Reviews

As I write this there are currently 6 Scream files out there, with a 7th planned. That's not even taking into account the number of films that tried to imitate, or even parody, this film. I recently over the course of a few weeks watched all 6 Scream films. While it's fair to say that the quality of the films ebbed and flowed I think it's also fair to say that they were made based on the strength of this film.

It's worth remembering that when this film was released the horror film genre was stale and pretty stagnant. Scream not only parodied the genre as a whole, it also revitalised it and brought some much need ingenuity. As well as the historical importance of this film it still holds up today, especially for those who are new to the genre.

I don't have much more to say about Scream. If you've seen the film before you know why it's worth watching. If you haven't seen it before it's worth going in knowing as little as possible and just enjoy the ride.

I highly recommend Scream to any horror fans, especially fans of slasher flicks. Personally I am no horror fan, but I am definitely a Scream fan. It's that good.

This film is long, there's no denying that. However there's also no denying that it's 3 hours and 26 minutes well spent, especially if you have any interest at all surrounding the events of JFK's assassination.

Oliver Stone is clearly passionate about this subject and this is the reason he takes as long as he does to lay out the facts (as he sees them), as well as the many things we simply don't know about what transpired. It's a great insight into the machinations of government, the search for truth, and the simple fact that what is commonly thought to be what happened deserves closer scrutiny.

As expected the cast do a stellar job. Kevin Costner shines, though so do the likes of Gary Oldman, Joe Pesci and Tommy Lee Jones. Donald Sutherland also gives us a great monologue, though this is undoubtedly eclipsed by the half hour or so monologue from Costner at the culmination of the film. I won't mention any more actors, though there were certainly more stellar performances.

While the long running time and verbose script might make this film seem like a chore for some, if you concentrate on the story presented it's well worth the effort.

The thing about this show is that it starts off pretty weak, and that's being generous. I would say it's safe to ignore the reviews from people who only watched a few episodes and then gave up on it. While their reviews are probably accurate for what they saw they don't take into account that the people involved in the production really upped their game as the show progressed and made something which I at least found entertaining.

The acting is the most obvious flaw, at least for the first couple of episodes. A lot of the actors had little to no experience of appearing in a show and you can really tell. Thankfully the main cast grew into their roles as the show progressed, which is prevalent season after season. Some actors / characters were introduced later who added to the show positively. In my view as well some (though not all) of the more annoying characters were removed from the show as it went on.

It's not just the acting. The writers upped their game in terms of story telling and world building too. For me at least the world didn't really make much sense at first and there were a lot of hammy and cheesy aspects about it that were thankfully ironed out. The show really peaks in season 3 too, where a lot of the elements came together to make this low budget production a joy to watch. That's not to say that season 2 or the end of season 1 are poor, it just continued to get better.

Another great aspect about The Outpost is that it doesn't overstay its welcome. Not every show needs to be run into the ground over 8 seasons, and for whatever reason that didn't happen here. 4 seasons was enough to get the full story arc and end the show on a high.

Despite what I've said, beyond perseverance to sit through the rocky start you do still need to make some allowances for the fact that the budget simply isn't that big. Don't expect epic large scale battles and glorious special effects. Go in knowing this and in my opinion you'll have a good time with The Outpost, especially if you're a fan of fantasy.

I have to say that I really enjoy this film, from when I watched it upon release in the cinema to the repeat viewings since. I am under no illusion that it is flawless though.

The most glaring flaw is that the script is far from stellar. The trio of lawyers defending the two Marines essentially stumble their way across a two hour plus movie, not really getting anywhere; the only saving grace being what is essentially a deus ex machina.

This film is so much more than its script though. By that I mean that it's beautifully cast. We all know the plaudits that Jack Nicholson has received for his role in this film, all well deserved. The rest of the cast also do a great job though. The aforementioned trio of lawyers are great, including the ever understated brilliance of Kevin Pollack. Even James Marshall and Wolfgang Bodison play their roles brilliantly as the accused Marines. I won't bother naming any more actors as I can't think of a single one who failed to elevate this substandard script to what is essentially a great film.

Not to say that this film isn't nuanced though. The themes running through the story make you think about what really is the price of security and how far we should, or shouldn't, go to protect what we hold dear. Issues which are probably even more relevant today than they were in 1992.

Having said that don't watch this film because you're expecting a gripping courtroom drama full of unexpected twists and turns. Watch it because it's quite possibly the most beautifully cast film to make its way out of the nineties.

My love affair with the Dune franchise started in the nineties as an impressionable teenager watching the 1984 film for the first time. I have since read the book, played various computer games based on the same material, and watched the mini series. While I accept that the Lynch effort is flawed I still hold it dear to my heart. Perhaps my criticisms of Villeneuve's Part One stem from comparing it too closely to that film.

Firstly, and most glaringly for me, this film just didn't feel as epic as the 1984 version. A lot of the shots are close ups which focus on one or two actors, and when comparing scenes from 2021 and 1984 side by side the 2021 version does at times fall short. I could give specific examples but don't want to put this review in spoiler tags.

Secondly was the casting. Most obvious of which was Rebecca Ferguson as Lady Jessica. While I totally bought her as a concerned mother I really didn't see her as a Bene Gesserit, despite concrete examples in the film of her exercising her skills. Other examples of what I felt to be lackluster performances include Oscar Isaac as Duke Leto, where I felt the performance was simply not as convincing as the 1984 effort.

Having said the above I still feel this film is about as good an adaptation of Frank Herbert's Dune novel as we could get in this day and age. I have high hopes for Part Two, not least because that part of the 1984 version was deeply flawed. Villeneuve now has the opportunity to give us the definitive adaption of Dune in two films. A luxury that Lynch was not afforded.

The premise tells you all you need to know. What do you expect from a Will Ferrell film about the Eurovision Song Contest? Well, this is what you should expect.

I'll say now, I'm not a Will Ferrell fan. I find the characters he portrays to be generally annoying. This film works with him in it though. Rachel McAdams especially puts in a stellar performance and with the rest of the cast makes for an entertaining experience.

Neither am I a big fan of the Eurovision Song Contest itself. I grew out of watching it when Eurovision drinking games lost their appeal back in my University days.

Like all good feel-good films though you don't need to be a fan of the event to appreciate the film. The film pays enough homage to what has come before it, including a smattering of political commentary to keep things interesting. Ultimately it's the story of two people from a remote village in Iceland that keeps us engaged and entertained to the end.

I have to say, this film is an odd one. On the one hand it's full of actors who would have been at home in a soap opera, with a shallow sci fi action plot. On the other hand, it's great!

It's as if Paul Verhoeven was the only person involved in the production of the film that knew he was making a satire. Either that or he wanted it to be subtle and he made it too subtle for much of the audience.

The "good guys" (i.e. planet Earth) are made up of an abhorrent fascist society that praises might and power above all else. It's almost understandable that the alien bugs are trying to wipe us out. Still, the film powers through and makes it look like the good guys are actually fighting for something that is worth fighting for.

Ultimately this is a film I watched in the cinema on first release and I come back to it every couple of years. For me at least it has stood the test of time and Verhoeven's vision shines through. Take the film for what it is and you'll have a lot of fun with it.

When discussing what makes a quintessential action move one won't go wrong in referencing Die Hard, at least a few times. Unfortunately Die Harder seemed to have lost the magic of seeing John McClane on screen. Thankfully Die Hard: With a Vengeance showed us once again what it means to make a great action movie franchise though.

Sure, the formula changed, McClane is no longer confined to one building. This time he also has a less than competent sidekick too. This just adds to the charm, and once you throw in another Gruber you know you're in for a wild ride.

Unfortunately the Die Hard franchise is one of those where you need to sift through the chaff to find the wheat. WIth a Vengeance is definitely great quality though, and shows us how a great sequel should be made.

Before Kill Bill, though after the behemoth that was Pulp Fiction, came Jackie Brown.

I watched this film in the cinema, fully expecting Tarantino to give us a rehash of Pulp Fiction. Little did I know that Tarantino isn't that kind of director though. This fact disappointed me at the time, though over the years I've learned to appreciate that this is a great thing.

I think it's still true to say that since this film is based on a book (that Tarantino didn't write) he wasn't fully able to flex his creative muscles. There is still a lot to love though and it would be a mistake to disregard this sometimes understated gem in the Tarantino crown.

What Jackie Brown lacks in its Tarantinoesque originality it more than makes up for in its character building, story and pacing. If you've enjoyed other Tarantino films make sure you don't miss this one.

I like to think that any Hollywood director who dedicated their life to making movies can look back at one film and think "At least I made my mark". Kubrick had 2001, Scorsese will have Goodfellas and Tarantino, well, he'll have Pulp Fiction.

I watched this film on release, when all we really knew about Tarantino was Reservoir Dogs. It's hard for me to think what someone viewing it more than a quarter of a century later would make of it. Hopefully it can be viewed in context and see how revolutionary the film really was.

One striking thing, which was quite novel at the time, is how the scenes aren't shown chronologically. What at first seems like a gimmick makes more and more sense as the film progresses and on repeat viewings. The impact of the storytelling would have been nowhere near as great if told in a more traditional way.

If you're new to Tarantino then lucky you, you've got some great movies to watch. You won't go wrong by starting with Pulp Fiction.

I'm certainly not the first person to compare Bad Times at the El Royale to Tarantino films. Still, the comparison is made because the parallels are there. This isn't a knock off, the director adds his own stamp to the proceedings. Being compared to Tarantino is no bad comparison though.

It's true that this film isn't for everyone. A lot of the scenes seem to just be filler to make the film longer than it needs to be. A lot of things are set up with no apparent pay off too. I did say this film is Tarantinoesque though, right?

For me the end is satisfying enough that I didn't feel like the previous couple of hours were a waste of time. All the cast do their job well and the conclusion was satisfying enough.

I'm not the biggest Bruce Springsteen fan. Sure, I like the stuff I've heard, so I don't dislike his music either. Nor am I a British Asian man who was a teenager in the 1980s. Despite this I had a great time with this film and bought into the premise straight away.

Something about the struggles of growing up in the less than inspiring town of Luton during a recession and finding solace in music means that most of us can get behind what transpires and just go with it.

I like to think my taste in movies is quite wide so I enjoy a feel good film as much as the next guy. This one is definitely one of the better ones.

I have no qualms in saying that I have a soft spot for Terminator Salvation. T3, Genisys and, to a lesser extent, Dark Fate, all basically trod the same ground that the first two (undoubtedly brilliant) films did. What Salvation tried to do was progress the series, and, if the sequels had ever been made, take it to its logical conclusion. For that I applaud the film.

That's not to say that I bury my head in the sand and ignore the naysayers. Yes, the film has its flaws. For me though the good certainly outweighs the bad. If you've seen some of the Terminator films and you're not sure whether to watch Salvation I wholeheartedly recommend it. As much for what it tried to do as for what it did do right.

Ultimately though history will remember Salvation for its mixed reviews, no matter how epic I think the other two films in the planned (and never filmed) trilogy would have been.

The line is "Come with me if you want to live". How hard is that to insert into a Terminator film? Apparently too hard for the people that made Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

To call T3 a soulless cash grab that tried to live on the success of the previous two films is probably giving the film too much credit. It's as if the creators of the film deliberately set out to make a parody of T2, while simultaneously dressing it up as a terrible sequel.

It's safe to say that this is where the series started to go wrong, and was unfortunately never able to fully recover from it.

Yes, T2 is one of the greatest sequels of all time. Yes, the Terminator franchise has more garbage thrown in it than even Cameron thought was possible back in 1984. Yes, Arnie never looked better on screen than when he was playing an emotionless robot. None of that detracts from the masterpiece that is The Terminator though.

This was a time when James Cameron was trying to make it in Hollywood. This was a guy who, to make ends meet during filming, would go to Macdonalds with a 2 for 1 voucher, eat one Big Mac that day and save the other Big Mac for the next day. Necessity truly is the mother of invention. Cameron needed to create a masterpiece to solidify his place in Hollywood and in making The Terminator he did just that.

Everyone puts in a stellar performance here and though the special effects leave a lot to be desired today it's safe to say that it doesn't detract from the relentless mercilessness of the killing machine that Arnie portrays. T2 came close to beating this film but for me The Terminator will always be the quintessential film in the series.

I'm not a huge documentary buff, I'll admit it now. I've seen my fair share but I don't actively seek them out. Rarely do I find a topic that I want to watch a whole episode about, let alone 26 episodes.

Having said that The World at War is pretty much essential viewing if you are interested in the events of World War II. It's a documentary of its time, a documentary that was made when the events and repercussions were still raw in people's minds. Many of the participants were still alive and the UK was sitting a mere stone throw's away from the Iron Curtain. It's hard to fathom today the brutality, scale and impact of the war, watching this documentary is about as close as any of us are going to get.

The World at War takes one theme per episode and runs with it. It doesn't try to tell the story of what happened chronologically, which would have made for a disjointed mess. Instead it focuses on one front, battle or region and goes in depth on that. For example, before viewing I thought I knew pretty much what there was to know about the Holocaust, yet watching Episode 20 - Genocide still gripped and sickened me.

If this period of history interests you, regardless of how much you think you already know about the events of WWII, you need to watch The World at War.

I think it's important to say that despite the headline I gave this review this show is nothing like Pirates of the Caribbean. Sure it's also about pirates, but Black Sails sure ain't for kids.

One thing I noticed early on is that pretty much all the characters are reprehensible. Some do the occasional act of kindness but they're all in it for themselves and will stab someone in the back as soon as bid them a good morning. As long as you're on board with this premise there's a lot to like about Black Sails, that has so much sex and gratuitous violence it makes Game of Thrones look tame.

Another thing I noted during my time watching the show was the sprinkling of real life pirates from the era. Most of the important characters are fictional characters from Treasure Island; however some real people were thrown in there too to make the setting more real. For a lot of these people so little is factually known about their real lives that it's not jarring or breaks the setting to have them there.

Ultimately if a show for adults about pirates appeals to you, you wouldn't go far wrong in watching Black Sails.

As other reviewers have said the first season is a bit weak, it only gets better from there though.

I've been a Tarantino fan since the release of Reservoir Dogs. Fortunately for film lovers the man is a grafter, pushing out films as quickly as he can, for the last few decades. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) he takes a lot of time to make a film, because he writes them too. Some great directors dabble for a while and then once they've made their millions they go on to do something easier, like producing. Fortunately for us Tarantino isn't one of those people.

For me Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Tarantino back on form. I was disappointed by Hateful Eight and bored by Django. This is his comeback though, showing us why we fell in love with his style of cinema in the first place.

Yes, it can be argued that very little happens in the first couple of hours and it all kicks off at the end. Those who feel that way are, in my opinion, missing the point though. Tarantino transports us to a time and place that is obviously close to his heart, and we can't help but fall in love with. It can be argued that he does this in a self indulgent way, but come on, this is Tarantino, we know the drill by now.

Opinions are mixed on this film, but for me it's a solid hit.

The original Rambo was a great film, with a great message and story. The three follow ups were all fine as far as popcorn films go. This latest Rambo was odd though, in the sense that it could have been called something else and just been a generic action film.

Then again if they did that they probably wouldn't have sold as many cinema tickets, nor would they have needed Stallone to be in it.

As far as this generic action film with a "Rambo" sticker on it goes, it was fine. Brutal in all the right places and enjoyable if you're desensitized to that sort of thing. I assume you are, you're a Rambo fan after all, right?

Yes, the franchise is back in the hands of James Cameron. It would have been nice if he had chosen to direct the film, but I guess he's too busy planning the umpteen Avatar sequels that nobody actually believes are all going to see the light of day.

Also, yes, Arnie is back (yet again), and so is Linda Hamilton this time. To be fair they both do a good job and I would say their presence enriches the film rather than just being a marketing gimmick.

So what's the problem? Well, I'm afraid we've seen it all before. Basically a robot is sent back in time from the future to kill an important historical figure. Does that plot sound familiar? It should, especially if you've seen almost any of the Terminator films. The only film that veered from the formula was Salvation, to mixed reviews.

Unfortunately that well worn plot doesn't cut it any more. Either the franchise needs to take some bold new steps or just finally be terminated for good.

The reason I gave this film such a high score (7) is that it actually does the formula remarkably well. Far better than either T3 or Genysis did. I guess that's the Cameron influence at work.

One more thing, nobody says "Come with me if you want to live." That's pretty much an unforgivable error in my eyes. The only film to make the same mistake before this was T3, which was a poor film for many other reasons too.

OK, OK, the MCU technically started before Watchmen was released, it just wasn't omnipresent and all powerful as it is now. We have to remember that this was also a time before Zack Snyder had disgraced himself in the eyes of fanboys all over the world.

I'll readily admit I hadn't read the comic book when I first saw this film, though I have read it since, which hasn't dulled my love for this film at all.

I remember sitting down in the cinema and watching the opening fight scene, which intrigued me. Then the montage playing along with Bob Dylan's "The Times They are a Changin'" made me realise I was in for a truly memorable experience.

To me Watchmen is what a great super hero movie should be about. Whether the hero has super powers or not it's about the tough decisions, sticking it out when things get messy, and doing the right thing even when you're really not sure what the right thing is. Rorschach's poignant phrase "Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon", is undoubtedly powerful, yet ultimately misguided.

The world needs big, fun popcorn superhero flicks like the MCU brings us, along with their own brand of humour. I just wish we could have more films like Watchmen in our lives too.

If you had asked me a couple of years ago what, in my opinion, is the biggest ever travesty in the history of the Oscars I would have promptly replied it's Goodfellas not winning either the Best Picture or Best Director in 1991. Some of you might agree, some of you might disagree. Why is it relevant to this review though? Bear with me...

I could list various other Oscar travesties, though one of the biggest, at least until 2016, was that Leonardo DiCaprio had never won an Oscar. Regardless of what else you might think of this film, it is thanks to The Revenant that he does now have one.

Why did I just spend two paragraphs rabbiting on about the Oscars and not about The Revenant? Because I literally can't think of anything else nice to say about it. Sure, the scenery's great, the fact that only natural lighting was used is a fun fact to know at parties I suppose. None of that makes for a good film though, I found this boring as anything.

Let's remember what's important here though, at least DiCaprio now has his Oscar.

I could tell you that Entourage is a self critiquing magnifying glass on what it means to live the Hollywood life. In some ways that's true, Entourage is about that. Ultimately though I suggest you don't take the show too seriously and just enjoy the ride for what it's worth. Either you'll enjoy it or you won't, just don't waste too much time thinking about it.

I watched all 8 seasons (and the movie), and while I wouldn't say I got bored of the show it does become a bit samey. Still, watching Vince navigating his way through stardom with the support of the buddies he grew up with back in Queens is great fun. Just don't dig too deep, as much like the real Hollywood you might find out there's not much more to it.

Sure, Buffy was great, there's no disputing that. Firefly though, that show is what showed us that Whedon really knows his stuff. How to build a setting, how to build a great ensemble cast, how to tell a story that people really care about.

It's hard to say what would have happened if this show had lasted longer than 14 episodes and a movie. Alas, we'll never know for sure. I think it's fair to say that we had the beginnings of something great, and at least Whedon got to progress his story with a relatively big budget movie after his show was far too prematurely cancelled.

On the plus side, it is only 14 episodes. And yes, everything you've heard is true, it really is that good. So seeing as it's so short you might as well watch it. If for some bizarre reason you don't love Firefly by the end of it at least you haven't sunk too much time into it.

Oh, and watch the movie too. Just make sure you watch the series first.

There's two kinds of Star Wars fans in this world: Those who think that Rogue One is easily the best Disney Star Wars film so far, and those who are wrong.

Okay, I'll try to get off my high horse for the rest of the review.

Rogue One, to me, is the perfect example of giving fans what they expect in a Star Wars movie, while simultaneously putting a new take on the franchise. Here we see characters who are jaded and war weary. Characters who believe in the ends justifying the means. Rogue One did for Star Wars what Deep Space 9 did for Star Trek. While some will criticise the film for this I personally think it was necessary to allow for the continued evolution of the series.

Nobody wants to see new Star Wars films be nothing but a hollow rehash of previous films in the series (Hello Force Awakens). Nor do we want to see a Star Wars film completely destroy what came before it in a nonsensical and childish way (hello The Last Jedi). Rogue One skillfully skirts between these two traps and shows Disney exactly where the franchise should be headed.

Ultimately Rogue One gives us enough familiarity to keep us in the Star Wars universe, while simultaneously giving us a reason to watch new films in the series. In my eyes this film is even better than Return of the Jedi, and I don't say that lightly.