Reviews

Anything that Christopher Nolan puts out there is an automatic must see for me. So I was eager to watch this one on the big screen. I think the thing that excited me most was that on the face of things Dunkirk is completely different to the films we've seen from Nolan in the past.

Nolan has never done anything close to a war film before. But perhaps that wasn't surprising as what we see in Dunkirk is less a war film and more a drama/thriller. It is also the first time we've seen a bio pic from Nolan, which intrigued me more. We're so used to seeing Nolan create amazing original ideas for the screen I couldn't imagine him not only making a bio pic but also remaking a film. Nolan is however my favourite director of all time and I could only respect that he as an artist was doing something different. And with a history like his who was I to doubt his judgement.

I would struggle to be anything but bias in my review of Dunkirk. The way it's filmed as in all Nolan pictures is outstanding. Never before has a director made films so well suited for Blu ray. You really need to witness his movies in the best quality. So if you're able i'd recommend seeing it in an IMAX cinema. A luxury I don't have in my town.

I should also mention the soundtrack. something i'd seen a lot of people rant and rave about. So I payed close attention. It is a sure thing that this film will be nominated for best soundtrack at the Oscars and don't be surprised if it wins. The ticking clock that fades in and out during the film is hauntingly beautiful and being that it's subtle, doesn't distract from the elegant simplicity of the visuals.

The lack of dialogue was another beautiful artistic choice from Nolan. the silence speaks volumes and what you're paying to see isn't a soap opera, it isn't about personality's, characters and relationships. It's about survival, this film is art in it's simplest, rawest form.

The different layers of the earth depicted (Water, Land, Sky) show how the war took different forms but ultimately for the same cause. With the lack of dialogue for long periods of the film it was surprisingly the lack of words that taught us more about the characters and their motivations and struggles. I'm lead to believe the characters are also based on real people which isn't hard to believe given the authenticity of what we see.

If any part of me was disappointed it would be with the amount I actually learnt about the battle of Dunkirk. I fully appreciate what I saw on screen, it was heart breaking to watch and despite a few extremely raw scenes. I'd say it was presented tastefully. But I would have liked to have learnt a bit more about the battle of Dunkirk however there is the possibility i should have read up on my history before watching the film. Is it after all Christopher Nolan's job to educate or is it just his job to entertain.

I'll give the film 8/10 for what was a work of art. That's not to say it's Nolan's best work, but i've seen much worse films win Oscars.

Before watching this film, I had convinced myself that the concept of a giant gorilla was played out. That in this day and age, with all the cinematic wonders we are used too. With all the special effects that we take for granted. A giant gorilla just wouldn't cut it anymore.

I'm not one to shy away from being wrong however and this film review will bring no exceptions. so here goes.... I was wrong.

The first thing to say about this film is that it's not the original king kong story, therefore we learn more about Kong and his origin. It may seem obvious to some with the title of the film, but I guess my pessimism had blinded me to the fact that this film wasn't even marketed as the original kong story. As we all know, Kong is not the bad guy, it is in fact mankind who play the bad guys in the kong films. This film is no exception in this respect but I feel like they captured a beautiful balance of human kindness and the very worst we are capable of.

Skull Island uses CGI to it's full potential, the film is beyond visually satisfying for the audience. With every new giant creature Kong comes into contact with we get a perspective of the trials kong faces in protecting the people of the island. There are some truly harrowing scenes throughout the film but all visually thrilling and worth the 2 second cringe that any gore may bring you.

It will pain me to say it, but if anything about the film could have been improved it would have to be the plot. Perhaps a longer build up before we got to see skull island. I'm not quite suggesting the same type of wait we had with Peter Jackson's 2005 King Kong. But a fair balance of the two would have worked nicely.

I rate Skull Island an 8/10

The Box is built upon a great concept. The idea that a button could end a life and in return you receive 1million in cash. It seems like an offer that could come with one very obvious complication. But as Norma and Arthur Lewis find out, it comes with many.

The film gripped me from the offset, as soon as we see a mysterious package delivered to the door for Norma to find you could tell their lives were going to change.

The film explores the greed of humanity although we never see that from our two protagonists. It also explores how far people will go to save someone they love but also how disposable a life can be when you don't know the person.

Perhaps the thing that impressed me most about the film was the way things come full circle, the events we see at the beginning of the film make sense at the end. We aren't left with unanswered questions and the film wraps up beautifully. but that's not to say the ending is the happiest i've ever seen

Overall i'd highly recommend this film to anyone who likes mystery and science fiction, I give this film a 7/10.

Like many I was excited for the Power Rangers film for nostalgic reasons.

I did however have many reservations about the quality of the film. Was it going to be as cheesy and corny as the power rangers we saw as kids? the short answer is no. This film try's to mature with it's audience. Given the subject matter you'd have to say it's a tough task but if this film achieved anything i'd say it firmly achieved that.

Having said that... the one place in the film we could have done with some immaturity was the humour. Something that fails miserably. There are many reference points, one of the main reference points being Marvel.

Ironically it's a bit of that Marvel humour that was lacking. Now I'm not saying this should have been a copying anyone... but if we had just had a writer with a great sense of humour this film would have felt much more authentic.

The sad thing is, the film started out interesting as well as funny. Billy (The Blue Ranger) was clearly the intended comic relief..and he was succeeding. But as the film went on... Billy's lines were drowned out by the rest of the characters who were too . It pains me to say that the blue ranger was the only character that had enough depth to like... the rest were either not likable by default/you weren't meant to like them. Or they were too basically written to feel a strong liking or disliking for them.

The only possible exception to Billy as a source of comic relief was Bill Hader as Alpha 5, a clumsy looking robot. But again there were no real laugh out loud moments for me.

Another strong appeal for me to watch this film was Bryan Cranston, who didn't disappoint in his role as Zordon. He gave the film a recognisable face, along with Elizabeth Banks who played Rita Repulsa. It was these noticeable faces that carried my interest for long enough to let the story take over. Unfortunately there's a lot of problems with the production of this film, many things could come under scrutiny. However there are many positives too and I would attempt to recommend this film without mentioning too many of the negatives. I give the film a 6/10 but would urge people to watch this film if they loved power rangers as a kid. because they'd probably take value from it as I have.

I couldn't believe i'd never heard of this film before. But 8 years after it's release I finally got round to watching it.. all of 30 minutes after finding out about it's existence.

An undoubtedly interesting topic for a film. The younger years of John Lennon were something of a mystery to me. As I suppose is natural for someone in their 20's.. I do not know a hell of a lot about Lennon, despite growing up with the sound of 'Imagine' as it is my mum's favourite and one of my favourite songs.

My minimum expectation was that I would come out of watching this film with new information, having learnt something new about the beetles and Lennon in particular. What i gained from the film was so much more. The film is beautifully directed by Sam Taylor Johnson and stars a young Aaron Taylor Johnson. The two of course met on the set of the film and later married. Perhaps the only thing I did know about this film. I however didn't know it was about a young John Lennon. As I had only heard the film mentioned in passing remarks with barely enough detail to catch my interest.

This film seemed to become more famous for controversial romance between the film's star and director (due to their 20 odd year age gap) then it did for the film itself.

In truth this film is short, sweet and extremely well made. It left me feeling like there could have been a sequel, which we know now obviously never came. However I think most people could appreciate this for what it is. It's a very small part in the life of John Lennon but perhaps a defining time in his young life. I rate this film 7/10, with my only criticism that it could have been longer and fed my appetite slightly more for information .

'Take Me' started out as an interesting prospect. A man who kidnap's people for cash is faced with a difficult client. However... the film struggled to carry with only two main characters seen throughout the entirety of the film. The acting was in parts slightly cringe worthy and although not unwatchable, certainly not that enjoyable.

The main issue I had with the film was that it promised so much, little hints to where the story could take us. Small plot twists that kept me interested. But ultimately the climax was nothing special. That's not to say the film was a complete flop, the plot was good it just lacked conviction.

Overall I wouldn't recommend the film, it's very poorly produced and just not worth the time and effort to sit through, but I'll give it a 5/10 for plot alone.

I was hesitant to watch the Lego Batman Movie just as I was the first Lego Movie.

On both occasions I've been pleasantly surprised by the films wit and charm. The musical numbers play a huge part in the theme of the film as it did for its predecessor and there are so many reference points it's almost an over load of batman history.

That however doesn't take away from the fact this film breaks the fourth wall with great confidence. Including other franchises such as Doctor Who and Harry Potter only add's to the wacky world created within the film.

But it's not all cheap jokes and resorting to reference points. The plot for this film is actually pretty solid. Batman must face the Joker, the Ridler, Bane and all his others Gotham based enemy's on top of the Dalek's, King Kong and Voldermort.

Whilst facing all these bad guys he must also face a bigger fear, accepting help from others and being surrounded by family again.

For a solid plot and making me laugh shamefully, I give the Lego Batman Movie a 7/10.

I'll start my review of 'Before I fall' the same way I'm sure many people will. By addressing the fact this film is clearly a rip off, some would say Groundhog Day for the next generation.

However... once I'd finally let the idea of a comedy classic being ripped off settle in my stomach. The film became more appealing in it's concept.

The difference between this film and Groundhog day is the inevitability of death. It's a much darker take on the repeating day. As the title would suggest Samantha (played by Zoey Deutch) tries to work out the events that lead to her death. Stuck in limbo between life and death she begins to learn more and more about her family and friends despite living the same day over and over.

If anything I'm pleasantly surprised with this film. Although it started out as a film I almost wanted to dislike for it's copy cat nature. I found definite value in the story and it had it's own unique take on a familiar idea. I give the film 7/10.

*contains spoilers*

I watched this film due to being a huge Doctor Who fan and subsequently a fan of Matt Smith as an actor.

Also the concept was intriguing, a woman giving birth to a clone of her lover. I don't think however I was quite prepared for how messed up this film really was.

Is that to say it wasn't good? that it wasn't entertaining? not at all. But you should not go into watching this film with a close mind.

I went into this film..however open minded, extremely under prepared for the themes of incest. We witness a disturbing mother son relationship which given the circumstances of his birth is barely surprising.

Despite what is undoubtedly a very weird story and some very uncomfortable scenes, this film is built on a great concept and for the most part executed beautifully.

It was a particular highlight to see Matt Smith and Eva Green's combined performances which bring's the movie together.

I could have easily rated this film an 8 or 9/10 if some of the uncomfortable scenes had been trimmed but taking all into account I'd give it a solid 7/10.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is some what less exciting than it's famous predecessor. Although as a viewer I did feel immersed in another world and the characters proved to be as thought provoking as that of the Harry Potter anthology. Despite not being a die hard J.K Rowling fan, I think this prequel deserves a sequel in order to develop the characters and the story further.

Eddie Redmayne's performance as Newt stands out as a particular highlight. I wouldn't be expecting him to receive a second Oscar for this one but none the less it's a performance that carries the film in many respects. I give Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them a 7/10, it's definitely worth a watch especially if you've enjoyed J.K Rowling's work in the past.

Sadly the third Godfather film is very detached from the two greatest films probably ever made. It suffers in comparison to The Godfather and The Godfather II. That being said, it's still a very well made film If you ignore the roman catholic scenes that slightly plague the film.

Perhaps the biggest fault of the making of this film was the time it took them to find an idea for the film. The detachment from the originals came down to time... the characters have inevitably aged in the 16 years between the films. The story has moved on considerably, many things we've missed, that needed explaining in a subtle but continuous manor.

Al Pacino perhaps for the first time was the stand alone actor that gripped my interest in this film. The first and second films had Brando and De Niro respectively. An ageing Michael has been The Don of the family for nearly 20 years, following in his fathers footsteps. Although my review may sound mainly negative, I can assure you it's only because i'm focusing on the comparison. The first 2 films are a perfect 10/10, the third is in my opinion an 8/10 at best. it works well as a stand alone film but in regards to its place in the trilogy it lets the side down.

With the perfection of the first Godfather film it would seem impossible that the sequel could match up. But such is the genius of Francis Ford Coppolla that it is considered by many as the greatest sequel of all time and many of those same people even consider it to be better than the first.

I for one do not agree, at least not about it being better then the original, however I find it difficult to dispute the claim that it's the best sequel of all time. The impossible job of proceeding Marlon Brando as the Godfather fell on the shoulders of Robert De Niro. He later went on to win best supporting actor, proving the impossible to be quite possible for someone of De Niro's talents. Brando and De Niro became the first actors to win Oscars for performances of the same character. De Niro's performance as a young Vito Corleone was the highlight of the sequel and it was genius from Copolla to move the story backwards as a pose to moving in a linear fashion.

Another masterstroke from Copolla was the rise of Michael who becomes the Don of the family. We see Michael become a man and bypass all his brothers straight to the top of the family. It's almost a romantic twist in an otherwise pretty gritty and dark story.

I would put the first and second Godfather films right up there with the best of all time, perhaps even in first and second place. You simply can't call yourself a film buff and not watch these films. 10/10

May contain spoilers*

To review what is in my mind the greatest film of all time could involve many superlatives, mind blowing, genius, astonishing. All of which would be true, but its the components that make up those superlatives that I'd like to write about.

I procrastinated watching the Godfather trilogy for about a year. My dad had pushed me to watch the films but for reasons that now seem insignificant I refused. One of the reasons was the length of these films, my OCD wouldn't allow me to only watch the first film, as I had been told by a few people the second film was even better.Another reason was the subject matter, I just didn't think gangster films where my thing, how wrong I was. Several Godfather sessions later and the procrastination of watching them in the first place seems comical.

From the first second to the last, The Godfather had me mesmerised (theres one of those superlatives I spoke about) the film completely took me to another world, a believable one too. I was in awe of the big named actors that I'd seen in more recent films but never actually seen the film that they were all known best for. Al Pacino's break through role, Marlon Brando's peak performance, along with Robert Duvall and James Caan. Two actors who i'd grown up watching in various other films and yet I'd neglected the one they surely must be most proud of.

I grew up seeing cartoons such as the Simpsons reference the Godfather, never knowing what the references where. Famous scenes such as the horses head in the bed and Marlon Brando stroking his cat as he talks of respect. All things I'd seen homaged and yet there I was... a clueless kid.

I've seen many Al Pacino and Marlon Brando films, but to have them in the same film, its an honour to watch. Two of the greatest actors of all time and probably two of my top three (along with Robert De Niro who features in the sequel).

I could go on forever about the stylisation, cinematography and genius direction from Francis Ford Copolla but the simple truth in my eyes. As a matter of fact the truth in most people's eyes, is that this is the greatest film of all time. A perfect 10/10.

please be aware this review may contain mild spoilers, but nothing too specific*

Baked in Brooklyn is the story of David (Josh Brener). Recently fired from his paid intern job, David needs money and he needs it fast. With no immediate prospects David turns to dealing marijuana on the streets of Brooklyn.

The big bucks soon come rolling in for David but as his new business grows, so to does his anxiety. As small confrontations take their toll on David's confidence, he begins to neglect relationships with the people in his life. Can David pull himself together and make it out of his self inflicted mess, or will the life of a drug dealer swallow him whole?

Laid in America follows two foreign students Jack and Duncan living in the U.S.A, both desperate to loose their virginity. However they hit a few bumps a long the road that might jeopardize their last minute plans to get some action.

I watched this film out of pure curiosity, having enjoyed KSI's work in the past I was hoping that same hysterical humour would translate to the big screen. I wasn't disappointed, this really was a laugh a minute type film. There are themes of crass toilet humour throughout, but as silly as the humour is, I couldn't help but wet myself laughing.

The main positive from the film is the performances of the two youtube stars, Casper Lee and KSI giving confident comedy performances. Although the story line wasn't the strongest, I'd give Laid In America a 7/10 for the laughs it provides.

When this film became available on Netflix, i was sure it was just another crass comedy about sex that would provide next to no laughs for anyone over the age of 12. I was wrong. The Late Bloomer is 'as you would think', about a man who has never had sex, nor 'as you might not think', experienced puberty. The fact the film is based on a true story makes it all the more entertaining, I found it intriguing from beginning to end.

I found Johnny Simmons performance as Peter to be a particular highlight, his awkward comic delivery was a breath of fresh air. Don't get me wrong this was never going to be a blockbuster, nor was it going to be a cult classic. But The Late Bloomer delivers everything you need from a comedy film. i'd rate this film a 6/10 at worst.

Mothers Day attempts to tell several stories that intertwine leading up to the big day.

Although the idea is nice on paper, the final product didn't translate quite as nicely on screen. The several stories were all lacking in depth, barely making up one whole story between them. The cast filled with household names and proved actors, yet none of them were capable of distracting from the poorly thought out stories that plagued me for 2 hours. The only positives I can take from the film was that there were some mildly funny moment's, nothing hysterical but the occasional rib tickle got me through to the end. 5/10 goes for the humour and some of the actors performances, but the story's imperfections were too great to ignore.

Amateur Night delivers on the basics you'd expect from a comedy film. Jason Biggs as he has in the past provides the laughs with his awkward comic delivery. The plot isn't the most complex or thrilling, but short bursts of action carry the story through and what the film lacks in thrills it pretty much makes up for in toilet humour. the characters are believable and any depth to the story or characterisation hasn't been lost in silly attempts at humour as it seems is a trend among modern comedy films. Having said that the film doesn't lack in juvenile and crass humour that shouldn't make you laugh, but does. I give this film 6/10

Although I've long been a fan of Tom Hanks, his presence wasn't quite enough to make this film enjoyable. Although presented as a comedy/drama, I neither found this film to be funny or dramatic. The story itself lacked any conviction, nothing you could mildly sink your teeth into. The characterisation felt like it was left behind, as if any back story or depth had been left at the first draft. Although not unwatchable, I found the film to be tiresome to watch, I struggled from beginning to end and as a viewer and found no reward in sticking to it. I give 'A Hologram for the King' a 4/10 mainly for Hanks, who carried the poor script a long by the skin of his teeth, but I wouldn't recommend anyone watching this film.

Better off Single is at best a story of love and how to live without it. At worst it's a film that uses patchy interludes to make up the time that a real film would fill out comfortably. needless fancy editing takes you away from the story and distracts from the little plot this film has to offer. The acting leaves much to be desired and on the whole it feels like a student's attempt at making a romcom. In reality it failed to deliver any legitimate story and was probably best of not being made. Although there was moments I found myself mildly amused, any humour was drowned out by the real joke... that this script made it onto film.

Zootopia is (if not perfect) then very close to it

Paying homage to The Godfather and in small part to Breaking Bad, it's mix of old and new references will really appeal to young and old.

The film is full of moments that made me chuckle at the silliest things and the characterisation griped me from the off. Despite Disney's good form off the back of such films as Big Hero 6 and Frozen, I was sceptical of both this film and Jungle Book, but in both cases I've been proved wrong. Animal Animation films aren't a new thing but Zootopia definitely brings something new to the table

9/10