Bird Box: You Have To Be Blind To Enjoy This

‘Bird Box’ is a post-apocalyptic thriller film directed by Susanne Bier. The plot follows Malorie (Sandra Bullock), as she tires, to protect her children from strange supernatural entities that have taken over the world, said creatures drive people to madness if they see them. The film is based on the novel of the same name by Josh Malerman.

I remember when this film came out a lot of people were talking about it and it had more than a few moments in the sun. However, upon seeing it now I really don’t see what is so impressive about it, I know the novel came out years ago, but a lot of the film’s elements had been done before and better in other films like ‘A Quiet Place’ and ‘Children Of Men’. These elements are things like creatures that prey on a certain sense in this case sight as well as a family having to survive in this new world.

There is nothing new about this film at all. It is a collection of end of the world clichés and character stereotypes. Not only that, but the film puts a lot of it’s focus on the humans that have not been driven to suicide by the creatures: because they were already mad, they take up the role of the antagonists in the film and the creatures themselves almost become a secondary villain. I think this is an annoying trend that a lot of these type of films do and is also a huge missed opportunity. There are hundreds of films about humans doing horrific things to each other most of them better than this, so why does this film not choose to focus on the one thing that makes it unique it’s monsters.

What’s more, the human characters are boring, really really boring. They are really hard to care about as they just seem like a collection of characters that you have seen before, this film even wastes John Malkovich. The one character that is interesting and feels like you want to get to know her is Sarah Paulson’s Jessica, but she is killed off within the first 10 minutes of the film.

Overall this is an incredibly generic film and in this the year 2020 that just isn’t passable anymore, as we have so much choice that things like this should fail to send a message that we want better, we want characters that actually feel like characters, we want a story that hasn’t been done so many times before, and we want to see the monsters in a form other than wind!

Pros.

Sarah Paulson For The 10 Minutes We Get Her.

Cons.

It’s Been Done Better Before.

It’s Generic.

The Story Is Boring.

We Don’t See The Monsters We Are Just Told About Them.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Woman In Black, Angel of Death: The Fight For A Random Orphan

‘The Woman In Black: Angel of Death’ is a supernatural horror film and is a sequel to 2012 ‘Woman In Black’ film. The plot this time around follows Eve Parkin (Phoebe Fox), a school teacher who accompanies some of her pupils out of the city during the London Blitz, the house they arrive at is, of course, Eel Marsh House; home to the infamous Woman In Black.

If you read my review of the first film, you know that I love the ‘Woman In Black’ it is a classic British ghost story and one of the best horror films in modern years. However, at no point did I or, anyone else think that it needed a sequel.

Angel of Death falls to the same pitfalls as ‘Sinister 2’, by that I mean they lose the mystique of their predecessor by over-exposing their villains. The reason why this film worked was that the titular woman herself was very rarely shown, a lot of the time her presences would be implied, but crucially she wasn’t shown. As a result, she remains quite a mysterious figure, and that is frightening, the issue will overly showing a villain like this is that by doing it, they become less scary.

That is something that is very true of this film: it just isn’t as scary. It tries to recapture the same creepy atmosphere as the same film and, the same sense of tension, but it can’t. Because we didn’t need this film all of the scares and, everything the Woman In Black does has been done before and better.

I never realised until I watched this film how much we needed Daniel Radcliffe, though he didn’t do anything fantastic, he is heads and shoulders better than the protagonist this time around. Eve is simply a blank slate, she is boring and generic, she has a subplot about how she had her kid taken away from her which draws a parallel with the titular Woman herself, but this is never explored enough to be impactful.

The fight over Edward (Oaklee Pendergast), a young orphan boy, between Eve and, The Woman In Black has no power at all as you don’t care about the protagonist. Whatmore, the end twist being that The Woman In Black is still around and coming for Edward is lazy, and feels like a blatant attempt to set up a sequel, very much like how ‘Sinister 2’ ended.

Overall this is a cash grab sequel if there ever was one, there is nothing new here, it is a far cry from the first film in all the worst ways and proves Daniel Radcliffe’s ability as a leading man.

Cons.
It Pales In Comparison.
The Protagonist is Bland.
It Does Nothing New With The Woman In Black.
It Demystifies The Woman In Black.
You Just Don’t Care.

Pros.
It’s Watchable.
It Has A Few Good Moments.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Woman In Black: A Good Ghost Story Is Never Beat

‘Woman In Black’ is a 2012 supernatural horror film: the plot focuses on a young Lawyer called Arthur (Daniel Radcliffe), who goes to Eel March House to settle some business. While he is there, he is terrorised by the menacing Woman In Black. The woman herself is a vengeful spirit, as she took her own life after her son died in an accident; she vowed to “never forget and never forgive” and now she forces local children to take their own lives so that their parents can feel the same pain she felt. Arthur tries to lay her spirit to rest and stop the child suicides.

I remember when this film came out, it was talked about as though it was the scariest thing ever, and as a young teen when I first saw this, I would agree with this consensus. Even now, when I am far older, and I’ve delved further into the murky waters of the horror genre, I would still say this is one of the scariest films I have ever seen.

This is the quintessential British ghost story, there is something so unsettling about this film it is there in the harsh oppressive world of the moors and in the fact that in the shadows is a Woman who will never stop, never be at peace, until you know her pain. The horror works so well in this film because of the fact that the actual Woman In Black herself is very sparingly used, the mere mention of her, or threat of her presence is enough to creep you out.

I can’t think of anything more chilling that the opening scene of this film, wherein 3 young girls all walk out of a window together as The Woman In Black stands by ominously watching; still to this day, that scene will give me goosebumps. The more we learn about The Woman, the more we understand her motivations and see that she is a force of nature rather than something that can be reasoned with.

Daniel Radcliffe does a good job here, in one of his first post Potter projects, he proves here as he does in later films in his filmography that he has a wonderful range and is, in fact, quite a talented actor. We see his character as a beacon of hope fighting back against the seemingly unbeatable forces of darkness and despair.

Overall, this film is a triumph, it is a masterpiece a testament to British horror and to Hammer Horror as well. It is a must-see for all horror fans and anyone else looking for a fright.

Pros.
The Atmosphere.
The Sparing Use Of The Monster.
Daniel Radcliffe.
British Horror.
The Chilling Nature.

Cons.
It Can Be A Bit Slow.

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

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