited to see this film. Several years ago I came to believe that Andrew Stanton was the strongest creative mind at Disney. I felt it could not be a coincidence that favourites Finding Nemo and Wall-E both had him sitting in the director's chair... then he made John Carter (which I feel is quite an interesting failure).

While it is great to see Dory return and baby Dory is utterly adorable, I feel the film struggles to recapture the excitement of an adventure  travelling across the ocean.

Admittedly there is some interesting exploration of a sea life centre to give that a new twist and there are some pretty crazy memorable moments. In all honesty Finding Dory is a lot of fun. I just found that in the third act I was struggling to go along with it.

Finding Nemo had its crazy moments, but I feel that by the end Finding Dory has crossed beyond the limits of suspension of disbelief even within the already crazy world it portrays.

Still a pretty great Pixar film. I'd personally put it on a similar level as The Incredibles or Monsters Inc, but for me that's not as great as Wall-E, Up, Finding Nemo or (and I know I'm unusual) Monsters University. But, needless to say, Pixar's films generally have a very high standard and Finding Dory is no exception.

B+

Best thing: Whenever Eddie does a big jump I'm terrified that he's going to die, even though we all know he survived in real life. It's a sign of great dramatic tension when you are still caused to worry even though you know the hero will be fine. Also Hugh Jackman is awesome.

Worst thing: The head of the Olympics committee, played by Tim McInnerny, is a particularly over-the-top moustache-twirling villain considering that this was a real person.

Eddie The Eagle seems to have been dismissed by a lot of people for being sweet but insubstantial. But I felt really stirred up by this film. When Eddie looks out at the view from the higher jumps I can feel the tension every time. I was fully immersed in this story.

Taron Egerton is very engaging in the lead and Hugh Jackman is awesome as the ex-ski jumping alcoholic. When we see him do a 90 metre jump it's shown in such a stylish way and Jackman is so cool.

Eddie The Eagle is a really fun feel good film. I happily watched this two days in a row. It's the sort of film I could happily watch over and over again. Eddie The Eagle is an absolute joy.

A+

Wow, how did the of The Guard director manage to make something this dire? This isn't so much funny as horrible, and the attempts to make use of the same blackly comic style as The Nice Guys (or, y'know, The Guard!) just completely fall flat.

The main villain is an entirely uninteresting moustache twirling  bad guy. Since he looks remarkably like James Franco, I was at least glad that his English accent was fine, but since it’s actually an English actor I must simply say that his character is completely dull. And as for what in the hell Caleb Landry Jones is trying to do in his role as the henchman, I have no idea. I mean, perhaps his semi-effeminate fragile-yet-abrasive upper-crust-scumbag performance would be a really distinctive and memorable part of an effective black comedy, but here he's just one more unfunny piece of bad taste in the whole unfunny bad taste freak show. In the past few years there have been several  bad films from directors I admire but this really takes the biscuit.

Best thing: While technically the best thing is finally having a superhero film which carefully builds up themes and emotions without going schmaltzy or silly. But I'm going to say the Wolverine Vs Wolverine fight is the best thing (clearly taking a page out of Superman III's book *kidding*).

Worst thing: Technically I could say the worst thing was the teaser for Deadpool II. (Seriously, they told us the film had started and then showed us Deadpool. What the hell?) I really don't find movie  Deadpool all that funny. But if forced to pick an aspect the film itself I'd have to go with Richard E. Grant's villain character. He's more of a comedic actor and I didn't think he was as convincing as the rest of the film.

Wow...

I think Logan may actually be the best superhero film ever made. Not so long ago I made a list of my favourite 31 Superhero movies. Some would argue that my top choice of "The Matrix" wasn't even a legitimate choice (after all, isn't Luke Skywalker a superhero on the same basis?) and "The Matrix" is one of my favourite movies of all time, but I am actually actively considering whether Logan is better than that too.

Marvel Studios have been able to keep a significant level of quality by focussing on a generally sweet and cheerful style and giving the audience consistent hits of comedy. Even if themes get dark in a Marvel Studios movie, it's never long til the next joke.

When you make a darker more serious film you are setting yourself up for a less forgiving audience. If you spend enough time making the audience laugh, themes and story beats aren't going to seem like such a big deal. But when the film goes dark, then anything ridiculous is going to be more irritating. (And what is more ridiculous than a superhero story?)

Personally I thought the best Batman film was Batman Begins. The Dark Knight's themes felt less clear to me. ("Hi Harvey! I just killed your girlfriend, so why not go on a crazy killing rampage?" What??) And I don't really think the themes in The Dark Knight Rises themes are consistent at all. Logan has the same plausibility that Nolan's Batman films had, but the themes feel like part of the story rather than being spelt out by a mentor or a heavy-handed set-up. The story of Logan flows smoothly and there's a lot of depth to the performances. I should also note that the story gets crazily dark in places.

But let's not forget the brutal violence. Even with a central child, this film never goes soft on us. Even Aliens struggled to keep up its dark atmosphere in scenes where the child actor was thrown into the mix. But in this film our central child actor is just as brooding and hardened as Wolverine and his action sequences are just as visceral and gory.

And while the trailers make it look like Logan is set at the end of the world it felt to me like a new beginning. Can these be the "new mutants"? Could the future of this world be, at very least, a spin off from the X-Men movie universe? X-Men: Apocalypse felt like much was repeated from what we'd seen before. Logan offers us something new and different and, if possible, I'd like the X-Men universe to continue surprising us. I'd actually really like to see what happens next with these brand new mutant characters.

A+

Best thing: The opening scene where an ancient Egyptian society conspire to bury Apocalypse in his own pyramid is pretty cool. (This is a film that gets fairly consistently worse the longer it runs and unfortunately it's incredibly long.)

Worst thing: I thought the cheesiest line came in a short expository scene where some generals and politicians are informed that all cities above tectonic plates are doomed. "He's talking about the whole goddamn world!"

This starts out seeming pretty cool. Then it becomes fun yet goofy. Then it becomes overblown and stupid. Finally it becomes boring and insipid. The action sequences are big, but I didn't understand the motivations and therefore had little interest in the outcome. In the third act there are so many dramatic or sentimental moments that feel completely unearned.

Oddly, while many people thought Magneto destroying Auschwitz was a problem (and certainly, having recently seen "Denial" I have the importance of the camps as a testement and memorial to what happened fresh in my mind) but in context, this seemed like a stronger moment to me. Magneto is at a stage where he has given up on society. He's no longer interested in teaching them about past errors to ensure they do not repeat past mistakes. He has no expectation that a significant portion of society can understand his loss and remember it  with him. He now intends to destroy the entire foundations of society his powers have been enhanced, so Auschwitz is a large unpopulated area for him to test his powers and it's symbolic of his disgust of the kind of society that built that place.

Outside of that scene, Apocalypse's followers do not seem to have logical motivations at all. Heck, why would anyone want to destroy the world? In the movie "X-Men: First Class" the baddie wanted to cause huge devastation because he believed those with superpowers would come to dominate afterwards. But when Apocalypse want to destroy the world it's not at all clear why. (He also doesn't seem to like nuclear missiles for some reason.)

By the end of the film it looks like Magneto either decided he wanted to indiscriminately kill every single person in the world or he has been mind-controlled by an evil force. So by the end of the film either people should need to deal with his reasons for resorting to mass-murder, or he should feel pretty shaken up about being controlled. But instead everyone just seems to suddenly become Magneto's best pal. It's so weird!

While the new Storm looks cool she doesn't really get much to do. Even Mystique (who is still awesome as ever, by the way), doesn't really seem that important by the end.

I was nicely entertained in the first half, but for much of the final third act I found this film unbearable. I didn't care too much about the unsatisfying ending because I mainly just relieved that it was finally over.

E

Best thing: The central concept of an evil VHS board game is set up pretty well. The random appearance of gates to hell in the house and the failed attempts to quit the game all successfully build the tension.

Worst thing: I felt something was missing in the storytelling. A central theme seemed to be the animosity between the two brothers but it didn't feel like that was ever properly tackled. Even the one brother's 'dark secret' seemed to end up mattering very little.

I was really interested in the premise but this didn't end up being the Lovecraftian Jumanji I feel was promised.

It's certainly creepy that the board game gives them tasks which seem to have horrifying unexpected consequences, but those consequences always seem to be worse for peripheral characters.

Beyond The Gates is pretty creepy and the characters are quite fun, but the film seemed to be missing a proper emotional payoff. Sure they miss their dad, but I never feel like the relationship is terribly fleshed out within the film. Also, while we do explore the relationship between the two brothers there just doesn't seem to be any payoff.

C+

Best thing: Muna Otaru, who plays the central black slave character, is really fantastic. She really seems to evolve as a character over the course of the film. Certainly moreso than Brit Marling's lead role.

Worst thing: While Brit Marling is great, there's very little distinctive or interesting about her character. Of the three women at the house, she is simply 'the one in charge' but there's not much exploration of her character.

I feel very glad that I recently saw Gone With The Wind or else I might have struggled to recognise this as being a civil war story set in the south. As it was, I instantly thought back to  Scarlett O'Hara shouting to the heavens: "With God as my witness, I'll never go hungry again."

Sam Worthington seems to do much better as a stoic quiet villain than he ever did as a relateable hero. Still I feel that perhaps we were supposed to engage with him a little more.

I wonder whether I should have put the subtitles on. I was able to clearly comprehend the vast majority of the dialogue with no trouble at all, but towards the end the dialogue seemed to be mumbled and at one point a single noise uttered by Brit Marling, something like 'baay', turned out to represent the phrase: "But it ain't."

There was certainly potential for more here. The film was pretty cool and I was glad that the keeping room seemed to be some kind of safe room rather than literally a room where women are "kept". I felt this film was solid.

B-

Best thing: The first song "The Riddle Of The Model" was a nice 80s style song that I could just about believe that a school band could come up with.  

Worst thing: The love interest is solely there to be something for the lead character to fixate over and to 'win'. Perhaps that might seem unfair, but when she reveals that her dad raped her the protagonist seems remarkably unconcerned and unsympathetic.

I was told that this was a fun uplifting film so imagine my surprise when it turned out to be utterly horrible. The parents are going through a horrible separation, the headmaster forcefully and violently washes off the protagonist's make-up and actually punches a schoolboy in the face, a bully makes some borderline sexual demands while threatening the protagonist with a catapult, and the love interest is a victim of incestual rape.

The protagonist forms a band with a token black member. The film clearly sets him up as the token black member so I was waiting to see him display distinctive characteristics in his own right, but that never happens. But frankly the protagonist doesn't ever really have much personality and he has the most screen time in which to form one.

The central point of focus is his relationship with the love interest; he forms the band for her. And while their love of the art is a connection between them, the suggestion is also that their horrible homelife brings them together. But the protagonist's parents' separation isn't really on the same level as sexual abuse and when the protagonist starts trying to guilt trip her in the second half he struck me as a complete dick even though the film clearly wants us to be on his side.

The earliest songs from this fake band sound like eighties throwback tunes like The Departure  (All Mapped Out is a great song)  or Franz Ferdinand. By the midpoint of the film, however, they sound more like a post-hardcore/emo band from the early 2000s like Jimmy Eat World

I think perhaps the film would have worked better if it weren't set in the 80s. There's nothing particularly 80s about the story and there are brand new bands who sound more consistently 80s than this movie's soundtrack.

Was there a thematic reason to set the story in the 80s? Frankly, Sing Street has no message. 'Middle class boy just needs to believe in himself and then his hidden talents will be recognised and the girl he likes will realise she loves him' is a story that has never felt more tired. Please stop making "Stand By Me", "Igby Goes Down", "Almost Famous", "Me, Earl and the Dying Girl", "Perks Of Being A Wallflower". We've seen this story enough times and it's not getting any better!

D-

Best thing: Naturally the best thing is the incredible visuals and atmosphere, but I'd particularly like to highlight the scene where Keanu Reeves is called to check out a possible intruder in the protagonist's apartment. What they find there surprised me and the reveal is also gorgeous.

Worst thing: The ending seemed to drag on a bit. I like where it ultimately goes, but it was so jarring and it annoyed me that the protagonist is removed from the story for that segment.  

The Neon Demon is a beautiful film with a powerful atmosphere. However it is also a film where there is less story and more mounting dread. The world of fashion is portrayed as toxic, but like with Drive we discover a darker side to our protagonist.

I'm not sure how to feel about the ending. If the focus ceases to be on our protagonist all of a sudden, that's difficult to handle. Admittedly on Only God Forgives we suddenly realise the film isn't really centred entirely on Gosling, buy at least that is made clear a long way before the end. But then again (and this is going to be harder to understand of you haven't yet seen the film) it's arguable that our protagonist never stops being the focus in The Neon Demon.

The film turns explicitly supernatural at one point. And that decision is hard to come to terms with. The ending of this film alienated me, that definitely negatively affected my enjoyment and I judge films on how enjoyable I find them.

But there's no doubt that The Neon Demon is an incredible experience and, up until the final section, no matter how weird things became before then, I found this moody oppressive thriller to be fantastically intense and gripping. I really enjoyed The Neon Demon, but I did not find the  resolution to be as satisfying as I had hoped.

B+

Best thing: When we meet the witch we discover that she is consistently applying her magic to everyone including herself. It made for a really interesting villain and made the scene with her very effective. She is a victim of her own magic and the harm she does is essentially out of love.

Worst thing: I didn't feel entirely pulled in by the main characters, so I often felt quite distant from the story as a result. It's one of those stories where one thing happens after another, so you really need the central characters to keep you excited during the journey and they aren't really quite interesting enough.

A lot of my issues here may be simply a matter of taste. I'm not keen on the animation style for the most part and I wasn't blown away by the "solve the problem by singing resolution".

I was fascinated by the Irish folklore stories and ideas, but I'd rather those were the whole focus rather than the story set in modern day. This felt like this was using child protagonists to appeal to a child audience and personally I could have done without that. There were certainly appealing aspects to the child characters, like when the boy is drawing a map of his journey, but I got a bit tired of the siblings squabbling.

The parts involving the selki were very cool and the witch was my favourite part of the film. But for all the parts I enjoyed, I can't say I was consistently engaged by the material here.

B+

Best thing: Horror films love to make innocuous things terrifying. Anyone who makes scraping sounds in their teacup when stirring their tea can get the hell away from me. So creepy!

Worst thing: Perhaps it's because I'm so used to horror films ending on a downer. But the ending felt a little too soon. Are they leaving it open for a sequel?

There's a film I love called "Judgment Night". The premise is that a group of yuppies become stranded in the run-down dodgy area of town and find they cannot get out. The opening scene of "Get Out" is the exact opposite of this. The protagonist in that scene feels very uncomfortable walking in a fancy suburban area of town.

Get Out is reminiscent of other horror films too. The obvious comparison is The Stepford Wives which I admittedly haven't seen (unless you count the remake, of which the less said the better). The  black characters acting unnaturally happy as servants in an all-white community are an obvious parallel to the "perfect" submissive wives in that story.

Another comparison I want to make is to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Get Out isn't going for the same sort of oppressive tone as Tobe Hooper's movie (though admittedly Tobe Hooper always thought his film was hilarious). However, what Hooper's film did was to take something seemingly safe and wholesome and make it horrifying. Hooper's film puts a twist on "southern hospitality" and Peele's film puts a twist on embarrassing white liberals.

This isn't a film about racists per se. It's about liberal white people who are supportive of black people and mean well, but have some embarrassing residual racist sentiments. And Peele takes their faux pas comments and takes them to a genuinely horrifying place.

Part way through I thought I knew exactly where this was going and I couldn't have been more wrong. The fear comes from not knowing the nature of the threat but simply knowing that something is wrong. When I thought I understood the threat I briefly became a bit frustrated, but the film quickly got me back on board and I was soon horrified again.

There's a comic relief character here, played by Lil Rel Howery, who is mostly separate from the main action. He isn't as realistic as the other characters and displays some comedy tropes which somewhat at odds with the horror atmosphere of the rest of the film. When he's talking out loud to himself it's clearly playing up to an audience and the only audience is the one watching the film.

I'm very pleased to see Caleb Landry Jones back in top creepy form like we saw from him in thd underrated sci-fi body-horror "Antiviral". Allisom Williams from Girls is also very cool as the girlfriend. I think I'd only seen Daniel Kaluuya (our protagonist) before in Sicario, but he has to give a lot of subtle reaction shots here and he always helps us to clearly understand his character without any need to explicitly tell us his thoughts.

Get Out is clever, different, emotionally powerful, funny (and there are plenty of subtle jokes where I didn't even know they were setting up for a joke until later), dramatic, horrifying and generally everything you would want from an instant horror classic. If you love horror, you will love Get Out. And as a horror comedy fan I think all that is missing is lashings of gore, Evil Dead 2 style, but otherwise this is frikkin' perfect.

A+

Best thing: At a key moment a pile of naked bodies rise from under the church floor. It's spectacular imagery. I loved it. The Bahomet costume also looked very cool.

Worst thing: Some schoolchildren seem remarkably well-informed about this weird church. They even know that there is a device that will bring the whole building down. They also talk about some weird idea that if you go to sleep you will see your best friend who will have your face. Or something. This doesn't tie into the rest of the film and made no sense to me.

The Church is an Italian horror with the dream-like style with explicit gore you'd expect, but wow, some of the visuals are incredible.

Sure there are cheesy moments and admittedly the pacing in the middle isn't great. However, the opening third really impressed me and the visuals in the third act are often unbelievable. Okay so we could do with better characters and Hugh Quarshie should have been given more to do from the start, but the tension is always very skillfully driven up throughout the runtime and I had a lot of fun.

B+

Best thing: I really enjoyed the scene where she is making a fuss in the coffee shop because it isn't an abortion clinic any more and the coffee is bad.

Worst thing: I felt that the central grandma character should have had sense enough to realise that old books probably weren't going to get her as much money as she was hoping. Sure, she's deluding herself but when an old friend says they aren't giving that much for them she should realise she's on to a lost cause rather than going off her rocker.

Grandma is essentially an indie comedy and I'm sure I'm not the only one hearing warning bells at that prospect. But I really enjoyed the ideas explored here.

This is a grumpy traditional feminist responding to her granddaughter's distinct lack of female liberation. She's a free spirit, a bit of badass, and takes no sh*t from anyone. But she also has been left a bit of a cynic.

The eponymous Grandma sees her granddaughter as suffering from a lack of self-respect. But a central focus of the story is a pro-choice message and the grandma is determined that she not turn away her granddaughter when she is trying to have an abortion. The freedom to choose is a vital principle for her

It's a little sad that simply having a woman view a right to one's own body as a basic right without feeling any need to debate or question feels like a daring position for the character to hold. But this was a really uplifting film overall.

The film is also very funny with a satisfying simplicity. I very much enjoyed Grandma and the ending tied things up better than I thought it would.
                               
B+

Best thing: Mark Duplass' performance is great in spite of the dearth of decent material. He's a real showman and is able to capture our attention well.

Worst thing: Someone clearly insisted that they needed to have jump scares in order to call this a horror film, so Duplass keeps on jumping out at the camera guy to scare him. It gets incredibly tiresome. And the decision to have a whole section of the film where we can't see anything was pretty bad too.

I'd heard mixed views on Creep, but positive reviews highlighted Mark Duplass's performance. Having now seen him in "The One I Love" I was intrigued.

I now know why the positive reviews mentioned Duplass. He's the only good thing about this film. Essentially Duplass has to show enough enthusiasm and be enough of a showman to keep us from noticing that there is absolutely no story and no payoff.

To be fair, Duplass actually is so good that this works for a while. But by the third act the jig was up. It became clear that we weren't really building up to a big climax and that the film was mostly just biding its time to reach movie length.

I also think this was intended to be a comedy. Certainly Duplass is a funny guy, but the script  (if they even wrote a script) doesn't give us gags with a build up and payoff. Duplass just occasionally says funny things as part of having a quirky character. By the very end the film had gone full-on goofy and it just didn't feel consistent with a found footage  (and therefore semi-real appearing) film about one quirky creepy figure.

A waste of talent and, if they just had some more inspired ideas on how to end this, it could have been far more satisfying and possibly even pretty good.

D-

Best thing: I actually cared about the characters and despite less than stellar acting and cheap-as-hell sets, I was pretty invested in the story as they explored the abandoned bunker/facility.

Worst thing: If you want to tease us that the monster is still alive at the end, it'd be nice if you didn't blatantly re-use the exact same shot as we saw earlier.

Well towards the end, we get something that looks like Chucky in Space. Mind you, that's not as good as it sounds.

This has a ridiculously low budget, but it's still quite fun. It almost even feels like there might be an interesting explanation for the monster. In the end this feels to me like a rip-off of Leviathan, which itself is often viewed as a rip-off of Alien.

Any fights with the alien are incredibly unconvincing. We have a monster with enormous claws, yet the fights just involve pushing and shoving. By the end of the movie I actually became bored by the protagonist consistently shoving the monster away over and over again.

For a trashy daft movie, this wasn't half bad. Not terribly good either, but not half bad. I wouldn't quite recommend it, but if you want something silly with some low budget charm you could do a lot worse.

C+

Best thing: The filmmaking style gets us into the head of the traumatised protagonist despite his intentionally inexpressive withdrawn character. He's easy to root for even when he's clearly out of control.

Worst thing: The police are villainised to an absurd degree. It's bad enough when they seem to be being mean to Rambo for the hell of it, but when one of them decides to shoot at him from a helicopter while he's unarmed and climbing a rock face, it just dives into absurdity.

I don't feel like First Blood is really a film to be taken seriously, but it is an action film which pulls you into the head of its central character. First Blood captures the issues surrounding returning Vietnam veterans in a compelling, albeit overblown, way.

Stallone plays a Vietnam veteran who goes to visit a fellow soldier and ends up on a rampage after receiving unjust treatment by the police.

I'm not sure how I feel about Stallone's characters breakdown in the third act. It feels like over-acting but then again Stallone is playing a traumatised character. Still, First Blood seems like quite an important film in the way it captures the mood of the time.

C+

Best thing: I quite enjoy the relationship between Rambo and his superior officer on one hand and the leader of this new operation on the other. The politics behind it is quite interesting, even if it's not all that deep.

Worst thing: It's one thing to have a protagonist that is a more skilled fighter than the enemy, but it's quite another to have him standing in plain line of fire and inexplicably remaining unharmed by machine gun fire.

John Rambo turns into a superhero. In the last movie he was a trained killer, traumatised by his experiences experiences in Vietnam, and more than a match for the local police force.

In part 2 he is brought out of retirement to go up against the Russians, rescuing prisoners of war held by the communists. And it turns out that, just like with local police, he can take on Russians single-handed too.

The action isn't even all that exciting. Rambo has no strategy this time. He stands in plain sight and machine guns are fired at him while he slowly draws back his bow to fire explosive arrows. On top of that the film is incredibly cheesy.

Charles Napier is great as the asshole boss. The way the film handles his story is ludicrous, but his performance is great and there was potential to do more interesting things with his character.

Rambo: First Blood Part 2 is dumb, but I can see how some might enjoy it. Frankly I found it to be a pretty mediocre action film. Also John Rambow is such a great soldier, could we have some more deliberation before he flagrantly ignores the direct order: "do not engage the enemy"?

C-

Best thing: They show Rambo cleaning out a wound by lighting gunpowder inside his body. I don't know if that's realistic or sensible but it looks amazing.

Worst thing: The story is so incredibly boring. We don't even have a good guy turning villainous to make things interesting. Rambo befriending the Afghans seemed like a cool idea but what is the payoff on that? In the end the story is about Rambo, his old commanding officer and the Russians.

As much as First Blood part 2 didn't impress me, it was at least a distinctly different story from the first film. Rambo III is pretty much a less interesting repeat of First Blood part 2.

And yet at the beginning I was fully on board. Rambo is living at a Buddhist monastery and yet he is also competing in street fight matches for some extra money. That's a really interesting contrast. It represents how he is pursuing a more peaceful existence yet cannot leave the violence behind. But fighting in a controlled environment isn't the same as a war, so when asked to go back into the field, he refuses. Nothing in the rest of the film is ever that smart again.

Also the action is less interesting and sometimes it's hard to tell what is happening. When Rambo is running around corridors or even having bombs dropped on him I'm unclear where Rambo is by comparison to the enemies.

I began thinking this might be the best of the original Rambo trilogy. I quickly downgraded my expectations, instead presuming this would be on a par with First Blood part 2. But while I was still reasonably interested in seeing Rambo blow up the Russian baddie in part 2, in Rambo III nothing was holding my attention at all. The idea of Rambo helping the Afghans kick out the Soviet Union seemed like it held a lot of promise, but by the end the premise felt entirely squandered.

D+

Best thing: Did they use CG for the violence? It feels like they must have and yet it looks so incredibly real for 2008. People get ripped to shreds and completely decimated by machine fire. In X-Men Apocalypse people being beheaded by sand looked utterly ridiculous. I'd expect people being ripped apart by machine gun fire to have a similar issue, but here it looks disturbingly real. It's amazing.

Worst thing: Wait, where's the ending. Obviously the film ends, but the film sets up characters with contrasting perspectives from the SAS guy who just wants to get out as soon as possible and the missionaries who are completely opposed to violence. There's no real finale to tie this up really.

Rambo has apparently been wandering in Asia since his exploits in Afghanistan. The film really shows how utterly horrifying the exploits of the Burmese military can be and does not pull any punches.

Sure, the violence is gruesome and plenty have noted that it's not 'fun' violence. But in a way that is actually a strength of this film. The violence is horrifying because the situation in Burma is horrifying. The fact is that while this violence might not be 'fun' it is awe-inspiringly impactful.

I quite like the neat twist on expectations towards the beginning. When Rambo agrees to help Christian missionaries, it feels like we might see him being 'saved' from his hopeless existence through faith. But this is a far too cynical movie to go down that path.

I'm surprised we don't see more of Julie Benz (Darla from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) in this film. She's set up as important at the beginning and I don't actually think she has an arc. One of the main things I wish they had done to wrap up is to have some final meaningful exchange between her and Rambo before the film comes to a close. The ending is very abrupt.

But still, I don't think anyone can say the violence is boring here. Horrible, certainly, but in a way that forced you to pay attention. Rambo's victories are always a little hard to believe, but I felt this was a more plausible story than other Rambo films. While this fourth Rambo film still lacks depth, I think this is the best film in this movie series.

B-

Best thing: As much as the effects are cheap and terrible, when we cut to an advancing demonic claymation monster I found that to be awesome. Though actually my favourite aspect is probably the villain's awkward attempts to woo the female prisoner, hoping that she'll date him even though he's a horrifying monster from hell who is currently keeping her in a cage.

Worst thing: The acting from the good guys is all terrible.

With "The Void" on the way and having found "W is for Wish" to be by far the best segment of The ABCs of Death 2, I decided to check out Steven Kostanski's first film "Manborg". It seems to be a part of the series of fake grindhouse films and, like Rodriguez's Planet Terror, that use visual effects to provide the payoff that older exploitation films could only promise.

While the effects here are very obviously cheap, there's a distinctive style and a great deal of charm.

Unfortunately the acting is frikkin' horrendous, particularly from some of the heroes of the film. I understand that it's tough to be expressive when you have to speak in robotic monotone, but let's just say, the protagonist doesn't hold a candle to Peter Weller in Robocop.

I had high hopes for Manborg. Ultimately it wasn't a film I'd really recommend, but there were aspects that worked very well and flashes of brilliance. I can't say I'm all that confident about The Void after this, but if The Void turns out to be as brilliant as the trailers make it look, the seeds of that brilliance are clearly visible here even if the full project leaves much to be desired.

C-

P.S. The animated short film "Fantasy Beyond" in the extras on the DVD is actually really cool. Warriors armed with musical instruments seek to beat back a Lovecraftian evil force that lurks within the paintings in an art gallery. It's pretty awesome.

Also the fake trailer for“Bio-cop” is hilarious. It's about a police officer who has been covered in some kind biological agent and now cannot die. His boss and his fellow officers just act as if nothing is wrong and tell him to get his head back in the game, while meanwhile bio-cop is throwing up pools of acid and his eyes are falling out of his skull. Crazy, gross and very funny.

Best thing: There are a lot of great aspects here, not least the central performances, but I'm going to point out my favourite moment here. There's almost a sadistic pleasure when the pimp gets particularly savagely treated by the gangster in the car.

Worst thing: I want to say this without spoiling the film, but my biggest concern is with the ending. One Letterboxd review asks, "So what's the moral then?" I don't think there is a moral here, but I have my suspicions that perhaps the filmmakers think there is one. I hope not.

The prostitute seems to become a mother figure to the runaway girl almost in spite of herself. Perhaps partly due to a maternal instinct and partly because she has limited options, as she seeks to look after the young girl they build a really interesting relationship.

Both performers are excellent. The younger actress is amazing here. Her performance is an open book. Whether she's pretending to know what particular words mean or nervously drinking more alcohol than she's used to or facing a seemingly imminent death, she is completely believable and natural.

There's a sense of inevitability to the story. While the pimp is a completely despicable character (not least for being a pimp at all), there's a sense that he can't afford to say no to either of the gangsters. Not to the dad or to the son. At one point he is envious of a friend's flat. He clearly pines for a better life and it's as if he never chose his life. He doesn't see any option other than being a scumbag.

And the prostitute mostly has the same problem. She solves problems by hooking and she initially only weakly resists the plan to pimp out a young girl. And even when she is finally convinced to put a stop to things, it's the little girl's actions that make the real difference. The girl seems to be the only one who seems to have some real level of choice left. Even the powerful gangsters seem to be trapped in a cycle of violence.

London to Brighton may not be a traditional tragedy in the Greek sense, but it still has that sense of inevitable impending doom. I like what it does with that kind of story very much. In the horrible world where it takes place, this was a pretty exciting story and the central relationship kept me invested from beginning to end.

A+

Best thing: Some of the creepy elements in the house are done very effectively in a way that seems to preempt those used later in The Shining. The theme of a family isolated in a house which seems to be working against them is so close to that of The Shining that it's hard to believe it is simply a coincidence.

Worst thing: Did anyone fail to see the big reveal coming a mile away? And is the sight of the female protagonist sitting in a chair and wearing that makeup really worthy of Oliver Reed's over the top reaction? For what had been quite a cool slow burn horror film, that was about the most ludicrous overblown way they could possibly end it.

For all my prejudices against ghost films, I actually quite like the idea of a cursed house. I quite like the idea that a fear of ghosts is really a fear of going mad.

Moreso than in “The Shining”, the haunting in “Burnt Offerings” is by the house as a whole, not individual ghosts. There's a sense that the whole house is working against them, both physically and mentally. We even have protagonists attacked by the trees outside!

Initially I was fully on board with this film and the presence of Bette Davis does the film no harm certainly. This is well made and well acted. Unfortunately towards the end it gets tiresome and the ending is a bit dumb. (In a film based around a slow build, it is a particularly big problem to be building towards an anti-climax.)

D+

Best thing: At one point our protagonist plays a bit of a sneaky trick that appealed to me. She pays back some friends more than she owes, saying that she doesn't want them to think she'd ripped them off. But then she immediately ropes them into helping her move a fridge freezer for her.

Worst thing: When Penelope Cruz's character decides to sing it's quite clearly dubbed. I guess Penelope Cruz wasn't a good enough singer for them to just let her do it herself in the scene.

In some ways, Volver is a pretty simple film. There's a kind of soap opera feel to the story, which I think is somewhat intentional.

The ending felt a little abrupt to me since I feel there was much that could still be resolved. But Volver's strength is that it is so different. The film is about the bond between the various female characters and there is always an affection between them no matter what.

I'm not sure why Penelope Cruz is the only actress who seems to have that level of glamorous makeup. It's not simply because she's more attractive. She's actively presented in a more glamorous way than the rest of the cast.

There are a few plot strands that just seem to be dropped. (Does she own a restaurant now?) But this story is quirky, fun and unique. Still, while the film is designed to tug at the heart strings, it's all a bit too light and silly to give much insight into even the fictional world it sets up.

B+

Best thing: The songs are pretty much all brilliant and I am personally especially fond of "I Could Have Danced All Night".

Worst thing: The choreography during the song “Ascot Gavotte” is terrible. (Or perhaps it’s great and the camera is pulled in too close for us to tell?) But all we see is one person walking past each other. No symmetry, no interesting motions, formations, expressions to make it remotely interesting to watch.... ... Okay, actually.... now I come to post this review I now realise that the problem must be with the format of my DVD. It clearly wasn’t a proper widescreen version I was watching since all the complexity and symmetry I thought was missing is clearly present in the youtube clip. I still feel the choreography of the songs generally wasn’t exciting enough, but perhaps this song isn’t the best to highlight as the main culprit after all...

Musicals often seem to work better as stage shows than they do as films. The stage show I saw of Oliver! was way better than the film and, from what I've seen of the film of the musical version of The Producers,  that worked way better as a stage show too. My Fair Lady was also a stage show first and it doesn't translate too well to the big screen.

When I was younger, this was one of a number of musicals performed as a school production in my school. With young children performing the roles, it helped to reduce the impact of the horrible characters featured here.

The character who sings about stalking ("I'm on the street where you live") didn't seem so creepy in when performed by a child.

Also somehow I don't think I previously realised that the female protagonist's father basically tries to SELL his daughter to the rich professor.

I think the professor himself always seemed like a sexist pig. After all, he has a whole song, that is even reprised later, asking: "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" But I think in a children's production it was easier to soften towards him by the end.

But even with the darker elements  in the story taken for granted, I felt the choreography was also a problem. While we are hearing the fantastic songs from this musical, the action on screen wasn't always that interesting, the main issue seeming to be the way the camera captures these segments.

Most of the songs are brilliant, but I especially like "I could have danced all night". It's actually a bit unfortunate that the song designed to make us soften on the central professor, "Accustomed to her face", is probably one of the least impressive songs, but it's certainly not bad.

The story of a man who decides to show a common girl how to talk and act like a lady is a lot of fun. Audrey Hepburn’s initial accent is incredibly annoying, partly because it's intended to be, but just as much because it sounds inauthentic.

However, one of my favourite aspects  (after the songs of course) is when she's talking like a commoner in a super-posh accent. The line that cracked me up the most was: "Seems to me, them as pinched it, done her in."

In the end, I watched this professional film with the constant feeling that it was less fun and even less emotionally impactful than a children's production! It may be that this musical simply works better on stage, but goodness knows this particular film didn't quite work for me.

C-

Best thing: The character of Fat Sam is just perfect. Whether he's shouting at his hoodlums and calling them numbskulls or sadly exclaiming in Italian while beating up an effigy of his main rival, he's always wonderfully expressive and absolutely hilarious.

Worst thing: Occasionally the child acting isn't perfect. It's often fantastic and Jodie Foster is certainly brilliant, but not all the lines are delivered as well as they could be. That being said, there's no single moment that I can point to and say, "That scene lets the film down."

Holy crap! That’s Dexter Fletcher, the director of “Eddie The Eagle”! He plays a small role as a character called “babyface”.

I can't even believe this is a seventies film. I mean, if I think about it, I know full well that Jodie Foster was no longer this young by the early 90s, but the style of the Bugsy Malone production just doesn't feel seventies to me somehow.

I have no problem with musicals, but Bugsy Malone was made for the big screen and as such I think it works better AS a film than most musicals do. For that reason, I'd say that Bugsy Malone is my favourite movie musical of all time. It's funny, the songs are great, and the choreography is wonderfully exciting.

My favourite song and dance number is probably "Bad Guys". The action during the song is just non-stop. Plus the song is super-catchy. And to finish with with Fat Sam coming out to shout at his hoodlums again just tops it all off nicely.

I also find Bugsy Malone pretty moving. The central song "Ordinary Fool" from the lead actress really gets to me every time. And let's not also forget the whistful song "Tomorrow" by the black dancer stuck sweeping the floor. Bugsy Malone has proper sweeping emotional beats, the story is well paced never keeping you waiting long for the next exciting development. And it just becomes more and more fun the more you watch.

Bugsy Malone is a childhood favourite and remains deeply special to me. It's just a wonderful feel-good film and genuinely great time. The whole gangster/noir style with children is just so fantastically realised. While the 1920s setting is brilliantly designed, there are some very inventive creative decisions on how to make this film suitable for children. For one, the decision on how to avoid showing blood is excellent (and I won't spoil that for you if you don't know already) and while you can't have children driving cars the old style vehicles in Bugsy Malone are all operated with pedals!

If you haven't seen Bugsy Malone, you should get right on it.

So why not give this a first, second, heck hundreth watch? Let me get you started:

"Someone once said, if it was raining brains Roxy Robinson wouldn't even get wet...."

A+

Best thing: This is a genuine whodunnit murder mystery, but it's also very much a slasher film. So as a result we get a pretty awesome final scare.

Worst thing: A lot of the acting is a bit stilted. But this is typical for a slasher film. I think perhaps the higher quality storytelling aspects make the typical slasher/exploitation aspects more obvious.

I have always thought that horror films are best when they are fun. Some way, somehow, the horror film has to insert some fun in there somewhere to contrast its horrifying themes or oppressive atmosphere.

Pieces is more explicitly fun than most, particularly with its perky peppy female undercover officer on the case. I particularly like how the film often leans heavily into making us suspect a particular character. Early on the film is practically screaming at us "look at how weird that gardener seems while holding that CHAINSAW!"

On top of that, the characters are often pretty endearing and the opening murder is undeniably disgusting (actually reminding me of the video nasty "Nightmares In A Damaged Brain").

As a murder mystery this would be pretty by the numbers, but the slasher movie elements make it something very different. I found Pieces to be lot of fun and an excellent slasher film. Daft in all the right ways.

B+

Best thing: The effects are incredible. It's a pity that there is such a bland grey-green tinge over everything, but the visuals are certainly very impressive all the same.

Worst thing: Tom Holland is the protagonist? Seriously? We are apparently hearing the story from the perspective of Tom Holland's character, who grows up to become Brendon Gleeson, yet in many of the scenes Tom Holland is simply not around. While Chris Hemsworth is clearly the central character.

After Ron Howard’s “Rush”, I was really excited about his next project to star Chris Hemsworth. It felt a bit odd to hear that the protagonists were whalers and the villain was a whale, but I was happy to go with it.

I had trouble believing the reviews that said that this was deeply underwhelming. I don't think the greeny-grey filter really helped much. Some parts of the film look fantastic and the effects were incredible, but the colour palette is rather drab.

It's odd how, even with Brendan Gleeson and Chris Hemsworth in central roles, I struggled to relate to the characters. Also, with Chris Hemsworth clearly playing the main character, it was confusing to discover that the story is supposed to be from the perspective of Tom Holland, particularly considering that he is entirely absent from vital scenes early on in the story.

Frankly I think this would be a lot more interesting if they just adapted Moby Dick. If the reason for opting for the events upon which Moby Dick was based was in order to make the story feel more real and thus more emotionally impacting then I'm afraid this struck me as an utter failure. (I realise that it’s because someone wrote a book called “In The Heart Of The Sea” and they got hold of the movie rights to adapt it, but seriously - wouldn’t Moby Dick be a more interesting work to adapt? Goodness knows, this adaptation particular cannot be doing this story justice.)

It's strange, since Rush was also an attempt to excite and move us with a true story and it worked so well, but In The Heart Of The Sea simply falls flat.

A real pity.

D+

Best thing: One part that stood out for me was the mother's funeral. While once again using low-key moody music and no dialogue, we see quick cut flashbacks to Anakin's  slaughter of the raiders who kidnapped his mother while he stands at her grave and silently mourns her. No dialogue about how "I killed them all!" Just pure effective visual storytelling that turns cringy moments into genuinely emotional moments.

Worst thing: The part where Anakin kills one of the Jedi to save the senator still doesn't quite work. But with the dialogue and running time reduced we now see a clearer parallel with an earlier scene. The senator says of Count Dooku, "He was too dangerous to be left alive." Even so, the suggestion by Emperor Palpatine that he is simply a victim while he’s firing out creepy lightning powers from his fingertips, is always tough for me to accept.

Star Wars: Neon Noir (as it is generally known; the actual title is "Fall Of The Jedi" but that seems to be the title of several fan edits. “Star Wars: Neon Noir” is the really the best way to identify this version.) is a fan edit which cuts the entire Star Wars prequel trilogy down to just 1 hour and 40 minutes. The idea of cutting together all three films is not a new idea although the most well-known example was re-edited is by Topher Grace and hasn't been made widely available.

What makes the Star Wars: Neon Noir fan edit by user 'Only Yoda Forgives' truly unique is the way it bases its style on the 'neon noir' style of recent films from Nicolas Winding Refn like "Drive", "Only God Forgives" and "The Neon Demon". This means a dialogue-light approach, a dark tone, with the film lingering on beautiful visuals while generally synthy-heavy music sets the tone in the background.

The Star Wars prequels were films that made many in the audience actively angry. Part of the reason for this was that it was part of a beloved movie franchise, also because fans had been promised these films for over a decade, and yet another source of vexation was that it felt so uninspired despite being from the visionary mind of George Lucas.

But I think another aspect to this is that what made the prequels so frustrating is that the qualities required to make a great film seemed to be present. The visuals are incredible, John Williams returned to do the score, a selection of incredible acting talent filled major and minor roles. (How many people even noticed that Joel Edgerton was in the prequels playing Anakin's half-brother?)

So much effort was put into the prequels and so many hopes were set on them. And with each new instalment somehow the hype managed to convince us that the next one would be better, because heck surely it ought to be?

So perhaps that explains why so many fan edits seem to be trying to save the prequels. This 'Neon Noir' edit recognises that one of the biggest problems with the film is the dialogue. Certainly when I tried making my own edit of the Anakin and Obi-Wan lightsaber battle from Return of the Sith I could see how beautiful it was as, essentially, a scene entirely free from dialogue; essentially a silent film.

What most people never really thought was a problem is the John Williams score. In fact, surely that is part of what makes it Star Wars? So it's quite a surprising and daring move to try to remove John Williams from the film entirely. In many scenes sound effects have been carefully dubbed onto the new soundtrack, but the film has more trouble keeping the old music out when characters speak.

Amazingly this new edit keep all major plot points of the second and third prequel movies firmly intact. The Phanton Menace has only ever really been a pre-amble to the story in the other two films, so that is how it is used here. We jump straight into the action by beginning with the fight with Darth Maul. Anakin is introduced at Qui-Gon's funeral and we transition to Anakin grown-up plagued by nightmares possibly connected to Qui-Gon's death. The picture of Anakin and a troubled figure is made clear right from the start.

Emotional moments work a lot better with this re-cut. Since Anakin and Padme share scenes where they mostly just look at each other silently, rather than speaking inane dialogue to one another, their chemistry as a romantic pairing seems to work much better as a result. One clip of Padme shooting robots in The Phantom Menace is   edited into a montage of battles from the Clone Wars; yet another way she is portrayed as a more pro-active figure in this cut.

Some have suggested that by removing dialogue and changing the music, that essentially changes this into a series of music videos. However, I think that reductive appraisal ignores the fantastic editing choices and the way the visual storytelling of this cut of the film is streamlined to make extra dialogue entirely superfluous to the story being told. This version of this trilogy is, at times, genuinely emotionally affecting for me in a way that simply was not true of the original films. The less loud and obvious background music with a moodier is better suited to what has always been quite a dark and sad story.

Quite frankly this is by far the best version of the prequels I have ever seen. There's a limit to how good it can ever be, even with the audio issues cleaned up, because the original material is very limiting. Still, considering what they were working with this is an exceptional piece of editing work.

B-

You can watch Star Wars: Neon Noir here.

Best thing: I could put the humour or the action or the visuals or the much improved chemistry between the characters. However, I've got to put Kurt Russell here as the best thing. (Sure, Baby Groot was sweet and goodness know Groot was the best thing in the first film, but Kurt Russell is just so perfect here.)

Worst thing: Sylvester Stallone only has a small part, but he stands out like a sore thumb. Is this really the same guy people were suggesting they should have given an Oscar for acting the other year? I mean I haven't seen Creed, or any of the Rocky movies for that matter, but Stallone is pretty clearly the worst actor. (Full credit to Dave Bautista playing Drax who is a wrestler with no real acting experience outside of these two films and yet not only fits right in but even has great comic timing.)

Guardians of the Galaxy really wasn't one of my favourite Marvel Studios movies. In a movie series which I most often judge on how much it can make me laugh, I didn't think Guardians of the Galaxy was as funny as I was hoping for.

Add to that Thanos and Ronan being two of the most boring villains ever and I really didn't see why Guardians of the Galaxy was being picked out for special praise over and above Thor 2 and Iron Man 3.

Now I think part of the issue was that they had to introduce the characters in the first film. A team of five brand new protagonists to be introduced in just one film is not an easy undertaking. The antics of Thor and Loki or Tony Stark were able to be as funny as they were because I was so familiar with them (and they weren't as funny in their first movie either).

I was particularly pleased to see Karen Gillan's character Nebula given more to do this time around. Previously she was pretty much just a henchman for the villains, but now we get much more focus on her relationship with Gamora. Yondu is also given a much more interesting character this time around as we explore his history with Starlord. The humour flows more easily from the characters this time because we know the characters better.

One thing I don't think is better is the soundtrack. Sure some of the songs were pretty cool, but we had some Bowie last time, y'know? And I think that “Father and Son” song has been ruined for me by Boyzone....

But while I may not have ranked the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie as one of my favourites, that certainly isn't true of this follow-up. Marvel Studios seem to be remarkably capable at hammering out great sequels only making these characters more entertaining as the Marvel Universe expands.

Somehow that bubble hasn't burst yet.

A+

Best thing: Natalie Portman's performance is excellent. There's so much depth to her depiction of Jackie Kennedy.

Worst thing: The score is so intrusive and, frankly, completely at odds with the tone of the film. Jarring violin sounds would be in line with the state of mind of Natalie Portman's character in Black Swan, but in Jackie we begin to see that she's actually taking control of things despite how vulnerable she might feel. And when the loud distorted violins threaten to prevent us hearing Jackie's carefully planned verbal exchanges, nothing could be less appropriate.

Jackie tackles a really interesting concept. Jackie Kennedy is not only making an effort to manage perception of herself in the media, but is also trying to engineer JFK's legacy.

And as Jackie handles the question of how her late husband is to be remembered, Natalie Portman's portrayal of this figure is highly impressive. Both strong and fragile at the same time. Portman tends to do best in roles where she has to cry for some reason.

Sadly overall I found the film a bit plodding. The film didn't really seem to make the most of the framing device of a journalist listening to the details after the fact. Events mostly seemed to unfold like a chronological story with occasional flashbacks with little interest in what our initial journalist is asking. I felt like I saw enough here for me to recognise that there was probably a more gripping way of telling this story.

Also the strings music felt  completely wrong, giving an awkward horror atmosphere for what should have been more subtle political intrigue. We could tell that Jackie felt somewhat stressed and insecure due to her husband's death from Portman's performance. We didn't need a distracting whining violin sound to make that any clearer.

C+

Best thing: The opening chase scene really showcases parkour skills in an awesome way as well as being a spectacular action sequence. I wish the action sequences were all that effective.

Worst thing: The banter between the police officer and the protagonist isn't all that interesting. Frankly the police officer is a bit of a weak character.

District 13 promises to be an action movie with a difference by making use of parkour. The opening chase sequence shows how much scope this idea has (and certainly James Bond would be ripping this off not long after), but I cannot feel that the movie really fails to make the rest of its action sequences live up to that initial chase.

Strangely, the sequel makes even less use of parkour and even reduces the amount of action in general. I wonder whether the filmmakers thought the main selling point was the politics.

Frankly I found the politics pretty hard to care about. The film begins pretty dramatic, but the way they tie it up is so very on-the-nose. I think that sequence was intended to come off as both triumphant and funny, but it had been so telegraphed that it was hard to care about the ending at all. (I felt a stronger climax would have demanded an explanation. The mythology of District 13 ends up pretty thin.)

Another strong element is the humour. The interaction with the big drug gang is a lot of fun. One major gang thug, a big guy with his name shaved into his hair, has the charisma to help lighten what is, at times, a seriously grim premise.

Just wondering though. If the gang is stuck working within an entirely closed-off suburb of Paris, how do they make much money? To keep exploiting drug addicts you need the addicts to have money; either their own money or money that they have to beg, borrow or steal. With a wall around a poor suburb, that must really limit their profit.

District 13 is a solid action film and a lot of fun, but I can't help but feel that it could have made more of its unique position as a "parkour" action flick. The opening chase is incredible, but the rest of the film is mostly plain old silly fun. Well worth a look, but not the classic it could have been.

B+

Best thing: The indignities the mother suffers, including being denied the opportunity to study to be a doctor because of the whims of the Islamic Republic, are really interestingly portrayed. I'm very pleased to have already seen Satrapi's Persepolis to give me some much needed background on the situation.

Worst thing: For me, the comparison to “The Babadook” is all too obvious. But while The Babadook was all about being a well-meaning but bad mother, Under The Shadow is also about being under-valued in the midst of Iraqi bombs. The relevance of the 'ghost' became a little overly muddled for me and when we are 'shown' the monster, I wasn't clear how the analogy with real life was supposed to work. Perhaps "Under The Shadow"'s biggest problem is that "The Babadook" exists.

Under The Shadow promises a great deal more depth than it ends up delivering. Iran in the relatively recent aftermath of the Islamic Revolution makes for a very interesting setting.

Our protagonist has to deal with being barred from ever becoming a doctor simply because she expressed political views prior to the regime. She also has bombs to contend with, snotty relatives and on top of that her daughter has heard tales about a djinn causing trouble in the building.

The djinn actually seems like a kind of ghost, but thankfully there are potentially psychological explanations for the experiences which develop our understanding of the characters. (While the djinn could be real it is left helpfully ambiguous for the most part.)

But I was expecting a great deal more depth here. In the end all the central message of this film seems to come down to is "Is she a good mother?" And here's where "Under The Shadow" seriously pales when compared alongside "The Babadook".

While in The Babadook the protagonist is struggling to raise a child while also coming to terms with her husband's death (on the night she gave birth, no less), the protagonist in Under The Shadow is understandably more concerned with bombs falling. She sometimes has her husband being supportive on the other end of the phone line and, while she feels silently judged by him, I cannot help but feel that she is doing just fine as a mother.

While the building is handling the threat of bombs, the daughter is concerned about her doll. Frankly the protagonist feels completely justified  in telling her daughter that a doll doesn't matter and they can just replace it. That's perfectly reasonable parenting.

In The Babadook the mother is clearly terrible. In Under The Shadow, the movie seems to want me to think she's a bad mother but simply will not commit to the idea. And what is the significance of this djinn? It comes on the wind? So what?

If The Babadook weren't fresh in my mind, perhaps I'd have given this more credit. I tend to dislike ghost films, but by tying all the hauntings strongly to the psychology of the characters, that made this more grounded. I really wish this film had taken its ideas in a more original direction.

B-

Best thing: While I know most people hate to see bad things happen to dogs (or perhaps because most people seem to love dogs) I think I gain a greater sense of justice than most people when a clearly vicious dog is killed, particularly when the owner gets upset about what has happened to the growling savage merciless 'defenceless animal'.

Worst thing: The problem here isn't so much that the story is carried out badly as that there is nothing here that we haven't seen before. While I like the idea of a 'nice guy' villain (i.e. someone who creepily insists 'you should be with me because I'm so nice'), I don't understand this guy. At times he seems smart, but how can he possibly expect to clean up the mess he makes?

I decided to check this out because it was scripted by Alexandre Aja. It's quite a basic 'one location' thriller. I suppose the twist on the genre is that the villain wants the protagonist to think he's nice, though I doubt it's the first time that's happened.

And that's the problem really. This is a well-structured and acted thriller. It's simple and solid. It's just not anything new or different.

P2 is absolutely fine, but it's unlikely to impress anyone particularly.

B-

Best thing: Okay, so the visual effects that make us believe we are really watching a disaster on an oil rig are by far the best thing about this film. However, one character interaction appealed to me. In the relevant scene there are two of the characters isolated from everyone else and one has realised that their only option for survival is a death-defying jump from an absurd height. The way that plays out felt very real to me in a way that most scenes did not. (Though any scenes with Kurt Russell deserve an honourable mention here.)

Worst thing: Most interactions between characters felt unrealistic to me, particularly in the first half. What made this annoying was the way so many scenes have characters bantering with one another in a way that is supposed to spell out 'typical working men'. Perhaps these scenes are actually pretty authentic, but as a viewer I found it felt fake, and in any case these 'casual' conversations served to make me feel isolated from the story.

I can't quite believe so many people were praising this film where it came out. I think I should have gone with my gut when I heard 'disaster movie starring Mark Wahlberg from the director of Battleship'.

Actually, for a dumb disaster film this isn't bad. John Malkovich and Kurt Russell give the real standout performances, but really this film wouldn't be much without its fantastic convincing effects work.

That the story is being told at all is pretty cool. It's told in a generic way, but it's still interesting to see how the oil rig disaster took place, with the visuals revealing the level of  devastation involved and the bravery required.

Personally I really didn't feel this was worth my time, but it certainly had
some good aspects. However, Mark Wahlberg is not one of those.

C-

Best thing: I very much enjoyed the visual effects work here and perhaps the most effective moment for me takes place in a car (though the excitement doesn't let up at that point).

Worst thing: The worst part would probably have to be the exact same moment. The effects sequence I liked most involves a remarkable survival and it's probably the point where it is least easy to suspend belief.

Now THAT is how you do a disaster movie. For all the awesome effects work, this is always centred around its characters.

Roar Uthaug's focus on character performances and consistently engaging visual storytelling is how his Cold Prey movies managed to outdo most slashers ever made. It's how his period horror "Escape" managed to outdo both Neil Marshall's "Centurion" and Christopher Smith's "Black Death" (which were both going for a similar mood). And it's also how his "Tomb Raider" film starring Alicia Vikander is going to blow away all expectations for that film.

The whole genre of disaster movie had become a bit of a joke, so it's not perhaps such a surprise that this is now my favourite disaster movie. But goodness knows I was not expecting this to be one of my favourite films of 2016.

Exciting, emotional, a bit of a visual feast. The Wave is a fantastic drama and a really powerful piece of cinema. It sticks to the demands of the disaster film and isn't afraid to have a miraculous survival at the end of one of its most spectacular set-pieces. However, it also transcends the limitations this genre has set for filmmakers and provides something beyond the disposable nonsense audiences have come to expect.

If you like disaster movies, you'll love this. If you don't like disaster movies, you may still love this. It's just really great.

A+

Best thing: The attacks are wonderfully choreographed with the baddie and his dog working in tandem to hunt down our protagonists. Very exciting.

Worst thing: The story is fairly simplistic and I'm not sure I understand the message, beyond simply that we are all human beings deserving compassion regardless of borders. (Which we all knew already, right?) Perhaps if we had more clues as to what drove the villain to do this?

In the end this is a pretty well told simple story. It's also very well directed, with great performances and all the action very clearly framed and shot. However, this isn't really a film with a great deal of depth.

Perhaps the really creepy thing about the villain is supposed to be that he's 'just an ordinary guy' who happens not to think of those illegally crossing the border as people. There's no maniacal laughter or cold stare. When not hunting down mild-mannered human beings, he seems like a simple man minding his own business with his dog as a trusty companion.

So I guess that might be the point? That he's in no way demonised, because all you need in order to make him a villain is to show him shooting people in cold blood.

But I think you'd have to be pretty sick to ever side with someone who shoots ordinary people for fun. There's not really much of a message here. No keen insights. Just a pretty cool film about people struggling to escape a psychopath. (I say 'psychopath' because of the clear lack of empathy his character must possess in order to justify his actions to himself.)

At some point the protagonists need to handle the dog. This film actually reminds me of the surprise hit "Don't Breathe" with its 'man and a dog' villain set-up. Having recently watched P2, 'man and his dog' seems to be a surprisingly common threat in horror films. In Desierto, taking out the dog felt particularly satisfying to me.

This was solid entertainment and the acting and camerawork only served to elevate it for me. Simple but effective for what it is.

B+

Best thing: Mia Wasikowska is always brilliant and she seems to play the most interesting character here as the perpetual everlasting immature troublemaker.

Worst thing: Tom Hiddleston's character (who writes music) is spellbound by a fairly boring musical act where the music sounds rather similar to the music he composes himself. Why is he so impressed? (And seriously, of all the people to like, they are big Jack White fans?)

I had problems with this film, but I have to say, the pacing wasn't the issue. I know this director is known for his slow paced films and I was pleased to see that I could run with that.

Unfortunately, as the film went on I found it very hard to care what happened to these insufferable eternal hippies. I much preferred Mia Wasikowska's rather more fun-loving hanger-on character.

I quite liked Tom Hiddleston's atmospheric music, but I was entirely unimpressed by the singing act that wows his character in the final act.

Definitely worth a mention is Anton Yelchin who makes for an awesome straight man to contrast the weird arty types. (You want a wooden bullet?)

There's one famous name mentioned that I didn't recognise at all and Hiddleston instantly gives full details of who that guy is. Apart from that, we have endless names of incredible famous figures through history with the implication that the vampiric protagonists have spent time with all of them. It's hard to really believe any of these figures would have given them the time of day and if they met them before they were big and it's way too much of a coincidence to suggest that they just happened to hang out with most of them BEFORE they were famous.

I know the scriptwriters have picked especially well known figures so they don't have to spend half the film explaining who these people are. However seeing as it is blatant that they are doing this, it is harder than ever to take it seriously (never mind to be wowed, as the film seems to expect me to be).

Only Lovers Left Alive is not boring and initially I quite liked the characters. But by the end of the film these pretentious hippies had rather outstayed their welcome. And sometimes their choices of treasured art seem a little odd (Infinite Jest? Seriously? And they love Jack White?) I'd rather have spent more time with irresponsible immature free-loading Mia Wasikowska. I could completely believe in her character.

C-

Best thing: An early scene where Buckaroo Banzai jumps through to another dimension is a neat bit of effects work and quite a cool opener for a sci-fi film.

Worst thing: Jon Lithgow has the most ridiculous accent and there are so many scenes of him ranting towards the end of the film and shouting  commands at an alien that seems to have been named 'Big Booty'.

This sounded like a fun wacky sci-fi adventure with a protagonist who travels through weird dimensions. ("Adventures... across the 8th dimension" is in the title!)

Instead this feels like a terrible Doctor Who knock-off. The film all takes place on Earth. The film regularly tries and fails to be funny by going a bit wacky. The protagonist is supposed to be an ultra cool dude who everyone is happy to be associated with, including the president.

It's such a pity this isn't better when there's such an incredible cast list. Jeff Goldblum, Christopher Lloyd, Peter Weller and Jon Lithgow all in the same film? What a waste of their time this turned out to be.

The plot is a mess, the humour doesn't work, the effects look cheap.  Also Jon Lithgow has a ton of scenes where he shouts nearly incomprehensible commands in a ridiculous fake Russian accent.

Utter rubbish.

E

Best thing: I love how the filming style keeps you guessing. Much here is trashy and ridiculous in such a wonderful way.

Worst thing: This film just gets so weird, Lithgow's accent (as the dad) is really off putting, the multiple personality premise now feels really overdone, but the worst thing for me is one scene where a character escapes police custody way too easily after an utterly ridiculous lapse in security.

Brian De Palma is such an odd director, but that's part of what makes this film so much fun. If it wasn't great enough having John Lithgow squabbling with his identical twin, we then have Frances Sternhagen being awesome. (I also know her from Outland and Misery.)

Multiple personality is pretty much always misrepresented on film and it's always hard to take seriously. It helps when the film is already a bit overblown like Fight Club and that is certainly what makes it work here. Still as a film where multiple personality is part of the mystery, that can't help but come off a bit goofy. It's in danger of reaching the levels of stupidity found in the movie "Identity".

Essentially Raising Cain is silly fun. I loved it.

B+

Fun horror comedy they said. More like boring people standing around and occasionally taking those off too.

When the greasy strangler actually turns up I was not particularly wowed. The funniest part joke was an Indian character trying to say "potato" (and goodness knows they took that joke as far as it would go). That Indian character is then immediately killed off, so I simply lost interest.

I should have known something was up when about half of the hosts of the Cinema Eclectica podcast were incredulous that "The Greasy Strangler" be proposed as a highlight of last year, while those recommending the film gave a mischievous giggle. I do wish the naysayers had been a little more insistent.

I know comedy is subjective, but seriously there's not even a decent level of horror to fall back on here either. And this comedy really is the absolute lowest brow you can get. (One reviewer mentioned Little Britain. If, like me, you really aren't keen on Little Britain, you'll most likely hate The Greasy Strangler.)

Ugh!

Best thing: I have mixed views on Ethan Hawke and rarely think he is the best thing about the projects he chooses. Yet here I actually found myself puzzling over why Ethan Hawke has never been used in a Western before. Here he plays a Eastwood-style 'man with no name' type character - only with a dog. (Making it, I guess, a bit more like Mad Max 2?)

Worst thing: I've heard this film criticised for being generic and while I think the film's simplicity is a positive element, I'll admit that if you've seen the Fistful of Dollars trilogy you're unlikely to see anything here that surprises you. (Still personally I find the careful pacing of this film a lot more fun than something like "The Good, The Bad and The Weird" that keeps breaking that deliberate pace with fairly inconsequential action sequences.) And seriously if you put on a Django film, wouldn't you be annoyed if you discovered the Django wasn't actually going to kill everyone? Don't films like this need to stick to that trope?

Ti West brings us a Sergio Leone style western that hits all the right notes. This was simply so much fun.

Who ever would have imagined that Ethan Hawke could be this much of a badass?

It's difficult to compare this with Ti West's other films because it is so different. But this is certainly one of his very very best if not perhaps even THE best.

And if your issue with Ti West in the past has been slow pacing and unsatisfying finales, I think you'll find yourself very happily surprised.

A+

Best thing: Fight our way out? Sneak around to get a phone? No. We should just wait til 3pm! - Genius!

Worst thing: While I found much of the film hilarious, there were some lamer jokes at points too. The poop joke where one character 'forgot to wear gloves' felt particularly egregious to me.

Elijah Woods is choosing some interesting projects and there is much in this child-zombie comedy that is hilarious. But unfortunately there are a number of gags that simply fall flat (though that's no fault of the cast).

So many parts of this film are wonderful and its a real pity that it isn't consistent. The filmmakers also seemed to have no idea how to end the film.

Still I have to say that, even as a film I wouldn't especially recommend to anyone, this was still a pretty enjoyable time.

C+

Best thing: Elijah Woods' character was just wonderful. A geek who thinks he's some kind of zen master.

Worst thing: I guess this is just one silly element amongst many, but the idea that the villains would coerce an outsider to carry a gun and threaten people for them felt a bit odd.

.
The opening of this film felt so miserable and nihilistic that my girlfriend actually gave up on it....

Which was a pity because the protagonist then immediately decided to stop moping and to do some personal detective work to track down items stolen from her. And when Elijah Wood gets involved this film becomes a lot more fun.

As dark as this film can seem at times, it's a pretty charming little story. It's odd to suddenly be seeing Melanie Lynskey  in films now when she started out with Kate Winslet in the film 'Heavenly Creatures' all those years ago. In this role she has to do a lot of exasperated sighing and she's consistently very watchable. She's great.

Elijah Wood is a quirky character to contrast her, particularly Wood's optimism in the light of Lynskey's pessimism. An unlikely pairing of characters is a common trope, but it's interesting that, while Wood is clearly the weirder character, Lynskey has the drive to produce the more chaotic results. In some ways, she's the less predictable of the two, even as the ordinary rational character.

A-

P.S. Not seeing an awful lot of mention of Jane Levy’s performance here. Sure, she doesn’t have many lines, but she still has a strong screen presence even in this smaller role.

Best thing: As with Joe Begos' previous film "Almost Human", "Supernatural Forces" (originally released as "The Mind's Eye") has some really effective effects sequences despite its moderate budget. When one guy gets ripped in two using mind powers I was pretty impressed.

Worst thing: Not enough background is given on the main characters. Now actually I think this wouldn't matter if they just made Lauren Ashley Carter (from Jug Face)

the main character. She has really expressive eyes and it's very easy to get on board with her despite the lack of background. (There's a reason Liam Neeson is brought in as important characters who have little screen time in films like "Kingdom of Heaven", "The Next Three Days" and "Silence". If you don't have time for background, you need someone with an especially strong screen presence.) Graham Skipper simply isn't strong enough to carry the film without any backstory or build-up. When we get to climactic scenes where Lauren Ashley Carter is missing, it's difficult to understand the stakes and to care about the protagonist.

I was pretty excited about Joe Begos' latest film. Particularly since he was going from a film inspired by John Carpenter's The Thing to a film inspired by David Cronenberg's Scanners.

Unfortunately the limitations of the budget seem way too obvious and the hamminess isn't really terribly satisfying because we aren't given much opportunity to bond with the protagonist. In Almost Human we get to see him coming into conflict with his boss at work. There's no down-to-earth aspect to our protagonist in The Mind's Eye beyond that he has a girlfriend and a dad (which is pretty thin characterisation however you look at it).

Some parts of The Mind's Eye were a lot of fun and there are some cool visuals (though on my tv the blues and purples seemed way over-saturated at times).

With some better characterisation from our protagonists, I might have adored this. As cool as some of the scanner action was, it was difficult to be fully invested. This should have felt more intense. This was interesting, but it wasn't enough fun for the level of cheesiness.

C-

Side note: When searching for the DVD of this film in the UK, you’ll need to look for a DVD entitled “Loser” starring Woody Harrelson, but when you actually watch the film, you’ll find that it’s still called “The Grand”.

Best thing: Werner Herzog playing a vicious psychopath is always fun and here he is absolutely hilarious.

Worst thing: The final card game has less of a focus on the humour. It's used as an opportunity to give us the emotional payoff for each character, which is fine, but the game itself just baffled me (they don't just look at the players cards but also the cards in the centre of the table, and I'm not entirely sure how that works), so the lack of jokes in that section felt annoying to me.

I had thought this was a Christopher Guest film. This definitely seems to be borrowing from the style of films like "Best In Show", but honestly I don't remember Best In Show being this funny.

Woody Harrelson is great, but he is just one of a number of desperate or intimidating gamblers. We also have some announcers who are very funny too.

So many new comedies try to make the audience laugh by being random or throwing gags in the hope something sticks. But The Grand is a solid comedy that draws its humour from the situation, albeit sometimes using especially quirky characters, with fantastic results...

... except for a brief section towards the end where there are pretty much no laughs at all. The filmmakers decided to finish with a real card game, meaning that I had pretty much no clue what was happening and jokes could not be so easily scripted in. This section does resolve some character arcs, but I'm not sure they needed a real poker game.

But this final card game in no way detracts from the film as a whole. It's just an odd decision. The Grand is brilliant and well worth your time.

A+

Best thing: You've got to wonder why there aren't more zombie films that compare the condition to terminal illness. Gradually transforming into a being without any human dignity makes for such a clear parallel and it makes for a really interesting parallel.

Worst thing: Not only is this film seriously dull (and the grey filter over everything really doesn't help), but thr further the film goes on the less successful it feels as an analogy with real life. Maggie mostly just felt to me like hopelessness for the sake of it.

Starts off interesting but then gets dull. Maggie seems to promise to be an interesting allegory of some kind but, since it doesn't follow through with that, I found it difficult to be enthusiastic about the generally rather contrived family drama.

Arnie Schwarzenegger is fine. I think his strengths are in comedy, but his on-screen charisma always helps a great deal. But when he's reminiscing about their past, not only was I annoyed that the story was being put on hold, but I wasn't really becoming any more convinced that Arnie had really spent the years raising a child on a farm.

Maggie is neither a smart zombie more nor a fun zombie movie. If anything, the drama is undermined by the decision to crowbar zombies in there. Also the pale colour palette doesn't help in any way.

C-

Best thing: The guide they employ has a cool attitude and her interactions with the other characters provide some much needed drama.

Worst thing: A topless scene early on in the film is particularly shameless, but what made its trashiness especially egregious to me was that it was shot like porn. There's a lingering shot straight up at the topless girl while she pretends to be having sex. Clearly the actress was expecting it be artistic, but instead it just looks like porn.

Well I guess that's what I get for trying out my friend's dirt-cheap horror DVD.

I'm not sure why the whole film has a horrible green tinge but I'm fairly sure it's to disguise the horrible quality of the footage they shot.

Sadly I think these actors probably aren't that bad. Unfortunately they are stuck in a seriously cheap and lazy production. The script is utterly dire.

I think I've already written way more than this film deserves.

E

Addendum:

Holy shit, there are sequels to this thing? How can this possibly have sequels?

Best thing: There's a neat twist on the original film's ending which makes good use of the found footage format. I like that this film builds on the original film's mythos.

Worst thing: The original Blair Witch Project had less characters and felt much more personal as a result. As much as Wingard is trying to copy the original Blair Witch Project's style (and setting himself a pretty tough challenge as a result)

Okay so admittedly this is Adam Wingard's worst film. (Well at least the worst of his films longer than 80 minutes. I haven't seen his shorter early films because they seem to be practically impossible to acquire.) However, I have pretty much loved all Wingard's films, especially his previous film "The Guest".

Adam Wingard has tried to recreate the original style of The Blair Witch Project and he has also made some clear attempts to change things up a bit. But it turns out that The Blair Witch Project provides a pretty limited template. It surprises me to see people criticising the introduction of a drone camera. Surely a new type of camera footage is a sensible extension from the original concept. (And while you'd expect it to help them find their way out of the woods, the fact that it fails to help them is another spooky element to the story.

When this was being released I suddenly saw a huge number of people reminiscing about Blair Witch Project as an untouchable classic. I feel like history must be being re-written somewhat. Here in the UK I distinctly remember my first time watching Blair Witch Project and, as someone enjoying himself, I felt somewhat out of place.

I initially saw Blair Witch Project on a bootlegged videotape with Korean subtitles that had been taken into school. It was the end of term and our A Level Religious Education group were allowed to watch the video. But we didn't finish the film in one school period. So this ended up being one of the few times I have ever gone to the cinema alone. I was very keen to see the end of this film.

I found myself sat next to a whole group of horror fans all wearing black t-shirts. I got the distinct feeling that I was being glared at during the film. I don't know if it was because I was laughing and the guy next to me didn't see the humour, or whether it  was because they were just annoyed that I was enjoying myself. Either way, it made me disinclined to identify myself as a horror fan for many years.

When we left the negative vibe from the audience continued. And that's generally how I thought most audiences felt about The Blair Witch Project: negative. The internet was not a big thing in the UK (internet access is still not free in the UK and back then it really didn't look worth the money for your average Joe). And certainly by the time Blair Witch Project reached the UK nobody was about to believe it was real. I don't really know of anyone who was massively blown away by Blair Witch Project. It was fun, but even speaking as someone who enjoyed it (and I really ought to rewatch it to make this judgement) I'd be hard pressed to say the original was superior to this sequel.

I still maintain that there's a sadistic pleasure and dark humour in watching the Blair Witch Project protagonists become ever moreterrified and lose all hope. While I don't think our protagonists in this new sequel have the same level of despair, the film certainly has the same sense of fun (which horror movies are generally better off having).

We don't really get a lot of depth to the characters in either movie, but I found myself caring for the characters in both cases.

This sequel definitely expands on the mythology of the original. How does footage get found without also finding the bodies? What powers do those stick man charms hold? Why do victims stand in the corner? This film points us a little closer to answers, while keeping the mystery. I guess we all hoped Adam Wingard had something a little more impressive up his sleeve when he announced this project. It certainly must to have been amazing for the film festival patrons to see a film called "The Woods" only for it to be revealed - out of nowhere - to be a Blair Witch Project sequel. That surprise would have been something really special.

For the rest of us? Yeah sure, it's a Blair Witch Project sequel. Well done Adam, but I think there are better projects you could be working on.

B+

Best thing: While I'm not so sure that we'd have the military blowing up immigrant camps, it's still a very interesting concept. Rather than being due to bombs, monsters or disease, this is an apocalyptic setting simply because human beings have become infertile. As Grace Jantzen noted, a world without new beginnings is a world without hope. It's a remarkably powerful concept.

Worst thing: Would he really still be saying "pull my finger" that calmly by that stage?

Children of Men is an intensely miserable film, but it is the concept that makes it that way rather than the story itself. For the most part the film is quite dramatic and exciting with some jaw-dropping single-shot action sequences. (Seriously, wow.)

Clive Owen is pretty great as an average cynic. Michael Caine is his eccentric old friend. Considering his upbeat temperament it always feels odd to me when he's elected to listen to "Living In A Glass House" by Radiohead. Naturally Michael Caine is fantastic.

Unfortunately the concept is inevitably pretty miserable, but that leads to some pretty neat creepy quiet moments, such as the empty school that has fallen into disuse and disrepair.

But while the idea that there are no children left is pretty interesting, the idea that the rest of Europe has fallen into violence is less convincing. I guess the idea that the UK is isolated from violent turmoil because of the English channel. And I suppose that worldwide nihilistic terrorism prompted by the seemingly imminent end times is rather more plausible now that Islamic State is already doing just that. Still, the film leaves the circumstances behind the violence intentionally vague and that makes it harder to take seriously.

A+

Best thing: The visuals are incredible. One of the female protagonists (the main woman in the fighting team we follow from the start) looked particularly real to me. And then there's the action sequences. Our protagonist can throw his weapon in order to teleport himself to a distant location. It makes for some seriously exciting action sequences.

Worst thing: The dialogue and the story felt like garbage to me, not least since I found the ending made no sense. Apparently who the princess marries is important? Oh really? And why is that exactly?

I'm apparently quite rare in that I really liked Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. The effects were ahead of its time and while the premise of alien souls causing havoc on Earth was pretty weird, it was also quite a cool concept.

The plot of Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children did not seem so sophisticated (but then again I've never played the game). However, the action sequences were mind-blowing. Sword fights on motorbikes! So cool!

So how does Kingsglaive compare? Well much of the film is pretty effective. I suspect that I would be a lot more satisfied with it if I had any experience of the games. The action is impressive and the characters are alright. The story though? Um...

I very much like the modern-day fantasy setting that combines a modern city with cars on the one hand, with castles and swords on the other. (They have guns too but magic swords are better.)

Initially the story was very intriguing. The division between the magically protected inner kingdom and the ravaged outer kingdom was quite interesting. However, some later reveals were hard for me to buy into. In particular there's a "Luke, I am your father" level reveal about a major villain that makes me wonder how they could possibly have kept up that deception while a war was going on.

The level of destruction in the third act is so extensive that I was confused as to what they were fighting for. There's some suggestion that if the princess is taken to marry some guy we never see, it will somehow fix everything. Okay, so this is a world of magic, but I still found the proposal of deus ex marriage particularly implausible.

During the fighting sequences the teleporting throwing daggers allow for some very inventive skirmishes. The Final Fantasy filmmakers are very good at clearly depicted action choreography and, while perhaps not quite such an amazing over-the-top spectacle as in Advent Children, it's still pretty amazing.

Final Fantasy: Kingsglaive is confusing and bizarre in a way often found in anime movies and in a way that I couldn't really forgive on this occasion. That being said, it is exciting and beautiful and I suspect those familiar with the games will find this a great deal more rewarding.

D+

Best thing: Denzel Washington is always the best thing in films where he is the star, but Jodie Foster, Christopher Plummer and Clive Owen (as much as I found his American accent a bit hard to come to terms with).

Worst thing: It's actually difficult to pick a worst thing here. I loved pretty much everything. I suppose the bit where the detectives are leering at some of the suspects, that was awkward - but breast size IS a clue here and, while it is played for laughs, really we're laughing at the detectives. Perhaps Jodie Foster's storyline could have gone further?

Inside Man is actually better than I remembered it. Clive Owen is an actor I mainly knew from television and while I could see him edging his way into a number of films, I couldn't really take him seriously with an American accent. I think I was being a bit harsh.

Even knowing where the story is going this is a very intriguing mystery and Denzel Washington is able to really lighten the mood with his upbeat yet cynical detective on a case that isn't really proving to be the lucky break he hoped for.

In some ways the story feels unfinished. Did Spike Lee plan on a sequel or is it enough that we know that the investigation isn't over yet? I felt a firmer conclusion could have been given to Jodie Foster's aspect of the story.

Still, overall Inside Man is an excellent heist mystery and an awesome Denzel Washington film with an all-round awesome cast and a very well-constructed script.

A+

Wow, I can’t sum it up any better than this. Watched about half an hour of this film before shrugging and giving up. I heard some refer to this as a comedy. Was I supposed to be laughing? I wondered whether it was a parody and I was just missing the jokes because I was unfamiliar with the material being referenced.

There are a lot of gorgeous visuals (though I’d note that the cars are all very modern-looking and that kind of detracts from the period-piece aspect to the production). The film is colourful and pretty (and the lead actress is undeniably beautiful), but in terms of characters nobody ever seems remotely real. There’s a slow abstract portrayal of a very simple story and I found myself regularly thinking “...so where are you going with this?”

After half an hour I decided I was no longer interested in knowing where the film was going with any of its ideas. I really have to connect with a film’s concepts to accept a slow deliberate pace, so while I was absolutely gripped by “The Witch”, I lost interest in “The Love Witch”.

Best thing: The Bin Laden song is frikkin hilarious. Like seriously, actual genius. (Though SEAL explaining where he got his scars was a pretty close second: "F**king wolves!")

Worst thing: This is a comedy that throws a lot of gags at the screen and some really don't stick. One clip of the press going overboard with all the flasks they are drinking from, felt more weird and random than funny...

The star, Andy Samberg, who also plays Jake Peralta in the comedy series Brooklyn Nine-Nine, has a band called Lonely Island. It's parodying the kind of music that I'd never listen to. It's not like Flight of the Conchords where the songs would still be amazing even if they weren't hilarious. Nevertheless, the music isn't bad and the lyrics are hilarious.

This is one of those weird comedies where everything is just thrown at the audience to try to elicit as many laughs as possible as often as possible. It's all loud and obvious, rather than dry and careful. It's the sort of comedy that Phil Lord and Chris Miller do very well and Adam Sandler does very badly.

While not all gags landed for me, overall I had a lot of fun. This is more disposable than I'd have preferred, but I found it solidly enjoyable and it had some excellent moments. I cannot deny that there were points where I was laughing out loud.

B+

Best thing: Werner Herzog as the villain is inspired. It looks like the movie “The Grand” (comedy movie about gambling starring Woody Harrelson) did it first, but still....

Worst thing: Well I'll tell you what ISN'T the worst thing: Jai Courtney. (I seriously don't get the hate for that guy. He was the only bearable thing in Die Hard 5.) I guess the worst cliché in the whole string of clichés was the whole "one of your bosses is a villain so watch yourself" thing. I mean seriously, what help is that, Mr. Reacher?

A fairly average action movie. I can see how the books might work better, but this adaptation is a bit dull really.

No problem with Tom Cruise's performance. It wasn't clear during the film why the character needed to be a big guy, but I can see why fans of the book would be annoyed.

C-

Best thing: Any antics involving the zombies are brilliant. I actually really liked the wall of zombies idea in World War Z, but Train To Busan takes that ant-like swarm-like behaviour of zombies to a whole new much more creative level.

Worst thing: The worst thing WOULD be the scene where someone seems to have pretty flimsy reasoning for dooming an entire carriage of people to a zombie massacre. However, the very worst thing has to be the little girl's singing. I know it's intentional, but seriously, we in the audience are still subjected to this unbearable din...

I'm a keen follower of the movies from Korean directors Chan-Wook Park and Joon-Ho Bong. It seems that Korean cinema sets a high bar for itself and there's a trend for a combination of wacky elements and darker themes (so Train To Busan is no exception).

This certainly isn't a horror movie with a bunch of bland disposable characters. Certainly there are archetypes, sometimes making characters somewhat comical, but for the most part these are singular vibrant individuals. It is remarkable how easy it is to distinguish such a wide range of characters. And we have a central child actor who gives  a reassuring strong performance.

I love the zombies that are somehow both silly and almost cheesy and yet absolutely terrifying at the same time. It seems like zombie movies have been so often now that you'd think nearly everything had been done already, but the action sequences where the characters are escaping from zombies are fresh and inventive.

I'm not sure I entirely buy into the irrational paranoia expressed in the second half. I'd have thought the characters would all understand the rules by then. I think the zombie plague is being used as a source of satire and that may explain why it's occasionally a bit odd how things unfold. The choice as to whether to help others or to selfishly look out for number one is a big theme...

Train to Busan has all the weirdness we have come to expect from Korean films and this is both a pro and a con. Korean movie weirdness is what makes films like Snowpiercer and Oldboy unique, but this style can also make these films less accessible for some viewers. But if you feel you can handle Korean weirdness, you are in for a real treat.

A+

Best thing: As per usual, Simon Pegg's Scotty is the best thing in the new Star Trek movies. Though that's certainly not the fault of Pegg's script which gives more even coverage of the characters than the last two films. (Particularly pleased to see Bones and Spock more closely paired this time, since their love-hate relationship has always been my favourite element in Star Trek.)

Worst thing: When Uhura recognises a fact about the villain it seems quite implausible that anyone could have spotted it. That this big reveal about the villain is left until the the third act means that, like with Into Darkness, the villain's background is left rather limited. Poor villains seem to be a flaw neo-Star Trek now shares with Marvel Studios, but this film at least deserves credit as far as the audience is left begging: "Please we need to know more!" If only the last minute details were conveyed a little more clearly.

As we all know, Simon Pegg is a bit of a geek. This was perhaps clearest for me when Charlie Brooker released his zombie mini-series Dead Set (where the cast on Big Brother are unaware that all the crew outside of their enclosed area has been infected with a zombie virus). It was  dark and remarkably joyless, considering the subject matter, (rather like Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror series). However, Simon Pegg's response was to write an essay on why the zombies should have been the traditional slow and shambling zombies.

There was no particular need to write that essay. Shaun of the Dead had been and gone and it had been a big hit so this wasn't part of a self promotion. So Simon Pegg similarly cannot have needed much cajoling to write a script for the new Star Trek film. He was central to  the script-writing process on Edgar Wright's Cornetto trilogy and he combines his knack for comedy with his passion for the series in his writing here.

That being said, there are definitely third act problems here. Some of the later action scenes fail to stir the level of adrenaline that they ought to and the villain has Marvel Studios syndrome, not really drawing us into his motivations with much depth.

Still, of the new Star Trek trilogy, this instalment breaks the mould by being clearly better than the preceding two entries. Fun, beautiful, fairly smart and with a lot of nods to the original series; this was a satisfying entry.

Good work Simon. You did your fandom proud. But could the next film push these characters to a new level? For all the dramatic stakes, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of personal stakes for these characters.

B+

Best thing: The violence is genuinely horrifying, there's a consistent sense of tension, and the way the film shows the mind-warping effect of the signal is very effective.

Worst thing: The film drags in the middle. In the middle segment the story is set up around a character clearly set up as a villain in the first section. This section carries on with neither of the other protagonists present and it's not such an interesting segment as a result.

Having really enjoyed Adam Wingard's films, it was cool to see some familiar cast members show up here. AJ Bowen has been in many of Wingard's films including "You're Next", "The Sacrament" and "A Horrible Way To Die". Meanwhile Justin Welborn's connection is a little more tenuous. Adam Wingard directed segments of both V/H/S and V/H/S 2. In V/H/S Viral, Justin Welborn plays the evil magician in my favourite segment of that film.

The Signal has a similar combination of wacky, creepy and awkward to the VHS anthology films. The decision to combine all three sections of the film didn't work very well for me. In particular, the second segment would have probably worked better as a stand-alone.

All in all this semi-anthology, The Signal, is fine. But I can't imagine ever wanting to return to it. All the segments rely on each other and by the final segment it has really lost steam. But it's pretty well put together and has some great moments.

C+

Best thing: Angelina Jolie's performance is brilliant. She's always excited about danger, she's always got a knowing smile and she just perfectly represents the super-confident and capable, thrill-seeking millionaire playgirl. All those elements that made me adore her in the first Tomb Raider movie are still here.

Worst thing: There are many bad elements here; not least the central macguffin. But there's one scene towards the end where we have the gunshot *gasp, who fired the shot?* and when the camera pulls away, not only has Angelina Jolie NOT been shot, but apparently she was holding a gun at the ready by her side the whole time seemingly without the threatening figure noticing. So dumb!

As dumb as this film is, the big step-down is the action sequences. The first Tomb Raider had some pretty brilliant choreographed action. Even coming out just after The Matrix, the bungee fight in the hall of Croft manor stood out as a really creative sequence.

Yet while films at this point, such as Equilibrium, were continuing to pick up the gauntlet laid down by The Matrix, Tomb Raider 2 reverts to the lazier James Bond sequences with its gunfights that just involve shots fired from a distance. I suppose the aim was to thrill us stunts rather than martial arts action, such as when Croft freefalls off a skyscraper to escape the bad guy. But whenever Tomb Raider 2 features a gunfight it always seems lame.

Lamer still is the CG. It's really sad because someone clearly put a lot of effort into a 3D computer model of a shark. But it's simply way too obvious that the shark isn't there. It might be that CG effects were not so well developed back then, but I think it's also because the director has insisted on the CG work being added in post rather than allowing them to do the preparation required to make their shark effect blend with the scenery. The CG monsters in the final scenes are pretty cool. I don't want to say the effects work is simply bad, but it doesn't blend with the live action elements and looks horrible as a result.

Angelina Jolie is fantastic and deserved a better sequel. Gerard Butler is frikkin' terrible.

And the whole convoluted idea that Pandora's box released a virus is dumb. Isn't it enough that Pandora's box released all the evil in the world?

We start the film with Lara Croft discovering an ancient hidden palace of Alexander The Great and that was wonderful. That's pretty much where the tomb raiding aspect of the film ends. The rest of the film is in modern settings (the great wall of China is just there so they can say "Hey, we're in China!') until Pandora's Box is found in some random area of Africa.

The romance with Gerard Butler is clearly intended to be the source of drama here the way the death and legacy of Lara Croft's father brought drama to the first movie. But, whether it's Gerard Butler's acting or the boring script, I never really care about the central relationship.

D-

Best thing: Bella Lugosi and Boris Karloff both give intense central performances. It's difficult not to be enthralled by the scenes between them, even when the plot is going nowhere fast.

Worst thing: Sure, this has nothing to do with Edgar Allen Poe's "The Black Cat", but then again Corman's "The Raven" was nothing to do with Poe's poem and it was still pretty fun in its own right. The problem is that this film about war crimes and satanists just seems to lack any kind of focus. The film tries to leave things mysterious ("my servant has to pretend to be the villain's servant so he can help us and that's why he won't let us leave to get help" - eh?), but the result is that the story feels completely ungrounded.

Despite the two central powerhouse performances (and despite being mainly known for their horror performances these are seriously awesome showmen) the actual plot is, when it comes down to it, garbage.

What seemed to be an intense thriller about old secrets, bad blood and the threat of exposure of those secrets, turned out to have a very cheesy satanic cult explanation that I felt cheapened it.

The actors are chewing the scenery, but it's a bit of a bland meal.

D+

Best thing: Y'know, I've heard that the model used for the shark looks pretty unimpressive in real life. So there must be some amazing movie magic at work here, because the shark in the movie looked very convincing to me.

Worst thing: Naturally I love this film so I'm seriously nitpicking here. The mayor refusing to take the shark threat seriously just seems dafter and dafter every time I watch Jaws. Also, while I know that film is a visual medium, should you really show the protagonist researching the shark threat by opening a book and immediately skipping to the pictures?

Jaws is a classic for a reason. The iconic monster, the hidden threat, the simple but effective techniques to build tension.

And let's not forget the endless ripoffs of Jaws that were released.in subsequent years exploiting our fear of various sea creatures and forces of nature in general.

I don't need to tell you that Jaws is brilliant. You all know. If you haven't seen Jaws already, get it on your bucket list.

A+

Best thing: As per usual, Edgar Wright makes use of incredible choreography. Displaying every action sequence clearly with a lot blink-and-you'll-miss-it details.

Worst thing: You've known the guy for less than a week. You've known each other, what, three days?!! Seriously! I get that you both like music, but even so...

Baby Driver veers away from Edgar Wright's comfort zone. This must be the first Edgar Wright that is not a comedy. Even so, the comic moments are still the best bits.

Nevertheless World's End was funnier, more moving and had better action sequences. Tye Sheridan really does not make for a particularly interesting protagonist. Edgar Wright's painstakingly choreographed action sequences would be cool with anyone in the lead role, but Sheridan doesn't seem to bring any extra pizazz.

Baby Driver is fun, exciting and a really fun time at the movies, but it's the first Edgar Wright film where I haven't been blown away. Shaun of the Dead has always felt a little overrated to me, but that's only because his other films seemed so much stronger.

As much as Scott Pilgrim felt weird, oddly paced and jumbled, I still felt immersed in that film in a way that I simply did not in Baby Driver's geeky Transporter musical.

Wright's films will always be worth your attention and Baby Driver is no exception, but I think comedy is Wright's strong suit and I hope he doesn't lose sight of that in future projects.

B+

Best thing: Intestinate! (Also Jeffrey Combs is great.)

Worst thing: Noooooo! The barn exploded!

Why did anyone ever think Christopher Lambert should be the star of their sci-fi action movie?

Hearing him pretend to be American is so odd. Somehow he sounded more convincing as a Scotsman in period piece sections of Highlander, yet I cannot forget how ridiculous it sounded when he snarls in that odd squeaky way, "I'm from a lot of different places."

Accepting that Christopher Lambert is an odd choice for a leading man, he's perfectly fine here as the man captured trying to help his wife escape to have a second baby.

If it wasn't cool enough that we have a prison where even your dreams are monitored by the guards, we also have Kurtwood Smith (from Robocop) giving us insight into the wider mythology of this dystopian world with his mysterious prison-controller character.

One scene where the film gets incredibly trippy and we're expected to believe, essentially, that our protagonist is having his brain melted, it really drags. The effects aren't as interesting as the filmmakers seem to think in that scene and, seriously, we know you aren't killing off the protagonist before we are even half way through the film.

Still, while a little cheesy this is a really fun sci-fi action movie. Fortress is a little more consistent than Christopher Lambert's more well known action movie, Highlander, but it also doesn't have such great memorable moments and visual flourishes. Christopher Lambert benefits in Fortress from an array of co-stars to keep us engaged, particularly Jeffrey Combs as an engineering expert.

Not perfect, by any means, but a solid exciting sci-fi action film that explores some interesting concepts. Pretty cool.

B+

Best thing: The wacky examples of films from the independent director are often very funny. For example, "Bald Justice" about bald men being macho action heroes.

Worst thing: For me the worst aspect of the film was the interviews with real filmmakers about the fictional independent filmmaker. I often didn't recognise the figures they interviewed, but that wasn't the problem. My least favourite of these interview segments was with Ron Howard very long-windedly explaining that he didn't like the (fictional) movie “Bald Justice” until he went bald. It already wasn't a terribly funny gag even before Ron Howard stretched it out for five minutes. The filmmakers are not comedians, often aren't performers and asking them to tell funny stories about an entirely fictional character is not playing to their strengths.

Fellow Letterboxd user Audrey Karloff, who almost always carries a cheery disposition in his online writing, regularly cites this film as an unsung gem. He must have been trying to get me (and anyone else who'll listen presumably) to watch this for at least the past 5 years.

The Independent is a sweet story about a washed up director of trashy low budget films struggling to maintain recognition in his later years. While his daughter tries to help him move his career forward, we are regular filled in on his long career of rip-offs and misguided social commentary films. It's a great concept.

Yet when actually watching the film, I  must be honest, I found it a bit dull.

The opening is a bit jarring, showing us a load of talking heads, without much to clarify that we are not, in fact, beginning a documentary about a real person... until the main actor stands up and shouts into the valley (and even then it's still pretty unclear).

Sure, the scenes from the set of the protagonist's latest movie (of which I shan't spoil the details) firmly reveals the wackiness we should expect.

Still, the half sitcom/half mockumentary combination does the film no favours. The sitcom is constantly interrupted by talking heads and fake movie footage. Meanwhile the clear fiction of the sitcom sections makes it all the clearer that the talking heads are just random industry bods making stuff up on the spot.

I wonder whether the mocumentary section would have been improved for me if I could identify half the people being interviewed?

The Independent is a sweet enough film, but it wasn't funny or exciting enough to really make much of an impression on me. It's a pity to be unable to respond to a friend's beloved personal favourite with much more than a weak shrug.

C-

Best thing: When the unborn baby is telling the mother to kill, she seems to have a posher accent than her mother. The film actually makes reference to this when the protagonist mother is informed that her foetus can't speak and she replies, "No, actually she's very articulate."

Worst thing: One of the earlier people to be stalked by our protagonist is so obnoxious and so oblivious (both to how obnoxious he is and how likely it is that the protagonist will murder him) that it's difficult to suspend disbelief.

Horror comedy about a woman encouraged to take revenge by the urging from her unborn baby.

Alice Lowe wrote and directed this herself. It's a wonderful blend of themes, savage murders, funny lines and some occasional morbid puns.

Quite a harsh and gruesome black comedy, but if horror comedy is your thing (and it's certainly mine) you don't want to miss out on this little gem!

A+

Best thing: The first story in particular is simple, effective and really gets under your skin.

Worst thing: The werewolf-esque story “Don't Fall” isn't as smart as the other segments and was the only part where I found myself looking at my watch.

I preferred the first entry. “The Box”, to the rest of the anthology, but I thought it was pretty strong set of stories overall.

Oddly enough, nearly all of the segments seemed to be about parenting in some shape or form except for one rather generic werewolf story (that was no Ginger Snaps). Is that because the directors were going for especially feminine stories for this anthology?

The first segment has such a dark edge to it. One child has a secret whispered to him by a stranger and suddenly has a strange inexplicable change in behaviour. He refuses to eat.

Okay, yes, it is similar to the Radiohead music video for their song "Just". Except that involved a load of people lying on the street. The prospect of a child intentionally, calmly, opting to starve himself is much more haunting and a hell of a lot more plausible.

Melanie Lynskey's attempt to rescue her daughter's birthday party and the woman handling her son being reclaimed by his father, the devil, were both pretty great segments too.

Overall XX is a solid anthology and well worth the attention of horror fans.

B+

Best thing: Free State of Jones is a very interesting tale of a rebellion within the southern states of America even while the civil war was ongoing and it only gets more interesting once the civil war is over.

Worst thing: I don't know if this was a book adaptation or just an interpretation of the historical events, but either way the story seemed to be covering too long a period of time to provide us with a well-paced story. We seem to jump forward to each part of the story.

Free State of Jones is a fascinating film. The story is pretty great, but it feels like it is trying to cover a bit too much. The films spans the American civil war, the period after the war and even has a few scenes in the 20th century.

The relevance of the history to the race issues in America today are clear. I've heard some fairly dismissive comments about this film simply because Matthew McConnaughey is a white protagonist, but the film makes very clear that this story is about a real historical figure and puts pay to the idea that blacks in the south were supported in any real way by the northern victors in the civil war. Far from being a white saviour our protagonist is a very frustrated activist for equality who finds himself despairing of the lack of support from his supposed allies in pursuing what ought to be an obvious noble goal.

Free State of Jones has exciting moments and sad moments. It's a bit of an emotional roller coaster. Still, it has that biopic / book adaptation feel where the film feels like it's stretching to fit in all the story elements it wants to include. And since this covers such a large timespan it would be a miracle if the film didn't feel that way.

A lot of fun, well-acted, moving and powerful in places, but trying to cram in so much. Well worth your time. Don't believe the haters.

B-

Best thing: I think the most fantastic aspect of this film is its "fear of faith" theme. The way this is explored is very dramatic and powerful, pulling you into the mind of the young protagonist. The voiceover narration doesn't even detract from this either.

Worst thing: Not to give away spoilers, the final part of the film involves a shift in perspective that also alters the tone of the film. Basically the twist doesn't work that well and the ending seems rather tone-deaf and possibly a little cheesy.

The ending makes all the difference. Sadly what seemed like an incredible unsung gem became bafflingly cheesy in its final act.

Certainly the seeds for that ending were present but the presentation and execution at the end feels like an entirely different director must have taken over at the last minute.

At the half way point I was very impressed. By the end I was a bit non-plussed. A real pity.

Special mention needs to go to the excellent child actors. They remain the emotional core of the film and give absolutely remarkable performances.

C+

Best thing: There's a remarkably grounded mythology to The Warriors. Different New York gangs all looking for greater control and grander reputations, seeking a promise of unity. The different gangs express themselves with their own unique themes or outfits. There's a neat simplicity to it all.

Worst thing: Unfortunately this neat simplicity has its problems too. Not an awful lot really happens in the film, but the real issue is that I never fully warm to the characters it doesn't happen to. Our main protagonist and leader of the gang suggests to a girl that they might "pull a train" on her. Even if it's just posturing it's hard to look kindly on what are basically just a bunch of thugs...

A really interestingly styled film with some cool moments, but not really any characters that I'd root for or even any I particularly understood.

Still, The Warriors is a unique curiosity which is sufficiently cool and well-structured to make up for its more alienating aspects.

The unique mythology is spellbinding.

B-

Best thing: There's a bit of a mystery involved here and the big misdirect is that the film initially looks like it's a children's film. There are moments where it looks the filmmakers might be buying into magical nonsense, but the biggest clues that isn't a magical children's story is the scenes with the police detective. She's blunt and won't accept any nonsense and clearly has a much clearer idea of what is going on than the adult doctor we follow for much of the film.

Worst thing: The opening of the film where the child protagonist is introducing himself. I can't stand cutesy kids doing voiceover narration directly to the audience. I now know this was intentionally disarming, but my response was a moan of dismay. "Hunt For The Wilderpeople, this ain't," I thought to myself. If a young child is talking confidently to the camera it is likely that they have a background doing drama. Our protagonist most likely isn't supposed to have this background (or if they do that's a remarkably handy coincidence), but the actor does. As a general rule, this sort of set-up will always pull me right out of the film.

Alexandre Aja is a pretty interesting director, starting with the bizarre horror movie Switchblade Romance and then moving on to the remakes Piranha 3D and The Hills Have Eyes, before bringing us the Joe Hill adaptation Horns. Aja also wrote some pretty cool films like the Maniac remake and P2.

At the opening of Ninth Life of Louis Drax I thought this was a major misstep for Aja. A whiny kid is introducing himself in a kind of wacky way.

I think a lot of viewers have failed to recognise how this opening has been engineered to put the audience offguard.  There are a worrying number of reviewers who have referred to this as a children's movie. This film contains the line: "Are you f**king her?" This is not the kind of question you'd expect from a police officer in a children's movie. And that's intentional. Things are not what they seem.

The contrasting tones are a bit jarring, but the performances are great and by the end the film had completely won me over.

A-

I always make a point of not giving a score to films I didn't finish. This is a little different. I DID finish it. I just fell asleep through a sizeable chunk and have no interest in returning to check out the bits I missed. Personally I found this pretty dire.

A group of murderous misfits take over a funfair and then proceed to massacre the customers.

I always reckon there's nothing like a good horror comedy. And this is nothing like a good horror comedy. It's cheap and lame and a waste of time...

Best thing: This is a film focused more on visual storytelling than having the story moved on by character interactions. This distinguishes "Dunkirk" quite sharply from previous Nolan films like The Prestige, Inception or even  Interstellar, all of which were quite exposition-heavy. As such, I think my favourite parts are those with the mostly silent RAF pilot Tom Hardy. Hardy had already proven his ability to produce drama by just sitting in the driving seat of a vehicle and looking concerned in "Locke". Tom Hardy is a real showman and is very good at dominating the screen with subtle expressions.

Worst thing: With its 'slice of life' approach, I generally didn't feel all that close to the characters. Also two central characters are, at one point left stranded, and I'm not really sure how they escaped from that situation.

I've been a fan of Christopher Nolan since Memento and I was absolutely blown away by The Prestige. (Naturally I also loved his take on Batman in “Batman Begins”, especially considering that the previous Batman film was “Batman and Robin”. All the same, I thought “The Dark Knight”, while great, was substantially overrated.)

But even as a fan of Nolan I've found his most recent spectacular sci-fi outings, “Inception” and “Interstellar”, to be a little uneven. I definitely love these films, but I expect more from Nolan so I've still felt a little frustrated by them.

Dunkirk is the best Nolan film in years, not least because it plays to all his strengths. Nolan has always seemed to struggle with female characters, so this is a very male setting. (There are female characters, but it makes sense that they tend to be background characters.)

Nolan's sci-fi films were sometimes a little overstuffed with exposition, but Dunkirk has some characters who practically never speak. Dunkirk is a very visual film perfectly suited to Nolan's colder filmmaking style as the tension builds.

Nolan's best films have always played tricks with the chronology, most excitingly in Memento. Nolan performs a similar trick here with one timeline lasting an hour, one lasting a day and one lasting a week and yet all three arcs are presented side by side.

The only thing missing here, I feel, is characters. I loved the characters in The Prestige. I loved Guy Pearce's character in Memento. In Dunkirk no characters really stand out. Tom Hardy was my favourite character and he barely even speaks.

Still, I view this as amongst Nolan's best work and, for me, better than his Batman films.

A+

Best thing: One of many absolutely fantastic bits of imagery in the film features our protagonist having a really bad job interview while flailing in a swimming pool. If you think of some of the imagery in Trainspotting like dropping into the carpet or the baby crawling on the ceiling, there is similarly interesting use of visuals.

Worst thing: I recognise that both main characters were in bizarre unreal worlds that develop as a reaction to their specific circumstances. However, the girl's constructed world, whereby she avoids all contact with the outside world and even all sense of time, was particularly hard to relate to.

A bit awkward to get hold of, but well worth it. It's always a good sign when not only do you find that every single review from friends on letterboxd is positive for a particular film. However it's even better when every single one is absolutely gushing with praise.

Gushing praise can sometimes be very annoying and the few exceptions where someone disputes a movie’s “masterpiece” status can feel like a bit of a relief, but there's a reason why Castaway on the Moon seems to have no such exceptions. It's an absolute delight.

Hilarious, strange and fascinating. The premise of two isolated characters somehow both stranded within a city is explored in an absolutely wonderful way.

All the weirdness you'd expect from a Korean film and yet somehow incredibly accessible and utterly adorable.

A+

Best thing: Woody Harrelson is hilarious as the consistently chilled-out sarcastic teacher.

Worst thing: I don't want to say this film is perfect, but I'm struggling to come up with a worst thing. I guess occasionally the protagonist's self-obsession goes a bit far.

It's really tough to explain how great this film is. While it would be fair to put it in the same league as films like Clueless or Easy A, it's not really the same type of film as either of those. Of course, being unique is a good thing.

The main thing that made me want to see Edge of Seventeen was a clip of Woody Harrelson in one of the earliest scenes in the film. Harrelson plays a cynical history teacher and he's absolutely hilarious.

Hailee Steinfeld from the Coen Brothers' “True Grit” shows that she is clearly a very versatile actress. She does not seem in any way like she did in "True Grit” and she's still playing a very compelling character.

Our protagonist gives a whole new take on the awkward teen. The scene where she is ultra awkward at a party will feel very familiar to most people, I'm sure.

Edge of Seventeen is one of the best comedies of recent years and is well worth checking out.

A+

Best thing: While a little generic, there's no doubting that The Trickster is a great character.

Worst thing: Edward Furlong isn't really a strong enough acting talent to carry this film. Perhaps if he had a little more stage presence then we'd understand why the girl next door likes him so much. (I feel like Joseph Gordon Levitt would have done a better job, if he was old enough at the time...)

Brainscan is a sweet little 'out of control genie' kind of story. Our protagonist is an oddball with personal issues to resolve who gets pulled into a world that takes advantage of those issues.

The ending is a bit predictable and doesn't play out particularly smoothly. The 'trickster' is pretty fun despite being quite obviously the same generic character we've seen before in any number of stories like this, without much to make him stand out as unique.

B+

Best thing: While the British politicians and civil service members can often appear like moustache-twirling villains, the wife of the male protagonist's uncle who had been acting as regent, has a really powerful scene. She gives her full case for why she doesn't think a white British woman should be queen and unlike the British politicians it's nothing to do with any support for the apartheid system that they have in place along with neighbouring South Africa. She argues that the female protagonist is in no way suitable for the responsibility, has no understanding of their culture and represents a further imposition by a white foreign nation over their small African nation. Rosamund Pike makes no reply to this and clearly sees no other option but to grimace and stay silent.

Worst thing: As with most biopics, this story is limited by the real life circumstances to which it needs to remain true. While the film generally avoids awkward preachy speeches or unnatural expositional conversations, it still feels slightly unreal. Sure, people change over time, but with the amount of time passing it's not clear how these changes occur. (Still this is handled pretty well. It's not like in Dune where they realised that they wouldn't be able to show ANY sign that the central relationship was developing and they just added voiceover narration that said, "And their love grew!" A United Kingdom makes a good effort, but just struggles to reveal long term relationship changes within a short film with a lot of political change to convey too.

After his fantastic turn as Martin Luther King in Selma, David Oyelowo takes on another real life figure, this time playing Seretse Khama. (Though for many of us, David Oyelowo will always be especially well established in our minds for his time as Danny in the tv show Spooks.)

Amma Asante's previous film, Belle, was also a sort of biopic, but nothing much was known about the real life protagonist beyond one painting. The film ended up feeling a bit contrived to me because the protagonist seemed too self-aware, often seeming almost like a time traveller rather than someone with a unique perspective within that society.

Much more is known about Seretse Khama and, while the story is presented well and the performances are great, there's still something a little flat about the film. Individual scenes can be very emotionally impactful, but the film as a whole feels a bit rushed and not quite fleshed out enough.

In particular I feel a major dramatic moment is left entirely unresolved. One of Seretse Khama’s female relatives gives Rosamund Pike's character hell for wanting to be Queen of their country. I would have like some more indication on why this perspective changes beyond just gradually softening over time. (Particularly since time seems to rush forward all through the movie.)

A United Kingdom has similar biopic issues to those I found with Free State of Jones. However, what I feel gives A United Kingdom the upper hand (and please recognise that I would recommend both films) is the way it moves forward so smoothly. Sure, A United Kingdom is not a film that slows down enough to bring much in the way of depth, but the way it carries us through the narrative does at least feel clear and focused. On top of this, the sweet and upbeat personality of A United Kingdom makes for some very pleasant and engaging storytelling.

It's a great story worth telling and you're pretty much guaranteed a good time with this solid, if not mind-blowing, well-acted biopic.

B+

Best thing: The action sequences are pretty impressive and I like the way they use subtle ways to indicate that the characters are robots or cyborgs. It feels like they are making good use of a relatively low budget and it reminds me of Freddie W's action sequences in his youtube shorts and his online Video Game High School series.

Worst thing: It doesn't help when your lead actor expresses all his lines in a dull monotone, clearly doesn't speak English as a first language and has absolutely terrible lines to deliver. But that alone probably wouldn't undermine this as a dumb action film. The problem is that the final action sequence involves a stop motion robot fight and it looks utterly ridiculous and not really terribly exciting.

I'd heard mixed things about this cyberpunk action film, but I hadn't expected it to look so cheap.

An action movie where the main star clearly doesn't have English as his first language and struggles to emote.

A movie with dialogue that is stilted, unnatural, boring and often even manages to be expositional and confusing at the same time.

Yet with all that being said, I was very interested by the way they managed to be sparing with the effects. For the most part the robots are indistinguishable from humans and in many scenes the indication that a character is a robot is that they recover or survive when a human would be dead. There are also the occasional scenes where a character's head will open up to reveal robotic parts inside. Until the robot fight in the final act, the effects limitations force them to be subtle and the result is that the final act fight is comparatively less enjoyable.

I'm not entirely sure why one scene involves gratuitous nudity while our protagonist prepares to strike. If the nudity was because the two characters were distracted by each other, that would at least make sense. But instead, the two characters are arguing the whole time and they talk about how the protagonist is after them. So why is that female character standing around in the nude? I get that this is exploitation filmmaking, but the nudity here makes no damn sense.

Clearly cashing in on Terminator 2, released the previous year, this is clearly a poor imitation. Sure, Nemesis has its moments, but for the most part it's a bit dire.

D-

Best thing: Adam Driver is still a compelling performer even when playing a dull character.
Worst thing: Not only is this a film where very little happens and yet much of what happens manages to feel contrived anyway, but the poetry is (and perhaps I'm being a philistine here) terrible.

I first heard about Jim Jarmusch when he released Only Lovers Left Alive which drew attention with its three awesome big name stars: Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston and Mia Wasikowska (not to mention a smaller role given to Anton Yelchin). But it also drew attention by being about vampires.

I heard that this was a director who normally didn't involve outlandish fantasy elements like vampires in his films, so I was keen to try out a non-vampire

Jim Jarmusch movie. The vampire mythology in Only Lovers Left Alive felt weak to me, but I was impressed with the way the director was able to feature so many quiet moments that remained consistently engaging.

Sadly, in Paterson, I found the whole story utterly pointless. A guy whose life is so empty that he sits quietly drinking alone every evening is not particularly interesting. His poetry seems to have nothing to say, except perhaps to reveal how bland and trivial his life is.

The protagonist does not seem to engage much with other people he meets. He seems proud of his connection with the town where he has always lived and with which he shares his name, yet I feel this film completely fails to convey why anyone would want to live there.

At one point the protagonist goes out with his wife to see a classic black and white film and I envy them because I'm stuck watching Paterson.

E grade

Best thing: There were so many points in this film where I was made to really squirm in my seat. My favourite example.is where the camera shows a point of view shot of someone as they reach down to pick something up. It's wonderfully effective.

Worst thing: All Saw films essentially have two plots going on at once: The 'game' Jigsaw's victims are forced to play on one hand and the detectives and medical staff investigating, on the other. By the second half, everyone involved in the investigation starts acting really suspicious. My biggest issue being, if you think someone who works in the morgue might be connected to the killer.... you should have someone ELSE do the autopsy in order to demonstrate an alternative suspect's guilt. Seriously, follow proper police procedure guys!

A good friend of mine loves the Saw movies and encouraged me to watch every single last one of them.

Annoyingly enough, the first one struck me as an inferior imitation of the movie “Seven” (serial killer sets up intricate deaths to shame the victims) and then I felt that even in the sequels where the Jigsaw 'game' section was good, the movies were still spoilt by the focus on the parallel detective storyline.

And Costas Mandeloy made for the most disappointing protégé for Jigsaw imaginable. Whenever he was in a room of people discussing who might be responsible for the latest deaths, he'd look ridiculously guilty. It's like they still wouldn't notice a murderer if they saw Hannibal Lecter covered in blood and making his trademark 'nice chianti' hissing noise. Mandeloy always acted evil and suspicious no matter what context he was in and it was always bizarre when none of the police staff seemed to notice.

I was reassured by the promise that this new movie would bypass or simplify the convoluted and increasingly disappointing plotting of the previous films. But the bigger reason to be hopeful was the choice of director.

None of the sequels have been directed by anyone known for much outside of that series. (I suppose there will be fans of “Repo! The Genetic Opera” out there and anyone seen “Jessabelle” with Sarah Snook? That’s about the extent of it.) Even in the case of the first film, James Wan's film career has been quite inconsistent to say the least. But the Spierig Brothers have three pretty great films in their filmography already. Undead, a sporadically funny but wholly entertaining horror comedy featuring both zombies and aliens. Daybreakers, a remarkably effective thriller about a world of vampires where human blood is a depleting resource. Finally, Predestination, a Robert A. Heinlein adaptation featuring a unique take on time travel.

In my view, the Spierig Brothers have delivered. We have a straightforward set of traps where tension is built up effectively. Admittedly, the detective section is still the weaker element, but it's still done pretty effectively. However, the 'game' is where the film really delivers. The game area is pretty well-lit without compromising the sense of being trapped.

This film series hasn't featured enough of the Jigsaw doll on a unicycle, so this film milks the arrival of the doll for all it's worth showing close ups of its little fake legs pushing the pedals to move it slowly along.

The requirements of the traps regularly had me squirming but they  don't really go over-blown. We are told that all the best games are simple and I think they were right to take that approach.

I'm pleased to see that this is a Saw movie that can act as a stand alone film without requiring you to already know the prior continuity. If I were to suggest a set of the best Saw films I'd suggest Saw, Saw II, Saw VI and Jigsaw. But during Saw VI the indictment of American healthcare insurance is regularly interrupted by the convoluted side-plot involving thd detectives. Frankly, Jigsaw is the only Saw movie I'd actually recommend and the original Saw is good enough (mainly because of Danny Glover) to make it worth watching for context.

I'm tempted to give this film an A simply because of how much more satisfying I found it than the rest of the series, but I think that's going a bit overboard. This doesn't make a massive leap but I think the main audience would feel slighted if this completely abandoned the formula. It needed to be recognisably a Saw film. Nevertheless, I found Jigsaw to be a very satisfying horror film and worth a watch even if you haven't been following the Saw franchise.

B+

Best thing: The return of Iain Glen was pretty great to see, but only because Wesker had been an absolutely awful villain for the last two films. The way he's used doesn't really feel consistent with prior films, but hey, whatever excuse you need to bring him back...

Worst thing: I heard there were issues with the way the film was cut, but I wasn't convinced that it could be that bad... It really is that bad. I can barely tell what is happening in half the action sequences and often the camera doesn't focus on any action long enough for me to enjoy it.

Discussing a movie series, particularly when focusing on the concluding chapter of that series, I think I'm going to have to presume you have seen at least the previous sequel already.

To recap the last film (Resident Evil: Retribution), Wesker reveals that he has turned on Umbrella (and that's why he's working with a special agent: the iconic game character Ada Wong). They help Alice escape from the facility where the Red Queen and take her to The White House. Wesker, who has some kind of super speed power, rushes over to Alice and injects her. He tells her that he has given her back her superpowers. We even see footage of her bloodstream, watching the creatures previously injected to repress her powers dying off, confirming that Wesker is telling the truth. Wesker finally tells them they will need to fight to save humanity.

So in the beginning of this film the White House has blown up, Wesker is back in control in an Umbrella facility and the Red Queen informs us that Wesker betrayed her and only pretended to give her back her powers.

So naturally I don't believe this for a moment. I saw that the injection works. I remember that the Red Queen wants everyone dead and I remember that Wesker rescued Alice from the Red Queen so that they could defeat the Red Queen together.

So naturally my thoughts were that Wesker must be trying to fool Umbrella into thinking he is not about to betray them and blowing up the White House and seemingly leaving Milla Jovovich for dead was a ruse to allow him to convince Umbrella he is still on their side.

When Red Queen talks to Alice, she tells Alice that they need to release an anti-virus that will destroy everything infected with the T-virus. Now let's not forget that besides monsters and zombies the main people we know to be infected with the virus are Alice and Wesker. Since my first instinct is to mistrust the Red Queen (since she was the clear villain in the previous film) I figure that Wesker and Alice are probably still working together against her.

As you've probably guessed, I was over thinking things. When the big reveals are made at the end, my neat little explanation for why the beginning of this film does not seem to tie sensibly with the previous entry in the series turned out to be completely mistaken.

It's nice that we finally get an explanation of the Umbrella Company master plan that makes sense but, apart from that, this is amongst the dumbest movies in this franchise and the reason for the massive retcons is unclear.

What's more annoying than anything else is that I would happily enjoy this as a fun ridiculous non-sensical bombastic finale to this ridiculous action movie franchise... if only I could see the action sequences properly! The action sequences are quick cut to pieces and that just made it impossible for me to enjoy.

Someone will probably reboot this series. Considering that my clear favourite of the series was directed by Robert Mulcahy, it's not hard to imagine that taking this out of Paul WS Anderson's hands will only make Resident Evil better. But frankly this finale is not a high point for a movie series that generally required lowered expectations at the best of times anyway.

D-

Best thing: The on screen chemistry between Bette Davis and Gary Merrill (we're not talking about romantic chemistry by the way) is excellent. Their interactions are the best parts of the film.

Worst thing: A major part of the film relies on us buying into Bette Davis stealing the fiancé away from her young secretary. The problem is that, while Bette Davis might not be that much past her prime here, she's not an easy sell as a knockout by this stage, particularly since her outfits are always quite conservative.

After being blown away by The Nanny, I was keen to check out another horror film with Bette Davis.

Frankly it ends up being a pretty average thriller by the end. I enjoyed it for the most part, but the ending wasn't really terribly smart. In a film which relies on building up tension, that's a bigger issue for this film.

Bette Davis is great and so are several of her co-stars, particularly ACTOR'S NAME and for the first half I was pretty gripped as the mystery unfolded. But in the second half, there isn't much of a mystery left.

It's fine, but personally I was a bit let down.

C+

Best thing: Most slashers go for one death at a time, but there's one scene in The Burning that really goes for an out and out massacre. We don't see the killer but we certainly see the carnage. Very well handled.

Worst thing: There is no logic to the killer's attacks. He's upset with some boys who burnt him in a prank, yet nearly all his victims are women! Quite often in revenge slashers there's a sense that the victims who get picked off first are often the ones who (in the killer's eyes at least) deserve it. Not so much here....

The Burning shares the low budget and the rough edges that characterise a typical 80s slasher movie.

While certainly inspired by Friday 13th I don't think it would be fair to call it a rip off since, if anything, Friday the 13th part 2 stole some ideas from The Burning. Let's not forget that Friday the 13th did not feature someone taking revenge for what was done to him as a child. And perhaps more importantly the style seems to be closer to Friday the 13th part 2 than it is to the original Friday the 13th film. There's even a bit of a rebellious female character who turns out to be in a relationship with the guy in charge of the camp. That's quite a specific similarity.

It's also cool to see that this is the slasher from which Final Girls took its in-movie backstory. (Final Girls is a fun horror-comedy/spoof that lampoons slasher movies.) I suppose the title should have made it obvious, but somehow I wasn't expecting that.

The Burning has all the trashiness of a typical 80s slasher. I'd say it wasn't a more refined slasher like Black Christmas and certainly not like Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre (or Psycho). Recognising that this is a trashy slasher film with the limited depth and limited acting quality that comes with that, this still remains one of the better slasher movies and I had a real blast.

Satisfying kills, runs at a good pace and features character interactions between the potential victims that I found properly engaging. In spite of having already seen a number of eighties slashers now like April Fool's Day, Silent Night Deadly Night, Christmas Evil, Pieces, Maniac, Nightmares In A Damaged Brain, Driller Killer and all the Friday 13th films, I felt this was surprisingly successful in ramping up tension. If you want a good typical slasher, The Burning is a pretty great choice, even if it doesn't break the mould.

B+

Best thing: Martin Landau as Bella Lugosi, performing his lines about how he will create a race of atomic supermen like a true thespian.

Worst thing: While Depp is doing the kind of over the top performance that audiences seem to be annoyed by these days, it generally works pretty well here. The performance I'm more concerned about is from Bill Murray. Why does Murray come across as so flat here?

I've never got along with Tim Burton movies. He kept releasing films with fantastic premises and great visuals that nevertheless consistently disappointed me.

Edward Scissorhands left me cold and the sappy ending was cheesy as hell ("I was that little girl!"). Beetlejuice mostly left me scratching my head. Even Batman had its slow moments. (And "Nightmare Before Christmas" isn't a Burton film, it's a Henry Selick film.)

So when I was told that Ed Wood was the best Tim Burton movie I still wasn't convinced that I would enjoy it. I was so wrong. This is the only Tim Burton that I absolutely love. It's such a wonderful depiction of the friendship between Ed Wood and Bela Lugosi.

Funny, moving, well performed and generally just an utter delight. Even if you are a Burton denier like me, you should still give this a go.

A+

Best thing: Father and son talking about the autopsy process (which makes up most of first half) is quite interesting, with great on screen chemistry between the two actors.

Worst thing: The entire second half turns into a cheesy jump scare fest. While this isn't technically a ghost story it still has that old ridiculous ghost movie trope: Being dead gives you superpowers!

I absolutely loved “Troll Hunter” so, despite all indications being that “The Autopsy of Jane Doe” would not be the sort of film I'd enjoy, I found myself excited anyway. For me this wasn't going to be a film about a 'haunted' autopsy room. This was the latest film from André Øvredal and anything could happen...

The first half set up a lot of clues and I was really excited to see how the mystery would be resolved. With the father emphasising the need to be scientific and methodical, I wondered how they'd handle this seemingly supernatural phenomena.

Sadly, when answers come in the third act, it turns out that there wasn't really much mystery to unfold. The dead body is supernatural. Why does the body have damage inside while being unblemished on the outside (the mystery set up right at the beginning)? Well, not to be too specific, the answer is basically magic.

The turning point in the film at the mid point involves all the lights in the autopsy room shattering. I hate when there aren't proper rules for a supernatural entity. If the 'ghost' can make the lights smash with no explanation, it potentially could pretty much do anything and that means that it could kill off the protagonists whenever it wants. (Yes, I know it's NOT a ghost, but these are clear ghost story tropes).

I'll note that in Evil Dead 2, the deadites can do whatever they want because they are clearly toying with the protagonist.

It's actually ridiculous how lazy the film becomes in the second half. All the typical creepy noises are put into effect, we get that typical generic horror movie score and we have quick cuts so that we aren't sure exactly what is attacking our protagonists. The film goes from being an interesting introduction to a father and son working in a morgue, to a boring ten-a-penny straight off the assembly line, disposable horror flick. What a disappointment!

E

Best thing: Emily Blunt is excellent in the lead role and keeps you on her side in spite of some quite shameless behaviour from her at times. The central premise of the film is that she is essentially stalking a couple, albeit from her train window, but Blunt’s performance somehow pulled me into that story.

Worst thing: The mystery unfolds pretty slowly and it's not always clear why we should care. 'The girl I'm stalking is cheating on her boyfriend. That's terrible.' Yeah, okay psycho. In the movie "Julia", Tilda Swinton similarly played an alcoholic anti-hero, but she had a much more interesting story to go with her performance.

Watching this film I struggled to see why it had received such a lacklustre response, but as the story unfolded the issue became rather clearer.

The Girl On The Train is well directed, it's well acted and the way it gradually unfolds is mysterious. Nevertheless, it's actually a pretty dull story.

Serious credit should be given to the filmmaker who milks every dramatic and tense moment. Unfortunately it's not enough to make up for the content. I'm inclined to blame it on the book. I think its possible that this novel simply isn't suited to the screen.

I think comparisons to Gone Girl are reasonable. It's a slowly unfolding dark story about relationships. But while Gone Girl had an intense and unexpected final act. The third act of The Girl On The Train does not really feature much of a payoff and the 'twist' isn't that much of a revelation.

Also, and I can't speak for anyone else, but I found the focus on the desire to have children didn't ring true to me. All three central women in the film seem fixated on their attitude towards having children. Sure, it's possible, but at some points that fixation seems to be expected to be a source of tension in the film. I guess if you are adapting this story, you get your dramatic tension wherever you can.

The Girl On The Train is well structured and perfectly adequate film. The story didn't really interest me that much, but I can't say I had a bad time watching it. I probably wouldn't ever watch this again but, for what it is, I'd say it was good. Not great, just good.

Watch for Emily Blunt, but don't expect much payoff at the end of the story. It all wraps up very neatly but the revelations won't blow you away.

B-

Best thing: Naturally Idris Elba is the best thing, but what I especially liked about his performance is the way he often comes across like a father to the child soldiers. This made clear why our protagonist would want to join this group and would actually become a loyal child soldier committed to the cause.

Worst thing: Beasts of No Nation is way too long. There are a lot of lingering moments that dwell on the misery and frankly it didn't need to dwell so much. I can tell the situation is horrible and what I really needed was an engaging story. I have no problem with long films, so long as the pacing of the story makes it less obvious while you are watching. Here, the extreme length was painfully obvious.

I think anyone could have guessed that this would be a well-shot film with great performances (particularly from Idris but also from the child actors), but that it would also be miserable and ponderously slow-paced.

Well done. You were right. Now give this movie a miss and watch Johnny Mad Dog instead....

C-

Note: Not to be confused with the 2005 promotional short film released just before the American “The Ring Two”.

Best thing: Doesn't the 'ring' of people watching the tape and passing it on, parallel the typical cycle of life and death? Might someone try to defend against being shown Sadako's killer visions by blinding themselves? In such a maligned film it was a surprise to see these subtle new ideas raised, even if they aren't actually explored properly in the end.

Worst thing: The ending of a movie matters a lot. While you can accept some common themes across a movie series, sequels need to either start with something new or build to something new. Rings essentially builds to: “We're rebooting the movie series guys!” Promising a follow-up that most likely won’t be coming any time soon. If you saw the trailer, you know how this movie ends. You won't understand why unless you watch because, heck, how could THAT be the final reveal? - The ending is really THAT disappointing.

I'd heard bad things about this film, but in a movie series where I have now seen nearly every single entry, including the Sadako 3D movies, it's easier to be a bit more forgiving.

Basically, Rings becomes less interesting the more it progresses. It starts with a professor experimenting with his own students' lives to study the connection between the effect of the video clip (not a video tape any more).

Quite early on we get a full on reveal of Samara with a really cool version of the Samara-attack effects with water flooding out of a television screen.

Eventually we are promised a real change in this series. The video clip belonging to the female protagonist has corrupted. The file can't be copied and it has extra visions included in it.

Sadly what follows is basically a redo of the original The Ring, only with the payoff where Sadako shows just how horrifying she is having already been done (which perhaps made it inevitable that the ending would disappoint).

It perhaps shouldn't be surprising to hear that a review of a sequel may involve discussion of plot details from the first film in the series. But, in any case, SPOILER WARNING FOR "THE RING"....

The extra visions in the new distorted video give a whole new line of enquiry for a mystery to unfold. While there are differences between the Japanese and American versions of the first film, the basic structure is pretty much identical. So we can see that what then unfolds follows that structure quite closely.

The visions provide different clues. The protagonists follow those clues to uncover the story of Samara (or Sadako in Japan). Samara seems to have been mistreated and the protagonists try to find a way to resolve that for her. And here is where the real spoiler comes in: Samara doesn't care about having her issues resolved. She is projecting her hatred from the well where she was trapped and all she wants is for you to die. If you can pass the curse onto someone else that's fine, but failing that, Samara has no reason or mercy.

The mystery unfolded more clearly here than in the American version of "The Ring". The clues are a bit more specific. In "The Ring" there's a vision of a ladder because there was a long ladder up to the place where Samara slept. A horse becomes very distressed possibly in connection with large numbers of horses living near where she lives. In "Rings" pretty much every vision seems to be a necessary clue.

The attempt to resolve issues for Samara in "Rings" is actually pretty solid, but it's not terribly exciting in the way it is portrayed. I actually wonder whether this isn't the part of the film cut and/or re-shot. In the trailer, Vincent D'Onofrio helps to explain the mark that Samara leaves on the female protagonist's arm, suggesting that he might have indicated where the filmmakers were planning to take the series next. I suspect the problem is that nobody wants to try to use the follow up novels to the original source material. I've seen Spiral (Rasen) and, however well it works as a novel, it just came off as ridiculous nonsense.

It's from the Spiral storyline, however, that all the sequels  (barring perhaps Sadako 3D) take their theme of Sadako/Samara attempting to be reborn. It's just that the novels wanted to characterise this as Sadako transferring her genetic code and somehow becoming a fully grown adult super quick so she can seduce someone. (It's been a while, so I may be misremembering, but I think Sadako was also trying to have an evil baby.)

In any case, if there were any daring forays into the more wacky elements from this source material, then it must have all been rejected since the final result is a very humdrum ending that feels more like a tease for a further sequel that is unlikely to ever be released.

But in spite of all the negative feedback I think this had potential and I actually preferred it to the first American remake that has always struck me as a dull jump scare fest.

(I am never going to stop harping on about this because it is my go-to example of 'dumbest jump scare ever' but The Ring features the 'milipede in an envelope' jump scare. Whenever you write a review saying that the American version of Ring is better than the original, an angel loses its wings. Stop doing it, okay!)

D+

Best thing: It's great going back to films like Fargo and The Man Who Wasn't There, where the humour originally felt out of place. Now that I can see that all Coen Brothers movies are black comedies, this dark nihilistic tragedy is hilarious. My favourite bit? Probably: "We're not late. We're-on-time Ed!"

Worst thing: This isn't necessarily a big problem, but I've never really understood the significance of the UFO towards the end.Just a wonderful black comedy (and nobody does black comedy like the Coens). Billy Bob Thornton knocks it out of the park as a quiet empty man whose attempts to make something of his life cause all hell to break loose.

Like with the Coen Brothers' later film "A Serious Man", there's a sense that the world is absurd and unfair. Yet while the protagonist of "A Serious Man" was distressed by the way his life is out of control, Billy Bob Thornton remains cold and stoic no matter what is thrown at him.

I suppose Billy Bob Thornton is expressing the same cold stoicism of a noir movie detective, only as someone who already knows the case better than anyone else rather than as someone trying to solve the case.

Definitely one of my many favourites in the Coen Brothers' filmography.

A+

Best thing: The way the film returns again and again to its main set of clues: the recording made by our sound technician protagonist, played by John Travolta. It's very stylish and creative, the way the film explores that aspect.

Worst thing: The scene where they show Travolta working with recording apparatus for undercover police, the setup felt unconvincing to me. If someone is working undercover, running in to meet then is going to be the worst thing you can do. If you blow their cover, the criminals may well kill the both of you.

Such a fantastic thriller and definitely a major highlight in John Travolta's career.

Blow out has a neat premise. A sound technician recording sounds for a horror movie goes out late at night to record sound effects to use on the film. While still recording, he sees a car accident where a car goes off the road and into the water. After saving a woman from the wreckage, he is asked not to talk to the press, but when the incident makes the news anyway, Travolta's character realises something is very wrong.

The theme of the film seems to be that the powerful step on the weak. This is a story about exploitation and corruption. Which makes it all the more annoying when the film seems to try to excuse the conspirators.

We're told that the conspirators are somehow shocked by what is happening as much as we are, which seems inconsistent to me. Perhaps it's a realistic inconsistency for powerful men to want terrible things but don't want to hear about the blood on their hands, but nevertheless the film seemed to be trying to let the conspirators off the hook and that's an annoying compromise in an otherwise uncompromisingly dark thriller.

The downer ending is powerful and i absolutely love it, even if it's a bit of a drag. This is a film that has always stuck with me and it was a real pleasure to revisit.

A+

Best thing: Colin Firth is always great and the way he seems both a little sinister and yet also utterly charming and harmless at the same time works really well. Mark Strong has a similar ambiguity in his performance.

Worst thing: Not everything makes sense by the end. Whether you enjoy the film or not, it must be admitted that the plot is a little preposterous.

I guess 14 years was enough time to justify a new take on the amnesiac condition explored in Nolan's "Memento". A woman wakes up to be told that she cannot make new memories and that she is married. She then gets a call from a doctor, of whom her husband is unaware, who reveals that she has a camera with a series of self-dictated videos stored on it.

As the story unfolds the question is, which of these men can she trust? She doesn't remember the doctor, but she doesn't remember the husband either. It's actually quite difficult to fully be convinced by this set up.

If she was married before the attack surely she should remember her husband. If she couldn't make new memories when she was married, wouldn't she be too vulnerable for a commitment like that? After all, by the day of the wedding she wouldn't remember any of their wedding plans.

Actually we do have an explanation for this but, like I say, the film doesn't do a great job convincing the audience with its dialogue. What really helps pull the audience in is the awesome performances. Colin Firth in particular, absolutely knocks it out of the park.

Overall this is pretty straightforward solid drama. I had a lot of fun. And the performances definitely elevate the material.

B+

Best thing: The extent to which the protagonists seem trapped in a crime-ridden underworld is almost surreal at times. At one point they are on a late night bus route and the bus absolutely refuses to stop for them. It's like they are locked out of the world they come from and trapped in a nightmarish lower class world of dark streets, abandoned buildings, council flats and street gangs. Michael Leary seems less like a gang leader and more like a monster that preys on the weak.
Worst thing: The decision to try to sell us on Emilio Estevez as some kind of badass.

A kind of horror film that practically turns into urban fantasy. A group of friends find themselves in the wrong part of town and help a man they believe they hit with they hit with the car. When it turns out that he is running away from some creepy figures from some kind of powerful organised crime gang things start to get seriously hairy for our band of unfortunate bystanders.

The protagonists find themselves seemingly trapped in the dingy under-belly of the city and when their lives are on the line it tests their friendships and their personal integrity.

Much better first half than second half, but the main two figures of the gang are seriously creepy. Overall I found this to be fun, but I remembered it being better.

B-

Best thing: M. Emmet Walsh as the cynical tactless private eye is really great and must be my favourite character here.

Worst thing: While wonderfully put together, this lacks the humour of later Coen Brothers. It's a little irritating that I can see how the misunderstandings between the characters COULD have been played for comedy, whereas here I'm just frustratedly shouting at the characters to, please, communicate with one another.

Blood Simple is an odd duck in the Coen Brothers filmography. There are plenty of films in their  filmography where the comedy is harder to recognise. After all, even in their dark-as-hell Oscar winner No Country For Old Men there are still some comedy moments such as when a potential victim is simply confused while the villain explains that he is deciding his fate in a coin toss. But in no Coen Brothers film is the comedy so difficult to recognise as in Blood Simple.

There's almost a farcical aspect in the way some characters make assumptions about the other characters' intentions. But the film never plays this for laughs. It seems more like this aspect is supposed to be creepy. Almost like we are being encouraged to second guess even elements that have been clearly spelled out. The Coen Brothers always love playing with their audience's perception and they would only get better at this.

Frankly "Blood Simple" is an interesting debut, but it's not as much of a must-watch as most Coen Brothers movies. It's a bit slow and arguably a bit dull. But it's also very well put together with some great performances. It's jusy unusual to have a Coen Brothers film that is solid rather than brilliant.

B-

Best thing: While pointing to the gorgeous visuals might seem like a bad sign, I could easily point to Scarlett Johansson's performance or even how badass Takeshi Kitano is as Daisuke Aramaki. But yes, the way the director brings these scenes from the original movie to life is absolutely wonderful. This film works as both a prequel and an homage, which might make it difficult of they were deciding what original visuals to put into a sequel (so I guess it's a relief to the filmmakers that, from what I hear, they won't have to make that decision). Even some new visuals, like Major sending her consciousness into a hacked mind for clues, are really impressive.

Worst thing: The central mystery isn't really all that complex, particularly by comparison to the slow build of the movies. (Then again Ghost In The Shell movies and tv series have that anime tendency of making everything confusing almost for the sake of it. Perhaps a version that's easy to follow isn't such a bad thing.) Part of me feels this should be more complex.

More of an homage to Ghost In The Shell than either an adaptation or a separate story in its own right. Still, as an homage it's really not bad.

It's not as smart as it could be, but I'd question whether the original Ghost In The Shell movies are really as smart as they like to think they are anyway.

Scarlett Johansson is actually a pretty great fit for what has always been quite a cold character and I really feel I was misled by claims that her expressions were “robotic” in this movie.

And yeah, Major's robot body has arguably always been white. In a film with a far wider range of races than the original Japanese cartoons ever had, I think criticising this American homage for whitewashing is more than a little daft. (If they just set it in America with all white actors, like they did with "The Ring", are we saying that would have been better?)

Compelling visuals that pull you into a living breathing portrayal of the world from Mamoru Oshii's anime films. A solid central performance from Scarlett Johansson. Some neat links between this and the original movie make this a cool little prequel to the beloved classic, even while it brings memorable moments from that same film to life.

B+

Best thing: When I first saw this, Arnie had just become Governor and I think I had Arnie fatigue. It's difficult to say what it was about this viewing that made me so much more engaged. I think the best thing is always Arnie's charisma and comic timing. Arnie clearly has so much fun with this role and that joy is not infectious.

Worst thing: Dan Hedaya pretending to be the dethroned dictator of a non-existent country is kind of painful.

Arnold Schwarzenegger never could have achieved his incredible film career simply by being big. Apart from in Hercules In New York and possibly Conan the Barbarian, Arnie has always had a great charm and sense of humour.

Apart from a line towards the beginning of the film where Arnie seems to be saying, "Perhaps the Stasi were right about pop music," which I found a little awkward, Arnie otherwise remains a likeable ex-soldier with unparalleled skills in pretty much everything other than remaining inconspicuous.

Actually he also turns out not to be able to fly a plane so what luck that he happens to meet a trainee pilot, who oddly seems to decide to stick with him on his mission before either.realise how vital she will be.

Sure, when Arnie growls, "I lied," at one of the villains, it's one of the many points in the film where things get a little unintentionally comical (though there's a tongue-in-cheek feel to the whole film). But Arnie's charm is such as to make those moments not only enjoyable, but actually highlights of the film.

I must have completely lost interest when this was playing in the living room that one time and I have no idea why. I think this may actually be one of Schwarzenegger's best films.

A+

Best thing: While the obvious choice would be Willem Dafoe going full Green Goblin as the death god Riuk, my favourite aspect would be Lakeith Stanfield as the mysterious L. He captured the bizarre intelligent awkwardness of the character very well.

Worst thing: Not sure why L has special glowing sci-fi sleep glasses. Is that in the manga?

You know how it is. You wait with baited breath for the latest film from one of your favourite directors. After so many disappointments from cherished directors (including, say, Joon-Ho Bong's ridiculous "Okja" movie already appearing on Netflix), you are a little apprehensive.

But then you find, against all expectations, the film is fast-paced, fun, visually dynamic, and a very satisfying experience in general. Perhaps not the very best thing the director has ever done, but a strong entry nonetheless.

Then you read the reviews and it turns out everyone hates it.

I'd seen the first two Japanese live action films. The first didn't finish and the second became convoluted. Frankly it was a bit of a slog. I must  admit that I preferred the more sweet and cartoonish appearance of Riuk the death god in the Japanese movies. Willem Dafoe unsurprisingly plays a demon by reprising his Green Goblin performance from Spider-Man, but one creepy aspect of Riuk is how he acts like a friend. However, I think the actor playing L in this new version completely nails it. (Following on from his great performance in a supporting role in Get Out.)

I've heard some purists arguing that the protagonist anti-hero Light is not enough of a megalomaniac in this version. Frankly he is, he just does a better job of lying to himself about it. This is dealt with in more depth by placing our protagonist in opposition to another character similarly keen to play god right from the start, leading to quite a cool little power play between them.

I personally feel that Adam Wingard has managed to create a deeper live action adaptation than the Japanese managed, even while ramping up the pacing.

Awesome!

A+

Best thing: Wonder Woman crossing no man's land. It's a spectacular action sequence.

Worst thing: I don't even begin to understand Wonder Woman's personality. She loves fighting but hates war. She knows that mustard gas is normally sulfur based, but doesn't understand the idea of a war having 'fronts'. She can produce a powerful blast by throwing her wrists together but doesn't use this technique very often. Why?

Is this actually any better than Man of Steel? In that movie Superman was written to seem remarkably bland (particularly considering how much character Henry Cavill had in The Man From UNCLE) and similarly Wonder Woman here seems incredibly bland.

Chris Pine is alright as the male love interest, not least because he seems to have been given an actual plot. Wonder Woman spends most of the film hunting for a villain who might not even exist and, once that side of that story unfolds, she doesn't end up having to work out anything for herself. Everything is spelled out for her and the stakes in her final action sequence and completely unclear.

The only point where I really felt we could cheer for Wonder Woman is where she crosses No Man's Land. For someone who says the whole conflict is unnecessary and solely due to the interference of a god of war, she seems remarkably happy to fight Germans. Still, we can at least recognise that to cut the gordian knot she needs to cause some real damage. No one ia going to be able to cross No Man's Land while the opposing force are still defending their trenches.

So when Wonder Woman is shielding herself from machine gun bullets with her shield and knocking down armoured vehicles with her bare hands it's admittedly pretty cool. Then again, I'm not sure why she doesn't just use her special move where she causes an explosive blast by putting her bracelets together. It looks like enough to knock down an German aircraft if necessary. If she just kept using that, it doesn't look like she'd need much else.

Wonder Woman isn't one of the worst superhero movies, but I'm not accepting the suggestion that it is one of the best. Mediocre and bland. Pretty to look at but with nothing terribly gripping actually happening. If you thought Man of Steel was bad (as I did), I’m not quite sure why you’d find this to be preferable...

D+

Best thing: Spider-Man interrogating Donald Glover (an actor/comedian who had a whole sketch around enthusiasm on the Internet for him to take the Spider-Man role). Loved it!

Worst thing: So is Spider-Man completely invulnerable now? For all his superpowers, I'd always thought that Spider-Man would be genuinely at risk if his spider-sense didn't help him avoid most attacks. I thought stopping a train with his body in the second Raimi film was going a bit far and there's a similar test of Spider-Man's strength here, but one scene really seems to go too far. I won't spoil how this film pushes Spider-Man's powers beyond the limit, but Spider-Man has a big fight scene straight afterwards and doesn't seem to struggle with any injuries while fighting.

Any review of this novie inevitably has to make reference to the previous attempts at Spider-Man movies. The old tv movie that kick-started the live action tv series didn't really have the same character as the comics, but it did get us excited about a guy who climbs up walls in a cool costume.

I have never understood the praise given to Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies. I liked aspects of them. Some of the slapstick style Raimi brings to it works very well, but Tobey Maguire's awkward super-nerd take on the character felt way too on the nose. While the action became more kinetic and there was some decent humour at points in Raimi's Spider-Man 2, but some of the sickly sentimentality became worse than ever. When Peter Parker starts randomly quoting poetry to the girl he dumped who has already happily moved on, it was just so painful.

But enough of me bitching about Raimi's films. His vision of Spider-Man for the big screen had a strong influence on the way we understand Spider-Man but, as a reader of Spider-Man comics during the 90s, I found Mark Webb's Amazing Spider-Man movies were much closer to the comics and much better at pulling on the heart strings. The greatest strength of Webb's Spider-Man movies would have to be the way it portrays the relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey. But Webb seemed to be struggling to provide the best product in spite of controlling producers and problems with the writing and I feel that what killed off this series more than anything else may have been the decision to rush into the death of Gwen Stacey. Emma Stone was one of the strongest elements of these films and I can't help but feel that when they were deciding what to do next with the series, the loss of Emma Stone cannot have helped.

So now we have the introduction of Spider-Man into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It definitely can't be accused of being a repeat of what has been done before. Finally Spider-Man has a sense of humour. Tom Holland definitely takes a lot of cues from Andrew Garfield's performance, only he has lots of jokes in the script.

While I think giving Spider-Man a computerised suit is an odd choice, Marvel have pulled their usual trick of making their film very funny, highly entertaining and they've bunged the tried and tested favourite, Iron Man, into the mix to keep the punters happy. But there's no doubt that Tom Holland is the star here and he gives one hell of a performance.

A+

Best thing: The future world with its satirical elements is a lot of fun.

Worst thing: The attempt at a twist at the end was a bit lame.

Freejack is a sci-fi movie that looks a bit cheap and the villains are a bit too cartoonish. In spite of this I found this to be a highly entertaining and surprisingly compelling dystopian sci-fi action film.

The filmmakers don't seem sure on how to end the film, but they definitely know how to make it a fun ride.

B+

Best thing: Even I could tell that Idris Elba's American accent didn't work here (and I was completely convinced that he was American in The Wire). But, despite this, Idris Elba is still a really strong screen presence and a strong central focus for the action and story.

Worst thing: The scenes where Paris is overtaken by rioting show a masked ringleader consistently encouraging the violence. These scenes didn't work for me, partly because they are presented in a way that I found contrived, but also because we saw in the London riots how the violence took on a life of its own. Expecting that rioters are going to follow one lead figure and be united in their spontaneous reactionary violence seemed to expect a high level of suspension of disbelief. Particularly since the filmmakers wanted me to take this seriously.

Idris Elba is great and there are some action moments that work really well. Nevertheless overall this film is just way too dumb.

I don't want to be overly harsh. I didn't have a terrible time. But there is no way I would ever recommend this film.

Idris Elba isn't technically the protagonist. There's a suspect that he ends up teaming up with who doesn't have anything like Elba's charisma, but who we seem to be expected to empathise with for some unclear reason.

The Take is a mediocre action film, but you could definitely do worse.

C-

Best thing: The relationship between the little girl and her genetically engineered super-pig is very emotionally powerful.

Worst thing: While it's clear from the extreme swearing that this isn't a children's film, I thought the (*trigger warning dammit!*) savage animal-on-animal rape was going too far. The darker elements and wackier elements don't blend as well as they normally do in Joon-Ho Bong films. However, nowhere is this clash more jarring than in Jake Gyllenhaal's character, a foul-mouthed washed-up children's television personality. His squeaky voice irritated the hell out of me. Gyllenhaal's character here is unbelievable, unbearable and I found him a bit confusing really.

I've always loved Joon-Ho Bong as a director, particularly for his skill in matching clashing tones of humour and dark themes.

In "The Host" he balanced the theme of a savage monster and a viral outbreak against a comic relief family where each family member had their own unique quirks (and yet each has their own emotional moments too).

In Snowpiercer, Tilda Swinton is involved in oppressing and ordering the slaughter of the rear passengers of the train, but in many scenes she's almost child-like. She has a look of innocent joy on her face as she enjoys a piece of on-train propaganda with a class of schoolchildren.

In Okja, Joon-Ho Bong once again combines dark themes with wacky comedy, but these elements do not seem to blend very well.

The opening scene of Okja, telling us about the creepy company run by Tilda Swinton's character, was irritating as hell. It's a big piece of marketing but I can't really imagine anyone getting very excited about it.

It's also hard to understand why it is presented the way it is. Does the audience within the film not understand that the Super-Pigs the corporation is rearing must be genetically engineered? The presentation insists it is not genetically modified and I'm left wondering why the audience are dumb enough to believe it.

And when Tilda Swinton says, "They need to taste f**king good," the use of swearing seems unnecessary, jarring and completely unsuitable for the context. This continues to be the case as the film goes on. Okja often feels like a film for children and the sequences with the little girl protagonist and her cute Super-Pig friend fit that tone and are the parts of the film that works best.

Okja is a big disappointment but it is also a very interesting film. I guess not all of Joon-Ho Bong's films can be perfect. Still there's so much unmet potential due to the way the clash between dark themes and humour falls uncharacteristically flat for Joon-Ho Bong this time.

D+

Best thing: Neil Marshall's segment concludes the film and, perhaps unwisely, begins by trying to tie the disparate strands together. It features an unconventional villain (that I won't spoil) and it is wonderfully silly.

Worst thing: The voice of the cartoon alien. It was weird enough that they did an 'alien versus Jason' kind of story, and weirder still that the alien is a cutesy cartoon. But that voice? In a film where so many of the stories fail to make that much of an impact, it seems wrong to claim that the worst part is featured in this rather more creative and memorable entry. But seriously that squeaky, yet otherwise perfectly average, voice. It just completely pulls me out of the film in a really annoying way.

The main names that attracted me to this film were Lucky McKee and Neil Marshall.

McKee chose a great actress for the main role and had some great visual ideas for her character's creepy appearance. Unfortunately the ending of that segment feels like a bit of an anti-climax.

Neil Marshall's segment is actually pretty cool. The problem however, and this is true of all the segments, is that nothing in this movie really blows me away. I find myself appreciating anthologies like VHS2 and XX all the more because they have those high points.

Tales of Halloween is fine. That's about it. It has its John Landis cameo and its “Jason vs an alien-possessed body” sequence, so it's not wholly unmemorable. But there's nothing really creepy, really gory or really spectacular here.

C+

Best thing: Heck, any of the magical dream sequences are brilliant. This film has a brilliant and creative premise. A child whose dreams become real while he sleeps allows for some pretty cool imagery.

Worst thing: Final resolution seems a little too easy for a number of reasons. Both logistically with the adoption authorities and emotionally considering all the horrifying events leading to that point. That being said, it's not a horribly unsatisfying ending by any means.

Mike Flanagan's "Before I Wake" struggled to be released so after Flanagan's "Hush" became a highly lauded Netflix original it's perhaps not surprising that they were willing to release this film too. (Apparently this was released in UK cinemas, but I must say, it went under the radar.)

The concept is actually brilliant. A child's dreams become real, but so do his nightmares. A boogeyman in his nightmares sometimes escapes and eats people.

The film also has grounding in reality through the adopting couple whose own child died while young and they clearly aren't over it yet.

In the second half the move to a conclusion is a bit awkward. The explanation is quite clever, but I still found the resolution a bit hard to accept. When you are experimenting with anything you generally have to prepare for the possibility that it could go wrong. That has to count double when you are experimenting with the supernatural. Particularly a supernatural entity that can swallow you up making you disappear forever.

Before I Wake is essentially a fantasy movie, but it's also a horror film because magic is creepy. Dreams coming to life can be spectacular and uplifting, but it can also be horrifying. It's a great concept, but I didn't engage that much with the characters here.

B-

Best thing: Such cool inventive supernatural monsters. Very keen on the Vietnam soldier zombie.

Worst thing: The Vietnam scenes may actually be the least believeable part of the film (in a film with flying sentient gardening tools). When the soldiers get surrounded by Vietkong and escape by quickly shooting the enemy troops down it feels very obviously untrue to life. It's okay though, because the fun tone of the film and the general dream-like feel to the scenes mean you can roll with it.

I love a good horror comedy and House is just so much fun. And it helps that we have great characters to follow.

When you have a ghost story it helps when it is grounded by real life elements. Here there is a suggestion that the hauntings may actually be connected to the protagonist's flashbacks to his time in Vietnam.

While the ending makes no sense it's somehow fitting and the film is fun enough that it doesn't matter.

There's something really sweet about House. There are parts that are a little cheesy and the film allows itself to get a little too silly in places. But this is a solid fun film and well worth checking out if you want a light fun horror comedy.

B+

Best thing: This is a film that benefits from being simple but effective. While shots of the main alien are short and, having seen the sequel first, I'd already seen the alien in all its glory, the really interesting part for me is the face hugger. The shot where it starts tightening its grip with its tail around John Hurt's neck is awesome.

Worst thing: The alien is so fast you cant see it coming, even when it is right on top of you. Yet Ripley is able to spot it on route to the shuttle without it seeing her and decides in this long inter-weaving set of corridors that there is no other way to the shuttle. This glimpse of the alien is so short and unclear that I’ve wondered for years why she decides to shut down the self destruct. Now I know, but it's confusingly presented.

Yeah I know, everyone loves Alien and thinks its the best of that series. Fine. But I was actually shown Aliens first so I'd seen far more lingering shots of the alien before, not mention lots of aliens before. Plus the aliens I'd seen seemed to be able to move much in a more graceful manner.

In my opinion, the moment the alien finishes with John Hurt, the pacing in Alien takes a massive hit. I really get tired of all the running down corridors. I tried the director's cut a while back and was surprised to find that, despite being shorter, it drags even more. I definitely had a much better time here with the original cut.

And another thing that's really bugged me. There's one scene where it appears to be raining inside the ship. Is it a big leak somewhere? The ship maintenance technician in that scene doesn't seen alarmed and in fact decides to wash his face in the dripping water! Nobody else bugged by this? Just me?

Naturally, for all my qualms, I do still like Alien. It's a pretty simple horror film, but the first half with the face hugger is so good and there are enough cool moments in the second half to tide me over.

I very much like the dystopian totalitarian Mother computer system that dictates what they do from a creepy plain black screen. But overall not much is really done with this aspect. It isn't used to develop the kind of wider themes we see in Prometheus or Covenant. But, like I said, it's simple and effective.

Alien is a cool little sci-fi horror movie and I'm glad it has been so influential. But for me, I think it becomes very dated the minute you see James Cameron's bigger bolder sequel.

B+

Best thing: The discovery and skirmish with the alien queen is incredible. This is a film that is made by its last act. It actually drags a little at some points in the middle, but that finale turns out to be well worth the wait.

Worst thing: Can Noot please just shut the hell up? She has the most annoying voice ever!

Thinking back, I only really like three of James Cameron's movies. The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and Aliens. Somehow James Cameron's sensibilities at the time matched very nicely with the Alien mythology and he really had something to say with his 'marine corp in space' concept.

The concept of the alien queen fits in so neatly and so nicely, it feels almost like they must have had this concept in mind from the start. The design of the queen, however, was absolutely mesmerising.

I was watching the director's cut and I think that's my preferred version of the film. That being said, I always find it jarring when Captain Hollister from Red Dwarf shows up as someone helping to manage the colony.

Aliens is now a classic sci-fi action movie along with Cameron's similarly iconic Terminator films. This is an absolute must-see

A+

Best thing: As you'd expect from Lucio Fulci, there are some very inventive deaths. My favourite involved a girl trying to get out of a room with her boyfriend's decapitated body. But every door she opens comes back into the same room. Great stuff!

Worst thing: The opening to this film is incredibly dumb. "We thought we'd set up a complicated prank involving setting up microphones around her fake date and then driving our cars at her." What? Also the death by snails is a bit hard to take seriously.

Okay it's official. I'm a massive Lucio Fulci fan now. Zombie Flesh Eaters, The Beyond (oh my god!), A Cat In The Brain and now Aenigma. Seriously, this stuff is great. Nightmarish, crazy-gory and creepy as hell but with that sense of fun that all good horror films need.

Aenigma is about a girl taking her revenge from a coma by possessing a new girl to the school of the girls who bullied her. (I thought Fulci's work was supposed to be misogynistic? The character of the new girl felt very anti-slut-shaming and the film features the violent murder of predatory man.

It's not quite the same visceral horror as you get from zombie attacks and Aenigma isn't always as gory asFulci's other films, but this is still a strong horror film and surprisingly plot-driven for a Fulci movie.

B+

Best thing: Rutger Hauer is amazing in every scene. The whole way he moves and acts is so creepy in such a fascinating way. It's easy to see why Anne Rice envisioned him as the vampire Lestat. However, the visuals will always be the very best thing about Blade Runner. When I first watched the film it seemed darker and less captivating, possibly because it was on VHS. I don't know if it's the improvements in the Final Cut or just that I'm watching a DVD, but it's brighter and I can finally make out all the little details.

Worst thing: Seriously, what is the point in the rape scene here? It's hard enough to connect with Harrison Ford's character without him being an utter prick. Is it to show how low Rachael has sunk? We met her as a secretary in a smart outfit and now she's on the run and in an abusive relationship. That's pretty dark, but it's a side-show to the story of the replicants confronting their creators.

When I first saw Blade Runner I didn't get it. It was a dark dingy vision of the future. In some scenes it was actually hard to even make out was happening. The characters were often intentionally weird because they are robots and the lead protagonist is withdrawn and we  never really come to know him. There was also a slow dull scene where the protagonist is sitting around playing piano and dreaming of unicorns that seemed to go on forever.

Watching the Final Cut, everything is better. The visuals are clearer. The unicorn dream scene doesn't seem to last so long or drag so much. Somehow Ford seems to have a little more personality this time. I have read that they cut a swear word and replaced it with father, but in a film where, on first viewing, I struggled to understand the point, a line like "I want more life father" feels more suitable thematically.

I keep hearing people complain that Blade Runner: The Final Cut removes the ambiguity over whether Harrison Ford is a replicant. Frankly, if he's not a replicant, the unicorn dream is a dumb waste of time. The Final Cut's final scene shows us clearly what silver origami animal Harrison Ford picks up and the better pacing made it easier to grasp the full significance of this. It makes this a proper ending rather than just leaving me cold like the original director's cut did.

The Final Cut is the only version of this film that I actually like. Besides, Rutger Hauer, the main characters are still too flat and this is a film more focused on mood than story or character. I know Blade Runner is viewed as a classic, but for me it's just 'fine'.

P.S. This video indicates that another change in the final cut from the director’s cut is an increase in the amount of gore. We’re only talking about a few short clips, but I think it really does help to add to the drama and up the stakes. It’s one thing seeing that Rutget has stabbed himself with a nail, but seeing that he has to shove it all the way through his hand? It’s more impactful and makes it clearer how short term this solution must be. The upcoming demise of the replicants as they track down their creators is a vital part of the film, so it’s not just gore for the sake of it. It’s an important part of the dramatic progression of the film. Drama that I thought was way too lacking in the first “director’s cut”.

B-

Best thing: Do ya punk?

Worst thing: How long have you been a detective? You don't know how the law works? I can understand Dirty Harry being frustrated by how the system works, but as a seasoned detective it's hard to understand why he's so surprised that a perp will walk in those circumstances.

Dirty Harry felt like it was full of clichés, most likely because it was the first film to do any of those things. Dirty Harry is the original "I work alone" cop-on-the-edge.

Clint Eastwood is great, of course. He's a little too chilled at times, mind you, but that is how his character is written. There's a scene where he's saying he'd rather they didn't cut off his trousers to remove a bullet. Seriously dude! You'll at least have a bullet hole in them anyway, not to mention bloodstains.

But in any case, Dirty Harry is a classic for a reason. Some elements struck me as a little ludicrous, such as when they are being attacked with a machine gun and no one is calling for backup, but I had a lot of fun.

A+

Best thing: Kevin Spacey being intimidating or ethically questionable is always great.

Worst thing: Right from the beginning this film had me screaming at the screen: "Stop saying chicken dinner!" Seriously how did they think the protagonist targeting the audience with a condescending voiceover would be a good idea?

The premise is pretty cool but none of it ever comes close to seeming real.

A bright kid is frustrated by his lack of money, but he discovers that one of his teachers is showing groups of students how to win at Blackjack by counting cards.

The film seems to follow a clear formula and the presentation of the film isn't that exciting. It was actually frustrating how close this was to being a good film.

21 is annoyingly average, but too much of the film is plain naff for me to recommend it.

C+

A pretty thorough documentary on the unmade film "Superman Lives!" The main aim seems to be countering the ridicule on the internet brought on by a photo of Nicolas Cage mid-blink, wearing an ugly purple Superman outfit. This is mainly established by some behind the scenes footage, though the documentary puts that footage into a clear context. The highlight of this documentary is the big reveal of a suit with internal lights that is quite spellbinding.

All that being said, there's limited benefit in unpacking the making a film that was never made. It feels quite clear that much of what was done did not lead to a movie for good reason.

This documentary on Superman Lives still demonstrates some interesting things:
- That Kevin Smith's script probably wasn't all that good.
- That the producer Kevin Smith worked with really WAS desperate to make a movie that included a giant spider.
- The reason that studio projects continue to go through development and investment for long periods with no sign of a release date is basically ‘sunk cost fallacy’. (The more creative turmoil the project goes through and the more they spend, the harder it is to accept that they should just give up on the project.)
- The way that the intentions for Superman Lives! fed into later iterations i.e. that it should have a greater level of action, that it should involve the ‘death of Superman’ story line, that it should re-imagine Superman's home world of Krypton. (These are all elements that Singer's Superman Returns would shy away from.).

As a pleasing portrayal of a variety of interesting aspects of a failed production, including old behind the scenes footage and more recent interviews, “The Death of ‘Superman Lives’: What Happened?” certainly feels worthy of your time if the subject matter appeals to you. I enjoyed it.

Best thing: Kong is admittedly a film that relies on its action sequences. My favourite is probably the initial confrontation between Kong and the attack helicopters. What better way to show the distinction between traditional Kong and this super-sized behemoth than to have him take out far more threatening craft than those that knocked Kong off the Empire State Building and to have him handle them so easily.

Worst thing: I know you wanted John C. Reilly for the role. I get that. But how do you possibly explain him putting on that much weight when he's stranded on an island? And even if we imagine that he's found some kind of ultra sugary fruit and simply overindulged over the years, why would he resize his army uniform rather than wearing clothes like the tribe he is living with?

Kong: Skull Island is a solid action film with some great visual touches. There isn't much of a plot, but the film is still consistently fun.

The original King Kong is a classic that has been remade way too many times already, but Kong: Skull Island isn't just a repeat of the same old story. In fact Kong is barely even the same character. He's as big as a blooming skyscraper! If he tried to climb the Empire State Building it would collapse!

Sure Kong is silly, but my goodness is it a lot of fun. The characters successfully pulled me in. This isn't a top pick for the year, but it is a satisfying watch and a lot better than I'd been expecting.

B+

Best thing: I think the sheer ballsiness of the protagonist is probably the best thing. I spent the film asking myself why she keeps putting herself at risk, but I never found it hard to believe that this character WOULD do those things. The protagonist has a very consistent and uncompromising drive for some kind of personal redemption, driven out of proportion by her own feelings of guilt.

Worst thing: This isn't what I'd call a particularly exciting film. It's interesting, sure, but I didn't get a lot of catharsis out of this personally.

The Unknown Girl doesn't have spaceships, it doesn't have gore, and it doesn't have character's shouting dramatically and while the camera gives us a closeup of the lines on their face.

The Unknown Girl has its dramatic moments but it doesn't play them up. It's quite naturalistic. I actually feel naturalism in film is a bit of a dirty word. I can't say that I really like the decision not to emphasise the drama,  but I do appreciate the tense moments a great deal.

I can't much relate to the protagonist's decisions, but I do find it interesting. Even as a film that I'd say wasn't really my thing, I must say this was a pretty interesting little drama

B-

Best thing: The visuals are exciting and beautiful. I've heard it said that Lucy becomes way too powerful for the film to have any stakes. But actually I think the visuals are so cool that I was not worried about how unlikely it was for Lucy to be defeated.

Worst thing: Naturally the whole premise that we don't use more than 10% of our brain is nonsense and the claims about what would happen if we used more are therefore even dumber. Nevertheless the idea of a woman who is able to reach abilities beyond the reach of the average human being makes for an interesting concept and the way that unfolds almost compensates for the dumb explanation behind it. What I actually find to be the worst thing is the way Min-Sik Choi is completely wasted as the villain here.

Luc Besson is a director I generally find pretty solid. The first Besson film I saw was Leon which is one of my all-time favourite films. He followed that up with The Fifth Element which is a fun sci-fi adventure (also seemingly taking some inspiration from Blade Runner). After that he released his action movie about the life of Joan of Arc, titled The Messenger, which I found incredibly underrated. After a gap Besson released Angel-A which convinced me that Besson must have really lost his edge, but then I was really impressed by Adele Blanc-Sec. Besson then released The Family which I thought was fine, which brings us to Besson's sci-fi action movie Lucy.

On the basis of the trailer, I was convinced I would hate Lucy. Frankly, even in context, the concept came across as dumb as expected, and even Morgan Freeman's authoritative tone couldn't give it credibility.

What kept me on board, however, was the exciting visuals from Besson. As silly and hollow as the plot might be, Besson does a great job depicting Johannson as a woman losing her connection to humanity as she becomes ever more god-like, transcending our ordinary perspectives on time and space.

I've heard it argued that Johansson's character has too much power for the baddies to be a serious threat. My issue though is that the baddies simply aren't relevant to the story. We never know enough about them to justify their sub-plot.

Perhaps the idea is to contrast petty violence with perfect wisdom, but considering that your villains have wherewithall to create intelligence-boosting super drugs, not to mention their willingness to engage in a full fledged gun battle with the police even when it looks like the jig is up, they seem to be beyond the typical comment on the vulgarity of human nature.

In the end the visuals are used to try to make it look like this film has something to say, but it isn't quite enough to make up for the fact that the plot is dumb as hell.

Luc Besson has an excellent grasp of cinematic catharsis and is able to build up emotional response in a way that, for example, George Lucas' Star Wars prequels completely lacked. I feel like Luc Besson had higher ideals for what he wanted to convey with this premise than the lazy pseudo-intellectual script could really support. The visuals in Lucy are actually smarter than the dialogue.

There's more potential here than I would have expected, but I still can't recommend it. But this still has a bit of the Luc Besson magic.

C-

Best thing: The Void is a wonderful Lovecraftian nightmare-scape reminiscent of Lucio Fulci's The Beyond and John Carpenter's In The Mouth of Madness, among many others. It's not just the visuals but also the incredible oppressive atmosphere they invoke that makes this so thrilling.

Worst thing: Somehow The Beyond could have no plot and yet it didn't matter. For me, The Void doesn't manage to reach that same level. I was very aware that The Void features a few fairly thin characters and pretty much no plot

Wow.

Okay so the central couple are the least interesting characters, but the supporting characters occasionally get some great moments. Particularly when Ellen Wong forces us to consider, would you try to perform a caesarian if you had almost no idea what you were doing but were both the mother and unborn child's only hope for survival?

There are some deliciously evil characters, some hood wearing creepy henchmen, and some characters a little more informed on the situation who gave up on conflicted emotions and ethical qualms several hours ago.

The effects are creepy, gruesome and spectacular. I wish the filmmakers would linger a bit more on the special effects model-work here but we still get great monster effects all the same.

I also absolutely love the glimpses of the world inside the void. It's another source of spectacular visuals that really build up the nightmarish Fulci-esque atmosphere.

Style over substance? Yeah probably. But this is a horror film with some serious style.

A-

Best thing: The young actress, Lulu Wilson, does a great possessed girl act and the scenes where she gets to be evil are a lot of fun.

Worst thing: This is a film that loses its way in the third act. There's a bit of a mystery, but the resolution felt incredibly contrived to me.

In the first half there was a cool period-specific horror piece and I loved how it set up the family. The best possession effects are generally in the first half and if you've seen the trailer you've seen the best bits. Still, the way those elements play out is a lot of fun.

But in the second half where they start trying to give the ghosts a backstory, that's where the film fell down for me. Plots about helping ghosts or resolving a ghost's unfinished business often fall flat for me.

I fully accept that I am biased against ghost stories (though not necessarily possession stories, so this wasn't a foregone conclusion), but for me, having really enjoyed the first half, this final act was a mess.

C+

Best thing: The scene where Andrew Garfield finally meets up with Liam Neeson is really interesting.

Worst thing: In all the arguments with the Japanese authorities couldn't there have been a little more mention of how immoral it is to slaughter innocent people? I know Christendom wouldn't shy away from violence to establish themselves, but I still don't understand why that line of argument isn't more prominent.

Adam Driver, Andrew Garfield and Liam Neeson in a film from director Martin Scorcese with positive buzz? Clearly I had to check it out. 99 Homes had me really excited to check out Andrew Garfield's post-Spider-Man work and I was even more excited when I heard that Andrew Garfield is quite clearly the central protagonist here.

I have to admit that, as you'd expect, this is a very well made film. The acting is great, the film is shot very well and the film is consistently tense.

My issue was that after a while I felt I lost the point of it. Silence hammers home how horrible the situation is. I understand that the film takes a different direction in the third act, but that was perhaps the most confusing part.

I like that Silence has an ambiguous ending and goodness knows that this film is thought provoking. But, for me, Silence is too slow and grim for me to really love. I can still recommend it all the same, just as long as you know what you are letting yourself in for.

B-

Best thing: There is a scene where a character 'demonstrates' a sexual position for an audience. It is a shocking moment and also marked an unexpected shift in tone for the film.

Worst thing: Though it is possible that actual lesbians may say that this is a tasteful depiction of a believeable lesbian relationship, I must say, I'd be surprised. I haven't asked any at this stage. In the first half I thought the film was being pretty tasteful, holding back from going too gratuitous. By the second half it was clear that the film would be showing no restraint at all. (Not that anyone goes to a Chan-Wook Park film expecting restraint, if they have any sense.)

The Handmaiden is a visually spectacular costume drama with a mystery unfolding in a very compelling way. It's a 'dangerous liasons'-esque plot involving a woman being seduced and taken in marriage.

Our protagonist has been sent to try to set things up behind the scenes. She's a practised thief and goes in knowing full well that the plan is to cheat a young woman out of her fortune.

There are some pretty gratuitous erotic scenes, but the intention of the filmmaker is clearly that they should be respectful of the characters involved. Naturally since this is a Chan-Wook Park movie, we also get gratuitous violence and some of that is absolutely awesome.

Is there inconsistency in that the villains are a bunch of pervy men when the film is quite clearly going to have much that would appeal to pervy men? I'd like to think not. There is a clear division made between the perversions of the men and the loving relationship on the other.

Chan-Wook Park really seems to have honed his craft now. I wasn't a fan of Thirst or I'm A Cyborg and thought those were rather messy and tonally confused. But both The Handmaiden and Stoker are utterly brilliant and I'm now completely back on board as a Park fan.

A+

Best thing: There are some fantastic touches in this film. My favourite is probably the ghost of his old boss. This scene involves some amazing effects as he turns up still drinking and smoking in a body that is falling apart.

Worst thing: In some parts of the scenes with the ghost of Christmas present, she was annoying as hell.

I was a bit frightened to revisit Scrooged because I don't remember it being all that special, but I do remember enjoying it.

Thankfully Scrooged holds up much better than I expected. Bill Murray's comic ability makes this film what it is.

Bill Murray plays a television producer who exhibits the narcissism that Murray's characters so often possess. Murray has had a busy day. He fires an underling just before Christmas for raising a concern. He sends various people towels for Christmas. However the big event was releasing a trailer for the studio's adaptation of A Christmas Carol that pretends it is a high-octane action thriller. With all that done, an old boss comes back from the dead warning him to change his ways and advising Murray to expect a visit from three Christmas ghosts.

The appearance by Murray's boss is actually one of my favourite scenes in the movie. He's drinking even though it escapes from holes in his body even while he's drinking. It looks like the man's body is a dried up husk that could easily fall apart, even while he's casually chatting to Bill Murray with the bravado of a high flying businessman.

The ghost of Christmas past as a taxi driver is pretty cool. The woman in a fairy outfit as the ghost of Christmas present was pretty irritating, particularly with her high pitched voice and the prevalence of slapstick in her scenes.

The humour isn't always consistent, but it's still a lot more consistent than I feared. The finale is a bit too talky. Quite often films seem to struggle to work out how they should wrap everything up, but I'm not sure they needed to stretch out the final segment for that long because that's a long section where Murray is not really so funny as in the bulk of the movie.

Remarkably solid Murray comedy. Not up there with Groundhog Day or Quick Change, but pretty great nonetheless.

B+

Best thing: The initial meeting between thve two protagonists and the criminal kingpin played by Harvey Keitel is intense and kind of classy.

Worst thing: The final twist is incredibly lame and completely unearned.

Another film from director Franck Khalfoun who worked with writer/director Alexandre Aja on some of his other projects like Maniac and P2. There are good aspects and Harvey Keitel brings a lot of class, but in the end this is all a bit predictable.

Not exactly bad, but really not great. All hell breaks loose in the second half in a way that is quite fun, but personally I didn't think the final twist made much sense.

C-

Best thing: Michael Fassbender's turn as two different androids is an incredible performance. This interaction also serves tie up the film's themes in a really exciting way.

Worst thing: Some of the CG effects are great, but some has that overly shiny effect. Normally effects artists will get a lighting reference of some kind when filming that they can use to make the lighting on the computer generated elements look more natural and allow them to blend in better. There are particular moments here where that doesn't seem to have worked.

Okay, so I'm a Prometheus supporter. We may not be a majority, but I think more people out there would be willing to say they enjoyed Prometheus than, say, Masters of the Universe (of which I am also a fan).

Prometheus had some gorgeous visuals, some very interesting ideas on religion and on ancient concepts of sacrifice. It also had a fascinating central character in the form of David, the android with daddy issues.

Sure Prometheus has some characters making stupid decisions and some of the dialogue was pretty hokey, but there's always an over-arching theme. When a character decides rather unwisely that he will take his helmet off without doing full safety checks, the film is illustrating faith. When two characters seem to be practically suicidal in their lack of caution as they approach a creepy snake-like creature, these are two scientists and the scene evokes the old adage curiosity-killed-the-cat.

In Covenant I think the characters feel much more like characters in their own right, rather than symbols for themes. As with Prometheus, there are a number of characters who are mainly canon fodder and I had a harder time keeping track of all the crew members on the ship this time. Still while the main players aren't such larger than life figures as Charlize Theron in Prometheus, I found there were a wider range of engaging ordinary-seeming people.

The symbolism and larger-than-life performance is saved for Fassbender's two android characters. David comes back again, but the new ship called Covenant has its own Fassbender droid called Walter.

The themes of creation and responsibility for your creation are quite focused in Covenant. Ridley Scott is exploring some deep philosophical themes in a genuinely interesting way.

One aspect of this film I heard complaints about was the proto-morph. I've heard it questioned why the proto-morph seems to be more deadly than the Alien. Why does the android David call the Alien "the perfect organism", considering its weakness by comparison to the proto-morph?

But it's not all that odd really. The proto-morph doesn't have a life cycle. It takes its form based on the life around it but it is formed from the black substance and does not breed. The purpose of the black substance introduced in Prometheus is to destroy all living organisms. It isn't a spoiler to say that we are moving towards the birth of the Alien which very definitely DOES reproduce. So that is the important difference between them. But that doesn't mean the Alien is more powerful. I actually quite like that the proto-morphs birth quicker, grow quicker and are much more brutal.

The Lovecraftian goo births from organisms a powerful being, that doesn't breed, to destroy the organism from which it was born.

What makes the Alien perfect is that same destructive force breeding and reproducing forever. The proto-morph is the temporary by-product of a biological weapon of mass destruction aimed at destroying the biological life on a planet. The Engineers could use that to destroy a creation of theirs that has gone awry, but they could return a better creation to that planet afterwards. But the aliens are pure destructive horror and perpetually reproduce and destroy. Arguably like humanity, they dominate and destroy at a faster rate than their environment can sustain.

I would have liked to have seen more from the Engineers, but I was pleased to see them appear at all. I hope the next instalment will have the Engineers and the Aliens pitched against one another. (And doesn't the first Alien movie make that inevitable?) A fantastic piece of fan art has me really excited to see this show down on the big screen.

Ridley Scott has decided to take a new direction with this science fiction universe and I, for one, really appreciate his efforts. I've always been a fan of sci-fi first and horror second and the sci-fi aspect of these new Alien films is the bit I think works best.

A+

Best thing: There are some quite incredible visuals here, but my favourite part of the film is possibly the ice skating fight. (Yes, you read that right.)

Worst thing: I actually think this film suffers from progressing a little too logically. The clues that this is an Italian horror are present, but the dream-like quality that you'd see in a Fulci movie doesn't seem so consistent here. It also doesn't help that this is light on gore too.

This is completely nuts and I love it.

The trailer promised an over the top Italian production that is both bizarre and beautiful. The pacing is a bit weird, but the visuals and the atmosphere do much to make up for it.

In order to enjoy this, you really need to be on board with the Italian movie style. While this doesn't have the extreme gore of the Fulci movies I love, it still has that same captivating style like a waking nightmare.

The Visitor is essentially a version of The Omen where the evil child is the daughter of an evil alien rather than the son of the devil. Also you can have more than one evil alien child, so the daughter is constantly trying to persuade her mother to have another child. (So creepy!)

The Visitor is a gorgeous film and a weird film, but it also drags in places. Some of the dialogue felt a bit odd to me. I had a lot of fun, but the Italian style both enhances and detracts from The Visitor in pretty much equal measure.

I had a lot of fun but, in spite of some beautiful imagery in places, it's trashy fun.

B+

Best thing: When a comic character who keeps pretending not to be partially deaf and blind suddenly appears in a Michael Jackson outfit, that was a lot of fun (and a musical sequence that fit much more solidly with the plot)

Worst thing: One of the more romantic songs is not only less fun than the other songs, but doesn't even come close to earning the emotional response it seems to expect to elicit from us.

A foolish figure from a Punjabi village is persuaded to leave his village because he causes so much trouble. The excuse used to get him to leave is that his brother, who is a drug kingpin in Australia, needs to come home to see their sick father. When he tracks down his brother, his brother ends up being incapacitated, so our foolish protagonist becomes the new ‘King’ but encourages his hoodlums to embrace Sikh values and cease their involvement in crime. Meanwhile there is a romantic storyline going on, which is where the focus of the story is really. The romantic plot resolves as you’d expect.

I'm not really terribly familiar with bollywood films. There is much in this film that is very charming, but it's pretty tough to stay engaged when there's so little at stake.

As fun as this film often is, it is all incredibly contrived and goofy. I enjoyed the various sequences, I eventually started to enjoy the musical sequences, but I was never really particularly gripped by the story.

The typical story cliches are here. The heir to a fortune is engaged to a mean and selfish man when she ought to be with the poor but good-hearted man, but this is telegraphed so far in advance that it just feels shallow. Another example is the question of whether bad people are irredeemable or whether they can change, but the bad people are so quickly and easily persuaded to leave their life of crime that the question is practically irrelevant.

Silly and sappy nonsense, but well-performed and quite fun. The performers put their all into this show, but the writing is incredibly shallow.

What the hell is the point of having Snoop Dogg do a version of the theme tune at the end? I mean, listening to his lyrics, I doubt he had any idea what the film was even about.

C-

Best thing: Chloë Sevigny has a really strong screen presence, even moreso than the protagonist. I was convinced that I had seen her in many other films, but I only really seem to know her as the secretary from American Psycho.

Worst thing: The story gets way too dark and convoluted. It's revealed early on that the protagonist's friend is involved in drug dealing and they have a mutilated drug addict being exploited by them. The film seems very relaxed about this and it didn't fit with the fun tone in the rest of the film. (Even the straight-up horror in the final scene seems more sweet and silly than a film with mutilated female drug addicts being casually mistreated.)

This was a less well-known horror film, but I must admit that I was intrigued by the title. Responses to the film weren't wholly negative and I went in ready for anything.

Frankly I found this to be a bit of a mess. I felt the central character was reasonably well rounded, but there wasn't any obvious connection between her situation and her position of being mysteriously impregnated.

Was the intention to say something about drug addiction? The way an addiction gets inside you and takes over your life, or something? Or was this movie actually about sexual assault? I really don't know. It mainly seemed to be about the dangers of having a friend who becomes a drug dealer with her drug dealing boyfriend.

Some good performances and the finale had some pretty cool, albeit goofy, effects. Nevertheless I found this film to be pretty dire.

D-

Best thing: Luke Skywalker has changed over the years. I love the way his mysterious  character is explored.

Worst thing: I think there are some pacing issues for the simple reason that the film is so very long. Also I don't feel that Rian Johnson is that interested in slowing down to pull on the heart strings. When major plot points unfold we quickly rush into the next scene, making this film quite exhausting.

This is possibly the most fun and action-packed Star Wars movie ever. I know everyone seems to love Empire best but, watching it as a child, I've always felt the ending was unsatisfying. (And naturally, not knowing the twist, I believed Darth Vader was lying. When Obi-Wan is confronted in Return of the Jedi, I was puzzled when he didn't say, "What I told you was true! You're believing Vader over me?") Even while doing a mid-trilogy bridging film, Rian Johnson is keen to ensure this has a very definite and complete feel to it.

The first Star Wars movie i.e. Star Wars (now known as "Episode 4: A New Hope") has always remained my favourite and the one advantage Star Wars has over The Last Jedi is that it is more willing to take its time. The Last Jedi is a non-stop rollercoaster ride and that isn't always a positive thing. We often don't have time to think about the significance of the cataclysmic events. And that's a real pity because there are some really important developments in Last Jedi. I care about Rey a lot more every time it's emphasised how easily she could turn to the dark side at any moment.

Another aspect which really appealed is the suggestion that we're not limited to hereditary force powers any more. This 'awakening' is spreading and things could easily go a bit Hogwarts from the looks of things...

Add to that some awesome creature designs, a fantastic performance from Benicio Del Toro and the welcome return of a certain badass stormtrooper. Last Jedi is exciting, fun, fast-paced, goes in unexpected directions, puts some real meat on the bones set up in Force Awakens and amazingly Carrie Fisher is a million times better here than she was in the last film. (Making it a real pity that she can't return in episode nine.)

I still believe the rumours that Snoak is actually Darth Plagius, the dark jedi/sith that the Emperor believed he'd killed and who apparently has powers over life and death. I think there will be more revelations about him in the next film.

For me, The Last Jedi is a fantastically fun extravaganza and for me it's the best Star Wars film since the original movie.

A+

Best thing: The rock warrior Korg is hilarious. (As it turns out Taika Waititi actually plays that character himself.)

Worst thing: I generally have an issue with how bitty this film is. It has great moments, but it feels like it is trying to cram too much in and that makes the pacing a bit awkward. Oddly enough the moment that bugged me the most probably wouldn't have mattered if I'd been a little more immersed. It's the scene where a character uses machine guns against the sword-wielding fantasy villains. Were those enchanted guns? The Asgardians are used to battling enemies holding laser guns so machine guns shouldn't be much of a trump card.

I kept hearing that this film was too focused on humour. Did I miss something? ALL the Thor movies have focused on humour!

The first movie had its fish-out-of-water gags. The second movie actually had its serious side edited down and hilarious banter between Thor and Loki added instead. And let's not forget that Darcy is missing from this film so she cannot provide the comic relief. (Seriously, I understand that they couldn't bring back Natalie Portman, but Kat Dennings? She couldn't make it?)

There are so many fantastic scenes here, whether we are talking about humour or action. Taika Waititi might be a slave to the producers' whims, but that doesn't stop him seriously putting his stamp on this project.

The colourful sets are amazing, the stylistic tone of this film is great too. And seriously, was that Sam Neill?

I seriously wish I'd missed the trailer, because a vital scene was clearly intended as a surprise, it was definitely one of the least predictable elements in the film and I knew it was coming.

While Cate Blanchett is cool in her role where she is youthed by CG effects (or perhaps just really great makeup?), her thunder is stolen a bit by the "secondary" villain played by Jeff Goldblum.

Frankly, while everybody seems to fawn over the original Iron Man movie I feel that also had a bit of an over-produced feel to it. For me Thor Ragnarok is a step down from a recent high streak but it doesn't go below par. For me, it's still up there with the movie that set the ball rolling on this franchise.

There is so much fun to be had in this film. Even if the overall story feels like a bit of a mess, this fantasy adventure still manages to carry the audience through in an enjoyable way.

That being said, it'd be tough to fully enjoy this film without being caught up on the film series as a whole. There are a LOT of callbacks to other films and some are entirely unnecessary. (Stephen Strange has very little purpose here.)

I recommend Thor Ragnarok with the proviso that it didn't blow me away as much as I had expected overall, even if there were individual scenes that seriously DID blow me away. I hope they give Taika Waititi another shot at one of these.

B+

Best thing: You'd think the best thing in a movie called Rampage would be the 'rampage'. But actually those action sequences were not a highlight for me. I mean it would be pretty cool if there were dramatic stakes, but watching someone go on a meaningless murder spree is not engaging. I was actually intrigued by the Fight Club-esque dissatisfaction politics that we see in the background and which, as it happens, turns out not to matter at all.

Worst thing: When the reason for the rampage was finally revealed, it was so lame.

The movie should be called 'dick head'. The protagonist is a complete arsehole. I spent the whole movie wondering what justification he had for his rampage and the weird thing is that he not only seems to have no good reason for his rampage but the film seems to expect us to be impressed.

The early part of the film looked like it might be a Fight Club esque satire on modern society. Quite early we see the shopping channel in the background selling an African diamond. I wondered whether this was a comment on capitalism and a reference to blood diamonds. Talk about the dissatisfaction growing in society makes for a very intense first half that completely fails to pay off in the disgusting mass-murder sequence in the second half.

Basically the best part of the film is meaningless padding for the abhorrent part of the film where Uwe Boll decides to champion a nutcase on a murder spree.

This is the only Uwe Boll film I've ever seen and I'm pretty sure it will be the last.

E

Best thing: Coming back to this, I absolutely love the soundtrack. Both the creepy piano music and the funky theme tune.

Worst thing: We have the cliché of a the woman being freaked out by visions of the evil, while the man is sceptical and even-tempered. Frankly we tend to identify with the woman because, seriously, who wouldn't be freaked out? (Thank goodness he doesn't slap her to calm her down. I felt we came close a few times...)

The Beyond doesn't exactly have a plot, but it is a sequence of genuinely terrifying sequences with a very distinctive visual style.

It also has some over the top sections which are a bit daft but I love them anyway, like the girl being backed into a corner by an acid spill.

The elements combine in a way that is simply unforgettable and I find it so wonderfully entertaining that Lucio Fulci is now a favourite director of mine.

Watched a version claiming to be the 'uncut' version. However, I am fairly sure it is exactly the same version I saw before. I have as yet to see a version of this film in widescreen. Perhaps if I get the Blu-Ray? Anyone have any advice?

A+

Best thing: I like how the supernatural elements are grounded in a real situation and its emotional impact.

Worst thing: The metaphor is seriously strained.

The opening scenes about a woman coming to terms with declaring her husband dead 'in absentia' after his disappearance are heartbreaking and highly emotionally powerful.

Unfortunately when the supernatural elements enter the frame I really struggle to understand the point. If the threat is taken literally, it's always in the background and there are seemingly no rules. If the threat is taken as a metaphor, what does it represent? The police officer quite rightly asks how a missing person could keep their wallet in all the time they were missing, yet resort to eating animals. What real life scenario does any of this relate to?

This feels like an over-extended version of a short film. With a much shorter runtime, the threat could remain more of a mystery without frustrating the audience.

D+

Best thing: Herbert Lom (probably best known as the chief inspector in the Pink Panther movies) is great as the evil grandfather? Uncle? And the line that is delivered in response to his villainy "The deeds you have done this day... will be avenged!" is really effective.

Worst thing: I understand that it's supposed to be symbolic, but seriously? That guy's son looks exactly the same as him? It just felt weird to me.

This is a bit of a slog, isn't it?

I absolutely love the fun and kinetic Amicus anthology "Tales From The Crypt", but And Now The Screaming Starts is not even remotely fun or kinetic.

A lot of visions and fainting and accusations that the lead female character is hysterical. I just found the plot dull and repetitive until it finally decides to up the drama with a rape scene.

This was just absolutely no fun whatsoever and that was a real disappointment.

D-

Best thing: Tom Baker's story about a painter seeking revenge through magical paintings is quite a lot of fun.

Worst thing: Did the ‘Indian’ snake charmer need to be a white person covered in make-up?

This Amicus horror anthology movie is perfectly adequate. Nothing like as fun as Tales From The Crypt, but if you want more of the same this does the trick.

B-

Best thing: Wow, they upped the budget for that monster didn't they? That is one hell of a monster design.

Worst thing: The first story is a bit predictable.

For all its ups and downs I've been finding the episodes of Tales From The Dark Side to be a lot of fun. Considering that this movie might as well be Creepshow 2 (since this genuinely is a collaboration between George Romero and Stephen King, unlike the actual Creepshow 2), I think it actually makes for a very high quality follow-up.

Better segments than the average tv episode. A higher level of quality than Creepshow itself. Like the tv show, it is a bit silly and admittedly.

Stephen King's segment does drag a bit in the middle (but what a payoff!).

If you enjoyed Creepshow or if you've ever enjoyed an epidode of Tales From The Dark Side I really think you should give this a go.

A+

Best thing: Sam Neil gives a great central performance as a cynical insurance investigator who is a bit of an arsehole, yet somehow endearing anyway. Neill really makes us feel his character's fear, even while his character dismisses the horrors around him with a strictly sceptical outlook.

Worst thing: One creature feature that appears when Sam Neill is trying to leave the town of Hobb’s End looks a bit too fake. The effects and make up seems to vary in effectiveness in this film. Some look amazing, but others look a bit cheap.

Still one of my favourite John Carpenter movies. A Lovecraftian horror film about an evil author based on a combination of H.P. Lovecraft and Stephen King.

Sam Neill's character believes that the claim that the author has disappeared is most likely a publicity stunt. He and a publisher go in search of the popular author and discover that some of his literary works may not actually be fictional.

Quality monster effects and a great sense of fun, as well as some genuinely creepy moments, make In The Mouth Of Madness a fantastic horror film. Fans will recognise the phrase, "Do you read Sutter Cane?" A seemingly innocuous phrase that has greater significance in the film.

It also amuses me that I've seen an idiot online  (sure, who hasn't?) trying to suggest that this is relevant to Harry Potter. Only if JK Rowling is secretly bringing about the apocalypse. I think we're safe on that front...

A+

Best thing: The sequence of events surrounding the finger.

Worst thing: My personal biggest issue, beyond my general lack of engagement with this paper-thin plot, is the widespread hazing. I mean seriously, how are these ridiculous antics accepted in a serious vetinary school? A girl painted blue, a boy painted yellow, told to stay in a room til they are green? With no build up to this stupid ritual? Who cleans up after this stupid messy idiocy?

The idea behind Raw seems quite promising. A girl who is brought up to be a vegetarian then gets a taste for human flesh. The story is essentially a coming-of-age film. Add to that a sibling rivalry and you've got a pretty neat quality horror film - in theory.

Unfortunately, I had real problems with the storytelling here. I had real trouble engaging with the lead character. Our protagonist is quiet, withdrawn, hungry for human flesh and experiencing a sexual awakening, but I never get much in the way of personality from her. (The sister has personality, but she's basically a villain.)

This is not necessarily a big problem. Sometimes protagonists can be less strong characters because the important thing is their reactions to their surroundings essentially as an audience surrogate.

However, the other characters never really do much to take center stage. Beyond the finger-eating scene I didn't feel like any events in the story felt climactic. In fact, in the second half I found that the film felt very repetitive. And the conceit that they all find themselves compelled to join in with ridiculous hazing rituals, which have become a requirement in this supposedly prestigious vetinary college, just struck me as dumb.

Shouldn't hazing rituals normally involve an audience who may laugh when the deeds are done but eventually congratulate the individuals when they complete their task. But here there's something bureaucratic about the hazing system here, with students queuing up to eat some random bit of raw meat. Normally a challenge should be built up to gain significance, but here nobody seems to care much about any of the rituals. Not to be over-dramatic, but doing horrible activities simply for the purpose of box-ticking seems kind of fascist to me. Was that intentional?

Also, while I know he's a side character, the gay flatmate who doesn't stay gay (which is fine by the way) seems to have no life of his own. Does he have any gay relationships in this film before he sleeps with a girl? I feel like he's only gay so we'll be less surprised that he's our protagonist's roommate and more surprised when he sleeps with a girl.

Frankly, seeing the potential in the movie Raw makes me all the more disappointed by the final product. It's all a bit... under-cooked!

D-

Best thing: The phantom's outfit is amazing, parricularly the box attached to it that allows him to speak. But besides that outfit I think the best thing is Beef (played by Gerrit Graham), a figure chosen to have a very different style of performance from that intended by the protagonist, but still having an amazing style of his own. He also ends up being a more fully formed character than most.

Worst thing: Look, the music is great, but there is no consistent theme. A good musical has tent pole themes which firmly mark the stages of the story, but this just feels like the same thing over and over again. The connection between the lyrics and the scene is often very hard to ascertain.

Phantom of the Paradise is a very inventive film. Our phantom's face is broken by a factory record press. We have a rock concert instead of an opera. The villain even has a kind of Dorian Gray thing going on.

Unfortunately the lack of clear obvious choruses to help structure the story means that the film often drags in spite of the fun elements.

I admire Phantom of the Paradise a great deal and there are aspects that I very definitely enjoyed. But I felt this was too aimless to really like much as an overall film.

C-

Best thing: I love how naturally

Ethan Embry and Pat Healy’s characters evolve over the course of the film.

Worst thing: Sara Paxton (Claire from Ti West's “The Innkeepers”) doesn't get much opportunity to shine here.

Simple but effective. A couple who seem to have a ridiculous amount of disposable income start offering money in exchange for bigger and bigger dares to two friends who both haven't been having a great deal of luck.

Thanks to some great compelling performances and a highly capable production this turned out to be a very entertaining film with a very satisfying finale.

A+

Best thing: The effects of the monster are incredible. We see it in a number of contexts and it Liam Neeson is fantastic in the role.

Worst thing: Sigourney Weaver gives an awkward performance like she is having to constantly remind herself to put on an accent. You can practically see Weaver reminding herself to say mum and not mom.

A Monster Calls is a fantastically well made and, besides Sigourney Weaver's uncharacteristically  awkward performance, the production is pretty much perfect. However, there is still a question of how well the book has been adapted or how suited the novel is for a big screen adaptation.

The monster is genuinely terrifying on first appearance in a way that Spielberg's BFG ought to have been. A giant grabbing you in its huge hands SHOULD be scary and that's not inappropriate for a children's story. (Spielberg's BFG decided not to focus on fear from the child protagonist, instead focussing on the BFG doing Metal Gear Solid style stealth moves.)

Admittedly the giant monster only wants to tell stories, but then he says he wants a story and return. While its obvious that this must involve telling a personal truth and we know from the way the monster poses the demand that it's not going to be easy, but it's harder to work out what secret this child could be hiding.

The deeply held secret that the monster wants the protagonist to reveal is worth the wait. However, after that reveal I felt the film took rather longer than necessary to wrap up. The emotional punch of the secret meant that the final moments of the film were just too plain and predictable by comparison.

I'd also note that we don't get much in the way of a third story. And what is the deal with the bully who gives off serious 'sexual predator' vibes. I'm all for varying depictions of bullying and showing the psychological rather than physical traumas of bullying, but it's strange to have a disturbing and unusual kind of bully like this and not follow up with any further unpacking of the situation.

Still, this is a strong emotionally powerful story that doesn't feel like it is condescending its young audience.

B-

Best thing: The sense of fun and the clear enthusiasm of the main cast members.

Worst thing: What to choose... I think I'll go with the band's song that is completely out of sync with their playing of the instruments. The biggest problems are with technical abilities of the filmmakers and in that scene their limitations are particularly apparent.

There is, admittedly, a certain level of charm to this ultra low budget monster movie. However, the film isn't as funny as it thinks it is. It's like a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode if the technical crew for effects, set-design, makeup, etc. all went missing from the studio along with the main cast members.

It's a seriously dumb film but somewhat watchable despite its extensive flaws.

D+

Best thing: The phone call from Churchill to President Franklin D Roosevelt is actually hilarious.

Worst thing: There is one scene that seems to be oddly edited. Perhaps I missed something, but one character asks for something to be repeated. It isn't repeated. But then the very NEXT thing that is said, is said twice! Didn’t the filmmaker want to depict him asking them to repeat the thing they then repeated, rather than the asking them to repeat the words they then did not decide to repeat?

A solid biopic which avoids the flawed decision of so many biopics to finish with the central figure's death.

Churchill's character is brought to life by Gary Oldman. In spite of concerns that his face would be overly covered with puffy makeup (an issue I had with that movie where Anthony Hopkins played Hitchcock) Gary Oldman's face isn't as heavily covered as you might think. Oldman uses his array of expressions to pull us into the character.

Britain is losing against Germany, France is on the verge of surrender and the retreating British army is trapped on the coastline. Winston Churchill is given the role of Prime Minister because nobody else wants the role and because he is more likely to gain approval from the shadow cabinet. What becomes especially clear is just how disliked Churchhill was by his political peers when he first took the role.

A film that greatly compliments and is complimented by Nolan's Dunkirk. Where Dunkirk focused on the oppressive hopelessness of the soldiers struggling to get home, Darkest Hour focuses on Churchill's struggle to find any kind of hope in a situation others deemed hopeless.

Fantastic performances, fantastic cast, great pacing, and it seems the best Joe Wright films must always be punctuated by the sounds of typewriter keys.

I feel like our insight into the secretary, played by Lily James, was limited. I feel that, after this and Baby Driver, she is still waiting for a role that really makes the most of her talents.

The scene on the London Underground feels a little contrived, though with that being said it didn't fall flat. Overall Darkest Hour is a powerful film, a remarkably strong biopic and a well timed pairing with Nolan's recent highly lauded film about the same events.

A-

Best thing: I started the film thinking that the computer was being put in a position where things could go very wrong. And yet the direction of the film surprised me.

Worst thing: Hang on! The unemotional computer cares about privacy during sex? I think the idea that a need for modesty would hold weight with an unrelentingly rational computer is the most dated aspect of this film.

I heard this was a pretty dry film and I guess that was true, but this cold war thriller about an artificial intelligence system is wonderfully tense.

Forbin announces that he has built a rational supercomputer, housed in a self-sustaining impregnable bunker, and put it in charge of the nuclear deterrent. The President proudly reveals this decision in a public broadcast, but the celebrations are cut short when computer announces "There Is Another System".

The nuclear controls of Skynet in The Terminator are basically just backstory to set up a post-apocalyptic world. But here, we get the real predicament of a computer controlled deterrent in a cold war scenario. This is a smart political sci-fi film and I was blown away.

Clearly the film Demon Seed took more than a few ideas from here.

Sure, there are some more dated elements in Colossus: The Forbin Project, but then again the setting at the height of the cold war is what makes this story so exciting.

A+

Best thing: I think the best thing is the premise. An experiment demanding that employees kill each other or die. It's a great vision of Battle Royale in an office.
Worst thing: John C. McGinley from Scrubs didn't quite seem to fit his role as a creep. I was keen to see what he would do with this role, but he ended up feeling rather miscast to me. However, it is possible that my familiarity with him in Scrubs is what made this seem so jarring.     

Simple but effective, Belko Experiment is a cool little sci-fi thriller. I think it could have benefited from being a bit more political. There isn't all that much depth beyond aggressive elements in human nature and perhaps the dominance of faceless corporations.

I guess the idea is supposed to be that for all the positive messages a company feeds its employees, they don’t necessarily have your best interests at heart. And also that while people might seem nice and get along in the workplace, they can sink to base self-interest and, well, pretty much facism, if things become sufficiently chaotic. Perhaps there’s even a reference to the Milgram Experiment implied here.

But, as I say, this film does little to explore concepts with any depth. It’s silly horror fun.

The protagonist’s main feature is that he is stuck on his high horse, which I guess is easy enough when your colleagues are resorting to mass murder. There are two occasions where he does anything particularly smart in the whole movie, but generally he just seems to get by on luck. He’s not really a particularly compelling character. He’s mostly a blank slate to represent the audience. So that’s another missed opportunity for depth in this film. Though I think Tony Goldwyn makes up for it as the villain. He’s playing it pretty similarly to his villain in “The 6th Day”, but heck, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Overall, I must admit, I had fun and found this a very satisfying watch.

B+

Best thing: The central relationship between Audrey Tautou and Gad Elmaleh is always compelling regardless of your feelings about the humour or the plot.

Worst thing: I know it's a gag, but the way everyone's 'indecisive' act is word-for-word the same felt a bit odd.

My favourite Audrey Tautou movies are "He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not" and "Amelie". After checking out "Dirty Pretty Things" again I felt the need to rewatch this sweet little comedy "Priceless".

Audrey Tautou plays a gold digger. When she mistakes a hotel valet for a rich man, she draws him into her world in ways that end up being quite unexpected.

While not perfect, Priceless is definitely a better than average comedy. Audrey Tautou is awesome and I think she really helps to elevate this film.

Tautou also looks very glamorous here and I can see how she ended up playing Coco before Chanel straight after this. Unfortunately, after that her last high profile release would seem to be The Da Vinci Code and must admit, I've seen neither of those two films.

But Priceless is a hilarious little film and a must-see for any Audrey Tautou fan.

B+

Best thing: I just love Russell Tovey and seeing him appear here was such a wonderful surprise. He's very funny and his expressive face allows him to draw us into the emotional side of his scenes too.

Worst thing: There are some funny moments, but the humour is a bit of a mixed bag. This is missing the level of hilarity we'd expect from an Alan Partridge show or a slickly crafted Edgar Wright directed comedy; though not by much.

Julian Barratt, who plays the protagonist, isn't familiar to me and somehow comes off like a combination between Simon Pegg and Steve Coogan. He's pretty good, but his similarity to these comic titans is distracting and that goes for the whole film really. It feels a bit too familiar and not sufficiently fresh.

All this being said, I won't pretend I didn't have fun. Mindhorn might be a formula we've seen before, but it's not a sub-par knock off by any means.

Mindhorn is a character that used to be played by our unlikeable washed-up protagonist back in his heyday. When he is told that a serial killer believes Mindhorn is a real person and will only speak to the fictional tv personality, he sees this as a potential uplift for his stagnant career.

B+

Best thing: The mother's rampage in the kitchen is still awesome. (Though the one-on-one with Stripe in the department store is still awesome too.)

Worst thing: While I have never really had a problem with this growing up, I recognise more than ever now that the girlfriend's Christmas sob story is jarring and unnecessary.

One of my favourite movies of all time. Heck, seriously, everyone loves Gremlins, right?

A+

Best thing: When the dark elves go on a killing spree it is just so cool. I had no idea the main psychopathic dark elf was Noomi Rapace. She seriously kicks arse in this film.

Worst thing: Just generally there aren't many surprises in the second half and the two main characters aren't always particularly consistent. But the clearest sign for the audience that there has been some unhelpful script-editing is when the crazy warrior with a sword appears prominently at the beginning, is           quickly revealed to be not so crazy, and then disappears entirely.

Okay sure, this doesn't entirely work. There are story issues. But there are fantastic moments and ths world-building is great. Lord Of The Rings brought into modern day? It's a really cool original idea. I love the way the extravagant opening mixes real life racial issues with fantasy creatures by displaying some cool graffiti art.

The suggestion from some quarters seems to be that Max Landis has a bad reputation as a writer. On the contrary, I thought he had a pretty great track record: Chronicle, American Ultra, Victor Frankenstein. These are all films I've enjoyed a great deal, particularly American Ultra. I haven't seen any other films written by Landis so, with Bright being my least favourite of his films so far, that's still a pretty great track record by my reckoning.

Wil Smith is stuck with the first Orc police officer as a partner. The Orcs hate his partner and so do the humans, including his fellow officers. Wil Smith has a bad reputation simply by having him as a partner and while he isn't prejudiced himself, he doesn't want to be friends either and the sooner he can get a different partner, he feels, the better.

But destiny draws them into the middle of a struggle for power over an ancient weapon of mass destruction: a magic wand.

I personally hope they do something really cool with the sequel. Now that the world and characters have been established they are free to expand this world in a less generic way.

Unfortunately, the film Bright, in spite of some cool moments, is very generic. It's true that this is a missed opportunity, but overall I enjoyed it. Since Netflix are announcing a sequel, I hope the hate spurs them to higher rather than lower expectations for their follow-up. Who cares about the haters?

“We’re not in a prophecy, we’re in a stolen Toyota Corolla.” Lol! Best thing I’ve seen from Wil Smith in years.

B-

Best thing: Tom Hanks wandering in the New York sewer talking to a hobo about the dragon/subway train above them.

Worst thing: The performances were so bland and flat. Tom Hanks perhaps unsurprisingly out-acts everyone, despite playing a figure who is emotionally withdrawn due to mental illness.

The two reasons why you might check out this film are for its supposed anti-Dungeons and Dragons stance and for its early Tom Hanks performance. Neither turn out to be terribly compelling.

Sure, Tom Hanks is great but this is not particularly good material and his costars are very flat indeed.

And while the movie opens with a  satanic panic news broadcast, this is a flash-forward to a scene midway through the film. Not only is it revealed that the protagonists were not playing a traditional RPG but, in actual fact, nobody was ever in any danger. Bizarrely, the film takes little interest in deconstructing the bizarrely sensationalist news report, even having chosen to use that news report as its opening scene.

Worst of all, Mazes and Monsters  (the title is a pseudonym for Dungeons and Dragons) is a boring film. Several friends start playing RPG games together, develop a LARPing version of the game, and to mix things up, mental illness causes one player to develop an obsession with the game. That player comes to connect the game with his own traumatic memories of his brother.

D-

Best thing: Dirty Pretty Things has what I would consider a star-studded cast: Audrey Tautou, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sergi Lopez, Sophie Okonedo. However, my favourite performance here has got to be Benedict Wong. He's always so much fun in everything and here he gets to steal all the best lines.

Worst thing: This is essentially a cartoonish story in many ways and the immigration officers are demonised in a way befitting cartoon villains. That's fine. When you accept that this is a cartoonish setting it's pretty restrained. But for a sweet happy-go-lucky cartoonish movie did we need this much rape?

This is such a fun little film. Even while out if her depth in an English speaking role, Audrey Tautou is still brilliant. Even while the film is focused on her relationship with Chiwetel Ejiofor, she always comes across as a strong female character in her own right.

A tale of both legal and illegal immigration in London with some cutting satire in places, but mostly just a really fun film with some fantastic British performers and some strong European acting talent brought in for good measure.

I love Dirty Pretty Things and for me this is Stephen Frears' best movie and (in my opinion) far superior to Philomena.

A+

Best thing: I generally love how the premise unfolds particularly in the first half, but the attempt to sell the skull to the curious researcher and skeptic is probably my favourite bit.

Worst thing: Towards the end it should be no surprise that there is a big "being sent mad" sequence. I found that it really dragged and I didn't feel particularly able to roll with it.

Peter Cushing and the premise is fun but I think the more this becomes a ghost story where our protagonist is being sent mad, the less engaged I become. The idea of a skull that influences people in a disturbing way is a neat concept, but I wanted a more unique payoff, perhaps with rather more ambiguity.

Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are great, but the film simply doesn’t end up being as fun as the early scenes had me expecting.

C-

Best thing: Yooou've beeeen baaaaad!
Worst thing: What actually annoyed me most is the sister's male friend who goes off as if to bury the dog, but we never see him actually do it. I mean, who buries someone else's dog?

A gremlins-esque horror movie. I'd heard this was a lot of fun and they really weren't lying. The characters aren't particularly deep but they play their parts well and there is some great exciting effects work.

I felt the film was rather lacking in subtext. As much as the threat of demons rising from the abyss was cool it wasn't always clear why it was an issue for them on a personal level.

Also, since this is a children's film, issues end up getting resolved a little too easily.

I'm glad I watched this. I really appreciate horror-for-kids movies. I just think perhaps I was more than a little too old for it - and that's a real pity.

B-

Best thing: I love how colourful this film is. Use of colour isn't something I normally focus on but it really impressed me here.

Worst thing: A goon shows up at one point towards the end of the film and I found myself wondering how he found them. Now I can see there are shots clearly establishing that they are being followed, so I'm wondering why they don't strike earlier. I have some ideas on this anyway and perhaps it is best off not being spelled out to us.

For some reason I can't seem to help but compare this to Baby Driver, even though Detour doesn't feature car chases or a bombastic soundtrack. However, what they DO have in common is that they are both crime dramas. In both cases much of the runtime take place in a car, Tye Sheridan looks practically identical to Ansel Elgort, and they are both very rich and vibrantly coloured films.

This isn't the action-packed extravaganza that Baby Driver was and yet, for me, this is the superior film.

I would say that Tye Sheridan was the better leading man. One little touch I liked involved him regularly turning his head as he's distracted by girls in the strip club.

As well as the vibrant colours, director Christopher Smith also makes some neat use of split screen. This is a script that loves to play with audience expectations and Christopher Smith's direction compliments that aspect of the story nicely.

It's been a long time since we had a great film from Christopher Smith. Triangle and Black Death both had him established as a firm favourite, but his tv mini-series Labyrinth was utterly dire and, while sweet, I was not really a fan of his Santa-Claus-goes-to-prison film "Get Santa".

I think Detour is my favourite Christopher Smith movie. A smart entertaining crime drama that really pulled me along for the ride.

A+

Best thing: Some amazing visuals, particularly in the more horrifying moments. And I love the rabbit religious mythology.

Worst thing: The song by Art Garfunkel is an annoying sideshow and complete detracts from the pacing of the film (also ending is bit of an anti-climax after the chaos that comes before.

As much as I enjoyed Watership Down, the ending is really unsatisfying. It's also awkward that while this is very obviously a children's story it's often quite dry as well. I could accept that children can handle the more horrifying elements, but the characters seem to be mostly unemotional pragmatists and the film spends so much time contemplating death (represented in their mythology by 'the black rabbit').

Watership Down is worth a watch but, rather than children being disturbed by certain elements (though certainly parental guidance is needed if the child is very young) I think most children would find this boring. I don't know if I ever watched this all the way through as a child or whether I just saw bits of it. In any case I feel fairly sure that, as a child, this either made little impression on me or failed to hold my interest.

All this being said, I absolutely adore the just-so story at the beginning. A religious of origin myth for rabbits acting as the centre point for a rabbit religion was such a great idea that I never forgot it. I know that, if nothing else, I saw that intro as a child.

C+

I should have realised that this movie belonged on my "films I will probably never watch" list. Wacky humour, toilet humour and way too disjointed to build up the humour across the runtime effectively. It's the sort of trashy American comedy more interested in finding loud moments for the trailer than actually crafting a solid comedy script. And I was hoodwinked too. I was sold on this by the trailer, but the film was boring. When their solicitor gives them clear advice on what to do with the dead body situation and it takes them another five minutes to remember what they'd just been told on the phone, I lost all patience. When the characters can't even focus on the film while they are in it, how can you expect me to care in the audience? Johansson, you can do better than this!

Best thing: The AI girlfriend was something I found interesting, particularly since the only difference between her and her Replicant user would seem to be her lack of a body. Any questions about her lack of humanity would also need to be asked about our protagonist played by Ryan Gosling.

Worst thing: Jared Leto's philosophical ramblings felt utterly meaningless to me. And when he's murdering replicants seemingly for his own amusement it shows us that he's a clear evil villain, but don't we want more subtlety and nuance in a Blade Runner movie? There were no clear villains in the original film.

So the new replicants are obedient and don't kill people? Um... that is patently false.

Anyway Ryan Gosling has been given a character that is just as uninteresting as Harrison Ford's character was in the first movie. However, he is paired up with an AI hologram girlfriend who is much more expressive. The encouragement and trust she shows towards him make him more interesting as a result. Unfortunately I was not happy with the conclusion of her arc which seemed to undermine the journey we took with her.

There's no equivalent to Rutger Hauer here. Jared Leto natters on about his pseudo philosophy. His second in command is psychopathic replicant who never seems to have a fleshed out personality.

In the original Blade Runner there were technically no villains. In this sequel the villains are one-dimensional psychopaths.

When Harrison Ford turns up he basically hi-jacks the film from Gosling. He is basically told by Jared Leto that he's the chosen one. I found it all very uninspiring.

Sure Blade Runner 2049 looks great, but it's a hollow shell. The big reveal moments in this film consistently ring hollow and none moreso than the finale.

Rubbish!

D-

This short film is available to view online. Try this link if you want to check it out.

Best thing: Well Benedict Wong of course. He's a really emotionally expressive member of the panel who are judging the future of replicant production. He brings a lot of personality to his small role.

Worst thing: What with this being a short taster film before the Blade Runner sequel, I think the fact that none of the ideas put forward here are explored in any meaningful way in that feature length film would be the biggest problem.

Jared Leto's rants actually make sense and seem appropriate?
The scene is actually emotionally affecting rather than alienating?
There's a clear reference to a real issue from the original Blade Runner? (i.e. why would you keep manufacturing Replicants if they go mad and kill everyone?)

This short film makes the concept of super-obedient Replicants almost terrifying. Yet this whole concept is practically unaddressed (and arguably actively contradicted) in the feature length Blade Runner sequel.

Very keen to see what Luke Scott does on the future. This was great! Certainly, it's harder to maintain this intensity across a full length film, but after this I really think Luke Scott should give it a go.

B+

Best thing: This is a great cast and my favourite performance would have to be Sharlto Copley who gets to have a lot of fun as a self-obsessed poser.

Worst thing: The humour felt off to me. Worked for me better than in Sightseers, but I still often found the gags fell flat.

So this is what a good Ben Wheatley film looks like, is it?

Still not my thing, but not bad.

Some Irish terrorists enter into an arms deal with a rich eccentric American playboy. They have an argument and then shoot at each other. As the shoot out gets more and more ridiculous, this becomes quite amusing.

Mildly entertaining, but a lot of the humour didn't work for me. Frankly I found much of this a bit lame. It's a great cast, but the script didn't connect with me. As with Sightseers, I don't think Wheatley's brand of comedy is on my wavelength.

C+

Best thing: Sam Rockwell has a surprising character arc that really impressed me.    
Worst thing: I don't know much about Ebbing, but I can't help but feel that this is really a story about Ireland being set in America instead. The exchange between our protagonist and a priest sounds more like something you would see in the movie Calvary. Also, while I know it's not impossible, how likely is it that a Kiwi would move to this small, somewhat backward, town and marry the police chief?

Another strong entry for Martin McDonagh, but it's still no In Bruges. It felt like a lot of the film could just as easily be set in Ireland, especially when it comes to the scene where our protagonist rants angrily at a priest.

The protagonist is a grieving mother who chooses to set up three billboards that complain about the police's lack of progress. What follows is an exploration of guilt, love, hatred, revenge and redemption; often taking these elements in an unexpected direction.

Still, as you'd expect from a Martin McDonagh film, it's very funny and often gets very dark. There's an array of great acting talent and a deeply flawed protagonist.

It might not be the best Martin McDonagh film but it's still pretty great all the same. All McDonagh's films are a bit chaotic and this is no different. Like with Seven Psychopaths, I'm not sure that the randomness always works for me, but in both cases I had a fantastic time overall.

A-

Best thing: The ending is very powerful, though the action scenes are a close second particularly the fight on a toboggan run.

Worst thing: Frankly the girls at the facility in the ski resort are entirely uninteresting, as is Bond's espionage undercover work in that facility, particularly considering that the baddie he converses with ought to recognise Bond immediately.

Finally hearing the On Her Majesty's Secret Service theme in the film itself, I can see what a great piece of music it really is. It's surprising that All The Time In The World isn't the title song, but if you are going to start your Bond film with an entirely instrumental piece of music then this is the way to do it.

Somehow the violence is more brutal and the action is more exciting than I found in the Connery Bond movies. George Lazeby also turns out to be pretty great Bond and Diana Rigg makes for a much more cerebral Bond girl (if only the other Bond girls in this film didn't seem quite so braindead to make up for it).

In an early scene there is a very cool espionage scene. Bond needs to steal some information and, in a scene with no dialogue that is nevertheless absolutely gripping, we see a carefully planned operation carried out.

Sure this isn't perfect but it's definitely one of the better Bond movies. Considering where this is placed in the Bond timeline it's remarkably well-paced. I'm surprised that I was originally told this was one of the weaker films in the series. I found the first two Connery movies very tedious, while this was anything but!

B+

Best thing: A great cast, with Anjelica Huston in particular being simply amazing.

Worst thing: The suggestion that Anjelica Huston and Annette Bening could be mistaken for one another is absurd. Anjelica Huston has a big puffy bright white hairdo and there's no way anyone is going to think that is Annette Bening with her less expansive red hair.

A bit of a meandering storyline with some great performances, but a rather unsatisfying finale.

I thought this could be great but by the end it fell a bit flat for me.

C+

Best thing: Things get seriously weird in a way I found very appealing.

Worst thing: While a cliffhanger ending can be great, I felt we deserved a firmer conclusion after all that buildup.

There seems to be a dividing line between those who think Bride of Chucky was an unfortunate diversion from the chilling slasher movie roots of this franchise and those who think Bride of Chucky was a much-needed shot in the arm for a series that had always had its roots in horror-comedy anyway. I'm very much in the latter camp.

I actually found the antecedent entry, Curse of Chucky, to be a little lacking in punch. There were a lot of good elements but I could not get all that excited about it. I feel that with Cult of Chucky the punch has returned. Admittedly this entry also makes some additions to the mythology that allow this to become incredibly weird by the end. Some may find it a little too ridiculous.

As someone who found Tiffany's phone call to AA in Seed of Chucky to be one of the series' high points, I have no problem with this series daring to be nuts. To that degree, Cult of Chucky delivers in spades.

I'm a little annoyed that this is left so open-ended. It's annoying to have a movie that feels like more of a chapter in a wider story rather than a neat and satisfying narrative in its own right. But I still had a very good time with this.

B+

Best thing: The cast are all pretty great. I'd say my favourite performance is from Daniel Bruhl.

Worst thing: We discover that absolutely anything could happen on this spacecraft and the laws of nature are regularly completely disregarded. Yet none of the characters seem to take this into account in their plans. "I have a complicated plan and it's going to work." Wouldn't something like, say, a complete reversal of the forces of gravity, irrevocably screw up those plans? Or any other plan? Heck, they are lucky that the life support system doesn't just turn inside out. A spaceship is such a fragile ecosystem and the eponymous "paradox" means it could all mess up irreversibly any time and the super-intelligent scientists never recognise how perilous their situation is.

A film set in a future where the world is running low on energy and both Germany and Russia are on the verge of war (what?). We vaguely see that a Cloverfield monster attack starts happening in the Uk. Weirdly sceptics about the work of scientists on space station (where the majority of the action takes place) refer to the "Cloverfield Paradox" but no reason is ever given for that label. Cue scientific experiment in space going very wrong and a fairly dumb resolution to the issue.

Anything can happen in this movie and anything quite often does happen, but that makes it utterly bizarre when the spaceship's crew are proposing plans to resolve a situation where everything can go wrong without warning at a moments notice. I guess it's my long-running issue with ghost stories coming into play. But at least in a ghost story the protagonists actually recognise their lack of control of the situation.

A waste of a great cast, and quite a decent budget, on a script that is utterly uninteresting.

D-

Best thing: Andy Serkis is magnificent as the leader of the apes. Though a close second is a new character known as Bad Ape.

Worst thing: What was the wall for? We are told they are building a wall, but there's no clear indication that it serves any real purpose. Also the film should be called Exodus (across the Planet of the Apes) not War.

The Planet of the Apes series has its flaws from beginning to end (mostly due to budget limitations), but every instalment (possibly barring Tim Burton's failed reboot) has something cool and interesting about it. (For me, Beneath is one of the weakest entries, but there is no doubting its inventiveness.)

A consistent feature of the new Planet of the Apes movies seems to be that the ape aspects are stronger than the human aspects.

In Rise, James Franco's research felt less interesting to me than Caesar's rebellion in the ape sanctuary. In Dawn, the human struggle for a source of electricity was less interesting than the apes' internal politics. (Though when Koba starts openly killing his own apes, it became rather less nuanced.)

In War the human aspect is still the least interesting, but I liked what they did with Woody Harrelson's character and I felt the ape segments were very strong.

Exciting, fun and benefiting from a solid performance from Andy Serkis as the ape leader, with the Planet of the Apes mythology still very compelling. For me, this a solid finale to the trilogy and the best of the new Planet of the Apes movies.

A+

Best thing: Dick Miller of course!

Worst thing: The character development sections simply do not pay off very well once the action starts. And that's a real pity since so many of the characters have a fantastic set up. Bechdel test? No problem!

Frankly a movie about an assault by robots ought to be more exciting than this. Nice robots and that's a cool head explosion effect, but in the end this is just a bit dull.

The problem is that, after a convoluted set-up whereby a bunch of older teenagers meet up for a party after hours in a furniture store, the seemingly endless scenes intended to develop the characters at the beginning of the film only result in the typical flat slasher victims for the rest of the film.

This could be a lot worse and, sure, it's quite fun in places. But it's a bit of a slog considering that it’s so light and silly.

C+

Best thing: Mark Strong is brilliant as the negotiator and he pulls off the amazing feat of encouraging us to care what happens to the armed terrorists who have invaded the embassy.

Worst thing: The story about the BBC correspondents standing outside filming was not interesting. Frankly any attempts to introduce us to them on a personal level felt like unnecessary filler.

Somehow I was expecting something a bit more Zero Dark Thirty. Sure, you can have all the umming and ahhing about the plight of the hostages and the concerns that drove the terrorists to take this course of action. But in the end I wanted the brutal finale and this isn't really that sort of film.

Nevertheless Six Days IS a lot of fun and has some great performances. It's always great to see Jamie Bell in a good film. Even in something like "Jumper" he's still awesome, but he often seems to have bad luck with the projects he's given.

Six Days feels a bit "made for tv", but it's still a great tv movie and I really enjoyed it.

Get comfy and prepare yourself for a fairly straightforward but well structured story of UK politics surrounding terrorism during a terrorist attack on the Iranian embassy in London in the 80s.

It might not have the excitement of something like Eye In The Sky but it feels a great deal more grounded.

B+

It was a struggle to even reach the bit with the ghost. The most boring couple ever who mumble at each other and seem utterly humourless. Apparently they are musicians but the woman talks about moving the piano and the man listens to his compositions on headphones, so we certainly don't see the sharing a passion for music with each other, or a passion for anything else for that matter.

Long lingering shots for no reason. Gorgeously shot but lacking in any real content beyond that. I thought perhaps after the death we might see Rooney Mara interact with someone other than her strong silent emotionless lover but it seems like she doesn't share her grief with any family or friends at all. A woman leaves a note saying "very sorry and would you like me to get an estimate for painting the house?" Are these aliens or something? Why don't they seem to have a grasp on either joy in life or grief when mourning? When people are sad they need support from those who care about them. So why doesn't Rooney Mara interact with a whole bunch of people straight after her boyfriend's death? Does she have no friends?

The unintentionally hilarious 'ghost subtitles' were the final straw.

Best thing: Jason Isaacs as the head of the Red Army is hilarious.

Worst thing: It's such a horrible period in Russian history and most likely portrayed pretty accurately. Yet somehow that doesn't matter, it's still very funny. I almost feel guilty laughing though.

Armando Ianucci's latest film is a fantastic masterpiece of political satire.

I'm not sure how he chose this project. It's almost like he was musing as to what he could apply his The Thick of It format to next. He'd used it to make a movie about British and American politicians squabbling over fake dossiers and a tv series based around a narcissistic American Vice President. So what option could be more fitting and relevant than a satire about politics in the Post-Stalinist Soviet Union?

Yet this setting fits the format of The Thick of It brilliantly and the theme of spineless backstabbing politicians who try to portray themselves as holding to higher principle when they are all just out for themselves is common to pretty much all Ianucci's work (even arguably Alan Partridge).

An amazing cast and an absolutely hilarious film. Possibly the best film of the year? So great!

A+

Best thing: I actually felt the characterisation was the best thing. Like with Bigelow's previous film, Zero Dark Thirty, this film is focused on giving us a depiction of a real event that is connected to the public consciousness in some way. But where that protagonist was very withdrawn and cold (which was admittedly intentional) Detroit has a variety of very clearly defined central characters. None melted my heart more than the lead singer of The Dramatics as his opportunity to perform onstage is snatched away. (Presumably a taste of the things to come for actor Algee Smith.)

Worst thing: There's a lineup shown in the section towards the end of the film and I think we are supposed to gauge what is happening from the visuals. I may have jumped to more shocking conclusions than were warranted.

A really sad tale of police brutality and heated racial tensions. There is an obnoxious article in The Huffington Post that argues that Detroit is irresponsible and dangerous because it doesn't mention black rights activism, including a trial run by the black community with no legal authority which found the police officers guilty.

Frankly, this movie isn't about black rights activists. It isn't about symbolic trials which could never provide effective justice. This is about the mistreatment of human beings in a chaotic environment. This is about a failure to properly hold officers to account and a trend towards passing the buck. This is about dodgy methods where the possibility of innocent people being murdered is used as an 'interrogation tactic'.

It is about a miscarriage of justice in court. Not a symbolic court,  a legal court.

These ideas are dealt with powerfully and forcefully. Somehow this manages to be very emotionally powerful while essentially doing little more than a reenactment. I didn't find the pacing so effective in 12 Years A Slave or even Zero Dark Thirty. Detroit features very effective storytelling and the full harrowing significance of the events is brilliantly conveyed.

Amazing piece of cinema.

A+

Best thing: Judge Doon (Christopher Lloyd) is pretty great throughout, but his part in the finale is incredible.

Worst thing: So... totally evil guy turns out to be totally evil? Nice twist....

I can't say enough good things about Who Framed Roger Rabbit? It's a childhood favourite. The premise of cartoon characters walking around in a live action movie still works incredibly well visually and narratively. And Bob Hoskins provides an excellent central performance.

A+

Best thing: Roddy McDowell (the original Caesar from Planet of the Apes) is fantastic as usual. In the latter half he gets to really let loose with his role and it's amazing.

Worst thing: It feels wrong to say that a film like this went too dark. Our protagonist's actions at certain points in this film rely on an extreme level of villainy from kids in the school for their justification. But nevertheless one event in the film (where it gets particularly extreme) somewhat dampened my enjoyment of the third act. (By the way, definite *trigger warning* for this movie.)

Wow, I was expecting something a great deal more trashy. Kennedy High School is one of the tougher schools in a future where schools have metal detectors to prevent the children bringing guns and knives into school. Isn't that in place in America already?

As someone who used to work in schools on a regular basis, I found this remarkably true to life. Certainly the film has an intentional silly streak and I never saw a child knifed in school, but the way students and teachers are portrayed is definitely more plausible than in most movies. (One thing I give the Carrie remake full credit for is that it corrects the unbelievable scenes with the PE teacher from the original.)

The film had no trouble convincing me that high school children can be vile psychopaths. But the whole point of the film is to depict a particularly bad case and the film is keen to note that the bad kids will always be in a minority. Nevertheless we are shown how tough a teacher's job is made by dangerous students.

It's hard to believe a teacher would carry on in such a difficult school, yet I know there will be teachers working in more troublesome schools than I ever saw.

The violence ramps up as the film goes on and the final act is amazing. I absolutely loved this film.

A+

Best thing: Still a better depiction of teaching than most films. Also this film does the iconic "pulling the skin off a robot arm" scene from Terminator 2 a year before T2 was actually released.

Worst thing: There is a scene towards the end where head of the technology company providing the robot teachers starts monologuing. It was annoying that someone would hold people at gunpoint and even let them know he intends to kill them, yet still hold back from pulling the trigger so he can have a chat first.

As a movie about killer robots this is pretty cool, but as a sequel to Class of 1984 I thought this was brilliant.

The first movie arguably did about everything you could reasonably do with plausibly evil school kids. If you took that up a level it would detract from what was set up in the first movie.

However, the first movie was set in the near future. So what's the next stage after things are too difficult for teachers? Robot teachers! And when the teachers aren't human you can have a finale where the teachers have to be defeated without contradicting the message of the first movie. The last thing you want is to demonise teachers who stick it out in tough schools, but criticism of misuse of untested technology is a less controversial option.

I particularly like how our bad boy protagonist is actually very keen not to fall in with the bad crowd. Coming out of the detention centre, he's off the drugs and he doesn't want to get sent back into lockup for gang activity. On the other hand, he still has a reputation from his previous experience in a gang.

The effects in the final act are fairly obviously low budget, but so much fun. The two Class Of movies are both awesome sci-fi classics and well worth your time.

A+

Best thing: Bill Paxton makes up for some terrible dialogue with the energy of his performance and Mark Hamill is a pretty cool bad guy.

Worst thing: In the second half the film suddenly seems to believe it has some keen insights into the decadence of modern society, but it really doesn't, so the dialogue in those scenes becomes insufferable. The characterisation of the female characters is thinner than a paper bag.

What pretentious rubbish. We needed more villainous antics from Mark Hamill and less unconvincing attempts at social commentary from Bob Peck.

They had a big enough budget and a strong enough cast to make something great. What a waste.

E grade

Best thing: This may be the best performance I've ever seen from Paul Rudd. He is playing a complete bastard and he's really charismatic in the role. He also has a very clearly formulated relationship with his partner in crime whose paedophilic tendencies become the most compelling part of the film (because it is utterly horrible).

Worst thing: The protagonist is completely uninteresting. The gimmick of having a protagonist who cannot speak does not even remotely pay off and the moral focus of the story whereby one villain is a paedophile is barely even noticeable to the protagonist with his more narrow focus on his vacuous relationship with his girlfriend who goes missing.

What a pity. Not terribly exciting visually, quite muddled plot-wise, the central premise of a mute protagonist in a sci-fi setting isn't terribly compelling (so I hope it works a lot better in Shape of Water) and the only saving grace is a pair of interesting villains whose plotline is barely relevant to the bland protagonist.

It seems to be two for two on Duncan Jones movies now. Moon and Source Code were great, but while we were all willing to give Jones the benefit of the doubt on Warcraft, this is now a worrying downward trend.

I don't really have much to add here, except that this is genuinely awful. Let's compare to other recent Netflix films. I thought Bright was alright. Joon-Ho Bong's tonally inconsistent Okja disappointed me, but definitely showed off the director's abilities. The Cloverfield Paradox was a bit of a mess, but an incredibly strong cast carried along the horrendous script.

But Mute is just bad. Kudos to Paul Rudd and Alexander Skarsgård for making the most of their roles and credit where credit is due, their scenes together generally work pretty well. But they don't even feel like they properly fit into the boring overall story and the world they inhabit is unengaging.

E grade

Best thing: The werewolf transformation was really cool. Particularly the first where our protagonist is revealed to be increasingly wolf-like after he passes each pillar.

Worst thing: Hang on! There's a published book with guidance on how to treat lycanthropy with a rare flower from Tibet with which most people have no experience? Couldn't the film have been more campy with something like that? It felt like that was treated far too seriously. (And in a film with so much humour from the alcoholic ladies and even the man who seems to be actively questioning the wisdom of his illicit affair even while he is secretly meeting with his illicit lover.)

Werewolf of London is a pretty standard classic Universal horror movie. I enjoyed it and I particularly liked that it included comic relief sections that were very enjoyable.

Nevertheless, I found the overall plot a little tedious. Not only is this slow, but the central character doesn't have the charisma of Lon Chaney Jr. who would later star in The Wolf-Man.

Werewolf of London is fine. It's a sweet little film. But as a fan of Universal movies, I still felt something was missing.

C+

Best thing: A monster that has a call like a human screaming for help. So creepy!

Worst thing: Jennifer Jason Leigh's character seems to know exactly what is going to happen to her at the end, but I'm not sure how.

Ex Machina was a very smart film where characters talked like real people with realistic motivations.

Annihilation is a movie which clearly wants to convey clever ideas, but doesn't seem clear on how to do so.

When Natalie Portman says that venturing into the contaminated region is suicide, Jennifer Jason Leigh dismisses her by saying it is actually self-destruction. Jennifer Jason Leigh is clearly not using the  layman's understanding of the word "self-destruction" since otherwise this would be the most ridiculous  case of splitting hairs ever. But whatever psychologist or therapist concepts Jennifer Jason Leigh's character is trying to convey, I am simply left completely lost and, in any case, this is not how normal people interact.

The actions of the characters becomes increasingly irrational. And then the film becomes some kind of art film towards the end. I know they say "show don't tell", but sometimes it helps if you tell me something.

I have no idea what point this film was trying to convey. The film was fine but, as cool as the concept was, it didn't seem to lead to a particularly satisfying payoff. Some cool visuals along the way didn't make up for that.

Better luck next time Alex!

C+

Best thing: The visuals are quite often stunning, whether it's the scenery, effects work or a shaman's ritual.

Worst thing: Unfortunately, while the visuals and the performances are very engaging and some scenes work very well, the overall plot is convoluted. There are too many twists, particularly considering the rules of the supernatural elements are never clearly defined.

Bizarre murders are occurring and locals seem to be going psychotic. Many are blaming a Japanese man who has visited the area. Is the Japanese guy really responsible? What is the purpose of the bizarre behaviour taking place. Does any of this really matter once the plot gets needlessly convoluted?

Beautiful and stupid. Well acted and well shot but completely lacking in a decent story structure. I find films like this incredibly frustrating. It wouldn't have taken much. Just a decent finale would have been enough to give this a positive review. But in the end I found this very unrewarding.

D+

Best thing: When we seem to see war crimes and trench warfare somehow carried out in the house that was a very high exciting visual.

Worst thing: So is the meaning behind the film "God is a bit of a dick"? Because that's the meaning I felt was being conveyed....

I love Darren Aronofsky. He's one of my favourite directors. Even while I honestly dislike his Noah movie, I give him a lot of credit for what he achieves in that film and the creativity involved. (In fact, my biggest problem is that the graphic novel of Noah, which Darren Aronofsky wrote, is so much better.)

What is special about Aronofsky's movies is the intensity and the way they get under the skin. A lot of Aronofsky's movies are people being destroyed. Whether they are destroyed by drugs, ambition, grief, inability to accept change, or a horrifying message from God, Aronofsky is keen to make you share in their downfall and feel their madness. (You may be noticing that many of these themes apply to more than one Aronofsky movie.)

The trailer seemed to show the intense Aronofsky film I was hoping for and I found it hard to believe the negative reviews. But perhaps unsurprisingly, while this film isn’t lacking Aronofsky’s knack for compelling visuals and building emotions, I am not going to be recommending this particular Aronofsky film.

We do still get a character who is destroyed, but it's harder to get dragged in with the same intensity because we never really get introduced to what the destructive force is. We just get more general symbols.

Admittedly we see war crimes, human trafficking, disobedience, fears of unrequited love, false religion, rioting, abuse. The culprits are endless and yet they are tackled in such a shallow way that its hard to accept that they are really the destructive force. They are frustrating for our protagonist, certainly, but they aren't what breaks her heart.

I would say what really destroys our protagonist in that under-the-skin way is the way our God-figure, the writer in constant search for inspiration, seems unwilling to stop the chaos and take action against unruly disruptive and violent behaviour. But I can't say that I feel like mother! helps me engage with God or some kind of equivalent force of nature (since I'm personally best described as an atheist). Like our protagonist, I'm left frustrated and perplexed, which is my dominant emotional response to the film as a whole.

While mother! is beautiful and fascinating, it's lacking the catharsis of a typical Aronofsky movie. I wasn't frustrated because I was being shocked to my very core. Rather I was frustrated because mother! alienated me with its painfully obvious Biblical symbolism that feels almost irrelevant to Jennifer Lawrence's frustrated relationship with Javier Bardem's indecisive God character who seems more interested in curing his writer's block than a sustainable solution for those around him.

C-

P.S. Spoiler I guess?

Was the scene where the Christians eat God's baby a reference to the changes he had to make from his graphic novel to the movie adaptation when making Noah? I feel like there were unfortunate compromises that must have been intended to appease the Christian audience for that movie yet really didn't pay off for anyone.

Best thing: The action sequences are excellent, particularly at the beginning and at the end.

Worst thing: There is no suspense in making us wonder whether Colin Firth is going to regain his spy skills or go off to study butterflies. Nobody is put at risk by him studying butterflies. Heck, after he's been shot in the head, doesn't he deserve a retirement? But we all know he's going to get his spy skills back and making us wait around is not suspenseful.

Not exactly a bad film overall, but outside of the action sequences there are way too many parts that drag and fail to build suspense effectively.

It's difficult to pinpoint how this fails. It seems so close to the formula of the first film (which is part of the problem really).

I think this Kingsman sequel doesn't take enough advantage of the fact that we've already been introduced to this world. I feel there was room to explore the Kingsman institution further, but instead we are rather hurriedly introduced to their American equivalent, Statesman, which feels much less well-defined.

Ironically, Matthew Vaughn's attempts to keep things fresh result in a film where there is very little depth. It feels almost like we are being reintroduced to the main characters rather than seeing them grow.

Yet some of the action sequences are amazing and the sense of fun remains even if it’s not so consistent.

C-

On the other hand, this animated cross-over between Kingsman and Archer, created as promotion for this film, is fantastic.

Best thing: I don't think there is a particular ultra-violent moment in this film that I like above all the others. But what also makes these scenes great is our protagonist's comebacks. Vince Vaughn is known for comedy films, but this isn't a comedy performance in this film. Still he does make understated witty comebacks and regularly gets angry reactions for doing so.

Worst thing: The baddies' plan feels pretty confusing by the end. Originally they appeared to have a pretty clear objective. By the end, I'm not clear on what they intend to gain from the arrangement.

I wasn't expecting to find our protagonist to be a sympathetic character, particularly when he starts by expressing behaviour that is irrational and hinting at probable domestic abuse. I mean, the controlling behaviour he exhibits is practically domestic abuse already (though it doesn't include physical contact or, as far as I recall, mental abuse in the form of insults).

Yet while the relationship the protagonist has with his significant other has a clearly rocky past, involving addiction and either a child death or miscarriage, there is some level of respect and understanding between them. The two are coping despite past problems and communication barriers.

There are plenty of films about characters with a violent past, but quite often, in films like Drive or A History of Violence this is actually a surprise and the level of violence can seem remarkable. In Brawl In Cell Block 99 Vince Vaughn's character and demeanour make it pretty clear that he probably has a violent past, but his level of competence in a fight is always on the right side of plausible.

What is rather less plausible are the threats from the ever-sinister Uro Kier. I mean seriously, if you need to pay a special kind of doctor to perform a unique procedure purely as a threat to motivate someone trapped in a prison, there are probably less expensive measures you could employ instead.

I feel that Brawl In Cell Block 99 benefits from its simplicity. The director's previous film, Bone Tomahawk, had a larger selection of characters and the story was less focused as a result. But Brawl also shares the strengths of Bone Tomahawk. It's not long before the film introduces the brutal violence. We generally don't have to wait long for a violent scene, but there is always a good reason for it.

Brawl In Cell Block 99 is a solid simple brutal film and I had a great time.

B+

I'd been waiting for this to be released for quite some time. I was hoping this would be a clear head and shoulders above the recent American Ring film "Rings". The only reason I cannot be sure whether this is actually better is because the only subtitles I could find for this film were practically incomprehensible.

There are some little moments in this film that are quite cool. A bullied kid gets the bullies to come into Kayako's house and share his fate. We also see a Buddhist trying to remove Sadako's curse from a girl by performing an exorcism.

However, the final showdown is a big disappointment. Does trying to stop the Sadako curse by watching the cursed tape in the Kayako house sound like a bad idea? Well, the spiritualism expert dressed like the Fonz is convinced that this is a great plan and, from what I could tell with my horrendous subtitles, nobody really questions this doomed strategy.

Weirdly the amount of time before Sadako murders you in this film seems to have been reduced from seven days to two just two days. That being said, surely Kayako's house shouldn't be still standing either, right?

I really appreciate the parts of this film that try to do something different, but the style of direction isn't very exciting and overall this is remarkably dull. I can't rule out the possibility that a decent set of subtitles would have made all the difference, but I doubt it.

Not good.

Oh for goodness sake. Kudos to everyone who gave me the heads up that this was going to be disappointing. It's sad though, because I was looking forward to this so much.

As an adaptation this feels like a complete failure. Besides the initial meeting between Georgie and Pennywise, the horror sequences (in the first half hour at least) aren't based on anything from the book.

The hyperactive joker of the group who put on silly voices all the time in the book is now an obnoxious prick who is basically telling "your mom" jokes all the time instead.

Worst of all, the portrayal of these characters simply isn't interesting. Not least because the movie is trying to rush through to key plot points, even while it abandons a whole bunch of them to make room for generic 'scary' moments. To fit their dialogue in, we get more of a cacophony of voices than genuine carefully paced character moments.

In order to get some rushed exposition we get some really horrible parents. "How is it going to look when the son of the Rabbi can't read the Torah properly at this Bar Mitzvah", which isn't in the original book at all, so I guess this is all a  longwinded way of telling us that this boy is Jewish. Then there's the other parent shouting, "Dammit, your brother's dead! Just accept it!"

I wondered whether they'd keep the implication from the book that 'It' is originally from outer space. However, from what I saw, they might as well bring in the Warrens and make this another Conjuring sequel. I'm not keen on this trend towards boring jump scare sequences. I was hoping for something where the fear would build gradually and subtly, like in Stranger Things. I guess that comparison was purely due to one of the child actors in the cast and nothing to do with the tone or style of the film.

Pennywise's early appearance was quite cool. But after half an hour of this two hour plus movie, I felt that it should have begun to grip me by then.

Having been informed that this was not the slapstick heavy travesty that the trailer portrayed, I decided to give this a go.

While perhaps not a travesty, this is very slapstick heavy right from the start. I can see that this is quite sweet, but this is very much a film to pacify small children rather than the quality we see in the best Pixar films that can enchant all age groups.

I'm not sure how the bears living deep in the woods are able to get hold of jam jars or an optician's prescription. Also wouldn't they need a decent quantity of sugar to make that marmalade? (Do they have sugar cane in that forest? Also, please tell me it’s made clear at some point that marmalade isn’t all that healthy...)

Some of the attempts to be a bit more highbrow didn't convince me either. An attempted parallel between the evacuation of children during the Second World War and an immigrant child sneaking in illegally isn't really particularly apt; not least since Paddington isn't even fleeing a war torn country.

I stuck with the film long enough to chuckle at the joke about not wanting to send Paddington to an orphanage. Overall this wasn't really made with adults like me in mind.

Best thing: As much as the script forces together the cacophany of elements in the Marvel Universe, the bit that seemed to fit together most neatly for me was Rocket's obsession with stealing prosthetic limbs.

Worst thing: Eposition and fighting. Exposition and fighting. Not enough humour for a Marvel film.

I'm happy to review this, but I can't rate it yet because this is only half a film.

I've learnt from Matrix Reloaded and Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, that presuming that you can judge where a half finished story is going by its first instalment is unwise. (Practically nothing I expected to be resolved from Matrix Reloaded was even addressed in the follow up and instead new characters were introduced. And my favourite thing in the first Hobbit movie was Radaghast and that character has almost nothing to do in the following two films.)

I know this isn't the first Marvel film to end with unfinished plot threads, but seriously, this is a massive cliffhanger and nothing set up in the first act is really resolved by the end.

The problem this film was always going to have is that there isn't enough time for proper character development of anyone. We get a fair few revelations about this new villain Thanos and that's fortunate because this is a character that those of us only familiar with the films know pretty much nothing about. It seemed that he was this super-powerful guy who did nothing but sit on a throne.

This has some cool buildup but the finale is still to come and frankly not everything within this story fully makes sense. Thanos apparently needs all five stones, but one of the stones allows him to “re-shape reality”. Once you can re-shape reality, what more power do you really need?

Infinity War is a film that seems to benefit from being so action packed that you don’t generally have much time to think about the problems. The jokes also help. But this is not a particularly satisfying story (but could turn out to be a perfectly acceptable first chapter) and it is also far from being he funniest Marvel movie.

If there's one thing the follow up needs to do, it's to challenge Thanos' reasoning. The only reply to Thanos so far has been "But that's crazy." Okay sure, but Thanos clearly isn't the crazy mad dog killer that we were expecting and so his rationale needs to be challenged in a more direct reasoned way. I presume that is coming later, even if Thanos won't listen. In the X-Men, Magneto was relateable because he was motivated by revenge and fear. Thanos isn't so relateable... yet. I'm interested to see where the initial character set up leads in a follow up. Still, anyone who was expecting a Darth Vader-esque figure is going to be disappointed.

For a movie that is mostly a series of action sequences (and moreso than normal for a Marvel film) this does a pretty great job. I might well be returning to this fondly, but it all depends on what they do with the second half.

No rating

Best thing: *Hold up magic charm* “Always use protection!”

Worst thing: The daughter of the Latino gardener accepts the accusation that a particular necklace was stolen by her father pretty easily. Especially considering that the guy telling her this, just broke into her home.

Suburban Gothic is very silly and is a bit of a hodge podge of ideas. It’s not consistently funny, though that’s mainly the script’s fault. There’s no criticising the cast, particularly Matthew Gray Gubler in the starring role

It’s not even like it’s a badly made film. It’s well shot, well acted and well edited. It’s just that it’s a comedy that isn’t particularly consistent in its humour (mixed with horror that is never scary) and I’m not even sure what the film really wants to say. Ray Wise’s character as the dad never feels particularly believable to me. In fact, all the characters feel too quirky for their own good.

There’s a good film in here somewhere, but it’s a little too well buried. Looking forward to seeing Matthew Gray Gubler is something better.

C+

Best thing: This a clear return to the full-on black humour of Excision after Suburban Gothic was just way too safe.

Worst thing: The dark third act is perhaps it a little too reminiscent of the ending in Excision (only less powerful)

I absolutely loved the wonderfully dysfunctional central relationship in the first half. Horribly dark in a way that Suburban Gothic seemed to be side-stepping. It's a solid bit of black comedy.

But when the female member of the central couple finally learns about the source of her boyfriend's childhood trauma and continuing neuroses, she realises she has made a mistake in asking him to confront them. I think we needed a stronger reason for why our protagonists do not do a runner quite early into the second half and we deserved a better payoff as a consequence for their decision to stick around.

This still doesn't have the genius of Excision, but it's an improvement on Suburban Gothic. Richard Bates Jr is definitely one to continue to keep an eye on. (Also pleased to see a returning Matthew Gray Gubler and AnnaLynne McCord though neither really had enough to work with.)

B-

Best thing: When the lawyers advise as to what the main content of the opposing lawyers' argument is likely to be, it really hit home how horrible the situation is.

Worst thing: The characters aren't the most distinctive, but my biggest problem is that the information provided in text on screen at the end actively contradicts the depictions of the characters in the film. Mildred Loving is said to have always been shy of the press, yet we see her actively inviting the press to interview her during the main story.

This has some great acting and it is absolutely beautiful, but in the end it feels like it is missing character. Our central actors are doing their best with the material but in the end they are playing quite quiet and somewhat withdrawn people.

I do feel good about the fact that this doesn't do the Oscar bait thing of having the characters build to self-righteous emotional outbursts. These are ordinary people in an extraordinary situation. They aren't interested in taking big risks or making a stand. They just feel a connection to one another and a connection to their home and their roots, so they act accordingly and are shocked that anyone else should take issue with these those actions.

Arguably our protagonists are a little naive. But when a lawyer is offering to take on their case, they are sensibly cautious.

As much as the characters felt a bit too ordinary for me, I did get caught up in the story. Yet the information that appeared on screen at the end made clear that even what we were shown here, as low key as it was, may still have misrepresented some small details.

In the film, the female member of our central couple persuades her husband that they need to invite the media because it serves an important purpose and is in their interest to do so. The text in the final moment of the film insists that this character later refuses to talk to the press because she has always been shy of them. This suggests her arc where she gains the strength to share her personal life and become a public figure did not unfold in real life in quite the way it is depicted.

I'm personally going to say this is Jeff Nichols worst film and that is a real compliment to Jeff Nichols. This is, at least, a better than average biopic. It has strong acting, beautiful shots, solid pacing, compelling storytelling but in the end it doesn't go the extra mile.

Biopics are often rather less impressive because filmmakers are limited by the source material and often it takes a big bombastic character or a unique visual approach to make a serious impact. (Bronson and American Splendour come instantly to mind, though Capote is one that I think succeeds using a more traditional approach.)

This is a solid biopic about one couple's struggle for their marriage to be legally allowed in their state. Well worth your time, but not exactly a thrill ride.

B-

Best thing: Absolutely beautiful. It almost goes without saying with Pixar movies now, but seriously this is the most visually stunning Pixar movie yet. Gorgeous patterns and colours, including the beautiful spirit animals.

Worst thing: I guessed the third act 'twist' well in advance. The world building we see in the land of the dead was not predictable, but the basic storyline definitely is.

Less a musical and more a film that happens to involve people performing music. Really good music too. When we did the Letterboxd Oscars I looked up the song "Remember Me" on Youtube and I must have stumbled on some kind of horrendous remix because it was cheesy and terrible. The version of Remember Me as performed in the movie is a lot better, but it's not the best song in the film.

It's a pity that the plotline is so obvious. It's a neat little plot and very sweet, but don't expect to be surprised.

That being said, unlike the Pixar movie Up, they save the super-tearjerker scene til the end this time. Coco might not be the best Pixar movie, but it has the stunning visuals  and emotional depth we expect from their better efforts.

The world of the dead is a fantastic landscape for the filmmakers' creativity and it puts the lousy Book of Life film from about 4 years ago to shame. Fun, beautiful and powerful. Loved it.

A+

Best thing: Christopher Plummer. Frankly it's difficult to imagine anyone else in the role.

Worst thing: Mark Wahlberg. He is completely eclipsed by the rest of the cast. I simply had no sense of what kind of person he was trying to portray beyond what is revealed in the lines of the script. There is absolutely no depth to his performance.

A fairly run-of-the-mill Ridley Scott movie. The ideas are interesting enough but frankly the plot just plods along.

That's not to say there aren't good moments here, but it feels rather baggy overall. This is a solid film but I didn't feel it had the Ridley Scott magic this time.

Perhaps it's not so surprising that I found this a little underwhelming. It is essentially a biopic and that can often be a challenge to adapt. Often we all too easily accept incredible elements in films either because we don't know they really happened or because we presume the storytellers are taking creative license with events.

The story of the richest man alive is interesting, even to the point where the scenes with Christopher Plummer are more interesting than  the scenes involving the kidnapping.

B-

Best thing: There are so many great characters, but a farcical sequence where the baker's wife finds she has double-booked her lovers is absolutely hilarious.

Worst thing: While I think it works just fine this does go VERY Catholic towards the end. Even then, however, the jokes keep coming.

When I was looking through most popular movies on Letterboxd, this one came up. Most reviewers seem to be from Brazil and my one Letterboxd friend who had even seen it comes from Brazil (shoutout to Daniel Rodriguez). Nearly everyone really liked this film with the word 'classic' coming up quite often in reviews.

Quite honestly, this movie is blooming hilarious. It's a fast-paced farce, but absolutely brilliantly constructed.

But there is some pretty cool satire here too. I mean seriously, this film shows the clergy as money-grabbing and pompous. It even starts with a joke about the Jesus story as our loveable prankster protagonists promote a religious film as if it were an action movie. This film also features Jesus Christ asserting that government organisations are useless. Yet for all this subversion against authority figures, there is no way this film could be accused of being impious.

Frenetically paced and wonderfully silly, yet with real heart too. Brilliant!

A+

Best thing: While much of this feels like a very limited budget, some of the alien designs are superb.
Worst thing: "There's an old saying: 'When it's over it's over.' And guess what? It's over." Oh my goodness, such lame dialogue!

More like a really great tv pilot than a mediocre stand-alone movie, Arena has a bit of a cheap but fun Star Trek feel to it. It's therefore fitting that Armin Shimerman who played Quark in Deep Space Nine appears here as a character called Weezil.

Arena has some great world building but gets really cheesy and annoyingly predictable in places. If there'd been a more interesting payoff in the third act I might have been recommending this one. It was fun watching it unfold and this film has no shortage of charm, but unfortunately the story never goes anywhere that exciting with its premise.

C+

Best thing: When it is noted that our protagonist's mother was the main breadwinner at one point, her father gets horribly and so unfairly berated by the leader of the anti-gay camp.

Worst thing: The idea that a masochist is enjoying her 'negative reinforcement' using a shock stick is funny enough. However, it's horrible to think there are kids out there who are basically being conditioned to avoid physical contact through similar means (physical contact with anyone, not just one gender) and this film dodges the full horror of anti-gay camps. That being said, this is able to make some important points by being a movie we can comfortably laugh at.

Solid comedy in the vain of Clueless, Easy A or Edge of Seventeen. Great fun. Very silly but in a wonderfully deliberate way.

I particularly love how absurdly colourful the movie is. The absurdity of the whole situation is elevated by the bright garish colours. The cruel truths behind this story of how gay people are not tolerated by their own families is not something this film can ever fully address (though it does so more than the movie “Saved” which seemed to entirely dismiss anti-gay camps as harmless), but the visual style makes clear that this is a cartoon version of the situation.

When I was at university I spent a while living with mostly gay or bi housemates and But I'm A Cheerleader held pride of place on their DVD shelf (though they wrongly thought I wouldn't like it). In spite of this, I’m told that the SJW crowd are not pleased with this film. That being said, my own google search on the film seemed to show widely positive views on the film. I guess if you search for people with negative opinions on something on the internet, you’re pretty much guaranteed to find them.

So, even if there really are SJWs condemning this positive life-affirming lesbian romantic comedy to the flames, I am going to side with nearly all my Letterboxd friends and some gay, lesbian and bi friends of mine in adoring this piece of comic genius.

A must-see.

A+

Best thing:“Bali Ha'i may call you!” *mimes as  if holding a telephone*

Worst thing: The whole psychological block of Nicolas Cage's character, preventing him from committing to a marriage, feels like lip service. It's not really something we are supposed to take too seriously even though it is central to the plot.

Somehow I never noticed the over the top craziness of Nicolas Cage's performance in this film before. It seems like prior to his action films like Face/Off and The Rock I didn't think of Nicolas Cage as a punchline the way he often seems to be viewed today. But perhaps that's actually because Cage's style of acting is more suited to comedy?

Certainly Cage's style of acting fits right in with films like Raising Arizona and Adaptation. In films where there is a wacky aspect anyway, even if it's just your normal comedy tone, Cage fits right in.

Sarah Jessica Parker is actually pretty great here playing almost the opposite of a damsel in distress as she is led away by James Caan who is fantastic as usual.

I suppose it could be funnier but the jokes seemed pretty consistent to me and the whole thing is rather charming.

Simply great fun. Very glad to find this still holds up so well.

A+

Best thing: That's some unorthodox acupuncture there... Also, right at the end the time shifting dream-like structure seriously pays off.

Worst thing: That wire really cuts through bone like that? I mean, even accepting that she is wearing gloves, wouldn’t you need to be supremely strong to exert that kind of pressure? Then again, I’m not sure this movie wants us to take it so seriously. There’s somewhat of a comic book style to all this.

The only other Takeshi Miike film I've seen is Thirteen Assasins. I was quite confused by the move from incredibly dark and brutal drama to somewhat goofy action with a bit of magical realism thrown in. The awkward mixture of tones prevented me from being able to fully enjoy the long chaotic battle at the climax of the film.

Audition is another film with a mixture of tones, but somehow I could totally run with it this time.

As much as I don't want to spoil the film, it would be irresponsible not to reveal that this is a horror film. It's been said elsewhere on Letterboxd that our central villain is so much hotter when she is being sadistically evil; and it's so true!

The nightmarish time jumps and loss of reality reminds me a bit of Italian horror, but I guess it is more the influence of anime behind this. In Italian horror it often feels like the randomness shows a lack of care. In Audition, by contrast, each shift into madness and grotesque violence is a meticulously crafted note in a terrifying symphony.

Superbly haunting and one of the greatest horror films of the century.

Kiri kiri kiri kiri! *shudders*

A+

Best thing: Great performances and well constructed relationships between characters. Tom Wilkinson is always great.

Worst thing: We all love Alex Kingston. She's brilliant. We know this. But her role in this film is conspicuously contrived. I'm sure it seemed like a great idea to introduce a femme fatale but her actions in the third act are not plausible.

The cast is pretty great. So it's a pity the story is not more compelling. Certainly we get a clear impression of how horrible the Essex gangsters are, but rather than becoming more complicated the plot actually seems to become more clear-cut and contrived as the film goes on.

Initially there is so much we don't know. Sean Bean takes savage revenge on a man for being a 'grass'. But this man is working in a warehouse storing gutted fish and that's all we know about him. And we are introduced to this world through Sean Bean's driver who is himself a bit of a mystery.

The problem with this film essentially lies with

Alex Kingston. And it's really not her fault. She is absolutely magnificent. But I wonder whether if the filmmakers thought "More

Alex Kingston, make her role bigger." They end up making her so central to the plot that it becomes utterly ludicrous.

Let's talk about the central premise of the film. We are told right from the start that there was a real incident which left three dead, two with life sentences and one going into witness protection. The further we go into the film, the clearer it becomes that this is ALL the scriptwriters knew about this real life incident too.

Another great talent here besides Alex Kingston is Tom Wilkinson. And yeah, Sean Bean is cool too. There's no lack of good performances. But the plot wants us to believe it's all true to life and that just makes it seem all the more contrived. There is certainly room for some suspension of disbelief, but when the movie throws in a 'clever twist' it is encouraging us to consider the plot in more depth leaves itself vulnerable to scrutiny as a result.

C+

Best thing: I suppose the best thing is probably the love scene half way through the film. It plays out in a way that is tasteful and realistic while also having a good sense of cinematic style.

Worst thing: With a super-simple plot, this is basically a short film padded out to feature length. As such it's a long build up to very little. The film even essentially misses out the second act and still feels slow.

Initially when watching this film I was horribly aware that this big Oscar winner was every bit the film I feared it would be. Slow pacing, inexpressive central protagonist, and clearly coming across like misery porn in the way our protagonist is most clearly defined by his lousy circumstances rather than his unique personality or his interesting life.

When our protagonist grows up, the story seems to finally have an opportunity to move forward properly. Our protagonist is still withdrawn, but it feels easier to understand why he is being quiet. In this stage it feels like he has some agency rather than passively allowing things to happen to him.

But just when it feels like we finally have a personal story with proper stakes, the film makes a huge time jump. The protagonist has massively changed body type, the mother's situation has also changed enormously, and it's all happened out of sight.

I know most people presumably won't have much issue with this one classroom scene. However, as someone who used to work in a school, it bugged me.

The bully won't stop talking when asked, but is quick to leave the classroom when asked. Okay, maybe, but I didn't find the scene played out very convincingly.

But why is the protagonist picked out as if his lack of focus on the lesson is unique, even though we can see at least two other students paying no attention to the lesson either? Was I supposed to think the protagonist was especially unfocused by comparison to the others, or is it perhaps that he's just known for being inattentive and that's why the teacher addresses him first?

Moonlight has a very slow start, quite a slow middle, skips a whole important section of the protagonist's life, before quite a slow end. This a very simple story told in a very simple way. It's fine. I can't say I really enjoyed it all that much. I give the movie credit for the tastefully made love scene on the beach but besides that I don't really understand what the fuss is about.

C+

Best thing: The Godzilla sequences are fantastic. Godzilla fires lazers from his back now?

Worst thing: The characters aren't really the focus. We are simply introduced to all of the officials in charge of handling a crisis, but not in an interesting personal way like in Eye In The Sky. There's certainly no romantic subplot like in the original 50s Gojira movie.

Do we need a Japanese Godzilla reboot? Well, no. Godzilla is a classic. But do we want one? Sure! Bring it on. With so many Godzilla movies already, mostly with a fairly low budget and/or trashy, there's always room for a Godzilla movie that looks as polished as Shin Godzilla to add to the pile.

For all the criticisms I might level at this film, I will say right now, it is way better than the American movie. Gareth Edwards, I love your work, and you had a lot of ambitious sequences that the Japanese were not trying to match here. But with that being said, there are effects sequences here that are astounding and the plot is much more engaging.

You might not think this is going to be the one with the better effects when Godzilla first turns up. Godzilla initially looks very weird, but there is a good reason for this. Stick with it, because eventually you will see the Godzilla we know and love. And as the plot unfolds we get some absolutely amazing confrontations between Godzilla and the military.

It has been noted that all Godzilla does it move, but frankly that's all Godzilla ever did. Godzilla doesn't eat people. Godzilla just walks around and causes havoc. And it's no surprising to hear that Godzilla's source of energy is nuclear fission. He's like a 20th century dragon. A fire breathing reptile that can easily fend off the might of a modern army.

The new take on Godzilla explored here parallels the reactor leaks that Japan had to deal with. We see Godzilla from the perspective of the government countering a disaster.

Every figure involved in the process and the bureaucratic red tape inevitably involved is all shown in, frankly, way too much detail. I started trying to ignore the titles of the various figures in order to have a hope in hell of keeping up with the subtitles of actual speech.

One awkward thing is that the main English speaking character, playing the American ambassador who happens to be Japanese herself, is clearly an actress who has Japanese, not English, as her first language. For the Japanese audience, there isn't much issue here, but I whenever she is speaking English I felt I would still be better off with subtitles.

Instead of a relationships as in the first movie, we have Japanese politicians making career plans. It's nice to have a change but it's a very different sort of drama.

I still prefer the original Gojira but Shin Godzilla is definitely one of the better Godzilla movies and if you are monster movie fan you shouldn't miss it.

B+