NEIGHBORS 2: SORORITY RISING REVIEW: An unexpected sequel which is unexpectedly funny

3/5

Currently sitting at 73% on Rotten Tomatoes and certified fresh, the first Neighbors (or Bad Neighbors for us in the UK) was very well received but when the sequel was announced it was widely lamented. The first filmed tied up the story nicely and seems to be done.

It does kind of look like a cash in and maybe it was or maybe they had some fresh ideas with a compelling new story. So for whatever reason we are back with Seth Rogan and Rose Bryne as Mac and Kelly. This time their baby is a toddler and the second baby is on the way when a sorority moves in next door lead by Chloe Grace Moretz . It is such a blessing to this film that Seth and Rose return, they bring such good chemistry and majority of the laughs do come from them and their odd couple friends.

The jokes come in much of the same format as last time, a war between middle ages home owners and the parties next door, switching between expected, gross out and tied. Surprisingly most of the funny moments come from returning Zac Efron, who opitomises his character so well.

The direction is solid as expected in a film like this, besides one stand out chance sequence which is one of the best moments of the film, there is little to offer besides framing the comedy.

Where this film falls down is in comparison to the original is the Sorority girls. They do not get time to breathe, become rounded characters and for us to develop feelings towards them. They come across quite obnoxious and at time cringe.

This isn't as good as the original but it is funny and well worth a watch.

HIGH RISE REVIEW - The undoubtedly talented cast and director struggle with a difficult source material

3/5

I am a massive Ben Wheatley fan. I loved "A Field in England" and "Kill List" is incredible. His direction doesn't disappoint here, he films with his usual style, building dread, focusing on horrific images, on the face of it, High Rise looks like a good fit.

The cast perform well. Tom Hiddleston anchors the film as we follow his decent into the deranged world inside of the high rise. He doesn't have a great deal to do in all fairness but he does it well. Luke Evans may split opinion in this film, it is an all out performance, a decent into madness. He is utterly believable as a man on the edge of violence and madness.

With the good out of the way, the bad: this film is crazy, too crazy. Watching "A Field in England" I thought I was prepared for the madness that Wheatley brings but I wasn't. This left me wondering why, and the reason is the lack of coherent plot. SPOILERS AHEAD The tower falls apart due to rolling black outs, which lead to parties, which lead to a mini class war. But all happens so fast and without any sort of explanation that it left me feeling a little cold towards the whole thing. Too little time is spent on the fall, with a good portion of the film taking place after the building's inhabitants have completely lost any sense of civilization. Which brings me to my second problem, the film feels a little too long. There are countless scenes of depravity which do begin to drag.

For a long time the novel, which this based, was deemed unfilmable and you can see why. There are so many characters and plots overlapping that there isn't enough time to fully develop either but damn it Ben Wheatly and screenwriter Amy Jump give it their best shot.

All in all this is another example of Wheatly's directing ability even if the chosen material wasn't right.

DISCUSSION - Carol is the best character in The Walking Dead

A lot of people will say Rick, and Rick is a great character, there is nothing like seeing Rick go off the rails but Carol is the most rounded and interesting characters on the show.

Take last nights episode as an example, the range showed by Melissa McBride was impressive giving life to all sides of Carol's character so much so that you almost thought she had finally snapped under the pressure. I do not believe another character (besides Rick and perhaps Daryl) could carry an intimate episode like this. And it isn't the first time she has done so, think back to a few seasons ago to The Grove, what an episode that was!

I think what has made Carol so great is the evolution she has gone through, from when we first met her as a scared, quiet woman under the control of an abusive husband through to a woman who will do whatever is necessary at the prison, to the now slightly conflicted, stern leader. In a world where strong women characters are said to be missing, isn't Carol the perfect example of one? And not your typical tom boy strong character that can "hang with the guys" but a believably resilient but at times vulnerable woman who is dedicated to her friends. This is a great example of a three dimensional character that has been allowed to grow organically and it is all the better for it.

THE WITCH REVIEW - A disturbing, atmospheric horror masterpiece

4.5/5

This film was a masterclass in slow burning horror. It builds a world and sucks you in, slowly building at atmosphere of dread that stays with you long after the final credits roll.

The whole film is beautifully shot, even with the majority of it being grey and muted in colour. The decision to film in the old 1:1.66 aspect ratio was inspired as it adds to the feeling. The camera lingers longer than it should, giving the impression you are watching what you shouldn't be seeing. You can measure how effective a horror is by the impression it leaves on you after the film and I can say I haven't stopped thinking about this.

The acting surprised me. I wasn't expecting it to be this good. Ralph Ineson is perfectly cast, gruff, imposing but surprisingly vulnerable, such a good performance. But the star is Anya Taylor-Joy. She anchors the film as the conflicted child. Teetering on the edge of womanhood and rebellion, she treads the line with such honesty it keeps the film ticking.

The film also marks Robert Eggers as a director to look out for. Not since viewing Ben Wheatley's "A Field In England" have I been so excited by a director. The feeling of dread he creates in The Witch is relentless. Every scene I felt tense, not for jump scares, but for what is going to happen. He will be a big name soon, watch this space.

Now comes to a final point, this isn't for everyone. I think the way it has been advertised to show it as something it isn't. The language used is old fashioned English, there aren't jump scares, no teens running around, this is no slasher, and IT IS ALL THE BETTER FOR IT.

This is a stylish, horrible, horror masterpiece. It will have you tense throughout and leave a long impression.

SPOTLIGHT REVIEW - A story that needed to be told

4/5

What a story. It is hard to believe this was going on right beneath our noses. This story focuses on the investigation by the Spotlight division of the Boston Globe. Pushed by a new boss, they uncover a ring of abuse and conspiracy that effects all levels of the justice system and carried out by the Church.

The screenplay written by Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy does really well here, building the mystery and tension as they uncover more. Tom McCarthy's direction is solid, focusing on the main players in the story, humanising where possible, but also showing the beauty of Boston with help from his cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi.

The cast is strong and all perform well. Much has been made of how spot on Micheal Keaton's performance is but a typically emotional Mark Ruffalo improves all scenes he is in. Rachel McAdams balances this out well with a restrained performance. They all do well with what they are given but the story doesn't stray far from the investigation. Husbands and wives are mentioned but not seen, the toll the work is taking is hinted at but not scene so it could be argue that the character development is thin.

But does this matter? When dealing with a story this sensitive, so close to the knuckle, would the personal lives detract from this? Perhaps the run time didn't allow for it, sitting at 128 mins I doubt much more could be squeezed in. Saying this, the investigation itself is strong enough to carry this film and attention throughout.

A shocking story bolstered by strong, albeit limited, performances make this a captivating watch and a story that should be brought to prominence. Well worth a watch.

DISCUSSION - Is The Walking Dead suffering from a lack of a villain ?

A lot of people are telling me that episode 9 of The Walking Dead aired Monday in the UK (Sunday in the US) was the best for a long time. Does this point to it being a good episode or have we been on a downwards curve for a while?

I have had a few gripes with The Walking Dead recently but I can't stop watching because I was a massive fan of the earlier seasons. I don't know if I'm looking at it through rose tinted glasses but I think that something is missing now. I think this is a villain. Some of my favourite episodes involved Rick tussling with either Shane or The Governor. Rick being pushed to the edge, seeing how he would cope.

But more than just that, the underlying tension between Shane and Rick worked so well because there was character development. I can not remember the last time a character truly went on an arc and changed other than to serve a 2-3 episode story. A recent example of these short stories is *SPOILER* the Wolves prisoner, he changed too quickly to saving Denise then dying. Then cropping up in a deus ex machina moment later in the episode. It was just too easy to have that and let me ask you something, is anyone going to be changed by the events?

Compare that to Shane growing frustrated with Rick's leadership, each week questioning him little by little. This worked because Shane was a rounded, believable character. He was so adamant he was doing the right thing and this is why Rick put up with him. This was compelling watching. Who has that kind of relationship now? Who even has a relationship besides philosophical conversations now?

I will always keep watching as I love some of the characters (Rich and Carol mostly) but I feel like there needs to be something more.

Bring on Negan.

SOUTHPAW REVIEW - Jake Gyllenhaal gives a life to the old boxing genre

3/5

Is the sub genre of Boxing movie back? Creed is picking up nominations and awards left right and center. Did Southpaw give everyone faith again?

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as Billy Hope. He's on top of the world, riding high but it is taking it's toll on himself and more importantly his family. His fighting style opitomises him, orphaned and built up "in the system" he's a born fighter. In boxing/sporting movie fashion, all this is taken away from him and he must come to terms with this and make his comeback.

This may all sound very formulaic and perhaps it is but screenplay writer Kurt Sutter (with his first feature but a strong pedigree writing for The Shield and Sons of Anarchy) does something clever here. In screenwriting circles you will hear a lot of "give me the same only different", basically a fresh spin on a tried and tested genre. And this is what Kurt did, he didn't focus on a revenge story. This is a story about coming to terms with loss.

Strip back the boxing context and what do you have? *spoiler ahead* A man grieving the loss of his wife and learning how to cope as a single parent. Gyllenhaal anchors the film. His gruff take on Billy Hope, a man at odds with himself, with his own anger, feels natural. He seems like a person with flaws, on the edge constantly. With such films as Nightcrawler, Prisoners and Enemy, he is starting to show himself as superb actor. All those roles and this one are worlds apart, there is no danger of type casting.

Other key things happen that you'd expect: reluctant trainer, training montage, ect, but they all fit and are done well. I couldn't help but get behind Billy.

The direction is solid and the fights well choreographed. The only downfalls are some 2D minor characters. Outside of Billy and (Forest Whitaker on autopilot) Tick Willis we don't really get to know anyone else. The "villain" of the piece could be Curtis Jackson's Jordan Mains, who betrays Billy for no apparent reason, disappearing until he crops up on the opponents side. Naomie Harris is under used as a care worker assigned to the case of Billy's daughter. It almost seems as if a romantic subplot was edited out because she miraculously ends up watching the fight and cheering Billy on. Besides never saying more than 10 words to each other. There are a few other minor characters who just serve the plot and not much more. But with such a strong central character does it matter?

All in all a exciting watch. Restarting the boxing genre and carrying on Jake Gyllenhaal's hot streak.

THE THING (2011) REVIEW - uninspired prequel, but could anything succeed the original?

1.5/5

Let's have a run down of some of the things that made the original so great:

1) Tension
2) Acting and charismatic lead
3) Ground breaking visual effects

Are these here in the prequel? No. no and no. Let's start with number 1: Tension. This is the fundamental problem I had with this. The original was built around tension and atmosphere. Such a slow burn, building slowly, who is human and who isn't? But instead here we see the "Thing" right away, it's blasting out of the ice (which is shocking because it goes against all the rules set up in the first one, but more on that later), it's running around, mutating at will. Where are the scenes of distrust? Besides one scene, basically lifted out of the original, explored the distrust and it worked, it was the most compelling part. I believe that conflict was replaced with cheap jump scares. This is down to the screenplay.

The screenplay further comes in for stick with the second point. Even with the best acting in the world (Joel Edgerton is criminally underused, ever scene he is in is instantly improved) there is a core issue here: We don't know or care about any of the characters. Without any attachment, do we care who dies and how? It is suggested there is something between Mary Elizabeth Winstead's Kate and Adam but nothing is explained. Ulrich Thomsen's Dr. Sander Halvorson is angry and authoritarian but why? He has a go at Kate at times but we don't ever know what his plan is or what his goals are. He isn't even angry, he's just mildly annoyed, but we never know why.

That is another thing, there seems to be a distinct lack of emotion. Mainly from main character Kate. She has little to do besides churn out theories (which prove to be true every time), but she doesn't grow throughout the film, she doesn't have any flaws to overcome, she is just there.

Much has been made with the decision to go with CG after initial use of practical effects so I will just say that the film is worse for it.

One last issue, the lack of consistency. The "Thing" seems to have different abilities depending on when it suits the plot. One stage limbs can call off and become sentient creatures but then *SPOILER AHEAD* during the worst 10 mins at the end of the film, Kate escapes down a vent in the "Thing's" ship. Why not detach an arm and send it down? Nope, instead send some tentacles, then bust through the wall (trashing your own ship in the process). The film just loses credibility at times like these

I will say this, I do not know what film could have competed with the original. It is widely loved. It makes use of a young Kurt Russel on top form, it's idea is fresh. I like the premise of this film, finding out what happened at the Norwegian base but maybe it was doomed to start with. Matthijs van Heijningen Jr is obviously a fan of the original, he exhibited amazing attention to detail with set design and tie ins to the original and what else could he have done? A rehash of the first one that plays out exactly the same? It would have never had lived up and it didn't. If this film existed on it's own and not burdened by the original would it be better recieved? Probably.

All in all this film is a serviceable watch, you can tune your brain out and just watch for some mild shocks. But if you are after plot, character development, or suspense look elsewhere. Better still WATCH THE ORIGINAL.

THE BIG SHORT REVIEW - funny, eye opening and enjoyable

3.5/5

Well played Adam McKay. This could have been a mess, bogged down with the details of the world of banking, but instead, through clever writing, meta moments and spot on casting, this is one hell of a ride.

Detailing the collapse of America's economy by focusing in on a group of people who caught on early (albeit to make money) was a smart move. We get to know these people, we are right there with them, making the revelations as they do. Christian Bale is on top form as Michael Burry. He picks up on the smallest of ticks to immerse himself n the role. Does he deserve best supporting actor at the Oscars? I don't think so. I think Tom Hardy will shade him. The rest of the cast is solid, Steve Carell is perfectly cast as a man on the edge. So is Ryan Gosling; handling both the humor and intensity well, with Nice Guys coming out this year too, are we seeing a new funny side to Gosling?

The real star here is Adam Mckay's direction. He injects the whole film with energy, it is constantly building, fast edits, new information, meta moments with the camera, it all complements. His comedic timing comes in handy but he handles the more weighty moments surprisingly well. Also the script is razor sharp, the back and forth dialogue and little quips work well.

Could it be argued that the screenplay doesn't go deep enough? True it doesn't show the devastation caused the collapse. And yes the main characters are essentially profiting off the whole film but as one character say: these aren't the heroes of the story and the never claim to be.

SCREENPLAY - Jumpers

COMPETITION ENTRY - This is an entry for the Create 50 competition "The Impact". The competition rules state that the screenplay can be a maximum of 2 pages based around the following brief:

"A civilisation-destroying meteor, heading towards earth, is discovered by NASA. It’s terrifying, devastating and inevitable impact is announced from the White House. With only two hours left for humankind, what would happen?

Logline: With the end of the world approaching, a man decides to end it early.

The screenplay can be read here: http://www.create50.com/scripts/5574aa843838337c9e4c0000

Any feedback greatly appreciated!

DISCUSSION - How is piracy effecting the independent film industry

This conversation was prompted by the infographic released by Sundance Film Festival.

Chris: Do you know what is quite annoying these days, I think it is going to become a really big issue? Piracy.

You can say what you want about superhero films taking over cinema, forcing out new ideas and the like. But piracy must be making it so nonviable for the independent production and distribution companies.

Sundance released an infographic (available below) today showing the estimated loss in revenue because of piracy and these small companies and films can’t continue to lose that money.

I know people don’t take it seriously because of how easy it is to do, but it is slowly eating away at the film industry. I know someone at is watching The Revenant that way. The Revenant begs to be watched at the cinema, it is a cinematic experience, the director himself put it a good way, it is like not going to the Grand Canyon but instead looking at a post card of a picture of it.

Doesn’t make sense to me



Mark: It’s an ongoing problem isn’t it. I remember when they said that when DVD’s became pirated it would kill the market too. I guess this is slightly different as it is more accessible than ever. Anyone who watches films pirated is kind of shooting themselves in the foot in my view. As you say, it’s not how it was intended to be seen so it kind of ruins it.

On the flip side though there are loads of elements going in favour of independent films. Firstly you have a broadening and proliferation of the tools to make films – it’s easier than ever to create something, upload it, and share it. You see that all the time online, but also in the growing number of competitions etc for short films. Also you get films like that Tangerine, or Monsters, that could never have been made years ago – filmed on the cheap but still really good.

Then you’ve also got the move away from cinema – towards on demand. There are only ever going to be more and more films coming out through the smaller TV studios now – like Netflix with Beasts of No Nation for example. I think that’s going to change the shape of film too – as it’s a much more cost effective model than distributing the film for theatrical release. It might be that “smaller” or more risky films are released in that way, with the cinema being reserved for blockbusters and alike.



Chris: Demand services are changing things completely. Beasts of no nation is a perfect example of this, they gave it a limited theatrical release to qualify it for awards. Perhaps it will change to only the blockbusters hitting cinemas and the smaller films, like Danish Girl for example, become closer to a TV special.

The market does run the risk of becoming over saturated, it is double edge sword, the genuinely talented writers and directors who wouldn’t usually get a shot might now get spotted and supported, but I think they might get drowned out in a wave of mediocre films put out for films sake.

They need to make sure they maintain quality, they have to.



Mark: Ultimately it will be the audience who decides. If something is viable financially it will continue to be made.

I’m not too worried about it basically. The film industry has changed so many times and faced so many pressures – from the first DVD’s and VHS recordings to CGI to the internet to download piracy. I still see great films being made, and a whole load of terrible films being made. Just like it has always been.



Chris: I'm not sure I agree I think the on demand services will cause quite a change soon.

I don’t know exactly what will happen, my best guess is that cinema prices may go up further and they will try to make it more of an event going to the cinema (seen already in some cinemas with sofas, bars and good food).

THE REVENANT REVIEW - A fantastic film that delivers on a cinematic and emotion level.

4/5

Rarely does a film with so much hype live up, thankfully The Revenant does just that. The film is at heart a revenge story, it may not go much deeper than this in terms of plot but top class cinematography (Emmanuel Lubezki's previous work with Terrence Malick certainly helped here), four strong performances (Hardy and DiCaprio especially) and solid direction make this a must see.

The landscape of Canada and Argentina is filmed in all its brutal beauty. Long shots of snow battered forest, dreamlike imagery of fires fighting off the cold, flashes of blood and violence. Much has been made of the grueling shoot but I am sure that once everyone involved sees the first Indian attack scene, they will agree that it was all worth it. It could be argued that the wilderness is the true antagonist of the film but Tom Hardy's Fitzgerald gives it a run for it's money. He is urgent, angry and stubborn, driving the plot along. Alejandro G. Iñárritu has stated in lots of interviews that he looks for what is behind the actors eyes and he certainly found something in Hardy.

The same goes for DiCaprio. Chasing that illusive Oscar for best actor, he throws himself completely into the role of Hugh Glass. He is Glass. Unflinching, personal and emotional, DiCaprio acts the majority of the film without a line of dialogue. Yet we are right there with him, when he is tense, we are tense, when he is in pain (this is a lot) we feel his pain. If this doesn't do enough to win, I am not sure what will.

I will end this review on one last point:

SEE THIS FILM

SCREENPLAY TITLE: Liar. Coward. Judge.

LOGLINE:Deep winter in Civil War Era Missouri – A Union Deserter, a Priest and an Assassin must fight for survival when they are stranded in the wilderness and hunted by a terrible beast.

Screenplay available on request

SCREENPLAY TITLE: Exodus

LOGLINE: The interstellar migration of the human race has failed. On our new planet a widowed construction worker learns of a message from an eccentric journalist on Earth; one that unravels a conspiracy that has crossed light-years - one that puts him firmly in the sights of the government's most dangerous agents

Screenplay available on request