shannen-l-c

After seeing how critically acclaimed and highly rated this movie is, it's fair to say that I went into it with high expectations. Unfortunately, those expectations weren't met.

Objectively, I can see why so many love this movie. It's compelling, has a great cast (Natalie Portman stole the show), some cool cinematography, good soundtrack and is overall an interesting concept. The dystopian setting is haunting and feels relevant today, even more so in some ways. And here ends the good things I have to say about this movie.

On a personal level, it didn't come together for me. The story is unnecessarily long-winded and meandering with lots of details that turn out not to be that relevant to the overall plot of the story. There's also a lot of detail needed with the world building that just isn't there. The dystopian world and its history are quite complex and whilst there's the occasional tidbits and explanations, it feels like there's a lot of gaping holes in the world building (which no doubt could be filled in by the comics but that shouldn't be a requirement for watching the movie).

Most of the characters are annoying and unlikeable (although this is intended, so can't really criticise that). But even the anti-hero V, although intriguing, is very one-dimensional. I didn't connect to him or his ploy and feel that too much about his character remained a mystery. Evey's character is the only character I enjoyed. She's vulnerable and sympathetic and Portman gives a brilliant performance.

One of my biggest gripes of the movie overall is dialogue. It drove me crazy. It's verbose and hyperbolic ALL THE TIME. None of the characters speak like a regular person and the interactions between the characters feel contrived as a result.

But the cherry on top that killed any potential for me to like this movie is the romance between the two main characters. Why was the decision made to make V and Evey's relationship a romance? Why?! Their relationship is like a father/daughter or mentor/mentee type relationship. There is zero romantic or sexual chemistry or tension between them until it suddenly erupts the last quarter of the movie. It's cheap, forced and uncomfortable, particularly in the context of what V does to Evey (imprisons and tortures her for months all in a bid to "make her fearless"). It adds nothing to the overall story and steals focus from what the movie is actually about.

Overall, I see why people like this movie and it does have a lot of good components, but it's not everything it's cracked up to be. Anybody that dares to criticise it gets downvoted but I wanted to it's provide a balanced perspective for people seeking one, because this is very far from being a 9 or 10 star movie despite what other reviews here would have people believe.

Halloween (2019) was a solid instalment in the Halloween franchise. I had high hopes going into the sequel but it was a huge disappointment.

Weird editing choices resulted in a choppy and disjointed narrative which flicked between past and present and attempted to tackle too many subplots at the detriment of a cohesive central plot. It seemed to plod down a winding, never-ending road with no apparent rhyme or reason. It lacked suspense and was entirely anti-climatic. There was no build-up and the ending was abrupt. By the end I wondered exactly WHAT this film trying to achieve.

Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), the star of the show, was barely present throughout the whole film and the snippets we did see of her she was confined to a hospital bed. Instead more focus was put on Laurie's daughter (Judy Greer) and granddaughter (Andi Matichak). We also saw the reintroduction of familiar characters including Tommy Doyle and Lindsey Wallace, the children that were babysat by Laurie and Annie in the original 1978 film. On paper, this could've worked but it resulted in a melodramatic and ridiculous subplot where the citizens of Haddonfield formed a mob to hunt down Michael Myers (you know, the cold-blooded, violent killer that has a track record of leaving bodies everywhere he goes and surviving multiple gun-shots, fire and stab wounds -face palm-)

I believe the cast did the best with the material they had, but the acting was atrocious and the character detestable. The script was nonsensical and the performances were over the top and unbelievable. As a result, it was more funny than scary throughout. There were so many moments where my friend and I couldn't hold back laughter because of how ridiculous the actions of the characters were.

Nearly every horror film requires viewers to suspend disbelief, particularly when characters made illogical and idiotic decisions, but these characters took this to the extreme. They repeatedly acted without any logic or reason and put themselves in the path of danger. Not a single one of them felt like the type of character audiences could connect with or root for, not even the main characters. In fact, the most sympathetic people in the entire film were the poor couples that Michael brutally killed and were on-screen for only a few minutes.

The kills were OTT and unnecessarily brutal, long and completely uncharacteristic Michael Myers style killings. It wasn't the fear or gore or shock that dominated during those kills, it was boredom. It was gratuitous and that's the one thing that Halloween has always done so well; to tow the line with violence to make the kills chilling and effective.

Overall, this was a poor addition to the franchise and hardly worth watching. It's managed to bag 4 stars from me because it was mildly entertaining in places and Michael Myers still stands the test of time as one of the most iconic killers in horror.

Beneath is about a group of 6 friends go to a lake where they're terrorised by a huge killer fish. Anybody that reads the premise for this film is unlikely to go into it expecting to find their new favourite film. If you're watching it, it's just to watch something a bit trashy for an hour and a half that you can switch your brain off whilst watching. In that regard, Beneath does deliver, but in every other way it FAILS to deliver anything of value.

Being hunted by a big killer fish is dumb but with a good cast, this could've been pretty entertaining. Unfortunately, the characters were actually DUMBER than the large rubber fish that was hunting them. The acting wasn't even that terrible (it was mediocre) but the characters were so poorly coneived and written that there was nothing for the cast to do with them or for viewers to attach themselves to. Every single character was a disgusting person that only cared about their own self preservation. What are the chances that out of 6 people every single one of them is willing to sacrifice their "friends" to save themselves? They didn't even really struggle with the choices they were making it was just, "We need to escape now toss him/her into the water to their death so we can try and get away." Honestly, these people acted in ways that were SO RIDICULOUS that the killer fish was actually more believable.

The plot itself was SO contrived that there was no part of it that was enjoyable. It was just like wash, rinse, repeat. Someone died, they used the body as a distraction to escape on the boat, the fish attacked and destroyed whatever object they were using to paddle, they voted someone off the boat and so the cycle continued. There were no stakes, nothing to get invested in and no reason to watch to the end (I'm surprised I even made it to the end, if it wasn't for the fast forward button, I doubt I would've).

This film is proof that the "most popular" function on Netflix does NOT guarantee a good watch. It's a real shame that this has been propelled into the top 10, because it's going to continue circulating and more and more people are going to waste 90 minutes of their life on a film that's so terrible it's actually embarassing it was even made.

I had no expectations going into this movie, but came away loving it. It's rare for a movie to hold my focus for the full run time, but Crimson Peak did. Visually, it's a cinematic masterpiece; so stunning, haunting and artistic. The story is more complex than I expected and although most viewers will predict where it's headed about half way through, there are still twists and turns that kept me on my toes. It's not a cheap horror which relies on jump scares or gore, it's a true gothic horror - the suspense is subtle and built into the atmosphere and setting throughout the movie. There are times where you're not quite sure who the bad guys and good guys are, and even when you think you know exactly how it's going to end, you still question your judgement. The cast were brilliant and all gave great performances. I was genuinely invested in Edith and in a strange way, even the romance between her and Thomas. Overall, I liked everything about Crimson Peak. It's a movie I'd watch over and over and still love it every time.

Vivarium is a cool sci-fi concept with a lot of mystery. It did hold my attention and I felt sympathetic to the nighmarish hell that the main characters were trapped in. Unfortunately, the plot doesn't really go ANYWHERE, the ending is underwhelming and everything is left unexplained. There's no real logic to what happens or answers given to the WHY or HOW, it just is what it is. It's not necessary for me to be handed all of the answers on a plate to enjoy a movie, but I need SOMETHING.

Imogen Poots holds this movie down with her acting, so kudos to her. I'm still confused by the casting of Jesse Eisenberg. The character he played and the overall tone of the movie didn't fit with his acting style at all. Perhaps my brain simply can't disconnect between him as the comedic, goofy nerd guy that I've seen him play so many times. Weirdly, this movie is labelled as a comedy, but it's NOT. I'm as confused about that categorisation as I am by Jesse Eisenberg being casted...

The best part of the movie is definitley the concept. It would've worked perfectly as an Inside No. 9 episode (conviniently, the mysterious house in the movie is number 9). It doesn't have enough story to sustain it for a 1 hour 30 minute movie, it would've been much more effective if it'd been condensed down into a 30 minute TV episode. The twists would've been much more effective, the lack of plot would've been easier to forgive and overall, it would've been much more entertaining.

As Above, So Below might just make it onto my favourite horrors of all time. Why? Because it achieved what so few are able to do - it genuinely scared me.

The movie follows archaelogist and historical researcher, Scarlett, who is trying to locate the mystical Flamel Stone aka The Philosophers Stone. With the help of some friends, Scarlett delves into the Catacombs in Paris on a quest to find the stone. The plot is unique and runs consistently throughout. Although aspects of it are far-fetched, there's also a logic with which the plot is presented that makes it feel feasible and even believable.

What makes As Above, So Below so great is the atmosphere. It's eerie, mysterious, suspenseful and at times terrifying. I'm generally not a huge fan of found-footage, but it's executed so well that I can't grumble at it. It serves the exact purpose that found-footage should and makes the viewer feel that they're part of the events rather than a mere by-stander. The plot pulls you in from the first few scenes, but it does take its time to build to suspense and intruige. Despite building up slowly, it's well paced, consistent throughout and has a satisfying pay-off. It's not scary in the typical sense, with only a few jump scares, but the jump-scares that it does have are effective and well-timed. The setting is really what contributes to the effectivness of the atmosphere - it's dark and claustrophobic, and nobody truly knows dwells in the depths of the earth. Underground caves are a particular sore spot to me as someone that is terrified of the idea of being trapped underground, having to crawl through tight spaces, swim under water in a cave where I may not be able to find the surface, never being able to find light or air again. The only other horror I've seen that uses this setting so well is The Descent.

Surprisingly, the acting was brilliant and the characters likeable. This is a rarity in horror which is over-saturated with mediocre acting and one-dimensional characters. The cast all deliver great and believable performances, and the characters are interesting and actually have personality. I genuinely rooted for them and wanted them to survive.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed As Above, So Below. It ticks all of the boxes for me and does everything I'd expect a good horror movie to do, and a little extra. The plot is pretty original for a horror, it's atmospheric, has a strong cast and likeable characters and was actually scary.

Triple Dog follows a group of 16 year old girlfriends as they take part in an extreme game of 'Truth or Dare' called 'Triple Dog', which is where the film gets its title from.

Triple Dog is not ground-breaking, but still feels fresh. Some may judge it as being nothing more than a teen movie, but as the story develops, there are many hidden depths to it. It reflects aspects of what it is to be a 16-year-old girl and how peer pressure, fitting in and being socially accepted can become the most important thing in the universe, even at the expense of your personal well-being or morals. Within this I feel like the film contained a very valuable message and although the ending was rather predictable, it was a fitting ended and I appreciated it.

It has plenty of entertainment value as the characters took part in extreme dares, but there is also emotion attached to it. The characters face dares that are very personal and specifically chosen by their friends to humiliate them based on their values and personalities. Beyond this, there's an element of mystery that is interwoven throughout which takes the movie beyond a group of friends daring each other to do ridiculous and extreme stuff.

The characters had interesting dynamics and good chemistry which was interesting to watch and added to the intruige of the story. Unlike most others in this genre, Triple Dog, felt like it tried to give attention to the characterisation of the main characters and their relationships with each other.

Overall, I enjoyed Triple Dog; it's entertaining, has an element of mystery, contains valuable messages and is led by a bunch of decent characters in comparison to other films in this genre.

Starry Eyes follows young waitress and aspiring actress, Sarah (Alex Essoe) as she desperately tries to conquer the acting industry and rise to Hollywood stardom. When Sarah auditions for the leading role in an upcoming horror movie, she's pushed to her limit and is forced to decide how far she's willing to go to achieve her goals. I personally found the premise and the plot to be interesting. Particularly in the midst of Harvey Weinstein and the MeToo Movement, Starry Eyes is very relevant and explores the harsh and cruel realities of the acting industry in an emotive and hard-hitting way.

From the beginning, Starry Eyes is a very atmospheric film that builds up the suspense and mystery a great deal, particularly in the first half. However, this film is not for the faint hearted and is far from being a run-of-the-mill thriller. This is a true horror; it pushes the boundaries of human endurance and there's gore aplenty. In fact, there are scenes that even I (a avid horror fan, with more tolerance for gore than your average viewer) struggled to watch.

The first half of the film is definitlley the strongest. Time is taken to develop the protagonist (something that is a rarity across the horror genre), which enabled me to connect with her and become invested in her well-being. We witness the mundaneness of Sarah's life and her fragile psyche, all of which made her very sympathetic. This investment I had in the protagonist, meant that I was intruiged by her story and the lengths she would be willing to go to in order to land a leading role in an upcoming horror movie. As a result, there was an element of mystery and unpredictability - you know something bad is going to happen but you don't exactly know when or what.

Unfortunately, the second half is a complete let down which takes all of the intrigue, suspense and plot from the first half and casts it aside for some mediocre, predictable and boring murder spree which is completely disconnected from the rest of the story. I find it hard to understand why so much time is spent developing the plot and ramping up the suspense only for it to be discarded. It feels like there's a complete disconnect from the first and second halves which is unfortunate, because the film had a lot of promise and up until that point I was really enjoying it.

Nonetheless, Starry Eyes is still deserving of a slightly above average 6-star rating for the simple fact that I enjoyed the theme, plot development (in the first half) and acting. Despite the disappointing ending, there were a lot of redeemable aspects of it and if the second half had continued on the same trajectory and explored the dark psychological aspect of the plot rather than turn it into an unimaginative gore-fest this could have easily got an 8 or even 9 star rating from me.

Hell Fest is unoriginal and predictable, but I like that about it. It follows the exact formula and strucutre you'd expect from any slasher flick, yet still manages to be entertaining. It didn't exceed my expectations but likewise, it didn't disappoint. If you like slashers and you're just looking for a mindless horror flick, this is the one for you.

I actually found the concept of the film pretty decent. A horror festival full of actors in costumes is the perfect place for a killer to be. Not only does it allow him to blend in, but he has access to hundreds of vulnerable victims walking like lambs into the slaughter.

I liked the setting, the cinematography was decent, there were a couple of (predictable) jump scares and it was entertaining. The ending wasn't brilliant, but was a little bit of a different spin than how these type of flicks usually end and I appreciated that.

Overall, Hell Fest, is just another run of the mill slasher flick. It's pretty forgettable and doesn't attempt to be original in its concept or execution. However, it delivers exactly what it's supposed to deliver and makes for a reasonably enjoyable viewing experience.

'Russian Doll' is everything I hoped it would be and more. It follows off-the-wall Nadia (Natasha Lyonne) who dies on the evening of her birthday and gets caught in a time loop whereby she keeps dying and returning to the start of her birthday party each time she dies. The show extends way beyond this premise and there are depths and twists and turns you won't see coming. If I had to categorise it I'd go with horror-comedy-drama. The humour is dark, but it's effective and offset with some very sad moments that pull on the heart-strings.

The two main characters are deeply lonely and unhappy people who are caught in a monotonous self-destructive cycles in their lives. It's something that most of us can relate to on some level and that's what makes it so effective and meaningful - we see ourselves or at least our feelings/experiences in the characters in some way. Through meeting each other and their shared experiences the characters are able to find purpose and meaning in their lives and realise the most important thing in life - they are not alone.

The 8 half an hour episodes that make up the season will take you on wild journey, but you won't be disappointed. The story is well-paced, funny, shocking, sad and riveting and will take you through the whole spectrum of human emotion. It also has a very satisfying ending which doesn't leave any kind of loose ends or a bitter taste in the mouth, which is rare to find with shows these days.

Overall, I'd recommend Russian Doll to everybody. The first episode may not sell you on it, but give it a chance to get into the nitty gritty. Whether you love or hate Nadia (she is like marmite), you'll find yourself getting more and more attached to her and sympathetic towards her as you learn more about her back-story and experience the traumas she has to endure.

Drifters is a sit-com following three young women in their 20s who are stuck in that awkward time of life when you're no longer a child but also not quite responsible or mature enough to make it in the adult world and are basically just trying to get your life together. Meg, Bunny and Laura are very flawed but relatable characters who are very straight-talking and somewhat obnoxious and attempting to 'make it' in the world. They adopt a 'fake it until you make it' philosophy and consequently get themselves into some hilariously awkward situations in front of their partners, colleagues, friends and family.

It's not a spectacular show, but it does what it says on the tin and provides some very funny moments. It does what only British comedies can achieve by never holding back in showing the more disgusting antics that young people get up to (particularly sexually) and the language they use. Face it - a lot of young people ARE sex-obsessed, they ARE vulgar and they ARE party animals, and that's what Drifters shows. It's refreshing to see a comedy that depicts three females who aren't perfect and who are shallow, self-centred, promiscuous, immature, loud and vulgar - qualities which are generally associated with young men.

For anyone that really wants to know what to expect from Drifters, it's basically a slightly older female version of Inbetweeners - there you have it.

'Look Away' is a decent viewing experience. The concept itself is rather unoriginal and I agree with others that have made comparisons to 'Carrie', but the acting is good and it sets an eerie and mysterious tone throughout. There was a feeling of unpredictability, of not quite knowing which direction the plot was going in, but unfortunately the ending was very disappointing and felt unfinished.

By the time the end credits roll you're left with more questions than answers. The existence of the 'evil twin' (Airam) in the mirror is never really explained - Is she real and a product of supernatural forces? Is she a figment of Maria's imagination? Or a manifestation of a mental illness? In addition to these questions going unanswered, the events of the film are left completely unresolved and open-ended.

It felt like there was a lot of unnecessary nudity, sex and violence that was thrown in purely because it's supposed to be a horror, but it didn't really fit with the character development of the main characters (the twins). What was the motivation of the Airam? It's never really clear, she just seems to do evil things for the sake of being evil with no real reason or justification.

The deaths in the film are rather silly and once again, it feels like they just HAPPEN for no reason and at strange timings. Although the plot definitely had promise, it seems to get lost half way through as it struggles to weave the threads of the story together and give full character arcs to both twins. It almost feels like you're constantly waiting for something else to happen without being sure what and then being disappointed every time there's a climatic moment.

On reflection, I'd say that India Elsey who plays the main characters Maria and Airam is probably the best part of this film. Although she seems an inexperienced actress, she brings a certain quality to the characters which draws you in. She's enchanting and manages to capture the awkwardness, insecurity and vulnerability of Maria, but also the sassiness, aggressiveness and confidence of Airam.

Overall, 'Look Away' has potential and redeeming qualities, but the ambiguity of the story, the unanswered questions and loose ends make this feel like an unfinished story that comes to an abrupt end half way through. Nonetheless India Elsey does a great job in this role and makes it very watchable.

As the title says, 'Shameless' truly is British TV at its best. It's set in Chatsworth, a council estate in Manchester and follows the Gallagher family and their neighbours.

What makes 'Shameless' so great is how honest it is. It's unique and gritty and it doesn't hold back in any way shape or form. Homosexuality, interracial relationships, alcoholism, crime, mental illness, teenage pregnancy, foster care, single parenting, prostitution, drug misuse, gangs, debt, death - it has it all. What's more important is that it explores it in realistic and touching ways whilst still managing to inject plenty of humour into it at the same time.

The diverse cast is fantastic and each character, no matter how minor they might be, is authentic and likeable. Although the cast changes dramatically as the series progresses and it does suffer from losing its most loved characters (Lip, Ian, Veronica, Kev, Debbie etc.), there are still great episodes until the very end and seasons 1-4 are gold.

Some may prefer the US version to the UK one, but I really think that comes down to cultural differences. Stylistically, the two adaptions are dramatically different and for non-Britons, the accents, humour, cultural references and sheer British-ness may make it very difficult to grasp and therefore, won't be very enjoyable.

'Shameless' is a slice of British culture unlike any other. It has a lot of heart and is very misunderstood and unappreciated.

The case of Madeline McCann is one of those that has gone down in history as being one of the most well-known disappearance/kidnapping cases. I was 13 when she went missing and I like everyone else that has lived through it, remember how it dominated the news and the horror the world felt at this little girl being taken on a family holiday.

No doubt the series will attract a lot of viewers because of how well-known the case is, but unfortunately, for most people, particularly those familiar with the case, it will be a waste of time. The information that's presented is nothing different than what has been available to the public for years through the media and other documentaries.

All this is, is 8 long hours of repetitive information that could be condensed into two hours and still have the same impact. But even then, it still doesn't have any valuable or fresh conclusions to draw. Unfortunately, there's simply nothing more to say about this case. It's been ongoing for 12 years and in that time has been exhaustively examined from every journalistic angle possible. The theories suggested in this documentary are the same that have been around for over a decade but unfortunately, the case remains unsolved so there are no answers to be found and there is a high chance we will never know the truth.

Some will claim this docu-series has opened their eyes to the McCann's innocence in their daughters disappearance, but anyone with any common sense would have realised years ago that they were innocent. None of the conspiracy theories about them have ever held up, and there's more than enough evidence (presented in this series and other documentaries) that she was kidnapped by one of the many suspicious characters that were loitering around the resort around the time of her disappearance.

This series may be of interest to those that are unfamiliar with Madeline's case or that have a particular interest in it, but otherwise, it's likely to be a waste of your time since it doesn't offer up any new information or fresh perspectives.

The premise of 'Await Further Instructions' is that an estranged son visits his (dysfunctional) family home with his new girlfriend to celebrate Christmas when they're unexpectedly locked in due to a suspected terrorist attack. They then receive instructions via their TV hence the title. I found the concept interesting, albeit slightly unoriginal, and the film starts out with a lot of promise. Unfortunately, as it progresses it steadily declines into nonsensical theatrics accumulating in a ridiculously stupid and unsatisfying conclusion.

I'll give credit where it's due, the mood throughout is adequately fraught with tension and there's an eeriness and sense of mystery, particularly in the beginning, which made me want to continue watching. Unfortunately, that is where the pros of this film end.

Putting the dire plot aside, the acting is awful as is the characterisation. Every single character is detestable and acts illogically. The father is a psychopathic monster who descends down a path of evil almost instantaneously without any explanation whatsoever. All of the family members are outwardly racist and aren't shy in voicing their disgusting racist views to their son's Muslim girlfriend, despite it being the first time they've ever met her. None of the characters have any distinguishable traits or personalities and are therefore completely unbelievable as human beings. The poor acting from all of the cast only exacerbates this problem and makes the characters feel stiff and unrelatable. None of them have any chemistry with each other, it doesn't even feel like you're watching a family on-screen, but rather a bunch of strangers who have stumbled across one another in this strange situation.

There is not a shred of logic throughout and all I could do was frown in confusion and frustration as I continued to watching hoping beyond hope it would get better. Unfortunately, it didn't, it only got worse. This definitely isn't a good example of British horror and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I've watched a lot of bad horrors over the years, but even with the ones I didn't enjoy I still managed to find SOMETHING valuable or interesting to take away. With 'Await Further Instructions' I can't find anything.

It was obvious that 'Leaving Neverland' was going to be controversial and divide people across the globe, just as this issue has for decades, and that's exactly what it has done. Before reviewing, I would advise everybody to go into it with an open mind and to reserve judgement until they've watched BOTH parts. I'd also recommend watching the follow-up to this, 'After Neverland' which is an interview by Oprah with the victims, James Safechuck and Wade Robson, and the director of the documentary, Dan Reed. As Oprah says this issue is SO much bigger than Michael Jackson, it's SO much bigger than the stories of Jimmy and Wade, it's about the suffering of millions of children across the globe that experience the kind of abuse and exploitation that 'Leaving Neverland' describes. It's about giving those survivors the voices that were stolen from them as children and allowing them to tell their stories and speak candidly about this issue that most of us would prefer to ignore.

'Leaving Neverland' is four hours of ground-breaking television which explores child sexual abuse and grooming unlike any other documentary I've ever seen. The two-part documentary is long and it could've been condensed, but to do so would mean that vital aspects of the story would've been lost and four hours was needed to explore such a complex issue adequately. Some claim the documentary is biased, unfair and misleading because it's so one-sided but its aim is to give voices to the victims - James Safechuck and Wade Robson - since that is a luxury they hadn't had until now. For years before his death Jackson was able to defend himself against the accusations of child molestation and many others stood with him in defending his reputation. This is the other side of the story, the hidden truths that have gone unheard for decades.

As a society, our dedication and love for Michael Jackson as a ground-breaking performer and outwardly sweet, kind and selfless man compels us to want to believe that he couldn't be capable of such horrendous crimes. But I don't know how anyone can continue to believe he was innocent after watching this. In my opinion, anyone that does is blinded by their love for Michael Jackson the performer or is completely ignorant to the realities of child abuse and how it affects the victims.

Those that condemn this documentary as being propaganda designed by two fame and money hungry liars (Wade Robson and James Safechuck) to tarnish Jackson's reputation and extort his estate for millions of dollars say so out of pure ignorance. These men have no motive or reason for going to these lengths for the sole purpose of money and/or fame. Who would WANT to be famous for being sexually abused by Michael Jackson? Who would choose to subject themselves to such public scrutiny and hatred? Wade and Jimmy (and their families) have been torn apart by this, anyone that watches can see that, and speaking out against Jackson in this way has led to them receiving huge amounts of abuse, including death threats. NOTHING is worth putting themselves and their families through this upheaval except the TRUTH.

That's what this documentary is - the truths of Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck and their families. Some complain that this documentary is biased since it only tells one side of the story, but that's precisely the point. These are Wade and Jimmy's stories told in their own voices, in their own way and that's exactly how it should be. The stories both men share are excruciatingly detailed (so much so that it's painful to hear the acts they describe) and they both give similar accounts which corroborate earlier accusations brought against Jackson. Even as they describe the things Jackson said and did, I can imagine him in my mind doing exactly what they describe. It's horrifying and upsetting to watch and to hear the awful manipulation and abuse these men endured and how it has dictated their entire lives. You can see, hear and feel the agony these men still have to endure even today and the devastating impact it's had on their entire lives and their families.

The level of circumstantial evidence stacked against Jackson at this point is undeniable and if he were alive today and this were taken to court I have no doubt he would be found guilty of sexually abusing both Wade and Jimmy. There is only so long we can defend Jackson's love of children and sleeping in bed with them as being as a result of his traumatic childhood or child-like spirit before it starts being an excuse. In reality, there is nothing that can excuse a grown man sleeping in bed with young children, particularly in a room that is filled with pornographic material and that has a series of sophisticated alarm systems and locks. It is NOT normal or acceptable behaviour, and anyone that believes that nothing untoward happened between Jackson and all of the children that he had alone in his room are blind to the truth.

I have no doubt that in years to come more survivors of Jackson will come forward, but there are many men out there who will take the secret to their grave, just as Wade planned to. I hope this documentary will encourage others that may have been abused by Jackson to come forward too and stand with each other to speak to these heinous crimes which have gone unheard for decades.

I admire and respect Wade and Jimmy's bravery and courage to speak out in this way. It takes great strength and I only hope that this empowers other survivors out there to speak their truths and seek justice, if not to serve the perpetrator the punishment they deserve then for the sake of their own state of mind and healing.

The one thing this documentary demonstrates and that Oprah has rightfully pointed out, is that we still have a long way to go in our understanding of victims of child sexual abuse. However, regardless of whether you believe the claims made by Jimmy and Wade, 'Leaving Neverland' is invaluable in opening up discussion on these issues and spreading awareness. As a society we need to learn how to treat survivors of child sexual abuse and instead of condemning Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck as liars to jump to the defence of a potential paedophile and child molester, we should LISTEN to the survivors and show them EMPATHY and UNDERSTANDING. Doubting them and accusing them of being untruthful is exactly the reason why so many victims remain quiet and don't report what was done to them. So stop defending it based on love for a celebrity you THINK you know and open your eyes to the truth, because the truth is right here in front of us in this documentary.

'The Woman' tells the story of an all-American father/district attorney who stumbles across a feral woman living in the woods whilst he's on a hunting trip and decides to keep her captive at his home in order to civilise her.

Based on the 6 star rating (which is a very strong rating for a horror), I went into this with reasonably high expectations but was disappointed. It's not all bad, but it's certainly not good either. It's very predictable, and a lot of what you expect to happen based on the premise does happen. There's no suspense or build-up, the events just unfold in a very obvious way. It picks up towards the end with some rather satisfying typical gory horror scenes, but overall the film lacks in any real substance and left me feeling hollow.

The themes of misogyny, patriarchy, feminism and gender relations are rife throughout the film, which might have given the film some meaning, but the writers never really do anything significant with the themes they're trying to explore. The feral woman is supposed to be an ironic metaphor because she's branded as the uncivilised one, when in reality it's the ordinary, seemingly perfect man that is the uncivilised one. Essentially, the woman is the literal manifestation/symbol of all of the ugliness that takes place within the family. Unfortunately, this isn't clever or witty, it's just obvious and uninspired.

As a horror fan I'm able to let go of elements of a film that may be over the top, unrealistic and down right wacky, but I struggled to see beyond how ridiculous everything that happened was. I won't list all of the stupid elements of the show, because that'll reveal spoilers, but all I will say is that pretty much EVERYTHING that happens, the characterisation of the characters, the actions of the characters and the plot is too far fetched for me to take it seriously. I might have been able to side-step this issue more if it was a supernatural horror, but this is supposed to be a real story about a real family set in the real world. The final scene had me screaming at my television, "AS IF!!!!!!!"

Having said all of this, 'The Woman' does have some redeeming elements. It has a decent amount of violence and gore for horror fans, there's a disturbing facet to it (which I find in any film featuring a feral or cannibalistic human) and it does lead to reflection on real life issues of domestic violence, white privilege, patriarchy and gender relations, even if the way it does that is over the top.

'Dollhouse' is a sci-fi show built on the premise of futuristic scientific technology which has the ability to "wipe" humans (better known as Dolls or Actives) of their memories and personalities and "download" the memories and personalities of other people into them so that they can then be hired to perform specific purposes that only their "downloaded" personalities are capable of undertaking. It follows Doll, Echo formerly known as Caroline (Eliza Dushku), in her endeavours and experiences in the Dollhouse

In theory, the concept is unique and interesting. Like any series in the sci-fi genre it poses serious moral and ethical questions that advancements in technology pose. Whilst the show does brush upon some of these moral issues (e.g. agency, choice, identity etc.), it falls flat. This for three primary reasons - the lack of plot, one-dimensional characters and poor casting choices.

Regarding the first issue, having gotten through 3/4 of season 1, the plot is so basic and predictable - the Dolls begin to regain awareness and want to break free and uncover the unethical nature of the Dollhouses - that it's impossible to be invested in the story. There's a sub-plot involving an FBI agent which feels that it's been thrown in haphazardly and does little to add to the story. The format of the episodes also doesn't help much with the main plot since most episodes are stand-alone stories which don't really connect or flow well.

As for the characters, in theory the concept of the Dolls is interesting, but it doesn't work very well in establishing characters that the viewers can connect with. How are we supposed to become invested or attached to Echo (or the supporting characters) when they're different people in every episode? Although there are some attempts to flesh out the true versions of the characters through flashbacks, it is still very difficult to get a firm grasp on the characters and therefore, it's hard to empathise with them or care about what they're going through. This is a HUGE problem, because the entire show is essentially built upon the audience's ability to empathise with the Dolls and root for them to recover their former selves and get their freedom.

The casting undoubtedly contributes to these characterisation issues. Although I enjoy Eliza Dushku (particularly as Faith Lehane, which is by far her most memorable and well-known role), her acting abilities just don't stretch far enough to be able to take on the complex role of Echo. Her performance feels stiff, flat and despite being easy on the eye there's very little that she brings to the character. The supporting cast are equally inadequate and forgettable, and there is a complete lack of chemistry between the characters. There are no friendships or romances that feel even remotely authentic, and generally all of the characters feel very disconnected from each other.

Overall, the biggest problem with 'Dollhouse', which other reviewers have pointed out, is that there's no emotional connection from a viewers perspective. I'm not connected to the story or the characters and therefore I simply don't CARE about what's happening enough to want to keep watching until the end. The idea in theory is good, but there's neither the plot nor the characters to pull it off in a satisfying or engaging way.

As a side note, I've seen accusations that this show is misogynistic, which I'm inclined to agree with. Being a woman myself, I was very uncomfortable with the treatment of women on the show. Despite having a female lead and multiple other female characters, it's impossible not to notice the way the female Dolls are subjected to sexual manipulation, violence, exploitation and abuse at the hands of men. There's the argument that there are female AND male dolls, but the focus is primarily on the female Dolls and they are the ones that are subjected to sexual abuse more regularly (in fact, it's a regular occurrence in pretty much every episode). I understand that the whole concept of 'Dollhouse' is built upon human exploitation and it's SUPPOSED to be immoral, but it is still problematic in how it portrays that in regards to women. Most of the paying customers for the Dolls are men whose sole purpose is to hire their own agreeable sex doll. It almost feels like Whedon conjured up the idea for 'Dollhouse' from his own a sadistic fantasy of being able to programme the perfect woman to kneel at his feet and do/say whatever wants her to.

All in all, I was thoroughly disappointed with 'Dollhouse' and although sci-fi and Whedon fans are more likely to find enjoyment in the series, there are a lot of issues that prevented me from being able to fully embrace the series and enjoy watching it. I can certainly understand why it didn't make it past the second season.

I should start by saying that if I had ratied 'Outlander' when I first started watching it, I probably would've given it an 8 or 9 star rating. Seasons 1 and 2 were fantastic - beautiful cinematography, luscious landscapes, rich in culture (particularly Scottish culture), great costumes, compelling love story, intriguing drama and likeable characters. The love story between Claire and Jamie (and chemistry between Caitriona and Sam) alone was enough to keep me hooked.

Unfortunately, by the time it hit season 3, it started to hit some roadblocks. The never-ending melodrama and misery gets to be too much after a while. I understand that life in the eighteenth century was more difficult and brutal than life is today, but to assume that life was a never-ending string of crime, war, violence, rape and disease is too exaggerated and stereotypical. The characters (or the audience, for that matter) aren't even allowed a moment of reprieve. Eventually, the misery the characters have to endure stops meaning anything because it's just another day for them like any other.

Seasons 1 and 2 had coherent plots which kept the story propelling forward, but seasons 3 and 4, were lacking in any real plot-line and became too nonsensical. It feels like the writers are conjuring up any nonsensical drama they can in an attempt to shock the audience, but it just doesn't work. It follows the exact same formula every season - Claire and Jamie are happy for 5 minutes, raunchy sex scene, they're separated by circumstances, whilst they're apart they're depressed and can't stand living without each other and eventually are reunited in some EPIC romantic scene with swelling music and a running hug. It's tiresome and dull.

Season 4 was by far the worst season of the series so far and probably the last season I'll be watching. At this point I don't see what the point is anymore, because when will it ever end? There's no story left to tell, it's just endless dramatics for the sake of it and fabricated and unrealistic obstacles which are purposefully built for Jamie and Claire to overcome to prove that they're true love when we've been told that repeatedly for 4 seasons.

I was tempted to read the books, but regardless of how much better than the show they might be, I don't think I could withstand sitting through endless novels dedicated to this over-dramatic, depressing and never-ending story

Hitch-hiker and prostitute, Aileen Wuronos, was convincted for committing the murders of seven men between 1989-1990, and executed for her crimes in 2002. The documentary 'Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial' killer is the second of Broomfield's documentaries about Aileen (the first was released in 1992) and explores her story including her childhood, her experiences as an adult living on the streets and selling her body, and attempts to piece together her truth about her crimes.

As other reviewers have pointed out, Broomfield doesn't attempt to hide his biases throughout the documentary, so if you're looking for an unbiased telling of Aileen's crimes, you won't find that here. Broomfield is clearly sympathetic towards Aileen and the two seem to strike up a friendship of sorts from their many interactions, which perhaps inhibits his ability to be objective. However, it doesn't diminish the impact of the documentary and in journalism there's no such thing as true objectivity anyway. I personally respect Broomfield for making his own opinions clear without forcing them upon the viewers.

It's no surprise that as an English man Broomfield is opposed to the death penalty (being English myself, I don't know anybody here that's NOT opposed to it), and that clearly plays a part in his sympathies towards Aileen. He doesn't even have to make a convincing argument against the legal justice system (particularly surrounding the death penalty), because as a viewer I can clearly see how corrupt and inadequate it was in this case. Aileen DID NOT receive fair representation and although her mental state amplified her delusions in her final days, she wasn't completely wrong in her accusations against law enforcement who were making money off her story. There have been endless movies, books and documentaries produced about Aileen's crimes and even those that were closest to her (her girlfriend, family and friends) were more concerned with profiting off her case than her well-being.

Although Broomfield doesn't delve too deeply into the issues facing the American legal system and the death penalty, those questions are clearly echoing throughout. Broomfield asks if it's moral or just to send a mentally ill person to death, and it's a fair question. As the documentary progresses, Aileen's mental state deteriorates and in her final interview with Broomfield she's clearly suffering from mental illness which she claims she did not receive adequate medical treatment for. Essentially, Broomfield forces the viewers to ask themselves whether what happens to Aileen is fair. She has been found guilty of her crimes and has confessed to those crimes, but she is still a human being who has fundamental human rights and whom the American legal justice system has basic responsibilities for - e.g. providing fair representation and medical care - two things we know Aileen did not receive. It's impossible to ignore these injustices in the 'justice' system and to question how much the system aligns up to what it claims to be.

In addition to posing questions about the American legal system, the documentary also provides insight into the criminal mind, and shows that serial killers are not always what we expect them to be. They're not always psychopathic, intelligent, sadistic monsters who get a thrill from hurting and killing others, such as Ted Bundy. In Aileen's case an argument can adequately made for the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate. Her horrific experiences from a young age (being abandoned by her birth mother, being sexually abused, being impregnated by a local paedophile at 14 and being forced to give the child up, being made homeless at age 14 and living in the woods at the end of her street and her endless experiences of violent/sexual abuse from being a prostitute) deeply impacted her and twisted her mindset. She felt she had suffered at the hands of the world and that her suffering entitled her to inflict that suffering upon others and take what she felt she deserved and had always been robbed of - money and security.

Although Broomfield spends time interviewing the friends and family of Aileen to uncover more about her childhood, the interviews he conducts with Aileen herself are by far the highlight of the documentary. It's in those moments that Broomfield is face-to-face with Aileen that we truly get to see how unstable she is - jumping from a seemingly ordinary, reasonable and polite person to erratic, angry, paranoid and rude. The possiblity that Aileen suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder is referenced once, but generally, her mental state is completely neglected which is shocking to me since throughout filming she was clearly suffering from severe mental illness.

Regardless of Aileen's mental state, what happened to her throughout her life or what led her to commit her crimes, the fact remains that she took the lives of seven men and that is a point that Broomfield continues to emphasise throughout. He continually prods Aileen as to whether she acted in self-defence or committed cold-blooded murder and each time Aileen's response is different. In fact, her story changes so often that it's impossible to know the truth and by the end of the documentary it's safe to label Aileen a pathological liar.

Overall, 'Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer' is an intriguing insight into Aileen Wuronos' life and crimes. It gives Aileen herself a voice, allowing her to tell her 'truth' and counteract the claims or words of others - the media and those closest to her - that have crafted their own tales about her. Ultimately, it's a tragic story of a murderer, who although many would agree deserved to die, did not receive a fair trial and was transformed into a money-making machine for many of the law enforcement officers connected to her case and even her own loved ones.

Two words brought me here - Jon Bernthal. After his performance as Shane Walsh on 'The Walking Dead' I wanted to give 'The Punisher' a shot and the show also came highly recommended by friends and family.

I watched both seasons within a couple of weeks and it didn't disappoint. Jon Bernthal's performance is phenomenal. He lives and breathes the role of Frank Castle and you can feel the commitment he gives to his work. In an interview Bernthal said that he does all of his own stunts (he actually broke his hand performing a stunt when filming for season 2 and continued to fight injured) because he felt it was important for the audience/fans to have the authenticity of seeing Frank doing the fighting. He also admitted in another interview that to fully get into character he spends large amounts of times in isolation to really capture the mentality and emotional state of Frank. This is a man who brings his all to the role and it really shows. Bernthal makes 'The Punisher' what it is.

'The Punisher' is a harrowing tale of soldier turned anti-hero/vigilante, Frank Castle, who is on a mission to avenge the murder of his wife and two young children. It's a tragic and violent tale that incorporates themes of mental health (PTSD), grief, loss, morality and isolation. There is a great balance between the fight scenes and brutality where The Punisher dominates the screen, and the human moments where Frank just gets to be Frank. As a character, one can't help but fall in love with and sympathise deeply with Frank Castle, experiencing the emotional journey he goes on with him.

If I was rating this based on Jon Bernthal's acting alone, it'd be a solid 10 out of 10, no questions asked. However, the show does have some issues, which become clearer in season 2, the main one being the plots. They're too thin to be spread across 13 50 minute episodes, which causes problems with the pacing, and also leads to random sub-plots branching out incoherently which make everything feel disjointed. There's also A LOT of repetition, and most of what happened in season 2 felt like a rehash of the events in season 1 (particularly with Billy). Personally, I think season 2 suffered from having too many secondary characters (Madani, Amy, Billy, Krista, Mahoney and Pilgrim) and not giving Frank enough focus. The new addition of Amy (Giorgia Whigham) was a blatant attempt to try and appeal to the female audience (since the show is very male dominated), but it was poor decision making because Amy's presence felt forced and out of place. All she really did was get in the way of Frank's arc and her plot replaced what could have potentially been an interesting plot for Frank. In addition, despite the brilliance of Billy Russo (and Ben Barnes), the decisions regarding his arc in season 2 were poor and didn't do him any justice. In fact, after 2 seasons of build up the resolution to that plot was very underwhelming and anti-climatic.

The issue here is definitely a writing one. Although there's no denying that 'The Punisher' has some great story-telling moments, such as 'Home' (s1 e12), which is an hour of brilliant and hard-hitting television, there are a lot of poor decisions that were made in season 2.

The show suffers from a lack of vision (which I suppose is the curse of being a show which is constantly under the threat of being cancelled) and it feels like it doesn't know WHAT it's trying to do or WHERE it's trying to go. Season 1 was much more coherent and felt like it had a clear beginning, middle and end, but season 2 didn't have that same clarity. I feel like the solution to this issue (if the show returns for a third season) is to shift the focus back to Frank himself, because he's the heart of the show and what the fans watch for.

Overall, despite the issues with season 2, it would be a real shame if 'The Punisher' was to follow in the footsteps of its cousin Marvel shows and get cancelled prematurely. Bernthal has so much more to give and although season 2 was purposefully ended on a note where it could pick up another season or end there, there's definitely still more to be told. I hope the popularity of the show manages to save it from being cancelled, because I still don't think the show has reached its full potential yet.

I'm a avid horror fan and anybody that's a fan of the horror genre will know that we have to trawl through at least 10-15 films before we find one we actually enjoy. I didn't have any expectations of 'The Bye Bye Man' and expected it to be another one I'd add to the average and forgettable, or damn right awful, pile, but I really enjoyed it.

The concept of 'The Bye Bye Man' is interesting, the atmosphere is eerie and suspenseful, the plot is engaging throughout and there's multiple decent jump scares. How the Bye Bye Man is incorporated into the story means you never quite know what's real and what's not, which builds the suspense a lot.

I've seen another reviewers make comparisons to 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' and 'It Follows' and I have to agree. The concept of The Bye Bye Man is similar to the entity in 'It Follows' and the idea that there's an evil that attaches itself to you and is devoted to killing you mirrors both 'It Follows' and 'A Nightmare on Elm Street'. Despite sharing similarities with other films in the genre, it's quite an original concept and isn't your typical slasher horror nor your typical supernatural horror.

The only element of the film that lets it down is the acting. It's not terrible, but it's definitely not good either. I'd describe it as mediocre. This means that the characters themselves feel very one-dimensional and lack in any real personality, but that's a common trait of a lot of horrors, and it's not so bad that it ruins the enjoyment of the film.

Overall, 'The Bye Bye Man' is an enjoyable viewing experience and definitely worth more than a 4 star rating. With a different cast I believe it could've been as popular and well-received as 'It Follows' (personally, I prefer 'The Bye Bye Man' to 'It Follows') because it has all of the other elements there to be a horror classic. My advice would be don't be deterred from watching based on the bad reviews and ratings, because they're misleading. On the same token, don't go in with high expectations, just enjoy it for what it is.

'Chilling Adventures of Sabrina' (CAoS) follows sixteen year old Sabrina Spellman through her inner struggles over being half-witch, half-mortal and the difficulties of attempting to straddle both the magical and mortal worlds whilst simultaneously not truly belonging to either.

Although there are superficial similarities between CAoS and the original show 'Sabrina the Teenage Witch', CAoS is it's own distinctive series and fans that are a fan of 'Sabrina the Teenage Witch' should try not to compare the two since they're vastly different perspectives on the same universe. I haven't read the comic books personally, but I would imagine this is more closely aligned with the comic books than 'Sabrina the Teenage Witch' which had a lot of the darker elements removed and a more comedic spin to appeal to a younger audience.

When I saw the popularity of CAoS and the hype surrounding it, I was really excited to give it a go. Unfortunately, I can't understand the appeal of the show and stopped watching after 6 episodes. Everything about the series is mediocre - the plot (which is practically non-existent), the characterisation of the characters, the mythology/magic, the acting, the relationships between the characters, the cringey attempts at being 'hipster' with the constant references to 'feminism'. The setting is about the only thing I like about it, although even that suffers from horrendous lighting choices in a lot of scenes. Although there are some fantastic cast members that I know and enjoyed in other projects (Kiernan Shipka from Showtime's Flowers in the Attic, Ross Lynch from Austin and Ally, Lucy Davis from Shaun of the Dead, Michelle Gomez from Doctor Who, Miranda Otto from Lord of the Rings etc.), the performances from all of the cast members feel average and rather stiff.

The main issue with CAoS is that there is NO plot at all. I got to episode 6 of the series and I still couldn't even begin to attempt to describe WHAT it was I was watching or what it was leading to. Everything just sort of happens with no purpose or meaning. The only real story-line is Sabrina's quest to find her own identity, but she's such an infuriating character that it's hard to root for her or to even care. Sabrina is the cliche of a strong, independent young woman which has become the trend in television in more recent years, but it is all based on stereotypes of what 'feminism' is. She's argumentative, out-spoken, defiant and all around, the kind of girl that does something specifically because she's been told not to to make a point that she's her own person. Kiernan Shipka is a talented young actress, but it's a shame she's been lumbered playing such a poorly written character who is so detestable.

People that are fans of the comic books may have more enjoyment to find with the series, but for me, it failed to tick any boxes. It was boring and I'd even go as far as to say, I disliked it (which I don't say about many shows). As a horror series, it falls to have any real impact. It has dark elements, but it's not suspenseful or scary in the slightest. It feels more like a horror spoof than a genuine supernatural horror. There is nothing appealing and I think the only reason it gets such high ratings is because people (millenials, in particular) were excited to see a series based on a show from their childhood. Unfortunately, it fails to accomplish anything of any significance and anyone that is a fan of Sabrina would be better sticking with the teen show or the comic books.

'Monster' is based on the life of prostitute and serial killer, Aileen Wuornos, who killed seven men in Florida between 1989-1990 and was executed in 2002.

Before watching 'Monster' I knew nothing about Aileen or her story and went in completely blind. Nevertheless, I was enthralled with the film that I immediately switched on Nick Bloomfield's documentary 'Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer' (2003) to see the true story. I now give this review having watched the film and documentary, knowing more about Aileen's crimes.

The film follows Aileen from just before she starts committing the murders, providing insight into her lifestyle on the streets as a prostitute and her meeting with her lover, Selby (Chrisitina Ricci) and ends with her conviction. It shows Aileen's relationship with Selby, her desperation to break out of prostitution and inability to keep control of her life. It shows three of the seven murders she committed, and although it is very much a story of a serial killer, the primary focus is on Aileen's motivations.

'Monster' is a harrowing tale of a woman who was branded a murderous men-hating wh*** and killed for her crimes. This film tries to go beyond that and digs deeper into Aileen's character and past to explore her personality and her motives. The result is incredible, as it genuinely makes you sympathise with her despite the horrendous and unforgivable crimes she commits. No one will ever truly know why Aileen committed the murders, but 'Monster' makes a convincing case that it was a result of her traumatic up bringing, her experiences of violence from men over the years of working as a prostitute, her inability to integrate into 'normal' society, desperation to provide for the one she loved and a way to take back control of her life in the only way she could. It's sick and twisted, but makes for fascinating film-making.

Our intrigue with crime stories and serial killers lies in the looming questions of HOW and WHY. How does a person become so evil that they can take another life? How can they justify their crimes? Why would anyone wish to harm/kill another human being? These are the questions 'Monster' explores and attempts to answer. It's fascinating that in this case the answer doesn't appear to be the simplistic answer we usually hear of "Because she was evil" or "Because she was a psychopath" but something much more complex. Aileen is a victim as much as perpetrator, a woman that has suffered throughout her life and is afflicted with mental illness which she never receives medical help for. Does that justify her crimes? No way, nothing could ever justify it. But that grey area that 'Monster' explores is what makes this film so interesting.

Charlize Theron is INCREDIBLE in her role as Aileen. She lives and breathes the role, quite literally becoming Aileen. Not only does her physical appearance resemble Aileen very closely, but she also has the same mannerisms and impulsive and reckless nature. When watching Charlize as Aileen, it is hard to believe you're truly watching Charlize at all. Generally, when people think of Charlize they think of glamour, beauty and grace, but as Aileen she becomes an ugly, erratic and abhorrent human. She truly deserves all of the awards for pulling this performance out of the hat.

Overall, 'Monster' is a thrilling and chilling tale of Aileen's crimes that is thought evoking and harrowing. Charlize's performance makes the film the success that it is and I will remember 'Monster' for many years to come.

'Friend Request' is built upon the same premise as 'Unfriended' (2014) and explores the dark tendrils of the Internet and social media. Laura (Alycia Debnam-Carey) befriends lonely new girl, Marina (Liesl Ahlers) and accepts her friend request on Facebook. However, when Marina becomes obsessed with Laura and begins to stalk her, Laura unfriends her and supernatural chaos ensues.

'Friend Request' is an unoriginal concept that is executed reasonably well. The acting, in comparison to other films of its type, is good although the characters lack in any substance or personality. The plot is predictable and underwhelming, but still engaging throughout. There are a few jump scares that caught me unaware and generally there is a reasonable amount of suspense throughout, although avid horror fans are unlikely to be scared or on the edge of their seat whilst watching.

What 'Friend Request' succeeds in is bringing to attention the damage social media can do to today's young people, albeit in an unrealistic and dramatic way. Laura's apparent addiction to social media and inability to stay off her Facebook page despite how much destruction it appears to be causing speaks to the social media addiction many of us face. No matter how ugly a place the Internet/social media is or how much of a negative impact it may have on our lives, we keep coming back for more.

Overall, 'Friend Request' left me feeling lukewarm. It wasn't terrible and I've seen much worse, but it's not revolutionary and doesn't attempt to do anything new. It consists of a typical and stereotypical horror formula and ticks all of the boxes, but in a rather boring and underwhelming way. Nonetheless, it has its redeeming qualities and for a horror of this sort isn't as terrible as you might expect it to be. Just don't go in with high expectations and this may just verge on the edge of an enjoyable viewing experience.