HelenMary

Alfred Enoch was the draw here from HTGAWM, and looking for a seasonal film, and British. This didn't disappoint. Set on a commuter train, and the relationships that blossom if Brits break the cardinal riule of engaging with fellow travellers. Great ensemble cast and a sweet yet predictable story. Exactly what you want for holiday feels.

London looks amazing. The town where Adam (Enoch) lives looks stunning, and all the cast had stories to tell.

Few weirdnesses; the train they commute on - how old is it?! All the characters commuting in work within what appears to be walking distance of each other but the locations are all over the place, Enoch's accent is a bit all over the place, and Spall's acting is a little ... hard to watch, it's a bit too much for such a light film. But it adds some chiaroscuro!

Putting aside someone standing up on a commuter train and engaging with everyone, it's a believable premise and charming. The film is commentary on how we see people every day but know very little about them, how we could connect or what they would add to our lives.

The ensemble cast are mostly well known faces some big names. Typical of London, there's much more diversity than your usual film, which I loved. I really loved. Emma's character, and the actress, who's name I wasn't familiar with but who's face was familiar. She was lovely. Nice gentle chemistry between her and Adam.

A real feel good London Christmas movie. Not too much cheese, the right amount, lots of emotion, some laughs and (no spoiler) a happy ending.

Whilst less than half an hour long, this short brings the characters to life quickly. You're thrown into a single mum's life with her high school son and their struggle to get by, his teenage angst and distain of authority. He's in the wrong crowd and in trouble.

Reeves' performance is naive yet compelling. His otherworldly looks bely his aggressive character but his gentleness is there... waiting to shine through. He's believable even at such a young age. The chemistry with his mother is uncomfortable, and his large physical presence dominates some scenes. I thought he'd be aggressive with her at one point.

The film is very 80's and amateurish with starkly cut scenes, but poignant never the less. It is like an after school special (as they're called in the US) against the destructiveness of street crime on families.

I actually enjoyed watching it, it had tension and warmth and for such an obviously low budget production it had quite a punch. The acting was a little staccato, and the mum didn't seem to have much nuance or range, against Reeves' more fluid delivery, but even he was a bit line. line. line in some scenes.

Some of the production was like a college project-type film, but it's well done for what it is, and is entertaining and with a strong message.

Olivia Fougeirol plays Echo, I think. Other characters are an old man who emerges from a pool wearing a loin cloth and a bunch of grapes on a string around his neck, a horned man who speaks in a backwards gibberish and ants come out of his mouth and nose, a naked bearded man standing underneath a tree, other nymph-type friends of Echo in their white gowns, and Keanu Reeves' character - who stands on the top of a hill or by a pool looking curious, or pensive, or just very attractive. Maybe he is Narcissus. He wears a sarong.

So, black and white, about 13 minutes, edited in a naive 1980s picture in picture used in children's tv shows type of way, and with only exaggerated sound effects and no dialogue. It flashes between narrative bits and abstract emotive/expression scenes, ants crawling around, and shots of landscape. Much of the movement seems disjointed and played backwards to give more surreal feeling.

I know the story of Echo and Narcissus vaguely but this doesn't seem to fit really, although Echo left her friends and went off on her own. Then was chastised. I think.

I don't know.

As a piece of art it has much to recommend it. I'd feel a lot better if I knew what was going on and what it all meant.

Billed as a psychological thriller, with a fairly tell-all trailer, this wasn't as scary as I expected and I never the saw the original (Death Game). I had put off watching it for fear of seeing sexual assault (which I don't like to watch as "entertainment") but it turned out to be okay from that point of view. The writing was careful that Keanu's character, Evan, was complicit, and consenting to whatever happened to him sexually, albeit under some duress of blackmail (a grey area); but some reviewers hold that he WAS guilty and had some sordid secret but I didn't see that, except the fact he went along with the blackmail because he had cheated on his wife. If roles were reversed, men coming into the home of a woman, it would be an unthinkable film.

So, Evan is a family man whose wife and two children go away for the weekend and two bedraggled young women turn up at his door seeking shelter from the rain, and things go awry when they try to seduce him. Being cynical and judgmental it seems a little tenuous that a man can only hold out for 40 minutes against some pretty obvious flirtation, especially when he does so well at first, and there's an Uber on its way.

You have to suspend your disbelief a lot during this film; it is surprising (and a few reviewers have mentioned) that Evan is a physically imposing man... Keanu Reeves is a big man... but he doesn't seem to be able stay away from two small women. Evan is clearly not John Wick or Johnny Utah! He doesn't fight back as you would expect a man to, but you have to suppose that he is still labouring under the fear that he IS doing something wrong, and shock that this is happening at all, and they are girls and you can't fight girls (in this scenario - it's okay Evan!)

Sadly, the film is poorly made, despite very good acting performances from the three leads. There are lots of sloppy edits, overly long travelling shots and camera/sound crew are visible in reflection in a number of scenes. Also, the film doesn't answer all the questions it poses... as a psychological thriller, there isn't much psychology. The most explanation of things is unspoken (or under breath) communication between Evan and the dog, Monkey... and what happens to Monkey?!

The ending is weird, and not expected. That isn't to say that it's a twist, I was just incredulous, like "Eh? WHAT!?" There was no satisfying denouement, I was left quite angry at the end, and I couldn't quite express that without more expressions of shock at how ridiculous it all was.

I didn't enjoy this film, despite good acting. I wondered what the point was. Two girls... and... why!?!? The take home morals of the story are to have weapons hidden ALL over your home... and keep *it* (not the weapons) in your pants. Men beware.

As has been said, Ryder and Reeves are the only speaking actors in the film, acting against both beautiful scenery and small sets in what looks a very low budget production but doesn't lack anything for that. From the first scene, the dialogue is fast, witty and more realistic than most rom-coms. I enjoyed it from the get-go. The scenes would make an excellent stage play, as you're engrossed in the dialogue. You have to concentrate to keep up with the asides and references.

Ryder and Reeves have great chemistry on screen and clearly know each other really well so the awkward repartee and situations are made more cringeworthy with good acting rather uncomfortable people. I would not be surprised if a lot was ad-libbed but I've not read that anywhere. Their third pairing in a film (Bram Stoker's Dracula and Private Lives of Pippa Lee - although not opposite each other in the latter) they are great together, and I'd happily watch them in other films.

It is laugh out loud funny but also in your head happy funny and I'm sure it will bear repeat watching. It would make a funny audiobook, but their facial expressions and body language are superb and add a lot to the film. They're so natural in it. For Reeves doubters, his step away from sci-fi, action and monosyllabic "woodenness" please see this and see a great dry comedic actor with brilliant timing. Actually both of them have had detractors (I love her in Reality Bites but many find her delivery annoying). Both characters are bitter, cynical and world-weary but their lack of joi de vivre is surely more true to life than peppy teens mooning over lost love but bounding into a relationship with a hop and a skip and it all being rosy, with wedding bells not far behind. For forty-fifty-something's (or whatever age they were playing - they both don't seem to age much) this film is relatable on many levels. Both of them embody their baggage brilliantly and I'm sure they must have related to some of it too - apparently both being unlucky in love themselves. Whilst we can relate to their baggage and bitchiness, they're both nice people. She is sweet and trusting and he is - for all his hatred of intimacy - a gentleman and a decent chap.

I don't think I could fault the film aside from a few potential wine glass continuity errors... it really doesn't lack for its simplicity, originality or acting close up style.

There is no nudity, not much bad language (conversational expletives of annoyance or surprise rather than as punctuation), some graphic sex references and a clothed sex scene which some viewers may find cringeworthy - that's the point - and reference to Frank's in the "sweet spot" size wise, straight "balletically formed" penis has been widely advertised/reviewed so perhaps not for younger teen watching.

For adults. And I don't mean it's rated 18... I just don't think younger adults would understand this or get the humour. Besides, why let them in on the secret angst and baggage they have to look forward to, let them have their sweet romcoms with smushy Hollywood endings while they can.

The apropos tag line: check your baggage.

Witty and hilarious. Great date night or girls night viewing.

I enjoyed this film. It was interesting, entertaining and made you think. There were interesting moral dilemmas to think about. It was mostly well acted and the SFX and set design were believable and good.

It was reminiscent of William Gibson (Johnny Mnemonic) or Philip K Dick (A Scanner Darkly) science fiction. Thing is, the story appears to be set in the future (given the tech the characters are using - consciousness transference for example) but everything else in the film is completely current, so the viewer is confused as to when the film is set, how these things are possible.

The film isn't perfect, and I can't put my finger on why it doesn't feel like a big sci-fi blockbuster... it is good, but misses something. Maybe because it's not entirely original - it is perhaps derivative, lots of elements that we've seen elsewhere.

Reeves was good. Yet again playing the grieving husband, intense, driven, determined and with moral flexibility. Despite other reviewers, I think Reeves was believable as the mad scientist.

The only thing frustrating with the film was the cheesy ending. I don't know what a better ending would've been, but it took a predictable and slightly more unbelievable denouement and I would've preferred a continuation of the more cerebral and psychological/ethical dilemma sci-fi thriller theme.

Overall a good film that I'd happily watch again.

This is a terrible film with only one redeeming feature... oh two; 1. Keanu Reeves and 2. The end credits.

Even Reeves couldn't save this miss-mash of a piece. It's billed as "Cop investigates his partner's murder..." but the investigation part is thin on the ground and if you're thinking Law and Order police procedural you can forget it.

The story follows a circuitous route, and no logical path. The "clues" such as they are are covered over by ghostly apparitions or weird occurrences, and it doesn't make sense. The story is not helped by odd chopping and changing of characters' action, names of characters not clear and the plot being non-existent. Characters' reactions and dialogue are unrealistic and stilted, conversation seems strained and the best performer was a Staffordshire bull terrier. The most relatable character was only seen on Skype (or similar). All explanatory dialogue was missing leaving you always guessing. Much of the dialogue is in Spanish, with subtitles, which usually doesn't bother me but in this it was just another thing that was difficult to follow in the film.

If sexual assault as a topic is something you don't like in a film, avoid this.

Keanu, as always, is the solid determined guy... again the grieving widow, troubled and unapproachable, shy and proper. However, his dialogue is even more monosyllabic than usual. The script is shocking; dull and un-imaginative. Together with the bad dialogue, the direction and editing are choppy and inconsistent, and all over the place.

The film is depressing. Nothing good. Nothing charming or pleasing. It's just unpleasant and grim.

I can't recommend this film, as I said, even Reeves' normal charisma was burried and couldn't shine through this horrible storytelling.

There's no back story to this short, unless I'm missing something. The subtitles in Chinese and English are very quick and there is very little dialogue. The sound in the version I saw on YouTube was about 5 seconds behind the screen view so that did t help.

Keanu kills a man and his family (?) seek revenge.

I need to watch it again. Also staring Tiger Hu Chen from Man of Tai Chi. Keanu looks dapper.

I saw the full length version of Ellie Parker, not the Short. I wish I'd seen the Short! The first thing I thought/commented about this film was that it didn't seem finished. It was filmed in a very amateurish way; hand-held, digital, possibly on someone's phone, lots of background interference/noise. Sound quality and picture quality were poor. Clearly very low budget, to the point that it was almost embarrassing to watch, like you were watching something you shouldn't be, but on the plus side that did make it more personal watching the titular character (Watts) intimately. But it was painful viewing; warts and all with intrusive camera shots, where you thought you should be looking away. The Direction and editing were odd, and the style of the film changed in bits throughout, which also didn't make any sense, it looked like home videos filmed by different people, mashed together. If it was a college kid's exam piece it would have been quite brilliant. The only scene which was in any way poignant was part (not all of it) of a scene with Ellie at the Therapist's rooms… her monologue about not feeling like her life had begun yet and she was still practicing etc. That was deep and profound, for a few minutes.

I get that it was a fly on the wall look at the inner workings and ridiculousness, angst and awfulness of trying to make it in LA, I really do get that. I can see that as a show reel for Naomi Watts, the chameleon actress playing the part of a chameleon actress, schlepping across LA to her auditions, it was pretty impressive. However, as a film, it was terrible. I get what it was trying to do, but it was the wrong kind of pretentious, self-indulgent film-making that actually has no substance. Perhaps that is a commentary on the Hollywood machine, right there. Arty types might see nuances and double meanings, like the scene in the art gallery; the art is supposed to mean something really profound but actually it's just ridiculous, but it's not good enough to carry that sort of commentary. You've got to still sit through it.

None of the characters were likable, or even had much presence. Jennifer Syme was sweet and natural and had one of the two laughs in the film (slipping on the blue stuff), and it was nice to see her; she seemed to be the only real person really but even she didn't rate a named role! May she rest in peace. Chevy Chase was quite likable and vaguely amusing in his small role.

I watched the film as one of Keanu Reeves' back catalogue, and I wonder why on earth he signed on for it; perhaps because of Syme's involvement. Perhaps on paper it was interesting, somehow though, it turned out to be not very original. And messy. Reeves' role was as himself at a Dogstar gig, the footage of which looked superimposed into the film from elsewhere, YouTube or a newsreel. That whole scene was really awkward and fuzzy. I like Dogstar's music but it didn't sound good in this film.

There were a few scenes which I just wanted to look away from, Naomi on the loo was one of them, and it was often just that feeling of dread waiting for something horrible to happen. It does make me make me realise how vulnerable jobbing actresses are, and how awful it must be to try to make it – especially in light of recent scandals in the business (Weinstein etc).

There was a very brief laugh involving Ellie in the southern belle dress, waiting for her audition in the hotel, but I really wouldn't call this a comedy. That whole audition scene I was thinking "something awful is going to happen," again, a bit like the creeping impending doom of Reeves' Generation Um…? where you're on the edge of your seat for all the wrong reasons.

I had no idea what to expect watching Ellie Parker, but overall I can attest that it was not an enjoyable film; I went into it believing it was a comedy, back when I was naïve and the world was still colourful, but I would go so far as to say it was boring and whilst watching it I was just waiting for something to happen and/or it to end. I feel a little jaded by it. I feel it was a waste of time. Perhaps all of that, though, is part of the dialogue of the film. How you are supposed to feel, before as a glittering Hollywood star rises from those ashes. I have no idea. It would explain why some stars are so protective of their position if they've been through all that, but all of us who strive towards something can perhaps relate in some small way to Ellie's travails. Maybe not.

I gave this 2/10 as it was so awful, but Naomi's performance and versatility in the film, and her bravery, despite my not liking anything about her character, was actually pretty good. If you are a fan of Naomi Watts you will see her in all kinds of guises here. Dogstar get a point, just because, so 3/10.

Remember Abyss? Where the benevolent - but still threatening - aliens showed the human race that war was futile and we wept at the (cut in some versions) montage of awful things that the human race was capable of? Arrival was similar without being so dramatic.

Amy Adams lead the film well. In all honesty she carried the film as the other characters (other than her daughter) didn't really have much of a look in. It was interesting seeing Forrest Whittaker play very much the second fiddle, although he played it very much to type. Other characters were more or less obsolete, with the exception of a few nagging mozzies flying around to provide a little tension and the necessary conflict, much of which was - like a mozzie - just in need of a sharp slap. She was excellent as Linguist Louise, very understated and sedate albeit a a little too "monotone" and "internal." The whole film was a little laid back, never quite enough tension to feel any real threat, and the characters other than Amy weren't deep enough to really care about. That said, Jeremy Renner was nice, but it was never really explained exactly what his purpose was, or rather what input he achieved, in terms of the First Contact, and was in a subsidiary role to Louise.

That all said, I loved the film and I really enjoyed how it weaved the convergent narratives neatly and beautifully and kept you guessing. I wasn't surprised by the twist, and had suspected as much, noticed the little clues, but it was still really well achieved. The story was clever, simple (premise) yet intelligently brought to the screen. I think the quietness brought a strength to the simplicity but I think there wasn't enough emotion or variety of activity to make the film truly epic; not enough tension in the international political scene, or from the aliens themselves. The teaching/learning scenes were cut too short/too staccato and too much was implied and glossed over, it was if the editor was too heavy handed and trying to go for intrigue, just omitted some of the plot. There was too much process that I felt needed to be put back in, not for explanation (the plot was clear) but for interest. The learning of the language, went from "my name is..." to sentences without actually showing the process - it needed a little delineation, more explanation of the circles, as I was interested.

Mention must be made of the SFX - reminiscent of Independence Day - and faultless. The aliens "Abbott" and "Costello" were excellent; their mode of communication beautiful and the real first contact was really quite special. The (for wont of a better word) 'space ships' that the heptopods arrived in were beautiful too and some of the best SFX were their departure and their existence and presence on the screen with helicopters/ships etc, and the gravity scenes were well done.

Overall a watchable, beautiful and intelligent film, and whilst on the surface it seems perfect, and I don't need linear story lines or over-explanation of things, and it did what it was meant to do in terms of storytelling, I feel that it was missing something, the profundity of gripping emotion and heart-pounding tension. It had more scope but just fell a little short. Less is more, and I like how that is generally employed here, going against the grain of Hollywood overkill, and also how America weren't perfect, and China (the great Tzi Ma) were the heroes and leaders of the conclusion (with Louise of course). An awesome experience of cinematography that I would recommend.

Olympus Has Fallen was a good enjoyable action flick. Gerard Butler is always a joy to watch and it wasn't all action, there was a depth. It came out at a similar time to White House Down, though, so it's impact was a little watered down, although still good. This, the second in the series, promised to be a good sequel, from the trailer, moving the action to a European city (London), rather than one building.

Sadly, it definitely fell into the sequel trap. Cashing in on the first, and not really thinking it through. The plot is simple: "bad guy of 'generic extreme Muslim' type (as opposed to 'generic eastern European/new cold war type') was targeted in a drone strike by the USA, and his family killed, he seeks revenge, so plots to take out all the world leaders." As you do.

The Direction was poor. I note that Olympus has Fallen had Antoine Fuqua at the helm, no wonder it was so much better!! Emotion, tension and grit. If you are looking for that again... watch something else. This tried too hard and missed. Tension was non-existent, bad things happening were telegraphed, and there just wasn't enough background or fact-based-action (believability).

So, a "State Funeral" is put on for a Prime Minister who died in office (that doesn't actually happen so the whole plot is flimsy) and all the World Leaders attend. Things go wrong... but of course the US security team are the only ones who are any good at their jobs, have done any research or actually stick by their charges. The French President is left on his own in a boat presumably taking in the view, the German Leader looks like she's standing isolated near a crowd, doing the tourist thing watching changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace (!?!) and the Japanese Leader is just stuck in a traffic jam with one driver in the car... But Butler is the best! He has a plan. The US rock!

Severe plot holes all the way through. Very little research into how things actually are in London, and the whole film suggests that our security forces are woefully ineffective. Only Banner (Butler) has any idea what is going on and orders around the SAS! Harumph. Too much American flag waving, gung-ho, cheesy macho dialogue for me, and too many improbable scenes, or consequences of actions. I realise the bad guys are meant to be really good at what they are doing but they only had two years... just no. Ridiculous examples of surviving stuff that were just daft, and shoot-em-up scenes that looked for all the world like the CGI in a Tom Clancy video game left me feeling a bit bored and disconnected. I found myself thinking, why isn't there any coverage of the countries that have lost their leaders? Why do we not see the USA on the phone to them? Why is everyone expendable - collateral damage - except the US President? What is everyone else doing whilst all this silliness is going on? Where are the Royal Family? Just too improbable to be entertaining, in my humble opinion. Some good fight scenes - hand to hand - but absolutely no feeling that Banning might actually be in any danger, or that the President was actually going to get hurt. That's not a spoiler, that's a foregone conclusion.

Banning knows where an MI5 safehouse is, security breach right there, knows the back streets of London like the back of his hand, yet makes clear mistakes in not being able to hide the president in places that might actually be secure. Oh, and the drone that is always above the President? Bit of a giveaway to his location, no? Why do the Sit Room worry where he is, if there IS a drone above the President? Is that a feasible plot tool given the scenario? Maybe they are used during finite walk-abouts and security details together with snipers on roofs, etc, but after all that has gone on, in London, ALL the time? Really?

The first half was good. Interesting enough to be mildly gripping, and flight/helicopter scenes, whilst predictable, were a little tense. The denouement; the "who to blame" portion? Wrapped up far to easily and "Hollywood" in a neat little bow with, again, shoddy writing that someone wouldn't cover their tracks, or have had an escape plan in place, or even had thought it through a little bit. Silly illogical writing. Despite all this, plot weaknesses and ridiculous dialogue not withstanding, for Saturday night viewing at home it's an okay action film, if you can suspend your incredulity. I can only give it five out of ten because of it's lack of redeeming features; some views of London were lovely, Gerard Butler is easy on the eye, and Angela Bassett and Morgan Freeman brought the acting chops and gave it some minimal range. I would summarise; typical sequel - not anywhere near as good as the first.

I remember seeing The Equaliser, the TV show, when I was young, staring Edward Woodward. This is the same, but totally different.

Denzel plays Robert "Bob" McCall, and we see him initially start his days in simplicity, in a mundane job, in a simple home, reading, not sleeping and enjoying quiet solitude and routine. The pace of the film can be described the same way. Quiet solitude and routine. Nothing happens loudly or quickly and you have to pay attention. Denzel is at his charming best. Think Training Day, think Safe House and Magnificent Seven with the charm of the Prince in Much Ado About Nothing.

Antoine Fuqua, Director, also working with Denzel on Training Day and Magnificent Seven, is flawless, seamless and deeply committed to a viewing experience that immerses the viewer. Often, more often than not, lighting is low in The Equalizer and little is said or explained. What happens in the dark, is salient but not narrated. This makes for a slow burning piece of great cinema; tension and pressure mount and you feel it. Like John Wick (Keanu Reeves) as "Baba Yaga" - the bogeyman - Washington's dealings with Russian mob are equally devastating, accomplished and quiet.

Watching the film, you don't know who Robert McCall is, just the guy in the 24hour diner reading through the list of 100 books before you die (incidentally I'm shamefully only on 30), and making tentative friends with Alina or "Teri," brilliantly played by Kick Ass star Chloe Grace Moretz, the young prostitute. You don't know who he is, but that is drip fed to you through the film. Unlike other heroes McCall doesn't do what he does for glory or recognition, he does it for justice and moral right. You don't hear Teri's story either, which is a blessing, but not having backstories and motivations narrated is a clever ploy for you to fill in your own blanks, or keep the pace quiet and slow. Moretz and Washington's friendship is lovely and believable. He is a trustworthy person, and like his unobtrusive violence, righting wrongs, you don't see sexual violence in this film either; the awful things Teri has to endure are not spelled out, which is a relief. Less is more. Martin Csokas, a good actor, but known for his hammy portrayal and terribly overdone Russian accent in XXX, was perfectly cast here. He too played it understated and deadly with the confidence or someone who has never been realistically challenged before, possibly drawing on his experience of playing Celeborn in LOTR ... quiet graceful and deadly! When I say unobtrusive violence, meaning you don't always see it, sometimes you do. This is not a film for under 15s by any stretch of the imagination. There's some very up close uses for common household items put to alternative use in the film. If you are a bit squeamish or sensitive, don't watch. That said, Fugua uses darkness and suggestion well even in these scenes. Everyone in the cast put in performances to be proud of, but Washington of course was the stand out. He truly is a phenomenal performer. Whatever he touches is golden, and I very much like seeing age and experience, and economy of violent movement, showing professionalism and realism over glamour and youth and showy unrealistic fight scenes any day. Especially with Denzel! Marton Csokas, known for his terrible Russian accent and hammy acting in XXX, is infinitely more formidable as a Russian mob fixer, here.

What can you say about John Wick2? Well… Wow. I really enjoyed it. Chapter 2 is still slick, dark and gritty. Keanu is still gorgeous, ovviamente, beaten up and the deadliest thing both sides of the Atlantic (this time) and whilst he is bullet proof he's still barely standing; as it's apparently just a few days after the first one finishes. The story is still simple; people want to kill him, he wants to retire and be maudlin over his wife, and pet his new dog, and so he has to stop them by killing them first. Thing is, in JW2, more people need killing – someone from his past calls in a marker (a promised favour).

I had been itching to see JW2 since the first one left the cinema, and saw it on a Valentine's Day preview and wasn't disappointed. As sequels go, I wasn't expecting it to be as good as the first, but it exceeded expectations by a long way. I loved it. Entertaining and exciting, some amazing kills by Reeves and his physicality again proved to be awesome; but whilst it's as good as the first one it doesn't have the emotional element or the more intimate settings and direct threats to his life. I say direct, I should say the whole film is a direct threat to his life but it's not so… personal. Somehow.

The body count is like a first person shooter video game. If wall to wall violence isn't your thing, this film isn't for you. Reeves says more, and the scene is changed from NYC to Rome, and there's more story in terms of the "high table" underground royalty and the wider net of the Continental Hotel world; the Sommelier (awesome scene with Peter Serafinowitcz) and the Jewish bank vaults, the tailoring service etc as he prepares for his mission, but something of the original's slick noir, graphic novel feel and look is lost. Ian McShane is still wonderful as the Continental NYC "King" and Lance Reddick as the Concierge, Charon providing some very dry comic relief, and John Leguizamo puts in a reprise of his actual mechanic character – as opposed to a "Mechanic" like John himself. It's less subversive, and whilst watching the first one was like an entrée into a dark world, a clandestine peep, this one feels like it's all in the open and everyone knows about it.

The Italian bit is wonderfully showy and reminded me of the Vampire genre, but you have to contemplate how many hit men/women there are in the world that you can have a monarchy, a seeming government and entire community that large – and the Vatican is in on it – and it would appear that the whole population of NYC are trained assassins. It's more of the spectacle than the first and that was a negative for me. It is John Wick on a bigger scale… sequels don't usually manage that (Terminator 2 is clearly the stand out exception) but this really does, but as I've said, it's bigger at a cost. It lost something in translation.

As said, it's bloodier than the first. Some of the splatter in close up kills in the first were shocking, but in Chapter 2 almost unnoticed in the carnage left in John's wake. At one point in the catacombs of Rome I wondered whether it wasn't all CGI as there were so many bodies being dispatched and you barely saw them and I got a bit bored – the scene went on too long and I started thinking it was all getting a bit silly. But then there are a few kills and scenes which were brilliant – and made audience members exclaim – the pencil scene (yes, he does it again with a pencil), the sumo Japanese guy, and the scene on the NYC metro with Common and the "professional courtesy" were very good to watch. Actually all Common and Reeves' fight scenes were very good, and the stunt men used were fantastic (I know Reeves does most of his stunts but I'm sure not for the stair falls).

I really enjoyed it. Easily as good as the first but different. Not as good overall, in the same way, but along the same lines. Some may think it better but either way it is very good cinema viewing – it can fill a big screen – and a must see if you like this sort of thing. Direction was good, clever, and trying to capture the artiness of the first, and doing a pretty good job but for me, it was a little too fantastical – stepping over the border from thriller/action to dark-fantasy. As with the first, it doesn't explain anything, you are dropped into the world of Wick and you have to find your own way. It still doesn't explain who he is but there is another shower scene where you see the tattoo hinting at his past. There are even hints to Reeves' career past as well; Laurence Fishburne on set with Reeves for the first time since the Matrix and they exchange a quote from the franchise. I am trying to think whether Reeves and Common (previously in Street Kings) have the same thing… "exigent circumstance" or something.

I will see it again before it leaves the cinema.

I have the fortune/misfortune of my best friend living in the USA so she sees everything before me and often says, "You must go and see this." I had to go and see this. Aside from the fact that the Gosling-Stone combo is golden, and individually they are brilliant, I had the recommendation from Stateside. I am biased, in that I very much admire Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, and I love all things Los Angeles and oldy-worldy Hollywood, but someone told me before I went that LLL isn't set in the Golden Age of Hollywood – the 1940s – its set in modern day Hollyweird. Shocker! What did this mean? From the opening scene, I had a stupid grin on my face, and it only left when I was crying. Such is the emotional roller-coaster of this film. It is the golden years of Hollywood because it transports you to another world, where singing and dancing are normal and love is forever and two people are star-crossed to be together, and it's sunny and people wear bright colours and pretty dresses, and proper suits still. It's a Hollywood where Gosling and Stone shine, and are playing characters that seem so natural to them, the fact that Ryan had to learn to play piano like that for the film defies belief. It's a beautiful film, a love song to Los Angeles, but also a stark portrait of Hollywood as well; the competition, the broken dreams, the fakery, the traffic jams, and the disappointment.

Two wannabes – Stone, an aspiring actress, and Gosling, an aspiring jazz musician meet by chance and are wildly unsuitable for each other. But it works. Both are smitten, and motivated to chase the other, and each pushes the other with their dreams. It is beautiful, endearing, but also gut wrenchingly sad and challenging. These people knew exactly what they wanted from life and they bared all (figuratively) and went for it. What is in my life that is like that? What dreams do I have, did I have? I thought about it for days afterwards, that and the beautiful and haunting musical refrain.

The music is wonderful, John Legend… is a Legend and seeing him in the film was icing on the cake, and Gosling's piano playing is just beautiful. The sets and locations, whether the back lot at Universal or whichever Studio it was, The Griffith Observatory, or out on the road, were all perfect and costume, and Direction, all the ducks were lined up in a row to be brilliant. So many homages to past Hollywood films, little in jokes, which I didn't get but read about, so much depth, and twists… for once a Hollywood film without a Hollywood ending, but it was more Hollywood because of that. I loved it. I get why some people didn't, those without the childlike suspension of disbelief and inability to see fantasy and imagine another world, or see metaphor; seems you either adore it or say "Meh!" I'm not sure it is worthy of all the Oscar nods, if I'm being honest. Yes, it was dancing and singing and fantasy and real life and Hollywood and period and modern and all things to all Los Angeles, but it wasn't taxing or a stretch for these actors. But perhaps it was the nod to things past, the feelings it engendered, the emotional roller-coaster, what films are meant to be about, the story within the story within the film, the film as story and as narration, which makes it more than the sum of its parts, and the bareness and frankness of the characters. I think it is one of those films that will be studied, to peel back the onion layers of Director Damien Chazelle's vision. Go see for yourself.

I love P&P and had seen this book (P&P&Z) on the best seller lists but had no idea how it would translate from classic period drama to fantasy schlock-fest period drama. Turns out, quite easily and without much adjustment to the plot. Also, it was very entertaining to watch.

It stuck closely to Jane Austen's classic original, keeping all the classic lines and characters; The Bennett family and Mr Collins, Lady Catherine de Burgh and of course Darcy and Mr Bingley. The difference being that there was a 1700s zombie uprising and girls of good character and accomplishment didn't just learn to read, sing, dance and play the pianoforte, sew and carry themselves with refinement and good deportment, they also had to be martial artists trained in either the Japanese or Chinese (depending on social standing) arts of zombie killing.

Miss Jane Bennett (Bella Heathcote) isn't the beauty of previous P&P incarnations, and doesn't have the strong but quiet character as the eldest Miss Bennett, and seems younger and more like her mother, but Elizabeth Bennett (Lily James) the second sister, steals the show on every front. She really does have the most amazing eyes, and everyone would consider her a beauty. The three younger Bennett girls are seen and heard giggling but for the most part aren't in the scene except Lydia's unfortunate elopement. Mr and Mrs Bennett are played stoic and sensible, and flighty and silly respectively, and well, by Charles Dance and Sally Phillips. Darcy and Bingley Sam Riley (On the Road) and Douglas Booth are both great, my only complaint with Mr Bingley would be that he was far too pretty, to be historically correct – but then we're throwing caution to the wind with zombies so never mind. Matt Smith (Ex Dr) played the hapless and silly Mr – pardon, Parson – Collins well, and was suitably ridiculous, but a little too easy on the eye to be as odious and unappealing as he is meant to be – a problem with this production being everyone was younger and more attractive than they should be. Lady Catherine was the gorgeous Lena Heady for crying out loud! Generally the story kept to loose plot – Eliza being snubbed by Darcy at the ball and Jane's immediate attachment with Bingley… Collins coming to choose a Bennett girl, Jane visiting Netherfield and catching cold, the balls, Darcy and Bingley's return to London, Mr Wickham's (Jack Huston) ingratiation with the Bennetts and all the subsequent toing and froing of affections. Jack Huston actually stood out as a good actor in this, but didn't have the slimy countenance of classic Wickhams. Then, there are the additions of zombies. All the way through the film we have opportunity for the Bennett girls (and I wondered where the other girls in Meriton were hiding) to show off their knife and musket skills with much showing of stocking and garter in the process, and heaving bosom. Fighting in corsets – whatever next? The fight scenes are good, though John Wick they are not, and you can see that most of the gore and action is actually off screen; blades are always clean (!) and lots of the hits on zombie actors are visibly wide of mark. It's not a particularly gory film, if at all, but the SFX of the faces of the zombies are very good and in places, very gross. This is not for young children.

Enjoyable, funny and heavily recognisable as the classic, so entertaining from that point of view – the comparison – but lacking in emotion. I found I didn't really care for any of the characters, the "twists" were telegraphed a mile away, and I didn't find myself investing. It is a shallow visual immersion, although well-acted and sets, locations and costumes were done as if trying to be a big Hollywood film, but I just couldn't really care. I laughed, yes, but it was the comparison to the original that brought me most enjoyment (and that didn't have zombies in it – spoiler alert!) or homages to previous P&P films/TV shows – the Darcy swimming in the lake for example. Great Saturday evening watching, fun version for teens pre-GCSE to watch as "study" but not something I'd rave about or rush out to buy, although I would say it's definitely worth seeing.

Set in WWII the MM's were specialists sent to Europe to save priceless works of art from Nazi stockpiles/destroyers. Real men women, were responsible for finding stashed collections and protecting art galleries and museums and returned family heirlooms to Jewish owners when they were taken by Hilter's men. Well acted, with a star-studded cast, the sets, costumes, locations and everything about the film was excellent. Damon, Goodman and Blanchett were stand out. There was a little comedy to keep the story rolling along, and realistic and poignant enough to be a valid war film but without all the gore and graphic tragedy. Some of the most heartbreaking scenes were of burning of pictures and books, one of the horrors of war which rarely gets much press. Based on a true story, possibly directly true but for film it needed a little more suspense and less contrived quick solution... for my money. Interesting spectacle of history, however.

You see trailers for Hail, Caesar! and you expect lots of 1950s high jinx on set during the last decade of the glory days of the Studio System. Lots of homages and nods to real Hollywood actors. Clooney plays the main actor cast in the film within film of the Crucifixion (good for Easter release) and the centurion at the base of the cross who says "surely this man in the Son of God" etc. Brolin plays the Studio Fixer who dances around Press, covers up scandal and sees that everything runs smoothly. Clooney gets kidnapped. Channing does some entertaining Gene-Kelly-esque "there are no dames" songs whilst looking like he has painted on cheekbones, cameos all over the place. Cohen Brothers' films are generally brilliant, and this is funny, but it's not as good as was expected. The laughs get tired, the film is a bit too long and when you emerge from the cinema you think, "what was that really about?" The film is a weaving of small plots which are good viewing but are shallow. I expected more than the communist subplot and the confessional bookends of story underlining generally good guy in a challenging world. For all the stars, and kudos, it's disappointing and if it wasn't for the stellar cast, or the writer's status, I don't think this would have made it to the cinema... Funny, and a good date night film.

The TV show Entourage is fun and pure escapism in sunny LA and Hollyweird. The star of the show, and reason to watch is Jeremy Piven playing Ari Gold, the Agent. He is a powerhouse, angry and full of energy. The language is dreadful, there are more scenes of sex, nudity and drug use. Lots of it. The series follows Vince making his way in Hollywood as a new up-and-coming wunderkind actor. This series shows Hollywood as incestuous, shallow and over-privileged. It worries me that actors are lauded so highly and the culture is so wanton and crazy! Each episode is like a long music video, with lots of "hoes" and bikini-clad models all over the place. There are lots of laughs, interesting story lines. Drama (Kevin Dillon) is Vince's older brother struggling with his career, Vince (the gorgeous Adrian Grenier) trying to improve his career, and their best friends Turtle (Jerry Ferrara) the wannabe entrepreneur and Manager E (Kevin Connolly) making a professional name for himself and being a serial monogamist with love interest Sloane (stunning Emmanuelle Chriqui, with an amazing wardrobe). Lloyd, Ari's long-suffering assistant (Rex Lee) is great comic relief and also the conscience and heart of the show oftentimes. Perrey Reeves, Debi Mazar, Rhys Coiro and Constance Zimmer play longstanding roles and are regular appearances. Each episode has at least one guest star, often in a cameo, and it's like star-spotting from the comfort of your sofa. The BLAZING star of the show is and forever will be Piven (no John Cusack in site) and he deserves every single gong he received for this series and character. Bad language, gratuitous sex reference, nudity, drug use and scenes of a very sexual nature, more nudity and insecurity inducing age 20 something models everywhere you look. This is a real boy's show but there's enough for girls too. Another guilty pleasure. I shouldn't enjoy it, but I do.

Paul Walker playing Keanu Reeves, even down to his voice and choice of sandwich (albeit different bread); Point Break is one of my favourite films, and I really enjoy Fast and Furious but it is more or less a play by play copy of the surf-ace movie ten years on. Vin Diesel is the Bodhi-esque sensei-master surrounded by his acolytes and is convincing; it's one of his best roles (along with Pitch Black 1). He's a powerhouse. The film is attractive, stylish with a hot soundtrack and showcases the street-racer subculture in Los Angeles.

Paul Walker isn't just an ersatz Reeves, he is glorious in his own right; beautiful, sexy, tough, controlled and engaging and his chemistry with Jordana Brewster (Dom Toretto's little sister) was nice, but is overshadowed by the bromance between Dom and Brian. Michelle Rodriquez is a great female foil for Diesel; she's gorgeous and convincing as a high-octane junky.

Hey, F&F is never going to win awards for the most intelligent film in existence but it's pretty, amusing in places, a little cheesy and poorly dubbed but good cinema and must have had something to spawn itself into one of the largest grossing film franchises of all time. It plays like a music video, with touches of CSI in the filming but much of it is a little pointless and OTT. Vin Diesel is perfect as Dom and his chemistry with all the characters is sparkling. He plays the showman well. Paul Walker is gorgeous, he really is a loss to the acting world, and this film is his magnum opus. Walker and Diesel were obviously buddies and as such it makes this film all the more special. It's great cinema but is definitely flawed, especially in the realm of script. Don't take it too seriously, strap on your petrol-head and enjoy.

From the get-go, I really enjoyed this film. It was a clever premise, that computer game characters are real and interact with each other. The characters were well drawn, fun and endearing. Typical children's film in that it speaks to the underdog and outcast being the hero, and friendships being formed unlikely places. For children, to be sure, but certainly enough in it for adults to enjoy. Really enjoyable, entertaining and laugh out loud funny in places. Great voice-actor performances from an all-star cast including John C Reilly, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch and Sarah Silverman and the design of the entire film is in the style of many video arcade games, which is clever. Lots of little in-jokes and asides for gamers to enjoy.

The TV show Entourage was fun and pure escapism in sunny LA and Hollyweird. The star of the show, and reason to watch is Jeremy Piven playing Ari Gold, the Agent. He is a powerhouse, angry and full of energy. The language is dreadful, there are more scenes of sex, nudity and drug use. Lots of it. So the film, which is three years after the series finished, and nine days in program time, is a direct follow on. The film has all the fun, laughs and sunshine of the series and runs just like a long episode. The film passes quickly and is really enjoyable; Drama (Kevin Dillon) is still struggling with his career, Vince (the gorgeous Adrian Grenier) getting over lost love, Turtle (Jerry Ferrara) is still in the money making business and E (Kevin Connolly finding his way back to Sloane (stunning Emmanuelle Chriqui). Of course Lloyd makes a return (Rex Lee) and is his irrepressible self. Perrey Reeves, Debi Mazar, Rhys Coiro and Constance Zimmer also returned in their regular characters. It was a star-studded cast full of cameos, Ed O'Neil, Thierry Henry, Liam Neeson, Pharrell Williams, Mike Tyson, Jon Favreau etc. Massive. But the star of the show is and forever will be Jeremy Piven and he deserves every single gong he received for this series and character.

The Godfather, is most people's favourite film, and arguably one of the best films ever made. However, I only saw it in 2015 for the first time, so my impression of it is different to those who have grown up with it. I thought the film was brilliant, some really powerful performances and many huge stars now in their youth; Diane Keaton, Al Pacino and James Caan. The film has not aged well, but is still gripping and interesting, and in place visceral and emotional. James Caan as the protective older brother was memorable but of course Marlon Brando stands out as the much parodied, copied and admired main character to whom everyone defers. As I said, the film has dated and his prosthesis padded mouth doesn't look so good as I imagine it did when first released, and the make-up on Pacino was also distractingly bad. The film jumps forward in time quickly, and doesn't explain anything, as films are wont to do more latterly, which is refreshing, and the plot is complex enough to require full attention, and whilst it's not a laugh a minute "enjoyable" film, or about subject matter which is pleasant, is bloody and violent, it is worth watching and certainly one of cinema's most brilliant masterpieces. I think my impression of this film is lessened by the fact that I didn't see it for until now so didn't have the loyalty to "The Family" that longtime watchers have, when they've grown up with it, but it was amazing to finally see the original from which many other films have taken their cue or inspiration.

The 80s was Rob Lowe's decade; member of the Brat Pack, and the golden boy of cinema. Whilst usually cast just as the pretty boy, a sex-toy, Illegally Yours cast him as the silly, love-sick goof, who bumbles his way through a far-fetched silly murder cover-up from the point of view of a juror who was in love the suspect at junior school. The film is wall-to-wall one-liners, funny slapstick, slips and trips and Lowe falling over a lot. I've watched it a lot of times and it still makes me giggle, and there are lots of comedy set pieces; Lowe dressed as a woman in high heel slippers, the fantastic sunglasses disguise scene, his nervy rushing around, the crazy car chases and daft over-acting. It's not a film to take seriously, it's meant to be loopy and flying all over the place and I love it. It's not a 6/10 film as in superb cinematography but it's just a hoot. Every character is overblown, Colleen Camp and all the ensemble case are a caricature, funny, and I just love this film. It's one of my favourite comedies and they don't make them like this anymore – it's not rude, no bad language and really quite innocent. Turn back time and enjoy.

Along with Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor and anything with Hugh Jackman, Ant-Man is my new favourite Marvel film. I was unfamiliar with Ant-Man previously and was pleasantly surprised. The film passed quickly and enjoyably with sufficient action, story and comedy to make for an entertaining family film (rated 12). Paul Rudd as usual was fun and charming, and believable as the ex-con turned reluctant superhero out to protect his daughter (the very cute Abby Ryder Fortson). Corey Stoll as the bad guy was both credible and strangely likable, charismatic I think you could say, but he is a new popular actor having wowed in House of Cards. Michael Douglas was good.

The action and SFX were slick and really well done. Ant-Man's interaction with the ants was really clever and it was fun to see ants with dog-like personalities. Marvel are known for good SFX and I think this was one of their best examples. Suitable for all the family, I think this Sci-Fi/Fantasy Comic Book/Graphic Novel tie-in would be a good addition to any Marvel fan's collection. Worth seeing on the big screen and this is one film where a 3D option would be valid and worthwhile.

As with all Marvel films, look out for Stan Lee's cameo and stay for the very end of the credits for the sneak previews of the next films. Ant-Man will return!

I was not into the TV show of UNCLE but of course knew of it and was familiar with the story/characters. I knew little enough, however, that I went into this with an open mind and few preconceived ideas. I was thrilled with this film! Cavill and Hammer were perfectly cast as the suave conman and giant, tough Russian assassin respectively. I wasn't familiar with Armie Hammer and only knew of Henry Cavill from Superman really. I loved Armie Hammer; he played Terminator- esque hit-man but soft sweet and protective very convincingly. Cavill was the comic relief almost, with funny facial expressions and nonchalance. Alicia Vikander was unknown to me too, as the pretty and petulant Gaby and she was believable in her role as both asset and vixen. Set in the sixties, amongst the Cold War, it was a fun and well delivered "period" piece in terms of fashion, cars etc. The begrudging chemistry between Vikander and Hammer was charming, although, who can blame her looking up into those darkly lined eyes! Hammer had an incredible screen presence, every move was magnified and he had a pleasing comedy timing, underplaying facial expressions in a beautifully Slavic way. His accent was pretty enjoyable too. Cavill – a Brit – played typically American; confident, brash and self-assured and he played that with aplomb and a great deal of charisma. I could see him playing Bond now (as I have heard he has been tipped). A gloriously fun, entertaining and immersive film, not highbrow or requiring much intellectual attention but with a sufficient amount of plot, eye candy and exciting action with a lot of giggles for any viewer.