Paul: Close Encounters Of The British Kind

‘Paul’ is a science fiction, road comedy film the plot of the film revolves around two nerds Clive (Nick Frost), and Graeme (Simon Pegg), who after going to Comic-Con decide to go on a UFO road trip across America, while out on the open road they pick up a hitchhiker Paul (Seth Rogen), who happens to be an alien.

‘Paul’ serves both as a science fiction film, but also as a parody of the genre, the comedy of the film a lot of the time comes from making fun of the rules and conventions of the genre it is very much like ‘Shaun of the Dead’ it that regard.

That brings me on to my main point about this film it feels like a Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright film, but it isn’t. I don’t know if when my brain sees Frost and Pegg on-screen together, I immediately think of Edgar Wright’s Cornetto trilogy or if it a result of the film itself.
Like I said before the lampooning humour and, the defying genre conventions is very Wright esque; this film must have at least been a little bit inspired by him.

The humour of the film is very much what you would expect from a Nick Frost Simon Pegg film, so if you like that and think it is funny, you will likely feel the same way about this. I for one think the duo are hilarious and have superb timing and delivery. I think the mixing of the very British in a way humour with the American makes for some interesting and very funny results. Rogen and Kristen Wiig, who is also in this film, add to the comedy make-up of this film; both styles of comedy complement each other quite nicely.

Furthermore, the choice to have genre heavyweight Sigourney Weaver be the film’s big bad is a move that is as crowd-pleasing as it is inspired. Weaver adds not only a sense of class to this film but also science fiction authenticity. She relishes every moment she is on screen and, make each second of that time count.

Overall this film is a love letter to the science fiction genre that has inspired it and, there is no duo better suited to carry out this loving homage than Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.

Pros.
The Humour.
Simon Pegg And Nick Frost.
Sigourney Weaver.
The Blending Of British And American Comedy.
The Supporting Cast.

Cons.
Some Of The Supporting Cast Are Annoying.
The Humour Won’t Be For Everyone.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Mr Popper’s Penguins: The Love Between A Man And His Penguins

‘Mr Popper’s Penguins’ is a comedy film about a businessman who has lost the ability to have fun, until one day he receives a create and in that create is a penguin. Over time Popper (Jim Carrey), gets more and more penguins and forms a bond with them; this is their film.

‘Mr Popper’s Penguins is the sort of film that revels in the human-animal friendship space, think Alvin and the Chipmunks, or even animated fare like How To Train Your Dragon. These films, play upon the bond that people form with their pets.

Carrey is on top form as Tom Popper he plays him reserved, or at least reserved for Carrey, focusing on how the character slowly begins to care about these penguins and, realises what is important in his life. The message of this film is cliched family and the people you care about, or in this case penguins you care about, are more important than wealth and success. You see, that is the thing with this film in many ways it is incredibly cliche and has been done before, but that doesn’t make in any less effective. It is still incredibly good and sweet despite having not been fresh or, original.

The villain of the piece is a penguin expert called Nat Jones (Clark Gregg), who wants to take the penguins away from Popper and put them in a zoo. Jones is a good antagonist for the film as he is a character you love to hate as well as having a real sense of menace about him at times. You want to see Popper and his penguins continue to be together and be happy, so him wanting to take them away not only adds tension but also makes you consider what is best for the penguins.

Popper’s family, who also plays a role in this tale are all serviceable if not memorable I can’t remember a single one of their names.

The humour of the film delivers, Carrey is excellent and all of his jokes land. Also, the penguins have their moments of comic genius they gave me a good few chuckles as I watched.

Overall this is very enjoyable family fare and, the relationship between Popper and his penguins will speak to anyone who has ever loved a pet.

Pros.
Carrey.
The Villain.
The Penguins.
The Comedy.

Cons.
Cliched.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Jojo Rabbit: A Film Like No Other

‘Jojo Rabbit’ is a comedy-drama film about a young boy called Jojo (Roman Griffin Davis), in Nazi Germany who has an imaginary friend. His imaginary friend is non-other than the infamous tyrant Adolph Hitler (Taika Waititi). When one day Jojo finds Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie), a young Jewish girl living in his attic and, his life is turned upside down. The film is based on the book ‘Caging Skies’ by Christine Leunens.

Jojo worships Hitler, though it is portrayed more like he is brainwashed, and he dreams of being the perfect German Nazi. However, as the film progress, we learn that Jojo isn’t a monster, rather he is a young boy who wants to belong and, is deeply naive.

However, where this film could have been very dark, it is played for laughs at every turn; with Waititi’s signature blend of humour. This is best shown in the relationship between Jojo and Hitler, Hitler himself is basically a big kid and, likes playing silly games with Jojo; who is often the more mature of the two. This film takes all the lies and, propaganda about Hitler, that paint him as a mythical being and laughs at each one, making them the butt of the joke.

The relationships that Jojo forms with both Elsa, as well as with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson), are both moving and well done. With his relationship with Elsa, you can see Jojo realise more and more that his worldview is incredibly false as he grows to care for her. They look out for each other and, the familial bond they develop is quite touching. However, the scene-stealer in this film is Johansson she plays both the loving mother, as well as someone who is fighting against tyranny really well. When she dies, it is both abrupt and heartbreaking; reflective of the horrors of war.

Another thing this film does so well is it shows the humanity on both sides of the war as it humanises some of the Nazi characters. We should all hate Captain Klenzendorf as he is a Nazi officer but, the film goes for a more nuanced approach and, shows him help to save Jojo and Elsa on two separate occasions, making him far more layered than other Nazi characters previously in cinema.

Overall this is a beautiful film about love and learning to be a better person. It doesn’t paint in absolute of good and bad, rather it serves to try and show the best in everyone and, have a good laugh at the absurdness of the whole situation.

Pros.
The Message.
The Acting.
The Humor.
Johansson’s Performance.

Cons.
This Isn’t Going To Be Everyone’s Cup Of Tea.

5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Fantastic Mr. Fox: Redefining The Word ‘Fantastic’

‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ is a stop-motion animated comedy film, adapting the Roald Dahl beloved children’s book of the same name. The plot follows Mr Fox (George Clooney), as he tries to get back into the business of stealing from the local farmers; after he had given up that lifestyle when his first cub was born.

‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ both the book and the film have a special place in my heart and, the film especially is amongst my favourite animated films of all time. There is so much life and vibrancy in the animation that it brings the book to life in the most beautiful way; this is in no small part because of the decision to use stop-motion animation, which not enough films do.

Many people prefer Wes Anderson’s other stop-motion animated film the ‘Isle Of Dogs’, but personally I don’t think that film has anywhere near the same level of charm as this. Yes, a lot of that charm comes from the voice cast Clooney is a great Mr Fox he has both the easy confidence for when things are going well and the steely determination/ gravitas for when things get serious. As well as Clooney the voice cast is also made up of people like Willem Dafoe, Billy Murray, Meryl Streep and, Jason Schwartzman. All of these big stars not only give it there all but also really make the characters memorable. Dafoe plays a Rat that serves as a sub-antagonist for Mr Fox, though he only has very limited screen time Dafoe not only makes us care about this character but, also gives him a personality.

There are several changes made to the story that keep it from being a fully faithful retelling of the book. However, I believe these changes serve the film well as they are often used to create character depth, which helps the characters seem more realised.
The best things about this film are because it has a very keen sense of identity, as well as a very specific sense of style. I truly believe that both of these things are owed wholly to Wes Anderson, who does a great job here and elevates this film into almost a masterpiece.

Overall, this film not only captures the nature of the book but also adds to it. Fantastic Mr Fox will make you care about foxes and badgers while also giving you a laugh or two along the way. This film is a testament to two things firstly the star-power of George Clooney, and secondly what a director with a sharp eye and a firm idea can do.

Pros.
Wes Anderson.
The Voice Cast.
The Beautiful Stop Motion Animation.
Making A Classic Out Of A Classic.

Cons.
Minor Pacing Issues In The Second And Early Third Act.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Paddington 2: Paddington Goes To Prison

‘Paddington 2’ is a live-action animated film and sequel to the 2014 Paddington film. The plot this time around sees Paddington (Ben Whishaw), be implicated in a crime, after a pop-up book of London, that Paddington was going to buy for this aunt’s birthday goes missing. This results in everyone’s favourite Peruvian bear going to prison and the Brown family having to try and prove his innocence.

‘Paddington 2’ is a very strange film to me, in many ways it is because I didn’t see the plot of this film coming. Not only was I not expecting to see Paddington as a jailbird this time around, but I also wasn’t expecting the shift in tone. Make no mistake this is still a happy family film, but there is definitely more of a sense of melancholy this time around; a sadness in the air. The reason why this moodier tone works is because of the first film; it made us care about Paddington as a character, perhaps more deeply than we first realised, as such when we see him lose the court trial and, go to prison it can’t help but break your heart.

The Villain of the film Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant), fixes my only issue with the first film, that being the villain was weak, Buchanan is a central part of the narrative throughout. Not only that but, he is much more threatening than Kidman’s villain from the first film, as he represents a real sense of danger to Paddington and his well being. Grant’s performance ranges from comedic and sympathetic, too loathsome and hateable, his Buchanan is an antagonist that you love to hate.

However, my issue with this film which I believe makes it worse than the first film, is that other than Paddington and Buchanan the rest of the cast are barely used. Whereas last time around each character had a moment to shine, without taking focus away from our hero, now these moments are few and far between; this is a shame as the series had amassed some real talent. What makes this issue more pronounced is the fact that while in prison in the film adds even more characters to its ensemble, which stretches the moments each character gets to shine even thinner.

Overall this is still a very good film and, the end of the film is very heartwarming and feel good. However, this is definitely the darker of the two films and also sadly the inferior. Still worth a watch.

Pros.
Paddington.
The Occasional Bits Of Humor.
Grant’s Villain.

Cons.
Over Crowded.
Wasted The Brown Family.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Paddington: AKA Marmalade, The Solution To All Of Life’s Problems

‘Paddington’ is a live-action animated comedy film based on the adventures of the iconic Peruvian bear. The plot this time around is an origin of sorts, in many ways a soft reboot of the franchise, it explains who Paddington (Ben Whishaw), is and details his first encounter with the Brown family.

‘Paddington Bear’ is a quintessentially British character, he has been a popular feature of media in our fair isles for well over 50 years as such he was bound to end up on the big screen sooner or, later. It pleases me to tell you that this is a fantastic reboot for the character reintroducing him to modern audiences, while still showing all the reasons he remains such a beloved character.

Paddington himself is handled in the same animated live-action way as something like Pikachu, in 2019’s ‘Detective Pikachu’. I believe that this is a good move as the animation always looks convincing, as in it looks like he is really there on screen with the other characters. However, the joy of this style of animation is that they can have this while still keeping the wacky over the top slapstickness of the character as well, a real best of both worlds situation. Ben Whishaw does a great job voicing Paddington, managing to capture the charm and, the innocence of the character, making him very lovable.

The human cast around the titular bear is like a who’s who of famous British actors including Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Jim Broadbent and Peter Capaldi. Each character has their own moment to shine whether it is Capaldi’s characters redemption or, Bonneville’s character growing to love Paddington over time. All of these individual moments are well done and, have a lot to offer the wider world of the film.

The standout for me amoungst the human cast is Sally Hawkins as Mary Brown. As the mother of the family, Mary gives off more warmth than the sun; she loves Paddington from the moment she sees him, the surrogate mother-son relationship they have is incredibly heartwarming.

My one fault with the film is that it never does much with its villain Millicent Clyde (Nicole Kidman), her motivation is that she is resentful because her family have become a laughing stock after having a run-in with Paddington’s family years prior. As such she seeks to kidnap Paddington so she can stuff him. There a few scenes where she is mildly threatening, but as the main antagonist, she is given very little to do.

Overall a stellar reimagining that brings Paddington lovingly into the 21st century.

Pros.
Paddington Himself.
The Animation.
Sally Hawkins.
This Being An Actual Good Reboot.

Cons.
Wasted Villain.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Veronica: The Devil Is In The Detail

‘Veronica’ is a Spanish supernatural horror drama film based loosely off the 1991 Vallecas Case, in which Estefania Guitierzzez Lazaro died strangely after using a ouija board. The film follows the standard possession storyline with the entity growing in strength over time and gaining more of a grip over the girl.

The film is not based 100% on the case as the lead girl is instead called Veronica (Sandra Escacena), and a lot of the events are played up to increase the potential of the scares. However, the case is used as a means to frame this film with a sense of realism.

I had heard a lot of people talking about this film before I saw it, they were all saying good things not just about ‘Veronica’, but about Spanish horror as a whole, which is a rising force in the genre. While this film might not be the scariest film of the year, it is certainly unsettling. This is in large part a result of the style of the film which is quite unlike a lot of other possession films I have previously seen. Whatsmore, the design of the spirit or demon is surprisingly refreshing; it looks both creepy and original.

The scares in this film strong, especially as when it focuses on the Mayan influences and the ideas surrounding the eclipse. When ‘Veronica’ is at its best is when it is being original and novel. The issue with this film is that these bits are few and far between. A lot of this film is very generic and predictable- the story of a girl being possessed by a demon after playing with a Ouija board has been done time and time again. Though this film has creative aspects, it simply isn’t enough to disguise from its average whole.

The acting is mostly good, Escacena is likeable enough and you want to see her beat the demon. Her relationship with her siblings is endearing and the final sacrifice not only makes sense but has emotional weight. That is the best bit about this film; the ending. It chooses to have the protagonist lose which is in keeping with the actual case, but it is still a brave move and one you don’t see coming.

Overall, this film has some moments of real inspiration and has some genuinely good scares, but it is not enough to get over the very average premise that has been done thousands of times before. Still worth checking out.

Pros.
Originality.
Creature Design.
A Good Lead Performance.

Cons.
Average Premise.
It Is Bound By The Fact That It Is Based on True Events.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Little Women: Oscar Bait In Its Most Obvious Form

‘Little Women’ is a coming-of-age, drama, period film based on the book of the same name. The plot follows the lives of the March’s a family of young women who live with their mother while their dad is fighting in the Civil War. We see it all from sisterly pranks and hijinks to death and, mourning.

As someone who has read the seminal novel, I had an idea where the film was going and, a lot of the surprise reveals were not all that surprising to me. However, the two things I will give this film and Greta Gerwig props for are that they nailed a lot of the key scenes from the novel: they capture the emotion perfectly, this is in no small part thanks to the performances but, I will come back to those later. The second thing I will give this film credit for is that the new additions to the narrative help to make the film feel more rounded and, whole.

The performances for me were a mixed bag Saoirse Ronan was terrific as Jo, proving once again that she is an aspiring actress to watch out for. Likewise, Florence Pugh was equally as good as Amy, the often overlooked sister, I found that her character captured the love-hate relationship sometimes found between sister really well. The rest of the cast didn’t do much for me, Emma Watson was fine, but I believe any actress could have played her role and, the rest of the cast including Laura Dern and, Meryl Streep is mostly wasted. Timothy Chalamet is also in this film and, I still don’t understand why people like him or, think he is a good actor.

I had several issues with the film, the most egregious of which is how in love with itself this film seems to be. ‘Little Women’ has a very smug sense of self about it, it seems to think that it is high art and, is worthy of all the awards simply for being I found this off-putting. This is reflected in how this film is paced, often scenes will feel drawn out, trying to play up their importance, when nothing has actually happened. The third act of this film is definitely too long in the tooth as there are multiple times you will find yourself saying, “is it over yet”.

A final thing I find odd and, distracting about this film is the non-linear way it chooses to tell its story, the scenes don’t follow any kind of pattern and, will generally be out of sync. An example of what I mean is in the second act a character dies and, there will be a scene of the family mourning the loss and, then another scene of this character alive and well. There is nothing wrong with telling a story like this, but the film doesn’t make clear what is a flash-forward, what is a flashback and, this makes for a jarring viewing experience.

Overall this is a solid effort from Gerwig however, it pails in comparison to her debut effort, with some of the stylistic and, editing choices in the film really ruin vast sections of it for me.

Pros.
Captures The Emotion.
The New Stuff.
The Performances.

Cons.
The Editing.
The Pacing Issues.
How Smug It Is.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Babysitter: What Goes On After You Go To Bed.

‘The Babysitter’ is a teen horror-comedy film the plot follows Cole, (Judah Lewis), as he stays up to see what his Babysitter Bee, (Samara Weaving), gets up to when he goes to bed; what he finds out chills him to the bone. Bee and her friends are devil worshipers and, they are using Cole for his blood. Cole and Bee then enter into a showdown to the death that only one of them can walk away from.

For those of you who read my reviews and, follow me on social media, you know that I find Samara Weaving incredibly annoying; it’s her scream. However, this film does something I didn’t think was possible it made me like her, she was charming and, funny and easily the highlight of the film; throughout the film, you think she is going to turn back to the side of the light, but no she is evil through and, through.

The showdowns between Cole and, his perusers are all excellent they are very reminiscent of, ‘Home Alone’ all of Cole’s weapons are improvised and the deaths are spectacularly gory. They manage to capture the tension of the situation while also remaining comic. The comedy in this film is quite good, it will bring a smile to your face and, warm you, towards the characters.

This film is very stylised think Zack Synder or, Edgar Wright, but turn it up to 100; every chance to have a graphic or, do a cinematography trick is taken. The issue with this is that a lot of the time it takes you out of the film, there was a sequence where the camera was moving around, but also supposed to be doing a POV shot and, the effect is incredibly jarring. There is nothing wrong with a film having style, but if anything this film is overly stylised.

Another thing about this film is that it is completely predictable, but that is okay as this film knows what it is, a pulpy horror B movie homage, and it plays to that. Viewing this film through the lens of it being a homage to horror B movies, makes it a much better film than it actually is. As I don’t think it is a horror B movie homage deliberately.

Overall ‘The Babysitter’ feels like something out of a bygone age, it is over stylised and, it seems to be doing all this to overcompensate for the fact that it isn’t very original. However, it is a nice piece of horror movie junk food and, Samara Weaving is excellent.

Pros.
It’s Good Horror Junk Food.
The Genre Diehards Might Find Something To Like.
Samara Weaving is excellent.

Cons.
It Feels Very Dated.
Overly Stylised.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Hail Satan? The Devil’s Fight For Justice And, Equality Is Never Done!

Hail Satan? Is a documentary film about The Satanic Temple shedding light on its origins and, political activism; and its fight to keep church and, state separated and, give liberty to all.

This film surprised me as it showed this group of people, who often get blamed and, wrongly judged as not only the opposite of how the media normally portrays them but, as good people who are trying to bring about a real positive change in the world. The reason why this documentary is so good is that it plays with your preconceived notions about what Satanists are and, dispels them one by one.

It also points out very real-world issues about Church encroaching on State, and what right do Christens have to be able to put statues up outside courthouses and other legal buildings solely, shouldn’t all religious groups have this right? This is what it does so well it makes you think, it makes you question what you personally believe to be right.

As well as being a fascinating watch this film also has some dramatic stakes as we see the Satanists, we are rooting for, fighting and facing setbacks at every turn. Not just this, but when we see the schism in The Satanic Temple that leads Jex, a member of the Satanic Temple who leads the Detroit chapter be removed from the organisation it is sad to see. It is also sad to see the spokesman for the organisation Lucien Greaves have to wear a bulletproof vest for fear of being shot, it really makes you consider society and, religion in a whole new light. Why should someone be so persecuted for what they believe in?

Ultimately this review will be a shorter one today, as to truly understand why this documentary is so great you need to go and, watch it. I don’t want to spoil it for you. For me personally ‘Hail Satan?’ really made me question a lot about how I see the world and, how we should always be open to new ideas and, that we have to question the standard media narrative on things because sometimes they can portray a group as devilish when it actual fact they are just trying to do good, in their own way.

A MUST WATCH!

Pros.
It Asks Relevant Questions.
It Dispels False And Harmful Narratives.
It Makes You Question Your Own Beliefs.

Cons.
A Few Minor Pacing Issues Especially In The Early Sections.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke