Nightmare On Elm Street 5, Dream Child: Daddy Freddy

A Nightmare On Elm Street 5 is a slasher horror film directed by Stephen Hopkins. The plot continues to follow new dream warrior Alice (Lisa Wilcox), as she once again has to fight Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), who has returned from the dead this time using Alice’s unborn babies dreams as a gateway back into our world.

This is by far the strangest nightmare yet, there is a lot of out there ideas that range from the goofy to the downright disturbed. Though Hopkins himself does not like this film, studio meddling once again, I think it has a place amongst the better trips to Elm street. I enjoyed the surreal feel to it and a lot of imagery was unsettling which I felt heightened the film.

Furthermore, the deeper dive into the origins of Freddy was interesting to see how it all began, the monster baby stuff not so much, but the rest of it was intriguing. That said, I found the focus on Alice’s baby, who is or isn’t Freddy’s son? Was bad, I did not care about this future character that is barley set up at all and just appears.

The deaths were a lot of fun, I thought the dinner party kill and the comic book esque kill were probably the best of the bunch, though they all have an entertaining campiness to them that makes them so fun to watch.

Overall, though some of the ideas were poorly thought out, baby Freddy springs to mind, I think because of the clear vison and style this film feels better than a lot of the other instalments.

Pros.

The Kills

The focus on Freddy’s origins

The campy fun

The visuals

Cons

Jacob as a character

Zombie baby Freddy

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Poltergeist: Don’t Trust Trees

Poltergeist is a horror film directed by Toby Hooper. The plot follows a family who become terrorised by otherworldly beings known as ‘the tv people’, eventually these entities end up kidnapping the daughter of the family Carol Anne (Heather O’ Rourke), and the family must do all they can to get her back.

This is an 80s icon of horror cinema for a reason, and that reason is a mixture of nostalgia and that Spielberg magic in its prime, though he did not direct it he was heavily involved. There is something almost family friendly about this film, though maybe that is me watching it with a desensitised 2020 outlook, but beneath that wholesome veneer is something much darker which captivated my interest.

I did not find the film scary as a whole, I only found the tree scene and the clown scene to be unsettling, however, I can see that a viewer watching it in a contemporary setting might have found it very scary; the effects that look dated and goofy now would have been good for the time. That said I enjoyed the over the top effects, like the scene where the man’s face comes off in the mirror, they made me laugh and I was certainly feeling the 80s charm of them.

I enjoyed what the film did with its bait and switch ending, making you think it was all over and that what you were watching was a happy ending monologue to show the family all safe, but then it subverts that and shows you that the danger is actually not over at all. I thought that was a very clever thing to do narrative wise, as it makes the actual ending feel very surprising.

Overall, maybe more tame by today’s standards there is still more than enough on show within the film to show why it deserves its iconic status within the horror genre.

Pros.

80s horror charm

A few scary scenes

A clever ending

Cons.

It is not very scary

It has pacing issues, especially in the second act

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Four Christmases: Just Tell Your Parents You Don’t Want To Go Home For Christmas, It Is Not Hard

Four Christmas is a Christmas comedy drama film directed by Seth Gordon. The plot sees a couple’s relationship be put to the test as they have to attend several different family Christmases.

Personally, I never viewed Vince Vaughn as a strong romantic lead. I think he is better suited to the arsehole anti hero roles, like Fred Claus, or the more action/drama orientated roles he has been getting recently, but for a while Hollywood really wanted him to be the next big romantic leading man.

Maybe I am reading this film with a 2020 viewpoint, but the romance narrative is deeply troubling here. Vaughn’s character is often a dick towards Witherspoon’s and yet he is never brought to task over it, she just passively allows him to treat her like dirt. Witherspoon’s character only moment of resistance is when she stands up to him because she wants kids and he seemingly doesn’t; the whole implication of this is deeply sexist. The message of the film is off.

Understanding that this film is supposed to be a comedy film makes it even worse, both in terms of the jokes and there implications, but also the fact of how deeply unfunny the film itself is. Usually Vaughn can make me laugh, but I didn’t laugh once here, moreover, I found the film to reliant on slapstick for its jokes which again didn’t land.

Overall, this is a failure as a comedy film and has a deeply troubling message underpinning the film that makes the ending feel bittersweet and ultimately leading to ruin.

Pros.

It is watchable

Cons.

Vaughn and Witherspoon have no chemistry

It rewards abusive behaviour

It has a deeply troublesome message

The ending is not deserved

It is not funny

0.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Joy: The Rather Obvious Decline Of Robert DeNiro

Joy is a biographical drama film directed by David O’ Russell, the plot is based on the real-life story of the Queen of QVC Joy Mangano and her rise from struggling poverty to take the business world by storm.

This film is a very engrossing watch, you become fascinated by Joy (Jennifer Lawrence), and her mop business and begin to form an emotional attachment over the course of the film: one that desperately makes you want to see her succeed.

Was Lawrence’s performance worthy of an Oscar nod, no it wasn’t. She was an affable lead and one that was easy to root for, but another actor could have been just as good in the part at no point did I think she made the part her own as a result of this she would be easily replaceable.

I think the best scenes in the film were between Lawrence and Bradley Cooper (who played the head of the QVC network), I think though they only had a few short scenes together over the course of the film their on-screen chemistry was so strong that it stole the show.

On a different note as much as I love Robert DeNiro, I almost found him to be a distraction her with his overly hammy performance often taking me out of the film.

Another issue I have with this film is that it is bloated and could have been better served by a tighter edit.

Overall, an engaging and interesting film, however also one that received more praise then it deserved.

Pros.

The engaging narrative

Cooper and Lawrence have great chemistry

The personal connection you develop for the character

Cons.

Lawrence is interchangeable

DeNiro is too over the top

It has pacing issues

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Man Who Invented Christmas: Lay Off The Hallucinogens Charlie

The Man Who Invented Christmas is a Christmas themed biographical drama film focusing on Charles Dickins (Dan Stevens) as he creates his classic Christmas novel A Christmas Carol, we see the trials and tribulations that lead to one of the best-selling books of all time.

I enjoyed the presentation of this film, I thought the blending of standard biopic elements and more out there fantasy elements, as he talks and interacts with his own characters, was quite an inspired choice as it allowed the film to feel fresh and not like just another biopic.

Stevens was serviceable in the role; he can convey both sides of Dickens as a character and does a good job of making the character seem whole and rounded rather than a caricature. He is the best of the cast, though that is not a tall order as a lot of the other actors are bland and forgettable.

I thought the film had pacing issues and included a number of side plots and other stories that should have been cut, I understand the film was trying to show the motivations and scars of Dickins himself, but they could have done it in a more concise and audience friendly way, as it stands certain parts are far too exposition heavy.

Overall, through the choice of how it presents its story and its characters this film feels slightly above the standard biopic and is enjoyable, however a mostly bland cast and a few pacing issues stop it of being great.

Pros.

The fantasy and reality aspects

Stevens

It feels like a well-considered Christmas film

Cons.

The wider cast are bland

It has pacing issues

It goes too far in trying to explain what drives Dickins and relies too heavily on exposition

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Burnt Orange Heresy: If You See A Fly On A Picture Of You Throw It Away

The Burnt Orange Heresy is a crime thriller film directed by Giuseppe Capotondi. The plot follows art critic James (Claes Bang), who is tasked by an elusive art deal (Mick Jagger), with acquiring a rare painting by a once great artist (Donald Sutherland).

I was enjoying this film for a time. I think the first act where you aren’t quite sure what is going on and what James and Berenice’s (Elizabeth Debicki) motivation are is well done. The film doesn’t let you in on the mystery right away and allows you to speculate, teasing you with the prospect of something more sinister.

Then as the film continues on it becomes more and more farfetched. As we descend into a tiresome, driven by greed to murder plotline I was left saddened by what the film had left behind, namely all its subtly and personality.

The ending for me felt like a damp squid, yes it left a few things unresolved to keep you thinking, but for the most part it is far to clear cut where more abstract was needed. If this film had been more like what the Neon Demon was for the fashion world, then it would have been perfect; a cerebral experience, but no it ends as a bog-standard crime thriller.

Overall, this film left me with the question that maybe the art world just doesn’t translate well to film, as this and The Velvet Buzzsaw just feel lacking and have to resort to more and more absurd notions to try and keep interest which ruins the film as a whole.

Pros.

The cast are great

The first act has a lot of promise

I enjoyed some of the imagery and themes

Cons.

The ending lets it down

There is something lacking that I can’t quite but my finger on

2/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Haunting In Connecticut: A Whole New Fluid To Be Disgusted By

The Haunting In Connecticut is a horror film directed by Peter Cornwell. The plot sees a family move into a home that use to be a funeral home where the mortician performed evil rituals on the dead to boost his son’s supernatural gift, naturally after they move in things start getting out of control quickly and the spirts start attacking the family.

I remember watching this film when I was younger, and I remember being scared for days afterwards. So, when I decided to revisit recently I went in with high expectations, and I can safely say they were not met.

The scares are all fairly tame, the two ‘scary’ parts of the film are the flashback scene where the bodies are mutilated and the ectoplasm scene, the latter is more fascinating as a concept than it is scary. For the most part the scares are just the usual obvious jump scares that blight most horror films these days, they are incredibly obvious and have no impact at all.

Secondly, and stick with me on this one, I don’t like how up the churches arse this film is. Yes, I understand that religion and God will play a key role in these sort of films as they are fighting demons, but in something like The Conjuring 2 you don’t see them stopping to pray every 5 seconds and having a character (the mother), who’s whole purpose is to spout about how great the church is and how we all need to have faith; it felt like I was watching Gods Not Dead or something alone those lines. My issue to clarify is not that it is in the film, it is the total lack of nuance or subtly with it.

Overall, though the body mutilation scenes did creep me out a bit, I can’t recommend this film as the scares just aren’t very good. They are the by the numbers jump scares that you would expect from some of the lazy Blumhouse fare, with that in mind this fails as a horror film.

Pros.

A few creepy scenes

The idea of ectoplasm and the way the film explains it

Cons.

The writing lacks subtly

The scares don’t work

The characters aren’t sympathetic and are caricatures

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Boss Level: Don’t You Hate Waking Up With A Gun In Your Face

Boss Level is a science fiction, action film directed by Joe Carnahan. The plot sees ex solider Roy (Frank Grillo), become stuck in a time loop. As is customary he has to live out his death over and over again until he can find out what is going on and stop it.

Before I get into the review fully I just want to say, that ending- my my how much of a tease can you be.

This film will be familiar to most, the time loop concept has become very much a new fad in films over the last 5 years, with films like Happy Death Day and Palm Springs being good examples; by now you know what to expect from these sort of films. However, the thing I would say that sets this film apart from the others is Frank Grillo.

Grillo’s character goes on a real arc over the course of the film, as he makes various discoveries about his current situation and you can see the change in emotion and person happening before you very eyes. Grillo is incredibly versatile and he really sells his role. He made me both laugh and cry over the course of the film.

I enjoyed the film’s references and clear inspiration from classic videogames, I think this game feel helps it to standout and give itself some personality.

Overall, a nice surprise that has quite a few good moments and Grillo himself is superb.

Pros.

Frank Grillo

The character arc

The emotion

The ending

Cons.

It does feel a bit too familiar

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Dead Zone: Christopher Walken Saves Our Future’s, God Bless That Man

The Dead Zone is a science fiction film directed by David Cronenberg, based on the Stephen King book of the same name. The plot sees Johnny Smith (Christopher Walken), awaken from a coma to see that five years have passed, not only that but he can now see into the future. Johnny then has to decide how he is going to use his power going forward.

I might be a bit bias, because I am quickly becoming a Walken fan, but I think this film is terrific. I think it is nice to see a King based film that is not an out and out horror, though there is nothing wrong with that. I find that as a thriller this film poses some interesting moral questions that are fun to think about after the film ends.

Walken is a strong lead and plays the role with the right level of otherness, to never really feel like he fits in in any situation, but also the right level of charm that we believe him as a hero who is trying to help people.

My one complaint of the film would be the second act. I think the first and third acts are both strong, they’re interesting and engaging and they move along at a nice brisk pace, however, the second act really feels like filler. Not only that, but it is also by far the slowest part of the film and is almost a drag to watch at times and you are desperate for something, anything to happen.

Overall, a strong King adaption that begs some interesting questions and has a great lead performance in Walken.

Pros.

Walken

Cronenberg

The moral questions

The ending

Cons.

The tedious second act.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Nanny McPhee: The Magic Of A Rushed Proposal And An Arranged Marriage

Nanny McPhee is a comedy, fantasy, family film directed by Christianna Brand. The plot sees the titular nanny (Emma Thompson), arrive to save a family on the brink of destruction. The father (Colin Firth), is about to lose everything his house, his pride, his kids that is of course if Nanny McPhee’s magic can’t just save the day.

I have to say upon rewatching these film recently something because very clear to me, with regard to this series, and that is when it comes to Nanny McPhee films less is more. The second film, The Big Bang, which I have recently reviewed benefits from being much more streamlined plot wise everything serves a purpose. In this film however, it seems to be a free for all of plot threads, with a romance plot there, an inheritance plot there and Nanny McPhee and her magic being crammed somewhere in there as well: it makes for a confused viewing experience.

Moreover, Colin Firth is not very good here. He is playing the dad who fails to control his kids and who is too proud to go after what or more adeptly who he wants to be with type of character; one that is no way original to this film. Maggie Gyllenhaal played a similar character, albeit without the unacted upon romance in the sequel, and I have to say she played it much better. You bought that she was struggling and desperate for help, Firth on the other hand doesn’t seem all that bothered, with the exception of when he chases after the carriage.

Overall, this might be one of the few cases where the sequel is better than the original.

Pros.

Thompson

It is watchable

Cons.

It is confused

The plots don’t come together well

Firth isn’t very good

It is less fun than the sequel

2/5

Reviewed by Luke