Reviews

Exorcism movies are all the rage these days... seems kind of a waste, considering The Exorcist pretty much perfected the genre in one go over 40 years ago. That's not to say other shouldn't try (The Conjuring for example was pretty excellent), but if you're going to make one, you'd better make sure it's damn good. Deliver Us from Evil stumbles not only because it's not very good, but because so many of its scenes immediately draw to mind the 1973 classic, thus drawing comparisons to a movie that it really doesn't hold a candle to.

The film makers had to have noticed the three glaring similarities - the opening in an eastern country, the possessed girl (who also looks very similar to little Regan), and the "personal" details of the story that somehow manage to get embroiled up in the final exorcism. I realize that films can be similar, but in this case it is to this movies huge detriment.

Otherwise it feels like there's not much to say about this movie, because the movie itself is so devoid of memorability that I feel I can't comment on it. What I will say is this: decent acting, good cinematography. Eric Bana is invaluable to making this film bearable and it features some lovely, moody tracking shots. Otherwise this film has an plethora of problems. The story has been done a thousand times, the villain is particularly lame, the dialogue has numerous clunkers, and the scares just aren't there. When it tries to scare it falls back on the worst clichés in the book - haunted jack in the box anyone?

The biggest crime of all is that it just feels cheap. It features cheap scares, cheap and obvious special effects, and some of the cheapest sound effects in the game - listen out for that sample of laughing children that occurs a hundred times throughout the movie. I've heard that sound effect so many times in so many other movies, at this stage I'm going to presume those kids are grandparents at this stage.

Worst of all, this movie uses violence in a cheap way. It's difficult to use violence right in a movie, but here it gets it wrong altogether and uses it as an exploitative emotional ploy than anything that further the plot. One act in particular, committed at the start of the movie (thankfully shown off screen) seems to exist just to upset viewer,s as it bears absolutely zero relevance to anything else in the entire movie.

Do yourself a favour - rent out Se7en and The Exorcist. Someday, someone will make a good mash up of these movies. Deliver Us from Evil is not that movie.

Despite thankfully never quite feeling like Oscar bait, David O Russel's Joy feels like a movie that's trying just a fraction too hard to please. It doesn't fall over at any of the hurdles biopics usually do, but it manages to create a few problems of its - ones that could have been easily avoided with a slightly changed script.

The films biggest asset is obvious - Jennifer Lawrence. She's lauded from nearly every corner for her passionate and committed performances and once again she gives a brilliant performance here, albeit one different from how it's portrayed in the trailers - this is not a huge, operatic performance like in Silver Linings Playbook. No, this is a much quieter performance, one that finds subtlety where another actor could have found histrionic fits. It's compelling stuff, and the best performance I think she's yet put to screen.

Alas the film doesn't quite manage to frame this performance as well as it could have. The chief problem lies with the writing of the rest of her family - the bittersweet drama of family has been a central theme of David O. Russell's work since he first started making movies, but here it just feels a tad over the mark. Joy's family mostly seem like horrible people in this movie, and whether that's true to life or not it doesn't work in the context of this movie. The contrast between Joy and her family is too stark, and comes off false. More depth needed to be written into this supporting cast.

The script otherwise is as witty and sparkling as the rest of Russel's work, and features some great performances outside of Lawrence. Dascha Polenka is proving to be an incredibly warm on screen presence, and despite their characters falling into the aforementioned trap of being slightly too nasty, Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro are both reliably compelling and interesting. The final 45 minutes, too, are a big asset - they're the most entertaining portion of the movie, as the plot shifts into fifth gear and an air of desperation (and later, glorious triumph) sets in.

Verdict? Not quite the sum of its parts, but very entertaining and an easy Oscar contender in many areas.

In the opening moments of 2012's acclaimed "Sinister", we see what looks like a family murdered - hanged from a tree with a cold and horrifying simplicity. The shot itself doesn't ever divert its attention, and instead focuses entirely on an image of cold, hard, obvious death. By far, it's one of the most effective opening sequences of any horror movie I've ever seen. It's so frank, it's utterly bone chilling, and while that shot took place, there was a collective hush of horror over the cinema.

The horror was in how frank it was in its depiction of death. There's no screaming, there's no nasty jarring chord, there's no sensationalism. In the opening moments of Sinister II, a murder also takes place, and for a moment it seems like it may have gotten things right. But, alas, the movie throws the spellbinding horror of this moment out the window, and instead replaces it with a jumpscare. This all-too-obvious approach ends up being the death of Sinister II, a movie that forgets what made the original a smash.

The plot itself doesn't do much to distinguish itself from other horrors, really. Family move into a house, family notice strange occurrences, family realize there's a supernatural force trying to kill them. The detective from the first movie is thrown into the mix, but he doesn't really ever do much for the movie apart from advance a few plot points. This is a cookie-cutter plot; disappointing, considering the original took a similar one and actually explored a lot of seriously interesting ideas with it.

Sinister II tries to do the same, but falls flat. Instead of the original's subtle commentary on violence in the media, this film goes for violence in the household. It's heavy handed and syrupy, not helped by the fact that the main non-supernatural villain is the ultimate in abusive-parent caricatures. I think it should have gone down the same lines as the first film. I appreciate it trying to do something different, but why not leave this subject matter to another movie - a movie where it may actually fit the plot instead of serving it?

On to the horror itself, and Sinister II doesn't really do much to help it stand out from the crowd. There's literally nothing in this movie that wasn't done already, and probably done better. Unlike the original, which was all atmosphere peppered with some horrifying scares, II doesn't manage an atmosphere - at all. Instead, it throws what feels like hundreds of jumpscares at us. That isn't scary - it's just a bit stressful. When Baghuul popped out of nowhere for the tenth time, I just wanted to leave the cinema.

Another problem is that it forgets the main rule of horror - what you suggest is scarier than what you show. It doesn't really matter what type of horror it is, that's a hard and steady component, and Sinister II completely forgets this. It's hugely disappointing that it forgets this because its predecessor had such a queasy, nasty feel to it because we were completely in the dark for most of the movie. Baghuul also didn't look so cheap in that one - he appeared mostly as a distortion in a photograph, or a barely visible face. Here, he's comical - with the spotlight squarely on him, he's about as scary as a kitten.

I could go on, but you get the point. I could have mentioned the kids (this one goes WAY over the top with its dedication to spooky kids), I could have mentioned the awful script, I could have mentioned the almost universally awful acting, but I feel I've mad it clear. It's actually with a lot of disappointment that I say this, but Sinister II is a failure on nearly every level, and considering the promise, that feels like a damn crime.

I think it's a long time since I actually felt SORRY for a film. A very long time. I think it may have been Catwoman, back in 2004, another movie that meant extremely well (and god knows it was trying) but fell flat on its feline face. Well, it happened again, with Fantastic Four, but the sad thing is, it's not for the same reasons - it actually has (had) potential.

Somewhere deep inside 2015's reboot of Fantastic Four is the bones of a very good movie that just hasn't been finished the right way, and that's why I almost feel sorry for it. The cast is up there with The Avengers in terms of acting ability, but it strands every single character in a sea of one-dimensional dialogue. It has a plot that's great - but only once it's explained, because the movie itself keeps it so vague at times that there's no real incentive to really care what happens. When it works, it has some fantastic visual ideas - but the CGI job looks average at best, and at worst it looks like it may have been done by work experience students.

By far the biggest problem with this movie is the pacing. In the summer where Mad Max: Fury Road came out, this movie had some serious competition, but even in without comparison to that masterclass in action movie pacing, Fantastic Four does a downright awful job. It strands all the dramatics and special effects to the first hour, and only then are we introduced to any action. This could have worked, especially because the slow build of the first hour is actually maddeningly effective despite other flaws. The problem is, the action it rewards us with is some of the lamest I've ever seen. The aforementioned CGI looks awful a lot of the time, and it uses so much of it that it's impossible to pinpoint anything plausible on screen. Add to this the fact that almost all the action is confined to a relatively short coda, and you've got yourself a massive letdown.

I've heard that Marvel fans are well and truly PO'd with this movie and I can't say I blame them, but I don't really know who to blame for this its quality, either. The director, Josh Trank, lures some great performances out of his actors here, especially Kate Mara (odd wig aside), but there's reports of him being abusive on set. There's also reports of Fox slicing and dicing the movie down - which may be what killed the pacing and the lopsided drama/action. Then there's the screen writing - writing that never really sinks apart from a few cheesy lines, but never really sparkles either.

I think the truth may be realized by looking at the bigger picture - this movie is a failure on nearly every front.

With exception to The Avengers and the Spiderman movies with Toby Maguire, I'm really not into superhero or comic book movies. It's not that they're bad, but they just don't fulfill what I like going to the movies for - I'd much rather a drama, or a psychological thriller. So, it was with weariness that I approached Ant-Man.

My weariness was misplaced. Ant-Man, with the new Mad Max and Spy, will probably be my favourite film of Summer 2015's blockbuster movies. Why? Quite simply, this movie it too big-hearted and jovial to dislike. The story is typical superhero fare, but it revels in the silliness of it all. Its premise is similarly nuts, but instead of trying to take it all seriously it uses this to its advantage, creating some of the most visually inventive sequences I've seen in a long time at the movies.

Part of what makes it such a refreshing ride is Paul Rudd - the perfect choice to play the titular character. He has a charm and charisma that suits the personality of the character, but still tackles the more dramatic moments sensitively and maturely. His comic timing is also pitch perfect - snappy one-liners that might have seemed cheesy coming from anyone else seem perfectly at home here. Michael Douglas is also on top form, looking like he's having great fun playing a much lighter version of similar characters he's played down through the years.

Most of the praise can probably be attributed to the screenplay, though. Wisely, not too much time is spent giving these characters any deep and meaningful back-stories (they give us just enough to care about the characters) and instead they focus on the snappy humour and some pretty dazzling set-pieces. The best moments come when they combine these two elements - there's a sequence towards the end that manages to be both extremely funny, and visually spectacular (it involves a train, and that's all I'll say). My only small critique of the movie is that several characters are relegated to the sidelines when there were opportunities for them to do more - I'd love to have seen the brilliant Judy Greer given more to do, or more dialogue given to Michael Peña. Maybe next time.

It's hard to judge Ant-Man against the likes of The Avengers, because in almost every way it's a different movie - looser, less serious, and more scaled down (the pun not intended - the action here is far less frantic or high-stakes). What it does amount to though is the best action-comedy of 2015 so far, and if that isn't a ringing recommendation I don't know what is.

If "The Silence of the Lambs" is a thriller played liked a character-study, then "Hannibal" is a character-study played like a thriller. This isn't a good point, or a bad point (it goes both ways), but it's the most clear observation I could make out when I watched this film again recently. Another realization I came to was that, despite not really liking it on first viewing, this is actually a very good movie - one more deeply creepy, violent, and sad.

The plot lies more or less on the same level as the previous film. Hannibal is now free, Starling is disgraced after a scandal with the FBI, and an old victim of Hannibal's contacts her with a proposal to trap him once and for all. Things go awry, chaos ensues. The performances are just as brilliant as the original, and that goes a long way to helping the (slightly over-the-top) story stick together. The thing is, it's a completely different movie, which is probably why I and many others didn't like it upon release. Gone is the tension of the first movie, replaced instead by a much more potent sense of paranoia and dread - mostly down to Hannibal's new found freedom. Also new to this movie is the blood and gore that it's so infamous for. It did feature in the original, but not like this. This is an exceptionally violent movie, and features one of the sickest, nastiest scenes in the history of mainstream cinema (you know which one I'm talking about).

Unlike other movies, though, the violence means a lot here. Sure, it's gross and icky and what have you, but more than anything, the nastiness reveals a lot about its characters that the original film didn't touch on. Unlike the original, this isn't a film that particularly likes Hannibal - here, he's not the endearingly-creepy movie-monster, but he's an utter psychopath. This is bound to put some people off, but it feels like the natural thing for this film to do. Does it go too far? Possibly. Some things never need to be shown, but it's all integral to the film's vision so it gets a free pass... just about.

As for the film being a drama played like a thriller, that does mean it loses the probing character-based drama of the original. Starling's story in the original is so raw on screen that it practically bleeds - this film deals with similarly prickly affairs, but never really addresses them. The knock-on effect is that it ends up being a less involving film, but a more exciting one. Again, this isn't really a good point or a bad point, but it's more just a point of comparison. Don't come into Hannibal expecting the virtuosic drama of the original.

What ultimately saves Hannibal (the reason I've given it an 8) is the grand, darkly romantic vision it commits to. It's a sweeping, perfectly orchestrated film that feels as if it's what could have been made if film existed at the height of the romantic era. The sets are some of the most lavish to ever grace the crime-thriller genre (most of it is set in Florence), the music exists solely in the realms of opera and classical, and the plot, flawed as its logic sometimes is, hits every note with an intensity lacking in most crime movies. It's all fantastically realized.

In the end, it's not the perfect sequel to Silence of the Lambs. Some may find it too gory (yours truly included), and that's a fair comment. The plot enters a territory that will probably aggravate some, and that's also a fair criticism. If you can come into it realizing it's a different film to the first, however, you may ultimately end up finding a lot to like.

Mr. Jones is now streaming on Netflix, and when I came upon it I think I was taken in by the striking cover art (it's not the one listed here on IMDb). It's of one of the "statues" in the movie, silhouetted against a plain background, with some relatively cheery looking writing underneath it. It's a hell of a poster, and a great advertisement for the film.

It's a pity I can't say as many good things about the film, because I really wanted to. Something about the film doesn't quite click, and it's hard to pinpoint exactly what it is. The action is good, the villain is creepy, and there's a good story. All ingredients that a horror movie needs to nail. Even the acting is good, much better than it needs to be.

As I said though, it just doesn't... click. The format chosen for this film was a really, really bad choice. It's completely overdone, and it doesn't suit many films at all(I can think of 2 films where this choice worked). All it really does here is serve to rip us straight out of the action on screen, made even worse by those obligatory moments where the camera dramatically cuts out and random, documentary-style interviews littered throughout the middle sections.

The closing sections of the film are also strewn with bad choices. It slips into a slinky, Lynchian nightmare for the last half hour, which is good on a purely visceral level (it's well made) but it feels practically unrelated to the rest of the film and offers us no progression on what we've already seen. It's all style and no substance, which is a shame when the film actually sets itself up so well.

This is a film that may be enjoyed by some, but not by most. Some films don't need an ending, and do well by leaving out a definitive one. This is not one of them.

Wait, didn't we see this film two months ago under the name As Above/So Below? No? Okay, I believe you. Kinda.

There have been countless films recently that have tried out the found footage "genre" (I use the term lightly), and close to none of them got it right, the above mentioned example and Paranormal Activity being the exceptions. Of these The Pyramid is an odd case. As horror films go, it's actually got a very interesting plot with enough potential in it to spawn an entire franchise. Alas, it's adherence to the rules of horror and indeed to this unending found footage fad mean it's nowhere near as good as it could have been.

The reason being, this is a film is crying out for more consistency and craft in its production. If this is found footage, why are there camera angles from every possible angle of all the characters? Considering the film makes such a big point of each of the characters having cameras, it's oddly disengaging and smacks of laziness. Maybe they thought their target audience wouldn't notice but it ends up sticking out like a sore thumb. Similarly, for all the films good ideas about mythology, it's full to the brim with horror cliché's. Over-ambitious reporter? Check. Sudden jump scare with harsh sounding chord? Check. Dimly lit setting? Check. Characters doing their best to get themselves killed by their own actions? Check. Elsewhere, the story is great, but the script is pitiful, and despite two very good performances from two of the leads, the rest are awful.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't an awful film per say, but it never rises to being more than just serviceable because of these issues. Which is a pity. What could have been a more vicious, visceral take on the adventure genre becomes a rote genre exercise with some Indiana Jones-lite thrown in.

If ever there's a film that's destined to be thoroughly misunderstood, it's The Babadook. All the trailers have it pegged to be an outright horror movie, filled with jumpscares and gore. Thankfully nothing could be further from the truth. Though it is a horror, this debut feature from Jennifer Kent relies on undercurrents of sadness and looming violence, an eerie atmosphere, and in my opinion, the scariest movie villain since little Regan chilled our blood in The Exorcist.

Back to it being misunderstood, though. It's already being criticized for all the things that make it great, simply because the trailers have misled people. This is also a thoughtful film that borders on being a flat-out drama examining a borderline-abusive mother-son relationship in the wake of extreme grief; albeit with a seemingly haunted kids book in tow. Brilliant as it is, the typical weekend horror movie audience aren't going to appreciate that, and so it has already received tons of backlash. So I warn you now; if you want jumpscares, gore, people being dragged across rooms etc. go see Annabelle or rent out Hostel, because this film will probably not be to your taste.

To those of you who aren't after those kinds of films (those of you with attention spans), this is an amazing, haunting film. As one reviewer pointed it, it plays out a bit like an extremely dark Tim Burton film, with it's slightly Gothic style and grim colour palate. As a horror, it's actually very effective. As I mentioned above, the titular character is extremely sinister and creepy, and is sure to join the ranks of legendary horror villains. He's used sparingly though, and the film manages to create many scary moments without him too; the kids book causing all the trouble is chilling to the bone, and Essie Davis is bone-rattling as a dangerously unhinged character (for that matter... I smell Oscar buzz for her role here).

As a drama, it's emotional and raw without ever running into camp (which could have happened very, very easily with this material). I won't ruin any of it (and I urge you to avoid reviews that do), but it makes for fascinating viewing that calls to mind both Pan's Labyrinth and The Exorcist, with a dash of the less fantastical We Need to Talk About Kevin, which this film actually beats, in my book.

This is definitely one of the best films of 2014, and a film that's destined for classic status, misunderstood or not.

Look, I mean how many horror sequel/prequels have ever been good? Let's count. Dawn of the Dead was good, Evil Dead 2 was good, and Aliens was good. Three, by my count. But honestly, these films are all over 25 years old, and Hollywood can't even get original horror movies right these days (at least not often). How on earth is a quick cash like Annabelle going to be any way decent?

Well, miraculously, even if it doesn't compare to the films I already mentioned, Annabelle is a very smart, clever horror film, that manages to create a lot of suspense, only bringing out the big scares after enough of it has been generated. If you've seen The Conjuring, it's comparable. The films feels similar in style, but somehow a lot tighter; it's been pared down quite a bit. What that means is that a lot of the opulent, almost overwhelming atmosphere of that film is gone (and it's missed, if I'm honest), but is instead replaced by shorter, sharper shocks, with a lot more focus on the main story and the characters (who are unusually well defined and acted for a horror movie, especially the two female leads; for once, these people don't act stupid, and don't feel like stock horror movie victims - hurray!).

Speaking of the story, it's actually pretty decent. I'm not going to ruin it, but it's engaging if not exactly amazing. It does its job just well enough so that it feels like more than just an excuse to scare the audience, or get a bit more mileage out of the titular doll from hell. The scares are very well crafted. One or two are a bit hammy, but for the most part a lot of horror films could learn from this one. One particularly masterful sequence involves an elevator and had the whole cinema holding their breath; you'll know it when you see it. Another part - totally unmentionable without spoiling but spectacularly creepy - pretty much raised the roof.

Films like this aren't ever made to be high-art, they're made to get a specific reaction from an audience, so when a film like this does come around and turns out to be well crafted and fun, it's a rare treat. It's not perfect, but then I didn't need it to be to enjoy it. If you're planning to go see it, ignore the negative reviews. It's a treat.

Michael Haneke sure knows how to make skin crawl. His 2005 film Caché, despite never revealing its cards once or depicting anything other than a middle class family in crisis, had a desperately seedy, perverse feeling to it. His first film, Benny's Video, is similarly disturbing, and even his 2012 magnum opus Amour had its fair share of nasty moments. The Notebook it was not. If I had thought he'd remake any of his films in English, I would have hedged my bets on these three, particularly the former-most.

His famously nasty 1997 film Funny Games is an odd choice, though. It's not very commercial, it has no real audience appeal (which I'll get to) and it's also the kind of film you see once and never really want to see again because, really, it's a gimmick film. A one trick pony. Who was he trying to get to attend this film? Subtitle fearing anti-commercial hipsters? I don't think they exist.

Anyways, whatever about *who* would watch it, as the emphasis of this review is, well, why. At its most basic level, Funny Games is an endurance test. Haneke subjects us to an hour and a half of unthinkable psychological cruelty inflicted upon a seemingly very nice white upper- middle class to see how long we last. If we last the whole film, we're monsters, if we walk out, we get the satisfaction of nodding our heads in shame at the level of violence in the film industry. Yayyy.

Therein lies the problem. There's no doubt that that's Haneke message, as the it's too narrow and focused to really point anywhere else. And yet it doesn't find anything interested to say about this point; it lets it hang in the air, demonstrating them instead of discussing them. I get it, films are violent. Why are they violent? What effect have they? Why?But no, Haneke prefers to (very hypocritically, I might add) inflict violence and cruelty on its characters. It wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't so in your face. Fourth wall breaks, a bizarre twist and several red herrings do their best to make us feel ashamed for what we're watching, and without anything interesting to say, they're pointless.

So where does that leave the rest of the film? It's good... I guess. I must be a horrible person for saying that, but it's at least efficient. It's very, very well acted, the cinematography is excellent, the direction is pristine, the action is somewhat involving... I could go on. It really just depends on how well you tolerate violence and cruelty. If you're going for the message, however, just don't bother. You're better off not even turning the film on. That way, you're safe in the knowledge you've beaten Haneke at his own game.

If reviews were to be believed, we would all think D'Movie was a film about Nazis that clubbed baby seals to death. That's literally the reception this movie has received; I haven't seen a single good one. Even massive fans seem to have been bitterly disappointed with it. In spite of this, I attended a screening of it this evening (with my expectations lowered to subterranean levels, granted).

Now, the series has never been a critical favourite. It has been slated and dragged through the mud since its inception and to be fair, I can see why. I'm a casual admirer of the series but it's very, very old fashioned. So dated is the humour, it could pass for a BBC sitcom from the 70's were it not for the HD format. Its brand of humour is also very, well, cheap. Easy. Not that that's a bad thing... per say. It's certainly still funny. It works mostly because it's too jovial to dislike. The actors aren't great but they get the job done, and O'Carrol is admittedly fantastic as Mrs. Brown.

So, what happened D'Movie? The truth is, the big screen magnifies every little flaw the series has. Small things that are forgivable or even enjoyable in half-hour- interrupted-by-a-break format are downright deal breaking in this longer, less digestible format. The acting is showed up as being absolutely terrible, and the constant childish and cheap humour that gives us a laugh on telly wears thin very quickly here. The expanded scope of the plot also means that a lot of the better, more subtle family related and situational humour from the series is lost because it simply doesn't have a place here. Sure, there are a few laughs but not many for a film this long, and many "jokes" are simply embarrassing. One of the very worst is when O'Carrol loses the wig and plays a "Chinese" man by squinting his eyes and speaking in a clichéd and very stereotypical manner. That stops being funny by the time people turn 10; what's it doing here, dragged on for a laborious amount of time?

This also highlights another problem from the series that gets magnified here; the every so slight mean streak running through the script. I'm not going to call them "racist" or "discriminatory", because they're not, but such blatant use of stereotyping in place of humor really pushes its luck in a film that already calls for near-charity for it to be laughed at. If I was Russian or Chinese I'm pretty sure I'd find this film offensive; for that matter, I am gay, and watching I realized that the character Rory is a other embarrassing stereotype milked aggressively for laughs, and to be honest it's almost insulting. Don't get me wrong; humour riffing on stereotypes can be great (which, to be fair, is done very well in the series), but here it just wallows in it instead of creating comedy, and it feels plain mean, which is an absolute pity when the few laughs it did get were actually from the more good natured jokes.

Other problems arise just from the sheer laziness from other facets of production. The opening sequence is just abysmal, featuring the kind of "dancing" that would be considered embarrassing in a village pantomime (literally); a problem not helped by the fact it's repeated at the end instead of a proper finale, like the brilliant sing song at the end of one of the episodes on telly. The soundtrack is downright atrocious, too, often with cliché orchestral cues when a joke is cracked, or typical weepy music when something sad is happening. By the time one of Westlife's dreadful ballads rolls around in one of the key scenes, you may just need the sick bucket.

So far I've slated the movie, and to be honest I could go on and on because it's just an excruciatingly bad film. It really, really is an absolute disaster; if this hadn't been a television series before this was released, I probably would have given it a 1, honestly. But, as I say up top, it's a generous 2. Why? Well,truth be told, one thing shines through; it has a lot of spirit, which at times nearly (NEARLY) makes up for all the flaws. As I said, Brendan is honest to god fantastic as Mrs. Brown; nobody could play her better. The few laughs the film does manage are enough to remind you how really funny the series is, too, even though they show how bad the rest of the film is. None of these things save this production though; with this script, nothing could have.

I feel like I've over-analyzed this film, but I don't think I have, really. It simply doesn't work, and I've tried to root out the reasons why. Many people might think that none of these things matter, well, I say otherwise. Good film comedy runs like an engine, and this one has too many small problems under the hood to really get going, eventually just becoming one big problem. I've heard Mr. O'Carrol plans on making a trilogy; let's hope next time (if there is one) he manages to weed out the problems present here to make something closer in quality to the series.

There's not many films out there like Bug. The film, based on Tracy Lett's play, is so unrelenting in its own vision and ideas that it will probably turn most people off because it refuses to pander. This isn't necessarily a good thing for most people; it's hard going, but in the end it's pretty unforgettable whether you liked it or not.

The plot is fairly simple: Lonely single woman, Agnes, takes a paranoid young man into her house, and together they both go slightly (completely) nuts. That's a compressed version but it's still a very simple story, the perfect jumping point into the madness that follows. Special mention must go to the performances. Shannon is fantastic as the completely insane Peter, but Judd is pretty much flawless and is a total revelation. Who knew she had it in her to do this kind of work? I certainly didn't. Her performance is terrifying, sad, and enthralling, and that it didn't get more recognition is beyond me.

The final third or so of the film follow the characters into total madness, and it's scary, gripping stuff. Very few films commit to what they're doing the way this one does, and even fewer follow the plot to it's inevitable conclusion in such ballsy fashion. It's bound to ruffle a few feathers but in my opinion it's a masterpiece.

What on earth is wrong with everyone here? Either Mr. Von Trier has made a million IMDb accounts to complain about this film himself as some weird joke (I wouldn't be surprised to be honest), or everyone from the United States has fallen over and smacked their heads. Not to be discrimination, but seriously, almost every bad review has come from the US, which I think should say more about the country than this film if they're genuine.

Either way, I think Lars has made his masterpiece with both parts of this film. I can't remember a time when a film has inspired so many emotions in me (even in spite of its inherent flaws, particularly the dreadful Shia LeBeouf); disgust, shock, laughter, sadness. Of course over 4 hours the film has to be more than a one-note samba, and of course it changes its tune more than a few times, between each of the different chapters.

As for the hot topic surrounding Nymph()maniac: yes, there is sex. Lots and lots and lots of sex. I'm fairly sure I've never seen a more explicit film, and even if I have this one has all others beat hands in terms of sheer quantity. Not a single moment of any of it is erotic though. There are several funny sexual scenes (such as the failed threesome or Seligman imagining Joe as a teacher), several shocking ones, and many more brutal ones, but not a moment of it is here to please anyone. Don't come to it expecting a porno.

Joe, battered and bloody, is found by a kindly older man in an alleyway and taken in. She recounts the experiences leading up to how she got there, from her childhood through teens and through motherhood, and all the sexual experiences and perversions along the way. It sounds like a fairly formulaic idea and yet it works better than it should. There are times watching the film whereby I wondered why it did so beautifully. Perhaps it was the acting; all three actresses portraying Joe are phenomenal, as is Stellan Skarsgård and particularly Uma Thurman in her best role since The Bride.

Perhaps, though, it may be the film's vitality. It's bizarre really that a film with a borderline depressing subject matter and so many upsetting scenes feels so alive, and yet is does. Von Trier seems to be celebrating so many things here; filmaking, music, lust, passion, love, femininity, controversy, and ultimately life, in metaphorical form in an absolutely stunning shot in the second volume, or literally by its own audaciousness and carefree playfulness. So many films seem content to lie down and submit to the audience's anxieties and fears at what they might see on the screen; this isn't one of them. Mr. Von Trier, like Joe, has demanded more from the sunset, and it's a blinder.

I find it ridiculous how many comments here decry this film for its apparent lack of narrative or conventional structure, though I guess it's not unpredictable. For some reason audiences don't seem to want to think anymore; when a film comes along that tries something that's not dedicated to formula, their minds reject it, and for some reason they criticize it before they try to understand it.

Let me say this: The Tree of Life isn't the easiest film ever, and I'm sure most (all?) of it went over my head, but it's certainly nowhere near as challenging as most people have. If you want challenging, go look at a Lars Von Trier or Werner Herzog film, where the difficulty stems from the subject and themes; places where this film is easier on the audience. Let the films eccentricities wash over you and you're left with and incredible and innovative piece of filmaking, with amazing visuals and thoughtful after effect.

The plot is about as simple as it gets (and not entirely absent, as some people have stated); three boys grow up with their parents in small-town Texas, focusing on their experiences, in particular those of Jack, whom we say several times as an adult too.

The way I see the films is that it's merely about life, in it's broadest sense; the creation of the universe and the birth of consciousness(as seen in the prehistoric flashbacks), and as consciousness as we know it, from childhood to adult life. The film isn't perfect at portraying this, but then I don't think any filmmaker would ever get it perfect; film is in many ways too narrow a format, and yet Mallick has come as close as I think possible and that's what makes the film such a joy to watch.

If you're going to see this film, think long and hard first. Think about the usual format for films and forget it. Disregard structure, existentialism (this film has a few out-there moments) and plot as you know it, as they're different here to accommodate its grand ambitions. Do these things and you should have a good time at the movies.

How often do we get a horror film that doesn't cop out of it's core concept in some way? Pretty much never. Most horror writers and directors always find some way of wriggling out of a proper conclusion in favor of something more comforting. Take "Fatal Attraction" for instance, which this films shares a few similarities with; in becoming a rote slasher with a generic stand-off in its last 20 minutes,it effectively undermines everything that came before it by not staying true to its own vision. Its a punch in the guts.

Watching May, I expected the entire time for it to cop out. It doesn't; instead, it takes a familiar horror film trope (a weird loner, snapping violently) and sees it all the way through to the very end, where most horror directors fear to tread, and in that way it's probably one of the best horror films of the last 30 years.

Quick plot summary: Young vet assistant May, traumatized by what is implied to be a hard upbringing, has a difficult time fitting in to normal social life, and in the process, gets hurt and has a bit of a meltdown. Cue horror.

It may sound familiar, but somehow it doesn't feel so. Angela Bettis turns in a performance of herculean difficulty in the title role which helps immensely, and keeps May particular yet somehow relatable. The supporting characters aren't stock horror types, and feel more like actual people than fillers used to merely further the story.

The final half hour takes a massive right turn and, while it's entirely expected, feels truly shocking. The extremely creepy final five minutes is a work of quiet and dignified genius, and though they are almost unsatisfying in a traditional horror sense, feel like the most perfect way to end the film possible. Don't come to May expecting something too typical, and you should walk away satisfied seeing a film stick to its guns and achieve its vision so well.

The Purge is probably one of the most average films I've seen in my life in just about every facet. It's a hard film to down, because it does what it does fairly well, but it's even harder to find something good to say about it. It's the cinematic equivalent of McDonalds. It'll fill you up and it tastes pretty okay, but it's still just a little unsatisfying.

I will start on a good note, though: the concept is, admittedly, extremely interesting. All crime legal for 12 hours gives rise to pretty much anything happening in the film, not to mention it's pretty fascinating to explore the moral and emotional implications of committing a crime under such circumstances. Does it suddenly become right because it's legal? Are we free of our guilty conscience under these circumstances? Is our conscience determined by law in the first place?

All the concept in the world means nothing though if it's not used properly, and that's The Purge's biggest disappointment. The film does nothing to explore the concept, and instead settles on being a fairly mediocre home invasion thriller. That would be tolerable if it were a good home invasion film, but really it isn't, and in fact it's very run of the mill. The main villain is so over the top in his mannerisms and apparent nastiness that he's rendered totally unbelievable, and ends up being more like a caricature than a character. Every other "bad guy" is masked, which is pretty much Lazy Scriptwriting 101.

So, we fall back on the action, which is admittedly pretty okay. Again nothing spectacular, and certainly not as frightening as the trailers may make you think, but pretty solid. Somehow you feel the film is going to be nastier than it is, but it never really kicks off the way it should. There's not enough gore to make it at least a somewhat entertaining splatter-fest, and not enough tension to make it truly exciting. Again, average. Matters aren't helped by the acting, with Ethan Hawk's performance being the only one that feels particularly good. The ending especially is a massive anticlimax; I'm not really sure what the screenplay is going for with it, but it's not exciting, or memorable in any way, shape, or form.

We're left with a pretty average film all round, and one that's aggressively average. That's usually an alright thing; average doesn't mean bad, and usually, I would award an average film a 5 or 6 out of 10. It gets a 4, though, because it's such a missed opportunity. The excellent concept of the story belongs to a better, braver screenplay. Maybe next time.

Never in my life have I thought the critics got it so spectacularly wrong with a film. While very few of them outright panned the film, almost every critic has called it average at best. Despite that I approached the film with high expectations due to its extremely talented director, and very interesting trailers. I expected a total dud but didn't want to believe it would be.

Well, it wasn't. Far from it, in fact; Dead Silence is a phenomenal horror film, and I think it's one of the best of the last decade in terms of its sheer, balls-to-the-wall creepiness and visual splendor. The film has spookiness dripping from almost every shot, and the horror and action is very, very well staged. The story is simple but very interesting with a clever twist towards the end, and the film is packed full of unforgettable imagery, especially in the last half an hour. The main villain is one of the creepiest I've seen in a film, and most importantly for a horror, it's extremely tense and eerie without ever jumping the shark and going OTT.

That's not to say the it's perfect, of course, and in fact this has many, many flaws. The main character is forgettable, the music takes over at times and makes earlier scenes feel more like a music video, the writing isn't always interesting, etc. But none of it seems to matter and it feels like nitpicking when the rest of the film is so well made. If you like a good ghost story, horror movie, or just a good time at the movies, don't pass this one up.

I viewed Saw this evening after months of putting it off after buying it. I had bought it originally because so many of my friends had recommended it, saying it was amazing, or on a par with The Silence of The Lambs or Seven.

On viewing I can now confirm that not only does it fail to be on a par with those films, it fails to be on a par with even the most incompetent of Lifetime Movies, or even low budget straight-to-DVD crapfests, which is a pity because at times it's underlying story and ideas are genuinely engaging.

I'll start with the good points though, because there are plenty of them. The bathroom scenes are done in a very well shot and claustrophobic manner which adds a lot to the films atmosphere. Furthermore Danny Glover and Monica Potter both turn in very good performances. Two scenes in particular stand out, as well; Shawnee Smith's scene is shiveringly intense and gleefully nasty, and makes for exciting and vomit-inducing viewing. Secondly, the famous climactic scene is so delirious and well made that it almost redeems the rest of the films and makes it worth the price alone (I won't spoil it).

However, I can't even begin to count the myriad of problems I had with this film so I won't list them all, however my biggest problem is by far the editing. Who's idea was it to show things sped up with rock music playing in the background in the films intense moments? What a way to kill the suspense. Almostall the big horror/bloody scenes lose any potential excitement and intensity due to this silly choice, and not only that, they give the film a cheap and silly feel, almost like a bad music video.

On top of that, the acting from Cary Elwes is dreadful and he is woefully miscast. Throughout the film he seems to have two modes; unbelievably calm, thus ruining the realism, and over-the-top-upset, which generates laughs and ruins the drama. The big reveal, however inventively done, is still so pointless it begs the question of why they even bothered to put it in. Again I won't ruin it, but it just made me go "meh".

Overall, as much potential as it had, it's a wet blanket of a film, lacking the thrills to make it a thriller, and the horror to make it a horror. Go rent out Se7en, and save your money.