Stephen King's IT

Year: 2017

Genre: Horror 

The original adaption of King's 1986 novel was released in 1990 as a two part television series and eventually became a huge sleeper success on VHS as a three hour movie. The biggest reason behind it's huge cult following was Tim Curry's portrayal of Pennywise the dancing clown. Were you to strip away Curry's charisma and charm from the film, it would probably have never been the run away success that it was back then, and never achieved it's high placing in the annals of horror movie mythos. 

Having been in development since 2009 it makes sense that the producers held back on Pennywise's return for twenty seven years because it ties in with his return in the novel. The trailer was released back in March of this year, and many fans on social media (myself included) took to their comment boxes to vent their anger about Skarsgard's Pennywise . This is not unusual, as it's human nature to resist change. I for one, instantly took a dislike to the character's redesign, but were willing to throw caution to the wind until I had seen the film at the cinema. Have I changed my mind now I've seen it? Well yes, and also no. 

The film opens with an almost scene for scene identical recreation of Georgie's boat going down the storm drain and Pennywise offering to give it him back. This was good, because the audience gets to see the character they've paid money to see very early on in the film. First impressions? Make up looks good, CGI is adequate, and then Skarsgard gives you his interpretation on how Pennywise should sound... 

It was at that point the film lost me. What comes out is Skarsgard doing an impression of Yoda, interlaced with mannerisms VERY reminiscent of Heath Ledger's Joker from the Dark Knight. Gone was Curry's charisma and wit, and you're given a out of the box character that is unoriginal, and has none of the traits that made Curry's interpretation so iconic amongst horror fans and alike. It's not that I found his character dislikable, I just found him uninspiring and bland. I was dissapointed early on in the film, and this wasn't a good sign. 

Second to Curry's portrayal of Pennywise, the coming of age theme that was core to the first half of the novel and 1990 original was another reason I enjoyed the film first time around. Very much a fan of Rob Reiner's 'Stand by Me', taken from King's 82 novel 'The Body', I knew the film could still partially win me over if that part of it worked. Thankfully, the chemistry between the child actors was perfect, and in particular the final act reminded me of Speilberg's 'The Goonies' and more recently the Duffer Brother's 'Stranger Things'. The child actors are the films strongest asset, and the bring it up from what without them, would be a very generic, scare free, made for the masses horror.  

This was my other gripe with Muschietti's interpretation of the first half of King's novel. It just isn't scary. It has intentionally been given a considerably darker tone than the 1990 version, but it just throws generic scares at the audience. There's nothing in here that the audiences haven't seen a million times before (including a haunted house and a soaked in blood shower scene). Granted, this is lifted directly from the novel, but the way they are filmed is made for the masses, and will disappoint horror fans who are looking for a little bit more than run of the mill scares. 

Taken as a coming of age film, the 2017 interpretation of  'IT' is a success. It benefits from extra scenes that weren't in the 1990 iteration, that explain plot holes to people who have never read the book will be glad to see. It's scored excellently, and the performances from all of the child actors really do shine. 

It just isn't scary. It's supposed to be Stephen King, it's supposed to be scary. It just really, really isn't. 

I'm gonna give it three stars. I wish I could give it more. 

Get Out

Year: 2017

Genre : Social Thriller

I first heard about 'Get Out' on IHorror.com a couple of months back when there were some very loud noises coming out of the States on it's release regarding how good it was. It seem's to have had a very limited release over here the UK, and as it wasn't showing at our regular haunt the Light Cinema, we headed over to nineties haunt Showcase Walsall to see if it actually lived up to the hype. 

'Get Out' opens with black actor Keith Stanfield being followed by a car in a middle class American suburb late at night. As the car slows down, Flanagan and Allen's 'Run Rabbit Run' can be heard coming from inside, and the audience almost instantaneously know that race relations are going to play a big part in the film. Shortly thereafter, the film moves onto introducing the films protagonist Chris Washington, and his 'butter wouldn't melt in her mouth' girlfriend played by Allison Williams. Chris and his other half pay a visit to her parents house during the annual family gathering, but Chris can't help but notice that black people working for her parents, they are unusually submissive in nature and almost robotic in the way they conduct themselves on a day to day basis... 

I honestly can't write anything else about the plot without giving away an absolute bucket load of spoilers. Sorry...

Make no mistake, newcomer to the director's chair Jordan Peel has really pulled out all the stops with 'Get Out' and for a first effort, this is an outstanding piece of cinema. It's not a horror film in the traditional sense of the word, even though it produced by the same guy that was behind 'Insidious' and 'Ouija'. There are no haunted houses here, and I think I counted but one single jump scare. Also, unlike what I call 'made for the masses' horror films, 'Get Out' is broken up with some very funny comedic moments that are a welcome break from the underlying sinister tone of the rest of the film. In terms of structure, this film ticks all the boxes.

At it's core 'Get Out' is a social commentary about the post Obama covert racism of middle class America. Director Peel is fully aware that as well as the 'out and out proud to be white' Deep South Trump voters, there are swathes of middle classes who although do not openly profess to being racist, still strongly believe that black people are inferior to white, and to this day, belong on a plantation or serving dinner to the liberally racist middle class Trump voter of the Mid West. 

I really enjoyed this film. Its ideas were original, it was unsettling but not a traditional way, and it serves as food for thought for the rest of the world looking in on modern America. An easy five stars, and my favourite film of the year so far. 

Logan

Year: 2017

Genre: Comic Book

There's large contingent who honestly feel that 2016's 'Deadpool' was the Marvel's Studios answer to the hoards of fans growing tired of films aimed at the younger generation. In the media, 'Deadpool' is widely regarded as Marvel's attempt to appeal to the older members of the audience, those tired of the endless CGI skyscraper smashing squeaky clean superheroes that serve no other purpose other than to fill the already bulging bank account coffers of studio executives and alike. Granted, the character of Deadpool swears a lot, but Marvel still played it safe and CGI was still a big part of the third act of the film. Before Logan, and when compared to Christopher Nolan's vision in 'The Dark Knight' trilogy, Marvel had yet to release a film that wasn't a generic crowd pleasing fairground ride, and do something a little different.

Then along came Logan.

It's been seventeen years since Bryan Singer's original 'X-Men' graced our screens, a film that is generally accepted as the seed that planted the tree which became the Marvel Studios behemoth of modern cinema. As time has passed, pretty much all the actors from the original trilogy have been replaced with the exception of one - Hugh Jackman's incarnation of Wolverine. In very much the same way Christopher Reeve was born to play the lead role in Donner's original 'Superman', Jackman has made the character of Wolverine his own. Forever the anti hero, Jackman's Wolverine shuns the conventional stereotype and is perhaps the only Marvel character of recent times to have any sort of depth of personality. The fact he hasn't been asked to play the role head to toe in lycra gives the character an element of humanity that isn't seen in any characters Marvel have churned out in recent years.

'Logan' is set several years after the most recent 'X Men Apocalypse' against a backdrop filmed in the American Deep South. The only surviving members of Xavier's school for gifted youngsters are Xavier himself, and Wolverine. They are holed up in a remote area of Nevada, hidden away from authorities who believe that Xavier, now showing signs of suffering from Alzheimer's, is a weapon of mass destruction and must be brought into custody. Patrick Stewart returns to the role, and his Shakespearean roots really begin to flower with a convincing performance of someone suffering from dementia. Once their hideout is discovered, a chase ensues across several states right up to Canadian Border in North Dakota where the final epic battle between Wolverine and the authorities takes place.

Right from the outset, the first thing that strikes you about 'Logan', is the sheer brutality of the fight scenes. Make no mistake, this is in no way targeted at a younger audience and if anything, should be kept away from one. Claws impale skulls, enemies are beheaded, limbs are severed, and all within ten minutes of the opening scene. The violence has been ramped up several notches, feels bone crunchingly real, and is on a level never seen seen in any Marvel film since the studios inception in the late 1990's. This is Marvel listening to it's critics, and this is Marvel stepping outside of it's comfort zone. Somewhat ironically, it's main critics were the fans of DC Comics who said Marvel didn't know how to do melancholy and always played it safe. 'Logan', is exactly what older comic book fans have been asking for, it's hit the bulls eye, and gives a huge sucker punch to an already out for the count DC Comics following their 2016 critical mauling by cinema audiences.

Is there anything to find fault with it? Well if I'm being brutally honest, I felt the middle section of the film quietened things down for a tiny bit longer than they needed to be, and could have done with being a bit shorter. Initially, I felt Stephen Merchant was an odd choice, but he turned out to be a likable character. My main gripe was with Marco Beltrami's score, which I personally felt was very weak and didn't benefit the film in any way whatsoever. It's an area Marvel need to improve on going forward and really look at how Hans Zimmer's scoring of Nolan's 'Dark Knight' trilogy and perhaps go back to Danny Elfmans 'Batman' aswell. I know Marvel Studios aren't really famous for their choice of composer, but they need to appreciate that a good score can elevate the audience's emotional investment in a film tenfold. Food for thought.

Overall, I give 'Logan' four and half stars. Hugh Jackman gives the performance of his career, and it's a more than sufficient send off for a character audiences have grown up with and will miss dearly.

Star Trek Beyond

Year: 2016

Genre: Sci-Fi

Back in 2009, 'Star Trek' fans the world over rejoiced at J.J Abrams big screen reboot of the 1960's cult TV series. Tasked with pleasing a very fickle fan base, Abrams successfully paid homage to the source material, whilst providing the perfect balance between action, humour, a strong story, and world class CGI. The film was a global success raking in $385 million at the box office, and looking back through my Rotten Tomatoes reviews, I wrote: 

'Easily my first five star film of 2009. Everything you could want from a half decent Trek movie is in here. A superb prequel that pulls out all the stops and delivers in every way possible'. 

Four years later the cast were reunited for 'Into Darkness', which for me although being thoroughly enjoyable, and a stellar performance by Benedict Cumberbatch, didn't quite have the same emotional resonance as the 2009 reboot. Walking into yesterdays screening of 'Beyond', I was hoping that new franchise director Justin Lin's film was going to be an improvement on 'Into Darkness', and achieve the same level of greatness Abrams did in his original reboot. I walked out of the cinema two hours later, very pleased with the package Lin had bought to the table. 

One of the first thing that strikes you in the first act is the quality of the CGI in this film, which really is some of the best I've ever seen on the big screen. A real sense of awe is felt by the audience as the camera pans over Starbase Yorktown in the opening act, the and the battle that ensues not long after the Enterprises leaves to respond to a distress call puts special effects house Double Negative in Academy Award winning territory. This level of quality is maintained throughout the film, and even surpasses 'The Force Awakens' when talking about on screen spectacle. 

CGI takes a back seats from then on, as the film quietens down a bit in the second act and gives the audience a chance to get to know the cast a little better. Excellent characterization has been a high point of this franchise since Abrams reboot in 2009, and 'Beyond' carries on the trend with a group of actors who work flawlessly together recreating the feeling of the 60's show but also bringing new things to the table. You could argue Zachary Quinto was born to play the role of Spock, looking and both acting exactly how you would expect a young Leonard Nimoy to behave. He has great chemistry with Chris Pine, and together they successfully recreate the relationship Shatner and Nimoy had in the original series. The remaining cast all give excellent performances. Simon Pegg clearly relishes playing Montgomery Scott, and newcomer to the franchise Sofia Boutella's Jaylah injects some femininity into what is essentially, a cast dominated by males.   

The action is ramped up again in the third act, as the crew of the Enterprise have to defend Starbase Yorktown from Idris Elba's Krull and his fleet of ships that resemble a swarm of very angry bees. As in the opening act, the quality of the CGI really is world class, and probably some of the best I've ever seen on the big screen. Sadly, Elba's Krull doesn't quite achieve same level of menace as Benedict Cumberbatch did as Khan in 'Into Darkness', largely because he is given far less to say, and spend the vast majority of the film under mountains of prosthetic make up. Nevertheless, his performance is more than adequate, and at no point did I sit there and think his character was in any way underwhelming as the film's villain. 

For me, 'Star Trek Beyond' was a return to the form of Abram's original reboot. It will definitely appeal to Trek fans, but at the same time, audience members unfamiliar with the characters will probably get something out of it too. You don't have to have spent hours watching the original TV series to enjoy it, as likable characters, excellent performances, and some ground breaking CGI stand it head and shoulders over the likes of the recent Independence Day sequel, and the utterly dreadful 'Ghostbusters' remake. 

Five stars, easily. 

Suicide Squad

Year: 2016

Genre: Comic Book / Fantasy

I'll be honest, knowing that director of both 'Batman vs Superman', and 'Man of Steel' was executive producer on 'Suicide Squad' made me very cautious. I'd had high hopes for both films, and like so many other fans, felt crushingly disappointed walking out of the cinema after seeing them. I'd seen several lukewarm reviews for this on YouTube, so as is the norm for DC films nowadays, I walked into the cinema hoping for the best, but expecting to be far from bowled over.

Is it as boring as 'Batman vs Superman', or a disappointing as 'Man of Steel'? In a word, no, thanks to the humorous elements of Will Smith and Margot Robbie's performances, something that Snyder's previous two works so desperately needed. The sets are stylish, the mood is gritty throughout, and I liked the way a fluorescent colour palette was used convey the feeling of anarchy.

This isn't to say that it's a great film though. Warner Brothers have still got a long way to go before they reach the level of polish that Marvel studios can churn out. Granted, there isn't anybody to root for as such in this, so it's not going to have the tone of a Marvel movie. All things considered though, there's still quite a few things it could have done alot better.

My biggest niggle with 'Suicide Squad' was with the main villain, and the issue is two fold. Remember how I commented in my 'Ghostbusters' review that one of its main problems was no 'Gozer' character from the original? Well, all I'll say is that the producers of 'Suicide Squad' must have read my blog and decided to include one in their film to make up for it. It just doesn't work, and is quite frankly utterly ridiculous. It's just Cara Delevingne (why?!) in a skimpy bikini, gyrating on the spot. That's all it is. Seriously, whoever made the decision to cast a catwalk model with no acting experience whatsoever?! I really don't understand why they chose a villain completely unfamiliar to mainstream audiences, and equally, why someone with very little acting gravitas or stage presence was chosen for the role. 

Also, I'm not entirely sure Will Smith was the right choice for the character of 'Deadshot'. The film is very much his, and with the exception of Margot Robbie, the other cast members play second fiddle to his one liners. Having seen so many films where he is the good guy, I just couldn't get used to him playing someone with bad intentions. I'm not saying it's a bad performance, I'm just saying I don't think it's the right casting decision. It's ironic because his performance is one of the highlights of the film.

Margot Robbie carries off Harley Quinn perfectly, and reminded me of Tara Strong's voice acting in the 'Arkham' games from Rocksteady. I was pleased with her performance, and she was one of the highlights of the film for me having played all three 'Arkham' games to completion. I have no doubt the target audience for this film will feel exactly the same.

I think Jared Leto was a very brave man taking on the role of the Joker after Heath Ledger's performance in Nolan's 'The Dark Knight'. He clearly tries to emulate Ledger in his performance, but is given neither the screen time or the script to do the job. The end result is a far from a disaster, but instantly forgettable.

'Suicide Squad' is an improvement on 'Batman vs Superman', but much the same as when you walked out of 'Man of Steel', you feel it's just ok, and a far cry from the potential it has as a concept. It's not a bad film by any stretch, but Cara Delevingne's character really brings it down a few notches. Here's hoping they rectify the problem in the sequel..

A slightly above average three stars.

Ghostbusters

Year: 2016

Genre: Horror Comedy 

When the trailer for 2016 remake of Ghostbusters went online, it went on to become one of YouTube's most downvoted clips of all time. At current count, it is listed as having  950,000 downvotes as opposed to a significantly lower 250,000 people who have upvoted it. Fans of the original were furious that director Paul Feig had recast all four male leads with women, and trolling on the videos page was rife with misogynistic comments about how the film was effectively ruined because it wouldn't be the same with women in the lead roles.

Remaking what is largely regarded as a classic of it's era, Feig was very brave to make such a huge change to the original. I'm a firm believer that if a remake is to work, is has to pay homage to it's source material, but at the same time bring something new to the table that makes it worthy of the brand. I went into the cinema knowing full well that for me, there was no way that Paul Feig was ever going come close to Reitman's original. The questions in my head were just how far off the mark was he going to be, and were the female leads going affect the overall quality of the film.

Let's get the answer to the question on everyone lips out of the way of way first. Feig's decision to play women in the lead roles does not influence the quality of the final cut in any way shape or form. I'd be lying if I said I was apprehensive before I went in, but with the exception of Kate McKinnon's utterly ridiculous Jillian Holtzman, the remaining three leads do what's asked of them admirably. I wasn't there halfway through the film thinking that their performances didn't work, because that simply isn't the case. The film doesn't suffer having females as the leads, perhaps because the characters in the film would work with either sex. I don't think you could make that statement for every film in the history of cinema though, because had they changed the four females leads of Sex and the City to males, we may be having a completely different argument.

Does this mean that the remake holds up Reitman's incarnation? Well sadly, no.

In the original, Sigourney Weaver's appartment was haunted by Zuul, a demigod worshipped as a servant to Gozer. This plotline was at the core of the original, and cited as being the reason for ghosts appeared around New York on an increasingly frequent basis. For some strange reason, Paul Feig has completely changed this in his remake, removed all of the aforementioned characters, and rewritten the plot. It just doesn't work, and characters that were so important in the original have all vanished. There is no Gozer, no gatekeeper, no keymaster, as Feig has replaced them all with a pantomime worthy villain who I personally hated.

So what about the leads? I've never been a fan of Melissa McCarthy, and find the characters she plays irritating. I've never been a fan of her humour, and she just seems to play every role exactly the same. You could have taken her Abbey Yates character out of this, dropped it back into Spy, and you wouldn't have noticed any difference whatsoever. I liked Kristen Wiig's Erin, because she wasn't given any scripted one liners, and seemed to have her feet firmly on the ground. I've already talked about Kate McKinnon (and the less said about that, the better) with the remaining 'token' black actress Leslie Jones providing what I thought, were some of the films funnier moments (which are very few and far between, trust me)

One a side note, I personally felt the way Chris Hemsworth's played the Ghostbusters dumbed down secretary was completely unnecessary. It was in no way an accurate reflection of Janine in the original, and quite frankly, annoyed me.

The only thing that this remake does better than the original is the special effects. Is this really an accolade though, considering CGI has been the norm for the past twenty years? Not really no, and it would be unfair to Reitman's classic to say they are superior when he made his film over thirty years ago.

Feig's remake pales in comparison to Reitmans iconic original. It would be unfair to call it a bastardisation, but it is so far detached from it in terms of humour, plot, and substance, that I'm only giving it a couple of stars. Ironically, it wouldn't have been any better a film were the leads all male a second time round.

A disappointing, but to be expected two stars.

Independence Day Resurgence

Year: 2016

Genre: Science Fiction

I remember seeing the trailer for Independence Day back in the mid 90's, and staring in awe at the momentous scene where the alien ship slowly approached Will Smith and Vivica Fox. At the time, CGI was in it's early days, and this was something seen on a scale audiences had yet to become accustomed to. The film went on to win an Academy Award for best visual effects, become the highest grossing film of 1996 taking $817 million dollars worldwide, and to this day stands as the fifty fifth highest grossing film of all time. 

Resisting studio pressures to make a sequel, German director Roland Emmerich went on to become Hollywood's man to trust when it came to the big screen disaster movies. As CGI became more and more prevalent on the in cinemas, audiences were given Godzilla in 1998, The Day After Tomorrow in 2004, and most recently, Channing Tatum's attempt at being Bruce Willis in 2013's White House Down . Twenty years after the first film was released, and Emmerich has decided to bow down to studio (and financial pressures) to give the world a sequel to his 1996 Summer blockbuster. 

The story very much follows exactly the same path as the original. It's been twenty years since the aliens first tried to destroy civilisation, and since we defeated them, we've incorporated a lot of their technology into our own. You'll see missile defence systems on the moon, Star Trek-esque shuttle crafts, weapons that fire lasers like in Star Wars, and computer technology that far exceeds anything you would see on earth had the aliens not visited in 1996. This would be great if we had paid to watch a sequel to Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, but it means that from the outset, the sense of vunerability that that you felt throughout the original from ordinary folk overcoming such an overpowering force is immediately lost. My other half tended to disagree with me on this point, but for me, it was bone of contention. 

If you cast your mind back to my review of Jurassic World, you'll remember that one of the big problems with that film was the way the Colin Trevorrow had given an emphasis to making everything bigger, louder, and generally more brash whilst putting character development on the back burner. This is sadly also the problem with Resurgence. There is now only one alien spaceship that invades the earth, but it's size quite frankly verges on the utterly ridiculous (at one point in the film it's quoted as being 3000 miles in diameter) The aerial space battles make up for almost 75% of the film itself, with absolutely no cooling down periods to pad them out like in the original. Also, you can't help but think that before he sat sat down to write his screenplay, Nicolas Wright must have watched James Cameron's Aliens a couple of times, the reason for which I won't give away for fear of revealing a spoiler. 

Most of the original cast return, but young age of the new leads makes the film feel like it's intentionally handing over the reigns to make way for Independence Day 3 (already registered on the IMDB). Bill Pullman is in there as the ex-president (although he does seemed to have aged considerably worse than everyone else. Brent Spiner returns as the head techie in Area 51 (and manages to shoe horn in a blink or you'll miss it Star Trek Easter Egg).  Sadly, Will Smith's absence leave a huge gap, and the humorous elements he gave the audience in first film between the dog fights and destruction are pretty much non existent in Resurgence. The stand out character is Goldblum's David Levinson, pretty much upstaging everyone else on screen with the style of acting he bought to so many other of his famous roles. The young cast of support roles which includes Thor's younger brother Liam Hemsworth, and Maika Monroe (Jay from It Follows) do a decent enough job with a script isn't overly cheesy considering how Edam laden the plot of the film itself is. 

The biggest problem with Resurgence is that is suffers with the same issues so many other Summer blockbusters of recent have also done. Way way too much CGI, way too much green screen, no new ideas, very little character development, just making everything larger, louder, and lots more of it. By no means is it a bad film, you just don't walk out enjoying it as much as you did the original. I get that if something ain't broke, you shouldn't attempt to fix it, but it would be nice if for once, they could bring something new to the table, whilst maintaining what made the original as special and timeless as it originally was. 

Go and see it. It needs to be seen on the big screen. It's ok, just not brilliant.

3.5 stars

The Conjuring 2

Year: 2016

Genre: Haunted House / Horror

The financial and critical success of 2013's 'The Conjuring' pretty much guaranteed that New Line Cinema would be backing a sequel. It's decades old list of influences that included Friedkin's The Exorcist, Rosenberg's The Amityville Horror, and Donner's The Omen ensured that both hardened horror fans and newer audience members would lap it up. After taking $137 million dollars at the box office, New Line gave the green light for a second installment, and the 'Conjuring 2' went into production.

Treading very safe waters, the film uses the infamous story of the Enfield poltergeist as it's backdrop. Original leads Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson return as parapsychologists Ed and Lorraine, brought in to investigate claims from a family in Enfield, London that their house is haunted. You would think that with James Wan returning as director, good plot foundations, and leads that have excellent on-screen chemistry, it would be very difficult to make anything that audiences wouldn't happily pay to see...

Wan returning as director was hardly surprising considering his already successful back catalogue of  modern horror films. This is, after all the guy behind the original Saw and 2010's box office success Insidious. His talent lies vry much in suspenseful camerawork, and Wan is a modern master of drawing out the jump scare with long, extended shots of footsteps creeping along creaking floor boards, or peering very slowly through doors that are ever so slightly ajar. More often than not, he will fool the audience into a false sense of security with anti climatic imagery and then hurl the intended part of the scene at them like a bullet out of a gun. This is what Wan does best, and he knows that for modern horror to be a success, the 'jump scare' has to keep audiences guessing until the very last second of the scene.

Being a haunted house movie, 'Conjuring 2' has these scenes a plenty, so naturally, it has a very broad spectrum of appeal that will keep the generic film goer happy. If like me however, you're a seasoned horror fan you may well find yourself very quickly becoming bored of the same old cliches time and time again. The slamming doors, the demonic possessed child, the furniture unpredictably flying across the room. Yep, they're all in here, and it's almost like James Wan had a toolbox of cliches he had to shoehorn into the film before he could call it a day. Those who've seen his previous films will also know that he's famous for creating characters that more often than not transcend the original film they featured in. Think how in the original 'Conjuring', the Annabelle doll was given it's own spin off. Perhaps most famous of all is Wan's self confessed creation Billy the Puppet from 'Saw' back in 2004 which almost became as iconic as Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorhees. In 'Conjuring 2', Wan attempts to create another iconic creature that clearly has influences in his Saw trilogy but ends up looking like a jokey parody of Billy the Puppet and Marylin Manson. I was personally very disappointed with this aspect of the film, and expected a lot better from the guy who bought me the original Insidious.

The cast largely do a great job with an above average script that fortunately doesn't feature too heavily on the 'up the apples and pears' Cockney stereotype; albeit a soundtrack that is chock full of late 70's mainstream pop. Special consideration has to be given to young actress Madison Wolfe who brings both equal amounts of menace and melancholy to the character of Janet Hodgson. One only has to look at how child actor Noah Wiseman's ear achingly annoying Samuel in 2014's The Babadook can make or break a movie, but fortunately Wolfe's portrayal of the cliched demonic child is aeons less irritating than the aforementioned.

'Conjuring 2' is meat and potatoes main stream horror. If you're a main stream audience member, you won't be disappointed and more than likely come out of it feeling satisfied with Wan's sequel. More hardened horror fans won't find it anywhere near as fresh as It Follows, and far less atmospheric than Jennifer Kent's crowd funded Babadook. That's not to say they won't enjoy it, they just won't find anything memorable, being choc full of cliches and things they have seen a million times before.

Three stars, which becomes 3.5 if you're mainstream.

Batman v Superman, Dawn of Justice

Year: 2016

Genre: Superhero

Next to 'Force Awakens', 'Batman vs Superman' has been the film the fanboys have been anxious to see since what seems like dawn of time. We've been drip fed The Avengers, X-Men, Captain America, Ironman, and countless Spiderman films for the last fifteen years. Contrastingly, other than Nolan's 'Dark Knight' trilogy, and Snyder's 2013 Superman reboot 'Man of Steel', the fans have had very little from DC.

Time Warner (owners of DC Comics) have been very slow to get off the starting blocks. The first Justice League movie (their equivalent of The Avengers) isn't due to be released until next year, and contrastingly, Marvel have been pumping out X-Men films since the turn of the century. Not only has this led to anticipation for DC content from fans going off the scale, but it's also allowed Marvel to hone their filmaking skills into what are nowadays although formulaic, both critically and financially successfull releases. 

This leads me to my biggest bugbear about the film. If you're going into 'Dawn of Justice' expecting something on par with some of the latest Marvel releases, you'll be sorely dissapointed. It simply isn't, which is a big shame. Given that I criticised the last 'Avengers' film for having too much skyscraper smashing and very little of substance, you'd would think that a step away from it would be a refreshing change for audiences. 

This is the biggest problem with the film. Producers have taken TOO much of a step away from Marvel's smash and bash formula. Seventy five percent of the film is plot expansion, with very little action inbetween. Audiences go and see a superhero movie to see superheros do 'super' stuff. If that ain't part of the film, audiences will feel let down. Think of an action movie with no car chases. A horror film with no scares. A comedy with no laughs. The biggest problem with 'Dawn of Justice' is that there just isn't enough going on inbetween plot developing scenes, and I honest ended up sitting thinking 'please, just get on with it and get to the good bits!' 

It's a shame because when the set pieces do arrive (and I counted three in the film's whole two and a half hours run time) they're very enjoyable and in terms of spectacle, on par with anything Marvel have done in the past five years. It's great to see Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman team up, because quite frankly I was getting sick to death of Iron Man and co year after year and needed to see some new characters on the big screen. If they just made more of the action, and less on back story / plot building, this would have been a completely difference experience. 

Character wise, Affleck's Batman is far from the let down that fans were expecting after growing used to Bale's portrayal in the Nolan trilogy. He's a lot stockier than Bale, and this weightier Batman helps a lot with believing that an ordinary guy could take on the legendary Man of Steel. Bale's problem with almost incomprehensible dialogue as the Dark Knight is also solved, as Affleck's lines are clear and easy to understand. 

Cavill is given very little to do as Superman until the last act, and this is also a shame. As in 2013's 'Man of Steel', I don't think Zac Snyder makes full use of the fact we don't have to suspend actors on wires anymore, and he doesn't use CGI to the extent it could be used for the Man of Steel. Cavill's chiseled jaw makes him a natural choice for the role, and eye candy for the ladies, but I honestly don't think Snyder does much with the potential the character has. 

So how about supporting female roles? As much as I was looking forward to seeing a fresh portrayal of Wonder Woman, I personally felt Gal Gadot was way too skinny and flat for the role. She lacked the curves that Linda Carter gave the character in the 70's tv series, and as a result just seemed like she might snap in half anytime Doomsday went near her. I'm hoping she beefs up a bit in time for the Wonder Woman movie in 2017. 

As for Lois Lane, I never agreed with Amy Adams being cast in the role for the 'Man of Steel', but we're stuck with her now. Her on-screen chemistry with Cavill is none existent when you compare it to Reeve and Kidder from the 70's. It's even less than Cain and Hatcher from the 90's tv show. Sorry guys, I'm not a fan. 

Oh yeah, and special mention needs to go to Jesse Eisenberg, who hands down becomes the most annoying movie villian in the history of cinema. Way too young for the role, he more or less just repeats his portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in 'The Social Network'.  A very bad casting decision, given the potential people they could have bought in for the role.  

'Dawn of Justice' had a lot of potential. It doesn't fall entirely flat on it's face, but it wastes a lot of the potential it had as a concept. Enjoyable characters are let down but a film way too heavy on plot, and very light on action. Not as dissapointing as the critics make out, but nowhere as near as good as it could have been. 

3 stars. 

Star Wars The Force Awakens

The trailers for 'Force Awakens' have been doing the rounds since Easter, and as much as I liked them, I remember back in the 90's feeling positive when the I first saw the pod race trailer for 'The Phantom Menace'. Star Wars fans will openly admit that nothing quite prepared them for the sense of crushing dissapointment when the opening credits rolled, and Lucas started talking about taxes, galactic politics, and the rest is history.

The other two prequels had their moments, but with cringe worthy scripts, way too much cgi, and some very poor casting choices, none of them even came close to matching the cinematic presence of the original trilogy back in the 70's and 80's.

After feeling so massively let down, I went to see 'Force Awakens' with an 'expect the worst, but hope for best' approach. As good as the trailers were, they looked like a retread of the best bits from Lucas's originals. Although this what fans would like, I wanted the same emotional resonance, but a new story accompanying it. I thought the film warranted Star City's Gold Class, so I paid £18 to see it with unlimited free popcorn and a reclining leather chair. Was it worth the entrance fee? Hell yes, and them some more.

You know your in safe hands the moments the opening credits roll and there ain't a single mention of politics or any sort of interplanetary tax rebate. The Empire is no more, but in it's place is the First Order. They have the same ambitions as the Empire, but the resistance are as always, out to stop them. Its meat and potatoes Star Wars plot, and the sense of relief you get the moment you see Abrams has gone back to basics is overwhelming.

So why does it work? What makes it so much better than the prequels?

I never thought Hayden Christiansen was up to much, and a very bad choice for such a pivotal role as the guy who became Darth Vader. In contrast, Daisy Ridley's Rey is a triumph of the highest order. She clearly put her heart and soul into the role, and makes the character her own. Ridley is supported by John Boyeger's Finn, who as well as giving an excellent peformance, provides the audience with the comic relief that was so painfully lacking from the prequels.

By the way, incase you're wondering about BB-8,  it's the new R2-D2, hands down. I never thought I'd say a magnetic ball could also provide the audience with comic relief but it does.

'Force Awakens' works because it ticks all the right Star Wars boxes, and provides the fans with everything they want from a new Star Wars at the same time giving them characters that can carry the weight of the franchise forward. The older generation will be very happy to see Han Solo, Leia, and Chewacca back on the silver screen together in sets reminiscent of the original, and the quality of the performances from two leads reassures us that JJ Abrams has taken us in the right direction. Supported by John William's epic score, it's hard to believe the same guy who gave us 'The Empire Strikes back' also gave us 'The Phantom Menace'.

Putting my film critics hat on, there's a couple of things I must draw attention to because it comes with the territory. I personally felt Kylo Ren had nowhere near the stage presence Prowse's Darth Vader had in any of the originals. Perhaps it's intentional, or perhaps it's because he's such and iconic villian, the boots were just too big to fill. Also, if you wanted to nit pick you could say they've clearly rehashed classic scenes from the originals and put them all in one film. Endor, Hoth, the Death Star. Tatooine, the final scene in 'Empire', the Cantina scene. They're all in there.

It makes you wonder where Abrams can go if he directs the next one

As a stand alone entity though, 'The Force Awakens' is everything you could possibly hope for as a Star Wars fan. It show how utterly shit the prequels were. The characters Abrams introduces leaves you wanting more.

A solid five stars. Easily. Go pay the money and see it.

Legend, guest reviewed by Cara Clarke

Year : 2015

Genre: Biopic 

I've always found the Krays interesting, but to be honest knew relatively little about them. I’ve never seen any other film about the Krays, so I went into this one with no expectations or pre-defined ideas. It’s not very often I watch films rated 18, but I was keen to give this one a go… 

The narrator is Frances, Reggie’s wife, and parts of the story are told from her point of view. She is the first and last voice you hear. The film charts their relationship from the happy days of courting through to the decline of their marriage leading to Frances’ eventual suicide. The emphasis on a relationship, rather than the work of The Firm, ‘softens’ the film somewhat and prevents it from being overly violent and graphic. There are only a handful of violent scenes, but still enough to shock. (I’m thinking of Jack ‘the hat’ Mcvitie’s death here.) 

I had reservations about one actor taking on dual roles. I thought I would spend the whole time trying to spot differences in how Tom Hardy portrayed the two brothers, and that’s exactly what I did do. He plays them well, with enough distinctions for you to almost forget it’s one actor. Yet, at times, I thought he played up to the gangster image a bit too much. His portrayal of Ronnie, in particular his crazy-eyed stare, was almost a cartoonish interpretation of a typical East End gangster. But then again, perhaps that is how they actually conducted themselves. Who am I to quibble with the Krays? 

I imagine a lot was omitted from this film, it covers only a snippet of their lives. After watching the film I turned to Wikipedia to see research them and recognised a fair few scenes from the film as being taken from real life. I would have liked a few more ‘gangster’ scenes and less ‘husband and wife’ scenes. Because of this I felt the film left me wanting more. I want to watch documentaries on them. I want to watch the 1990 Krays film starring the twins from Spandau Ballet. I want to read Ronnie and Reggie’s autobiographies. They have a very interesting story and I doubt this will be the last time it is depicted on film. 

A good, but hardly brilliant 4 out of 5 stars.