Reviews

I'm not usually one for 'Zombie' films, but I watched 'Warm Bodies' with an expectation of something different from the usual......I was not disappointed. Directed by Jonathan Levine and starring Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer and John Malkovitch, 'Warm Bodies' is set in a time when the apocalypse has happened and there are zombies wandering around eating people, there are still some humans who are trying to fight off these zombies, and then there are the 'Bonies', giant skeletons which are basically what eventually happens to the zombies, the zombies decay to the point where they become these evil creatures who want to do absolutely nothing but eat. The main character 'R', played by Hoult, is a zombie with a difference, there's still something inside him which doesn't want to be a zombie, doesn't want to eat people, and he does the most wonderful narration through the film describing his 'angst'. He meets this girl, this human girl who is the daughter of the leader of the humans out to kill the zombies, and promptly falls in love with her, then spends the majority of the movie protecting her and trying to convince her that he wants to be different even though he's still a zombie. This movie could have been awful, but it isn't, it's really good. It is funny, likeable, very clever and incredibly endearing, plus it gets pretty dramatic in a lot of good ways. I genuinely liked this movie, and one of the main reasons is that it gets you into the characters, it makes you like the characters, and as the film progresses and as it gets a bit more serious, you are actually involved with these people, and you care about them and you want to see stuff work out in the best way for these people and it makes you more interested in the movie. It is also extremely well written, directed and acted. Nicholas Hoult is fantastic as the lead zombie 'R'. he was so good in this film, you cared about him, his comedic timing is terrific and he has some really funny scenes, especially in the first half of the film as he's trying to get the girl to notice him. I was watching thinking this was a genuinely good romantic comedy. The chemistry between Hoult and Palmer was believable and they worked well together. Both the comedic scenes and the more serious, intense action scenes later in the movie, were directed very well and Jonathan Levine has taken a familiar premise in a completely different direction from what you might expect from a 'zombie' movie, or even a romantic comedy come to that. Even though he didn't have a lot of screen-time, I thought John Malkovitch did a good job in this film too. I liked this film. I would recommend 'Warm Bodies' to anyone.

Ok, firstly I realise those that know me well enough are probably wondering why on earth I am reviewing a film like 'Sharknado', hardly my type of film. And you'd be right, however at the request of a friend I watched the film and.........wow......now, there's 'bad' and there's 'BAD', this film falls into the latter, however, I knew that before pressing play so that made it slightly less agonising.

The premise is pretty self-explanatory. A hurricane starts up on the coast of California and eventually builds into a tornado with sharks in it, flying around, landing on land with, of course, no water yet still breathing, moving, eating etc. Ok, this is obviously a bad movie, and it was originally a 'made-for-TV' movie for the Sci-Fi Channel, but it has somehow garnered a cult following.

Well, I think I've mentioned that this is a bad movie but it's not just the title and idea that is bad, everything about this film is dreadful. The acting is, well there are almost no words, 'bottom of the barrel' is a pretty fair description. The special effects are in no way 'special', the directing, editing.....just everything is terrible.

I think the thing about 'Sharknado' is that it's trying to be so bad that it's good, and a few people will see it that way, and if you are in a group of friends, a bowl of popcorn and a few drinks and want to watch for a laugh then fine, but if you are a genuine film lover like myself then this is pretty torturous. John Heard, yes the dad from 'Home Alone', he's playing a drunk old man in the film and I was surprised to see him in this. I didn't realise he'd had a frontal lobotomy and read this script and said to his agent that he'd love to do it, maybe he's fallen on hard times and really needed the money, but, given the production value in this film, the effects, casting, direction, and cinematography, I doubt he got a big paycheque. Although the budget for this film was $2 million, and I genuinely fail to see where it was spent.

I don't really want to rip this film apart like I am because we all know it's dreadful, but it's seriously terrible and there isn't really any redeeming features I can find in it. Even the actors in the film know it's bad, I mean they aren't 'acting' so they know they don't need to try...all that is except Tara Reid, who plays April, she actually looks like she trying to 'act' in a serious movie.

I was told by my friend, who told me to watch the film, to especially wait for the ending, and I won't spoil it for you but I was sat there actually saying to the screen "seriously, are you going to do that and that's how it's all going to be resolved?" This movie.....wow, I hate it.

There were a few lines which were copied straight from 'Jaws', there's a scene where the girl is telling a story of how her family was killed by sharks and she actually says the same end line from Quint's 'Indianapolis' speech, although obviously ever so slightly tweaked for her, "six people entered the water, one girl survived, the sharks took the rest", then later in a helicopter, she said "we're gonna need a bigger chopper", I put my head in my hands at that moment. Sharknado is awful, but you know this. It's funny, there are scenes where sharks just fall on people from the sky, there's a scene at a senior citizen home and one of the senior citizens is heard saying to his wife while passing her a zimmer frame, "run", she answers "I can't run, I can hardly walk".

There's not too much more I can add to this. It's bad, it's a terrible film, only watch it if you want a laugh, and by that I mean if you want to laugh at something so ridiculous.

If you like a good 'whodunnit', then you have to see 'Knives Out'. written and directed by Ryan Johnson. 'Knives Out' is an old fashioned murder mystery about the death of a patriarch of an extremely eccentric family. It has an amazing cast list including Jamie Lee Curtis, Christopher Plummer, Chris Evans, Toni Collette, Don Johnson and Daniel Craig, who plays an equally eccentric detective investigating, and the rest of the cast are the suspects. For me, this is easily one of the best cast lists for a film I have seen in a long time. Murder mysteries are always extremely popular and, I have to say, it has been a long time since we have seen a decent one on the big screen. A couple of years ago we had the remake of 'Murder On The Orient Express', but as I said, it's been a long time since we had a decent 'whodunnit' in cinemas if you have read my review of 'Murder On The Orient Express you'll understand what I mean. It has also been a long time since we have had an original murder-mystery movie that hasn't been based on something else or just a remake but a brand new story and characters. I was recommended this film and I have to say, I loved it. It is an ingenious film, extremely well written and full of brilliant characters and actors giving some of their best performances. It is Daniel Craig I have to focus on though. Wow, what a performance. This is so over-the-top it is fantastic. He has a ridiculously enhanced southern drawl accent, which critics and a lot of cinema-goers hated, but I thought it was hilarious in such a good way. When he first starts talking I was a bit wary of the accent and I wasn't sure if it was going to work, but after a few seconds, I realised it worked. I loved him in this, he owns this film for me. Critics have complained that he is 'hamming it up', but that is what is so good about Daniel Craig, he knows he is and it's so obvious he is having a good time doing it. I have to say, the entire cast was just terrific and there is really only a couple of weak points in the film, but I'll get to those later. The script is really witty, clever and pits its characters against each other, conflicts the situations and raises the tension in almost every scene. Ryan Johnson has done an amazing job here. 'Knives Out' is a comedy but with suspense. His direction is so good because he approached it knowing that he wants the audience to laugh when he wants them to laugh, but at the same time he didn't want to lose the tension and release the audience from the suspense when he knows they should be feeling the tension when he wants them to, and he got that perfect balance in just about every scene. He keeps his characters mysterious when it seems they are being their full selves in front of everyone. I won't give any spoilers here, but this film has a really unique take on the 'whodunnit', in regards to what information it lets you know early on. It does give out a lot more than you would expect early on, especially for these types of movies, but that just makes you rethink how you process that information and that's what I liked, it has you second-guessing yourself throughout the film. I don't have many 'niggles' with this movie apart from those 'weak points' I mentioned earlier. There is one character whom I just thought was unnecessary. He had one or two lines which weren't relevant, he was on his phone the whole time and he is the focus of a few of the jokes but he doesn't have the chance to develop the character really and for me, he was just there to be laughed at. OK, yes that happens a lot in films, but this film is so clever it just seemed a waste, a one-joke character. Also, I thought the scenes where the characters leave the house weren't as strong, they lost the claustrophobic feel and weren't as suspenseful, I'm not saying they were 'bad' scenes, they just weren't as good as the ones set inside the house. 'Knives Out' is exactly the film I was hoping it would be. The cast is amazing, the directing is brilliant and it's a fun movie to watch.

There have been some genuinely outstanding Gay themed movies dealing with love..... 'Love, Simon', 'God's Own Country', 'Brokeback Mountain' and 'Beautiful Thing' are some of my favourites and, in my opinion, 'MUST SEE's. I have to add to that list one more film, and easily one of the best I have seen, 'Call Me By Your Name'.

'Call Me by Your Name' stars Armie Hammer and Timothee Chalamet as Oliver and Elio, two young men in northern Italy in 1983, who meet because Oliver has come to work for Elio's father as a research assistant for the summer, and the two of them become closer and closer as they both learn things about themselves they never knew.

This film is perfectly directed by Luca Guadagnino and came out in 2017. It has taken me a while to see it, but I was aware of the critical acclaim and awards it has garnered since it's release and having seen it I can understand the praise it has been given, this is a beautiful film. It felt so 'real'. As you watch the film it doesn't unfold as most films usually do. It doesn't follow the standard pattern of storytelling. It purposely meanders along, because it's about two guys who are meandering through a summer discovering thing about themselves, and as these characters explore this blossoming relationship, the film just becomes something really beautiful.

The two lead performances are fantastic. Both actors have the most amazing chemistry, it's palpable and there's something devastatingly romantic about what they accomplish on screen, and the two of them work magic. This film could, for some, sometimes come across as slow and boring, as it shows things you don't really need to know, for example, Elio sitting writing notes about his music because he has an interest in music, sometimes they are just looking around at the scenery, a long shot of them swimming in a pond for no particular reason other than, look at this beautiful moment with these two characters, but it's these moments that make you feel like you are there, and they create that sense of realism that most films just don't have. Even the sound design doesn't try to make it feel like a movie, it feels very realistic. In an early scene, the two characters are sitting at a table outside by the street and cars are passing behind them, and they have to raise their voice to talk over the cars, the sound of the cars hasn't been lowered by the sound department in post-production, it's right there as if it would be if you were actually sitting there, and it lends to that feeling of realism and environment.

It's also a film thats emotion builds and builds and actually kind of sneaks up on you. It is purposely slow-paced but towards the third act of the film, as the summer is winding down, the impact of the events for these characters is really felt a lot more significantly. The brilliant thing about this film is that sometimes in life it's not all sweet and wonderful, life can be complicated and complex and they have shown that with these two men having feelings for each other, and the film doesn't have any easy answers and doesn't give them an easy way out.

If I have any flaws with this movie, I would say, I'd have liked to know more about the characters, especially with Oliver. You basically learn what you see and a few things that you hear, I felt I wanted to be a bit more attached to them, I felt for them I just didn't know enough about them. And yes, the pace, though deliberately slow can wear on your patience a little, but this film is so different and so unique that it didn't bother me too much.

Flaws aside, 'Call Me By Your Name' is a very romantic, extremely well directed and very well acted film. I loved it.

Brightburn is a really good horror starring Elizabeth Banks, David Denman and Jackson A. Dunn. It tells the story of a young alien boy that crash lands on a farm and the couple that run the farm who, not being able to have children of their own, raise the kid as their own, but as the boy gets older he begins to display powers that, although at first seem fascinating they quickly turn to evil. If you think the premise sounds familiar, think - 'Superman' meets 'Chronicle'. Basically this movie is saying, what if everything in the Superman comic happened, but instead of becoming a force for good and justice, the child uses his powers for evil and killing people. This is actually a good idea, and mostly pays off in a really well-paced horror film. It's pretty bloody too, I was impressed with some of the kills. What made this film work for me was the performances. The two performances by the parents played by Elizabeth Banks and David Denman were terrific. They have excellent chemistry together and I believed the relationship. There was so much they gave to the roles and especially Elizabeth Banks, who plays this woman who desperately wants to be a mother and have a child, but can't have one of her own, and gets this opportunity. You can feel the desperation and struggle of everything she does. Some movies have portrayed parents, especially the mother, as being oblivious to how terrible their child is, but with this film certain things are presented to Elizabeth Banks' character, and instead of being annoyed that she doesn't want to accept them I actually felt for her, because the film does such a good job of setting up how she and her husband are so grateful to be parents because they were given this chance, so once it becomes apparent that problems are happening, the breakdown of the family is what worked so well, and played so well by the actors. I do have some niggles but we'll come to those in a moment. I have to mention Jackson A. Dunn, who plays the boy Brandon. Such a brilliant performance, his dead-pan delivery of some of the lines and how he keeps his face looking so emotionless is incredible. The niggles I have are only really minor ones that most film-viewers wouldn't even notice, or mind. One of them is that the film opens with the spaceship crash landing, so it sets up straight away that the boy is an alien. I think it would have been better to let that discovery build to a mid-film twist, but instead, they just let us know straight away 'this child's an alien', so it kind of takes away any mystery. Also, you don't really know what the child's motivation is. There are times in the movie where he expresses that he wants to be good, but you don't get to see him attempting to be good. There are many scenes where he does horrific things, but you don't see a struggle within him between good and evil, it seems that one day he wakes up, there's something in the barn, and all of a sudden he's 'called' to be evil, they don't really show a 'reason'. That's it really for my niggles. Overall this is an enjoyable horror film, and it is definitely a horror, the killing scenes are pretty gory. The direction, cinematography and special effects are all excellent, and there are some outstanding acting performances. I really liked this film.

'Alien: Covenant' is the follow-up to the movie 'Prometheus' and the second of the prequels and origin stories of the much loved 'Alien' franchise. This film is set 10 years after the events of 'Prometheus', and sees the colony ship Covenant on its travels to a planet named Origae-6 with 2000 colonists, plus 2000 extra embryos. After an energy surge in space damages the ship the crew members are brought out of their hyper-sleep but during the surge the hyper-sleep capsule of the captain is compromised, resulting in his death. While the remaining crew members set about their repairs, they receive a garbled transmission and track the signal to a near-by planet, which is not only closer by could prove to be a better place to colonise. Newly instated Captain Oram (Billy Crudup) defies his crews concerns and decides an investigation is the right thing to do, and leads an expeditionary force down to investigate. However, this decision turns out to be a mistake..........who knew? 'Alien; Covenant' is directed by Ridley Scott, who directed the original 1979 film, which is easily the best of all the 'Alien' films. Now, Ridley Scott is an amazing director and when it comes to sci-fi, there aren't too many directors out there that are better at the genre than Scott. His vision when making films is outstanding, the look you get on screen is stunning, and the suspense in his films is done so brilliantly it has the viewer inching ever closer to the edge of their seat, before the shock reveal has them jumping back again, (unfortunately this film seriously lacks that 'edge-of-the-seat' suspense). I will say that this film is visually spectacular. The cinematography is amazing and has some stunning landscape shots, some of the special effects are incredible (I'll talk about the CGI creatures later), and you can see that Scott has gone out of his way, as he always does in his films by the way, to use as little green screen as possible. There are some seriously stand out moments. The emergence of the Neomorph (a new alien creature and what looked like it was supposed to be a precursor to the familiar Xenomorph) from the back of one of the crew, the visuals of the landing craft coming down to the surface were both very impressive. These, and the scenes between the synthetics David and Walter are, for me, the highlights of the film. Unfortunately though, for me, there are far more negatives than positives about 'Alien: Covenant'. As I said, this is the second of the prequels and origin stories of the 'Alien' franchise. Seriously, haven't producers and directors learned from the diabolical Star Wars prequels that origin stories are not necessary, and just end up milking the franchise for all the money they can get out if it, regardless of story quality or sense. This latter point is proven in 'Alien: Covenant'. There is no real sense or reasoning to go and check out this nearer planet or the transmission. It would have made more sense if the transmission was a genuine SOS which they could not ignore. Now, there was a lot of backlash about 'Prometheus' and how it was a bit complicated. It was promoted as the first of the prequels to 'Alien' and so many went into it expecting seeing Xenomorphs (the aliens), they didn't get what they were expecting and there were a lot of complaints. Well, in this film the continuing storyline of 'Prometheus' is sort of skimmed over in favour of bowing to public demand, so the screenwriters have seemed to mash up both 'Prometheus' and 'Alien'. So, here we get a few answers from questions left hanging from 'Prometheus', but in truth this is just another 'Alien' movie.... just not as good.

I was going to say there were too many characters, but most get killed off so it's fine. You find that you won't really care too much anyway because there is no real character development. We are never given the chance to find out too much about them to form any real attachment. The flashback 'blink and you'll miss it' cameo from James Franco as the now deceased captain, from what I could work out, seemed to serve no purpose. Another point I have is that you can pretty much tell when someone is going to die, they go down that stereotypical horror cliché route of having the characters go off for a cigarette, or a shower, and it's so familiar now that it's too obvious, so it loses its shock value. Katherine Waterston's character Daniels, who is meant to be the one the audience connects with the most, isn't given the material she deserves. The film assumes that because her husband, who was the captain, dies that the audience will automatically connect with her, but we don't. There are also hints toward comparisons in her character to Ripley from the originals........no, just no. The performances from the actors were good, but only Fassbender really stood out. Danny McBride is believable as the pilot Tennessee, Katherine Waterston does a good job as Daniels but most of the other actors were relegated to a few brief lines, and not given much to do. Michael Fassbender, without question, steals every scene with his brilliant duel performance as both new synthetic Walter, and David (the synthetic from Prometheus left stranded on the planet) and the scene where the two are together is very well done and easily the most compelling part of the film. The face-huggers are back of course, but I found the intended 'scare' element of this wasn't there as we're all familiar with what happens, and when the chest-busting scene looks far more fake than that from the 1979 original, you know there is a problem (Scott directed the original Alien in a time where there was no CGI. That film is known for the amazing creature design that was made famous for its use of practical effects. So for Scott to use so much CGI in this film was very disappointing). I even had a bit of a giggle seeing how fake the white Neomorph looked. There is a 'twist' at the end, which I won't spoil, but I have to say, it's not too much of a surprise. 'Alien: Covenant' isn't a bad movie, it's just not particularly memorable. I left the cinema a bit disappointed. Anyway, if you love the 'Alien' movies, I'd advise you to stick to the originals, (well, the first and the second especially).

There have been some incredible war films in the past, 'Saving Private Ryan', 'All Quiet On The Western Front' and of course 'Schindler's List' but the 2019 release, both written and directed by Sam Mendes, '1917' is easily one of the best. George Mackay and Dean-Charles Chapman star as two soldiers in the middle of World War 1, who are sent across enemy lines, and deep into enemy territory, to deliver an urgent message that will result in the saving of 1600 lives. My first mention has to go to cinematographer Roger Deakins. This is an outstandingly beautifully shot movie. It has been filmed to look like one continuous shot, following these two soldiers through a war. Obviously, there are moments in the film where I'm sure cuts were made, darkness obscures the screen for a moment, but despite that, this is a massive technical achievement and the brilliance of it can not be ignored. As they progress from the open graveyard of no man's land to the abandoned but still dangerous German trenches, the unexpected fallout from a dogfight to a burning town in the dead of night, most audiences will quickly stop thinking about the technique at play and simply give themselves over, entirely, to this journey into hell. The production, costume and pace of the film are simply perfect. It takes you along on their mission as if you are with them and there are some seriously edgy moments too. The thing I loved about the film, well one of the things I loved about the film, is the feeling of 'realism'. It isn't a sweet, sentimental, predictable jaunt, it's full of problems for these guys. They come across trip-wires underground, deserted villages where you're not sure if they are actually deserted. It's seriously nerve-wracking, you never feel like they're safe, this is done so well in this film, they always feel like there's someone just around the corner. One sequence, in particular, is so intense. One of the characters is running through this rubble and flares are going off, and gunfire can be heard in the background and you think at any second, one of these bullets could hit this guy, and the music is rising, along with the tension, it is 'edge of your seat' stuff. The acting is, well simply outstanding. Director Sam Mendes wanted to make sure the lead characters were not 'big names' and relatively unknowns and this was an excellent choice as it made you care more about the actual characters. There are a few 'names' as cameos, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong and Andrew Scott make appearances but it's the leads that you invest in.

The direction from Mendes is exceptional. The score from Thomas Newman, who has scored films for Sam Mendes before, including 'Road To Perdition', 'Skyfall' and 'American Beauty' to name a few, is so good in this film. The visual effects are incredible. If I had any 'niggles' it would be that the character development of the leads was a touch weak, and as much as you are invested in what's happening you don't care as much as you could. This is a remarkable film though, and with all, it's technical brilliance, it's amazing acting, atmosphere, tension and incredible visuals the 'niggle' I had is insignificant. Easily one of the best films I have seen in a very long time.

When you have a movie that has seriously outstanding talent on screen, and one of the greatest directors behind the camera, you know you'll have a film that you are going to love. Despite it's three and a half-hour run time, you will be captivated by how good 'The Irishman' is. This film tells the story of a hitman for the mob who has a possible involvement in the murder of Jimmy Hoffa. This is a Martin Scorsese film with Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci. That's all I need to say really for you to know this is going to be top class acting. The film is three and a half hours long, which most will find daunting and yes it is a long time, but, despite a couple of early scenes that drag out a bit longer than they need to, for me it didn't feel that long at all, it is constantly riveting because of the talent on screen and the talent behind the camera, this film's pacing is much faster than it's run time would have you think. One thing I especially loved with this film is the fact that it allowed the characters to ponder how they are felling, to think, and the movie has scenes that are just silence, but there is so much more tension as a result. Too many movies nowadays have forgotten to allow their characters to think, work out the situation they are in without constant chatter. It's almost as if films lately have become radio shows with pictures. What I mean by that is, on the radio you can't have silence, 'dead air' as it's known, people will think their radio has broken, and so many movies are filled with words, exposition that isn't necessary. We're almost not allowed to have characters that think, work out the solution in their head, but that is what this film does so well, and these actors are at the top of their game when it comes to 'expressional acting' it's all in the look, the facial expressions, they can figure things out, scheme, ponder and you can see it all going on in their eyes. As a film buff, and I will say to anyone else too who loves movies, and especially the A list actors in this, I was worried that I would look at this film and see them, the actors, the 'names', but because of how well it is acted, directed edited and filmed, I found that I forgot about the actors and was immersed in the characters and that for me is what 'acting' is all about. Both Pacino and De Niro are the best they have been in years, and Joe Pesci, who came out of retirement for this, is also incredible. Some may compare this film to 'Goodfellas'. it's also a mob film, it has the same director and a number of the same actors are in both, and that's fine to compare, but the stand-out and most obvious thing to me which separates the two films, is that this film isn't as flashy, fast-paced and 'glamorous' as 'Goodfellas', it takes it's time to get into the mind of the characters, it's more....well, subtle. Martin Scorsese is an amazing director. He has an originality that is present in all his films, they are exciting to watch even though so much of his films are just guys sitting around talking, you find yourself invested in his characters, yes there are moments of violence but there is depth to them all, and this film has all that, but with this one, it's more quiet intimidation. This is especially so from Joe Pesci, who is phenomenal in this movie. This is Al Pacino's first film with Scorsese and he's got the perfect role here as larger-than-life figure Jimmy Hoffa, he's over the top but in such a positive way. De Niro though stood out for me. He showed so much command of his character that his lines didn't feel scripted, he has such a dynamic way of delivering his lines that they just roll out of his mouth so naturally. There is 'de-ageing' in this film and knowing that before I watched it, I was a bit worried that it might have looked too fake or distracting, but after a short time I didn't even notice it, it's done really well. If I have one niggle about this film, aside from the run time. Anna Paquin appears as an older version of De Niro's character's daughter, and we see the character a lot more when she is younger and she gets quite a bit of screen time when the character is young, however Anna Paquin doesn't get a lot of screen time yet she is integral in De Niro's arc, and because we didn't see so much of her character at that age, for me, some of the strength and impact it could have. There is one 20min sequence which I reckon is one of the most suspenseful I have seen in any film all year. There is a long build-up to an amazing 'pay off'. In short, don't be put off by the run time of this film, it is an incredible piece of work by an outstanding director with a cast of some of the best names in acting that you can get. I loved it.

Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed star in this incredible movie, which has now become a Christmas classic, with scenes from it even featuring in other Christmas movies, notably the 2 first 'Home Alone's, and it is frequently found on lists of the greatest films ever made. It was directed by Frank Capra and, when first released in 1946, was not a box office hit at all. However, since then it has become almost a Christmas tradition, screened every year, especially in the States, and although the premise seems rather glum, it is one of the most uplifting and heartwarming films you could see. The film follows the story of George Bailey, played by Stewart. We first meet George as a young kid filled with dreams. As an adult though, those dreams have to be set aside as he takes over his father's business so it doesn't fall into the hands of the town's nasty business tycoon Mr Potter, he puts the happiness and well-being of other people before his own, and he doesn't really realise the impact the good he does for others has on the people he knows, family, friends and the people of the town of Bedford Falls. All this good though has stopped him from fulfilling his dreams and desires, especially for travel and this leaves him slightly frustrated. Despite having a beautiful wife, four children and the affection and respect from the people of Bedford Falls, something happens which sends him into huge despair and he decides to end his life. This is when we meet Clarence, an angel (second class, which means he hasn't earned his wings yet), who is sent down to Earth to save George and show him that his life is worth more than he knows, this help will also allow Clarence to gain his wings. Showing George what life would be like for family, friends and the town if he had never been born, this sparks the realisation in him that he does have a 'wonderful life'. There is a really strong message in this movie that you should be happy with what you have, and you never know just how much your actions affect the lives of others. I love this film and the message it holds really speaks to me, I try my hardest to do what I can for others and make sure I put the well-being of other people before my own. The pace of this movie is terrific, despite being over 2 hours, it doesn't feel like that, it moves along so quickly. Watching old black & white films from that time now, you can't help but notice the acting in so many, is very 'stage' like and quite overdone, the actors in this though give the most incredible performances which feel so genuine and real. Jimmy Stewart did say in an interview, that even though 'Harvey' was his favourite of all his movies, George Bailey was his favourite character to play. Donna Reed who plays 'Mary' is terrific, Henry Travers as angel 'Clarence' is just superb, and his portrayal is beautifully child-like and naive. Lionel Barrymore plays the town's villainous 'Mr Potter' with suitable menace...just brilliant. The set is truly astounding, and the movie received 5 Oscar nominations and won 1 for Technical Achievement as it broke new ground with special effects and visuals, including the first use in movies of a new kind of snow. The direction, cinematography, sound, and production in this film are all outstanding. If you haven't seen 'It's A Wonderful Life' yet, even though it was made in the forties, it doesn't look dated at all, it is a movie that is timeless, and will remain so. It's a film that people enjoy watching alone or with their families, and don't mind watching again and again. And remember, "Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings".

Halloween was released in 1978 and was made on an extremely low budget, about $300,000 (which even back then was extremely low). It has since become almost a cultural phenomenon. Directed magnificently by John Carpenter, Halloween is about Michael Myers, who in the opening scene set in 1963, murders his sister. The film then jumps to the present and we get to meet Laurie Strode (played by Jamie Lee Curtis) a young college student who is very unlike her two friends, she doesn't like smoking and she isn't having sex. As I said, this is unlike her two friends who are having lots of sex and end up being the main victims of the movie. This actually began the horror movie trope of the people having sex being the ones who got killed of first, and the young 'clean living' virginal character outsmarting the villain and surviving to the end. It's also here in the present time (1978) that a now-grown Michael Myers, escapes a mental institution and his doctor, Sam Loomis (played by Donald Pleasence) sets out hunting him down before he can kill too many people. This is a stunningly directed movie. Subtle hints of menace, backgrounds out of focus, the brilliant use of the shadows. It could have been so much cheesier and have less of an impact had it been in different hands. On paper, it is an incredibly simple premise, but Carpenter elevated it into the classic it has become. The iconic music, which was composed and performed by Carpenter himself, and the mask Michael wears are now almost as recognisable as the 'Jaws' theme or Darth Vader's mask. Ok, this isn't by any means a 'perfect' movie, the acting isn't great....at all, and the best actor and the best performance in the whole movie comes from Pleasence. His speech about how he saw 'pure evil' in Myers' eyes is the best part of the film. Jamie Lee Curtis is, mostly, fine throughout, maybe a little whiny and over the top, in fact, Curtis was apparently horrified by her performance until Carpenter told her she did a good job. Apart from that, the thing that stands out for me about the film is its core theme, I don't mean a 'slasher' movie, I mean it examines 'evil', how 'evil' can affect somebody and allow that 'evil' to take over their life. This for me is the fascinating aspect of the character of Myers and what drives him to do what he does. This is a terrific movie and it is a fun watch on Halloween night. It is visually great, the score is amazing and it has become a timeless classic for those reasons. I guess that today's generation will probably find it quite dated, and not as gory as they have become accustomed to, but for me, it is for this reason it is such a 'must-see' movie. This is the movie that started the genre of a long list of imitators. I like this film a lot.

Halloween was directed by David Gordon Green, and Jamie Lee Curtis is back reprising her role as Laurie Strode This is officially the sequel to the original 1978 'Halloween' directed by John Carpenter. This film dismisses every other 'Halloween' movie, so 'Halloween II' never happened, 'Halloween H20' never happened etc. This film sees the grown Michael Myers being transferred to a new facility, but the bus crashes allowing Myers and the other patients to escape. Laurie Strode has been preparing for this night for the last 40 years and has a hidden cache of weapons, and a home full of traps ready to destroy Michael Myers once and for all. To say I was disappointed in this film is an understatement. It is not, by any means, a bad movie, and if you are a fan of 'slasher' films and are looking for a film where Michael Myers going round killing people, then you won't be disappointed. I was just really frustrated with this movie. Jamie Lee Curtis is by far the best thing in this film. Her portrayal of Laurie Strode is fierce and far more believable. In the first film, Laurie went through a really traumatic time, and she doesn't want to ever go through that again or expose anyone she loves to any of that either, so she becomes overprotective, paranoid and this I can really understand. She is secluded and is over-prepared for, what she knows is the inevitable escape of Myers, because she recognises that he is more than human, and still believes in 'the bogeyman'. The character of Michael Myers in this film looks great, they haven't tried to alter his look in any way . The mask is good, again the filmmakers didn't make it a clean fresh mask for a new film (unlike in a couple of the other films in the franchise), and even the original actor Nick Castle reprised his role in a few scenes. There are a few nods to the original movie, which were nice to see. However director David Gordon Green is better known for directing dramas and comedies, 'Pineapple Express' and 'Stronger' for example, and this is his first time directing a horror, and I have to say, it shows. There isn't much suspense, and a number of scenes which a seasoned horror director would have happily left out. This film also seriously lacks any 'atmosphere', the tension isn't really built up. There is also a lot of 'comedy' in this film which actually didn't work. Misplaced scenes which didn't mean anything, one especially was a scene between two cops in a car discussing their lunch and it just frustrated me as to why it was even there, it took away any tension of the part of the film it was in. I think it's actually a very disjointed and unfocused film. It's definitely trying to be a tribute to the original, it's trying to be a horror in its own right, but it's also trying to be funny. There are also too many characters that have no purpose other than to run from or be killed by, Michael Myers and have nothing else to add. This is one of the major things that frustrated me about the film, it was made to be a direct sequel to the original, it was made to ignore all the other films in the franchise and yet the filmmakers crammed so many unnecessary characters in it. I wanted to see more of Laurie Strode, it should have been about her but it was too focused on the ridiculous scenes and people who didn't matter, and this for me was when I lost interest in what was going on. The new doctor was totally ridiculous. There is no way they could better Dr Loomis from the original and to try and replace him was a huge mistake, and there is a scene between the Dr and the cop, played by Will Patton, which was so unbelievably baffling and badly written and supposedly a 'twist', but lasted for about 2 minutes and then it was thrown away with a stupid ending, and I still wonder why it was included. The film even opens with two journalist characters who are, from what I could tell, only there to give exposition, which most fans of the 'Halloween' film already know, to just go over the back story and, as an excuse to give Myers his mask back. I really wanted to like this film, it was heavily advertised as the film that finally sees Laurie Strode kill Michael Myers, but the way it ended was so deflating. She traps him in the house, sets fire to the house, and we see him standing in the cellar surrounded by flames, it then cuts to Laurie and her family running away, then back to the cellar and, surprise, Michael has disappeared (although given the way that Laurie had her house totally secure and full of traps and bars etc, plus he was in the cellar with no means of escape, it's still mystifying as to how he did get out). With the sound of Myers' heavy breathing post-credits, you know that this is the lead up to a sequel (and it has been confirmed that this is the first of a trilogy). As I said earlier, it is not a bad film, and many will watch it and think it was ok, but for me, it was seriously disappointing.

'Play Me I'm Yours' is an outstanding short film by director Dean Anderson. Layla, a young homeless girl is a very talented pianist and makes the odd bit of money busking, by playing the public piano in the city's train station. When Layla attends an audition, she faces difficulties. Her appearance doesn't 'fit in with what is expected', she is looked down upon from other musicians also auditioning and, most seriously, the toughest difficulty she faces daily, controlling her epilepsy. This is yet another stunningly acted and directed film, I say 'another' as Dean Anderson's other short film, the award-nominated 'Poof' was one of the most compelling, emotive short films I have seen in a long time. This film is just as incredible. The story is extremely well-paced, the direction and cinematography are beautifully done and the acting is outstanding. Mireia Oriol who plays Layla is simply marvellous. Her desperation to succeed, her anguish over seemingly 'failing' the audition, and her struggle through an epileptic seizure are all played with such believability. The imagery of the seizure scene is wonderfully done, so creative, and a very powerful piece of film-making. Tineke Ann Robson stars as Adeline Anderson, the musical director Layla has to audition for, and there are some beautiful moments between the two. When Adeline finally gets to hear Layla play, the look of pride is almost maternal and I truly felt the connection between them. I can't fault this film and it has some beautifully subtle meanings in scenes too. I showed it to a friend who said "it's a shame that when she played the piano at the end there wasn't a crowd around her to see how good she is", I thought if that happened it would have taken away the loneliness and 'outsider' feeling Layla faces daily. No, it was perfectly set, perfectly played out and very emotional. This is a fantastic film and, alongside 'Poof', another 'must-see' from Dean Anderson.

There have been many blockbuster movies that have had huge budgets and big stars, yet lacked good acting or character 'believability', sometimes it is the short films that have the biggest impact.

'Poof' is a stunning short film directed by Dean Anderson, which proves that point.

When Aaron meets Mike at a party they share a cigarette and a chat, and when Mike offers to walk Aaron home and gives him an unexpected kiss, a romance develops between the two.

However, things aren't that simple for Aaron. He is a young man struggling to come to terms with his sexuality, he lives with his bigoted father, who in one scene when he's dressed up to go out asks Aaron if he looks OK, and if the shirt he's wearing "isn't too poofy is it?". After spending a night away with Mike, Aaron realises this is what he always wanted and when Mike says that it's time to go, Aaron says "not just yet".

The struggle between what he wants, the difficulty of coming to terms with it and the prospect of 'coming out' is too much to handle.

This is an incredibly powerful film. The leads played by Aiden Nord (Aaron) and Miles Higson (Mike) are outstandingly good. The anguish of Aaron's struggle is portrayed to perfection by young Nord, and at the end of the film, you can see in his face the pain of having to let go of the very thing he wants the most. It is acting at it's best.

I have to mention Howard Harling as Aaron's father, who is also terrific.

For me, the highlight of the film is when the two boys are spending time away together. It was just the little romantic pieces that really stood out. One scene I thought was so beautifully directed and shot, the two are just sat by the water's edge and the camera is at a distance, and you just see Aaron rest his head on Mike's shoulder. Such a small action, but such a huge moment.

There was also a stunning scene when Aaron asks Mike if his own family know, and how he handles being gay.

I can't fault this film. From the writing, the cinematography, the superb directing to the magnificent acting, this film is, well in a word......sublime!

'Poof' wowed audiences at several film festivals, including the Iris Prize Festival, where it was nominated for 'Best British Short' and 'Flicker' the Rhode Island Film Festival in the USA.

You can catch 'Poof' solely on Youtube at the moment, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if selected cinemas or a major TV network (are you listening Netflix?) didn't show any interest in getting this short film out to the masses, and trust me, it deserves to be out there.

I strongly advise you to watch this powerful and emotional film.

There have been several 'good' British Rom-Coms, 'Love Actually', 'Bridget Jones' Diary' and 'Notting Hill' to name a few, but 'Finding Your Feet' has to be one of the best. Imelda Staunton stars as Lady Sandra Abbott, a woman in her 60's who, upon discovering her husband of 35 years has been, for the past 5 years, having an affair with her friend, leaves her home and moves in with her sister 'Bif', played magnificently by Celia Imrie. Joining Bif's dancing classes, Sandra not only finds herself but learns that there is much more 'life' to be had than the sheltered privileged existence she has lived for so long. This is an excellent movie. The cast is fantastic with names like Timothy Spall, Joanna Lumley and David Hayman. The script is brilliant and has the perfect mix of humour and sentimentality. Joanna Lumley is given one of the best lines when she is discussing how her last marriage failed "It failed because of religious reasons, he thought he was God, I didn't!". But it's Staunton and Imrie that really shine in this film. I have seen Celia Imrie in a good many roles and this is, in my opinion, easily her finest performance. Imelda Staunton never fails to impress me, from when I first saw her (and was her 'runner' when she appeared in the West End in 'Into The Woods', seeing her again in the West End in 'Gypsy', and most recently as Lady Bagshaw in the 'Downton Abbey' movie. Timothy Spall, again an actor who never fails to impress, is incredible here. He plays 'Charlie', a man who lives on a barge and drives around in an old banger of a van who takes a shine to Sandra. There are so many things that make this such an engaging film. Each of our 3 main characters has their vulnerabilities, struggles and tragedies. The sentiment isn't overplayed, the humour isn't ridiculous slap-stick or forced, and the final image will have you smiling and might even make you cheer, I did. I loved this film. I laughed, I cried, and despite some things that happen to be pretty predictable, this was never going to be a film that sets out to make you 'think', or have you on the edge of your seat wondering what is going to happen, it is a beautifully filmed, incredibly acted, charming movie. I highly recommend you see this wonderful film.

When taking a well earned afternoon off, diner waitress Karla takes her son to the park, however when her back is turned for a while as she takes a phone call her son Frankie is kidnapped. As she is frantically looking for him she sees him being tussled into the back of a Ford Mustang by a scruffy looking stranger. Karla races to her car and thus begins a pursuit that lasts nearly the entire 81 minutes of the film. This is one determined woman, and these kidnappers made a mistake taking her child. Halle Berry is an Oscar-winning actress, she has been in some incredible movies, so what made her take the role of Karla in this movie is beyond me. On paper, the idea of this movie is not bad and it could have been a great tense and gripping thriller in the right hands, unfortunately, it isn't. The movie opens with home movie shots of young Frankie as he grows to the 6-year-old boy we eventually see and interspersed in the final credits are happy photos of mother and son too. Given the name of the film and the story, don't expect a similar movie to 'Taken', this is genuinely not as exciting as that. The reasoning behind Frankie's kidnapping is weakly explained as part of a big kidnapping ring, the kidnappers were stereotypical 'trailer-trash' caricatures who Karla manages to kill off one by one, and the ending has a news readers voice-over praising her as "one incredible hero". The film does portray Karla as an extremely devoted mother who will stop at nothing to get her son back. The cinematography was ok, but there were too many unnecessary over-head (obviously drone) shots I thought. There was one scene when she purposely backs her car into a tree, but the camera stayed on the boot of the car crumpled by the tree for so long I actually thought the film had paused, it was only the sound of the faint music in the background that made me realise it was still playing. The editing too is very poor, with shots jumping back and forth in such jarring ways it almost gave me a headache. During part of one of the car chases it fades to black, then fades back in again several times and I have no idea why other than it was a possible attempt at suspense (if it was, it failed miserably). The pacing is ruined by the ridiculous editing and constant cutting to different camera shots of the same action going on. There are plenty of stunts to 'impress', cars crashing, SUV's flipping over etc, but it's not as exciting as it should have been. This is a really bad movie that could have and should have been much better had it been given to the right producer and director. It's..... well, I struggle to call it a 'Thriller', so, it's a simple action film that you can watch without being really 'thrilled'.

There have been a few TV shows that have had the big-screen treatment, and most of them haven't worked at all, 'Porridge', 'The Flintstones', 'The Saint' to name but a few. The same can't be said for the 'Downton Abbey' movie..... this is a fabulous film.

A letter bringing news of a visit from King George V and Queen Mary to Downton sees both the family and staff in both excitement and panic as they make sure everything goes well. When the royal staff turn up ahead of the visit, their orders to the Downton staff don't go down well and a rebellion to maintain the honour of the house ensues.Fans of the TV series will not be disappointed.

The film picks up the British aristocratic action in the fall of 1927, just shy of two years after the events of the series finale, and makes no attempt to provide exposition or background to anyone who may be unfamiliar with the members of the Crawley family or the staff who serves them, which was good because I believe, to do so would have killed the pace of the film. All the favourites are back, and it was nice to see some strong storylines for both Tom Branson and Barrow, played perfectly by Allen Leech and Robert James-Collier respectively. However, that being said every character gets their moment to shine. Joanne Froggatt never disappoints as Mrs Bates, and Lesley Nichol as cook Mrs Patmore is just as formidable as ever.

Dame Maggie Smith, of course, stole every scene she was in as the Dowager Countess Violet Crawley. Penelope Wilton is back as Lady Isobel, and her constant snipping with Violet is on-going from the TV show. Jim Carter is back as the proud former butler Carson, and the scene of him walking up the drive to the house showed his pleasure at being asked back to the house to take charge. Michelle Dockery is wonderful as Lady Mary, and Laura Carmichael returns as the ever troubled Lady Edith. There were some new faces in amongst the regulars and it was delightful to see Imelda Staunton as Lady Bagshaw, and Tuppence Middleton as her maid Lucy Smith. The costumes are as ever, immaculate, the cinematography is magnificent and everything looks even more beautiful than it did on television. As soon as the first few notes of that unmistakeable theme tune started, you just get lost in the wonder of that time and lifestyle. One thing writer Julian Fellows does so well, is add characters that make you think "hang on, what's he/she up to?". There were a good few in the TV series and he did not disappoint in the movie either. From a shady character, seemingly investigating Branson before the royal visit, to a member of the royal staff that takes an interest in Barrow. You're never quite sure what's the reasoning behind their interest until the 'reveals', which will have you both shocked and delighted. Wonderful cast, terrific storylines, some brilliantly funny lines for both Mrs.Patmore and of course, Violet Crawley, and a beautifully played scene near the end which had me shedding a couple of tears. It was a beautifully filmed and well-paced movie. I am a huge fan of Downton Abbey and was very excited about the film's release, and I was not disappointed.

Death Wish was released in 2018 and stars Bruce Willis, Vincent D'Onofrio and Elisabeth Shue. When a group of thugs break into his house, murder his wife and leave his daughter in a coma, Dr Paul Kersey, played by Willis, decides to take matters into his own hands and becomes a vigilante, roaming the streets of Chicago during the night looking for thugs and criminals to kill. This is a remake of the 1974 film of the same name starring Charles Bronson. Now, I'm not a fan of remakes at all and this film only goes to enhance my hatred of shoddy and unnecessary remakes. This film is dreadful! It's such an awfully paced action-thriller, and what makes it even more annoying and ridiculous is the constant scenes of radio shows, internet vox pops and podcasts giving needless exposition. It feels like the director Eli Roth knew he didn't have a good enough screenplay and just added Youtube clips of people talking about gun crime to give the movie some weight, it didn't! The performances are seriously bad, they are so wooden, especially Bruce Willis. In the original movie, the character Paul Kersey is an architect living in New York, who's wife and daughter are attacked by thugs. His wife dies and his daughter is left catatonic and in hospital. What follows is a really good revenge movie. Kersey is a desperate man who sets out looking for those responsible for what happened and becomes a reluctant vigilante, even throwing up when he shoots his first mugger. Charles Bronson played Kersey really well. It was well directed, the story and action scenes flowed well and it was a good movie. This remake has Kersey as a surgeon, presumably so that he can come into contact with shooting victims giving him a reason to go about killing criminals. Some of the death scenes were so over the top it actually made them funny, one, in particular, could have come straight out of a cartoon, after a fight a bad guy points his gun at Kersey, only for a bowling ball to fall on his head having been dislodged, which made the guy fall down and accidentally shoot himself. I actually laughed. This is just a boring 'revenge' drama. There isn't a single memorable action scene with a very boring lead character, dreadful acting and not even a proper villain. It could have been an acceptable action film but they ruined it by trying to hard to make it a 'drama' and to have a message. This film was released in 2018 and I genuinely feel that Roth made this movie to have a message about gun crime, especially with what was going on in the USA at the time, hence the stupid interjections of radio show hosts and podcast host giving their opinions on gun violence, this only slowed the pace of the film down. If he was trying to make a thrilling action film about a suffering man who turns to vigilante justice, he failed!

After yet another assassination attempt on President Charles De Gaulle fails, and most of the group now arrested, the O.A.S. decides to hire an outsider to get the job done. When French officials find out someone has been hired, they understandably panic, especially when de Gaulle's liaison tells them that the investigation must be conducted in absolute secrecy. The leader of the investigation, Lebel, is sharp, but is he sharp enough to figure out who The Jackal is without any clues to his identity? The Day Of The Jackal is a superb thriller directed by Fred Zinnermann and based on the novel by Fredrick Forsyth. It was released in 1973 and looks very dated now, however, it is still an excellent movie. Edward Fox is excellent as the professional hitman, code-named 'The Jackal'. This is a man who is suave, sophisticated and displays a cold detachment especially when it comes to his interaction with people, and those people he interacts with are only necessary to help him get closer to his goal. He is completely driven to achieve his goal. Even when his contact at the O.A.S. informs him that the authorities are aware of the plot, he still goes ahead with his plans regardless, assuming he still had the upper hand. The great thing about this 'villain', is that there is nothing over the top about him. He's anonymous, blends in, quiet, and despite his intent, you almost feel admiration for him without actually rooting for him, Michel Lonsdale plays Lebel and does such a brilliant job. There is frustration at all the secrecy he has to abide by but will go to any length to get the job done. In one terrific scene, he is at the meeting of all the senior officials involved in the investigation, and knowing that information has been leaked to The Jackal, keeping him one step ahead of the police at all times, and that leak came from one of the officials present, he plays a recording from a bug in the officials home. When asked how he knew which of the official's home telephones to bug, he replies coolly "I didn't, so I bugged them all". The only two main female characters in this film are both beautiful and integral to the plot. One is an insider of the O.A.S. who is sleeping with the official to gain the much-needed information about what the authorities know and get it passed on to the Jackal. The other is an innocent woman whom the Jackal meets at a hotel he is hiding out in, and seduces her, sleeps with her and you actually believe he likes her. However, when the police discover the fact that he is at the hotel, the Jackal has already moved on and he ends up at the woman's home. It transpires that she is aware that he is a wanted man and he ends up calmly killing her to ensure her silence. Given the fact that this is a film about a man out to assassinate a real-life figure, and we know that said figure wasn't assassinated in real life, you would think this film would be free of any suspense cause we know how it will end, but that's not the case at all. This is an incredibly gripping film, and it draws you in, building the tension as the day of the assassination draws nearer. The film, by today's standard, seems slow but that is what makes it so good. There is no ridiculous exposition all the time, there aren't any stylistic flourishes or action sequences, the last 15 mins of the movie has hardly any dialogue but yet is incredibly exciting, and all this is down to the excellent direction of Zinnermann, who was responsible for directing classics like 'High Noon', 'From Here To Eternity' and even the movie adaptation of 'Oklahoma!' The whole cast is fantastic and made up of, at the time, relatively unknowns. To have had a 'star' play the Jackal would have, in my opinion, taken away the mystique of the character. The supporting cast was made up of TV and theatre stars of the time. Tony Britton plays the British Inspector, Derek Jacobi plays Lebel's assistant Caron, Ronald Pickup as The Forger. Timothy West, Cyril Cusack, Donald Sinden and Maurice Denham also appear. This is a truly clever, gripping and classic thriller which, although didn't do well at the box office on its release, probably due to the lack of a 'star' name, garnered enormous praise from critics and despite it's 'dated' look, still holds up today. I just love it and am happy to highly recommend it for any DVD collection.

As I have mentioned before, Disney's 'live-action' adaptations of their classic animated movies have been disasters, and most certainly, not necessary, 'The Jungle Book' was horrendous, 'Aladdin' was ridiculous, 'Dumbo' was worse, and the less said about the reworking of 'Pete's Dragon' the better! However, to give it it's dues, the adaptation of 'Beauty And The Beast' was actually not too bad. Well, Disney has done it again! The original 'The Lion King', released in 1994, is easily one of Disney's greatest animated movies and yet they decide to completely waste millions on a completely unnecessary remake and......well there is so much to say about this. Jon Favreau is the director of this version, he was also the director for 'The Jungle Book' live-action remake. I can't understand how they can call this a 'live-action' adaptation, as every scene and every animal in the movie is created via CGI, surely another version of 'animation',......so they have just remade another animated version of 'The Lion King? Well, yes technically. Ok, let me say this about it first, as far as visuals go, it is seriously impressive. It does look so realistic and praise goes to the digital artists responsible for the look of the movie. The vocal casting was alright but no way as good as the original casting, I for one missed Nathan Lane and Whoopi Goldberg as 'Timon' and 'Shanzi' respectively, but James Earl Jones is back as the voice of Mufasa. I would say that James Earl Jones' voice reminded me of the original but everything did! It's the same movie! And before you say 'of course it's the same, it's a remake of the original', it is more than a remake, it is shot for shot the same. Kids who have never seen the original will probably like this version. The power of the opening 'Circle Of Life' scene is now lost cause it's been done already, the musical score no longer has an impact cause we've heard it before, the emotion of Mufasa's death is lost because we've seen it before, the characters were no longer funny cause we've seen them all before. There are no surprises here, there's very little that's new, and what is new is so completely unnecessary and well, annoying. The 'Be Prepared' song is heavily shortened, there's a new song added, for absolutely no reason as far as I could see, the scene featuring the 'Can You Feel The Love Tonight' song was, in the original set at night, hence the title of the song, in this remake it's set during the daytime so the song title no longer makes any sense and some scenes from the original have been removed. What annoyed me about this movie besides the changes, we all know how I feel about change, is that all the personality from the original is non-existent. This movie is soul-less, so much of the humour and mysticism of the original has been completely removed and replaced with an overly serious attempt to make an epic movie and it does not work. With hand-drawn animation you can create emotion in the faces of the characters, in this that has disappeared and especially in the scene of the stampede and Simba screaming 'Nooo', it just looks like a cub opening its mouth, there is no emotion in the eyes that we saw in the original. Jon Favreau did great work directing films like 'Iron Man' and 'Elf', but here he hasn't even attempted to make it his version, he has copied original directors Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff shot for shot. I remember when Gus Van Sant remade 'Psycho' in 1998 and it was a shot for shot remake of the Hitchcock classic and I watched thinking 'why?', the original 'Psycho' was already a classic, it was already magnificent, everybody loved it, so what is the point if you are not going to put your own spin or vision into it. Same goes for this remake, WHY???? What is the point?.................oh yes, of course, money! It is basically a cash grab. I will always love the original. I will always want to watch the original over this. I know that there will be people out there that will adore this movie, who will want to see it to see what it offers, the same movie but with a different look and more realistic characters, and if that's all you want from it, if that's all you're looking for then you will enjoy it, as I said before, the visuals are seriously incredible, but if you are a fan of the original and are planning to see this for a new spin on it or for something fresh or unique then you are going to be very disappointed. However, there is also the argument that if Jon Favreau had done a new version, a reworking that changed everything then there would be a mass outcry of 'Oh my god, you have ruined The Lion King for me, what have you done?', so it brings me round again to, 'What's the point?' It should never have been done! I would recommend waiting for this to come out on TV or Sky etc, don't waste your money at the cinema. Or better still, please just stick to the original. I also understand that there are more 'live-action' remakes in the works, 'The Little Mermaid' is apparently the next one and I can see them destroying that one too. Disney, please please please STOP this, you are ruining so many classic animated movies just for money.

Set days after the events of the first film John Wick is once again drawn back into his former lifestyle when he refuses to honour a 'blood oath' from years ago, and Santino D'Antonio, the Italian crime lord who holds the 'marker', destroys his home. One of the main rules of the 'underworld' Wick was formerly a part of is that all markers must be honoured so he reluctantly meets with D'Antonio and agrees to the task, but even though he completes his assignment and honours the 'marker', D'Antonio betrays him and puts a $7 million contract out on Wick........ Big mistake! This is again a spectacular action movie, well acted, directed and with more incredible stunt sequences. In the first film, we get a glimpse of the organisation Wick was once a part of. In this film, we get to see more of 'The Continental Hotel', the headquarters for this assassins 'mob', and we learn more about the background politics of how it all works, and this is actually a fascinating part of the movie. Ian McShane is back as 'Winston' the owner and manager of the New York hotel and his role in this movie is much larger and far more developed. I have to say, John Wick: Chapter 2 is brilliant. The casting again is impeccable. I really believe that this role is Keanu Reeves' best role in any movie he has done. Riccardo Scamarcio is fabulously creepy as D'Antonio, Common is terrifically cold as a rival assassin and Laurence Fishburne plays a supporting role, and it's actually the first time Reeves and Fishburne are reunited since 'The Matrix movies'. The same directors who brought us the first film return and bring us another gripping, all-out action movie and the cinematography in this film is amazing. The fight scene choreography is outstanding, and you can really see Reeves in these sequences and know that he is doing 95% of all his own stunt work. The action-packed car chases and the fight scenes are so 'real', there are no spectacular 'super-hero' type stunts, no leaping from one plane to another, free falling with no parachute etc, they're just gritty and incredible heart-poundingly good. If I had any niggles about this movie, it's probably the motivation. In the first film Wick's motivation was so clear, it was a very emotional reason behind why he went back into action, in this one though, he's almost forced, he isn't really given a choice, and what I find interesting about characters in movies is the choices they make, and when you have a character that is basically pushed into a situation, the emotional reason for him being there doesn't have the same impact. Also, I'm not a fan of Peter Serafinowicz and his performance in this was ridiculous. That aside, I found this film had a more focused story than the first, and if you love amazing action, outstanding stunt work and an action film that is exciting and captivating from the start then you will love John Wick: Chapter 2

Keanu Reeves is John Wick, an ex-hitman who, on the day of his wife's funeral receives a puppy as a final token of love from his wife. When thugs break into his home, kill the puppy and steal his beloved and rare Ford Mustang, he sets out for revenge which leads him on a path that brings him back to his former lifestyle and pits him against the Russian mob. 'John Wick' is not only a terrific action movie but in my opinion, is definitely Keanu Reeves' best role and best performance. The movie is directed by long-standing stuntmen Chad Stahelski and David Leitch and the stunts in it are seriously impressive and Keanu Reeves performs the majority of his own stunts himself, which is really good to see. They have made a slick looking movie with not only some incredible action scenes but some really good dialogue scenes too. Michael Nyqvist plays the main villain, and head of the Russian mob, Viggo Taraso, and Alfie Allen is Iosef, Taraso's arrogant and foolish son who was the leader of the thugs behind the attack on Wick's home. All the acting in this film is superb and as I said, this is easily Keanu Reeves' best movie since 'The Matrix' and definitely his best performance. Not just for the action scenes, but there are some fantastic emotional scenes too that involve a great deal of anger and despair and Reeves is seriously incredible in all of these too. This is such a good movie because it's not just a revenge action shoot-em-up movie, there is so much more, there's actually a lot of interesting character developments, you learn a lot about this underworld of criminals. The action in this movie is almost unrelenting once it's starts, amazing shoot-out sequences, intense hand to hand combat sequences and what makes it more enjoyable, more believable is that you can see it's actually Reeves doing all this, it's not a stuntman, and this is what Keanu Reeves is good at, he knows how a good action movie should be. He famously did his own stunt work in both 'Speed' and the majority of stunts in all three of 'The Matrix' movies. 'John Wick' is a non-stop action movie which has a smart script, a terrific hero, great villains and some heart-pounding action scenes. It's great to see a movie made by directors who understand the action genre so well and who have made a slick, appealing movie with an amazing cast. But as I said, this isn't just an action movie, it's so much more and the dialogue scenes are just as intense as the fight scenes. If there were any faults in the movie, I'm finding it hard to think of any. The final scene of the movie seemed a little sloppy and forced, but that's it, really, I couldn't find fault. This is an action movie that knows what it is and a lead actor who knows how to immerse himself in a role.

One of the greatest films ever made, by one of the greatest directors in movie history....... Janet Leigh stars as Marion Crane, who embezzles $40,000 from her employer and goes on the run. When she becomes tired whilst driving in the rain at night, she pulls into the 'Bates Motel' and meets Norman Bates, played by Anthony Perkins. Unfortunately, Marion's stay isn't as relaxing as she'd hoped and she is murdered whilst taking a shower. There are so many things about this film that make it a genuine classic, from the direction to the brilliant cast and acting. 'Psycho' was so influential to future horror/slasher movies in so many ways, but what Hitchcock did so well was to make Norman Bates so opposite to the usual depiction of murderers in movies, he's not the typical unattractive loners who have difficulty in communicating with anyone, on the contrary, Anthony Perkins is a handsome guy who is very charming in this film, and Hitchcock makes him almost likeable, sensitive and makes the audience quite sympathetic towards him. When we first meet him he is so sweet-tempered and mild, and during a conversation with Marion we learn that he is under the control of a harsh, disciplinarian mother and is almost traumatised by her to the point that, despite being a grown man, he is almost child-like and this is made clearer by a line he says to Marion, 'A boy's best friend is his mother'. We even hear 'Mother' belittling Norman and shouting at him, seemingly jealous of any attractive female guests, and we then get that famous shower scene of 'mother' killing Marion. The shower scene is still as effective as it was in the '60s when the film was released, especially with Bernard Herrmann's chilling score. The way Hitchcock builds the suspense in this film, and how he overturns our expectations is unparalleled. The violence in 'Psycho' by today's standards is actually pretty tame and most of it is, in reality, down to the sound effects and the viewers' imagination. And this is what Hitchcock always insisted on, that any 'horror', and the 'scares' comes from the suggestion of violence. It's the way the audience's brains fill in the gaps of the things we don't actually see, that's what's scary, cause no matter what any film-maker can show, it can never be as scary as what our imaginations can come up with. This movie didn't just have a surprise twist ending, or violent murder scenes, it told its story in a very unique way. Killing off the leading lady so early in the film, the sparse amount of characters, the remote location, the build-up of the tension all these were completely new to audiences at the time, and even today we don't see this done so often, and certainly not done as well as Hitchcock did it. Nearly 60 years on from its first release, 'Psycho' remains incredibly influential and still very thrilling and scary. A true 'classic' in every sense.

With the huge success of the 2008 movie 'Mamma Mia!' it was unsurprising that a sequel would follow and 10 years later 'Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again' was released in cinemas. Both a sequel and a prequel, 'Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again' is set both 10 years after, and 20 years before the events of the first film. With Donna having passed away a year earlier, Sophie has transformed the hotel and is preparing for the grand re-opening. Tanya and Rosie arrive to offer their support and with Sky away in New York, Bill and Harry seemingly unable to come for the opening and Sam still grieving Donna's death and a storm damaging the preparations, and preventing guests and the publicity reps attending it all seems too much to take on. However, with support and help from Sam and the hotel's new manager 'Fernando Cienfuegos', played by Andy Garcia', and with Sky, Bill and Harry determined to be there, and with Sophie's grandmother Ruby making a surprise appearance and news of a pregnancy, the opening party is a huge success, The 'prequel' sequences are perfectly intertwined and tell how Donna first arrived on the island and how she met Harry, Bill and Sam, the three potential fathers to Sophie. I have to say, I thought this sequel much better than the first movie. Amanda Seyfried, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellen Skarsgard, Christine Baranski, Julie Walters and Dominic Cooper are all back reprising their roles from the first film, and there is even a beautifully touching scene at the end where Meryl Streep makes an appearance as Donna, albeit as her spirit watching over her daughter as Sophie christens her baby. As mentioned Andy Garcia is cast as the hotel manager Fernando, and Cher makes an impact as Sophie's grandmother. I have to say though that Lily James as 'young Donna' in the prequel scenes, steals the movie for me, her performance is incredible. There are more great ABBA songs to move the stories along and Cher's rendition of 'Fernando' is terrific. I did prefer this movie, however, if like myself you remember the first film well there are some seriously obvious errors in narrative continuity, for example, in 'Mamma Mia!' when Sophie is reading out her mother's diary to her friends the order of Donna's encounters is Sam, Bill then Harry, yet in 'Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again' Donna meets the guys in reverse, with Harry being her first encounter, Bill second then Sam, then Bill again. Also, Sam mentions he drew up the idea for the hotel on a napkin with Donna, yet in the second film Sam had already left before Donna even gets the idea of a hotel at the farmhouse she is living in. There are a few more things which don't correspond, but these narrative errors are just a minor niggle to be fair. Despite the niggles, 'Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again' is a terrific movie. It has a great cast, it's well directed and it's full of superb ABBA songs. It may not be as camp or as glitzy as the first movie but this film is enjoyable, really funny, and even quite touching at the end (I will admit it, I cried at the 'christening' scene). My my, how can you resist it?

I don't really know anyone who isn't a fan of ABBA songs and in 1999 producer Judy Craymer and writer Catherine Johnson skillfully put together a story based on the songs and the musical 'Mamma Mia!' was born. 9 years later, Craymer and Johnson brought the musical to the big screen. Single mother Donna Sheridan's past comes back to haunt her as her daughter Sophie, who has read her mother's diary and realising there are three men who are potentially her father, invites them to her wedding in the hope of finding out which one it is. The cast list is fantastic, with names like Meryl Streep and Amanda Seyfried as 'Donna' and 'Sophie', Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, and Stellen Skarsgard play 'Sam', 'Harry' and 'Bill' (the tree potential fathers), Christine Baranski and Julie Walters as 'Tanya' and 'Rosie', Donna's best friends and Dominic Cooper as 'Sky' (Sophie's fiance), who are all obviously having a fantastic and fun time singing and dancing away to ABBA songs whilst moving the story along. There was severe criticism when the film first came out that the singing wasn't very good especially from Brosnan, but in my opinion the critics missed the point, even Brosnan himself admitted in interviews at the time that he isn't a singer, but he was having the time of his life and with the film's intention of just being a fun, enjoyable movie it was not setting out to be a serious film-musical. The cinematography is wonderful, the direction, acting and production are superb, and the choreography of the dance routines are terrific. 'Mamma Mia!' is a fantastic, camp, glitzy film. It's highly entertaining, very funny and even quite touching at times. Even if you are not a 'musicals' fan but you love the songs from ABBA, grab a bag of popcorn, dispel all credibility and just enjoy.

Denzel Washington is back in the role of 'Robert McCall', and this time it's personal as he learns that his close friend and former colleague 'Susan Plummer', played again by Melissa Leo, has been attacked and murdered whilst investigating a supposed suicide-murder in Brussels. When those responsible finds out 'McCall' is on their trail he becomes a target. Although this is the main plot and storyline of the movie there are sub-plots along the way as 'McCall', who works as a 'Lyft' driver (similar to Uber) sometimes hears things from his passengers he doesn't like, and he sets out to help them get the results they should. Antoine Fuqua who directed the first 'Equalizer' movie is once again in the director's chair and does a good job here too. I thought the first 'Equalizer' film was not bad, watchable, and had some pretty good action scenes and is good for a one-time watch, and Denzel is easily the best thing about both films. 'The Equalizer 2' is pretty much on the same level I thought, it was alright, I enjoyed it, it was a fun film and had some good moments. There are again some good action scenes and a couple of scenes which are actually really great. One scene in particular between 'McCall' and a young guy called 'Miles', played by Aston Sanders, is terrific. It's just after a confrontation in an apartment and 'McCall' has sort of become a father-figure to 'Miles' who is an aspiring artist but is being dragged into the gang lifestyle and 'McCall' is determined to help him get out of this. I thought this scene was so powerful and undoubtedly the best moment in the movie. As mentioned, there are some good action and fight scenes which are exciting and extremely brutal and bloody. I just wished the plotting and pace of the film had been as strong as the action. I found it quite disjointed, and it takes so long for the events that happen in Brussels to become the main focus because it's constantly interjected by these other scenes of 'McCall' up against bad guys and there's a fight scene, which is, of course, thrilling and entertaining to watch, and it just seems to drag on before the film focuses on this main event. There is a touching sub-plot with an old concentration camp survivor who was separated from his sister at the camp and his only memory is in a painting of her he is trying to recover, but even this seemed so detached that the pay-off of this was unsurprising and weak. The final confrontation battle was quite impressive but it was predictable and too obvious. All in all, I'd say this movie is as about as enjoyable as the first. One thing that is definitely stronger in this film though is the relationship between 'McCall' and the younger person he's trying to help. In the first movie, it was a character named 'Teri', played by Chloe Grace Moretz, and in this film, it's 'Miles' by Aston Sanders, and the storyline and relationship in this film is so much stronger and actually much more believable in this one, There are some great acting, some brilliant dialogue and some thrilling action sequences but for me, it's the pace and the plotting that is the problem with this sequel, it takes a long time for the film to feel like it's going anywhere. That being said, with the terrific acting, the brutal action and fight scenes and the gritty direction by Fuqua, there's a lot to like but it's not particularly a memorable, edge-of-your-seat action movie.