cinemawithcj

Wolf can be respected as a movie that has been made and put out in cinemas...and also inspirational in the fact that if this movie can get made, anyone can do it.

Wolf feels exactly like the too ambitious movie project a student would make. Brilliant drone shots escorted by a horrible expositional script that feels very much shot around the idea but without the budget or vision to execute the screenplay.

The casting really does feel amateur and student-like, down to the director/writer/producer and the token old actor and recast characters.

It's a shame, Wolf could have been more with stupid cheesy werewolf effects or with microphones that worked. Instead the film is poorly edited, sounds amateur, and effectively is an 85 minute movie that feels like a 180 minute one.

Mary Queen of Scots may or may not be historically inaccurate, but it is definitely in need of work.

Directed by Josie Rourke - a very productive director of the stage - Mary Queen of Scots marks the first feature film and while it has all the markings of great direction and theatricality, Mary Queen of Scots feels like it overstays its welcome, and generally unremarkable in the medium.

Saoirse Ronan brings the titular queen to life, continuing being a damn fine force in acting. In fact all the performances here are fantastic, from Austrailian Margot Robbie doing her best as Elizabeth I to the always brilliant David Tennant in a role that while relevant to the story also feels entirely unnecessary.

The problem is that while Mary Queen of Scots is full of brilliant political intrigue, it makes for a particularly dry and bland movie. Sometimes it gets bogged down with the want to be true to history while also trying to be engaging that it fits in a little bit of everything and not enough of something great. One or two scenes stick out as highlights but the rest unfortunately feel drawn out so much so that if you weren't interested in the history or snapped it by its opening, you're in for a slog.

All the elements of the filmmaking individually hold strong, in fact if this doesn't win for both Best Costume Design and Best Hair and Makeup I will be surprised, because on the eyes this film is gorgeous in those regards.

It just remains a shame that this movie pushes 2 hours but certainly feels better if it were much less. It doesn't help that TV has become a home for similar stories told in a much better format in a much more engaging style.

Mary Queen of Scots probably would fare much better on the stage. Attention spans shouldn't be a criticism towards film, but it does feel like this very small film with the odd establishing shot and battle would have fared best in a theatre rather than a cinema. It just feels dry and drawn out and developed in not always the best way.

• CJ

Glass is M. Night Shyamalan bringing together two of his separate movie universes under one supposed trilogy, somehow making Unbreakable and Split legibly into one world.

As a jarring pin at the end of Split, it was somehow stupid enough to just work. As an entire film...Yeah. I actually dig it.

Apparently those sentiments are not shared across the board, but other than some flaws, Glass is a fun and interesting exploration of comic books and superheroes, all while building on the previous two films this is a sequel to.

Glass is not perfect. It's mostly in Bruce Willis still not really being on the form he used to be in probably over more than a decade by now, and Samuel L Jackson - despite being the titular character for this one - is still quite underused. The true weakness, however, is in the final act. Which is where we truly see that Shyamalan needed to cut corners. A true bottle episode of a movie, we're given a big tease of a showdown when in reality we get a handwave that's certainly their way of edging around the budget they have.

The film is full of big ideas, but once they get outside the hospital most of the movie takes place in, you realise they can only go so far with it.

It finds its strengths through its characters. McAvoy is once again playing a strong platform for his acting abilities, and though he has to unfortunately share the limelight this time, a lot of character stuff works here. Glass is definitely the large leap between trying to bring Unbreakable and Split to the same level, while also teasing comic book worthy team-ups, but it's the explorations of character and motivations that make the film.

Sarah Paulson rounds up the leads with a brilliant performance. It feels like she's another actress who can rarely do wrong, and here, playing Dr Ellie Staple, you actually have a great foil to what Unbreakable and Split have led us to believe about our characters.

That's the thing with Glass, it's at its most interesting and engaging when it plays with expectations and meets expectations. We're giving the counterpoints towards what we and other characters believe to be true with what we've seen, and we also get the meta-textual exploration of superheroes and comic books, made all the more fun when you have Samuel L Jackson recruit an avenging villain.

M. Night Shyamalan is a talented filmmaker with ideas that don't always stick. For every Unbreakable we have almost every movie after Unbreakable, and Glass walks the tightrope across brilliance and disappointment. His craft and concepts here work well, though. It's great to see Willis' hero persona be seen with elements of horror. His work with Mike Gioulakis on cinematography duty gives us some great POV shots, and while the poster and trailer shot of the trio being interviewed by Paulson makes no sense visually, you buy into it because it's just a great visual that pops and would otherwise make that sequence bland.

Praise can't be given to his cameo, though. Oh Shyamalan.

Glass gives us a great Samuel L Jackson performance, so much so that we wish we had so much more. It's sad to see the titular character be given not enough, especially when he's pivotal to the story. This is supposed to be his film, but it doesn't quite feel that way.

We're given so many promises and we don't quite get vindication. Red herrings are abound, but it sucks that it highlights even further how small scale the movie really is.

Glass would be much better if it went more one way or another. It's tough having 19 years between Unbreakable and the explosion of comic book movies between it. Expectations are getting higher, when really this movie should want to stay more of the same. It wants to do the crossover of unexpected crossovers, but it also is at war with the scale of Unbreakable and the high-concept offered by Split.

Overall, Glass is strong, but not superhuman. It falters due to its scope and scale, but it has it where it's characters are concerned. We are given great performances over great concepts and ideals. Your milage may vary on the smart enjoyment in comic book exploration and its mirror on the real world. It may also vary on how much Shyamalan you can take, because the final act does suffer from a bit of overload. What can be taken from this film is that it is fun, interesting, a bit too long, and reusing footage from Unbreakable is not a substitute for Bruce Willis' acting.

• CJ

The Upside is a remake of a French film I've been meaning to see, that's also based on a true story. It's also known for a bit of casting controversy, having able-bodied Bryan Cranston play a quadriplegic billionaire, but without broaching that discussion handled much better than people more informed than I, I'll continue to just look at the face value of this movie.

Which, overall, is pretty average and fine. The Upside never reaches the bounds of greatness or attaining any sense of importance or resonance, but it sure tries and thinks it has.

Director Neil Burger has a great name and a string of average films, and this is no different. Funnily enough, those films are also memorable in concept but not context, where The Upside is more of the same.

It's to no fault of the performances. Kevin Hart certainly tries to go beyond his comedy, but it's the stuff he's good at that's his strength here. His story is very by the numbers how you would expect it to be.

Cranston continues to show that he has a brilliant range, wonderfully being comedic and dramatic when he has to.

The issue with The Upside though is that...it's not anything remarkable. Some ideas feel hollow or on the nose. I wouldn't hand-wave it all as just cliche, but it does feel too familiar and as expected when you consider the situation we're given.

It's strongest with its leads. Cranston and Hart have some fantastic chemistry, which seems to be a testament to Hart. He may not have the best filmography, but his chemistry with his leads usually turns out to be the closest thing to a saving grace each and every time.

All the moments of real gravitas feel like flat attempts at creating so. For every by the book moment between ex-con Hart and his family, or Cranston trying to date, or Hart discovering opera, there's nothing powerful or worthwhile.

Its key scenes are the light hearted ones, even if they too are predictable. There's a scene where Hart needs to replace Cranston's catheter, and if you try to picture how you think that scene plays out, it's exactly that way, even down to Hart's expressions and mannerisms.

The Upside just feels like it has a solid idea and mission as a movie, but just feels phoned in and underdeveloped. The screenplay is full of smart hooks, but it's flanked by indistinguishable time skips and character moments that come out of nowhere or aren't developed enough. We have Nicole Kidman, for example, and she's never quite fully explained, yet by the end of it all she's promoted to sudden love interest status.

The film just feels like a half-baked draft. We have the perfect duo for the film for better or worse, but the rest of the film feels like a placeholder for a much better film. It's charming and funny, but it never moves beyond the average. Even the cinematography and the editing feels a little unrefined. Starting in media res, The Upside (and it's trailers) certainly spoil the journey and the arc of our characters before you even get stuck into the story. It would be more ideal if you haven't seen any marketing, but that seems like an impossible task.

The downside to this experience, other than the obvious issues with casting, is that while the acting is on point and it's good to see Hart try to diversify his roles a teeeeeny tiny bit, two good performances does not a good film make. It needs more.

The Upside is that...at least it's not offensive and it's not entirely tone deaf...even if we're talking rich white people who need help and poor black ex-cons trying to turn over a new leaf and make things better for their family...

Oh, wait, I see it now.

• CJ

Colette is a film that struggles to find itself and once it finally does, it's where it should have been all along.

Whether that was intentional or not, that too is the actual journey of the titular character here, played by Keira Knightley who once again dusts off the corsets and costumes of centuries gone by.

The newest film by director Wash Westmoreland, director of the brilliant Julianne Moore vehicle Still Alice, Colette once again pulls out a brilliant lead female performance that deals with identity and loss of control, albeit in different circumstances.

Colette, in its construction, is a very capable movie. It lacks in the flair and the style and the voice, but it's parts help keep it together. At its head, we have Knightley and Dominic West's back and forth, West being the icon who thrives in the franchise built on ghostwriting taking France by storm, and Knightley being the ghostwriter who realises the changing ways of society and the changing ways of how she sees the world and people begins to shape her into the force she was always meant to be.

At times it's hard to stick with Colette, because it feels a bit stuck in its ways. For all the interesting stories contained in its 111 minute runtime, it all feels a little flat and unremarkable. Not through the execution, but the timing. There's nothing outrageous about its content, it's bohemian lifestyle in this day and age. Which is a good sign of our still changing times, but also means that Colette is a film that will pass by many. Not only written off because of it being a Keira Knightley costume drama, but also because it's nothing we haven't seen before.

Colette deals with all manner of things. Sexism, identity, gender, relationships, writing, creativity, voice, sex, deception. There's a whole cavalcade of buzzwords and spicy themes, and while it's fun and interesting to watch it, there's just nothing about Colette that really injects you with a sign that this film is something special.

For someone unaware of the story behind the story, Colette certainly remains interesting in how Colette's literary creation became such a phenomenon and however it skyrocketed, she was always pushed to the side of the bombastic brand created and lauded by her husband.

Colette lives such an interesting life as we watch it progress through her early years, it gives us a good germ of a biopic story.

It just lacks something. It doesn't have that secret sauce that puts it aside from similar movies. It certainly has some utterly brilliant costume design (criminally unrecognised but understandable in the world of The Favourite), and it gives us career best performances from Knightley and West...and yet...it inspires not too much beyond a "Yeah, that was good".

Colette will not set the world on fire like her literary creation did. It's the slightest snag but to have a British production meld with a French setting (down to characters writing in French but of course being English) makes one curious to see if a completely French production would change things. Much like the scenes of Colette's character Claudine being so huge she got adapted for the stage, the movie Colette looks like it has a lot of the key details. But it's slightly off, and it's not as good as the real deal.

-CJ

The Front Runner is one of those movies you go in blind and then it surprises you. I went in knowing nothing about The Front Runner, and then discovered that it's directed by Jason Reitman. I also discovered that it's very, very bland.

Unfortunately in light of another award season release with a much more well known yet still unexplored chapter in American politics, The Front Runner tells a familiar story with a more unfamiliar context to those outside the US.

The tale of Gary Hart's rise and fall in 1988 in his efforts to run for President (and outcome we already know), The Front Runner hooks us with its opening titles, before squandering the opportunity in very safe, very un-engaging filmmaking.

Reitman's a curious case as a filmmaker, because for every Up in the Air and Tully you have a Men, Women & Children or Labor Day. The Front Runner has some elements of brilliance. Eric Steelberg's cinematography can be calculated from time to time, evoking Robert Altman with its tracking shots that whirl around characters dotted about, deep in conversation, other moments choosing the perfect camera position to capture an intriguing moment that then leads into the bulk of the movie.

Where The Front Runner fails, and where it really shouldn't have this weakness, is the screenplay. Co-written by Reitman, the author of the book the film is based on, and Jay Carson - who has consulted for House of Cards and is the inspiration for a character in another forgotten political movie, The Ides of March - The Front Runner somehow still doesn't pack a punch or even a succinct message. We've been spoilt for good dialogue with every Aaron Sorkin show or film, because every second of The Front Runner just feels like a half-baked episode of The West Wing, but with less wit, propulsion, intelligence, drama, and everything else you'd want to help keep you in on this story.

Hugh Jackman struggles to hold up this film with his performance. It doesn't help that his character is stubborn to no end and never really changes, much like most of his staff. Every character is interesting but never quite gets off the ground. The Front Runner is one of those movies you go in blind and then it surprises you. I went in knowing nothing about The Front Runner, and then discovered that it's directed by Jason Reitman. I also discovered that it's very, very bland.

Unfortunately in light of another award season release with a much more well known yet still unexplored chapter in American politics, The Front Runner tells a familiar story with a more unfamiliar context to those outside the US.

The tale of Gary Hart's rise and fall in 1988 in his efforts to run for President (and outcome we already know), The Front Runner hooks us with its opening titles, before squandering the opportunity in very safe, very un-engaging filmmaking.

Reitman's a curious case as a filmmaker, because for every Up in the Air and Tully you have a Men, Women & Children or Labor Day. The Front Runner has some elements of brilliance. Eric Steelberg's cinematography can be calculated from time to time, evoking Robert Altman with its tracking shots that whirl around characters dotted about, deep in conversation, other moments choosing the perfect camera position to capture an intriguing moment that then leads into the bulk of the movie.

Where The Front Runner fails, and where it really shouldn't have this weakness, is the screenplay. Co-written by Reitman, the author of the book the film is based on, and Jay Carson - who has consulted for House of Cards and is the inspiration for a character in another forgotten political movie, The Ides of March - The Front Runner somehow still doesn't pack a punch or even a succinct message. We've been spoilt for good dialogue with every Aaron Sorkin show or film, because every second of The Front Runner just feels like a half-baked episode of The West Wing, but with less wit, propulsion, intelligence, drama, and everything else you'd want to help keep you in on this story.

Hugh Jackman struggles to hold up this film with his performance. It doesn't help that his character is stubborn to no end and never really changes, much like most of his staff. Every character is interesting but never quite gets off the ground. We're given a dozen stories that sort of just wallow around, where we get inciting incidents but that's about it. They are pushed to the side or removed entirely as the film continues to plod along.

And it plods. For a film about three weeks that change the trajectory of an entire political campaign, the acts feel drawn out and never quite gel. It what seems like an easy task, The Front Runner has trouble. Much like the rest of it.

It's just tough to pin down the message or the argument of this film. It raises interesting points about how reporting the news and politics had shifted in the last 30 years, but we are forever confused by the stance it was trying to take. There's such thing as a balanced argument, but you still don't quite know what the filmmakers stick by. Are we right to ponder our political leaders by their personal lives and their choices and mistakes, or is it wrong to investigate that? Is it okay for journalists to dig up skeletons or is it ruining the campaigns of good (or bad) politicians? I'm sure these filmmakers aren't pro-Trump (and I'm not going down that rabbit hole) but it still feels weird to watch The Front Runner and think "Is this about Trump?" And be conflicted in all the ways.

The Front Runner feels like a very bad episode of The West Wing or The Newsroom (your mileage may vary). It feels like a bad Spotlight, or even less remarkable The Post. It doesn't have the engagement or style or grace it could have, and while I've heard Vice isn't exactly setting the world on fire either, I at least feel like that's going to be a more interesting movie to watch.

It's surprising that I can watch an entire movie and be surprised by the director being who they are the moment the credits start. Reitman may not be an auteur, but he definitely can be a damn fine director. Here, he is just fine. Which is the problem. Much like Gary Hart himself, this film feels like it will be forgotten and be unremarkable in the eyes of those uninformed. It feels like yet another political movie that doesn't quite capture hearts or minds. It's as stubborn and ineffective as Hart's story portrayed by Jackman. Maybe I've been spoilt by people talking like how people would never talk. But that's why we go to the movies. To not be bored or confused by politics. But be given a hyperreality much more interesting, engaging, and entertaining than anything we're used to.

And to get away from Trump, because Jesus Christ, let me escape from the world for two hours.

-CJ

Holmes and Watson does not offer high hopes going into it. The film currently sits at 6% on Rotten Tomatoes and at one point had the dreadful honour of being completely at 0%.

Watching it confirms the fact that it is entirely rotten. Which is an absolute shame. Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly are comedy greats and usually together their humour is multiplied...but clearly the problem lies in the script and direction.

Both duties fall under Etan Cohen, not to be confused with Joel and Ethan Coen and definitely not to be confused with Joel Cohen, writer of Garfield. Of all the Coen/Cohen's in Hollywood, we've found our Paul W.S. Anderson equivalent.

Previously the filmmaker behind Ferrell vehicle Get Hard, it's amazing to see someone get worse, particularly this worse.

Holmes and Watson has all the trappings of a Sherlock Holmes story and all the trappings of a potentially great comedy handled with the grace of the Running of the Bulls through the World's Largest China Shop. So inefficient and unfunny, it's definitely not great when you look around at the silence caused by the severe lack of jokes in the minutes before the opening credits (except one person in my screening, but there's always gonna be one intergalactic alien trying to fit in as a secret human).

The film is severely bland and lacking, full of choices that seem completely misguided. Ferrell decides to put on a strange accent for Holmes that doesn't work at all, and Reilly's Watson is overly and unfunnily violent, yet these are choices never dissuaded by the director, which is concerning.

Holmes and Watson has a story, if you can believe that, one where Moriarty (played by the criminally underused and probably overpaid Ralph Fiennes) has a presence, but is harshly pushed to the side in favour of an invisible antagonist you can figure out by spoilers by billing.

On a completely unrelated note, Kelly MacDonald is in this movie and she continues to be brilliant and brilliantly Scottish in the things that she makes, and while her character is there for a bunch of anachronistic jokes and pushed to the side too, when her arc thins out it feels like it was a good idea made sour at the drop of a hat.

Somewhere, in this movie, there is a joke. I guess. I hope. Much like A Million Ways to Die in the West and other films of that ilk, the only thing that made me laugh was a heavy reference to a much better film that had humour in the fact it took you completely out of the movie you were watching, because it's safer.

Holmes and Watson is a hollow entry to round out the year of comedy movies. Alan Menken and Glenn Slater offer the second closest thing to a joke with an original song that's a parody of their work that's nothing compared to Vanelope's "I want" song parody in Ralph Breaks the Internet.

Everything in this movie has been done better and bigger and funnier and smarter. Hell, even the overrated later episodes of BBC's Sherlock itself parodies itself better, even down to a drunk Sherlock scene that doesn't have to stoop so low as this movie does for an attempt of a laugh.

It joins a bunch of movies I would give no stars to if I could, but the sheer fact that somehow this movie made it from conception to the silver screen is some sort of commendation. Plus it has a Titanic joke that makes no sense, but it makes more sense than the entirety of the film.

And before you say something, yes, the majority of jokes in this film are indeed out of time. And out of this world.

Which is not a good thing.

1 Star.

• CJ

Stan & Ollie is a snapshot of a period of time in Laurel and Hardy's career I had no idea about - their touring of Great Britain at the tail end of their careers working together. Fascinating it may be for a comedy nerd such as myself, and interested I may be in movies about making movies and entertainment, Jon S. Baird's Stan & Ollie feels rather weak cinematically, and probably would find a better stage on television or streaming. There's just something about Stan & Ollie. Despite the subject matter and the larger than life personas played by the wonderfully cast Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly, Stan & Ollie feels a bit second rate, like the theatres Laurel and Hardy play at the beginning of the film. The jokes take a little while to kick in but once they do you'll be laughing happily. Classic comedy routines are perfectly recreated by Coogan and Reilly, and you can't help but smile at their conversations and one liners. As the story unfolds you can see where things go, even if you don't know the actual history of the iconic comedy duo. What Stan & Ollie banks on is the chemistry between the leads, and it's a good gamble. Coogan and Reily disappear into their roles, and you can feel the connection between them and their friendship as you should be. When the conflict and arguments between them happen, it affects you. You know most of their story, but this interpretation of what happens behind the curtain pulls you in. It's nice to see the cogs turn as they plan bits to perform and it's painful to see the duo eventually row and fight. It all just feels like a TV movie, though. It feels and looks flat, and it never really goes out of its way to go above and beyond. It's a small flick, but it still doesn't feel worthy of these legends of comedy. There are many a biopic and many a better movie about comedy, but it can't be mistaken that our leads are where they should be. Coogan and Reilly's performances deserve so much more. Their tale will hold you, but it says something that the text that explains the following real world events will make you more emotional than the movie itself. Stan & Ollie is a portrait of creativity and entertainment while in the shifting landscape of Hollywood, growing old, and falling out of the limelight and friendship. Its best bits are in the supporting cast or the dedication to the craft of comedy, while its worst is in how unremarkable it is. Stan & Ollie engages and amuses, but it's not one for getting you rolling around in your seat laughing. It's no Laurel & Hardy.

• CJ

Bumblebee proves that - much like Stranger Things - you can still make a classic 80s film where a mysterious endearing friend our heroes meet is chased down by the authorities while something else sinister is out there, and it's the mysterious being (and our heroes) that are the only things that can stop them and save the world.

Thankfully, Bumblebee manages to capture the 80s without being too cliche. The music aren't the generic choices you'd think of most of the time (and when they are the most familiar it's done for a joke or a brilliant reference), the fashion isn't thrown in your face, and this definitely doesn't feel like it apes the style of Spielberg or other directors you see contemporaries homaging throughout their work.

Bumblebee at its core is the Transformers movie we should have always got. I continue to be a defender of Michael Bay, but Transformers is where I always draw the line in admitting is where it all goes wrong. The one Spielberg reference I will say Bumblebee takes is the same Spielberg motivation set in the first Bayformers film: It's a story about a girl getting her first car. It's a mirror of the first half of the first Transformers, except it's basically the entire movie.

And that's okay. Bumblebee has the action and fan-service you want from a Transformers movie (except the cartoon theme song is absent, though you get a great consolation prize), and Optimus Prime gets his time to shine, but everything else is so small scale for Hollywood. It's your ET. Your Escape to Witch Mountain. Your Harry and the Hendersons. It's the tale about something extraordinary, but it's also the tale about human beings.

Hailee Steinfeld and the CG creation that is Bumblebee are the perfect duo. Steinfeld seems to be the queen of coming of age, because this is another great outing for her. She plays her role so brilliantly here, perfectly capturing the growing pains of a teenager trying to escape the boring constricting world she lives in in the wake of her father's death and everyone moving on but her. From the moment she finds Bumblebee and subsequently discovers he's a Transformer, we know we're in for something special. It doesn't hurt that Bumblebee's plot convenient voice and memory loss turns him into a giant adorable but destructive child that needs to learn things all over again but this time on a planet completely different to his own.

The screenplay is simple, but effective. A lot of the beats are easily called, but it's also due to simple setup and payoff, and the payoffs are worth it. Bumblebee sets up the character backgrounds and motivations perfectly, meaning we actually care about what happens. Steinfeld's family are your typical family that doesn't know what's going on until it's too late, but comedy in exactly when they need to, and John Cena plays John Cena as perfectly as John Cena can, creating your typical military guy with a grudge for good reason, and also for the creation of good humour and side-plot.

What really lacks are the antagonists. Who I genuinely cannot name. Two generic Decepticons, because of course, this is a simple small prequel flick, so we can't bust out Megatron or Starscream on Earth. Our villains here do the usual plotting and playing of the military to try and track down Bumblebee, but they don't really have much to do or say except kill things in their path and talk about killing things that will get in their path.

Bumblebee isn't really a Transformers movie. Bumblebee himself is so cute and fun and hilarious, you feel like you're just watching a movie about a quirky alien a teenager has found. It brings in the Transformers when it needs to, but for the most part, this is a kid and their robot, and that's all you need.

It's a solid coming of age movie and the perfectly balanced 80s movie. It's a fun two hours at the cinema that doesn't drag. The cast is brilliant and it gives you the journey you want, even if it doesn't quite blow you away if you're expecting the blockbuster action fest some of the trailers and the legacy of the Transformers have sold you on.

Hopefully it does well at the box office for what it is, because Bumblebee is definitely the best Transformers movie out there that isn't animated. It just has that touch about it.

It has the power.

Aquaman is the Nicholas Cage of superhero movies. Wild, unpredictable, off-beat, all over the board, crazy, funny, entertaining, and you'll never really know if it's bad or good.

If anything, Aquaman is a gift. If this wasn't a year with a great line-up of superhero movies, this would be the best superhero movie of the year, and not by default.

It seems that every Worlds of DC movie not involving Batman or Superman (tragically) has something great about them. Not perfect, but great.

Aquaman feels like everyone was just given free reign to do what they want, so they just made it the most insane concept ever. At the base of it it's the usual hero's journey, but it's one that on the surface has you jetsetting under and over the sea, Aquaman punctuated by guitar riffs, one cartoonish pirate villain who customises a suit given to him by a secret underwater race in order to stop the true king of Atlantis from taking the throne from his half brother therefore putting a stop to a war against sea and land, a sea creature voiced by Julie Andrews, and a cover of "Africa" by Toto.

It's something saying that the soundtrack is more diverse and more fun than the work of Hans Zimmer, or Junkie XL, but it is. Whether it's a cool Aquaman theming, or the left-field choice in covers, or the neon-fuelled Atlantean City music, all the choices are out there and work, which is the lifeblood of all of this movie.

Given the reigns to James Wan was the best idea. Wan, probably always more well known for this horror work at the time of writing this, also gave the world Furious 7, the first time the seventh film of a franchise is seen as second best/the best. Like that movie, Wan takes everything up multiple notches, crafting an utterly cartoonish and more accurately, utterly comic book feeling movie.

The colours of this movie leap out of you just like the colours would leap off the page. We're not working with darkness and shadow, we're not dark and gritty, and the more we strive away from that in superhero cinema the better.

Aquaman is fun. Plain and simple. It is utterly crazy (it seems to be the season for crazy given my last two reviews) and it embraces it so strongly. It knows just how ridiculous it is.

The entire cast bring this movie alive, but goddamn does Jason Mamoa lean perfectly into his characterisation here. It's the surfer dude Aquaman you've seen before, but here it works perfectly for the tone.

Clearly everyone has realised that if Aquaman was gonna have a film, he'd have the potential ridicule aimed right at him if it was attempted to be made seriously. Pop culture has filled the world with Aquaman jokes, but by the time you even get to Aquaman getting a version of his iconic costume, the laughs aren't in ridicule, it's in the ridiculous of the world and being baffled of actually liking and enjoying the movie.

This film is going to be divisive. Not in a critical way, not in an offensive way, but in the admission to whether you actually had as much fun as I did with this movie.

It's got its flaws. I wish there was more Black Manta, I wish the film was shorter, despite my fun and enjoyment, I wish there was more bonkers sea war stuff, I wish the 80s adventure peppered with romance sequence carried through a bit longer, I wish for all of DC to embrace this tone. It's not Marvel Imitation Syndrome, it's going in the ridiculous comic direction that's just fun and over the top and true to the larger than life superhumans of the DC Universe.

It's hard not to keep coming back and saying that Aquaman is such an enjoyable and confounding-ly weird but great time at the movies. It should have failed on every level, and it's potentially not going to be a financial or critical hit, but really, this is another slice of how these movies should be. Shazam! looks to be in the same direction, so I'm down. I am legitimately excited to see what else comes in this new world of the DC Universe.

And you'd think that of all things, Aquaman would be the least likely place I would have thought that.

A controversial, in most eyes barely scrapes if at all,

8/10 Stars.

Sorry to Bother You is unlike anything I've really seen before. That's a statement that can be overused or undersold, but Sorry to Bother You is legitimately one of the most original and resonant voices in film I've seen in western cinema lately.

Boots Riley's directorial debut off his own original screenplay, while this film deserves it in its own way, I'm sure it won't be recognised for any screenplay honours for just how out there Sorry to Bother You actually is.

Inventive and off-kilter, Sorry to Bother You feels so much like if Charlie Kaufman made a

movie except if it was full-on extroverted over introverted, and fuelled entirely by cocaine. It's a film that plays with structure and realism and art and quirky concepts and ideas that make for great visuals.

It's effortlessly brought to life through its cast. Whether that's the leads like the brilliantly cast Lakeith Stanfield, or his "white voice" in David Cross, or even side characters like the fantastic Armie Hammer, who has one of the greatest character introductions ever.

Sorry to Bother You is a feast of brilliant satire, though not aimed towards the current American administration (though you could definitely argue that it's unintentionally great as one). It speaks to how big business use the workhorses of industry for their greater good, how strings are pulled in the world to further exploit their way down the chain.

Riley's film is effortlessly entertaining, intelligent, batshit crazy, wonderfully vibrant, drastically original, artistic, abstract, and just entirely pleasing across the board I.

That's not to say the film is perfect, it's not. It plods around a little and feels longer than what it should be, but I can't lie and say I wasn't entertained the entire time. As the runtime ticks away it does progress further and further into the darkness and into the twister mirror pointed at the current world. It is fiercely anti-capitalist, it is full on with its motivations as a movie, it is a hell of a ride.

Sorry to Bother You is a mission statement and it is a brilliant first step into Riley's cinematic career. I hope for more from this guy and I want him to go even further, if that's possible. This is a phenomenal first film for a director, and this is the sort of vision we need to see in cinema.

Absurd, abstract, and astounding, I wish it were a tiny bit more refined, but still...

Mortal Engines is Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens writing an adaptation of the first of a book series turned into a massive sprawling special effects frenzy. Unlike Lord of the Rings, however, the thing this movie lacks is story and character. Jackson is not at the helm here, instead duties are given to Christian Rivers, longtime collaborator of Jackson's, and as it turns out, a solid director. Watching Mortal Engines shows exactly why he'd be great at a Dam Busters remake. Here, however, there are problems. The thing is, Rivers is a super competent and visual director. It makes sense, given his previous storyboarding and visual effect experience. Where the issues really lie are in the story and the characters, which is definitely a biggie. Mortal Engines creates a wonderfully batshit insane and goofy world you actually buy right into. There is a lot of care and attention and just sheer visual storytelling that makes you settle into a world where London is a city on wheels rolling around the Earth that remains after apocalyptic war. The film is immensely visual and imaginative as to how this world would work and how the people live. It pains me watching this movie and for all its silliness and art direction and costume design and set design and special effects and basically every technical and visual basis where this film works...where it all falls down with the screenplay. I do not fault it too much on the screenwriters, who are competent. We know this all too well. It's not just the Academy Awards that sing the praises of their work, but the sheer love and appreciation. Hell, apparently the books this film is based on are also great. It all feels like the story is just lost in translation. Too familiar to too bland storylines that have graced our screens in recent years. Where dystopia and young adult prevail and with it even more mediocrity. Where the average looking and average personalities work well for lowest common denominator teen audiences to project onto but lacking any real substance. It just never felt great with Mortal Engines. It manages to legitimise it's bonkers premise, but the reason it loses and bores you is because you don't feel anything for this ambitious world. None of the characters' motivations feel worthy of your time. There's generic revenge plots and generic evil schemes, but nothing resonant enough or argued enough to make it anything important. Our two main heroes and the villain are fleshed out just a bit, but every supporting character is just filler. Whether it's the Trinity knock-off or her motley crew of less than one dimensional expendables or the investigating allies at home and their pointless side-stories, Mortal Engines has a severe character problem. Once again, it's strange, because these writers have managed to write films where every single character is important and interesting in their own way. Everyone can be anyone's favourite character. It's tough being held up to Lord of the Rings, but with this amount of talent behind the film, it's so surprising and shocking just how much Mortal Engines doesn't work. It's confounding how these writers haven't been able to strike again, forgetting every lesson in storytelling in the adaptation of this book. Mortal Engines is full of potential, but half of it is squandered. We may never see a sequel, which is a legitimate shame. This world is brilliant, but clearly the world is not. Then again, when you read the synopses of the next few books, you kinda have to feel thankful that this is where these moving cities are cinematically gonna grind to a halt.

Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse makes you aware pretty early on you're in for something special. The curious project long in development unsure of where it sits in Spider-Man canon makes it known that it is the Spider-Man canon.

It's a love letter to every single piece of Spider-Man you know and love and even the stuff you might not. The movies, the cartoons, the comics, the character, the icon. If you want a definitive Spider-Man, I think you're looking at it.

Into The Spider-Verse oozes so much style from it you can't help but be sucked into its universe. The animation is slick and gorgeous and perfectly on form here, translating Spider-Man to the big screen like you've never seen before. It's beautiful and it's technically impressive, playing with all sorts of styles (helped by the diverse supporting characters) but never losing sight of its spirit.

There's never been a more true comic adaptation. Watchmen is so far back in the mind alongside every other comic book movie here, Spider-Verse uses so many techniques in it you just feel everything you expect Spider-Man to actually be. It's like if Deadpool had those yellow boxes, or if Fantastic Four had a good movie.

You feel so much love for Spider-Man in the making of this film, full of everything for the hardcore fan to the most casual movie-goer. Whatever your working knowledge of Spider-Man, you're going to be impressed.

The actual story and characters haven't even been touched in this review so far and that's because Into The Spider-Verse gets the groundwork just so right of course everything falls into place. It subverts expectations, it gives you the exact payoffs you want, it has such smart humour and touching emotion. It's everything great about every Spider-Man piece of fiction and almost none of the flaws.

Into The Spider-Verse surpasses even the likes of Spider-Man 2 here. It's not hammy (beyond Spider-Ham), it's not cheesy, it's not full of bad CG, it's not got soap-Opera antics that don't land, it's not set outside New York, it's none of those things.

Spider-Man is reinvented alongside all the references of his reinvention. It gives us an origin story that doesn't suck, because it knows you know all of that. Several times over. It knows how smart the audience is. It knows we know the stories. The beats. So instead it gives us a show. It gives everything slightly different to what you know and expect, but leaves you happy with how familiar things are.

The entire cast and crew have truly made something special. The writing, the directing, the animating, the acting, the soundtrack, everything. It shows the work that has gone into it. It stands apart from most of the other animated movies of recent years. It makes yet another good case for animation needing more of that mainstream blockbuster highlight. This is better than pretty much most of the superhero movies that have been made to date.

Life has been breathed into Spider-Man yet again. And it's not necessarily gone bigger and better. It's human. It's funny. It's down to earth. It takes us on the journey Miles Morales is being taken on. Things get weird. Things get fun. An all star voice cast's praises can't be sung more. None of the people involved can't be celebrated more.

There's great power given when you get the reins of Spider-Man. And with it comes great responsibility. Or however the saying goes. I'm just glad that I'm in the Spider-Verse were it all goes perfectly with this movie.

Ralph Breaks the Internet is the sequel to the video game cameo-filled Wreck It Ralph that tries to do one better (and also dunk on The Emoji Movie) by taking things to the Internet.

Now, I haven't seen The Emoji Movie to compare how effective or different or similar situations are with the interpretation of things like social media and the internet, but Wreck It Ralph does well to smartly translate a cartoonish interpretation of the workings of the internet.

Both Ralph movies do get by a lot through clever twisting of cultural reference, whether that's a smart implementation of a character from a video game or a fun way to portray the way we interact with different media online or otherwise, but they are also helped by the heart that runs through its storylines.

Ralph Breaks the Internet is full of heart. It carries the friendships established in the previous movie and runs with it. By that I mean mostly just Ralph and Vanelope. From an emotional standpoint, Ralph is great but also alienating to its younger audience with its musings on friendships and psychological explorations into insecurity of losing friends to their different paths in life.

That alienation stands out a bit with Ralph Breaks the Internet. It's a bit like how the ideas behind The Incredibles - or any Brad Bird Disney/Pixar project - are definitely not for younger audiences when you strip away the bells and whistles. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, you get musings on whether a character should go to therapy, or references to the dark web, or the repercussions of buying without thinking on eBay. Hell, the best characters - the Disney princesses - are only at their true peak of humour when you've grabbed the concept of self-referential parody. The entire Oh My Disney sequence is brilliant...to the older audiences. Kids in my screening reacted strongest to Fortnite references and slapstick, but when things begin to feel like the ending of the video game The Matrix: Path of Neo, you could feel the room being lost.

There is a feeling that with more modern, more aware Disney projects, you're catering to the older audiences. The Wreck It Ralph movies seem to be the prime target. And maybe it's good that we're playing with convention. Hell, one of the best sequences is a Disney musical number turned on its head perfectly.

There are themes that truly resonate. Growing up, going in different directions from your friends, still being friends in spite of change and trajectory. Self consciousness, greed, jealousy, selfishness.

So much humanity is seen in the digital avatars of Wreck It Ralph. So many funny turns of the mirror onto us and our use of technology.

Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong audience. The audience I'm thinking of really is more Emoji Movie than Ralph Breaks the Internet. There's just something about so much brilliance going over kids' heads. Which admittedly is true of all good family movies. I feel a bit muddled, much like how muddled the motivations actually are in this movie. Both Ralph and Vanelope's journeys seem a bit lost, and a bit off. Where things must be contrived to make things work. Where the narrative feels like it hits the rock bottom moment, but then breaks through and goes further down before the climb to the top.

The jokes are truly inspired, the new characters are quirky and fun, and the spirit of the film isn't lost from the change from video games to the internet. There are some truly thrilling animated sequences that make good use of the medium. Where Ralph breaks is in the storytelling. It, like Ralph in this film, is unsure of what it is. It overcompensates. It misdirects. It's saved by the Disney Princess All-Stars.

And it has a brilliant mid-credits scene that works so darn well in context. So at least wait for that.

Even if your little sister doesn't quite get why it's so funny.

Creed II somehow legitimises the most cartoonish (and admittedly/embarrassingly my favourite) Rocky movie - Rocky IV - and brings it into the grounded world of this new Creed franchise. It works.

Even when other things do not.

Steven Caple, Jr. takes over the reigns from the great Ryan Coogler, and while it's nice and thematic to give a relative newbie to mainstream cinema another underdog shot, you can tell this isn't quite Creed.

It is still very serviceable. The boxing is solid and the emotions hit you and the soundtrack rises inside you like all these movies have accomplished before.

Stallone has co-written a film that makes you sympathise with the logical conclusion for Ivan Drago after the events of Rocky IV, and it makes you feel for Adonis Creed's uncertainty in where his life is even after the events of the first Creed movie.

What the film has problems with is its propulsion. It hits so many beats it needs to hit - from the matches to the human drama to the montages - but the way in which it does it doesn't quite snatch you.

You can predict the way the narrative is going to go, but the characters themselves don't feel like they know why it's all happening. Creed is so caught up in his confusion that he doesn't really know why he's doing things, Rocky is a bit muddled on his choices, Tessa Thompson's Bianca has her own problems with her hearing and the threat of their child inheriting their condition, and even Ivan Drago and his one-dimensional son don't quite know what they're fighting for after they've achieved it.

The arcs all work themselves out, but through most of the film you don't quite feel anything that strongly. You don't quite feel Rocky facing his inner demons in the death of his friend to Ivan Drago being brought up to the surface, you don't quite feel Adonis' frustration or motivation towards choosing to fight Drago, you don't quite feel what's supposed to happen to the Dragos in Russia after playing their first hand. Viktor Drago feels like such a wasted opportunity - instead a puppet for his father's failing and losses after fighting Rocky - one just wished he was more than a powerful boxing machine. He's just an obstacle to overcome and a tough one at that.

Everything just feels like it's coasting and a bit more subdued here. Coogler made probably the best Rocky franchise movie not called Rocky (or only to me, IV), but Caple, Jr. plays it way too safe. There aren't as many risks, there aren't as many powerful awards worthy performances (well, none to Stallone's one in Creed), and criminally...Creed doesn't come out to James

Brown's "Living in America".

Creed II will get you pumped, and it might make you want to go to the gym or box. It's never going to blow your mind, and it's not the bigger and better sequel you were hoping it to be. It's a shame Black Panther took Coogler away from this sequel (albeit to make a solid and important Marvel Studios Movie), but Creed II still does the job.

Just not as well as the previous outing.

So like Rocky II. History keeps on repeating itself.

Pokemon the Movie: The Power of Us is a one-day cinema event that lacks the power it boasts in its title.

Pacing issues all over the place, The Power of Us does not do well to ape a similar structure as Pokemon The First Movie, where we open with a short...except The Power of Us then follows with another short...and then inexplicably follows with a long translated interview with longtime director of the animated franchise Kunihiko Yuyama. This is, after we've had advertisements for the Pokemon Magazine, Pokemon Go, and Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee.

It takes so long to get into the movie it's a wonder people stuck it out. Even as a longtime fan of all things Pokemon, it's a bit much for the cinema. A Blu-Ray release, sure. With all supplementary content relegated to special features. Instead you're given everything including a brief mention of the upcoming Detective Pikachu before you get to the real deal. To Pokemon the Movie: The Power of Us.

And if you've seen a Pokemon movie...then you've already seen this movie. Somehow, after twenty years of movies that accompany the anime but aren't necessarily part of the anime series, the formula stays the exact same and somehow it sticks.

An adventure parallel to the show in a location never seen or referenced before (at least to this assumption) where there's discussion on the impact of human interactions with Pokemon where it's Ash Ketchum's job to be the best (but not a Pokemon Master) and teach both Pokemon and humans that it's better to peacefully coexist and help each other rather than fight. In a franchise that's partially centred around the fighting of each other's Pokemon. It's the idea of Pokemon The First Movie, and it's the idea of this movie twenty years later.

This would be fine if it was confined to just an episode or at maximum, an hour movie, but instead we have 105 minutes that may or may not include the previously mentioned content (it was not timed, but it felt like so much more).

What Pokemon the Movie: The Power of Us nails - other than the brilliant and fun world of Pokemon and the occupants of it - is its character arcs. For the lazy copy/paste themes, there are solid journeys for all of the characters in the movie. They get teased out across the runtime, but they get satisfying conclusions complete with character change. Which is what more movies should have.

It's great to see all the various Pokemon gloriously animated and brought to life in the animation style that defined childhoods. Even if the CG enhancements still don't set the world of fire.

The Power of Us suffers many sins, and beyond it being safe and samey, a true sin is just how drawn out it is. We know exactly what's coming because it's referenced early on, and then we know what's coming because it's constantly put in our faces with each scene. It gets to a point where you are frustrated in the way that we get it, and are further frustrated because it's taking forever to get from Point A to Point B.

The characters introduced in this film and their development doesn't save this film. The pre-roll damaged the film's chances from the beginning, and then the feature did no favours beyond grasping simple effective storytelling.

Good for the Pokemon fan, bad for the impatient and young who aren't nerds for movie special features, Pokemon the Movie: The Power of Us offers content that will please some at the cinema, and some more on home video, but it doesn't quite please in general beyond a serviceable anime injection.

Oh dear. It's not a great sign whenever you make a comedy-meets-another-genre when the other genre dominates in being more successful and the comedy isn't successful in the slightest.

The Spy Who Dumped Me is an example of that.

Mila Kunis has comedy pedigree I suppose for being the weaker voice in several weak comedies, and Kate McKinnon rides on being a strong voice in solid comedies and being one of the few redeeming things in the new Ghostbusters. But here, together, they...Don't quite hit the mark.

Some jokes hit well, but many don't. Like said before, it's bad that these two comediennes are supposed to anchor a comedy action spy thriller (all descriptive words used lightly) but the most compelling thing about the movie is the action that's...surprisingly half competent despite not really being the main focus.

It's fun and silly in that regard, but those beats only really snap you back into enjoyment when the inbetween is fairly subpar narrative that hits the beats you know it's gonna hit.

Predictability is something I handwave when it comes to criticism, but I do have to say that what do you expect from this movie. It's a forgettable film that's released inbetween anything really happening at the cinema that you'll most likely skip past on Netflix the next time you see the poster. It's not absolutely terrible, but your life will be spared if you don't bother with this one.

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) has a sequence where the titular song is released to their original, critical reviews. Queen's song was later seen as a masterpiece, but in its initial release was only deemed "Perfectly adequate" by some. The latter, and probably not the former, describes the film of the same name. Bryan Singer (or Dexter Fletcher) has created a perfectly adequate musical biopic here that doesn't do much revolutionary, but at least doesn't rob you of any time. That is carried very much so by Rami Malek and co-stars disappearing into their roles as Freddie Mercury et al as Queen. Malek truly steals the show as the band's frontman, bringing the energy and life and mannerisms of the iconic Mercury. If there's one solid good to take from this film, it's that Malek's performance is a perfect capture. Bohemian Rhapsody is bolstered by the fact that Queen (I would say objectively, but let's say in my opinion) have so many brilliant songs and of course that means this film gets to flaunt them all. Each song is a performance of all elements coming together and you get Queen's greatest hits translated onto the big screen. If you're gonna watch this movie at the cinema please at least splash out on the IMAX for the big screen, big sound experience. If Bohemian Rhapsody was just a concert movie starring Queen or even just these facsimiles of Queen, it would be perfect, but the execution of this narrative biopic brings the film down a notch or two. There's always a curious case of poetic license with biopics, First Man recently has a bit of this, but Bohemian Rhapsody creates many an eyebrow raise.

I am by no means a Queen aficionado but I'm sure I'm not the only one doubting just how fortuitous and neat the story of Queen and Freddie Mercury is. The film saunters for the majority of it with next to no conflict and brushing past themes and issues and moments that could have done with more fleshing out. Events go by and you wonder just a little too much on whether they actually happened. Usually you don't need to bust out the fact checking like a Neil deGrasse Tyson of film, but this is a biopic with such glaring leaps of logic and license you can't switch that off. There's just something off about cartoonishly evil characters or how people just stumble upon the music they're iconic for. The creation of the titular song felt like it was a through-line of the story until it suddenly wasn't, and that thread was full of "this is a bit too on the nose". Bohemian Rhapsody has as much subtlety as Mercury's character. Very fun, well performed, nostalgic, and goddamn, that last sequence would be an all-timer if it wasn't just a shot for shot recreation with iffy special effects enhancement. Inconsistent style over substance, it brushes past and messily tackles themes such as Mercury's sexuality and later years all for another hit Queen track. It feels like one for fact-checking, but it also feels like Bohemian Rhapsody will forever remain Perfectly Adequate. And that's only down to the music of one great band, and one great group of actors translating that to screen.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald isn't quite the disaster it sounded it was going to be after finally watching it, but soon into watching it you can definitely see why this weak sequel doesn't bode well for this probably consistently weak spin-off franchise.

Whether you rewatched the first film or not to get a primer on this one, it feels like the continuity doesn't even matter. Rowling has written a sort of fresh slate for most of the situation, writing out issues in what feels like the interest of pacing and throwing characters back into the fray because they are just needed.

Of the returning characters, it remains to be Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander carrying the others, while the other returning cast seem very very secondary this time around. And they don't make great character choices. In fact sometimes they make the absolute worst, completely out of character choices.

The titular Grindelwald sorta pulls away all the focus in this film. Gay wizard Hitler is in full force here, and ignoring the fact it's Johnny Depp (better than he's been in the majority of things he's done recently), you do get the attempt to make him at least different in ways from Voldermort.

He's looking for his own way to get the purebloods in control and once again that calls for Ezra Miller's Constance who has just...survived the previous film. And for some reason he's rolling with Nagini? As in, Asian lady who turns into Nagini for...no reason at all. She's set up to carry into the sequels, but it seems very inconsequential that she's here.

Most choices in this film are inconsequential. Jude Law's Dumbledore has so so much promise it's one of the few silver linings, but himself, Hogwarts, and even young Professor McGonagall feels very much for fanservice more than anything. And even then it's annoying some picky fans because timelines just don't make sense.

But McGonagall isn't where that confusion begins or ends with timelines. Rowling has lost touch and fails once again as a screenwriter. She might be one of the better modern mystery writers, but goddamn she still hasn't nailed what a movie is constructed. It's even worse that she hasn't quite nailed her lore either.

Crimes of Grindelwald can so very easily turn into one big fanboy criticism and believe me, this is just the tip of the iceberg here. So much can be said of Rowling's script and how each subsequent Harry Potter work after the initial books and films really fails to capture the magic, but ignoring all that...the films are just basically serviceable.

David Yates can make these movies in his sleep by now and it certainly still feels like that. The first Fantastic Beasts managed to capture a different time and slant on magic and have all the wonder and adventure, but Crimes of Grindelwald feels more of the same and somehow also a lot less. It's safe, and while it still hasn't quite nailed the tonal problems like the first (Grindelwald's men and women do what Michael Myers cannot and kill a baby off screen), it all just feels so middle of the road once again the world of film has something that's not special at all in its hands. All the set pieces are bland and lack escalation or stakes, and the music is so forgettable it feels like a crime for a Potter-related flick.

Crimes of Grindelwald is too occupied with trying to blow your mind and once again set up bigger better movies (just give me young Dumbledore doing brilliant things, movie) that it fails at what it should be doing in the movie you have here. That's the problem compared to Harry Potter, each of those were contained mysteries with the propelling force for a series, whereas Fantastic Beasts throws few mysteries over these five films with barely any character, threat, or excitement to make it all worthwhile.

Rowling really needs to step up her writing game and understand more of why Potter works and this doesn't. Pulling random sh- out of the air doesn't make for interesting storytelling, it feels like midichlorians are supposed to explain the force. Plot twists aren't fun in the way they're being pulled off here. Characters coming in aren't gonna feel worth it if they are wasted.

Weak, lacking in logic, still unsure what kind of story it is, and still employing Johnny Depp, Grindelwald would be deserving of bigger more passionate rants if it were criminally bad, but it's not. The crime here is that once again, it's a film that's barely okay, and not fantastic.

And also because Nicholas Flamel is in the movie and isn't so much wasted as he is a complete eyebrow raise of why he even is in this movie.

Oh well, at least he's not secretly a snake, or an Asian lady who turns into one.

That would be stupid.

Assassination Nation will be someone's favourite movie and I fear the day I meet them.

It's a film that sets itself up to be another Spring Breakers (itself very divisive but personally a solid flick) and then slowly then suddenly falls into the realm of unlikable celluloid.

All in your face and with the subtlety of a sledgehammer to a watermelon, Assassination Nation evokes groans and eye-rolls after the initial effective half hour (less if you don't buy into this online witch hunt being set in Salem from the get-go)

For all it's risky filmmaking choices and interesting editing and cinematography, Assassination Nation dulls on you the moment sh- hits the fan. A place where you realise all in that moment that none of these characters are likeable or interesting enough to get you to care.

It feels like you've taken Mean Girls or Heathers or some other more interesting high school movie and thought you could make it more edgy.

The film screams with the voice of a teenager who has been on the internet once and has seen a cavalcade of issues in the world and just copy/pasted them into a first draft that was then immediately filmed. And with the references to hacking, it feels like it was written five years ago.

Assassination Nation reeks of being the first film a young filmmaker would of made, right down to the snide reference to Fight Club and the most basic cinephile and self-aware references aping someone who's favourite director is Tarantino and just Tarantino.

Which makes it all the surprising that this film is written and directed by Sean Levinson - son of Barry Levinson - but also...it makes all the sense in the world.

The pure putrid world he has created full of wannabe risky filmmaking by way of The Purge if only we followed the uninteresting background actors digging the hell out of The Purge, starring four teen female leads with nothing to say except the bargain basement discussion found reblogged through Tumblr, feels exactly like something written by a middle aged white man. There's just something about the borderline exploitation of Assassination Nation that feels like it intends to be so cool and so edgy instead fills you with eye-rolls and a lack of empathy.

Some people are going to really love this movie, and those people definitely have just begun their journey into film. That isn't the stance of film snobbery here, it's more the stance that when you take a step back and when you grow a little, you realise just how standard and uninteresting Assassination Nation is, full of unintentional parody and utter dullness, where everyone is a cartoon but it doesn't make any good commentary because it's literally what's happening in the world but no additional layers.

Extremely harsh against women and just entirely scummy, Assassination Nation doesn't have a lot to redeem itself. You'd have more fun reading a teenager's Twitter feed while watching a Refn or Noé movie full of neon and actual interesting and deep filmmaking and theming.

I just really didn't like Assassination Nation, people. It's everything I dislike about indie cinema when it goes wrong made by filmmakers inspired by much better filmmakers and not inspired enough by stories they want to tell and rather thinking the stupid message of stupid America is enough.

And also it gives Jeff Winger from Community an alternative outcome for his relationship with Annie with none of the psychological journey. I'd much rather be watching that show instead of this.

But then again I could say that about any film.

The Grinch (2018) is another generation's interpretation of the classic Dr Seuss tale, this time bringing it into the world of CG animation via, *sigh*, Illumination Entertainment.

Benedict Cumberbatch takes his own crack at the lead role and as always, he has big shoes to fill. He does it competently but certainly not iconically, while also surrounded by a supporting cast of other great voices (including the always welcomed Kenan Thompson)

That problem with Cumberbatch translates to the rest of the film. Competent, but not iconic. Which is hard in the world of Christmas movies, but is a shame in the world of Grinch adaptations. Though that is combatting the classic cartoon with Boris Karloff and the ode to make-up that is the live-action movie with Jim Carrey.

The Grinch just lacks something about it. Thankfully it's not a prequel as the first poster threatened, but there is some origin hinted at that is one of many moments that needlessly build on the original formula.

Inclusions and homages to the classics work. Every now and again you get the Seussian prose that puts you in the right place, and you get music that takes you back, but once again, it doesn't quite have iconography to hold you. You're blinded by nostalgia and the trap that is Christmas.

Make no mistake, much like The Grinch you'll be blinded by how Christmas is nailed from its sight and sound. Emotionally you'll be hit by it, but taking a step back it's just the classic Christmas cheer and ideology that's holding you.

The film's not bad, The Grinch does well in its medium here, the animation is your usual kid-friendly slapstick fare and has a bunch of visual jokes (that don't always hit, like a 3-scene joke with a goat that doesn't land at all) and to a degree looks great, though my viewing was in standard 2D and nothing fancy so I didn't take in the full extent of it all.

It's crime is the usual crime of movies at the moment - the crime of mediocrity. Too many movies I could give that stamp to, but The Grinch is a middle of the road film with a few blips of greatness but for the most part it's purely just a cheaper imitator.

Do not pass up the previous versions for this one, not rush out to add it to the Christmas rotation. There are dozens better Christmas movies to watch, the majority of which are not CG, and the best of which probably has Muppets in.

Overlord is a film where if you've bought into the concept a bit too much, you will be disappointed.

It's a film where it sells you on an 18-rated film that promises war, gore, and even Nazi-made zombies, but barely buys into the genre-shift enough to really enjoy it.

On paper, it works. Billy Ray's story brings together two brilliant cinematic ideas that are rich in the world of video games and are no-brainers for the world of cinema, but the chocolate-meets-peanut recipe isn't quite perfected here.

Julius Avery's direction does work for what you do see, though. He creates a competent war movie, even if the scale of it feels very small (even if the hook of it is blowing up a communication tower to open the gateway for all of D-Day). It is brutal and visceral in the first act, giving us the horror and random fate war gives.

For a war film, it nails that vibe throughout, even if it does feel way too familiar. It is weird that when it finally gets to the switch in tone, it feels like it starts to hold back.

There's a feeling of unfortunate restraint with Overlord. You can't help but want a From Dusk till Dawn, but you're never going to get it.

In that movie you get two very strong genre voices with a perfect genre flip that leads to such a brilliant B-movie feel. It's hard to separate the feeling of From Dusk till Dawn to the constant tease of Overlord.

It just feels too packed and top-heavy. It could have easily been a man on a mission movie turned survival horror, and even when you feel like you get a crescendo, it's far too late.

Overlord doesn't feel exciting or drastically different enough to truly recommend. For every great beat of it you feel the echo of an even better film. For every idea you have of what happens next you get the off-brand version of it. It holds you through the runtime but you're never really excited. You're never on edge at the rise of the film like you are when anything could happen at the very beginning. Overlord becomes too safe for too long, wasting so much potential in becoming your next favourite midnight movie.

It's a shame, but if you still feel you have an itch to scratch, don't worry. There's a ton of other movies to check out. And games.

But really...just watch From Dusk till Dawn and remember how much of a masterclass that movie is.

Widows is a project that marries two brilliant creatives. After loving Steve McQueen's two most recent films (I still haven't seen Hunger) plus having my eyes opened to Gillian Flynn via Gone Girl, when I first read they were trying to work together on something I was filled with excitement.

What they have brought to screens is Widows, surprisingly based on an ITV production of the same name. In execution it fits perfectly in their wheelhouse, with Flynn co-writing such strong female leads, tackling all sorts of themes and throwing in all manner of nicely spooled turns expected in the heist genre.

Beyond direction and writing the final lynchpin before filtering through the rest of a brilliant collaboration is the always perfect Viola Davis. Every role she plays makes it feel like no-one else could have played it, she's just that formidable as an acting force. And you get the full range from her here, making you buy into her reactions and dealing with the situation, you are ready to watch how she tackles adversity and fight her way through to the end.

The rest of the ensemble deserve all of the props, whether it's Debicki, Rodriguez, or Erivo, or Farrell or Duval, Henry, or even Kaluuya, who himself plays such an wonderfully intense and threatening foe you feel tense around in every scene he's in.

Widows sounds and at times is high concept, it's by no means a Heat, but the heist pulled off by widows of professional criminals pulls you in. What is more worth noting is how despite the ensemble and the idea, Widows is executed so subtle, and understated. McQueen can do so much with so little, and that's full force here. The camera is calculated, and the editing is succinct, where subtext and inference is king. McQueen knows his audience is intelligent, so he never spells it out for us. Which is refreshing, and makes for a damn fine voice in film.

Widows is the well oiled machine of so many perfect parts coming together, and it has all of the substance you'd look for beyond the style. Corruption, politics, race, gender, generations, interracial marriage, extortion, so many ideas are tackled and handled wonderfully here.

It's not perfect, which is a shame, but with so much going right for it, of course there are some trip-ups on the journey. Some plot threads sorta fizzle towards the end of them. Some sorta go unmentioned. The exploration of some characters to such an extent means that others fall by the wayside. It doesn't carry enough emotional weight to move you and it doesn't quite propel you to utterly love every second.

Much like the heist the film is built around, Widows is calculated. But like most movie heists, there's always something that isn't quite to plan that stops it being the perfect job.

Slaughterhouse Rulez makes you feel so disappointed after going into a film not expecting much and hoping to be pleasantly surprised. It's a feeling you'd get from say, the St Trinian's movies. Which aren't very good, but they are watchable and fun enough to keep you away from the feeling that you've wasted your time.

Slaughterhouse Rulez tries to marry St Trinian's with Shaun of the Dead, which feels like the germ of a potentially fun romp, but in reality misses so many marks you just want either of those influences on the screen instead. Which isn't hard when one of those intended apes is a five-star classic.

What you get here, however, is a film that tries to capture the ridiculousness of British comedy and context with the energy of better and more ingenious filmmakers. Tries is the keyword throughout all of this film. It tries to be funny, it tries to be scary, it tries to foreshadow, it tries to have fun splatter, it tries to have meaningful characters and engaging villains.

The film tries to pack so much into it it never quite hits the mark. In its 103 minute run-time, Slaughterhouse Rulez tries to juggle multiple plot-lines that are never quite fleshed out enough, which in turn mean we never quite care enough. There are many a reference to the world building and history of what's come before the film going in, but it doesn't give us enough to really connect or think or feel.

It all just feels hollow and half-baked. Between the few good throwaway jokes and visual gags and embracing some practical horror effects (amongst boring ugly monster design), not to mention a supporting cast that sometimes shines (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost in the same film rock, but Michael Sheen once again is the scene-stealer), Slaughterhouse Rulez is otherwise another cheap attempt at British film-making unfortunately cast in the shadow of its great predecessors. It was never going to be a Shaun of the Dead, but it's so tragic that it's not even a St Trinian's.

Halloween (2018) sees the return of Michael Myers and the retcon of countless sequels (and that one reboot). Essentially the new Halloween II, who would have thought it would come from in part Danny McBride and David Gordon Green?

Jamie Lee Curtis becomes Laurie Strode by way of Sarah Connor here, having prepared herself for Myers' return from day one. Its been decades and she's filled that with learning how to shoot, how to trap, and how to be a questionable parent. It's inevitable that this movie would get Terminator 2 comparisons, and in regards to theme and storytelling, its pretty well done. It even adds a further level with Strode being a grandmother who has been pushed away from her daughter so she can barely see her granddaughter, even if Laurie is certain she's right. There's something about three generations of women facing adversity and conflict and manipulation from the world of less capable and/or scary men.

And while we can mention the several examples, I'm guessing you're more here to find out how Michael Myers is handled. The way that he is is definitely the weakest part of this movie. There was something about the indie film sensibility of the 1978 version and its almost bloodless murders. 2018's Halloween feels like the bigger budget sequel that would be made in the 80s and that's not the best thing. Myers feels more like Jason Voorhees, killing more graphic and violent here, including a knife stab more at home in Friday the 13th 3-D. That's the thing with it being made today after the legacy and the increase of talent and budget. Halloween is made bigger and better, and in some places that works well, and others not so much.

Make no mistake, Halloween is still creepy and tense, but the threat of Michael Myers is now cartoonish.

For every great moment or callback there is a moment that pulls you out of it. Where the sequel can't ignore the modern update. It's the Force Awakens affect on the filmmaking of the original trilogy. Made by fans but needlessly updated and enhanced, full of cool ideas that forget the truth of the original.

And it's that Myers is pure evil, and he doesn't have to crush a face with his foot to prove that.