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

A Long Way Down: An Anti-FeelGood Comedy

A Long Way Down is a comedy drama film directed by Pascal Chaumeil. The film is based on a novel of the same name by Nick Hornby. The plot follows four people who were all going to kill themselves on New Years Eve, but because of the arrival of the others didn’t. They then all agree to a life pact, an opposite suicide pact and agree to stay alive until Valentines Day. Through their shared pains and new-found friendships they learn to heal and find new reasons to live.

This is the sort of the film you would expect it to be, it is mushy and overly emotional, it ends with all of the characters happy and moved on from their respective issues and two of the character get together; incredibly predictably. That is my issue with this film, everything that you think will happen does. Anyone who has ever seen a similar film before could easily tell you exactly the twists and turns of this film before they even watch this. Formulaic is a word that easily describes this film.

Another thing that bothered me about this film is that considering it is a feel good, mushy film it is not all that happy. A lot of this film is the opposite of inspiring and uplifting, it is depressing. I get that the point is to show them as having nothing left to live for and then turn it around over the course of the film, but rather than do this the film feels bleak until the final 5 minutes and then you get a manic burst of happiness all at once.

Furthermore, Pierce Brosnan’s character is a peado, there is no way around it, the reason he wants to kill himself is because prior to the events of the film his character has an affair with a girl he thought was 25, but it turned out she was 15. We are told this from the off and are then expected to cheer for him and be glad he doesn’t kill himself, but you feel icky the whole time when you think about it. It feels like a needless inclusion for him to be a peado, he could have just had an affair that ruined his life, she didn’t need to be a child.

Overall, this is a feel-good film that isn’t particularly feel good, it wants you to cheer on a sex offender and it is incredibly predictable, so…….

Pros.

The cast is solid.

Cons.

It is depressing.

He is a peado.

It is predictable.

It is painfully average.

1/5

500 Days Of Summer: You Never Know What Is Around The Corner

500 Days Of Summer is a romantic comedy drama directed by Marc Webb. The plot see hopeless romantic Tom (Joseph Gordon Levitt), fall for Summer (Zoey Deschanel) a girl who believes true love doesn’t exist.

The film details the events the lead up to their relationship, their relationship and then what happens after they break up.

In many ways, this is an anti rom com, the two leads don’t end up together at the end of the film, the both end up in relationships with other people. However, that is the whole point of this film, it knows what a rom com is, and it goes against genre stereotypes in near every way to try and make something that is entirely different.

This is an incredibly nuanced film. It portrays love as it really is with all the highs and lows making the cut rather than portraying it in the idolised over the top ways a lot of romantic comedies do, which simply isn’t how real life is like; Bridget Jones wouldn’t exist in the real life.

Both Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zoey Deschanel are fantastic, they have great onscreen chemistry and are both easily charming and charismatic. They both add a lot to this film’s quirky sensibilities which really set it apart from other parts and makes it feel unique and special.

What’s more as a hopeless romantic myself I love the ending, just when it seems like all hope has been lost and that maybe fate and true love don’t exist the revelation comes that Summer was all part of fate’s plan for Tom and then the love of his life is just round the corner. This film borrows a lot from the logic of How I Met Your Mother.

Overall, this is a romantic comedy unlike anything else, both of the leads are great, and the ending is uplifting. Defiantly something to get you through the hard times.

Pros.

The ending.

The quirkiness.

The two leads.

The non-linear time structure.

Cons.

Misleading for people wanting to see a rom com as this isn’t that.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke