Nutcracker And The Four Realms: Stay In The Uncanny Valley, Please

The Nutcracker And The Four Realms is a fantasy adventure film directed by Lasse Hallstrom and Joe Johnson. The plot sees troubled outsider Clara (Mackenzie Foy), venture into a strange world in search of a key to one of her late mother’s possessions.

This film is bizarre, it is like it too a good look at Alice In Wonderland and decided to copy it but make it even more convoluted and odd. There is an underlying sinisterness to this world and this film in generally that I can’t quite put my finger on, but there is definitely something off about it.

The CGI does not help the film at all, it ends up looking all a bit too obviously fake and the uncanniness of it all becomes jarring and off-putting the more you are exposed to it.

The only positive I have for the film is that its basic premise and world feel interesting, like there is a fascinating tale to tell there. However, the film as a whole fails to delivery on this and instead churns out yet another mindless, soulless, big-screen CGI fest. The acting is likewise as wooden, with several big-name actors clearly only here for the money.

The big third act twist where one of the key characters turns out to be evil is one of the most obvious reveals I have ever seen in all my years watching films, and I understand the audience for this would be mostly children but come on Disney have some respect for your audience. They are not all mindless and as the final numbers show they refuse to eat your off brand, out of date, cliché riddled, fantasy slop anymore. Do better!

Overall, though there is a sliver of promise here, it is quickly crushed under a mountain of awful CGI, pay check performances and disturbing feeling. Utter trash.

Pros.

There is some promise

It is watchable

Cons.

There is something wrong with it

The CGI is overused and off-putting

The performances are awful

The plot assumes that the audience are brain dead

The twist

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

Horns: Where Brooding Meets Teen Angst

Horns is a fantasy horror romance film directed by Alexandre Aja, based on the Joe Hill book of the same name. The plot sees Ig (Daniel Radcliffe), have to clear his name after the brutal death of his girlfriend, aiding him in that effect is the fact that he has started to grow horns. These horns allow people to be completely honest with Ig and tell him their darkest thoughts and desires.

Having for once read the book, before viewing, I can honestly say that this film is a pale imitation. In the process of turning a novel into a film obviously a lot of things will be left out, there has to be some degree of translation, but this film misses out keys themes and plot lines from the book whilst also shoe horning in moments to act as a kind of fan service to book readers.

The obvious demonic metaphor is more easily conveyed here, as we can see his transformation. Though said change is interesting initially, it soon becomes a bit repetitive. Ig is surprised that people don’t seem bothered by his horns, this makes sense the first time not the 30^th. The final devil design is okay it is a little underwhelming as I was hoping for something grander.

The acting is okay, Radcliffe manages just about to keep an accent for the entirety of the runtime, but he is not as strong an actor here as he is today. For me this film just felt a bit too teen angsty, trying too hard to be edgy, I don’t know maybe I have just outgrown it.

Overall, it is perfectly serviceable, but it does not fully embrace the concept of the book and it feels too broody which becomes cringey the longer the film goes on.

Pros.

A few strong moments

The transformation

Cons.

It beats plot points over the head

It leaves key details out

It feels very teen angsty

2/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Witches (2020): Suitable For Kids?

The Witches (2020) is a family fantasy horror film directed by Robert Zemeckis. The plot follows a young boy (Jahzir Kadeem Bruno), who discovers that Witches are very real after he and his Grandmother (Octavia Spenser), become targets.

This is not like the other film version in a number of ways, there is a clear effort to set this one apart from the other adaption as well as the book version, there is a lot of added material that is not in the book or other film. While not all of this new stuff works, I am glad they added new scenes and plot lines as it allows this film to feel like it stands on its own rather than just being another remake.

There are also a lot of things in this film that I question whether they are appropriate for a children’s film. There are mentions to things like suicide, which is used as a sort of joke, as well as the arms scene which I would specifically draw light to. The arms scene is actually quite scary, there is something about the uncanny valley nature of the scene that adds to it and makes it scarier, it looks like something out of the recent IT films only better done.

I didn’t like the ending, I thought having them all stay mice doesn’t really work and pushes the film into a ridiculous territory that makes it end on more of a jokey note, which cheapens the entire experience.

Octavia Spenser is terrific and makes the film as well.

Pros.

Spenser

The new additions

The arms scenes/ some genuine scares

Cons.

Not really suitable for kids

The ending is laughably bad

The supporting cast, namely Tucci is given nothing to do.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Personal History Of David Copperfield: A Modern Take On A Classic Tale

The Personal History Of David Copperfield is a comedy drama film directed by Armando Iannucci, based on the novel David Copperfield written by Charles Dickens. The plot follows the life of David Copperfield (Dev Patel), we see his struggles, his triumphs and the events that define him.

I enjoyed the clearly satirised tone of this film; it doesn’t take itself too seriously which is nice as it allows the film to not get too bogged down. It walks a difficult tightrope as it tries to stay true to the source novel while also reinventing it, that sounds like a very difficult task, but this film does manage it.

I also enjoyed the quirky cast of characters on display here, they each feel so vibrant in their own personality which I liked. I thought all actors involved gave strong performances, from the veterans to the relative newcomers, even though most did not get a lot of screen time they still manage to remain memorable.

My issues with this film come from the dryness of it. I didn’t find the films sense of humour funny; it has a very specific sense of humour that will not be to the taste of a lot. Also the film does have quite a bit of drag that is quite noticeable in the second and third acts that really weigh the film down to the point of you losing any kind of interest.

Overall, a quirky daring film that quickly wears out its welcome

Pros.

The quirkiness

Strong Performances

Keeping true to the novel whilst also innovating on it

Cons.

The humour didn’t work for me

Pacing issues galore

Dev Patel left me cold

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Enola Holmes: When In Doubt Dress As A Yard-worker

Enola Holmes is a mystery film directed by Harry Bradbeer; it is based on the book series of the same name written by Nancy Springer. The plot focuses on the youngest of the three Holmes siblings Enola (Millie Bobby Brown). Enola’s world is turned upside down when her mother disappears suddenly, as such Enola ventures out into the world to find her, becoming tangled up in a conspiracy to kill a young lord.

Before, I had watched this film I thought Millie Bobby Brown was a one trick pony, I thought she was good in Stranger Things and serviceable enough in Godzilla, but she hadn’t convinced me of her acting ability. Now after watching this film I can say she is incredibly talented, and is destined for big things, my change of heart is the result of her performance here.

I found her performance and her character to be the perfect encapsulation of female empowerment. She is self-determined and driven, she is always in control of her own fate, she is a badass, but crucially she evolves over time. If you look at something like the recent Mulan (review on site), that fails as an act of empowerment as she starts off great and becomes superhuman, this does not reflect reality. Whereas Enola in this film trains, she constantly strives to better herself and that can be seen throughout the film, she is rootable and believable as a result.

I found Henry Cavil to be a bit bland as Sherlock, they could have given him more to do, as is he is basically just a Victorian version of Geralt from The Witcher. That said his interactions with Sam Claflin’s Mycroft are perfect and the two play off each other well and are always a pleasure to watch.

Overall, a terrific start to a series and proof that Millie Bobby Brown is more than just the girl from Stranger Things.

Pros.

Female empowerment done right

Millie Bobby Brown

Sherlock and Mycroft

The mystery

Cons.

Some of the feminist talking points are a little on the nose

The romance is quite weak

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

How To Build A Girl: The Teenage Condition

How To Build A Girl is a comedy film directed by Coky Giedroyc; based on the semi-autobiographical novel by Catlin Moran. The plot sees Nerdy shy girl Johanna Morrigan (Beanie Feldstein), transform herself into a badass rock reviewer in an effort to escape her hometown and have it all.

I have to say I enjoyed this one more than I thought I was going to; I went in with pretty average expectations as I didn’t know what it was about, Feldstein drew me to it. I recently rewatched Book Smart and thought Feldstein was the highlight of that film. I also enjoyed her small part on the What We Do In The Shadows TV series, so I decided to give his ago and it was a surprisingly sweet, charming film.

Firstly, I want to say Feldstein was terrific I completely bought her performance and I thought she captured the idea of a girl wanting to escape her circumstance, but then not knowing what to do once she had very well. She sold the inner conflict. Also I thought for an American her accent was quite good, quite convincing. Yes, it might have been a bit broad and there might have been times when she sounded as though she was from Liverpool rather than Wolverhampton, but I still thought it was a valiant effort.

Secondly, I thought Alfie Allen was a triumph as John Kite Johanna’s significantly older love interest. The character is supposed to be a deeply tragic one and I think Allen portrays that really well, I think he really shines in the films dramatic scenes. I thought the relationship between them was done just right, with them ending as friends; no icky age troubling romance.

Overall, I thought this film felt very human, it felt very real. By that I mean nothing outlandish happened, you bought that these characters could easily be real people, maybe you could even relate. I think this film is very good and something you should defiantly check out as it proves what a talent on the rise Beanie Feldstein is.

Pros.

Beanie Feldstein.

Alfie Allen.

It was very relatable.

The side characters particularly Paddy Constantine were superb.

Cons.

A little cliché at times.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Red Dragon: Replacing Clarice Again

Red Dragon is a crime thriller film directed by Brett Ratner; serving as a prequel of sorts to the Hannibal films. Obviously, Ratner is a very troubling person for a lot of reasons, but I will try to look past that for the purposes of this review. The plot this time around focuses on the man who caught Hannibal Lecture (Anthony Hopkins), Will Graham (Edward Norton). Once again, an FBI agent needs Hannibal’s help to catch the latest twisted serial killer; they really need to start paying him to consult.

I would rank the Hannibal films I have seen so far in this order, descending in quality, Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal, Red Dragon. I don’t by any means think this is a bad film, far from it in fact, I just think it can’t hope to compete with the others. The relationship between Norton’s and Hopkins’ characters is interesting, but it is no will they Clarice and Hannibal; though I did enjoy that little tease at the end.

My thoughts on the film’s villain The Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes), are the complete counter to what they were when I reviewed Hannibal. I think unlike in that film, where Gary Oldman’s character was pushed to the side in favour of Hannibal, this time it is the other way around. For a Hannibal Lecture film we get surprisingly not a lot of him, Fiennes is definitely the main focus. Hopkins gives his all when he is onscreen, which is commendable as always.

The balancing act between Hannibal and whatever serial killer him and his FBI associate are trying to catch is always the crucial thing with these films and it goes both ways, neither good, with the only film in the series to get the balance right being The Silence Of The Lambs, but that is a hard film to follow.

Overall, it is still good, just not as good than the film that proceeded it.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Hannibal: A Maddening Romance

Hannibal is a crime thriller film directed Ridley Scott. The plot follows Hannibal Lecture (Anthony Hopkins), as he lives as a freeman in exile, keeping close tabs on special agent Clarise Starling (Julianne Moore), who has fallen on hard times and become disgraced. As forces rise to bring the two back together again, Lecture’s thirst for blood leads him to come back out of retirement.

Firstly, if you expect me to believe Hollywood that Jodie Foster aged into Julianne Moore then you expect too much. If they had created a new character it would work better, but clearly, they wanted to carry on the Lecture/Starling relationship from the first film; and Foster wasn’t game. That I can understand, as the relationship between the two is the key piece of these films.

Moore for the most part is terrific, I prefer Foster’s performance, but Moore is giving it her all here. She has great chemistry with Anthony Hopkins and has almost a sexual tension with him whenever the two of them are on screen together; adding another twisted angle to their dynamic.

On the casting front, I feel Gary Oldman was wasted as Lecture’s only surviving victim Mason Verger. He brings a presence, but he does very little and has very little screen time. I understand why from a plot perspective his character is needed, but in every other aspect he feels unnecessary, as he fades into the background with Moore and Hopkins taking centre stage. The same can be said of Ray Liotta.

Overall, this is still a mostly good film, it has a few issues that are more noticeable when compared to the near excellent first film, however few films could live up to that. A slightly disappointing sequel, that suffers for the lack of Foster.

Pros.

Anthony Hopkins is still great.

The Clarice/ Lecture relationship is fantastic.

This feels like an ending.

It feels like a natural sequel.

Cons.

Oldman and Liotta are wasted and feel unnecessary.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Nerve: I Dare You To Not Watch This Film

Nerve is a social media themed adventure film directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman. The plot sees Vee (Emma Roberts), a shy quiet girl, take a more active role in her life by playing a social media craze; said craze sees the player being dared to do things by the watchers for various sums of cash, as you can imagine things quickly get out of control.

This is one of the vapidest, lame, needless films I have ever seen. Right from the beginning you get a sense that this film thinks it is great; not only great, but also deep and that it has something meaningful to say about our social media society. It does not. The ham-fisted messages and taking points that this film regurgitate are the same sort of things that any child could tell you, or that you might see written on the Facebook page of your elderly family member who is deeply out of touch with the ‘youth’.

I am almost certain that this film was written by people who don’t understand how teens interact. The main group of teens the film follows behave nothing like any teen I have ever met and are just a collection of out of touch stereotypes, that are also strangely inconsistent. As I was writing this review, I found out that this garbage fire was based on a book, this film proves that not ever teen novel needs an adaption Hollywood if you’re reading.

Roberts and Dave Franco, that plays her beefy onscreen love interest, are just passable enough to not be called out for accepting the role for a cheap pay day, however in the way of charm and charisma they are devoid of anything resembling either and both are the definition the term blackhole of charisma. These sorts of performances are the reason why the Razzies were invented.

Overall, this film feels incredibly out of touch, the characters range from forgettable to hate inducing, this is an hour and a half of your life you will not get back, so please don’t waste your time.

Pros.

The concept is interesting enough, for about 10 minutes.

Cons.

It is boring.

It is repetitive.

All the performances are terrible, the actors should be ashamed.

It is the most out of touch film I have seen in recent memory.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

Gretel And Hansel: The Most Polarising Film Of 2020

Gretel and Hansel is a dark fantasy horror film directed by Oz Perkins. It serves as a darker, more in line with the original tale, version of the Brother Grimm’s Hansel and Gretel. The version of the story that this film explores focuses more on a wider surrounding evil, as well as Gretel (Sophia Lillis), coming into her own both as a woman and a witch.

I have mixed feelings about this film, there are some things it does really well, but there are also a lot of things it does wrong. It seems to be proving divisive amongst people online, as such I find it hard to recommend this film, but I also wouldn’t say don’t watch it.

Firstly the good. The film has a beautifully unique visual style, which is both incredibly from a technical point of view and also horrifying and striking. All of the unsettlingly good aspects of this film come from this. Also, the oppressive atmosphere of the film leads it to have some great scares especially late in the game.

However, therein lies the problem with this film. Many criticise the likes of Aster and Eggers for having slow burning horror films, that some would describe as ‘boring’, if you’re one of those people don’t watch this! This film makes Midsommar look snappy and make the Witch look like a romp; I love both of those films by the way. This film is hard to get through, it is slow, and a lot of its scenes drag out, however, unlike other films that unintentionally do this because they are poorly written/paced this film seems to be doing it deliberately.

If you stick with it until the end, you’re given an ending that much like everything else in this film proves polarising. The ending sees Gretel send Hansel (Samuel Leakey), off so she can start her life as a witch, which makes you question her morals, but this idea of others, mainly men, standing in a young woman’s way and needing to be removed is a central tenant of the film.

Lillis’ performance here, much like it was in the recent IT films is passable, but in no way impressive. I found she didn’t bring much to the role and was often out acted, it makes me question why she got the role when there are lots of other arguably, more talented young actors out there.

Overall, this isn’t a good film, this isn’t a bad film, this isn’t an average film, it is simply an incredibly, incredibly niche film.

Pros.

The horror.

The visuals.

The Witch.

Cons.

It is very hard to watch; it seems to want you to give up.

It is not going to be to many people’s taste.

Sophia Lillis is bland.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke