Blog Archives

KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE (2017) FILM REVIEW

9/29/2017

**
15, 141 Mins

Overlong, overblown sequel is obliviously obnoxious.

If there was ever proof of the statement that “sequels are rarely as good as their originals”, ‘Kingsman: The Golden Circle’ is that in its physical form.

Despite Director Matthew Vaughn and Screenwriter Jane Goldman’s immense talent back behind the helm along with a conveyer belt of famous faces, the much-anticipated follow-up to 2015’s high-flying spy spoof ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’ fails to deliver on its predecessor’s pulpy mix of Tarantino-esque exploitation and 007 espionage.

Falling into much the same trap as the awful ‘Kick Ass 2’ (2013) (of which’s comic-book source was similarly created by Mark Millar), ‘The Golden Circle’ wrongly suggests that “bigger means better” as it systematically shifts action from its London-based, Eton-educated roots to the Country Roads of Kentucky.

Taron Egerton – supposedly 27, but looking no older than 19 – returns as the first film’s council estate thug-turned-superspy Eggsy.

Now living a lush life with his leggy blonde, Swedish princess girlfriend (Hanna Alstrom), Eggsy longs for the thrill-seeking finesse of his previous life; working as a secret agent for the undercover agency “Kingsman”.

The ideal opportunity for escapism arrives when a missile blows up Kingsman HQ.
With the institution’s highest members now vanquished, all who remain are Eggsy, Mark Strong’s sweary Scotsman Merlin and Colin Firth’s “deceased” Kingsman Harry “Gallahad” Hart (brought back to life by a super-enhanced gel in the most preposterous of manners!).

The film’s “menacing” threat arrives as an unusually below par Julianne Moore as a Vegan-hating, camp villainess with a ludicrous plan to legalize drugs. A plot device which backs up many Guardian writer’s theories that the film is a covert Conservative attack on the Liberal Left (is it a coincidence that the first film’s villain was an environmentalist?).

Good thing that “Kingsman” should have its own stateside equivalent ironically named “Statesman”. Cue a cascade of celebrity cameos ranging from a spectacularly buff Channing Tatum, ‘Game of Throne’s Pedro Pascal channeling a slurring Johnny Depp to Elton John “tiny dancing” as an embarrassing shadow of his former self and ‘The Golden Circle’ begins to resemble a naff ‘Austin Powers’ parody!

To say the film is stupid beyond belief is understating yet where its predecessor had a funky edge, this sequel bounces around like a boisterous deflating balloon!

Despite the melodic twang of John Denver blaring against the soundtrack, every martial arts mad fight sequence appears to have been choreographed by a cokehead yuppie unable to locate his latest line. I spent every second of the film’s taxi-speeding opening wishing Edgar Wright had been behind the camera.

Most criminal, however, is a return to much of the grossly inappropriate, lad mag humour that hampered the original. One grossly inappropriate scene involves the sexual planting of a tracking device into a hooker at Glastonbury. A guarantee to offend female audience members of all ages and only providing false ammunition for Thatcher-worshipping Daily Mail readers to bash today’s working class male youth!

It leaves an obnoxious, sour taste in the mouth. I expect better from Director Vaughn and Screenwriter Goldman…

0 Comments

MOTHER! (2017) FILM REVIEW

9/26/2017

0 Comments

*
18, 121 Mins

A macabre mutilation of religion, consumerism and mother Earth!

“The most controversial movie since ‘A Clockwork Orange’” is what critics will have you believe defines Darren Aronofsky’s ‘Mother!’. Regardless of whether such a sweeping statement turned out to be true, I couldn’t help, but leap with excitement at the sound of it.

Why? Because it suggests an experience so bat-s**t crazy you’ll either want to wrap it close to your chest in mad love or consider hurling yourself from the cinema balcony just to escape it’s poisonous grasp!

Boy, believe me, it’ll be years to come before a movie promotes quite the love or hate reaction of ‘Mother!’.

My own reaction lies pretty far on the former although I almost feel bad for adoring it as much as I do!

Set in a middle-class suburbia of sorts, the film begins life along the lines of a home invasion horror flick. Jennifer Lawrence is the young, beautiful housewife with a handsome Spanish husband in the form of the ridiculously smooth Javier Bardem.

In many ways, they represent the ideal couple living the most idyllic life surrounded by glistening green grass and leafy trees.

Perhaps too ideal as along comes knocking a considerably overdressed older couple (Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer).

Posing with some of the smiley intensity of Jehovah’s Witness/Mormon door-knockers, they appear as friendly as friendly gets; charming Bardem’s macho man of the house into allowing them to stay.

Inevitably, such smiliness hides sinister secrets; unveiling a cult tucked away for centuries…

What follows boldly breaks the boundaries of “mainstream cinema”; bombarding its path between clowning surrealism and bewildering black comedy as if it were one gigantic delusion.

Picture the combined experience of being drunk and stoned simultaneously for 2 hours while blurting out Industrial Rock at volumes of over 500! That’s ‘Mother!’ for ya'!

With cinematography almost entirely resembling one long, lingering, cut-free camera take, Aronofsky lets the hallways of the film’s central house do the talking.

Dividing attention between POV close-ups of our central character’s angst-ridden movements between rooms and mise en scenes cluttered by famous faces, he swirls the camera chaotically over chandeliers, cabinets and corridors; crafting a dizzying sensation of paranoia and psychological pain.

In this dimly-lit mansion populated by uninvited guests, audiences might easily expect endless jump scares. Yet ‘The Conjuring’ this isn’t. Rather the sensory film-maker narrows in on the claustrophobia of this enclosed environment before unleashing the madness inside as being every bit as large as horrors of the outdoors.

Following the missteps of his bloated biblical epic ‘Noah’ (2014), the film sees Director Aronofsky retaining that previous film’s religious underbelly yet injects much of the maddening hysteria seen in his brilliant ‘Black Swan’ (2010).

An open Atheist, Aronofsky isn’t afraid of layering his production with potentially blasphemous imagery. Specifically, this resonates in a truly horrifiying late scene which - quite literally - rips apart symbolisms of Jesus’s birth and cries out for controversy within the Catholic Church.

“Conservative” is certainly not a word you'd associate with ‘Mother!’. Something which stretches far beyond faith alone.

As it rages into scenes of violent lootings and destructions of material possessions, the film manifests itself as an anguished expression of a Liberal artist envisioning the prospect of a world thrown into anarchy by human greed that has exploited our environment in pursuit of consumer culture.

Keeping things measured, however, is yet another powerhouse performance from the unstoppable Jennifer Lawrence. As witnessed in Natalie Portman’s histrionic turn in ‘Black Swan’, Aronofsky pushes every actor to their wildest limits. Something which Lawrence more than happily commits herself to!

As the film’s titular “mother”, she is a seething force. A metaphor for Mother Nature observing the religious fanaticism of mankind with disgust that – over the film’s course - transforms her innocent beauty into frothing anger and into an agent of destruction.

She may routinely wow awards ceremonies with her astonishing acting, but Lawrence has never deserved a Best Actress nod more than she does here. It’s impossible we’ll see a more versatile performance all year!

Despite its wide release and populist publicity, ‘Mother!’ may never appeal to a casual ticket-buying audience. The majority of whom will likely find it pretentious, disgusting and deeply offensive.

For myself, however, those horrific adjectives are the film's greatest charm. A “mainstream movie” that isn’t afraid of the dark…

0 Comments

TOM CRUISE AND THE FALL OF THE HEARTTHROB

9/22/2017

0 Comments

With ‘American Made’, Tom Cruise is back on a high. What caused the crash then?

It’s safe to say Tom Cruise hasn’t had the best year. Despite his chiselled jawline, toned torso and spectacular stuntwork still being top of their game, the 54 year old A-lister has been cited as the core reason behind the summer’s blundering Box Office bomb ‘The Mummy’ (2017).

With losses of $95 million reported in a $375 million worldwide gross, the film was expected not only to kill Universal’s overly ambitious “Monsterverse”, but Mr. Cruise’s ridiculously bankable career itself. That’s pretty sobering news for a man widely considered Hollywood’s “last true movie star”.

Thankfully, this has turned out to be far from the case. Within the last 2 weeks, Cruise’s latest film ‘American Made’ swept to the UK’s Box Office No.1 spot. A semi true-life tale of an airline pilot who became a high-flying drug cartel in 1980s Columbia, the film has inevitably drawn comparisons with TV shows such as ‘Narcos’ (2015-) and ‘Breaking Bad’ (2008-2013).

Despite a US release still to come, the film’s impressive takings this side of the pond (knocking off 5 week No.1 ‘Dunkirk’!) suggest strong showings ahead.

Unquestionably ‘American Made’s success is a solid enough indication that Cruise’s career is safe and sound. Yet how did such a Hollywood heavyweight – estimated to have a net worth of $550 million – suffer such a career meltdown?

Perhaps Cruise’s gleaming star power has ironically become his Achilles’ Heel. With studio finances increasingly being held up by popular comic-books and CGI, the need for a so-called “Star” is evidently in doubt.

It doesn’t help therefore that Box Office draws like Cruise have moulded the majority of their middle-aged careers around adrenaline-fuelled action flicks almost entirely constructed by rapid-fire sequences of running, jumping and shooting.

This oddly mirrors the black hole that Johnny Depp fell into when ‘The Lone Ranger’ tanked back in 2013.

Like Cruise, Depp began his career as an 80s heartthrob ogled over by hundreds of high-schoolers for his high cheekbones, tanned skin and smouldering stares.

It was only in later years that he succumbed to trademark rambling, boozing, scary-haired heroes like Edward Scissorhands, Willy Wonka and Sweeney Todd.

Undoubtedly many of these slightly comical shticks were down to Depp’s close friendship and regular collaborations with Director Tim Burton. However, it was only with the $1 billion success of the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ films (2003-2007) that the impressively bankable actor realised his Jack Sparrow-style antics were responsible for such beguiling box office numbers.

In the last 10 years, Depp’s awkward mix of slurring, stumbling and swordfighting has become less an acting style than a caricature; largely recycling the most exaggerated aspects of past roles as a corporate ploy to lure in extra crowds.

Inevitably, there was a comeuppance for the actor’s increasingly inflated ego. Being something of a multi-million movie show on two feet made it almost impossible to escape the dreaded curse of being typecast. No matter how awfully accented and predictable your roles may be, if they definitively guarantee bucks based on name alone, why would you stop playing them?

It must have been crushing therefore when Disney’s ridiculously outdated ‘Lone Ranger’ adaptation crashed and burned 4 years ago. A film now notorious for being the point at which exhausted multiplexes gave up on Mr. Depp and his whacky ways.

Since then, Depp has struggled to pick himself up on the big screen. The decreased intakes of this year’s ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge’ certainly indicate continued franchise fatigue. I don’t doubt Depp’s troubled personal life – marred by Alcoholism, Drug Addiction and Domestic Abuse – has also affected his audience appeal.

Cruise too is no stranger to off-screen controversy. Google “Tom Cruise Oprah” and witness the actor ecstatically declaring his love for then newly-married wife Katie Holmes while jumping on Oprah’s couch looking as though he’d taken half a tonne of Molly!

Perhaps the less said about his affiliation with the church of Scientology the better…

In front of the camera, though, he remains remarkably clean-cut. With the exception of his much-discussed and surprisingly short 5ft7 height, Cruise embodies every classic convention of a leading man.

Even well into his 50s, he managed to give every ageing bloke an inferiority complex as he effortlessly slid up the Burj Khalifa!

Unlike Depp – until recently his only realistic rival in terms of post-80s era A-listers – Cruise stuck to parts and even looks more often associated with a mainstream movie star. Without doubt this kept him on-board with his female fanbase.

It has also ensured Cruise an authorship over productions that no other actor currently has. A creative control usually only resting with directors, producers and most worryingly studios.

Ever wondered why every Cruise blockbuster seems to revolve around his megawatt smile and break-neck helicopter jumps? That’s his ego for you! Something audiences have grown far too tired of.

Perhaps Cruise should take lesson from this. The success of middle budget flicks like ‘American Made’ are a good indication his best bet would be in returning to the occasionally more offbeat antics witnessed in his bizarre turn as a seductive sex freak in the marvellous ‘Magnolia’ (1999).

A film which allowed Cruise to strip down his hunk act and embrace many of the quirkier characteristics of his off-screen persona.

Yes, Cruise may be a brand in himself, but brands do go bust!

I want crazy Cruise back!

0 Comments

DETROIT (2017) FILM REVIEW

9/17/2017

0 Comments

15, 144 Mins

A pulsating political commentary and 2017’s scariest horror film.

Moving into the month of September and the film calendar’s much-maligned “award’s season” begins.

Inevitably there will be a catalogue of “OSCAR-bait movies”. Films tailor-made by producers and studios with the sole intent of luring pompous Academy Award voters into securing them gold-tinted nominations.

Between now and February, expect at least one biopic, historical drama and weepy sob story to sweep your way via cinemas.

For better or for worse, many of these mainstream movies will be clogged by syrupy treacle, rampant emotional manipulation and overwrought melodrama shouted by the showiest performers.

Kathryn Bigelow’s ‘Detroit’ undoubtedly wears the hallmarks of a typically awards-worthy drama.

Set over the course of a quiet Sunday in July, it documents the 1967 Detroit Riot while serving as a commemoration of the event’s 50th Anniversary.

It was on this quiet Sunday – July 12th, 1967 specifically – that Detroit Police staged a brutish raid upon an unlicensed club celebrating returning black veterans. During widespread arrests of suspects, a mob formed before quickly descending into violent lootings, rock throwing and arsons.

As racially motivated unrest sweeps the city, Officers concentrate their efforts towards an old motel after mistaking a prank pistol shot for a sniper attack.

Here a group of young black R&B artists and two white hookers find themselves lined up against a wall; brutally interrogated into fessing up over the identity of the so-called shooter.

Overseeing this quite obviously unjust operation is Will Poulter’s skin-crawling, high-eyebrowed turn an anguished, bitterly racist white cop while John Boyega channels a young Denzel Washington as a black private security guard-turned-copper who begins to realise the injustice at hand…

The film opens intensely with a harrowing montage offering a nail-biting overview across the history of racism in the USA. Such a sequence seismically swoops between live-action and archive footage; delivering much the same docudrama grit we have come to expect from the director of ‘The Hurt Locker’ (2009) and ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ (2012).

As with those previous films, Bigelow’s trademark blend of fact and fiction melds itself meticulously down to the streets of 60s Detroit; ramming every inch of anarchy, tear gas and shrapnel straight into the face of viewers as Barry Ackroyd’s shaky cam-ridden cinematography throws them dangerously close to the chaos. These ultra-realistic early scenes undoubtedly mirror HBO’s ‘The Wire’ (2002-2008) and the terrific recent race documentary ‘I Am Not Your Negro’ (2017) (for which ‘Detroit’ makes a thrilling companion piece!).

For a film rooted in history and social politics, however, ‘Detroit’s highest merits lie in its accessibility. Those expecting the film to adhere strictly to awards-laden formula will be vastly surprised.

Rather than running through with early indications of a race-based riots drama, Director Bigelow makes drastic shifts in tone.

By moving attention away from the outdoors and inside a motel populated by pranking youths, she chooses a more personal approach.

As Police round up suspects and toy with their minds into confessing a crime they did not commit, the film takes the form of a twisted Russian Roulette game; very broadly resembling a grungy home invasion horror flick where Officers are the offenders and the film’s African American youths are the victims.

Bigelow’s decision to hone in on one area of the event for the film’s duration has been divisive. Inevitably, she risks sugarcoating the wider issue at heart, while reverting to a populist genre such as horror could easily slip into sensationalism.

What is impressive therefore is the manner in which Bigelow holds onto the subject matter. Like the Troubles drama ‘In the Name of the Father’ (1993), ‘Detroit’ channels the conviction of Police brutality into the mainstream.

Its “horror” trappings manifest themselves as a blood-pumping metaphor for a callous form of law enforcement of which’s institutional racism has ravaged through society for decades. Racism which has never felt more contemporary in pressing parallels with the 2011 England Riots and the recent Charlottesville White Nationalist Rally.

With both ‘Detroit’ and Christopher Nolan’s ‘Dunkirk’ (2017), the year may have found two of its first viable OSCAR contenders. For once, however, a Best Picture win wouldn’t be a wasted one.

0 Comments

IT (2017) FILM REVIEW

9/10/2017

0 Comments

***
15, 135 Mins

Stephen King chiller succumbs to the mainstream.

We all know what makes a great horror movie, right? Lurking dread, sinister suspense and an ominous air of startling social relevance are the essential elements that defined the early days of the genre.

Of course - if these elements are allowed to softly sneak up and massage your back over the space of a carefully crafted narrative – the addition of terrifying critters leaping out of closets are entirely warranted.

It’s depressing therefore that this decade’s catalogue of jump scare-ridden chillers seem to have forgotten that “less is more”.

Thanks to haunted house fare such as ‘The Conjuring’ (2013) and ‘Insidious’ (2011), populist horror flicks have taken the form of elongated ghost train rides; bursting with beasties in every corner. With no overarching sense of paranoia or atmosphere though, these overly obvious shocks feel as empty as they are predictable!

While this “quiet, quiet, BANG!” approach has undoubtedly hit a chord with high-schoolers longing for a Friday night fright, hardcore horror geeks have been left longing for a return to the meatier chills of old times.

Perhaps a new take on Stephen King’s demonic clown chiller ‘It’ is exactly what’s needed?

Set in the sleepy town of Derry, Maine, the film follows the pursuits of a group of socially outcast teens lapping at the prospect of adventure while confronting their deepest and darkest fears.

At the heart of our story is Billy (Jaden Lieberher); a 15 year old determined to find his little brother Georgie who disappeared when he was young.

Together with his close pals, they encounter a demon that has cursed the town for nearly 30 years; snatching young children as it inhabits the very thing that frightens them most. For them all, this monster manifests itself as a deranged dancing clown by the name of Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard).

Having been previously adapted as a popular 1990 TV mini-series, ‘It’s concept comes tailored with terrifying real-life undertones as it confronts the basis behind childhood phobias, along with the hidden traumas of dysfunctional households.

Childhood certainly takes centre stage here with the film boasting a nostalgic Spielbergian quality evident in its grainy, Super 8 camera-style cinematography and an eerie yet somewhat mischievous score.

Inevitable comparisons will be made with Netflix smash hit ‘Stranger Things’ (2015-), ‘E.T’ (1982) and the King-based coming-of-age classic ‘Stand By Me’ (1986).
Yet ‘It’s closest cousins lie in the likes of ‘The Goonies’ (1985) and ‘Poltergeist’ (1983). Similar to those earlier works, ‘It’ treads the wavering line between adulthood and adolescence with aplomb.

Directed by Andy Muschietti (behind 2013’s Spanish horror hit ‘Mama’), the film is at its best when exploring the perilous plight of growing up. Something which is universally encapsulated by an unrelentingly capable teenage cast.

A standout performer is unquestionably newcomer Sophie Lillis. As the group’s sole female Beverley, the young actress is terrific at getting to the heart of what so many teenage girls routinely struggle with.

Being what some might see as a school’s ironically-named “It girl”, Beverley is a warm presence who provides cheerful optimism to her male mates and yet routinely suffers bullying at the hands of fellow schoolgirls jealous over her pretty appearance, while coming home to an abusive father.

It is these subplots that provide ‘It’s darkest subject matter indicating a much-needed return to horror being rooted in realism rather than escapism.

What is both disappointing and surprising is that for all its musings over the ups and downs of youth, what ‘It’ lacks - as a horror film - is its own ability to scare.

With the exception of the infamous “HIYA GEORGIE!” opening scene, Bill Skarsgard’s Pennywise lacks the gleeful menace of Tim Curry’s chaotically carnival incarnation.

This version of the psychopathic clown may appear less comical at face value, but is hampered by an awkward overload of CGI that detracts from the paralysing phobia that dozens identify with and which the film is attempting to play on.

Pennywise himself never feels a palpable threat; lurking in the shadows before being unleashed in a ‘Psycho’-esque climax that resorts to the tired mind games that made the ‘Saw’ films such slogs.

I don’t doubt the film’s shift from psychologically-driven tension to prankster-style scare-mongering will be key to its financial success.

However ‘It’s strongly hinted sequel would definitely benefit from a few less bogeymen behind doors…

0 Comments

THE BIG SICK (2017) FILM REVIEW

9/4/2017

0 Comments

*
15, 124 Mins

Culture clash “comedy” is the year’s most touching triumph.

Any film which has a poster parading “From Judd Apatow” instantly evokes some scepticism. I can’t help, but shudder at the thought of yet another gross-out orgy from the man behind ‘Superbad’ (2007), ‘Knocked Up’ (2007) and ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’ (2005).

Thankfully, Apatow-produced ‘The Big Sick’ remains widely free of the dick-loaded misogyny lurking in those mainstream comedies. Yes. This quirky tale occasionally reverts to analysing breasts, but such blunt interactions are directed with dollops of deadpan evident in beloved indie fare like ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ (2004).

Less a frat flick than a gentle romantic stroll, Pakistani-American comedian Kumail Nanjiani stars as himself in this semi-autobiographical account of his romantic life.
Based in Chicago, Kumail spends his days taxiing the city as an Uber driver while pandering to his Muslim parent’s attempts to arrange marriage with various Pakistani Muslim women.

By night, however, he’s a failing stand-up performer for a variety of crowds who are mostly unimpressed by his “offbeat” humour.

Kumail is deeply dissatisfied with his mundane lifestyle. Specifically, he longs for a relationship moulded purely from love rather than family ties.

Perhaps the very solution to this dilemma lies with the bubbly Emily (Zoe Kazan as Nanjiani’s real-life future wife). Whimsy, perceptive and yet somewhat innocent, she represents what many might consider is - dare I say - “wife material”.

When tragic illness strikes, however, Kumail finds his loyalties between family and lover more tested than ever.

With Islamic parenting, cultural identity and life-threatening disease all battling for equal screen time, you’d be forgiven for expecting ‘The Big Sick’ to feel awkwardly squished between cheerful escapism and shameful awards manipulation.

What is most refreshing therefore is its sincerity.

Beneath its breezy sensibility, this is a poignant insight into the raw, real and often unfair lives of everyday folk.

In the central role, Nanjiani effortlessly embodies the frustrations and disillusionment of an ethnic minority citizen. His struggles in stand-up (a largely white sector) are a direct encapsulation of this.

In one hard-hitting yet hilarious scene, a dim-witted jock taunts our hero with the woeful words “go back to ISIS”. Kumail is unsurprisingly speechless as are the rest of the crowd. A scuffle even ensues between the racist jerk and a loudmouthed middle-aged woman!

What is ironic is that this “loudmouthed middle-aged woman” is Emily’s mum (Holly Hunter) who – alongside her slightly dozy husband (Ray Romano) – personify the implicit racial bias of a conventionally white middle-class American couple.

When they arrive at the hospital to find Kumail watching over a comatose Emily, both parents act rather confused over his exact role in their daughter’s life. One wonders whether such confusion would exist quite so obviously had Kumail been white.

The fact that Emily's parents begin to relate to Kumail more and more amidst the uncertainty of their daughter's condition only goes to further uncover many people’s unconscious racism. It suggests that it is often only in times of tragedy or moments of discomfort that people completely overlook their initial pre-judgements.

But ‘The Big Sick’ isn't bogged down by political correctness. Across the board, this is a film preaching accessibility to every class, gender and race.

You don’t have to be Asian to weep during a lump-in the-throat phone call where Kumail is first told of his lover’s sudden declining health.

Neither do you have be so to laugh like a hyena during brilliantly forward discussions about Emily’s Goth teenage years!

It would certainly be easy for ‘The Big Sick’ to resort to victim playing for the discriminated or to become an embittered rant against mainstream Western culture.

And yet there are no blame fingers wagging around here. If one had any doubt of this, simply look towards the film's treatment of Kumail's own family.

The film never once feels even positively biased as it deconstructs the emotional toll this deeply conservative style of parenting can have on its children. A traditional form of household that still resonates through South Asian values and feels in desperate need of progression.

Most touchingly, however, what virtually every couple alive will find themselves sharing is our central romance’s core plight. Even without the stigmatised social issues tapered to this love story, the very essence of a relationship – from unrequited affection to first date to break-up – has rarely been captured with such honesty.

Without doubt, this is ‘The Big Sick’s greatest charm. A film which even the least sentimental soul will find ability to relate.

0 Comments

KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE (2017) FILM REVIEW

**
15, 141 Mins

MOTHER! (2017) FILM REVIEW

*
18, 121 Mins

TOM CRUISE AND THE FALL OF THE HEARTTHROB

DETROIT (2017) FILM REVIEW

15, 144 Mins

IT (2017) FILM REVIEW

***
15, 135 Mins

THE BIG SICK (2017) FILM REVIEW

*
15, 124 Mins

Meet Roshan Chandy

Follow Me on Twitter

Rating System

*** 2 Thumbs Up
Thumb Up
* Waving Thumbs
** Thumb Down
* 2 Thumbs Down

Archives

FILM OF THE WEEK

Saint Maud
(15, 84 Mins)

DVD OF THE WEEK

Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy
(PG, 341 Mins)

TV MOVIE OF THE WEEK

Get Out (2017)
(15, 102 Mins)
Sun 11th Oct., 10.55pm, Channel 4

KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE (2017) FILM REVIEW

** 15, 141 Mins

MOTHER! (2017) FILM REVIEW

***** 18, 121 Mins

TOM CRUISE AND THE FALL OF THE HEARTTHROB

DETROIT (2017) FILM REVIEW

**** 15, 144 Mins

IT (2017) FILM REVIEW

​*** 15, 135 Mins

THE BIG SICK (2017) FILM REVIEW

​*****15, 124 Mins

Meet Roshan Chandy

Follow Me on Twitter​

Rating System

***** 2 Thumbs Up**** Thumb Up*** Waving Thumbs** Thumb Down* 2 Thumbs Down​

Archives

FILM OF THE WEEK​

Saint Maud​(15, 84 Mins)

DVD OF THE WEEK​

Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy (PG, 341 Mins)

TV MOVIE OF THE WEEK​

Get Out (2017)(15, 102 Mins)Sun 11th Oct., 10.55pm, Channel 4

**
15, 141 Mins

*
18, 121 Mins

15, 144 Mins

***
15, 135 Mins

*
15, 124 Mins

Follow Me on Twitter

*** 2 Thumbs Up
Thumb Up
* Waving Thumbs
** Thumb Down
* 2 Thumbs Down

FILM OF THE WEEK

Saint Maud
(15, 84 Mins)

DVD OF THE WEEK

Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy
(PG, 341 Mins)

TV MOVIE OF THE WEEK

Get Out (2017)
(15, 102 Mins)
Sun 11th Oct., 10.55pm, Channel 4