My Top 6 Least Favourite Films of 2017

Now for the worst of the worst. But before I get started I want to give a shout out to that crime movie with Jamie Lannister. I didn't review it here, but it was the most boring, uneventful film I saw all year. It was as if the makers were going for a Coen feel, without knowing what makes it. But, it wasn't completely terrible so a shout out is fine.

6- Assassin's Creed
Assassin's Creed continues the tradition of good video games being made into bad films. And what really makes this one worse, is the complete waste of the talent involved. It could have broken the mold, but instead conformed to the genre.

5- Flatliners
Once again, talent has been wasted. They took a good concept, added in a solid cast, director, and writer, and then put them all in a paper shredder, then a blender, and tried to salvage what was left. Of course the end result was utter rubbish.

4- The Mummy
The worst, most incompetent and obvious attempt at a cash in this year. Neither fun nor scary, and was made to tick boxes and cash cheques.

3- Sleepless
This film easily has the worst action of any film this year. It also has an extremely boring plot, uninteresting characters, and a perceived lack of enthusiasm from everyone involved.

2- Inhumans
Inhumane is the perfect word to describe... "this", whatever it is. There was a complete lack of competence in every aspect of making Nonpeoples that made it to the screen. It was definitely the laziest thing I've seen in cinemas this year. At least they kind of tried to do something (make money) with The Mummy. I honestly don't think anyone involved with Not-homosapiens put their full effort in once they saw the script and realised it can't be salvaged. I don't care if it's not technically a film, I used a gift card to watch it in IMAX(!), so I will consider it so and rant accordingly. It's fair to say that I hated Inhummus.

1- Fist Fight
I absolutely hated this "comedy". I've done my best to purge all memory of this film from my mind. But what I can't do, is forget the awkward boredom of being in a cinema, watching a "comedy" where nobody was laughing. The utterly unfunny jokes were made even worse by the awkward space for laughter which was left silent. Everything about this film was rotten, and I'm done with it.

Please, please, please, don't watch any of these films. Save yourself. Save the Rebellion. Save the dream.

My Top 6 Favourite Films of 2017

I'm sorry for the rushed reviews a few days ago, but I wanted this to be (semi)-relevant.

Well, here are the 6 films I liked the most which were released in the UK during 2017. Why 6? Because I couldn't narrow it down to 5. But before I start, I want to give a quick shout out to Mindhorn and Brigsby. Bear, because more people need to see both of these films.

6- Wind River
Taylor Sheridan once again shows that he is a promising new writer, and is able to extend his skills to directing. He has made a cold film with characters you really care for. And Jeremy Renner gives his best performance yet, while I can't wait to see Gil Birmingham in more films.

5- The Disaster Artist
How funny is it that one of the best films of the year is about a film infamous for how bad it is? But it works because it is about more than that. It's about the friendship between Tommy and Greg. It's about achieving your dreams (with a mysterious bottomless pit of money). It's about how art is preserved, remembered and, most importantly, experienced. Plus, James Franco is just absolutely fantastic.

4- A Monster Calls
Even having read the book a few times before seeing this adaptation, I was still completely invested emotionally in this film. The way the story is told is brilliant. The cgi elements of the film blend really well. The story is heartbreaking. And it really is a film which can be watched many times despite the rather emotional scenes contained within.

3- Blade Runner 2049
The rare case if a sequel which surpasses the quality of the original. I absolutely loved this film. It's a shame it's not getting more recognition during this awards season as it definitely deserves it. It also cements Denis Villeneuve as one of the great modern film makers.

2- Baby Driver
The coolest, most entertaining film released this year, which also happens to be directed, written, constructed, edited, acted and choreographed extremely well.

1- Get Out
I mean, of course it is. There is not one single film released this year which has stuck with me, which has made me think, which has completely astounded me more than Get Out. Everything about this film is planned out meticulously, and even after five viewings I still see new stuff. Jordan Peele has made a future classic, and I hope he has more where this came from.

Thanks for reading over the past year, and I can't stress enough how good of a year it has been for film. It was really difficult to narrow it down to 6 films, but I think that these really are the best of last year (at least in my opinion).

The Greatest Showman review

I did not enjoy watching the film. While it looked great, it just didn't work for me.

I didn't like that the songs sounded like forgettable, generic, modern pop songs. I found the story uninteresting. I thought that the lip synching wasn't done that well. And I thought that they portrayed Barnum too positively.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi review

The parts I like, I really like. The parts I don't like, I really don't like.

The stories involving Rey, Kylo Ren, Luke, Leia, and Poe, I think is some of the best stuff in a Star Wars film. But, whenever the sub plot involving Finn and new character Rose appears again, it drags the film back. It's an uninteresting, pointless side adventure that doesn't fit with the rest of the film.

I still really liked it though.

Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri review

I like Martin McDonagh's films a lot. His dark sense of humour combines really well with the dark stories and characters he explores. Thankfully, Three Billboards is no different.

Frances McDormand plays a woman whose daughter was raped and murdered, and the criminal was never caught. In an attempt to find justice, she puts up three billboards to provoke the chief of police.

This is an excellent film. The way that the characters interactions and actions affect the story is brilliant. There is plenty of great humour, and fantastic dark drama. And the cast is excellent. Francis McDormand is the standout as the grieving mother, and Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell are both spectacular as police officers with different ideals.

In short: One of the best written, and executed films recently.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle review

I don't like the original Jumanji, it's just not funny or enjoyable. But I decided to see this because of The Rock. And it is surprisingly fun. Especially Jack Black.

The concept is that four teenagers in a Breakfast Club set up get brought into Jumanji, which has evolved to become a video game. In the video game, they inhabit the bodies of the characters. The social media obsessed teenage girl gets put into Jack Black's body, and he gets a lot of humour from it.

Plus, they get a lot of archetypes of video games, some retro, some modern, right. I just appreciated this.

Molly's Game review

If you like Aaron Sorkin's writing, you're going to like this. By directing this film, he takes full reins and puts exactly what he intends on screen. And the cast is great, but that makes sense when you've got people like Jessica Chastain, Idris Elba, Michael Cera and Kevin Costner in the cast.

The Disaster Artist review

I loved it. This is my favourite comedy of the year. It's a great look at the relationship between two friends, a very interesting insight into one of the most notorious cult films ever made, and a absolutely brilliant watch.

Stronger review

It's alright. Gyllenhaal is great. Not much else stands out.

Wonder review

Well done feel good movie. I enjoyed watching it. But...

SPOILERS:
I thought killing the dog was a cheap trick. It worked, but it didn't feel earned.

Suburbicon review

Of all the films I've seen this year, this left me with the most questions. I have no idea what drove most of the plot, which is weird because I was able to guess what was going to happen, but I didn't know why.

Battle of the Sexes review

Well done exploration of two very different, but still similar people. Plus, it's quite fun to watch, and portrays it's message well.

Brigsby Bear review

I really enjoyed this. I didn't know anything about this film before I saw it and I recommended you do the same. But I would have liked a little but more darkness.

Good Time review

Great. Really great.

Ingrid Goes West review

It's a good commentary on addiction in a social media heavy environment. But I couldn't properly connect to any of the characters because of how much I did like the culture presented in the film. This doesn't mean I didn't like it, but I could have done with more investment in the characters.

Justice League review

I will admit, I enjoyed it the first time around, but the second: I hated it.

Bad cgi, video game cutscene action scenes, humour that is thrown against the wall to see what sticks, an uninteresting, bland story, a boring villain, and Batman doing one liners.

It was rubbish.

Paddington 2 review

Just as fun as the first one. It is wondrously joyous. Really makes you feel good.

Only the Brave review

Thematically similar to Patriots Day. Works really well, mainly due to the dynamic of the cast and the realistic cgi.

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) review

Yeah, it's good. It had me engaged throughout and I never felt the length. Plus, what an amazing cast!

The Killing of a Sacred Deer

I loved this film. It's dark, twisted, disturbing, interesting and has a pitch black sense of humour. It's definitely not for everyone, but this film is extremely special in the way that it's made. This updating of a Greek tragedy really works.

Breathe review

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I just saw this film as Andrew Garfield trying for an Oscar. There wasn't anything really new in here, and it is efficiently made. It's nothing special, and nothing I'd revisit soon.

Thor: Ragnarok review

It's really fun. I very much enjoyed watching it. I must admit, it did feel like two different films mashed together: the Marvel movie and the Taika Waititi movie.

But Korg was great.

Geostorm review

How do you mess up a film called Geostorm? Weather satellites getting hacked and causing deadly weather across the globe... That sounds ridiculously fun. But the movie manages to make this concept boring.

Now this is a spoiler, so...
The film is building up to an event that they dub a "Geostorm": a catastrophic event where the satellites cause deadly storms to happen at once all over the world and kill everyone. Or something like that. But the movie doesn't even Geostorm. That's right, it doesn't even follow through with its terribly fun concept. And there are like, three storms. And they're boring.

In short: You had one job.

The Florida Project review

The Florida Project is a drama set in the shadow of Disney World, and follows a young girl living in poverty, and how she spends her summer.

The film doesn't have a conventional narrative, but is still engaging in the story that it tells. As it is told from a child's perspective, we mostly see the fun that she finds in the motels and surrounding areas. All of the darkness is happening just off screen, enough so that we can understand the situation that the girl and her mother are in.

The main actors all give really good performances. This is not surprising from Willem Dafoe, but is from the people who play Moonee and Halley, one being a child and the other an instagram model.

In short: An important look at those who live in poverty in Florida.

Happy Death Day review

After how boring Ninjago was, I'm glad Happy Death Day was able to have fun with its premise.

I wasn't planning on seeing Happy Death Day as I thought the trailer looked terrible. I only saw it was because I was near a cinema and a screening was starting in ten minutes. So when the film was finished, I was pleasantly surprised.

Instead of making a scary slasher movie, the filmmakers decided to have fun with a concept that has been done to death. This was quite refreshing, even if the plot is exactly the same as Groundhog Day, but with more murder.

Now, there is some really stupid stuff in the film. One of the twists towards the end is especially so. And, there is some logic that just make no sense aswell.

In short: It's enjoyable.

The Lego Ninjago Movie review

I was really disappointed with Ninjago. I think the other Lego Movies are great fun, but this one is really boring.

It starts out like a Lego Power Rangers, which I quite enjoyed. But, it went downhill quickly. After about twenty minutes they go into a forest, and the laughs and the fun stop.

In short: I really wanted to like it, but it wasn't assembled well.

The Snowman review

0/10. These gritty reboots of children's classics suck. The Snowman doesn't even come to life in this one.

Though, in all seriousness, what can I say about The Snowman that director Tomas Alfredson hasn't already said. It's a mess. It doesn't make sense. Scenes are missing. There's a subplot involving JK Simmons that goes nowhere. It just seems unfinished.

Speaking of Simmons, the subplot involves him making a bid for whatever Norwegian city it is set in to host the "Winter World Cup". I couldn't take this seriously, as whenever he said it, I just kept thinking that they didn't get permission from the Olympic committee to use their name.

And I feel bad for Val Kilmer. I don't know if it's a bad dub, or because of a surgery pertaining to his illness, but whenever he spoke it just looked unnatural.

There was also one piece of music in the film that sounded straight out of Beetlejuice.

Plus, it's quite predictable. Admittedly, I was quite distracted during the film due to my knee, but my mum was able to guess the killer, and another twist, much earlier than I'm sure the filmmakers intended.

In short: Don't.

The Death of Stalin review

The Death of Stalin is an Armando Iannuci comedy, which follows the aftermath of Stalin's death in Russia.

If you have watched any of Iannuci's other political comedies, then you know exactly what sort of comedy you'll get from this film: alot of swearing, insults, and incompetence in places of power.

The whole cast have great comic timing. In such a great ensemble, Simon Russell Beale and Jason Isaacs manage to stand out. Beale is particularly slimy as the scheming Beria, and Isaacs' delivery of all his loud lines in a Northern English accent makes his performance very memorable.

In short: The Death of Stalin takes a dark time in Russian history, and is able to be hilarious while still being respectful.

Blade Runner 2049 review

Blade Runner 2049 is the followup to the cult classic sci-fi film, and sees Ryan Gosling as a blade runner who tries to uncover a conspiracy involving Rick Deckard.

I like the original Blade Runner. The first time I saw it, I found it slow and boring. When I've watched it since, I liked it more, but found some parts of the film (mainly the Deckard/Rachel subplot) to be problematic.

I think that 2049 is even better than the original. I say this because I really liked it the first time I saw it, and realised just how great it was the second time.

I'm going to keep this brief so as not to spoil anything, but Denis Villeneuve has succeeded in making a sequel true in nature to the original.

In short: Blade Runner 2049 is probably one of the best films of the year.

Goodbye Christopher Robin review

Goodbye Christopher Robin tells the story of A.A. Milne's inspiration for writing Winnie the Pooh, and how its success affected his son's life.

This was a pretty good film. It shows how neither Milne nor his wife were very prepared to have a child, and how through Winnie the Pooh, Milne and his son become closer, and then more distant.

It features very good performances from all the cast, and is well written.

In short: An effective true story tale behind one of the most well known fictional characters.

Flatliners (2017) review

Flatliners is a remake of the '90s film about a group of medical students who kill and resuscitate each other to get an idea of the afterlife.

Wow. . . This film is terrible. It could have been fun, it really could have been fun.

First of all, it's a waste of talent. You have a talented director, a writer who wrote one of the best sci-fi films of this decade, Ellen Page, Kiersey Clemons and Diego Luna in the cast. On paper, that should result in a good film. So what happened.

This is a good premise. Everyone wants to know what happens when you die. It's one of the biggest mysteries surrounding life. Yet they took this premise and made it boring and generic. Instead of being thought provoking in its exploration of the afterlife, it turns into a haunting film. And not a psychological haunting. There are parts where if you think about it from the audience's perspective, it has to be ghosts haunting them.

The cast are completely wasted. There are some really good actors in the film, but the dialogue they are given is very clunky and unbelievable. The character development is paper thin, and there are several interesting directions it could go in that it completely ignores in favour of jump scares. There are several jump scares which do not affect the characters or their situation, and are there to get a jolt from the audience. These are the laziest forms of scaring audiences in horror. At least gross out gore requires creativity (which I refuse to watch), these dumb jump scares just need a loud noise after 10 seconds of silence.

And I want to ask: Why is Kiefer Sutherland in this film. He isn't playing the same character from the original as he has a different name, and his inclusion in the film isn't needed. All he does is give the occasional lecture to the most attractive group of medical students ever.

In short: Do not resuscitate.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle review

I love the first one.
I think this one is great fun.
Shame it's not longer.

I am Doing Really Bad at Keeping up With Reviewing Current Releases

You may have noticed that I haven't posted a review since September. I have no excuse; I haven't been busy with school/work, I've not been sick, a family member hasn't been sick, I've not moved anywhere, and I'm still seeing films. There is no excuse apart from laziness.

I'm kidding, Inhumans was really that bad. So bad that it stopped me from reviewing for two months.

Though seriously, I'm going to catch up (again). Hopefully, I'll be caught up by the end of the year, and I can review many of the award contenders. Though I have already missed films like Call Me by Your Name, Professor Marston and the Wonder Women, and Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool. I'm not going to review any Netflix originals until I'm caught up. But, once I'm caught up, I will start a new thing called "I Want to Talk About. . ."

More reviews in the coming days.

It review

It was alright. It was an effective horror movie, just scary enough but never becoming terrifying. It made the clown scare me through Bill Skarsgård's acting and the make up applied to him. It kind of has caricatures for characters, they all fit firmly into '80s stereotypes. It has an over reliance on jump scares, despite creating tension in several scenes. It looks great: the cinematography won't win any mainstream awards, but they did well at establishing an appealing visual style.

In short: It could have been better, but it could also have been worse.

The Limehouse Golem review

The Limehouse Golem is a Victorian murder mystery, where a detective (Bill Nighy) tackles the infamous case of a serial killer, while also trying to prove the innocence of a woman who is accused of killing her husband.

I quite enjoyed The Limehouse Golem. It's certainly not perfect, but some of the ideas in execution and story telling were very interesting. As there are several suspects, they show the very grisly, graphic murders with each of the suspects as Bill Nighy, or the suspect, reads out the letter left behind. That part was the most inventive, and my favourite, part of the film. The rest of the film is still interesting, with a lot of the film comparing the theatrics of murder and horror with the theatrics of storytelling.

Now, my main problem with the film is this: it is extremely predictable. I knew who the killer was all the way throughout the film. In fact, I guessed it from seeing the trailer once; not because the trailer spoiled it, no, I just had a thought and stuck with that theory for no reason other than "That would be cool". But then while watching the film I was looking for clues to support my theory, and sure enough I spotted them all. And when the reveal happens, I had no reaction, not even a "Knew it" because I saw it coming a month before. And after the reveal, it shows you all the clues, which takes away some repeat viewing for everyone that didn't get it aswell as those who had already spotted the clues.

In short: It's effective, but its predictability drags it down a bit.

Inhumans review

Inhumans is possibly one of the worst pieces of media I've ever seen.

Before I start, just know I have no nostalgia or any other connection to the Inhumans comics. I knew who Black Bolt and Medusa were, but that's it.

I knew I was in trouble when the title music sounded like stock Disney World queue music.

I honestly don't think I've seen a more incompetent. . . whatever this is. . . before. Throughout the whole thing I got the feeling this was being made by people who don't care, while one executive was making everything happen because they don't have the rights to the X-Men. There is not one actor who looks invested. All the performances are bland, and none of the characters are particularly memorable or likeable. Anson Mount, in particular, looks extremely bored and sort of gets away with it, as he plays a mute.

Then there's every other character. With my little prior knowledge of the unhumans, I was very confused by what they were. They are strange moon people who have powers which they can(or can't) unlock until a certain time(don't know when that is) and are afraid that humans will discover their existence, and that threatens them somehow, despite living in the same universe as The Avengers, or at least, Agents of Shield. That's a point, isn't one of the agents in Agents of Shield an inhaman? I fell of the show halfway through season 1, so I'm not entirely sure, but I remember reading that they were doing an inhumane storyline on that show at some point. Which, once again begs the question of why they are scared humans will discover them! I mean, some of the nothumans are basically human.

Alright, so there is this ceremony that requires royalty where people go into cubicles and get sprayed with something and come out with powers, or not. Why the imhunams aren't just born with their powers is never explained. Neither is when they do this ceremony, though I just presumed it was at around 18. So anyway, not everyone born on really fake CGI moon base has powers once they go through the conversion process, or whatever it's called. These guys are humans right, so why not send them down to Earth with every other human and all you extrahumans can stay in your weird utopian moon city? Or go down to Earth and mingle with humans who already know about aliens and superheroes?

I'm also still confused about what some of the powers are. Black Bolt and Medusa are obvious. The Asian guy's power is revealed too. But the black guy, blonde girl, and the antagonist girl's powers are very unclear and forgettable. Is black guy's power being half goat? And if so, then he is just a mythical Greek creature. Is blonde girl's power having Lockjaw?

About Lockjaw: he is a teleportation device. Oh, and he's a giant dog. I like dogs, everyone does. Lockjaw wasn't enough for me to at least enjoy what was happening when he was on screen. As a teleporter he is completely unreliable, even though they rely on him for everything. Now, the big question I have about Lockjaw is where did he come from (cotton eyed Joe)? Is he blonde girl's power, is he completely unrelated to her and just a gift from someone. Also, why does blonde girl have a black stripe in her hair? I'm guessing that it's related to her power, but given that it's never explained, I have no idea why it's there apart from aesthetic.

Speaking of which, this show looks awful. The set design is terrible, and the costumes. . . well the costumes are something else. To be fair, they look like the comic characters, but they look awful on screen, especially an IMAX screen. They looked like really good cosplay, and, sure, if I saw these costumes at a convention, I'd think they're really good. But on screen, they're the argument against the X-Men wearing blue and yellow spandex.

I have no link here. The editors must think the audience are idiots. Everytime it goes back to a location we've seen before, it tells you where you are, even though we have the ability to remember what happened 5 minutes ago. And it's a shame they tried to make the locations clear, instead of making everything else clear.

Some other stuff about isnnhaum. The scene where they shave Medusa's hair is unintentionally hilarious. Whenever they said Lockjaw, it sounded like they were saying Okja, which made me wish I were watching Okja instead. Then I just got angry that this mess was shown in (IMAX) cinemas, but I had no option but to watch Okja at home, on TV. And has  using Paint it Black become a thing now? First, Westworld did a great thematic cover in the opening episode, then it was used in the trailer for The Mummy, and now there was an "edgy" cover in this.

One final thing: why was this shot with IMAX cameras. There's absolutely nothing about the show that lends itself to the IMAX format. There are no big actions scenes, and the large format just reinforces how badly lit and fake everything looks. I would have much preferred it if the first two episodes of Star Trek Discovery were shot this way instead, as it actually looks good and has enough action to justify the format.

Is this two episodes of a tv show, a movie, or something else? No matter what it is, it is incredibly dreadful.

In short: No.

American Made review

Of all the films made in the vein of Wolf of Wall Street since 2014, this is probably the best.

There's not too much more that I can think of to say right now (because I'm lazy) other than that this is easily Tom Cruise's best dramatic performance in years.

Rough Night review

Rough Night is a comedy about a group of old friends who accidentally kill a stripper on a bachelorette weekend.

I would have less of a problem with this film if it weren't for two things; it's not very funny, and it doesn't have the confidence to properly go through with the premise. Apparently the protagonists needed to be morally right by the end, and it just made the film feel safe and the opposite of edgy, even though it should be.

As I said, it's not very funny. There's a good joke at the beginning that made me laugh. Then there were a few over the next hour and a half which made me crack a smile, but no more.

In short: Skip it.

Logan Lucky review

Fun in a good way.

Good southern accent from Craig.

Seth's English is dire.

Wind River review

Wind River is written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, and is about a young FBI agent brought to a native reserve to investigate the death of a teenager.

I have become a fan of Sheridan's writing thanks to this, Sicario, and Hell or High Water. They are all great films with very smart writing. Of his films, Wind River is probably the hardest to watch, which is no small feat given the content in Sicario.

The uncomfortable nature of the film comes from the unpleasant setting. These reserves are given to Native Americans, despite many of them being places nobody should be made to live. The setting is greatly used to make the situation more intense, as the freezing temperature and snowy landscape make the investigation more difficult. There are also two very tough to watch scenes which are essential to the film, even if they weren't pleasant.

Also essential are the characters played by Elizabeth Olsen and Jeremy Renner. Olson is the inexperienced, unprepared FBI agent who is brought in because she was the closest to the location of the murder. Despite her short tenure at her job, she remains competent and does her best to resolve the mystery of the girl's death. The real focus is on Jeremy Renner's hunter, who is helping with the case due to his knowledge of the area. He has one of the best character arcs I've seen in a film this year. It is also one of Renner's best performances in a film. I must also mention Gil Birmingham, who is absolutely terrific as a grieving father. In fact, all the casting for the film is very good.

There is a criticism about the film that I'm going to address: in a film set in a Native American reservation, revolving around the death of a native girl, the main character is played by Jeremy Renner, a white guy. I can understand this, but at the same time, the film is written by the white Taylor Sheridan, an outsider to this community, who is connected socially, which is the same for Renner's character. For this reason, I don't have a problem with this problem, as Sheridan is doing what many writers do; he wrote what he knew.

In short: Wind River is one of the most effecting films of this year.

The Hitman's Bodyguard review

The Hitman's Bodyguard is a completely forgettable action comedy where Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson play exaggerated versions of themselves.

I don't really remember much of the plot. Or the jokes. Or the action. I do remember that the plot was very conventional and that there was a super obvious twist. The only jokes I can remember is the nuns on the bus loving Jackson and hating Reynolds, and the running joke about Jackson's wife (played by Salma Hayek). There are no action scenes which are more than trailer moments, and they make the weird choice to have popular songs playing over the fights, even though a musical identity is in no way established.

Really, I found The Hitman's Bodyguard to be fun, but in a bad way. It's the sort of thing where you enjoy yourself at the time, but it's not something you think back on positively.

In short: The film coasts by on the charm of the leads, but is dragged down by everything else.

The Dark Tower review

How do I start to review a film like The Dark Tower? I would give a small description of the plot, but it's been a month since I saw it. Plus, I probably wouldn't have been able to do it one day after I saw it.

You've heard of Stephen King's book series. Well, this ain't it. I've read the first two books, and I recognised very little at all. Of course, there's like five books I've not read, so I'm obviously not an expert. But I can say that the tone, feel and maturity of the film seemed completely different from what I've read. I have a theory (I can't think about confirming it for a while) that one of the writers, or a producer, read the first book, saw how long the rest of the books are, skimmed the Wikipedia page instead, went out, got drunk, had a generally swell time, noticed that it was morning, went home and wrote the film using whatever words and phrases they remembered from the night before.

Really, the film is a mess. Everything happens just because. Barely anything is explained. The majority of the film is set in New York. The obvious Stephen King fan service is laughable (the only part of the film that annoyed me was the advert for It halfway through). There is no cohesive story told. And (SPOILER - but who cares) they kill of the villain in the first movie, but still have set up for sequels.

In short: It's terrible, but nothing to get angry over.

Now, I'm not the biggest fan of horror. I can appreciate a great horror movie (Alien, Get Out), but hate watching horror which is bland and lazy (The Purge, The Visit), or jump scare extravaganzas or torture porn (both of which I refuse to watch). I also hate clowns. They are terrifying and the sight of one always scares me.

That said, I'm going to see the new adaptation of It over the weekend. I just hope it's a better Stephen King adaptation than this.

Atomic Blonde review

Atomic Blonde is a cold war set action film, starring Charlie Theron as a spy sent to Berlin to investigate a fellow agent's death.

I like Charlize Theron: she's a good actress and convincing in action movies. I also like director David Lietch, because John Wick is awesome. I also like Atomic Blonde. It's very enjoyable and knows exactly what it is. That is until the last five minutes where there are about three twists.

The rest of the story is a very conventional spy thriller plot. There's a double agent who's trying to leak a file of agent codenames. Every spy franchise has done this plot. But what sets this film apart is the stunts and action. Many fight scenes are shot and edited to look like one take, and it looks like Theron did a lot of her own stunts. As with Wick, Lietch shoots the scenes steadily and does not add in many cuts to try and hide stunt doubles.

Although, how do you make a film set in 1980s Berlin, with a lot of music, but not have any Hasselhoff songs? After GotGv2 and Baywatch, I thought 2017 was going to be the year of the Hoffessance. Or, maybe I'm just perpetuating a stereotype?

In short: Great action, mediocre plot.

Girls Trip review

Girls Trip is a comedy about four old friends who take a trip to New Orleans for the weekend.

I usually don't put much detail into the quick synopsis at the beginning of my reviews, but that is really it. There's a little bit of character drama, but apart from that it is just friends having fun, getting drunk, tripping and reminiscing.

It is really fun to watch the four women interact with each other. They have their in-jokes and stories from the past that they share. There is also the different relationships between the members of the group that add to the fun and characters. All these elements are what makes it believable that they are all friends, and not actors put together for a film.

Most importantly, this is the fifth consistently funny film I have seen this year. That's right, eight months into the year and I've only seen five comedies that I would recommend to someone wanting to laugh.

However, it is about 15-20 minutes too long.

In short: Girls Trip is a very funny, friends go wild movie.

A Ghost Story review

A Ghost Story explores love, grief, time and existentialism after a man suddenly dies and comes back as a ghost.

I honestly don't think that I can completely review this film right now. I saw this opening day, then didn't get an opportunity to see it again as I had to travel to see it. There was stuff I definitely got from it, but I almost certainly missed alot. Therefore, I can't properly judge it.

What I got I really liked. This is why I can't wait until it comes out on DVD, so that I can watch again and again and just dissect the hell out of it.

In short: Artsy, ambitious, amazing.

Detroit review

Set during the riots of 1967, Detroit tells the story of the incident at the Algiers Motel.

I like Kathryn Bigelow. Point Break is awesome. The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty are both really good. So I'm glad to say that this is also really good. It manages to capture the fear and intensity that the victims must have felt during this experience. The film is shot in a shaky style that is expected from Bigelow, that makes it seem almost documentary style. Will Poulter is absolutely magnificent as one of the cops on the incident. In fact, all the actors are really good. The film made me hate John Krasinski, something that seems impossible on paper.

In short: One of the best films of the year.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets review

Valerian is the adaptation of the French sci-fi comic. In this adaptation, stuff happens.

Valerian started off well. There was a montage telling you about the creation of the space station with Space Oddity playing over it. It works. Then there's a fairly cool sequence where Valerian is on a mission over two dimensions. It also works. Then more stuff happens. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And more stuff. And then it ends. And I got bored about halfway through. And all the stuff that happens is loosely connected vignettes. And I didn't like Cara Delevigne again. But hey, at least she wasn't in a Katy Perry music video this time. It was a Rhianna one instead.

In short: Promise is wasted.

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie review

I used to read the Captain Underpants books all the time when I was younger. Admittedly, I didn't think that they would work as a film, but what did I know.

I have seen very few consistently funny comedies this year. Lego Batman was exactly what I wanted. Fist Fight was awful. Free Fire was more fun than funny (in a good way). Going in Style was enjoyable, but I wouldn't be able to tell you a single joke from it. Mindhorn was hilarious. Colossal wasn't trying to be really funny. Baywatch had its moments. The House had one really good joke, then the rest were subpar. Despicable Me 3 was disappointing. And The Big Sick was more of a drama made by comedians. That's two out of ten which I would recommend to someone wanting to laugh for 90 minutes or more. Luckily, Captain Underpants adds another film to the consistently funny list.

I really shouldn't be surprised that it's funny. I remember laughing at the books, and writer Nick Stoller has made funny films in the past. On the surface you may think that there is only toilet humour. But there is a lot of smart humour to do with the animation styles and how eight year olds see the world. George and Harold break the fourth wall throughout wit good quips that help keep the feel of the books alive in the film. The film never strays into a conventional structure, instead it has fun with the nature of the film and the jokes inside it.

Also, it has a better commentary on the American school system than Fist Fight. It's not too relevant, I just wanted to take another opportunity to diss Fist Fight.

In short: Captain Underpants is a very faithful adaptation that is one of the funniest films of the year.

Dunkirk review

What can I say about Dunkirk which hasn't already been said? I could say that it is great; but everyone else has said that. I could talk about the constant unending tension that is enforced by Hans Zimmer's loud, ticking score that has a presence throughout the whole film; but there's probably several video essays on that by now. I could compliment Tom Hardy on how he shows more emotion in his eyebrows than most actors can with their full body; but that line is probably cliché by now. I could talk about the amazing dogfight sequences, the rushes to escape sinking ships, and the rescue of those in sinking ships, or the rush to get off the beach; but everything that can be said about them has. I could say that this is THE film to see in IMAX; but everyone already knew that. I could talk about how the other established actors (Branagh, Murphy, Rylance) are all great; but that's a given.

I know what I'll do: I'll praise the new actors. Fionn Whitehead and Aneurin Barnard do really well at conveying emotion and character without saying much. Barry Keoghan and Tom Glynn-Carney manage to not be overshadowed by Mark Rylance and Cillian Murphy. Harry Style and the guy from The Force Awakens who says "Tell that to Kanjiklub" are pretty good too.

In short: You get the point.

The Big Sick review

The Big Sick is a dramatic comedy about an interracial couple whose relationship is tested when one of them is put into a coma.

I like Kumail Nanjiani in everything he's in. Even in something as awful as Fist Fight, I was able to forgive him as he needs to appear in mainstream comedies to help get financing for films like this. Of course, having Judd Apatow on to produce helps aswell.

I really enjoyed The Big Sick, it was funny, well written, moving, and, most importantly, not over the top. Some of the best scenes of the film are when Kumail (playing himself) is having dinner with his parents, who are trying to set him up with an arranged marriage. These scenes are reminiscent of the religious parent interactions in Aziz Ansari's excellent show Master of None. I didn't have a problem with the similarity as their experiences were different enough not to be the same.

For the majority of the film Zoe Kazan (as Kumail's girlfriend and future wife Emily) is in a coma. Before she is put under, co-writers and presented couple Nanjiani and Emily V. Gordon do a good job of making them a believable on screen couple. Credit must also be given to Michael Showalter's direction as helping make the relationship believable. As half the lead couple is in a coma for over an hour of the movie, Kumail has a lot of interactions with Emily's parents in the hospital waiting room and cafeteria. These range from Meet the Parents style awkward encounters, but without the moderator of the girlfriend, to full on comedic moments, one of which being a legitimately hilarious terrorism joke, to serious conversations about Emily's health and the relationships between her and Kumail, and between her parents.

There is one part of the film which stops me from loving it: Kumail's stand-up friends. They're played by Bo Burnham and Aidy Bryant and they just came off as annoying and obnoxious, and not in a good way. Their inclusion feels like Apatow saying he wants an Apatow improvisation part to the film, and Showalter saying OK because it's Judd Apatow and just lets them improvise for half an hour. In these parts the direction actually looks different and took me out of the film.

In short: The Big Sick is an extremely effective unconventional rom-com.

War for the Planet of the Apes review

War is the culmination of Caesar's uprising of intelligent apes.

Best of the trilogy. I don't care what it is, but give Andy Serkis some awards. Please! He has done so much for performance capture technology that he needs mainstream recognition for. And give some to the special effects guys too! There were moments when I had to remind myself I wasn't watching real intelligent apes. There is real emotion on their faces, and that is thanks to the actors. There is real fur on their skin, and that is thanks to the special effects guys.

OK, some actual review stuff. Not a conventional war movie, but still dark and gritty. Seriously, Serkis is the best. Bad Ape was welcome levity in the darkness. This will be controversial (if anyone is actually reading this), but War made me believe that Logan could mostly work with a 12a rating.

In short: A perfect conclusion to a perfect trilogy.

Spider-Man: Homecoming review

Alright, I'm very far behind (nearly 2 months), so most of these reviews will be short.

Spider-Man: Homecoming is the first Spider-Man film in the MCU, and finds Peter Parker (Tom Holland) juggling school life and becoming a better superhero.

Homecoming is fun to watch. It isn't a great film, it certainly has its problems, but it will pass the two hours well. Holland is wonderful as Parker/Spider-Man, and his interactions with his friend Ned, and Happy Hogan (who is in the film much more than Tony Stark) are very enjoyable. Michael Keaton's Vulture is also one of the better villains in recent superhero movies. There is a turning point which was actually unexpected, and works in building tension.

However, there are a few moments in the film that rather peeved me. These were mostly decisions made about characters, some of which were fan service by producers who don't know what fan service is, and the final shot in particular. If they had the confidence to go through with the dialogue, I wouldn't have been so irritated by it. Oh... and there's also too much villain setup.

In short: Spider-Man: Homecoming is a safe, enjoyable addition to the Marvel canon.

Despicable Me 3 review

Despicable Me 3 is the latest installment in the animated franchise, and introduces Gru's twin brother Dru, while also having villain Balthazar Bratt for Gru to deal with.

I like the other Despicable Me films, I can watch all three and enjoy them. That said, I was a bit disappointed in this latest film. There were funny parts, but just nowhere near the frequency or quality of the previous installments.

The villain is essential to this series of films. I found Bratt to be enjoyable in his antics, but everything about his character felt a little bit familiar to Mindhorn, which I wouldn't have been bothered by if Mindhorn hadn't been released as recently as May. Though so much if the film is dedicated to the Gru/Dru storyline, that Bratt is sidelined.

The minions role in the film is probably similar to the second movie. They do a very similar thing to the second: reducing the number of minions due to plot convenience. So occasionally the two minions with Gru will do something, and we also occasionally see the others in prison, becoming the most feared prisoners. While this was funny, the rest of the film was just a bit off.

In short: Despicable Me 3 is a disappointing addition to the franchise.

The House review

The House is a Will Ferrell, Amy Poehler comedy about a couple who start a casino with their friend, so that they can pay for their daughter's college tuition.

You know that small plot summary I gave you, that's almost all the film makers give us aswell. The first 15 minutes or so are setting up that premise, then it's mainly jokes, set pieces and improve scenes for the next hour. Then, for the last 15 minutes, there is some very rushed story wrapping up for lazily set up plot lines. Maybe halfway through the film is the funniest part of the film (which is apparently in the red band trailer), during which there is a reference to "the mob". After this it's not brought up again until a forced cameo about 15 minutes from the end. There is also a storyline to do with local council corruption and infidelity that is so infrequently seen, every time the film goes back to it (which isn't very often) I would think "Oh yeah, Nick Kroll is in this. And they're wasting Alison Tollman" who was great in season 1 of Fargo.

But I didn't care about most of that stuff because it made be laugh enough times. Though if the finger scene is in the trailer, you have seen the best part and there are no other jokes as good. It won't go down as a comedy classic but the second half was funny enough. The first half, however, had way too many jokes without punchlines. There's set up, but nothing else. It's almost as if the writers had not reached the lesson on punchlines in their course on writing jokes.

Oh, and Jason Mantzoukas is easily the best part.

In short: The House would probably be best viewed on a streaming site.

The Circle review

The Circle follows a woman as she starts to work at a tech giant, where she finds out that it may not be as perfect as it seems.

Dave Eggers' book, that this is based on, is really good. It was an easy read that brought up queations regarding technology and privacy in a non-cliche way. It is 491 pages long and the film is just under 2 hours long, so there will be details lost in the adaptation process. But I would have expected key details regarding plot, characters and what The Circle is to be kept in.

That's right, if I hadn't read the book, I don't think I would have known what The Circle is, what it does, who does what, and how it became as big as it is. I understand that exposition overloads are boring, but when the audience is left in the dark about the title company, I wouldn't mind an introductory video in a lift or something. It's this sort of disregard for important details that makes any reveal have little to no impact. For example, there is a reveal concerning a character's identity that would leave anyone who hasn't read the book asking "Who?" before mentally rewinding the film and realising the name was said once in passing.

But really though, what is The Circle? A place for TED talks? Customer service for a non-descript social network? Silicon Valley with a budget? A cult? Apparently The Circle has hundreds of millions of users, who all use a service we are never told about. They made everything so underdeveloped that nothing that happens has any stakes. When characters get offed, it's just kinda out of nowhere and has no impact.

I don't like to compare adaptations to their source material; but I'm going to have to here. The book features a woman named Mae that starts working at The Circle after leaving a job she hates. She uses technology but is not obsessed. As she works at The Circle, she starts to use technology and social media more, until it literally becomes part of her identity. As she becomes more ingrained in The Circle, she becomes more and more estranged from her family and friends, eventually resulting in death, overdoses and going off the grid. At the end of the novel she stares at her comatose friend, who is in this condition due to jealousy and isolation caused by Mae and their technology driven culture, and she ponders removing the final wall of privacy in life: making every thoughts public. The novel contains a lot of commentary on how privacy is being taken away as we become more connected. It's very well handled aswell. By the end of the novel Mae has become completely engrossed in The Circle's quest to connect everyone and to share everything. She doesn't get redemption for her decisions that caused pain to others, she gets rewarded and continues to climb social and professional ladders. The dark social commentary is what sets the book apart from the rest of the crowd.

In the film, all of that is lost. Instead they go for the Hollywood ending. Yes, her friend is still killed by her actions. But her relationship with her parents is not ruined, and her friend who overdoses in the book decides to go back to Scotland to clear her mind. Then Mae decides to take up the offer of the founder to take down the company from the inside (one of the most poorly handled plot threads I've ever seen in a film), and she makes everything about the two big bosses known to the public. She does this in an effort to create scandals and to get The Circle shut down or something like that. But where is the commentary in that? "Corporations are bad." Can you really not say more than that, the book says much more than that and does it in a more subtle manner. Did you have too many red dots focused on your chests while you were making the movie?

And somehow Dave Eggers was involved in the adaptation process.

In short: The Circle is a complete waste of potential (you had Tom Hanks).

Sorry if I started to get lost there at the end: I'm writing this way too late and I don't like editing before I post stuff(real smart), so I hope you enjoyed the potential rambling.

Okja review

Okja is a film which sees the friendship between a Korean girl and a superpig tested once the pig is taken to America to be a mascot for a food corporation.

The superpigs in the film were created by the fictional Mirando company as a new source of food. 26 of these superpigs are sent to farmers around the world to compete to see who can make the best superpig, as a publicity stunt. This is how the main character, Mija, meets Okja, her grandfather's superpig. They grow up together, but we only see them the day before Mirando comes to take Okja away. The film is based completely around Mija's friendship with Okja, so it's great that it is properly established in the day that we see them together.

After this is when the film takes a turn to following eco-terrorists, the corporate plans, developing it's vegan message, all while Mija is trying to reunite with Okja. This main chunk of the film is very entertaining, if difficult to watch at times. The difficulty comes from seeing Okja mistreated. Bring able to get a reaction out of seeing a fictional, CGI animal getting harmed shows how well the film makers were able to make Okja into a believable, effective character.

I mentioned the vegan message that is portrayed in Okja. I'm not a vegan, vegetarian, pescetarian, pescepescetarian, or anything else. I eat meat, and I'm fine with it, it's how life on Earth goes, creatures eat other creatures. So while the film does a good job at developing its vegan message, and at times it is very damming towards the processed food industry, it's not enough to make me change my diet.

In short: Okja presents a strong inter-species relationship while also effectively commenting on the commercialisation of food.

Gifted review

Gifted is a film about a child prodigy, and the legal case for her guardianship being fought between her uncle and her grandmother.

This is a very formulaic, cheesy melodrama. There are no moments that took me by surprise or could not be mapped out half an hour in advance. That said it succeeds in what it's trying for. I enjoyed watching the film and I wasn't very bothered by the predictability of it all. In fact, by the end I was invested in Chris Evan's plight, despite knowing that there would be no diversion from the well travelled path. The only surprise in the film is when "Directed by Marc Webb" appeared in the credits, as I didn't expect the guy who made The Amazing Spider-Man films to then move onto a film like this.

In short: Gifted is effective melodrama.

Transformers: The Last Knight review

This is the fifth Transformers film to be directed by Michael Bay, and once again features Mark Wahlberg as the human protagonist as a usually overcrowded story takes place.

I had a thought while watching The Last Knight. This thought wasn't provoked by any moment in particular, but by the film as a whole. I don't think Michael Bay has ever seen an episode of the original Transformers series. That series was made to sell toys but featured fleshed out Transformers, detailed lore, and reasons to keep watching. The only thing that Bay seems to have successfully transferred over is the toy advert angle, but he could have got that from an actual toy advert. I had this thought because of all the Bay-isms, inconsistencies in continuity and murder of the lore that is present in The Last Knight.

I'm not sure how I didn't realise this before. Maybe it's because I was younger when the other films came out. Though now that I think about it, it is pretty obvious. Just think about the way the Autobots and Decepticons are portrayed, the wasting of The Fallen, the treatment of Sentinel Prime, Galvatron in the last film, a GIANT spoiler for this film. Then there is the mistreatment of the main and side characters between films (apparently Simmons can walk again, Galvatron is Megatron again, and what every happened to Lennox's family that was mentioned in the first film). And there is one glaring problem facing the conclusion of a character's story that feels extremely like an afterthought just to wrap things up. And the basic story is very similar to the third.

In fact, this film is really not that different from the other films. But I didn't care.

If you don't like the other Transformers films then you're not going to like this either. I just enjoy watching giant robots hit each other. It's as simple as that. The second time I saw this I made the mistake of trying to think. Please, please, don't make the same mistake I did. Just don't think. It's as simple as that. Don't think. Think and you're dead. This is dumb. Dumber than you can imagine. Don't turn it on. Don't look away. And don't think. Good Luck.

In short: It's a Transformers movie.

Baby Driver review

Baby Driver is the latest film by Edgar Wright, and follows a getaway driver named Baby (huh) who wants out of that business.

I love Edgar Wright's films. Hot Fuzz is one of the best comedies ever made and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is one of my favourite films(I could write about it for ages). Shaun of the Dead is up there with the best romantic comedies(but nothing beats Groundhog Day). Ant-Man still remains as on of the biggest cinematic 'What if?'s that I have. My one complaint about one of his films is that it wasn't until rewatches that I truly appreciated The World's End. So when I found out about a preview screening for Baby Driver I was extremely excited.

Luckily I wasn't disappointed. I had seen a trailer before watching the film, but I wasn't really paying attention. So I'm not going to say anything that either wasn't in the trailer or the interviews with Wright, Kevin Spacey and Jamie Foxx that I watched/heard/read.

The opening scene of the film is essentially the music video for Mint Royale's Blue Song, but moved to Atlanta and without the presence of Noel Fielding's hair. After that, it goes straight into a car chase as Baby helps the bank robbers escape the scene of the crime. During this, and the next, scene anyone unfamiliar with Wright's style will be able to tell what the rest of the film will feel like. During this chase scene, the movements are synced up to the music that Baby must always listen to, and, unlike another film with Jamie Foxx in that was released this year, the camera is allowed to stay steady and follow the car through the streets of Atlanta without cuts every other second.

After the opening scene, the rest of the film mostly keeps the pace and tone, while also expanding on that tone. There are moments of comedy but, unlike Wright's other films, it never becomes a full on comedy. Instead it keeps the focus on two main story lines: Baby wanting out of Kevin Spacey's crime group, and his new relationship with a waitress played by Lily James. This second plot thread is a recurring one in Wright's work (Shaun and Liz in Shaun of the Dead, Scott and Ramona/Knives in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), and given how it's such a large part of the film, it's really important that you believe in them as a couple. Luckily Ansel Elgort and James have enough chemistry to sell the story that is being presented to them. A lot of their early relationship plays out in a very Edgar Wright way that feels almost like a fairy tale. Despite the near-fantasy, it still feels real.

There is one major aspect of the film which I have neglected: the soundtrack. In the film, Baby has tinnitus and will always listen to music on a variety of iPods. Whenever Baby is listening to music we all hear it too, so the moments of silence are few and far between. But these silent moments are not completely silent, as the ringing in Baby's ears are implemented into the sound mix. This really helps to build his character through sound which is not created by Elgort. This is one of my favourite aspects of the film. The way it manages to create a character through isolated sound, while most films would use the actor, props or setting, is excellent.

In short: Baby Driver is yet another complete success from Edgar Wright, proving his British style transfers well to an American film.

Churchill review

Churchill follows Brian Cox as the ex-Prime Minister in the days leading up to the D-Day landings.

Every few years there is a film released in June which is in some way about D-Day. The best of these in recent years was Edge of Tomorrow (or whatever it's called this week) in 2014. The reason this was the best of the recent D-Day films is that on the surface, it looks like a sci-fi action, but when you actually think about it, you realise it's ties to D-Day. Churchill, however, does nothing original with the historical event.

If you've ever watched a BBC or Channel 4 historical movie, the you will have seen something very similar to this film. I'm not saying that they can't be original, just that this is typical of what you'd expect from them. The problem is that I can see what the director was trying to go for. There are several scenes where Churchill is walking on the beach mournfully, remembering a similar operation that didn't work during the first world war. These sequences would be more effective if they weren't handled so ham-fistedly. Brian Cox is a great actor, and he's great in this too, so take advantage of having him in your film and let him do the heavy lifting in regards to the portrayal of his haunted nature.

In short: Brian Cox is great.

The Mummy (2017) review

The Mummy is an attempt to reboot the adventure franchise and set up a "Dark Universe" of iconic monsters. In this version, Tom Cruise is a military man who accidentally awakens the mummy Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella).

Remember the 1999 film with Brendan Fraser. Of course you do, it is really good blockbuster entertainment that still holds up. That film begins with the story of how Imhotep was cursed. This new version opens with the construction of Crossrail. How exciting!

That is the main problem with the film: it's just not exciting. It definitely tries to be at times, but it just does not manage to be. Aswell as that, it tries to be scary, fun and serious. It fails at all this. If they succeeded at all of them then it would still have the same main problem, and that is that it is tonally all over the place. It keeps on trying to stick with one tone, but never for long enough to actually make an effect. I think that this is in part because of director Alex Kurtzman, best known as a screen writer. Before this he has only directed an episode of Alias and the drama People Like Us, which had a budget of only $16 million, of which it made back $12 million. His hiring perplexes me. The studio was probably looking for someone to push around, so they hired a man who directed a small budget film which failed to make its budget back and received a mixed critical reception. "We did it for the fans!" they cry out, as the film fails to engage properly. If that were so, YOU WOULD HAVE GIVEN BRENDAN FRASER A CAMEO YOU MONEY SUCKING VAMPIRES!

Hold on a second, I just need to calm down... I need to think happy thoughts... Wonder Woman, Fargo, the current series of Doctor Who is pretty good, exams are over, life's going swell. Thanks for bearing with me through that.

Anyway, this is a cash grab if I've ever seen one. This film was made with the sole intention of making money.

You know what's the popular thing right now? Cinematic universes! Add Russel Crowe to give some exposition and give the film its best, if unintentional, scene.

You know what's nostalgically profitable right now? The 1999 version of The Mummy! Let's reboot it, and not have any cast member cameos despite Rachel Weisz still making films and there being a huge internet following for Brendan Fraser.

Ypu know who's hot hot right now? That Tom Cruise is so hot right now! Let's give him a bland, forgettable character and add some "intrigue" to him for the sequel.

You know who has a new following from fan boys after two films? Sofia Boutella! Let's make her mummy nowhere near as memorable as Imhotep, but instead play to her strengths as a physical performer and give her nothing else to do.

You know where a popular place to film is and also has inticing tax breaks? London! Make the majority of the film set there despite it being miles from any sand and the only things remotely Ancient Egyptian are in the museums. But we're not going to show any of that.

You know where is currently politically unstable and problematic? Egypt! No scenes will be set there despite the fact that the movie is BASED ON ANCIENT EGYPTIAN MYTHS SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE TOMB TO IRAQ AND THEN LEAVE AFRICA IMMEDIATELY AND NOT RETURN!

Throw in an unexperienced director the studio can boss around, 6 writers and a big CGI budget and we have ourselves a cash grab on our hands.

To be fair, after Crossrail, the film then tells us Ahmanet's back story (despite the fact that they then explain it naturally again during the story). And they solved the problem of sandless London in an inventive sequence. And when Russel Crowe tries to do a cockney accent it is laugh out loud funny.

Unless the next film in the Dark Universe gets good reviews, or I'm impressed by the marketing, I will not be supporting this franchise designed to make money.

In short: The Mummy is one of the laziest, most panderous attempts to make money recently. But hey, at least the finale didn't take place in China.

Wonder Woman review

It's good.

I wrote the whole thing and then it didn't save. By now you will have heard many glowing reviews, this one being similar, and I'm not sure whether I can add much more that will be interesting to read. What I will say that the whole film is like The Warehouse Scene in Batman v Superman. What I mean by that is that this is exactly what I wanted from a Wonder Woman film.

Baywatch review

Baywatch is the latest attempt at adapting a serious series into a comedy, and stars Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron as members of the titular lifeguard team.

Baywatch is not the worst comedy I've seen this year, it is also not the best. It's a very average comedy. Yes there are some scenes which are laugh out loud funny, but there are also several scenes of silence.

Dwayne Johnson is a very likeable guy. Like Tom Hanks, it would be very interesting to see him as a villain. However, here he is Lieutenant(?) Mitch Buchannon, head lifeguard. Of course he's likeable, yes he's funny, but the material let's him down somewhat. The best parts are when he's interacting with Zac Efron's trainee lifeguard Matt Brody, who is also a disgraced Olympic athlete. It is fun to see them interact with each other and there is a good running joke where Johnson refers to him as several popular young musicians. The rest of the cast don't have much to do. But Jon Bass, who I have not seen in anything else, does the best with what he's given. Yes, he is basically playing the funny, nerdy, fat guy, but he fully embraces it.

The writing is not very smart, and there are some jokes that sound like they are ripped straight from a conversation between a group of 13 year olds at school. Baywatch is trying to Jump Street the franchise, but when there are very few smart jokes, it's not going to succeed. The Jump Street films were funny because they poked fun at themselves and the show, pointing out how ridiculous many things were. This year, both this and Chips(which I purposefully avoided) have tried to replicate what was so good about the Jump Street films, but from what I gather neither understands why they were two of the most intelligent, and funniest, comedies of the last few years. The Jump Street films were self aware and never took themselves seriously. They were meta, self aware, embraced their ridiculousness while also questioning it at every corner. Baywatch thinks that what made them successful was adapting a cheesy show from 25 years ago and making it a raunchy r-rated comedy. It's because of this that Baywatch is not able to go anywhere near the heights of Jump Street.

I like a bit of realism in comedies. Absurdism is fine, but I like a few moments where a character points out the absurdism. There are a few moments when Efron reminds Johnson that they are lifeguards and not cops, but when the bland corruption story starts to unravel and the ridiculousness increases, I would have liked for a character to realise this and point this out. Throughout the film people die, and towards the end the lifeguards definetely kill some people, yet we never see any consequences for their actions. The only consequence is a temporary firing from the watch.

In short: Baywatch has its moments, but is mostly a waste of potential.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge review

Salazar's Revenge is the fifth installment in the Pirates franchise and follows Captain Jack Sparrow as he searches for Poseidon's Trident.

At this point if you are not a fan of the franchise you will probably never be. I watched these films as I grew up and have enjoyed them all. I enjoyed this one but it's not going to change anyones minds towards the franchise.

There are quite a few characters returning with Jack, including a small scene featuring Orlando Bloom, while also introducing Kaya Scodelario and Brenton Thwaites, who are introduced in hopes of being the new Elizabeth and Will. Also new is Javier Bardem's Captain Salazar, a ghost whose crew wants revenge on Jack Sparrow for cursing them years ago. Bardem is a welcome addition and his look, a mixture of makeup and CGI is certainly interesting. But Bardem has played some fantastic villains in the past (Anton Chigurh, Silva) and I don't think Salazar will be remembered as fondly.

It is visually really good. The production crew and the animators obviously knew what they were doing and did it well. That said, there are not too many memorable original scenes. There is one which is adapted almost exactly from Fast and Furious 5. And everything else, save one scene at the end, just doesn't stand out.

In short: It's a Pirates of the Caribbean film.

Colossal review

Colossal is about an alcoholic woman who returns to her hometown after her boyfriend broke up with her. Meanwhile, a kaiju is attacking Seoul.

Trying to describe this movie accurately is a challenge. Half of it involves Anne Hathaway's character trying to sort out her life and deal with her alcoholism. The other half is of a monster attacking Seoul and how the world reacts to this. These parts interact with each other and you wouldn't be able to fast forward to the parts you are interested in without losing key elements of the film. The way they interact is smart, interesting and original. I would compare it to The Guest (coincidentally also with Dan Stevens) in the way that the two completely different films meld together.

As mentioned, Hathaway portrays an alcoholic who returns home. Here she meets a friend from school, Jason Sudeikis, who offers her a job at his bar. Because of this she doesn't tackle her alcoholism in a traditional way. At the bar she hangs out with Sudeikis and two of his friends. Here they talk about how to improve the bar and, eventually, the monster. This was one of my favourite parts of the film: the realistic way people would react to a monster attacking a city halfway across the world. The social aspect is captured with the bar becoming busier, and insights into the theories surrounding the monster are overheard.

The way we are shown that Hathaway is an alcoholic is no different than many other films: her hair is not done up and her mascara is heavy around her eyes. While the look is familiar, it is how she portrays Gloria which is appreciated. Gloria's identity is not simply that she is an alcoholic, we learn more about her and her other troubles in the past which pushed her towards this point. I presume that the way she handles her alcoholism is realistic (I've never been familiar with it in my life). The dependency does not make her quirky and inhibits her in her life and career.

There is an event in the film which causes the rest of it to become very dark. This event helps to reinforce the idea of personal demons that everyone has. It also, like 10 Cloverfield Lane, shows that there are more types of monsters than those which attack our cities. It is this parallel that really makes the film memorable and worth watching.

In short: Colossal is an interesting look at both alcohol and monsters, and how they affect people's lives.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword review

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is the latest retelling of the King Arthur story, this time brought to us by Guy Ritchie.

In this version Arthur is portrayed by Charlie Hunnam and is an origin story of how he became king of England. Because of this, the Knights of the Roundtable are barely there. But surely there will still be other parts of the lore? Nope! While the sword in the stone is in there, the Lady of the Lake is barely there, Merlin is only referenced, the full Knights are not assembled, and several other characters are missing. All of this makes it seem like sequel setup. This doesn't mean the film is not good. Everything else is what makes the film bad.

The story is as familiar as can be, think Hamlet with magic. This could make for an interesting film, Hamlet with animals certainly was, but it all feels completely unoriginal. The sets, set pieces and characters feel derivative of every fantasy project of the last 30 years. Action scenes reminded me of Lord of the Rings, Jude Law's King Vortigan had an Emperor Palpatine sense to him, it looked like they snuck onto Game of Thrones sets between seasons, and Hunnam's Arthur is every bland hero ever. In fact, the only original thing brought to the film is Guy Ritchie's style. But style doesn't make a film good.

I kinda like Guy Ritchie. I love his Sherlock Holmes films, The Man from U.N.C.L.E is really fun, and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels was influential for a lot of British hard man crime films. Yes, I have heard horrible things about that Madonna movie and Revolver, but I've never seen them. It's a shame that King Arthur does not live up to the expectations I have from the films of his that I have seen.

I will say that the film looked good and I rather enjoyed Daniel Pemberton's music. But can we all agree to not let David Beckham act again, or at least until he has had a lot of lessons. Deadpool was not wrong about him.

In short: This latest take on King Arthur fails to entertain or come up with much original content.

Alien: Covenant review

Alien: Covenant is the latest installment in the sci-fi franchise, and follows a colony ship that finds a planet with better vital signs than the planet they are heading to.

My relationship with the Alien franchise is semi-interesting and recent. I watched Prometheus on TV a few years ago and thought it was a decent sci-fi thriller. I then watched all five of the Alien films in the three days before seeing Covenant. My quick thoughts on them are: great, a perfect sequel, meh, awful, still a decent sci-fi thriller. Going into Covenant I didn't have as much invested into the franchise as many other people did, and went in with a open mind as to what to expect.

Covenant takes place after Prometheus but is still prior to Alien. The title hints towards the original (the "Alien:" part) and Prometheus (the name of the ship in the title). As with the title, the film feels like a combination of the two films. Half of the film is bloody sci-fi horror and the other half is philosophical scenes of creation and discovery. Surprisingly these parts meld together fairly well.

Prometheus received a lot of hate because of its lack of xenomorphs and the way it handles the lore of the franchise. If this stuff bothered you about Prometheus (which shouldn't be what bothers you about it) you're probably going to be disappointed with Covenant. While the Alien parts are extremely gory and very fun, the rest of the film will bore and annoy you. These parts of the film I enjoyed as they explored similar areas to Prometheus, such as morality and creation, and expanded on the ideas of consciousness and further explored the androids.

The android in the film is once again played by Michael Fassbender, who continues to prove that he is one of the best actors working today. In Walter he is able to portray an android in a completely different way from David. The rest of the cast all do fine (I was pleasantly surprised by Danny McBride) but none of them hold a flute to Fassbender. There is one cast member whose presence I don't understand. They are essentially in the film to give a little bit of exposition before getting killed off. It's not the character I have a problem with, but the actor that portrays them. I've been trying to figure out why they were in the film, and the only conclusion I can come up with was that it was a favour for a friend.

I mentioned that people shouldn't have been annoyed with Prometheus' lack of xenomorphs and what it did to the lore. The problems I had with it were that there were some glaring story and character problems, and the rushed ending. Sadly, Covenant shares most of these problems. There are decisions made by characters that make no sense given their position. There are parts of the film that make you ask "What?". The ending is rushed and feels like Scott is saying that they need to include some xenomorph action to please those that didn't like Prometheus. If a third prequel is made I hope they are able to avoid these problems.

In short: Alien: Covenant is an enjoyable film with many of the same problems as Prometheus.

Sleepless review

Sleepless is an action film starring Jamie Foxx as a Las Vegas cop who enters a casino to get his son back.

Like comedies, I can give action films a pass if it does what it says on the tin well. From the opening scene, I knew I wouldn't be giving it a pass. Every 2 seconds there was a cut, and in a car chase you need to be able to see what's happening. I didn't know how long they drove for, or the number of cars involved. It didn't improve from there. In the whole film there are only a few shots that last more than 10 seconds. And the cinematography is very shaky. A good director would be able to hide the fact that it's not Jamie Foxx without having the camera shake as if the cameraman had arthritis.

The story is extremely familiar and in no way engaging. It is essentially Jamie Foxx does Taken. He spends the majority of the film trying to get back his son, to whom he is distant, and will kill anyone that gets in his way. We never learn anything about his son except for that the plays an unspecified sport. Because of this I didn't care about Foxx's fight.

Once in the casino it is just a disappointing bore. Foxx is running around, going back and forth with guns and cocaine and the such. It's boring, repetitive and none of the action is memorable.

The most disappointing part is the cast. You have Oscar winner Jamie Foxx, Golden Globe nominee Michelle Monaghan, David Harbour, Dermot Mulroney and Scoot McNairy. Everyone in the cast is great, but they are all wasted on a terrible script.

After slogging through the film comes the part which annoyed me the most. Right before the credits is the most obvious sequel set up ever. It doesn't fit with what has led up to this point. I don't want to return to this film and I hope they don't get their wish and make a sequel.

In short: Sleepless is *cue overused phrase* not a fitting title.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 review

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 continues the adventures of the team.

The first Guardians is an extremely fun comic book movie. Before seeing it I was not familiar with the characters, but afterwards loved them. Naturally my anticipation was high for this sequel.

This film is just as much fun as the first. It shows the team develop their relationships between each other while making the states higher.

Like a Fast and Furious film, this deals a lot with family. I feel that the F&F films don't develop the family theme other than Vin Diesel or Paul Walker or Michelle Rodriguez saying that they're family, though they do it nowhere near as badly as Suicide Squad. Here, they actually develop the team so that you semi-believe the family theme. It is further developed by Peter meeting his father, Gamora and Nebula's relationship, Drax having a surrogate father/daughter relationship with Mantis, and the team caring for Baby Groot.

Speaking of Baby Groot, he is the best part. Sure, he's an easy laugh, but his cuteness, innocence and hilarity completely won me over. Vying for second best is tough, as Yondu has the best arc but Drax has the best lines. Michael Rooker helped bring depth and soul to what was a side character in the first film. Dave Bautista has improved his acting since the first and delivers all his lines brilliantly.

Sadly it is not as good as the original. James Gunn has been left alone to write the film this time, and the James Gunn-ness has increased. The first time I saw Vol. 2 I was skeptical about the increased Gunn-ness, but the second time I wholly accepted it. There is also some story structure problems: the team is split up for quite a while, which made it a bit meandering.

In short: GOTGV2 is just as fun as the first, but not quite as good.

Mindhorn review

Mindhorn is a comedy about a has-been actor who is called back to the Isle of Mann to reprise his most famous role in order to help solve a murder case.

The film is co-written by and stars Julian Barrett, of Mighty Boosh fame. He is hilarious as the actor who thinks he is much more important than he actually is. We are introduced to him through a documentary style recap of his fame, and then it picks up 25 years later when he is struggling for work. The laughs start from the beginning and do not let up throughout.

This is absurdist British humour at its best. The case goes in interesting places, and Barrett never seems to stop delivering the laughs. Other characters do get to shine, the best line in the film belongs to the antagonist, and Russel Tovey threatens to steal the film from Barrett at times. I genuinely think this is the funniest film I have seen in cinemas in quite a while. I would even say it is funnier than Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping, my two favourite comedies of last year.

It keeps to a short and necessary 89 minutes, which stops the film from dragging. The story is engaging, but the jokes are what keeps the film interesting. I don't think I have laughed more at a film recently than I have at the climactic scene.

The premise of the fake show, also titled Mindhorn, is about a detective with a robotic eye that allows him to "see the truth" (a premise not too dissimilar to that in the yet-to-be-made Crime Stinks: The Smell of Penetration). The murder plot in the film is equally as ridiculous as the 80s cop shows that they are parodying. Luckily, it never veers into cheese and embraces the ridiculousness, adding to the film's charm.

In short: Mindhorn is hilarious, extremely fun and suitably ridiculous.

The Zookeeper's Wife review

The Zookeeper's Wife is a holocaust drama about a husband and wife who smuggle Jews out of the ghettos and let them hide at their disused zoo.

On the scale of holocaust dramas this is somewhere in the middle. Jessica Chastain is great, as is Daniel Brühl in a smaller role. The story is familiar but told well. My problem is the unclear view of the survivors. The early scenes show Chastain's character caring for the animals in an affectionate way. When they are helping those who have escaped, she cares for them in a similar way. The presumption is that means she treats the animals like humans, but it also leaves an unpleasant thought that she might be treating the survivors like animals. That aside it is rather good.

In short: It is an effective but flawed holocaust drama.

Fast and Furious 8 review

Fast and Furious 8 is the latest instalment in the franchise, and sees Dominic Toretto go rogue against the family, with Charlize Theron's cyber terrorist.

My view on the recent Fast and Furious is; the 1st is OK, the 2nd and 3rd are rubbish, the 4th is OK, the 5th is easily the best, the 6th is good, and the 7th is somewhere between the previous two. I haven't watched any of the good ones more than twice, apart from 5, because they are just fun, dumb action movies. Luckily, 8 continues the surreal action.

At this point in the franchise you should know exactly what to expect, and if you expect any more you will be disappointed. Luckily I wanted a fun action movie, and in delivered in that sense. I couldn't care less about the plot of these films (there was a character and an important plot point I completely forgot about), so while others might be annoyed by certain things, I wasn't.

The reason Dom is working with the cyber terrorists is believable enough for him, but it wasn't the part I wanted the film to keep returning to. What I wanted was The Rock and The Stath interacting with each other. They are easily the highlights and I am glad that a spinoff with the two has been announced. The best, most enjoyable scene includes Statham, an infant and some rodents.

Another enjoyable part is Tyrese Gibson's comic relief, Roman. In this world he is the everyman, the only one who realises how ridiculous their situation is. The family have gone from street racers to, essentially, secret agents. His best line is when he brings this up and says something along the lines of this not being his original life.

However, there were some disappointing aspects: many of which have to do with Charlize Theron's villain. Theron is a brilliant actress, and a pretty good action star. So it is a shame that she is very underused. Her character would have been more at home in the most recent Watch Dogs game, and she never got to show off her action skills. In Mad Max: Fury Road she is the standout of the whole film, a stronger character than Max, but here she is given barely anything. And when she looks like she will have an action scene she parachutes away.

Another problem I have has to do with one of the main set pieces, the one in the trailer where half the cars in New York are hacked and remotely controlled. We see that many of them are empty, but some still have people in them. During this scene, they are rammed together, and shot at by government officials. Not once is it brought up that there were people in the cars who would have died, some of whom being killed by a Russian government employee.

While I'm on the subject of the set pieces, it still annoys me that the Fast and Furious trailers always feature them. I know they need to be shown to get people to want to see the film, but I knew which was coming and when, and through the whole thing I was waiting for the submarine part. It's just as bad as when they showed the plane exploding in the trailer for 6.

In short: It's a Fast and Furious film.

Going in Style review

Going in Style is a comedy about three pensioners who decide to rob a bank after their pension fund is dissolved.

The film stars three excellent actors: Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Alan Arkin. Freeman has openly talked about starring in anything that gives him a paycheck, so there is always the trepidation of whether a film he stars in is one he wants to make, or just wants the money. Their is also the story of Michael Caine reading the script for Jaws: The Revenge and deciding to star after the words "Open: the Bahamas", and later saying that he has never seen it, but has seen the house it built.

Even if two of the leads took their roles for money, they all look like they had a lot of fun making the film. And luckily, the fun is mostly transferred to the screen. While there are no big laughs, there are several chuckles to be had and it moves along at a pace so that I was never bored.

It is nice to see these three actors, with an average age of 82 still getting leading roles in a time where mainstream films (especially comedies) are more aiming towards teenagers and people in their twenty's.

In short: Going in Style is harmless fun, but not much more.

Their Finest review

Their Finest is directed by Lone Sherfig and is about a woman who is hired to write propaganda films for the Ministry of Information during World War 2.

The main idea of a woman working in a predominantly male field and showing that she is just as good, if not better than, her male coworkers during a time of heightened tensions between the sexes and countries is an interesting, and familiar one. It was explored to great effect earlier this year in Hidden Figures. And while I appreciated it here, as a whole it did not work as well as Hidden Figures.

There are three main differences between Their Finest and Hidden Figures: the quality of the film, the inspirational reach, and how true the film is.

While there are some aspects of Their Finest which are very good, overall I thought it was just ok. There is some cracking dialogue, most of which comes from Bill Nighy as an actor who finds it difficult to accept that he is ageing and not as popular as he used to be. Nighy's Ambrose Hilliard could easily carry a film of his own, but then there is the possibility that his expanded role would ruin the character. The production design is also wonderful. The film looks as though it is actually in the murky, war ravaged streets of 1940s London.

The first half of the film; when Gemma Arterton's Catrin Cole is starting working for the Ministry, meeting her fellow writers and writing the main film-within-a-film is easily the strongest part. After that I started to lose interest, especially after an underdeveloped romantic subplot (similar to Hidden Figures is introduced. Although we see more of Bill Nighy in this half, it is just not as interesting to watch. I started to get bored at points and would have preferred if it kept to an hour and a half (like the fake film and the title of the book this is based on).

The film does have commentary on the role women have both then and now. While this film is written and directed by women, the film industry is still not a 50/50 split when it comes to these creative roles. There are conversations about pay, credits and the way her writing is viewed. It is mostly in comparison to Catrin's co-writer (played by Sam Claflin). Due to the time of war that the country was in, there are not many discussions or implications of discrimination outside of those areas, apart from Catrin arguing heavily about the role that the twins will play in the film. She fights to have them be more than "the people that go to Dunkirk to save the troops" and have them be more heroic in the script.

Heroism is present in the fake film, Their Finest and Hidden Figures. The problem is that the female heroism comes off stronger in the fake film than in the rest of the film. And when compared to Hidden Figures it is severely lacking. Part of what is great about Hidden Figures is that I believe it may be able to inspire young girls to want to work in one of the scientific fields that are focused on in the film. This is because it is an accessible, inspirational well made film that almost anyone would be able to watch. However I don't believe that Their Finest will be as inspiring. This is because I don't think it will have as wide a reach, and it doesn't show fighting against opposition as well.

Moving away from the Hidden Figures comparison: there is a point towards the end of the film where something completely unexpected happens. I would have been more accepting of it if they had properly shown the destruction of the Blitz. Because it has not been well established, this moment feels out of place in the film, and abruptly ends one story arc.

In short: The first half shows a lot of promise, but wastes it in an uninteresting second half.

Ghost in the Shell (2017) review

Ghost in the Shell is the live action, American adaption of the famous manga, which follows a law enforcer called The Major, who is a human brain (a ghost) inside a completely robotic body (a shell).

The only other version I am familiar with is the 1995 anime, so I can't help but compare it to that masterpiece. Obviously this is nowhere near as good, but that doesn't mean I didn't have fun.

This is missing anything remotely complex present in the anime. Any ambiguity, subtext, subtlety or social commentary is completely abandoned for the sake of action. There is some social commentary, but it is mostly in clunky throwaway lines that seem to more be references to the anime. There are plenty of visual references to the anime, and a scene partially lifted that doesn't quite fit. The lifted scene is the bin lorry scene and its aftermath. In the anime it works due to the context, but here it seems as though it is there to pander to the fans.

The plot is mostly changed, which I like, but the new plot is more conventional, predictable and safe. They try to have an ambiguous villain, but the twist is really obvious and neither villain is well developed. And with the changed plot removes any ambiguity that may have surrounded The Major.

Scarlett Johansson does the action scenes convincingly, though I don't doubt the use of stunt doubles, and handles the rest of the scenes well. Pilou Asbæk (I'm really glad there's no audio aspect to these reviews as I would have butchered his name) is very well cast as Batou. He is visually very similar to the character in the anime.

In fact, the visuals are easily the best part of the film. You can see that they have put most of their budget on screen. There is some impressive CGI, and the city looks fantastic. This is a prime example of style over substance.

I wanted to have this review up as soon as possible, but since Saturday I have postponed it. Since then it was revealed that it only made $19 million opening weekend in the USA, currently the world's largest film market. The film has a budget of over $100 million so it will be difficult to make it back (it made $40 million everywhere else). I am honestly not surprised it made relatively little. There is the whitewashing controversy (which isn't fair if you haven't seen the film) and some poor marketing.

With the marketing, they definitely made it known that it was coming out, but it was how. I don't think they made it too clear that Scarlett Johansson is playing a cyborg, and the trailers made it look like a typical sci-fi action movie. When I saw Free Fire, the opening 15 minutes of Ghost in the Shell were shown in 3D(don't). This footage instilled confidence in me, but it didn't really help explain the film to those unfamiliar to the subject. Afterwards my dad said that he had no idea what was going on.

In that preview footage, some of the shots were slightly different. In fact the difference was that they had blood, and the final product didn't. One of the shots is even in the trailer(attached somewhere). This made me think that the studio corrupted the directors vision in order to get a lower rating. This is despite films like Kingsman, Fifty Shades, Deadpool, John Wick: Chapter 2, Get Out and Logan all proving you can be successful without an all ages rating. I won't be surprised if a 15 rated cut will be released on the DVD.

In short: Ghost in the Shell is a beautiful film with no depth. Just watch the anime instead.

The Discovery review

I have decided that if an original film is released on Netflix and I decide to watch it, I will review it here.

The Discovery is about the aftermath of a scientist proving the existence of an afterlife.

The film starts off with an interview with Robert Redford's scientist, Thomas, around 6 months after the discovery. The state of the world is set up, with the suicide rate having increased dramatically. The interview then ends in a shocking and abrupt way, and we pick up close to the two year anniversary, where over 4 million people have committed suicide in order to see this afterlife.

The film mainly follows Thomas' son Will (Jason Segel) as he returns to his father and brother, and starts a relationship with Isla (Rooney Mara). I have always liked Jason Segel in comedic roles but, along with The End of the Tour, he has proved he can make the transition to dramatic very well. Hopefully, like Steve Carrell and Jonah Hill recently, he will soon start getting recognised for these performances. He and Mara both have convincing chemistry with each other and bring depth to their characters and their relationship.

Since the discovery, Thomas has created what is essentially a cult, despite his denying of it. They are all living together believing in a single belief, wearing different ranking jumpsuits, and occasionally having sessions of public humiliation. It was set up as a sanctuary for those obsessed with the afterlife, but even if they are not able to kill themselves here, being in close proximity to the man who proved the afterlife is not helping heal them.

The film deals with the moral issues brought up by the existence of an afterlife. Nobody knows what it is, yet millions are curious enough that they will end their life to start again in this new place. Questions of ethical testing, free choice and whether this sort of thing should be shared are brought up and explored well. As the film goes on the mystery and curiosity continues to build up to a satisfyingly confusing, heartbreaking ending.

After I finished watching this I wanted something lighter to watch, as it was quite bleak and depressing. So I look down and in the comedies there was The One I Love. I saw it had Mark Duplass and, while the description didn't sound fun, it was listed under "comedies, romantic comedies", so I thought "why not?". I later realised it was written and directed by the same people as The Discovery, but it was too late for me to turn back as I had already finished it. I don't want to give anything away if you haven't seen it, but don't take the Netflix description as an accurate description of the film and don't look at the IMDB page. All I will say is that I was pleasantly surprised, but it was not the light entertainment I wanted. At this point it was too late to give up on Netflix's recommendations and put on a DVD, so I had quite a bleak, but excellent, night of movie watching.

In short: The Discovery is an effective look at how the world would have reacted to proving of an afterlife, and features an excellent Jason Segel.