The true story of Richard and Mildred Loving who fought for their marriage to be recognised in there home of Virginia where interracial marriage was still outlawed. The case catches the attention of the ACLU and some ambitious lawyers who push it all the way to the Supreme Court where it challenges the very foundations of American society.
​
The story is told almost entirely from the perspectives of the Lovings which gives us this curious outsiders look on the bigger picture as Richard and Mildred aren’t marching on the capital they just want to live their lives. It’s also interesting to see their lawyers, who whilst on the right side of history are clearly viewing this as a once in a lifetime career opportunity they can’t afford to let slip through their fingers.

It’s a strange almost cynical look at the whole issue and it’s actually kind of interesting to see this kind of story told without being grandiose about the matter or leaning too heavily on the message. It sort of grounds it, we’re just looking at people who want to be themselves and why shouldn’t they be able to? It’s surreal that this happened not that long ago.
​
Unfortunately just because something is historically interesting doesn’t necessarily make it dramatically interesting, and whilst it would be wrong to inject a load of fake drama into such a serious story, after the initial set up the Lovings pretty much just go about their lives whilst all the more interesting civil rights issues happen somewhere else.

This is entirely fair to the story, the Lovings weren’t superheroes, they were humble people who wanted what was fair. The impact that would have on the country is more of a background detail. But as I say this doesn’t make for a particularly thrilling narrative, even the local sheriff who is set up as their antagonist in the beginning of the film just disappears from the story about halfway through and we’re left with a lot of tension that never actually amounts to anything.

​I have to say that I found myself wanting to like this film more than I did, though don’t dismiss the film entirely, it is a very important story beautifully told with some powerfully subtle performances from Ruth Nega and Joel Edgerton who completely draw in your sympathies. So it’s kind of average but it’s on the high end of average, and historical significance aside it’s ultimately a really sweet story of love conquering all that deserves to be told.

And therein lies the bulk of the issue with 'The Purge: Election Year'. Despite a promising concept, the film - as well as the franchise at large - is unable to fully live up to that potential, offering moments of brilliance amid a sea of wasted opportunity and unanwered questions that threaten to open gaping plot-holes. Why, when all crime is legal, do people only focus on murder? Would having a 12-hour Purge once a year really allow people to curb their psychotic urges? If crime is legal, why does everybody wear masks? Why do Purgers not go for each other? Were those annoying female characters actually of school age and why did they drive around in the most conspicuous car ever?

With Election Year, James DeMonaco clearly tried to inject the level of humour and satire people called for as vehemently as they called for a broader spectrum of chaos after the original film, most of it feels tacked on and goes nowhere. The rest of it has a hit or miss ratio that would put numerous baseball players out of work. There is an attempt at a message, but far too much of it is lost beneath the violent - as well as haunting - visuals that they seem to be trying to rally against.

The inclusion of Edwin Hodge from the first two films, finally given a name here, will try to convince you that there was a plan the whole time, but behind the smoke and mirrors lies a constant state of course-correction. As such, the franchise could - and most likely will - outlive us all. Whether it actually should though is no doubt a question that will be on most people's minds upon leaving the cinema, especially given how neatly Election Year could serve as the solid conclusion.

In cinemas now!

Let me remind you, this is basically a bad film. What it seemed like we’d be getting is a creepy character piece around James McAvoy switching personalities at least one of whom decided to kidnap some girls and all have their own motivations and drives, and we get that a bit but really he’s a background character. This is Casey’s survival horror story and he’s little more than the monster in the dark most of the time. That being said, McAvoy's performance is fantastic. The personalities we meet are all essentially villains, there’s potential for conflict between them and watching McAvoy switch between is brilliant, especially mid-scene, but none of it has much in the way of purpose.

And once McAvoy finally becomes The Beast it’s kind of silly. Watching him scurry about growling and crawling up the walls like a drunk lizard is arguably much less terrifying than the previous intensity of OCD paedophile Dennis or the underlying sinister nature of calm collected controlling Patricia. Even unpredictable Hedwig, a boisterous nine year old, comes across as more of a threat.

Unfortunately I can’t explain why this underwhelming film has me itching to go see it a second time without spoiling the final twist and if it’s spoiled it might not work. Like I said it changes the entire premise of the movie from top to bottom and until I get round to seeing 'Split' a second time I won’t know if the twist was worth it, but after the first viewing I’m conflicted to say the least.

Indeed, we’re introduced to our Queens-born Holocaust scholar heroine through her daily life: running, feeding her cat, teaching a few students about the holocaust on a sun kissed American campus... I was slowly reminded of 1990s TV movies and other “spag bol” films of the era (spag bol film: you know exactly what’s going to happen, when and how, yet you’ll eat it because of those comfortably recognisable ingredients, even at the risk of your stomach bursting with what eventually will feel like lead). As I wasn’t very familiar with Mick Jackson’s work, I looked him up and discovered extensive TV experience, but not that many films. Bingo. The film soon jumped to her first confrontation with Irvine, suddenly flirting with the documentary genre…to then skip to the beginning of the legal procedure, leaving me very uncertain as to what I was watching.

That being said, once the plot moved to London (with a stop in Auschwitz), it seemed to settle into a form (something between a high end TV movie and cinematic memoirs/diary, the latter making sense given the book it’s adapted from), I became pleasantly hooked. There is more than one reason for this. First and foremost, I fell in love with Tom Wilkinson’s performance as Richard Rampton, the London barrister defending Lipstadt. This may also be the most interestingly written character in the story: a subtle blend of quintessentially British toughness, quiet passion, and heart warming affability. Wilkinson played all brilliantly. Equally captivating was Andrew Scott as solicitor Anthony Julius, who was already famous at the time for taking care of Princess Diana’s divorce.

​On the subject of barristers and solicitor, seeing the British legal system presented from an American perspective was something I’d never seen on screen before, and thus most welcome.
This aspect was also linked to what truly got me hooked and gives the film’s title a double meaning: once in London, the heroine’s journey and her conflicts became clear. Due to British law, Lipstadt and her legal team are forced to prove the holocaust happened, using facts and logic only. No witnesses. Nothing spoken. And thus Lipstadt must keep quiet at all costs, deny the holocaust survivors the opportunity to speak in court, and put her entire career and beliefs in the hands of a foreign legal team she barely knows. Parallely, she must face a surprising response from the Jewish community in London when she attempts to raise funds for the case.

Being an ensemble piece centred around the lives of a variety of characters who all live within 100 streets of each other it would likely take the entire length of this review to fully explain everything that is going on in this movie but the short version is as follows. Max (Idris Elba) is a former rugby superstar whose marriage to Emily (Gemma Arterton) is on the rocks and he’s not taking it well. Kingsley (Franz Drameh) is a low level street hood looking for a way out of a life he never really fit into in the first place; and George (Charlie Creed-Miles) is a black cab driver whose life is turned upside down one fatal day on the road.

These are our central characters whose lives intermingle in large and small ways as their stories play out. Kingsley makes a friend in Terence (Ken Stott) who is an old friend of Emily and helps to put him on a better path. Max’s attempts to get his life together end up sending him even further down the rabbit hole, whilst the life George and his wife have worked so hard to achieve seems to slip further and further away as he descends into his own little pit of despair.

There’s a general theme of redemption and struggle, though played out in very different ways through the stories of each of our heroes. Ensemble pieces are harder to pull off than you might think, they are more than just a series of short stories strung together, what makes a good story doesn’t necessarily make for a good ensemble. What I’m saying here is I’m not entirely sure this film works.
​
Each story works great, the cast really engage, even those with a limited screen time, but ultimately I feel like I’d rather have seen each of them in their own movie. It’s a weird criticism to say that the movie doesn’t work because I like the story but that’s kind of the way it is. The thread connecting our heroes is so very weak that it almost doesn’t exist at times, in fact I’m not a hundred percent sure how George even connected to the others now that I think back on it.

And part of the problem is that you kind of keep waiting for this connecting moment and when it doesn’t pay off it’s something of a disappointment, even though the film didn’t promise or particularly need it. It’s a just quirk of this kind of movie, I’m watching three stories I like but why do we have to keep chopping between them, I’d rather enjoy them one at a time so I can really take each one in.
​
In addition because they’re sharing screen time we do end up a little with just the broad strokes of the narrative. Not many of the characters have time to just breathe and be themselves, they have a limited number of scenes so they have to pack in the important plot points and leave us to just assume each one got resolved in-between those moments whilst we were watching something else happen. That being said what we get is strong and there’s plenty to sink your teeth into.

So it’s good but it’s not great, a fairly average example of the style and whilst the cast are selling the hell out of it some may struggle to get immersed in the bullet point presentation of the characters lives. You’ll feel for them but it’s unlikely to stick with you once you leave the theatre.

I’m going to start off, instead of my usual summary, by saying that I don’t get this film. I understand what it was about and I followed it, I even enjoyed it, but I don’t understand what it’s supposed to be. Seemingly a documentary it feels weirdly staged a lot of the time and events tend to play out a little too conveniently, meaning it’s too structured to feel like a documentary but not structured enough to feel like it isn’t. Conversations sometimes feel like they’ve been set up, in fact Julie (our lead) even says this at one point, accusing the director of ambushing her with a fake scenario.

In addition it seems to have a very specific audience. Nothing particularly interesting happens and there doesn’t seem to be much of a message or point to the proceedings, which helps add to the confusion of whether or not the film is fake or real. But having said all that negativity, I did actually enjoy this movie and found myself oddly compelled by the story it was telling. It’s far from a classic but I was never bored.

From what I’ve managed to gleam the film is partly staged but mostly the true life story of Julie, a professional British nanny who goes out to work for a wealthy family in the United Arab Emirates. British nannies are quite popular out there, though whether there’s a practical reason for that or if they’ve just seen Mary Poppins too many times is unclear (you kind of suspect a British nanny is a status symbol more than anything).

Julie joins a large family of six children who don’t really have any kind of structure to their lives and is told by the parents to figure out how to fix this. The parents then wander off into the background and remain curiously distant from the proceedings, and though they seem like perfectly nice people and loving parents, it’s fair to say they aren’t naturals at the whole parenting thing. Anyway, with six kids to control, a new culture to get familiar with and a distant family always on her mind Julie has no choice but to dive right in.
​
As I said, this is an odd film. It’s doesn’t look especially compelling on the surface unless you are specifically interested in the subject matter and the design is more than a little jarring with the curiously scripted opening at the office of the agency that sends the nannies around the world and the even more bizarrely random appearance of a social media superstar during a family outing.

But as someone who knew basically nothing about what I was about to see, when I went in to this movie I found it pretty interesting. The problem may be that everything is a little out of focus. The culture clash is there, but it feels like the films not really about that. The role of a nanny and the relationship with the rest of the house staff is there, but it feels like the films not really about that. There’s some conflict with the kids, but it feels like the films not really about that. I suppose this is where the movie is clearly a documentary, after all something exciting can’t be filmed unless something exciting happens, but without a targeted focus we just sort of meander about with no real purpose and it shows at times.

Ultimately the film is about anything and everything in this 'Nanny Culture' so the story spreads itself a little thin perhaps. Like I say, I don’t really know what this movie is, but I enjoyed learning about the world it was set in and felt genuinely attached to Julie and the family by the end of it. There’s certainly messages and lessons on multiculturalism and class structure that can be taken from this story and it’s all very fascinating, but again, it feels like the film isn’t really about that.

Melanie (Sennia Nanua) lives happily in a secure bunker with a gang of other children. They are watched over by soldiers who make sure the children are locked in their rooms or strapped securely into wheelchairs whenever they leave them to attend classes. Despite Melanie’s cheerful disposition the only time the children seem to have any relief is in the classes of Miss Justineau (Gemma Arterton) when she interrupts the curriculum to read them fantastical stories of greek mythology and the like.
​
However, Miss Justineau’s emotional attachment to the children is frowned up on by the strict Sgt Parks (Paddy Considine) and cold clinical Dr Caldwell (Glenn Close) who view the children as monsters and test subjects respectively. You see the country (or perhaps the world, I don’t think it was ever fully explained) has turned into a dystopian nightmare that is linked to these children in some way and the bunker is one of the last safe places, but not for long.

What’s really going on here is not exactly an intricate mystery, and I’m fairly sure it’s been spoiled by the trailers and advertising (plus it’s based on a book so the story is out there), but there’s an interesting reveal and build up through the course of the movie that’s fun to see even if you know where it’s going. Suffice to say this is a zombie movie, sort of, with a unique feel and surprisingly original plot considering the genre.

That being said we do largely end up plodding through the zombie movie checklist, ticking off set pieces one by one, to the point where at times it starts to overshadow the originality. We sort of have a very unique and a very cliche story playing out at the same time, fighting over each other for screen time, and frankly I thought it was a bit of a mess. The bits I liked I really liked, but the rest was the same old same old and I can find better scares and better action in other similar movies easily.

The characters work well together, they really endear themselves to you and their arcs feel natural, helped of course by the fantastic cast, and the ambiguity of the hero/villain dynamic is much deeper than you would normally get in this kind of movie, it will genuinely make you think. But clever as it is I can’t help but feel the movie could have been more even though I can’t put my finger on what exactly I mean by that. More stylised perhaps, more world building, I don’t know it just felt like the movie was missing something, not quite reaching it’s potential.
​
Without any spoilers the film starts to go a bit Lord of the Flies at one point and I think I’d rather have seen that play out than the atypical survival story of the name cast.

Tonally I didn’t think the film held together, I was never entirely on anyone’s side and wasn’t always clear when scenes were supposed to be happy or sad not really knowing whose motivations I was supposed to be sympathising with, which goes double for the ending as I’m really not sure what the movie wanted me to feel about that. There’s a fine line between ambiguity and confusion and I feel this story is horribly balanced upon it.

So a unique and interesting story trapped in the confines of one of the least unique and interesting genres to create a weird hybrid of the two. It’s a good film, a horror film for people who aren’t particularly into horror films you could say, which should be ringing my bell but for whatever reason it didn’t quite draw me all the way in.

In 1999 Heather Donahue set out with a camera man and sound recordist into the forest of Maryland in search of the Blair Witch and none of them were ever seen again. Today (I assume we’ve moved forward to present day, the camera equipment has certainly been upgraded) her brother believes she is alive in the woods thanks to some shaky footage that has cropped up on YouTube and sets out to wander the woods looking for her despite how stupid that plan clearly is.

Luckily for us his friend Lisa has decided to make a documentary about it and with two other friends in tow they set out into the woods to find the mysterious house where the first movie concluded filming everything as they go. And thus we set out on a retreading of the original story updated for the modern age and with an actual budget, complete with an opening text screen telling us that like the first this film was assembled from footage found abandoned out in the woods, so we know the trip doesn’t go too happily for our campers.

Technically this is a sequel to 'The Blair Witch Project' but from a practical standpoint it’s a remake. We’re following basically all the same plot points but with real money involved and some actual special effects. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the original Blair Witch Project, perhaps more so as a concept than a movie, though I think the movie itself still holds up. At the time I was completely consumed by the never before seen viral online marketing campaign (I was a computer kid), I rushed out to see the movie and loved it, I even own all the video games (that’s right, there’s more than one Blair Witch Project video game).

The point I’m making is that I thought I was the target audience for this new Blair Witch and it turns out I kind of wasn’t. This film is very much an introduction to the franchise, and it’s a really good one, that they might make more of these has me genuinely curious. 'The Blair Witch Project' may have begun a trend of found footage horror that at times can be a little unwelcome but when it works it works and it’s pretty solid here, with a few wrinkles.

Firstly, despite the modern day update of all the equipment we’re not really seeing anything new. They have a drone camera but it spends most of the movie crashed in a tree, which was a somewhat disappointing waste. In addition, 'Blair Witch' is a little more cinematic in its shot composition whilst still retaining the raw feel, but more than once we find ourselves caught in the full rawness of characters shaking the camera all over whilst something it would have been really nice to see happens just out of shot. Or a camera is set up to record something and you can sort of sense something spooky that’s about to happen and you tense up in anticipation, but then it doesn’t happen. Which is weird.

The lip service connection to the original really is meaningless but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that and I understand why they did it. They needed an excuse to get the cast out in the woods without the need for much, or indeed any, explanation required. In that regard this varies from the original, there’s no need for all the complex world building mythos that the original had we’re just straight into the woods for scary shenanigans.

And said shenanigans are very well done, a distinct upgrade to the original with an array of interesting set pieces though in truth the movie doesn’t really come alive until they find the house and I kind of wish we had spent more time there.

Unfortunately it was at this point that I realised there were no stakes, we were just marking time till the film could end. This wasn’t a problem in the original because it was so unique but we’ve seen the “idiots go wrecklessly into scary place, idiots never seen again” movie a dozen or more times now and I’m not sure we needed to see it again. Like I say, this is a movie for a new audience, not a seasoned one. Having said that there is a very nice twist at the end that is made even better
​because the movie doesn’t make a big deal out of it and I liked that very much.

Frank (Seth Rogen, who also writes and directs) is a sausage living in the joyous world of Shopwell’s Grocery Store where all the food rejoices in the hope that the Gods (humans) will choose them and they will be taken out of the store to the promised land. However all is not as it seems, at least from the foods perspective, and the Gods are not the benevolent caregivers they have been taught to believe in but are in fact horrifying, monstrous … people who eat food.
​
As a human, or I assume a very close approximation, you and I both know the "truth"  that the food is hiding from and though it’s played out as a big reveal the movie doesn’t dwell on it too much so we aren’t really expected to be surprised. As it happens the trailers and advertising actually haven’t given too much of the main plot away so I won’t spoil any more here, suffice to say Frank finds himself confronted by the “truth” and battles to save his fellow foodstuffs from the wrath of the Gods as it were.

It feels as if a Pixar parody like this is long overdue, the 'Toy Story' trilogy being a clear influence here, and in that regard 'Sausage Party' really nails its target. It pushes the absurdity of “what if BLANK​ was secretly alive” to the horrifying extreme and if you thought the technicalities of the 'Toy Story' universe didn’t quite make sense then be prepared to have it turned up to eleven.

Personally I’m not of the opinion that something is funny just because it’s gross and there’s a little too much of this for my taste. In fact, that’s the big problem here for me. Whilst it’s fun as an adult to laugh at an implied sex joke snuck into a kid’s film, here all the subtlety is torn out and thrown into a big fire, which kind of misses the point of those sorts of jokes in the first place.
​
So the film is crass but you can get that from the title; and if the concept alone has you giggling you won’t be disappointed. There’s a lot of running gags that strike perfectly and as the films jumps from one extreme to another, you can’t help but laugh at the ludicrousness of it, even though despite a very meta narrative the ending does come a little out of nowhere.

There’s also a not so subtle social commentary on politics and religion that is the kind of thing the makers of 'South Park' can do in their sleep but only exists in broad strokes here. It’s clever but not as clever as it maybe needed to be and doesn’t really have anything new to say on any particular subject. It probably should have been left more to background noise than a serious plot point, though it works well enough to hold the story together and the running gag of the food taking on the stereotypes of the culture it represents is perhaps worth the predictability.

It really feels like this should be a love it or hate it film however I fell sort of in the middle. If I’m being honest 'Sausage Party' didn’t entirely work for me, too reliant on sex jokes and a total lack of emotional depth despite it obviously trying to achieve some. It’s hard to sympathise with the food especially as much of it was already alive at some point in animal form and we didn’t have a problem with killing that so what’s the big deal now? Ultimately it’s not as clever, emotional or I’m afraid funny as the films it’s spoofing, which leaves it feeling a little pointless. If you’re hoping for the comedy of the year this probably isn’t it (it’s not as good as previous Seth Rogen project 'This Is The End'), but for surreal gross out comedy you’ll get exactly what you expect and plenty of it.

​Adapted from the 2012 film inspired by the 1970s TV show, 'The Sweeney: Paris' (otherwise known as 'The Squad' or 'Anti-Gang', depending on your location) is the story of Serge Buren and his unorthodox police unit as they attempt to bring a gang of armed-robbers to justice by any means possible...
 
The result is a capable, if somewhat generic, crime thriller/drama. With some clear reverence for the material (the film rather than the television show), the film follows many plot points of the original, as well as numerous films that have come before in this genre. So much so, it's almost a wonder why anybody bothered to put the effort in to this production. In the hands of director Benjamin Rocher however, the action is as deft as the characters themselves, offering fight sequences and set-pieces that are both frequent and attention grabbing. It is also not without it's fair share of humour - most notably in the banter and camaraderie of the titual squad - and, if you scratch beneath the surface, a surprising trace amount of heart.

Anybody hoping to see Ray Winstone reprise his role with a French accent as he tackles the French criminal underworld with his fists, though, will be sorely disappointed. Instead, the honour of top-billing goes to Jean Reno (Leon; The Da Vinci Code) who remains as reliable as ever as the grizzled veteran, contributing the majority of the aforementioned heart when the case becomes a tad more personal. The show is stolen out from under him however by Alban Lenoir. Relatively unknown - outside of his native land, at least - Lenoir is the source of both the film's best moments of action and comedy, including quips aplenty and a running gag about, um, running....
 
For all this, the sum of its parts don't quite manage to equal a successful whole. Proceedings remain mostly predictable (and therefore unsuspenseful) throughout, with some interactions and developments falling flat and, outside of a wonderful, tension-relieving ringtone, a score that leaves a lot to be desired. 

All in all, it will no doubt please fans of both the original film and series, as well as those with a general fondness for the genre. But for anybody else, 'The Sweeney: Paris' is merely a decent, familiar, if underwhelming, way to spend a few hours.

A mystery is a fragile thing, ultimately I think it’s strength depends largely on the pay off. Is it satisfyingly surprising but meaningful? Does it effect our understanding of the story in a way that moves us? 'Midnight Special' is balanced very precariously on this line as the film is very much a mystery, and said mystery is interesting and the pay off makes sense and is ultimately satisfying to the story, but we seem to be stuck with an array of uninteresting characters doing uninteresting things.
​
The film concerns a young boy named Alton (Jaden Lieberher) who has been kidnapped from a religious cult group whose name I don’t immediately remember but it doesn’t really matter anyway so I’ll be as dismissive of them as the film is. Turns out his kidnapper is his father (Michael Shannon), that’s not a spoiler it happens early, and the boy has mysterious powers that have caused the cult to view him as some kind of messiah.

 Said powers include the ability to unwittingly receive and transmit radio frequencies, imbue others with “holy” visions through direct eye contact and an extreme aversion to sunlight. So he’s not exactly Superman but it’s interesting, and somewhere along the line he has been picking up military or CIA frequencies of some significance that’s never fully explained and he’s specifically focused on a particular time and place that the cult have come to assume signifies judgement day. His father, tired of the cults BS, is determined to take Alton to the location at the time and see what’s what once and for all.
​
A chase movie occurs with Alton, his father, his fathers friend (Joel Edgerton) and eventually his mother (Kirsten Dunst) because the movie suddenly realised it needed a woman in it, trying to outrun the military, an NSA analyst (Adam Driver), and the cult who want them back so they will be spared the judgement. Unfortunately it’s not entirely clear why any of this matters. The cult are arguably the most interesting angle but they get unceremoniously thrown away after the military rounds them all up in the first ten minutes and besides a couple of reluctant hitmen they’ve sent out to track Alton they never reappear again and even those two don’t affect the third act in any significant way.

The film employs the idea that keeping things sort of vague nurtures intrigue and whilst it drip feeds us just enough information to hold an audience all the way to the end anything that isn’t Alton learning to use his powers doesn’t seem to fit in. For example at one point we cut to NSA analyst Kylo Ren dramatically solving a problem we didn’t even know he was having, unravelling the tangle of numerical information Alton has apparently been feeding the cult to determine the location he is trying to get to for no reason beyond that Alton and his gang had gone into hiding and the movie needed to chase to start up again. We honestly didn’t even know he hadn’t worked this out yet, it comes a little out of nowhere.
​
So the tension of the chase never quite kicks in and there’s a lot of superfluous characters cluttering up the story but the mystery is engaging and the climax, whilst not answering all our questions, does feel satisfying within the relative small scale of the characters world.

The effects sequences are superb, all at once being subtle and epic. If you’re expecting small scale indie film quality in this regard you’ll be quickly surprised, we very early realise that there’s some real hocus pocus going down here and nobody is prepared for it. That’s really the point of the film, Alton’s father and mother in over their heads trying to do their best for the son they’ve no hope of understanding. There’s a much larger even cosmic series of events playing out in the background and seeing it from the perspective of two desperate parents trying just to do the right thing makes for some interesting drama and I found the films vague attempts to be a thriller or action movie just got in the way.

In cinemas April 29th!

Part of a style of comedy essentially defined as “people doing things you wouldn’t really expect them to be doing”. Like children swearing or the entire premise of 'The Last of the Summer Wine', which is a little closer to this move. It’s a simple enough gag and the movie embraces it but I’m not sure it has much else to offer beyond an interesting premise.

Said premise revolves around Arthur (Bernard Hill), his wife Martha (Virginia McKenna) and their friends who are all retired seniors who spend their days in the local bowls club commiserating medical expenses and slowly learning that they’re all being screwed over by their various pension funds. Being pushed towards poverty by what he sees as the crooked banks Arthur hatches a half-baked plan to steal a lock box from an armoured car. When by sheer dumb luck the plan sort of works it sets off a chain of events that escalates into a growing crime spree of comedic proportions.

Unfortunately as I eluded to in my first paragraph the film doesn’t have a lot more going for it beyond the overarching joke of “old people take up bank robbing”. The complexities of the plot are undeveloped, largely explained away but the characters themselves not really understanding them, and the final caper doesn’t fully make sense when you stop to think about it.

We feel enough for the pensioners that we want them to succeed but a young flash detective, full of himself and obsessively spray tanned who is set about to pursue them never extends beyond his two dimensions and works largely as a plot device, which is a shame as the film lacks a proper villain beyond the banks, not that we don’t all hate the banks, so the tension is pretty low overall.

​The script lacks a comedic eye, the direction lack artistry and to be blunt it’s pretty boring to look at, but despite all this the film does manage to be entertaining through to the slightly anti-climactic finale that probably looked more exciting on paper than it does in camera, and whilst easily forgettable as a whole there’s a few good laughs and our heroes are sympathetic.

On the whole the film feels much too tame with no real standout moments and perhaps ironically a more mature approach might have been better. If you’re in the mood for a light British comedy you can do a lot worse but this is a little too tepid to be a classic of the genre.

Tell us what you think!
Rate the film and why not write your own review in the comments?

Presented at the Toronto Film Festival last year and to be released in May 13, 'Green Room' is a
thriller with a splatter and horror twist that will take the audience by surprise.

Set in the USA, the film starts with an emerging anarchist heavy metal band travelling to play some
gigs and earn money. When one of the sessions booked doesn't seem to be as profitable as they
thought, they get another show through a friend in a Nazi compound in the middle of nowhere.
After a provocative live session, however, the band will witness something really dangerous and,
what at the beginning seems like a chance to cash some easy money, it becomes a matter of survival and death.

At first 'Green Room' seems like a quiet movie about a heavy rock band trying to make it in the
show business however throughout the story the tone starts to shift progressively, turning the
film's category upside down and becoming a thriller converging into violence with cruel and
graphic scenes.

The colors in the film are quite dark and they navigate towards every shade of green but
instead of giving the audience a sense of peace and tranquillity, while at the same time reminding
them of the title and the purpose of a green room, the room in question becomes quickly associated with anxiety, claustrophobia and extreme slaughter.
​
The cinematography goes from static to frantic. While at the beginning there are more panoramic
shots, towards the middle until the end of the film the scenes are all inside the warehouse and
specifically in the green room

The cast ensemble did a good job in portraying realistically their characters. Patrick Stewart got the
unusual role of the ruthless Nazi chief in charge of everything. Imogen Poots, Anton Yelchin and Alia Shawkat worked together distinctively, complimenting each other and creating a well harmonised performance in the midst of all the chaos and brutality.
​
Particularly worth of notice is the female characters' courage, which stands out throughout the film
and brings a nice change to a genre in which most of the time women are mainly passive victims.
The plot is linear and it escalates in order to add more information and the movie goes along,
putting together the puzzle that creates the whole story.

However, the film's equilibrium is broken by the violence and gruesomeness of many scenes and
this drastically changes the tone of the movie instantly, startling the audience. Even the level of brutality escalates going from mild to extreme by each frame.

All in all, 'Green Room' can be considered as a thriller movie that wants to impress the audience by
adding violence to the story, but in doing so it goes a bit overboard.

I must confess that I am a bit of a sucker for a western, not sure why and I’m aware that the bullets flying, death in the streets version of the “wild west” isn’t exactly historically accurate but there is something that appeals about a simpler time that was actually a lot more complicated.
​
'Jane Got A Gun' concerns the titular Jane (Natalie Portman), who lives a seemingly peaceful life on a secluded ranch watching over her daughter until her husband appears on the horizon, barely alive and with an ominous message of trouble coming their way. It seems their past is catching up to them and Jane ventures out in search of help, first begging the help of Dan (Joel Edgerton), a boozed up rancher with a thousand yard stare who somewhat aggressively tells her to get on her horse and go back to her no good husband.

Jane and Dan obviously have a troubled past, in addition to the troubled history she has with her husband, and Jane doesn’t get very far before another face from her past gives her some trouble in an alley. It’s very clear there’s a deeply complex and increasingly unhappy story being unveiled here, and I really don’t want to give you too much information because the slow reveal of this story is the centre of this film, and it’s well worth enjoying in the way the filmmakers intended. However, I do have to discuss the film to some degree so if you want to be completely spoiler free avoid the final paragraph of this review, though I’ll be sure I sum up before them.

The crux of the film is the puzzling together of the characters history, which is engaging all the way to the end and moves at a steady enough pace to never get boring whilst still flowing organically without the sudden feeling of mountains of information being dropped on our heads. All our heroes are deeply flawed, world weary people and we sympathise with them quite easily, or at the very least we want all the same people dead as they do.

I’d say the film is good, not great, as a whole though you should be aware that the story is pretty bleak. There’s not a lot of humour to be found here, our heroes barely seem to like each other and don’t seem too confident they’re going to survive the villainy that’s coming for them. This isn’t a problem though, the characters are more than interesting enough to hold your attention and the story is strong and well crafted, but beware that this isn’t a film for happy go lucky types.

In criticism the final gunfight that the film has so clearly been building up to from the start is a tad underwhelming if I’m being honest, but by then you’re so enthralled with the characters it doesn’t really matter. And perhaps refreshingly it has a very realistic feel, the action isn’t ludicrously over the top and our characters aren’t overblown caricatures, though Ewan McGregor comes close as the villainous John Bishop but that’s probably only because he doesn’t receive enough screen time to become all that well rounded. So although the film unfortunately falls apart towards the end I was drawn into the story easily and I can recommend 'Jane Got A Gun' if you’re looking for a deep character piece with a western setting because you’ll certainly find that here.

The biggest problem as it stands, and here’s some minor spoilers, is that the end is just too happy. For a film as one note as this in it’s bleakness it really is a little jarring to not only have a happy ending but what is basically the happiest ending possible for all concerned. It really doesn’t seem like the conclusion could have been any more fortuitous, even retconning some of the misery that had already happened. I’m not saying a happy ending couldn’t have worked but this seems a little extreme and something that felt more realistic to the harsh “life is cruel” world of the story might have elevated the film in my eyes.

In an industry that lately gives voice and human traits to animals in order to teach lessons about
humanity, 'Norm of the North' uses the same stratagem to create a character that talks for the
environment and their inhabitants to protect them and create awareness, while at the same time
entertaining the whole family, especially small children. The plot for this movie is quite simple. Norm, a polar bear that has the unique ability to speak human, doesn't precisely fit with the idea of how the "king of the Arctic" should be. When humans threaten the peace and quiet of his home, Norm is the only one that can save his glacial land from Mr Greene, by embarking on an adventure to NYC.

The timing for a movie like this couldn't be more perfect. In fact, while other productions try to
speak more and more to adults, in order to attract a broaden audience, what 'Norm of the North' does is still entertaining both adults and children while teaching a good lesson to the young about respecting the environment. Trying to preserve our world using the best means of communication, a talking bear.
​
Many of the jokes written in the film are easy to understand by children without being too childish
and leaving out the parents from the entertainment factor. The actors who gave their voices to each
character were capable of expressing every range of emotions effortlessly, giving more depth to
each human or animal.

The story not only tackles global warming, pollution and respect for the world in a simple yet
effective way, it also highlights how important it is to be yourself and believe in your capabilities
and, most importantly, never give up even when the journey becomes difficult and only a handful of
people are ready to stand by you.

The simplicity of the plot is what makes this story worth watching. While other animation feature
films become more and more complex each year, 'Norm of the North' created a simple storyline aimed at children of any age. The jokes are not too elaborate, but they still posses a comic timing that is entertaining both for children and adults alike. The drawings are made with great accuracy, and each character's facial expressions are realistic and help the audience connect on an emotional level with the story.
​
Since it is a movie for children, the important subject of the environment, and how mankind is
polluting and invading habitats that are there just for animal species, are not analysed in a
complicated way. On the contrary, it is approached in a way to make the lessons more efficient and easily understood by children.

All in all, 'Norm of the North' is a film that, in going back to the origins of the animation feature
film, is making it possible for children to fully understand the core lessons behind the story
while still being capable of entertaining not only them but their parents as well, making it an
experience for the whole family.

An Australian production inspired by real events, 'Oddball and the Penguins' is a family comedy that
is made for both children and parents, gifting the audience with an entertaining and moving story
about family and friendship.

Set in a remote area in Australia, the film focuses on a family who devoted its entire life to preserve
and save an endangered species of penguins, known as Little Penguins, from the wild foxes that are
hunting them. This flock of penguins are living on a deserted island, supervised by Emily, a young
single mother who gave up her life to keep her late mother's project alive. Unfortunately, since the sea town of Warrnambool, where Emily and her family lives, can't afford surveillance on the island, the foxes are decimating the flock. Throughout the film the numbers of survived penguins keeps dropping and, if by the official counting they will be less than ten, the wild sanctuary will have to be re-purposed.

To try and save the day Emily's daughter Olivia, along with her grandfather, the eccentric Swampy,
will try to coach their untrained and unruly maremmas dog Oddball to guard the penguins and save
the sanctuary.

In 'Oddball and the Penguins' the plot follows the classic standard for these kind of family comedies
that want to entertain both adults and children. The comic aspect of the movie, always related to
Oddball being a tornado and destroying everything in his path, is well balanced with the more serious, as well as tender, scenes that portray the deep bond between this special family that
stood together and helped each other through the best and worst.
​
Even though Oddball and the Penguins is not a high quality film made with the finest technique and
extraordinary cinematography, the movie is still great to watch. Its main purpose is to create
awareness about an environmental matter that maybe many people ignored by using humour and
emotions to help the audience empathise with the story.

In fact, the movie was inspired by the real events about the Little Penguins species in Middle Island
and the volunteering project that, since 2006, is using maremmas dogs to protect them.

In making this film the director was able to highlight the great effort that many people had to make in order to save this wild sanctuary. Not only that, but he was also able to teach to both children and parents the valuable lesson that in life it is important to believe in something great and that, when the road ahead gets difficult and filled with obstacles, one can always count on their family to go through them and finally reach their goal.

All in all, 'Oddball and the Penguins' is a simple movie that just wants to tell a real story filled with
great principles and it does so by adding entertainment and comedy all enclosed in a huge, furry and extremely sweet maremmas dog.

A long time ago, all the way back in 1983, a man had a dream! That man was Clark Griswold. And his dream, come hell or high water, was to get his family to the famous Walley World theme park!

Two decades later, Rusty Griswold (son of Clark, and one of the children dragged along on previous misadventures) is all grown up and a firm testament to the belief that those who don't learn from their mistakes (or the mistakes of their father) are doomed to repeat them. 

Now a domestic pilot for Ryanair Econo-Air, Rusty (Ed Helms) returns home from another miraculously survived flight to discover some harsh and painful truths regarding the stability of his marriage and the happiness of his family. Upon doing so, he realises that there is only one option. To go on a vacation to Paris? No! They are going to drive across the country to Walley World. What could possibly go wrong?

In short, and as it turns out, the answer is everything... because everything is exactly what writers and debut directors Jonathan M. Goldstein and John Francis Daley throw at the wall. The style of humour moves and swerves as fast and wildly as Walley World's infamous Velociraptor ride. Ranging from family banter to observational to slapstick to toilet and cringe-based humour, no comedic stone is left unturned. Unfortunately not all of it sticks, but when they succeed at hitting the mark they hit it with terrific force.

Especially when contrasted with the majority of the attempts at more heartfelt and reflective moments, which either lack adequate build-up to explain growth or sweeps previous events under the rug in a single moment of action or dialogue, just for the sake of tying up loose plot threads. Though the message of the importance of awareness, communication, and family remains sweet and is one to which most people can relate. 

With Ed Helms ('The Hangover' Series) the movie has found a worthy and capable, though not quite as mad, successor to Chevy Chase; imbuing the latest Griswold patriarch with a much needed warmth, innocence, and an unquenchable optimism you cannot help but root for.

Along for the ride, are his dissatisfied and begrudging wife Debbie (Christina Applegate), and their equally begrudging sons James (Skyler Gisondo) and Kevin (Steele Stebbins). The latter offering distinct, if occasionally grating, personalities and a refreshingly reversed dynamic that heralds back to 'Malcolm in the Middle'. Whilst the former expertly injects proceedings with the highly welcome and extremely hilarious dose of madness, as a woman with both a surprising past and an unpredictable streak. Of the core, Christina Applegate is truly the highlight, gamely throwing herself into every moment and situation with wild and wonderful abandon.

She is eclipsed only by the string of supporting appearances and cameos that pepper the film's run time, achieving a level of quality - in terms of name and performance - that would make 'Entourage' blush with shame. Most notably, Chris Hemsworth playing totally outside of his wheelhouse and sporting a very different kind of hammer; and the always brilliant Charlie Day, as the last person you'd ever want to be on a boat with.

How familiar people are with the misadventures of the Griswold family will no doubt vary, especially outside of America, but Jonathan M. Goldstein and John Francis Daley are clearly fans who know their stuff. Sticking to the traditional episodic format of road-trip movies such as this - going as far even as to break up each chapter with a running gag involving a very temperamental sat-nav - the film is full to the brim with references and active call-backs to the original series. Not to mention an acute self-awareness and an impassioned sense of fun. 

Whether or not 'The Griswolds' will return for a new series of mishaps remains to be seen. But whatever the case, it was good whilst it lasted. 'Vacation' - though not hitting the heights of self-awareness and consistent hilarity as the Jump Street films or the charm and heart of 'Crazy, Stupid, Love' - is an enjoyable romp through which to lose yourself for a few hours. 

Alongside global warming, civil unrest is no doubt one of the greatest and most turbulent issues currently faced by the modern world. Whether frequent race-related altercations between African-Americans and the police, a battle for social and political equality, or both domestic and international terrorism, it's almost impossible to ignore the fear and threat of violence hanging in the air, and covered incessantly by the media. So, it makes a kind of sense that the next stage in the evolution of horror would mine the depths and shock of such real and terrifying subjects...

In their new overseas home, Jack (Owen Wilson) and his family soon finds themselves caught in the middle of a coup, and they frantically look for a safe escape in an environment where foreigners are being immediately executed.

 The film starts with a traditional and intriguing cold open, complete with a title screen harking back to the eighties or, more recently, 'The Raid' or 'The Guest'. What follows is a brief exposition-heavy respite through which to acquaint the audience to Jack and his family - his wife, Annie (Lake Bell), and their two children, the somewhat irritating and uncooperative Lucy (Sterling Jerins) and the adorable, precocious Beeze (Claire Geare) - as they themselves try to get acquainted with their new, strangely internet-and-phone-free environment. It's a sudden change that is unfortunately jarring, featuring taxi-drivers named Kenny Rogers, comedic culture-shock observations, and drunken karaoke, begging the question of whether this is a serious film or a slightly light-hearted romp.

 It's a question that recurs throughout the early stages of the films runtime, as scenes stagger blearily from edge-of-the-seat tension to potentially inadvertent hilarity. If actually intentional, though, it's a move that could almost be considered genius, breaking the tension in laugh-out-loud fashion. If not, it's just further proof that the film would have benefited from a keener eye for detail. 

The action kicks off with suddenness, a jump-scare with a dramatic, pulse-pounding chase the likes of which even the original 'Point Break' would be envious, scored with angry chants, terrified confusion, and men banging shields like war-drums. From there situations escalate quicker than an Anchor-man news-channel showdown, rushing headlong from location to location, taking in everything from gunfire and riots to helicopters, tanks, and death-defying leaps.

Though largely described as an action-thriller in the same vein as 'Taken', it's hard to miss the leanings of the horror genre for which director John Erick Dowdle, along with his brother/co-writer Drew Dowdle, have become synonymous. Each scene and set-piece is packed with a constant sense of dread and fear, putting the survival instinct of the characters on perpetual red alert. In the age of the comic-book adaptation, it's quite rare to instil genuine fear for the safety and survival of the protagonists, but 'No Escape' manages it with ease. With some of the most terrifying moments brought to life on the big screen in recent memory - the scene in the bamboo garden and on the streets amid the rioters serving as a highlight of white-knuckle cinema - it drags the audience breathlessly to the edge of the seat. The lack of subtitles serves to add another layer of fear and confusion that places the audience right alongside the plight of the family and other victims.

Unfortunately, it's a feeling that fails to remain right up until the credits roll. Though the action and suspense is near constant, there is an unmistakable feeling of repetition. With the trope of the "friendly hostile" and "child running away into danger" rolled out on more than a few occasions. Though showing foreign people as something to be celebrated, as good and normal people, rather than entirely terrible soldier and terrorists is extremely refreshing.

The more personal moments also mostly fail to land, with the marriage troubles only touched upon rather than fully explored, and with an impressively natural performance by Claire Geare most successfully pluck the heart-strings. Owen Wilson does well with what he has, bringing his usual charm and wit and adding moments of levity, this time most definitely intentional, as well as demonstrating some considerable action and dramatic chops. Adequately taking the lead and exploring the extent ordinary people can and may go in protection of their family. Lake Bell performs similarly well, adding a depth of emotion and strength, most notably in the final act and during a brief monologue when the writing seems all but etched on the wall. But, overall, the material just isn't consistently there. 

Along for the ride, almost literally, is Hammond (played with a larger than life verve by Pierce Brosnan), a figure so initially creepy and obviously foreshadowing, that its a wonder that anybody would get into a car with him, much less trust his word and allow their young daughter to speak to him. Pierce is as capable as ever, playing almost against type in a role that can only be described as a hybrid of James Bond and Crocodile Dundee. It's an intriguing blend, but the character seems almost shoe-horned in, popping up as and when needed with lines and back-story written on the spot, as though filling a need for a more traditional action hero, to impart information and to add clarity to proceedings. As well add an extra level of renewed suspense and fear for the third act.  

All in all, inconsistencies aside, there is quite a bit to love about 'No Escape', especially for fans of poignant, almost true-to-life, heart-racing action. Depending on your point of view, this might just be one of most terrifying action films of 2015, or the most action-packed horror films. In either case, a thoroughly nerve-wracking and entertaining watch.

Why was Tim Blake Nelson constantly chewing? Sorry, I had to get that off my chest up front, but he was chewing throughout the film, it was very distracting. But we can move on to the film properly now we are past all the damn chewing! Sorry.

Anyway, 'Fantastic Four' is a reboot that deviates from the source material significantly enough for me to have gone into it quite skeptically, as many did I’m sure. In fact it’s not unfair to remark that the story deviates so far from the original that you can’t help but wonder whether or not they only called it 'Fantastic Four' to avoid copyright infringement.

Reed Richards (Miles Teller) is a brilliant young genius who invents a teleportation device out of scraps in his garage before he’s even hit puberty. With the help of unlikely friend Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell) he develops the device into an unappreciated school science fair project that is sniffed at by his teachers, but which catches the attention of nearby nerds Dr Franklin Storm (Reg E Cathey) and adopted daughter Sue Storm (Kate Mara). They inform Reed he has inadvertently created a portal to another dimension and they recruit him to their sister project to help fill in the gaps and create true dimensional travel.

Accompanied by Dr Storm's son Johnny (Michael B Jordan) and rival genius Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), the originator of Dr Storm’s dimensional travel project, they perfect the design and prepare to travel to the other dimension. And if you know much of anything about the Fantastic Four you can surmise the rest of the film. Things don’t go as planned, super powers are gained, the world comes into peril and our heroes must save the day.

If the superhero stuff seems like more of an afterthought in that description it’s because it pretty much is in the film as well, but that’s not strictly speaking a complaint, the film is about seventy percent extended origin story and it actually all works really well. The characters are well established, although Ben Grimm is criminally underused, I’m tempted to say the younger version in the opening flashback has more screen time than Jamie Bell does. Weird as it may seem, the film actually suffers once the superhero element kicks in.

This is the problem, the new set up is actually inventive and interesting but once we have to tackle the source material it seems like the filmmakers lost interest. Even the more horrifying elements of the characters powers manifesting, Johnny Storm seemingly writhing in pain as his body burns for example, make for an intriguing take on the characters but the film doesn’t want to do anything with it. The four are confined to a military facility and treated as a science experiment for the clear exploitation of the continually chewing Tim Blake Nelson who looks to exploit their abilities as a military resource, which as I say is an interesting angle but it goes nowhere.

The conspiracy amounts to much of nothing and the four, despite being conflicted about their allegiances and fearful of their abilities come to terms with these issues in a screen that reads “1 Year Later” (yes, really, we skip this entire plot development). Dr Doom shows up in the third act just long enough to make enemies and crowbar in a climactic battle and that’s it, that’s all we got.

So yeah, we’re left a little disappointed. A lot of the film works but once we enter the superhero side of things it feels weirdly out of place, like you’re not sure why they included it at all. The set up is great and there’s a lot of interesting places you could go with it but for some unclear reason they tried to shoehorn in a bunch of unrelated comic book lore. The films sets up for a sequel, maybe even a franchise of it’s own, so I’d like to think that the point here was more than just a studio dragging out the ownership of this intellectual property, but I suspect this is not a strong enough beginning to spawn anything new and interesting.

The individual pieces work but the whole doesn’t fit together. I didn’t hate it as much as some seem to have and I’d watch a sequel if one did emerge, but I don’t think I can recommend this film with any enthusiasm. See it at your own risk I suppose is what I’m saying.