oDjento

This isn't a war movie, it is a survival movie. A film that has an interesting narrative structure that doesn't hold your hand to try explain the chronology. The film is tense, largely in due part to Hans Zimmers score but Nolans directing here is incredible, some truly breathtaking scenes and sequences. The script struggles at times and I found "The Sea" storyline the least effective (decent payoff for the end though) but everything else is incredibly made. So much visual storytelling and atmosphere, with hardly any dialogue to propel the movie forward. Kenneth Brannahs character is pointless admittedly, just being paid to walk up and down a promenade and spout out things about trying to get home but still despite this films few minor shortcomings overall the whole payoff is amazing. Great ending too, when you finally hear that stopwatch stop ticking you finally release the tension that you've built up from start to end over the movie. A must watch for sure, and even better in IMAX.

Whilst this film doesn't feel as kinetic as the original it provides us with a nice viewon ageing and what is does (or doesn't) do for us. This film does seem a lot more pointless and the ending gets racked up into a silly hollywood-like chase, and with some gratuitous cinematic and editing decisions made that shows this films wants to be something new but can't let go it's predecessor. The film overall becomes sloppy and overdramatic in its narrative, but still offers enough visual and comedic wonder to the screen to make it at least a worthwhile watch. This film is funnier than the first, but in no way is it better. An enjoyable, yet needless reunion. 6.0/10

I've never really been much of a superhero film guy because i always feel like the plot is arbitrary and the characters are 1 dimensional and if they do have arcs they just jump straight to their next evolution without any growth towards it. The films are usually just about getting to the next set piece and cutting from mass explosion to mass explosion. Logan luckily gets it right. The film has definite emotional weight due to the script being able to give character interactions more meaning and just give the actors (Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart) more to eat up. The films set pieces have poignancy and conflict within them and captures the brutality of Wolverine. The X-23 character is also played with so little dialogue but done so well that you love all the characters and the way the act with each other. This film is an amazing showcase that superhero films can be great, if they focus on the characters and the plot first and not the big bosses they will soon fight or the biggest explosion they can put in. Sometimes the stakes in a film feel raised for the audience when they are lowered in the film (who gives a **** about Apocalypse eh?). Great film and would highly recommend everyone check it out. Genuinely surprised me at moments, moved me and filled me with adrenaline in the action scenes. Brutal, well written and somewhate emotional, despite its ex-positional ludicrousness. Also really nicely ties in the comic books to the plot. 8.8/10

Rogue One isn’t perfect, but it is a great breath of fresh air for the Star Wars Franchise. The direction feels very different at first, feeling more handheld at not super Star Wars-esque because of its grittier more grounded style, but this is great and works for the film. It ends up making it feel like a real war and struggle for the rebellion and it ends up changing later towards the end in tonal shift and direction to blend into A New Hope. Pacing is a little odd at first, but the first section is interesting enough to keep you very invested, especially with all the character introductions. The second act is a littler quieter and a bit of a lull but still has enough going on and differs itself from the rest of the film to keep it fresh. The last section is an intense all out action masterpiece, and really gives a space feeling of something similar to the end battle of Saving Private Ryan. Characters are well enough written for you to enjoy and like them all, however they are a little underdeveloped for the most part and you end up wanting more from them. This ends up not hindering the film too much since the film is a standalone. This film does carry itself well, it knows when to be dark without over doing it and changes location at a nice rate with a clear understanding of where and what folk are doing. This also the first film where Darth Vader is actually fully terrifying, he is almost like an insanely powerful sci fi MikeMyers. Even thoug he isn’t in it much, his presence is palpable. The good thing about Rogue One also is that it doesn’t try to keep using nostalgia to interest its viewers (which TFA did a lot) but does have plenty of nice little easter eggs. The droid K2SO in the film is also the comic relief of it, but whilst a few jokes hit the mark a lot are unnecessary and too forced in, and there is (like TFA) a lot of cheesy 2016 throwaway jokes just put in there. Disney need to learn to restrain themselves from certain jokes, and when they do put them in they need to understand when to end the joke and how to fully have them come across. Last two complaints, the new score for the film is cheesy and doesn’t fit the film at all, and really takes away from it as a whole sadly. Dubbing John Williams over it would be very cheap, but to be honest it would probably make the film feel more epic and fit more. There is also some questionable CGI characters in the film which just look unnatural in the film but still don’t ruin it too much. Overall, this film diverges enough away from Star Wars to make it feel fresh but also very nicely connects itself to the original trilogy. Action is awesome yet characters are a little underdeveloped, special effects are gorgeous but score is disappointing. It is a tragic war film set in the Star Wars universe, and Gareth Edwards did something brave with what he had. Bravo to you sir. 8/10

I understand that i am not yhe demographic for this but god this was painful to watch. Whilst a whimsical and fantastical world is created here it is filled with virtually no plot or key scenes and nothing ever really happens in it. The finale is a joke. Film is also filled with flatulance jokes and is just dull all the way through. The scene with the queen was awful to watch. 3/10

A gloriously hilarious film with the obvious influences of Edgar Wright and Wes Anderson fused together. Taika Waititi has made an incredibly funny film, possibly one of the best to come out in the last 5 years! Acting is great, visuals are used to increase comedic value and film has a brilliantly quirky feel to it. A must watch! 9/10

One of my favourite films of this year. This thriller is intense all the way through, with awesome acting and shocking scenes of savagery. The gore is pretty disgusting but not gratuitous, and the pacing is excellently done. This film will keep you gripped all the way through, definitely watch it. 8/10

This film was a real disappointment. It loses all sense of dread and suspense by giving in to horror movie cliches, gratuitous jump scares and average acting (the female lead is alright though). Last act gets pretty intense but apart from that this horror film was a joke. 3.5/10

This film is kinda an enjoyably bad movie. Ben Affleck is decent in his role and the first main portion of the film has you pretty interested in what's going on. Then all of a sudden the thriller aspect of the film gets snuffed away from itself due to the film being so blunt and abrupt in its story telling. It seemed that at one moment the writers said "you know what this script needs? More J.K. Simmons!" (Which don't get me wrong he's an awesome actor) and therefore let him give about 10 minutes of straight exposition. The film gets too melodramatic and silly towards the end and the final action scene doesn't feel as satisfying as previous ones, along with the guns in this film - especially in the last section - being obnoxiously loud. Overall the film is actually enjoyable enough to watch as a silly thriller that also has some laughs, but it's sloppy writing lets it down. Should you see this film? Well if you do i don't believe you will have thought you'd wasted your time but you will probably come out knowing it was a badly made movie, yet you'll probably have a little smile on your face. 5/10

This first section shall be spoiler free. High-rise is an unremittingly complex film that whilst being captured beautifully on camera with gorgeous cinematography, fails to hold your attention. There’s a difference to a film holding your hand and a film just letting you fall to your death. The film was allegorical and almost everything was a metaphor but with hardly any guidance it was hard to enjoy it other done visually. The best analogy I could use for this film is this: if you see a piece in the newspaper where someone has used incredibly confusing and big words like “didactic polemic, a connubially vexed allegory” you may think ‘wow, I can’t understand this but the writer must be good and this must be a good newspaper piece because I can’t understand it’. NO, that is not the job of the writer. The writer must make it at least capable to follow so you can understand what is happening; they can make some stuff cryptic but overall the consumer must be able to have a vague idea of the outline and trajectory of the piece. This film becomes so confusing that you may think it is an amazing film because it is so confusing but it is really just pretentious in the fact that it believes it can be smart without even attempting an explanation at times. The films editing doesn’t help either as it cuts so rapidly and quickly it’s hard to keep up without feeling like you’re in an autism simulator. Overall, the film is delicious to look at due to its beautiful cinematography but falls short on the writing side of it. [SPOILERS AHEAD] What I got from the film after a while trying to think about it is that the film is a study on society and a kind of chaos effect of developed countries for when our insecurities finally take control and we lose our stability. One woman says “we’re all in debt, just the rich ones deal with it better”, and this is why eventually not only the lower class floors end up in anarchy and power failure but the whole building does, as the building represents a society and shows how it has fallen. The architect (Jeremy Irons) also says that the High-rise is like a finger, and each finger is linked to the palm. I believe each different High-rise around them is a different finger housing a different society, and once one society falls it gets chopped off from the rest of the finger, therefore becoming independently content but anarchic. The rest of the hand then still functions but finds it more difficult to do certain tasks. The film then closes with Hiddleston’s character stating “it’s only time until the next High-Rise falls” and this would be that like a knock on effect, since the first and most useless High-Rise falls first – as theirs is described as the pinkie – the others will slowly get chopped off too until the hand can barely function. This is why the High-Rise ends up in its animalistic nature; without and stability from the hand it changes itself into almost unconditioned primal instincts with people murder, debauchery and survival. There is obviously more going on with each scene and each bit of dialogue along with each character representing something (I’m guessing a different aspect of society) but the film moves too quickly with its rapid editing and vagueness that it’s too frustratingly annoying to watch. If the film at least attempted to explain a bit more I probably would’ve given it a higher score. 5.8/10

At this point I have to state that I absolutely love Charlie Kaufman films. Eternal Sunshine is one of my favourite films of all time and Anomalisa closely follows suit. The film mainly takes place in and around the hotel in which Michael Stone (voiced by David Thewlis) visits to deliver a press conference. However, more and more is explained to us as the film carries on and we find out that Michael Stone has some sort of issue; or is it the people around him? The film deals with personality, narcissism, misogyny and delusion in a way that you can slowly decode but in an encrypted enough fashion for you to want to watch this film again. There is an intense amount of things going on under the surface of this film. The film is also a very emotionally anchored film, that really makes you believe in the characters in a human way. The film is also beautifully shot and includes each part of creepy, comedic, and touching tones to the film that are all captured perfectly. The film may end in a way that leaves you slightly unsatisfied but it does to some extent complete Michael Stone’s story arc. This film is complex and delicate, and is an astonishing achievement to see. There is so much I can speak about with this film but I don’t want to give too much away so all I can say is go watch this film and then discuss it with others online. 9/10

The Voices is actually a rather interesting movie. The film provides a look into a mentally damaged psychopaths head in a funny and kind of touching way whilst not condoning his actions but helping you understand how they may think. Ryan Reynolds is actually very enjoyable in this film and easy to watch and the other cast member play their roles fine too. The film does seem to slow a bit getting towards the end and may have a few rough edges at time but it is a nice unique and more comedic take on something similar to American Psycho. The personification of the animals are also great and make a nice contrast of the Id and super ego fighting between itself, it shows in a comedic and visual way the psychological battle going on inside a psychopath’s head as he slowly bends toward the Id. I would say this film is well worth a check out. It may not be the best film ever and may have a few slip ups at times but it is quite an easy watch, despite all the blood and dismemberment. A nice unique and slightly thought provoking dark comedy. Also, the ending is extremely bizarre but I can kind of understand what they were doing with it. 6/10

Hail Caesar! Has gotten quite a bit of hate that I don’t believe it deserves, but I will admit it is one of the Coen Brothers weaker films. The film is a throwback to the ‘golden age’ of cinema, and the film deals with the perception of their actors in which most people were told what to do not only with their careers but with their lifestyle. Josh Brolin’s character (Eddie Mannix) is the man who tries to hold it all together and wants to keep everything on a tight timescale (evident by the frequent use of his watch and time throughout the film). The film is also just a chance for the Coen Brothers to have fun and show off their film knowledge in the industry; and you can see how much fun each actor is having. George Clooney is to be quite honest really just a McGuffin for the film, but he is still great in his role, Josh Brolin is pretty enjoyable too, and Ralph Fiennes is hilarious and brilliant as he is in almost everything but the actor that really steals the show is Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle. His character is loveable, hilariously unaware be a very caring and polite man. He may not be the best actor but he tries his best at adapting from his typical western films of little dialogue to a period drama and really wants to do well but he just can’t. Seriously, if there is any reason to go see this film it is for the scene between Alden and Ralph. It is a hysterical scene. The film has a bundle of jokes but I feel many viewers may not fully get all of them as a lot of them are orientated around the jargon of the film industry. The film also references a lot of film industry trivia; for instance the film columnists who are based on real people and the scene in which Frances McDormund almost chokes herself to death on a film reel which references an actual person who died whilst their scarf got caught up in a film reel. The films plot is debateable on how legitimate it actually is and does become a little too confusing getting towards the end but the script does allow for some hilariously entertaining scenes. Every actor is on point here but the best in the film are absolutely Alden and Ralph. If you are a big film industry buff you have to check this out but its downfall is definitely in how limited an audience can enjoy this. I enjoyed the film but I must admit it isn’t as consistent as other Coen Brother films and is quite inaccessible but there is definitely some people who will love this film and is probably going to gather a larger cult following later on in its life. 6.4/10

John Goodman definitely gives one of his best performances of his life in 10 Cloverfield Lane. The film has incredible tension that flips back and forth all the way through the film and keeps you very engaged. Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr play their parts well too and you can really get behind them, but it is John Goodman that will chill you to the bone and keep you guessing about where and when he is actually lying. The film is also so different from Cloverfield which is a beautiful contrast: the full scale first person destruction with constant alien attacks and military involvement to a 3 person bunker based claustrophobic film that psychologically messes with you and is more subtle in what it does with the aliens being more of a backdrop for the film. The script overall was written pretty well and cinematography is pretty decent too, but it is definitely Goodman’s performance which keeps the film afloat and interesting. I must say, the ending portion of the film was pretty decent too until it got to a part which seemed totally out of place with the tone of the film, reminding me more of a scene from War of the Worlds; and then the final scene just seemed a bit cheesy and setting up for another sequel. However, I must say that with what they left the film on makes me kind of interested in seeing the sequel as it seems like the tone might be very different again. 10 Cloverfield is definitely a film to check out; it is creepy, well paced, tense and while at some points it may strain your believability (a shower curtain being able to cover a whole body?) the film is well written throughout. 7.2/10

The Witch is a film that whether you love it or hate it you must commend it for its uniqueness and abstraction from typical modern day horror films. The film is similar to ‘The Babadook’ in some respects due to its lack of reliance on jumpscares and more-so on creating an atmospherically creepy feel to the film. It’s 17th century is a breath of fresh air from the majority of current day setting of modern horror films. However, the film trips up in some parts. The acting overall is great, but the best being the children in the film who really anchor the films believability. The unsettling imagery creates this eerie and dismal tone over the film that make you feel like you shouldn’t be watching certain scenes. The Witch itself is an interesting character (Yet rarely seen) as it damages the family in different ways; from straight up kidnap, to seduction, to possession, to murder. It really covers almost every scenario with ease in just 90 minutes. My problem with this film is due to its dialogue. I know they said the dialogue was taken directly from scripts of the time but they really strained my attention with me finding it hard to buy and swallow at times. The film also focused so much on creating this eerie atmosphere so much that it actually kind of forgets to tell a progressive story at times and can feel a bit stagnant at times. I must admire the film for its tone but solely focusing on that made my mind wither at times. Overall the film is a horror film you must see in order to make up your opinion on it. Some people love it and some people hate it, but it has shown the progression of horror films moving away from their monotonous feel of the 21st century. 6/10

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is a mess of a movie to be honest, but it isn’t without a few good sequences are aspects that make it watchable. But to get to the point of this films problem, it is basically just an overlong film with little plot and no coherence to allow itself to be an extended advertisement as to what comes next. We get a bunch of action sequences that are just badly edited and not really fun to watch. The fight with Wonder Woman, Batman and Superman fighting doomsday isn’t fun as you hardly understand who is attacking it, what damage they’re doing and due to the fact they get thrown around so much it becomes nauseating and frustrating to watch. Despite those awful fight sequences, the redeemer of the movie is Batfleck as he plays Bruce Wayne with charm and instability. His take on the Dark Knight is so brutal that it feels fresh even after having Christian Bale do a good job a few years back. His fight sequences are well choreographed and well shot, with the desert sequence showing an awesome spinning shot around Batman taking endless soldiers, and then the warehouse scene in which Batman brutally stabs, shoots and punches people into the ground. One sequences that was still fairly enjoyable was the Batmobile sequence, but the Batmobile itself irritated me. It bounced around way too much that made it look like it was a darker take on a Herbie car due to how it flung around and bounced about. It looked like it belonged in an animated feature. Despite this, Batman was awesome in the film and I’m definitely excited to see a standalone Batman film now. Returning to the negatives, the film has such a drawn out plot that could’ve been condensed into 30 minutes before getting to the fight sequences, It was as if Snyder wanted to do what he did to Watchmen but with no plot. Also, even though Batman V Super man is the title, they literally only fight once in the film and it lasts about 5 minutes maximum and is quite ‘meh’. Straight after that they team up and bros all around. Also I don’t see the hype about Wonder Woman. She seemed pretty cool but with how badly the fight between Doomsday was I didn’t really get the ‘awe’ some other people got. Luckily Gal Gadot played her fine so I don’t have any problems per say with her but Lex Luthor was so miscast. Eisenberg did the best he could with his ability in this film but did not come across convincing at all. Starting every sentence with a high pitched screech doesn’t make you menacing, it makes you unbelievably annoying. Another thing that annoyed me was the Superman fake out death… Twice! This was just awful writing here, we know Superman isn’t going to die so why pretend he gets blown up by a nuke and then pretend he’s dead at the end of the film (which by the way the ending pissed me off too). Like fair enough put one fake out death for maybe a younger audience who aren’t as familiar with Superman or the really gullible idiots who buy that kind of stuff but doing it twice? That’s just pathetic writing to add in a few more minutes of ‘emotion’. All these things annoy me but only one gets deep under my skin. The film is just an advertisement. This is due to Bruce Wayne obtaining LexCorp information and starts going through it. He stumbles across Wonder Womans file and then – cue the epic music – shots of the picture and then a slow zoom on Wayne’s shocked expression. Even the way all the people are lined up in that photo looks like their posing for a promotional poster. Then we move onto every other file on memory stick that Luthor somehow possesses. It shows Cyborg (in an experiment with a random cube with no explanation as to what it is), Flash (no real problems with this clip just this segment makes me not enjoy it) and Aquaman (now I love Jason Momoa after Khal Drogo but the way he slowly comes towards the camera and looks at it looks like he is posing for a promotional). Now this did not give me any excitement, it actually made me sigh. If we are going to get a sneak-peak into the future DC films I’d rather they be little easter eggs, not a whole section that’s a montage of each character with music that makes everyone realise what’s happening. It was so in my face and pissed me right off. There is then at the end of the film Bruce Wayne roughly says [to Wonder Woman] “we must find the rest of them (Justice League) so they can fight with us” to which Wonder Woman replies fight what and Bruce says “something, I’ve got a feeling”. That’s such a **** reason for him to want to find them and did not make me hyped at the end of the film. Overall the film is messy, cluttered and too much of an advertisement for me to really enjoy. Batman is great in the film though and additionaly I must say people can’t complain about this film not having jokes like marvel films. It’s not a Marvel film and DC are known for being darker. But still to summarise, Batman V Superman is a film made for hype but with little substance and hardly any polish to it.

Triple 9 is one film that looks promising at the start, but drops quickly and hardly even attempts to redeem itself. The film stars a Triple A cast of Chiwetel Ejiofor, Aaron Paul, Woody Harrelson, Anthony Mackie, Kate Winslet, Norman Reedus, Casey Affleck and Gal Gadot. Great line up right? So why does this film ****? The film starts off with a rather intriguing bank robbery, which is reasonably well paced. Blood starts pumping and you feel like you’re in for a ride. Then, it ends. Sure this is the set up for the story in a way but there was no indication to the fact that they had gotten away until suddenly they’re all in a car park. The premature end really drops you and only sets up for the films self-destructive path ahead. The film proceeds by splitting the characters up to show the different narratives that are happening so that they can all wind up joining together later on. However, transitions between each story are never made and instead it switches from one narrative to another without any real lead in or link between them. The film becomes a cacophonic amount of events that happen that you never really get a grasp on why they happen or what significance they have; they just happen. The film becomes nauseating to watch because of this, and the criticisms don’t stop there. The characters in the film are hardly ever given any real justice to become interesting, relatable or just understandable for their situations, which coordinates itself into making plain characters that you don’t even care for whether they live or die. Aaron Paul gets type-casted as the problematic junkie and Chiwetel is meant to be the driving force of the film but never really comes across as engaging enough for the audience to care about other than the fact that he has a son which no relationship is ever really built between. Gal Gadot gets literally about 5 minutes of screen time and is used with no taste, and Kate Winslet is just a stone-faced stereotypical Russian mob boss we’ve always seen before. Casey Affleck never really comes across as relatable due to his incessant gum chewing and Woody Harrelson gets no real background to know what kind of character he even is; he is more just there in the film the fill screen time and all his scenes seem jumbled and odd. The main actors that stick out are actually Anthony Mackie, who plays one of the crooked cops and Clifton Colin Jr, who plays his role great in seeming so calm whilst being so involved. Where credit is due however is a section in the middle of the film in which the police storm a building with riot shields to track down a criminal, in which tension is built up well and it seems pretty realistic in how police would raid a house potentially carrying firearms. Overall, the film is drab, pretty miserable and feels incomplete. Not even a phenomenal cast such as exhibited can save a poorly structured and written film. A very unsatisfying and nauseating watch. 3.4/10

Unlike many I tend to not get excited over the Marvel films and their interwoven universes due to their feel and tone all seeming too similar and safe, with no risks being taken; and before viewing I thought Deadpool would be the same sort of thing just with more d**k jokes. But I was wrong. The feel and direction of this film is great, more violent, more consistently funny so it can actually be labelled a comedy and the most comic like adaption of what you’d expect a comic book to look like on screen I’ve seen. From the opening intro scene of what almost feels like a camera zooming round a 3D comic strip to the over the top violence and fight sequences this film has it all. The 4th wall breaks really do help the film as it is a hilarious addition to the film and something else which makes it stand out from the other Marvel monotony. The humour in the film is a real good mix of crude, offensive, meta and visual that blend in a tasty concoction. Ryan Reynolds also extremely surprised me with how well he played the character Deadpool as in the trailers I felt a bit ambivalent towards him, but this film really shows his comedic timing and line delivery for comedies. His character origins were also dealt with in a more interesting way due to the film not being shot in chronological order. The film flies back and forth between Wade Wilson and Deadpool so that it keeps your attention up. All supporting cast are good in their roles but none really stand out against Reynolds. They’re all enjoyable to watch and they do get across the point of who your meant to like and who your meant hate and I suppose that is what they’re there for. The only thing I can say negatively against it was Ed Skrein’s character Francis (or Ajax) who is just a plain bad guy. He is a **** in the film which is what he should be like but there is no layers nor small intricacies to his character that make him a memorable bad guy; he more just comes to be a bad guy Deadpool fights. Overall Deadpool surprised me very much and has made me eager to see a sequel, with its gore and offensive humour it really does stand out. I think everyone should go see this film so we can see more 15 (and hopefully 18) rated films. That’s an R in the U.S. I’m pretty sure. 7.5/10 P.S. Stay until the end, and enjoy the reference 

Room was based on a book that was always going to be up for an Oscar if adapted to screen, but the film didn’t fully hold my attention all the way. The most intriguing and haunting part of the film is the first act within the room. It really nicely builds up the characters and explains their situation nicely along with how they feel about it. The film is kind of narrated by the distorted view of Jack (who I sweaaaar was a girl) and it is interesting to see how he views things, despite his rather irritating but annoyingly understandable tantrums – I couldn’t emapthise with them because I can’t see it from his point of view but I totally understood why he had them which messed me up a little. The film is flowing nicely whist in this room and is shot claustrophobically but also in a way that makes the room seem larger than it is (possibly to adumbrate the girls view of the room whilst only having been living in it alone) and this is a unique directing technique. I applaud this first half. However, as soon as the second half rolls onto the screen it loses its touch and becomes a unwarrantedly at times pessimistic story that has predictable story elements and characters that lose focus. The traumas of the outside world feel vapid and flat compared to the ones of the room, and therefore the film loses its focus. Nevertheless Brie Larson brings a good performance but not as deserving of an Oscar as other nominees, she basically knows when to cry, when to shout and when to be nice and despite doing these well lacks any sort of originality to her role especially in this original kind of script. This does not mean she is bad, just possibly a little over praised that’s all, I did enjoy her role. The child is does a great job especially considering he is a child actor. A unique and for the first half emotionally exhausting film, but saunters and permeates too much in the second and thereby loses focus. Not as strong as his previous film. 6.5/10 P.S. I would’ve really liked a Tommy Wiseau cameo or “The Room” mention in the film. Not appropriate? Probably not bearing in mind the subject matter of the film but still, would’ve made my day.

Been a while since I saw this but when i went to the cinema I thought it would be a haunting and character driven story that would be enchanting to watch. Instead, I got a serious of random instances to "develop" characters along with predictable story lines and an emotionless feel to all characters; I conceded no empathy for them. The film was bland and ends on a skewed note. A real snore fest to be frank, and the positive user feedback is truly bewildering. 3/10

The Revenant is an incredible cinematic journey that really encapsulates you in the insolation and savagery of wilderness, and promotes an endearing message that does not preach itself too heavily. Innuritu has created a vastly different film from his last (Birdman) that really shows his range, in a change from a dialogue heavy to a physical dialogue film in which we feel DiCaprio’s feelings and suffering not through words but through his physicality in the project. Half the film probably isn’t even in English, delving between native Indian and French to really give this feeling of the unknown to the audience. It even shows how the “developed” cultures are more savage than the “underdeveloped” ones with **** and traitors being exposed in their midst. The demonic and biblical imagery dotted throughout the film exposing Fitzgerald’s twisted and distorted take on a sacred religion is a nicely woven in theme along with the Native Indian respect one - which can in turn be woven in and out of each other. DiCaprio does a great job in the physical acting side and we really do get to see a man suffer on screen. It is heart-breaking yet incredible to watch. Hardy on the other hand gets the more dialogue driven acting and does it incredibly well. Everyone has been going on about how great DiCaprio is in this film but really Tom Hardy plays his part just as well if not better. You really come to loathe the man. The direction and cinematography of the film is incredible. The tracking shots really immerse you in the gritty and dirty scenes and makes the battles and action sequences feel alive and not just adapted from a piece of paper. It makes them feel like they were actually captured as they happened. The scene is also the most visceral and scary bear attack scenes I have ever seen, it was impeccably paced and gut-wretchingly brutal. I winced at a few parts of it. Incredible film making, but pacing throughout can wither at times due to lack of dialogue. A beautiful piece of art, with amazing cinematography and poignant messages. 8.5/10

What We Did On Our Holiday is an exceedingly funny comedy that definitely borders on Black Comedy but still tinkers in the realm of being light hearted. It has a very kind of Outnumbered feel to it in which the kids play their innocent, yet brilliantly irritating (to others not the audience) questions and resolutions. The cast provides an exceptional performance both in the way of being dramatically emotional and hysterically funny. The films subject matter is quite bleak and possibly disturbing at times but it portrays it in such a kind of optimistic way and gives of a feel of genuine care towards all the issues the film brings up. Rosamund Pike and David Tennant work brilliantly with each other, Billy Connolly play his typical fun loving and wise role as per usual, Ben Miller plays his role to perfection and the kids easily rival (and probably best) those from Outnumbered. The eldest child however, who has obviously meant to kind of be the moral anchor within all the carnage that was happening, was actually a bit more annoying but that may not have been her fault as she got hardly any of the jokes. Also, due to the fact she seems like she’s trying to act but not really achieving it doesn’t help, but still you can’t really give much hate to child actors. Overall, an incredibly funny black comedy with an optimistic outlook and carefully dealt with subject matter. Definitely something to watch. 8/10

I wasn’t too interested by the trailer of Joy but after watching a small featurette of it on TV I became interested in it due to the directors emphasis on “making interesting and strong characters”. The film sadly did not deliver just that. The film is made up to be told from the Grandma’s point of view, yet her character is hardly developed, and neither is anyone else’s really that much other than Jennifer Lawrence’s. Lawrence does bring an excellent performance here and deserves her Oscar nod but it doesn’t save the film. The writing only allows Lawrence’s character to get any real development or relatability to them, but the writing is also exceedingly flawed. It has Lawrence’s character ping pong between strong female to sobbing and scared mess without any real explanation between her two personas. The characters you’re meant to love are only really Lawrence’s character and her Ex-husband really due to the way they’re written, her dad is a funny addition (brought by a performance by Robert De Niro) but isn’t really fully explained as a character and usually pushed to the side, and the character that you are meant to hate are written in such a one-dimensional way that they are only written in a hateful, non-complex way. The film does still provide some interesting shots and scenes (I specifically enjoyed Bradley Coopers explanation of the Teleshopping market) but it still suffers from convoluted writing and a rather disappointing ending; so much is said to have happened but we more get it as a recap, along with Lawrence’s character then seeming like the typical “I’ve been there so I’m super nice I can help you” character. The film is enjoyable and shows Lawrence’s acting capabilities but still doesn’t come away unscathed of criticism. 6/10

Quentin Tarantino is one of this era’s greatest script writers who usually writes incredibly intricate scripts with quotable dialogue that you’d typically be repeating over and over again after the films first viewing, but The Hateful Eight sadly doesn’t provide such material and therefore is depressingly an unsatisfactory event from the director. The Hateful Eight is undoubtedly set out as a stage play, and this Is a rather cool idea, especially with the 70mm panovision which gives view to the whole “stage” basically portrayed on screen. This provides some rather tasty cinematography, which is better shown in the interior shots rather than the exterior; the latter seeming more like filler shots in a nature documentary. However, whilst performances by the cast is great – not one person brought it down – the dialogue of the film just feels so clunky in retrospect of other Tarantino work, which is devastating. I was watching this film enjoying the visual aspects of the film and also the performances (and humour), but I never came across a section of dialogue that I thought was exceedingly poignant or memorable; not even Samuel L. Jacksons monologue which you’d expect to be something due to previous work. That monologue is a high point in the film but isn’t anywhere near as good as some of his other work. The film also does NOT seem to long, as at no point did I feel bored and want it to finish, but the layout of it is a bit clunky, and I must say that this film does seem a little like a clusterf**k of a lot of Tarantino’s work; it’s almost as if all his films had a fiery orgy and this was what was created from the ashes. Another problem I found was the opening. The score at the beginning was great (as it was throughout the film) but that doesn’t mean they can get away with a few nice wintery shots and a slowly approaching wagon as the opening to excite us. Think about recent efforts; Landa’s opening dialogue swapping between languages to intimidate the farmer, Schultz showing is charming and well-spoken character only to then show his impressive marksmanship and free the slaves, and even going back further to Pulp Fiction’s incredible dialogue on robbing and sudden character change. This film had a nice score to start, but provided nothing else. As I was saying earlier the layout did seem kinda clunky, with some numerical problems getting in the way later on and the back and forth aspect used to explain certain things later just feels cheap. There were some interesting biblical and angelic imagery and symbolism laid out across the films run time which was interesting (one of those being Domergue’s angel wings) that add a unique angle to the film, but it doesn’t elevate the film to Tarantino’s previous levels. All in all, The Hateful Eight is worth the watch to see some good performances, over the top violence (not overused here though) and exceedingly dark comedy, but walking in with certain expectations due to previous work of his you might have may leave you feeling unsatisfied in certain fields. A good film but just not as realised as his other work. 6.5/10

I am going back and reviewing all Tarantino films i have watched in conjunction with Hateful 8 release. I found this film easier to watch as it had more of a focus on the dialogue of the film than the action sequences and it just seemed paced better. I still wasn't feeling too involved with the characters and was a bit ambivalent to the story probably because of its odd comic tone but i nevertheless enjoyed this film more. 6/10

I am going back and reviewing all Tarantino films i have watched in conjunction with Hateful 8 release. Sadly i don't really think this film ever clicked with me. I can see some good dialogue but i think at times the acting soundtrack and direction can at times make the film seem to comic-like and it just takes away from me. The fight sequences are pretty incredible and some shots are well made but this film seems like a sour taste sadly in my mouth. 5.5/10

I am going back and reviewing all Tarantino films i have watched in conjunction with Hateful 8 release. Django Unchained has to brilliant sections with some of Tarantino's most cinematic direction and cinematography, and even blends some even more obvious comedic moments into the mix. The film also provides Foxx and Waltz in two great roles and despite Waltz being the good guy this time you can't help but feel you've visited his character before, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The first act of the film is in some ways kind of like a buddy cop film, with Foxx and Waltz bouncing off each other well and going round together making things right, and then the second act is more focused on the mission of DiCaprio who brings one of his best yet most sinister performances to the screen. The films writing ends it in a blood bath which seems ridiculous but is still enjoyable to watch as an over the top Tarantino film. 8/10

I am going back and reviewing all Tarantino films i have watched in conjunction with Hateful 8 release. Right from the get go Tarantino goes full steam ahead with possibly his best scene in any of his movies, and from then we know we're gettng a treat. The build is well done and Waltz is a sight to behold. Brad Pitt brings an absolutely over the top performance but he helps the comedy in this film move along. The film isn't as powerful as some previous works but is still a hell of a watch. 8/10

I am going back and reviewing all Tarantino films i have watched in conjunction with Hateful 8 release. Reservoir dogs is one of the best debut films to ever be made. It is bank robbery film that doesn't rely on making a spectacle of the robbery but instead having it take place in the aftermath of a robbery in a warehouse with intense suspense due to the robbers trying to figure out who the snitch is. The chemistry is brilliant on screen and this film first highlights Tarantino's brilliant writing style. 9/10

I am going back and reviewing all Tarantino films i have watched in conjuction with Hateful 8 release. Pulp Fiction is one of my favourite films of all time. It combines great acting, incredible directing, elements of dark comedy, impeccable dialogue and is shot in achronology to make this one of the most rewatchable and quotable films of all times. A cinematic achievement. 10/10

The Purge starts of with a very very interesting premise, and is incredibly unique in the fact with the way the lead "protagonists" see this purge and talk about it like it is water cooler chat. However, the film descenda into cliche horror moments and a very unsatisfying ending in which you can see every "twist" coming. Performances are good from Headey and Hawke but the boy is actually pretty frustrating and I lacked and enpathu towards him even though i knew I should have some. So the film started off round about a 7.5/10 but just slowly dropped. So i must credit it for it's unique premise but sloppy writing pulled it down into a mediocre, cliche ridden watch. 5/10

Due to the last collaboration with Ferrel and Wahlberg i was actually quite liked the other guys, but Daddy's Home is a pretty awfully written mess. The jokes don't really come in until the second half of the film as the film spends too much time on the premise of the film but hardly any time on the jokes of the film. The jokes on that matter are also pretty lame, with only a few making me mildly laugh. The direction of the film is also off and no real chemistry is felt within the casts, with the film just fluctuating it's character plot lines in different directions all over the place and just making the viewing nauseating. On the plus side Thomas Haden Church (Leo Holt) and Hannibal Buress (Griff) were actually the funniest parts of the film, playing their parts pretty well despite being minor characters. Overall this film is a major let down and not really worth the watch, which i am quite sad to say. A film to see if there's nothing else on or if it perhaps pops up on tv. 3/10

I don't typically like musicals so I have a bit of a bias, but the film is mostly well shot, and the singing is pretty solid overall. Some good comedic moments but I still can't fully engage with a story on screen when they're all singing. I appreciate the artistry here, but it just isn't for me sadly. 6.5/10

The humour is for the most part poor, and acting performances are overall weak. Nick Frost has his funny moments but the characters your supposed to care about are more ambivalent ones to you. Must say though, Alex Esmail was brilliant in this film, he really has some comedic chops. The film provides a look into underprivileged teenagers of the U.K. and how they are review by the outer oublic which is interesting, but the material around the main subject matter is weak and sadly doesn't provide much substance.

This film redeemed the bond Craig era with an enigmatic villain, great action set pieces and some beautiful cinematography to finish it off. Javier Bardem kills it in this film, and the ending act is one of Bond's best, and most emotional. Back on track with Craig Bond here.

This film absolutely butchered the Bond franchise. So many cuts the action sequences are nauseous to watch and don't capture you at all. The villains here are also completely unmemorable and cast horribly. The plot is something that almost becomes strung onto the movie last minute and everything about it is plain and boring. I actually seriously struggle watching this film. Awful.

Gritty, realistic and a superb mixture of action and suspense, this is perhaps one of the best Bond films. True, the best parts are the start and the casino portion of the film onward, but Daniel Craig's engaging performance as the blonde Bond is truly breathtaking. Excellently cast villain as well.

Grand Piano is a very well done thriller that keeps you watching closely for the hints at what is really going on, but doesn't even really fully hint at it until the last scene. It's still a good film with a good performance from Elijah Wood and bleak outcomes for most of his co stars, but I felt like John Cusack was the wrong pick for the intimidating sniper. Good thriller nevertheless.

JJ Abrams has delivered an absolute blast of a film with The Force Awakens, which is admittedly a film with flaws, but an incredible ride for any Star Wars fan to behold and possibly one of the greatest in the franchise now. PRO’S First off I must admit I was sceptical about John Boyega from watching the trailers, but I actually found him a highly enjoyable watch, being able to infuse comedy into the film and still hold his own in more serious scenes. But whilst Boyega does a good job, Adam Driver absolutely kills it as Kylo Ren, bringing sheer and unchiselled menace to the screen, absolutely dominating any other actors with his presence and still yet being able to bring a sense of humanity to him. Driver has made possibly one of the best Star Wars villains, but we’ll have to see how he progresses through the next 2 entries. The Nostalgia is also palpable and surprisingly well executed, giving you goose bumps and not bombarding you with every single reference they can think of. The Visual effects and practical effects (yes they actually have sets in this film) are of high quality and really immerse you in this universe, with its new additions and its familiar ones. The set pieces in the film are exceedingly exciting to watch, especially the lightsaber battle at they end. The fighting is certainly grittier and faster paced, but luckily not stepping into the silly speed domain of Yoda/Dooka fights. The overall pace of the film is incredibly executed well, picking up at the exact right moments and slowing for others, and with the film starting off with a kickass scene and still giving us time to get to know the characters quickly. The humour in TFA is actually a very nice addition to the film, actually genuinely bringing laughs at times (one scene with BB-8 bringing out many laughs), although at some times the humour seems a little out of context with the Star Wars universe, but it is still ultimately enjoyable. The surprises the film brings also are actually pretty well done also and work effectively, even when you can kind of see them coming, they’re all done well, despite all the speculation beforehand. The Story also has a very dark tone, similar to Episode 5 which is great, and balances it great between the comedy and lighter moments of the film. I also loved the Hierarchy in which the First Order was made, not making Kylo Ren seem fully powerful and being treated the way he probably should be for how volatile he is. The film is actually an incredible set up for future episodes and ends perfectly and conclusively which makes you hyped for the next episode. UNSURE’S To be straight up, the story is so close to being the same as the original trilogy’s but there is still enough kind of layers added onto this films that it kind of gets away with it, but to be honest you don’t care too much as the execution of the film is great, but it is noticeable. This is something that I found a lot of people didn’t agree with me, but I thought Daisy Ridley started off a little rusty. Her line deliveries felt very stale and something about her demeanour on screen came across a little annoying. Despite this she does improve through the running time and by the end I found her a likeable character, but I still preferred Finn (Boyega). However, chemistry between the two is good and feels pretty genuine. CON’S Sadly, I found that Oscar Isaac’s Poe Dameron was terribly underused, as he seemed like an awesome character and Isaac put up a good performance as we know he’s a good actor, and so we certainly wish we could see more of him. Captain Phasma who was hyped up quite a bit prior to the release was also horrendously underused, even more so than Poe, and literally only appears at the start and at a rather insignificant part of the film later on, which makes her just feel like a creation made for selling toys. Lastly, my final complaint (out of a surprising few) is the scene just after Han Solo is introduced again. The scene include these aliens that I can’t remember the name of (Ranthids?) and a bunch of cannon fodder for them that arrive just on time that just seemed forced and added to try have another action sequence in it, and I wasn’t too sure about the design of the alien either. Overall, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a resounding success with a few minor blips that hardly detract from the experience of it. It sets up brilliantly for the new trilogy and showcases an incredible cast of actors with a brilliant amount of action. Star Wars is back, and this one has a high midichl--- naaah just kidding, f**k that, the force is just motherf**king strong in this one. 8.5/10

One of my favourite films of all time. This film contains excellent performances, incredible cinematography, insane tracking shots and a story that is tense and well written that it keeps you feeling stressed for the characters all the way through. Alfonso Cuaron created an under appreciated masterpiece here that is one of the best underrated films ever. I would recommend this to literally anyone. If anyone wants to know one of the reasons this is one of my favourite films ever, just watch the car tracking shot. You'll know which one I mean.

Now this might stir some controversy but I’m going to say it anyway; I enjoyed The Good Dinosaur more than Inside Out. Now let me explain. TGD has a far more typical and formulaic plot and premise to what was happening which is why it may not have been seen as highly as Inside Out due to that having its original premise, but TGD’s is far more fully realised and executed better. I found the film was more emotional, with the reason for the events of the film taking place actually making me a bit upset due to how well they executed it. Albeit this, the film has more laughs per minute than Inside Out and hits its jokes well. The film is oddly a bit more mature, with a hysterical but rather worrying drug trip sequence and even Dinosaurs eating other Dinosaurs on screen. I mean WHAT THE F**K…. a kid bites off a bugs head. It’s savage and kinda shocking but also makes you laugh at how unexpected it is! I think this adds a more serious tone over the film which is why it is a PG but it is still definitely a kids film. I mean look at it like this kids aren’t stupid; if they like Dinosaurs or know anything about Dinosaurs then they know they eat each other. Don’t undermine then and speak on behalf of them saying they will not enjoy that. Now, the animation in this film is by far the best Pixar have ever released. Everything almost looks real, with photorealistic water and focus shots that really make it a cinematic marvel to be honest. The characters in the film are all pretty quirky too, and really offer up some loveable and memorable ones that add to the film. I also prefer the character design to Inside Out’s, as I found them a bit too glittery and fluffy In animation. Either way, both films are great, but I think TGD is the better one really as it seriously takes risks and gets rewarded for it. I would like to see more from Peter Sohn at Pixar, he really has a good eye for things and the writers did a great job. Additionally, I must say I think the ending was played on between the two main characters a little too much, but hardly detracts from the rest of this films charm. I will round my score up as I think it deserves it. Check this one out!! 8.5/10

I don’t usually go see these kinds of films so maybe there is already a slight bias in me but to be honest I did see some good qualities about this film. Acting is good from the two main leads and the chemistry between them is believable. It moves off fast and then keeps a reasonably steady pace, but it seems to drop a bit towards the third act which is odd as that is when the main premise of the film comes into effect. Set and costume design really immerse you in the time and place of the films settings. I did find the reason for why Eilis became confused between two men rushed and not too fully established along with it being a little too quickly resolved, and also bringing a lack of Domhnall Glesson; who did not get used properly. Overall the film is a nice tale of a love triangle that only becomes evident in the third act that does have its emotional moments and strong points, but is still flawed. A worthwhile watch for the most part. 6.0/10

Bridge of Spies exactly why we love a Spielberg/Hanks combo. This cold war thriller is perfectly paced, with great witty dialogue thanks to the mastery of the Coen Brothers and incredible acting from Hanks and Rylance. Spielberg takes some great shots in this film, really capturing the essence of the cold war time period; but he does make a few choices that I get annoyed with. First off, the lens flare in this film seems unneeded and forced upon the viewer almost as badly as a JJ Abrams Star Trek film, and Spielberg picked a far too sappy ending to what could’ve been left earlier and not made so forcefully happy towards the end. Also, whilst Hanks chemistry with Rylance is brilliant, his chemistry with his wife in the film is not so brilliant. They just don’t seem natural together. This is a solid, well-paced and extremely well written thriller and is definitely one people should go see. The dialogue is definitely what keeps it flowing, so big props to Coen Brothers. 8.0/10

Villenueve is an incredible director. With an astonishing opening that’s gritty and visceral, and bringing incredible foreshadowing with the motes of dust you can see why people are pumped about this film. The gore is brief but effective. The violence is covered and not made to excite, but is extremely effective. Denis shows how insignificant a good person can be in a male dominated world full of deceit and wrong doing. He shows we run in a cycle, and if you change something for the ‘better’, things always end up worse. In a way he shows chaos theory. Emily Blunt is a great character but it is Benicio Del Toro who is the biggest star of this, and in one scene with him towards the end of the film he had 75% of the audience in my cinema gasp. An incredible film, although personally I’d say I enjoyed Prisoners a tad more. 7.9/10

Spectre is admittedly an underwhelming and unsatisfying watch that is filmed with Bond fandom to try keep die-hard fans interested. Still a far better watch than QoS, it is far inferior to Casino Royale and Skyfall. The opening tracking shot of the day of the dead Mexico setting feels like a clear but lovely hint of foreshadowment for a hopefully depressing and dark instalment of the Bond franchise, but it doesn’t lead up to anything. The action sequence here is relatively entertaining, and is shot well with a few bits of added comedy but fails in comparison to CR and Skyfall. From here on out with have too much half assed moments. A car chase which isn’t exciting but more made for comedy, an Oberhauser (Waltz) who is horrendously under used, a menacing bad guy (Bautista) who is like the Darth Maul of Bond villains, and action set pieces which are trying to be big but don’t really excite. The plane sequence down the mountain is actually quite boring to be honest, and the train fight is pretty cool but just doesn’t end well; you can easily see what’s going to happen. The relationship between Bond and Seydoux’s character also seems rushed, forced and unbelievable, and to top things off the final sequence of the film is just such a punch below the gut, wholly unsatisfying. Even certain deaths of this film (almost all) are just underwhelming and not memorable, it’s like their deaths were written in as an after-thought in the script to get them out of the way. Daniel Craig is still pretty charming as Bond in this film but still he can’t save the film. Also, Monica Bellucci’s character was completely dumped as soon as she was introduced, asking the question why did they promote her when they announced the cast if she has about 2 minutes of screen time. A very unsatisfying end for Daniel Craig to go out as Bond. Hopefully he will return just one more time. 4.9/10

Steve Jobs is a far superior attempt than Ashton Kutchers rendition of the man, but is still not that powerful a movie. First of the pros. Michael Fassbender completely embodies Jobs, showing what an incredible actor he is and proving he can emulate anyone. Supporting cast is also incredibly good as well, with Seth Rogen giving a surprisingly good performance. One scene between Rogen and Fassbender – that of which takes place in an Orchestra pit – is an incredible piece of confrontation that encapsulated me. However, the films set up is what bores. The film takes place in 3 different buildings during 3 of Jobs’ biggest commercial releases. The first one has you hooked on believing you are watching a great movie, with incredible dialogue and last moving scenes that really build up on what Jobs was like. However, after act one has ended the next 2 acts carry out in exactly the same fashion, with a mainly disappointing and boring effect. You feel like you’re watching the same scene over again. Also, some of Danny Boyle’s directing choices were so odd and out of places, with at times bringing in CSI inspired miniature flashback/realisations that felt completely out of place with the rest of the film. Some of his choices really bewildered me. Overall, the film starts of well but grinds itself down into tedium. Fassbender remains incredible throughout however, and supporting cast add greatly (although I must admit I found Winslet a little underwhelming, she more just always seemed to be there) to the film but you can’t help on the fact Danny Boyle picked a repetitive view point on Jobs’ life. Excellent performances, odd choice of direction. Script is good, but also exceedingly repetitive. 5.0/10

Macbeth is a visually stunning film with all kinds of glamour, yet is still a rather morose watch. The imagery and cinematography is incredible, especially the final fight scene with an unrecognisable Scotland, almost looking like something out of a sci-fi movie. The acting is incredible, both Fassbender and Cotillard showing incredible performances. Sean Harris comes across trying a bit too hard, with more guttural sounds coming from him than intelligible dialogue. The film in very, very short is a visual masterpiece, with excelled performances. Dialogue is tough but well delivered with gravitas from characters. Sadly, the morose feel of the film can leave you sitting agitated during the viewing. Fight scenes are more works of art in this film, as this film is a moving piece of art work. Worth the watch, but be prepared to understand about 40% of dialogue on the first viewing if you are not familiar with the play or style of writing. 6.2/10

Krampus is a reasonably enjoyable little gem that keeps you laughing in an unconventional way. I must admit I was sad to see that the blend of horror/comedy is not very fluid, as it mainly just takes the shape of a comedy film with a few horror parts and doesn’t take enough of the horror and fully realises it. The film does however have a great cast and does not take itself too seriously. They have created characters you can actually sympathise with, that come across with plausibility and ludicrousness in an awesome blend. The comedy in this film is fairly solid all the way through, but the changes from horror to comedy can seem like pretty sharp turns at times. Albeit this, you can see that the film does not take itself too seriously, with one particular gingerbread men scene being hysterically and obviously a prime example of it. Imagery of the film is pretty damn nice too in the film, with a nice method of directing to keep a slight eerie sense over the film yet also a prominent comedy feeling. The use of practical effects really lends itself to the charm of the film also, with the CGI not over burdening the film. Overall this film is a nice little unique gem to watch. It may not get everything right in terms of horror and at times pacing (I found a lot of the times it slow for set-up/exposition to allow comedy to seep in before horror) but it brings its characters to life and ends nicely, unlike almost every horror film nowadays. A worthwhile watch, check Krampus out! 6.4/10

Tom Hardy is an absolute powerhouse in Legend and definitely shows an Oscar worthy role. But the film is not without its flaws. The film for the most part more just seems like a continuous amalgamation of instances for Hardy to show off his chops and to focus on him and him only rather than giving an insight into the actual Kray twins. The film doesn’t fully go into any real depth about what they were doing around that time and how they got away with so much, it is more just little mentions here and there as to what is happening and then back to Hardy being a badass in two roles at once. The film felt more like a chronicle of Tom Hardy rather than Kray twins. Does this make the film bad though? NOT AT ALL. The film is fantastic to watch and Tom Hardy alone (and again) makes the viewing captivating, showing he is one of the greatest actors around right now. The realisation that he has chemistry with himself on screen where other actors in other films struggle to have any chemistry at all is truly jaw dropping. You can almost believe you are watching two different actors. Hardy plays Reggie with such charisma and charm that you can’t help but be encapsulated by him as a person and watch him unfold on screen whereas Hardy playing Ronald is a whole other level. Volatile and explosive, with no clue of what is going on and an outrageous sense of unintentional humour you can’t help but love (and fear) Ronald. And that is the other thing that makes Legend great. The dark humour is so lovingly layered throughout the film that you find yourself laughing non-stop at some scenes. This, added in with some great symbolism, great dialogue and superb direction (with some brilliant tracking shots) make for a brilliant Hardy piece. So all in all, Legend shows an exceptional Tom Hardy at his best, but doesn’t offer enough material on The Krays as it should. Well worth the watch. 6.5/10

Much hype has been built up over the past few months for ‘Crimson Peak’ due to it supposedly being Guillermo Del Toro’s “passion project”. This in addition with the saturation of good horror films in the film industries current form, there was plenty of reason to be excited for this feature. As I wander down the aisle in my routinely fashion, picking my middle/back portion area of seating to sit in as tradition along with my large salted popcorn and vitamin water that have almost become synonymous with me and the cinema, I feel like I have foreshadowed what I could only presume would be a typical formulaic horror plot, sticking to the “contemporary” tradition. However I was wrong: and perhaps like others mislead. First to understand, this is NOT a horror film: despite being labelled so. It is a Gothic Romance film. Secondly, it is not a ghost film, it is more of a romantic mystery with ghosts in it. Neither of these are specifically horror. As the films sets off you can see a considerable amount of time has been put into set and costume design. Del Toro loves immersing his audience in the feeling of when his films are set like in 2006’s ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’, and that is no different here in Crimson Peak. There is also a nice mention between which the film takes its inspiration from: Wuthering Heights and The House of Mirth being the two obvious ones which can all be seen not only due to Edith’s name but by the Emily Bronte conversation on the stairwell. The Film has its scary moments sparsely spread out over the film and so you can feel safe for the majority of the run time. They are mainly atmospheric but a few cheap jump-scares, but also a few effective ones. The cinematography of the film is eye popping and looks gorgeous, and only add to the films scares. Chastain brings a lot of the creepiness to the set – in fact more than the ghosts – as she delivers an excellent performance here as Lucille. The acting in the film is for the best part good, Chastain being brilliant, Wasikowska doing a good job but sparring well with Chastain, and Hiddleston surprisingly being the worst. He is good in the film, but he is a step down from what the two lead actresses bring. The film also has some gruesome violence but they are very infrequent, making them seem even more disgusting than they are. They are visceral and brutal, and you can’t help but watch on at the savagery. The twist however in the film was for too obvious and the plot for the most part was a bit too formulaic, you could constantly see where it was going. Some clunky exposition is also given over a tape recorder which was all too convenient. The fact though that the film was advertised as a horror and not a gothic romance could however make the plot seem more interesting as people wouldn’t expect it, which is both parts an admirable and cheap marketing tactic by Del Toro. The last act of the film takes an unexpected turn however and turns in a Danny Boyle ‘Sunshine’ movie, with the tone changing completely into a slasher flick. It feels out of place but to be honest, it is executed well and can’t be complained about too much. All in all the film had good performances, beautiful visuals, a mediocre plot but plenty of material to chew on. A decent effort but definitely not delivering what was expected. And let’s not forget, this film isn’t a horror. 6.5/10