Reviews

An entertaining documentary that fails to really get under the skin of the subject; it's a fairly superficial overview that spends too much time covering well-worn topics (specifically The Beatles, in particular songs like 'A Day in the Life' and 'Blackbird', which have been covered to death). Rather than telling a linear story of the studio's up and downs over the decades, it jumps around to just profile a handful of big names that McCartney has access to, spending as much time discussing their general achievements as their time at Abbey Road. Other documentaries telling the stories of iconic studios, like Muscle Shoals or Sound City, managed to tease out what made the studios special: be that the time, the place or the specific technical aspects of the equipment; Mary McCartney seems to land on the Abbey Road staff being the key to its enduring success, so it's a shame they aren't better profiled. Who were these talented "boffins" who could bring the artists' ideas to life? This film feels like it only scratches the surface, delivering some facts and a few new interviews, but no great insight.

An engaging and intriguing thriller that cobbles together elements of The Castle, The Trial and others and then places Kafka in the heart of the mystery. Most of the film is shot in black and white in a German expressionist style with plenty of long shadows and awkward angles and features some excellent set design. The predominantly British cast are very enjoyable with the likes of Irons, Alec Guiness, Ian Holm, Brian Glover, Keith Allen and others putting in solid performances. The ending brings it all to a somewhat overly neat, story-driven and action-filled conclusion with a slightly sci-fi/horror element and stock dystopic, totalitarian characters and dialogue that feels rather adolescent. So, whilst the film celebrates Kafka's work, it paradoxically trivializes it by subjugating it in deference to a tonal shift and plot-driven ending that panders to audience/producer needs. Hence, it ends up scuppering its potential and feeling a bit more like 'Brazil' than a serious examination of Kafka and his works' themes. It's not apparent whether everyone involved had a clear vision of what this film is supposed to be and who it is geared towards.

This started out well with a likeable, albeit stock, bunch of teenage friends getting together for one last Halloween before departing for college. A nice "coming-of-age" tone is thus established with cosily familiar characters and a late 60s setting. There's the jock bullies, the older sister and a newcomer to the group. It's all looking like it should be a Goonies-like hoot. But then the story really gets going and what a hackneyed mess of clichés. The main storyline regards a girl who was basically tortured by her family and now exacts revenge by writing gruesome stories that immediately happen in real life. I've seen others calling this a narrative framing device, but really it's the bulk of the film. The stories within the film can barely be called stories - they are just incidents. A scarecrow comes to life and kills a boy by turning him into a scarecrow; another boy finds a toe in his soup and is chased and killed by a demonic hag; another boy is simply approached and absorbed by a bizarre bloated smiling creature. Occasionally the writers have tried to give these relevance by having characters remark something to the effect of "oh hey I remember this story from when I was a kid" but that's all. Basically the device gives the filmmakers carte blanche to chuck whatever lazy hokum they feel like onto the screen with some rough CGI to boot. There's no tension, no scares. The story about the girl writing the stories has some intrigue and mystery, although is resolved predictably and ludicrously. All of this is desperately uninspired stuff you've seen done elsewhere far better. At best this is a film that young teens might enjoy.

Excellent series satirising early-90s marketing and consumer culture. At times I felt I was watching a mirror of One Foot in the Grave: whereas Victor Meldrew rails against modernity, Richard Brier's character - through a whack to the head - comes to embrace it wholeheartedly. This results in him acting upon the advice and slogans of every piece of advertising he sees. This darkly absurdist approach is perfect for shining a comedic light on the superficiality of much of modern life.

Briers' character could easily become grating over the course of an episode, but is handled perfectly by the veteran actor and is instead a benign, sympathetic figure playing wonderfully against Adrian Edmonson's more caustic and jaded character.

There's a real ferocity behind the writing - a genuine anger and disgust at the depersonalizing effects of consumerism - that really spills out overtly in Edmonson's courtroom diatribe in the final episode. But the rest of the time it's there, a passive-aggressive sardonicism simmering away in nearly every line of dialogue.

Of course, it's all still relevant today - probably moreso - and this totally forgotten gem deserves far greater acknowledgement. Seek it out!

This is fairly standard werewolf stuff with that Stephen King "coming-of-age" feel. It's enjoyable, but fairly predictable in both plot and feel. What saves it from being rote are the performances of Haim and Busey, who develop a really enjoyable and slightly off-kilter chemistry. Besides that it moves through the normal tropes and narrative devices one would expect, but everything is done well and at the end of the movie I felt well entertained! This certainly deserves a look alongside other possibly better-known films like The Howling, Wolfen, An American Werewolf in London etc.

Bizarre and unique in tone and pacing, I cannot think of another film quite like this. As per my review title, it brings to mind elements of Vampyres (lesbians living an isolated existence in a nice English country house, into which a man imposes himself); Xtro (a disquieting and uneasy tone, with an alien disguised as a man, quietly observing) and Whirlpool (a strange love triangle developing in an isolated house with possible murder hanging in the air).

Really, the alien aspect is irrelevant for much of the movie - it is more about the strange relationship between Josephine and Jessica, passively observed by Anders. It takes a long time for the plot and direction to reveal itself: is the "Prey" of the title the pair of lovers being observed, or.is it Jessica, prey to the manipulative and possessive Josephine?

Although certainly different, much of this comes to nothing, ultimately. It still score points for characters, events and vibes that linger on long after the film has finished.

Not as vile as other reviews have suggested, although certainly sordid and lurid, but it also does a great job of building tension and an uncomfortable mood and is a worthwhile thriller.

Young aspiring fashion model Tulia visits the country house of Sarah and her "nephew" Theo, under a pretence that Theo is something of a young prodigy who will take brilliant photos of Tulia to kick-start her career. However, the ulterior motive is to be a toy in Sarah's regular threesomes. An air of danger and mystery is established early on due to the unsatisfying explanations given regarding the disappearance of Sarah's previous lover, Rhonda, who stayed at the house under similar circumstances. The film presents several possible culprits, including Theo, Sarah, a strange flute-playing figure in the woods and a possible supernatural element.

The performances are good, with. Karl Lanchbury as Theo being particularly memorable. He is creepy, manipulative and yet charismatic enough to keep Tulia and the audience guessing as to his motivations.

The ending is a little disappointing and abrupt; it really just goes through some predictable motions and ends on a sordid and unpleasant note. All in all, though, this is an effective and gripping thriller.

I liked this film a lot: it knows exactly what it wants to be and gets on with delivering a family-friendly feel-good story with a great central "odd-couple" buddy pairing of Egerton and Jackson.

The script takes the real-life story of Eddie the Eagle, adds a few dramatic embellishments and maps it to a pretty standard "underdog makes good" narrative. In that sense it's all quite familiar, with some pretty stock characters at the periphery (the villainous Finns; the establishment suits who want to hold working-class Eddie down etc.) and predictable character arcs for the chief protagonists. However, the simple storytelling benefits the film, which is more about pleasing the audience with fun, warm characters and feel-good moments as Eddie overcomes the various stumbling blocks en route to his inevitable success. Done well, this kind of thing can be really satisfying, and this is a rare example of achieving that without coming off trite.

Enjoyable performances, bags of heart and a nice warm smattering of nostalgia: lovely.

An utterly confusing and inept blend of martial arts, horror and comedy that fails on all fronts, yet still manages to entertain (mostly through bizarre dialogue and crap effects). Sadly, a few wacky moments can't elevate this this anything more than barely-watchable.

I watched this with friends and we had a laugh at some scenes and also in trying to piece together our various interpretations of the plot, aided somewhat by the DVD blurb. Essentially, three roguish vagabonds/grave-robbers tumble into the midst of a situation involving a sorcerer who is killing off local virgins. In a fairly stock character arc, one man (Tony) goes from goofy fool to shaolin hero who must defeat the villain. A vampire also turns up to confuse matters.

My favourite moment was when a clearly taxidermied owl on a string was yanked off a branch to simulate flight. That's how bad and hokey this is.

Avoid. There are far better "bad" movies out there.

Demonwarp is low-budget horror/sci-fi fare, that despite its flaws does end up being a pretty memorable entry into the genre and fairly entertaining. Some of the enthusiastic reviews here, however, sound almost like the VHS box marketing hype... be aware that most of the madcap stuff doesn't happen until the final 15 minutes, and the bulk of the film is a trudging, predictable bore.

The premise for the first 70 minutes is well-worn: a group of teenagers visit an isolated cabin the in woods where a bigfoot-like beast runs amok. Poor old George Kennedy appears as a man whose daughter was taken by the beast and has avowed to seek revenge. It feels sad seeing him reduced to such roles, but whenever he appears onscreen he does bring a touch of class and elevate proceedings. The teenagers are mostly typical 80s fodder, save for Billy Jacoby who brings some pep and personality for the short time he's around. The lead protagonist is very poorly written and woodenly acted, coming across as deeply unlikable, which does sap the spirit of the action. Michelle Bauer turns up to add some scream queen appeal, being chased around the woods topless. Other meaningless characters cycle in and out as prey for the beast and things become fairly rote and dull. At this point I was complaining, "I've not seen one demon, nor anything approaching what could be considered a 'warp'". Well, my criticisms were answered...

In the last 20 minutes the director makes amends by chucking as much weird freaky sci-fi and horror stuff at the audience as he can muster, and all of this was really good fun. Transmutation, zombies, space ships, demented priests practising human sacrifice and a bizarre Davros-like space demon that genuinely looked really good. If you've been paying attention to earlier scenes a few plot points come together in a way that's quite satisfying.

This could have been a lot better with a tighter script and better editing to ensure some pace and urgency. There's a really cool and bizarre story in here that just needed some refinement to really translate to the viewer in an exciting manner; as it is, it's kind of muddled and confusing, but hey - it doesn't all need to make sense and you can just sit back and enjoy this for what it is - silly b-movie fun!

Stephen King is capable of writing fiction of some merit, but seems to be drawn to churning out schlock. This film is based on a novel that falls into the latter. The story revolves around King's analysis of this dichotomy; a promising subject could have resulted in an intelligent analysis of themes of academia vs. Entertainment; creativity vs. Commerce and passion vs. Necessity. Sadly, we are given a superficial modern riff on the old Jekyll and Hyde story, replete with cliché and heavy-handed metaphor.

An author decides to kill off his commercially successful pseudonym and come clean in the press, resulting in a spate of murders committed by someone matching his description and fingerprints. A few additional elements are brought in to liven up the predictable story (a childhood twin/tumour that eventually ends up being a redundant dead end and a swarm of sparrows whose specific nature is only vaguely alluded to) but only result in cluttering an already confused story. It all leads to an interminably boring face-off, the inevitable result of a film utterly lacking in suspense and tension.

I felt sorry for the cast, who turned in some good performances trying to wrangle some bland dialogue and inject some integrity into this hokey story. But nothing sparks. Romero probably could have done more to cut down the script and improve the pacing, but at the end of the day there's not much that can be done with source material this bad. Because of the proficiency of direction, acting etc. This isn't a bad film, but it is, sadly, a very disappointing film.

Romero's major studio debut isn't really a horror; more a thriller with sci-fi elements, although the first 30 minutes establish a sort of melodrama that Romero then goes about subverting. Many reviewers here would have you believe it is simply about a murderous monkey exacting some kind of revenge on its disabled owner, but it is far more complex than that, and in many ways it suffers from being too over-ambitious, with some confused storytelling towards the end.

When an accident results in Allan being confined to a wheelchair without the use of his arms or legs, a trained capuchin monkey, Ella - previously the subject of experiments in enhanced intelligence - is brought in to help him with his domestic life, which results in many charming scenes of the pair bonding. Unfortunately, the monkey begins to reflect and act out many of Allan's frustrations and buried bitter resentments - or is it the monkey effecting Allan? Things get a bit 'Altered States' as Allan seemingly leaps into Ella's body for murderous nighttime jaunts and is seen growing simian-like teeth (whether this transmogrification actually happens or is a visual clue for the audience as to the allegorical nature of the monkey is up for interpretation).

Also in the mix is Allan's friend, Geoff, the scientist experimenting on Ella. The audience is invited to have ambivalent feelings about him: he seems loyal to Allan, but at the same time lies to him about Ella's nature. He seems to have stronger ethics than his vivisectionist supervisor, but is also seen harming Ella. When Ella develops her homicidal edge it's hard not to feel sympathy since we've seen her abuse and torment, we've seen her humanised in earlier scenes and ultimately she's just too damn cute. We also don't know when deaths start occurring exactly who is instigating them: is it Allan controlling Ella or is Ella acting alone? Or is she influencing Allan? Whilst this ambiguity should make for a more interesting film, it actually just muddies things and I found the final ten minutes really confusing in terms of where the director wanted to focus my sympathies.

I didn't think there was much That said, this was entertaining throughout and never got boring. The daytime soap opera look and feel strangely suits the movie and there are some very good performances, especially by Jason Beghe, restricted mostly to facial expressions in his role as a quadriplegic.

An interesting but flawed film, the edit was apparently tinkered with by the studio and I wonder if the director's cut might have been more coherent.

I enjoy watching Tales of the Unexpected, but more often than not I find it naff albeit charming. The twists are often so predictable that they fall completely flat, or so absurdly out of the blue that they just have you rolling your eyes. But there is something appealing about it's middle-England brand of gallows humour with the familiar 70s small screen actors and cosy provincial tone. This episode, however, is like no other episode I have seen. I don't know why, but this episode seems to have been a US production, filmed on location in the States with a fantastic cast who can really act. It looks and feels like a different show, one that actually feels dangerous. If you're familiar with Brad Dourif you won't be disappointed as he brings his trademark intensity to this taught little thriller that delivers tension in spades. The only disappointment is the final minute (turns out the resolution was actually something I thought we were supposed to have twigged at the start of the episode). The overall look is also cheap, but in a way that suits this episode (it's very Texas Chainsaw - sweaty, grimy and claustrophobic). This is a surprisingly vicious and effective episode that is worth going out of your way to see.

Eddy's World is a lovely, inspiring and uplifting short film - in its short run time it manages to both inform and delight and leave you with Eddy Goldfarb's simple but poignant life philosophy ringing in your ears: "tomorrow is going to be a big day".

This isn't a cloying or mawkish film, though. Eddy just has a quiet way of winning you over. At 98, as a man who has dedicated his life to his craft of toy-making, his continued curiosity and enthusiasm is infectious. We get a brief highlight reel of some of his most famous creations - chattering teeth, Kerplunk!, Stomper trucks - but the film is more interested in taking a look at what makes a man responsible for such inventions tick.

This film is full of love: Eddy's love of life, and director's love for her subject, her father. See it, it's a joy.

A unique piece of surrealist film-making that recalls Lynch's Eraserhead, early German expressionism, even the work of Luis Bunuel. The grimy black and white photography looks both industrial and oppressive, the whole thing carrying the depressed and seedy air of a snuff film; appropriate for a film dealing with themes of mechanisation, sex and death.

Visually, the film keeps up a frenetic pace and utilises several techniques to keep things stylistically interesting: quick cuts, jerky stop-motion animation, an effect like a video being rewound... it's all very impressive.

Thematically the film seems to be preoccupied by themes of sadomasochism and homosexuality, possibly drawing a comparison with post-war anxieties about the industrialisation of Japan and its place in the world. This anxiety is translated to us through an unrelenting and visceral series of violent/sexual acts perpetrated by three main characters, all of whom are slowly turning to metal. Some reviewers here seem to struggle with the non-linear plot, and whilst a grasping of the events isn't too important, there is a pretty distinct story being told revolving around these characters.

Without spoiling the plot, the mystery of the relationship between the characters is revealed around two thirds into the movie, after which it shifts in gear to an anime-inspired showdown between the two leads. This final 20 minutes dragged a bit, with visuals and actions becoming a bit repetitive and somewhat exhausting.

It's not really cyberpunk and it's not really sci-fi: if you go into this expecting such concepts to be dealt with and explained you will no doubt be confounded and disappointed. This is a nightmare on screen to be consumed on an emotional level. Just sit back, feast your eyes and see what it makes you feel.

Hawk the Slayer is stuffed with generic fantasy tropes and from the outset feels like it's going to be a fun, family-friendly swords and sorcery romp. Whilst displaying bags of enthusiasm and ambition, it comes up short on almost every level.

One of the biggest issues is the lead, John Terry, who just brings nothing to the role of Hawk. It's a performance utterly devoid of charisma. Also bad is Jack Palance as his evil brother and chief antagonist, Voltan. Palance hams it up in pantomimish fashion, the result being a bad guy with no real air of menace. It's too silly to be threatening, but not outlandish enough to be campy; the performance just falls flat. It's a big reason for the lack of drama throughout. The supporting cast is also weak. The character of Crow is pitched as a silent, broody, enigmatic type. But this never translates, he just seems quiet and dull. There's an attempt at comedy in the fraternal squabbling between the Giant and the Dwarf, but the chemistry isn't there to pull it off and when one dies later in the film, the poignancy just isn't there.

The story is pretty good; yes, it's well-trodden stuff, but it's a simple tale of good vs. evil. However, the script is amateurish and relies constantly on telling us, instead of showing us and letting us feel the importance of events and characters for ourselves.

What's good about it? Well, despite all the above it does have a charm of its own and is mostly entertaining throughout. I also personally loved the title sequence animation and anomalous disco/funk soundtrack! If I'd seen this as a child, I think I would have bought into the characters and the peril and loved the film, so I can see why there are so many nostalgic reviewers giving this high ratings and I'd imagine even in 2021 that pre-teens would enjoy this. It certainly has a heart and with tighter scripting and some better performances it could have really been great. As it is, I think it sits somewhere between 5 - 6 stars.

The Babadook is a family drama featuring a memorable bogeyman, whose true nature is revealed by the end of the film.

Things I liked about the film: the concept of the creepy book; the visual references to German expressionism; the reference to Bava's 'Black Sabbath' when the mother floats across the room; the resolution of the film (without wanting to spoil the film, the way the characters deal with the Babadook makes good sense, thematically, as was an unexpected ending).

Things I didn't like: whilst the Babadook had a clear metaphorical meaning that made sense, it still had a literal presence in the film as a monster, and this aspect was poorly handled. No parameters were in place around what it was, its powers etc. and so for a significant amount of the movie we just went through the motions of "supernatural monster stalks family" as it caused (predictable) havoc. Cheap chills! The other thing I struggled with was the little boy. The actor did such a good job of being so completely unbearably obnoxious and annoying that it made me want to stop watching. It also made me really glad when his possessed mother finally toughed up and put her foot down with him (which was not the intention, I'm sure!)

Ultimately the emotional core and metaphor of the movie is dragged down by the general silliness going on around it. The "horror " aspects are fairly cliched and inept. I found this film a bit of a chore to get through, to be honest. Lots of good ideas and lots of potential, but it just doesn't come together in a satisfying or entertaining way.

Apparently this is the first film by both the director and scriptwriter and it shows, since it ticks all the right boxes in terms of form and technique, but lacks its own character and ultimately feels like a very well-mannered exercise by drama and film school graduates. The slow, quiet pacing and relatively sparse dialogue is a technique lifted from other more successful period films, and whilst it can be effective in creating a discomforting and tense mood, in the hands of an amateur it can create boredom, and that's the pervading sense that runs through Lady Macbeth.

The story is well-worn to anyone familiar with Victoriana: the wife trapped in an arranged, passionless marriage, bored and unfulfilled. So, in this case, she commences a torrid affair with an especially brutal farmhand (first meeting him acting as the apparent ringleader of a particularly unpleasant gang rape,) seemingly enjoying the thrill of her social transgression more than the man himself. Events then unfold fairly predictably as she escalates her behaviour to lying and murder in order to maintain her affair. Obviously the title sign-posts that the character will develop in a totally ruthless manner, and hence her actions do not shock, but feel utterly run-of-the-mill.

I found this a very tedious and drab film. The adaptation of the original novel feels ham-fisted and inauthentic in terms of dialogue and scenarios. The highlights are the sets, costumes, beautiful photography and framing.

I loved this! I want to give it more stars, but I'm trying to remain a little objective here. A film like this can really only come about through a case of "too many cooks". It feels like it's vying to be at least two different movies: both a psychological thriller and an all-out B-grade horror. Apparently the initial screenplay had a different tone and perhaps could have delivered an effective and chilling thriller focussing on the lonely 12-year-old Jamie and his delusions: ostracized by his schoolmates, labelled a weirdo by the townsfolk, and with a mostly absent, distant pair of parents, he talks only with his Teddy and plots to feed those who've wronged him to the imaginary creatures in the titular pit: an allegory for all sorts of adolescent angst. However, it seems director Lew Lehman wanted to make a more campy horror, and so there actually ARE creatures in the pit and in one scene, Teddy actually swivels his head independently, suggesting he really is talking to Jamie. Add to this madness visions of a supernatural nature and a tone that swings wildly from serious psychoanalysis of a bullied child to absurd black humour and slapstick and you've got one hell of a strange, but entertaining movie.

Sammy Snyders is great in the lead role of Jamie, really coming across as sinister and disturbed at times, but also able to evoke sympathy when showing his naive side. You felt there was a lot of neglect and hurt behind his strange behaviours. I felt a bit sorry for him being considered a pervert when literally all the women in his life (teacher, nanny, librarian) were willowy young women in sheer leotards and tiny short shorts: no wonder his libido was raging. His antics would have made him king of the frat-house if this was a teen comedy of the era! Jeannie Elias was also very believable as the sweet-natured psychology student, Sandy, who becomes his nanny whilst his parents are away on a trip, thinking she will be able to understand and help the young boy. She gets a lot more than she bargained for!

Whilst simmering along for the first hour, things take an unexpected tonal turn when Jamie starts luring and dumping people into the pit, since these scenes are all played for laughs with a ridiculous soundtrack to match. Following this, the tension building between Jamie and Sandy is eschewed for a simple "monsters on a rampage" storyline with costumed people running around the countryside for the closing fifteen minutes, before the movie delivers a wickedly satisfying ending.

It's a shame the filmmakers couldn't have shown a bit more discipline as they could have really made something powerful. Instead they delivered something quite silly and yet utterly unique, memorable and entertaining from start to finish. If you enjoy unusual horror films this is really worth a watch.

This film is that rare gem: one that is heartwarming without being mawkish. It doesn't resort to sentimentality to tell its story, rather it presents a warm look at the relationship between Laurel and Hardy, brought to life expertly - almost effortlessly - by Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly.

One of the masterstrokes of the film is focusing on just the very end of the duo's career together. Rather than trying to be a biopic and get bogged down in presenting all the major milestones of their lives, it zones in on their relationship at a point when they had arguably the most baggage (and the most bitterness). Whilst the film is full of sorrows and regrets, and despite toying with the audience by foreshadowing some tragic event, it presents a positive outlook that feels real and earned.

Along the way the film is full of charming and funny moments, especially some of the recreations of Laurel and Hardy's most familiar skits. It feels like everyone involved here has great love and respect for the duo, and that just radiates off the screen.

This was really gripping stuff. The film follows 10+ years of undercover surveillance as "the Mole" penetrates a network of North Korean power brokers, eventually leading to multi-million international arms and drug deals. It really does play like a 70s cold war spy movie, except everything you are seeing is real and happening as recently as 2020.

To frame the documentary, the footage is contained within "debriefing" segments that allow some narration by the filmmaker, and also for an ex-MI5 agent to pose some questions to the Mole and his collaborator "Mr James". This felt a bit contrived and missed an opportunity to delve and probe further into the mindset of the Mole. A tacked-on scene at the end dealing with his reintegration into everyday life seemed superficial and I was left wanting to know more about this man who had risked so much. Was it on a whim? For escapism? Or a genuine drive to expose a corrupt regime? This questions was only ever briefly alluded to.

Ultimately, the footage is pretty incredible and the story they uncovered can stand on its own merits Fascinating and heart-topping at times, this almost needs to be seen to be believed.