The Exorcist is a 1973, American horror film, revolving around the possession of Regan MacNeil; and the priests that try and save her soul. Though this premise seems like nothing new by today’s standards where we watch someone get possessed on the big screen, every other week, it was incredibly novel for its time. Upon release, it went to war with rating boards, who had never seen something, as they put it, “so obscene”, and there were reports of the film being so scary it was making people have fits in the cinema. So much so that the British government banned the film outright. Watching the film today and comparing it to the sort of things we might see in a 2019 horror film, the film looks incredibly tame and, it is hard to understand what upset censors so much; however it did push things in horror cinema upon release.
The Exorcist will always be one of the best horror films of all time and a must-watch: because despite almost being 50 years old the film is still just as chilling as when it first came out. The film puts the atmosphere and tension at the forefront, and we see a slow build in the demonic activity until it reaches vomiting green slime level. This is much appreciated as it leads the following actions to appear far more shocking by comparison, but also further enforces just how horrific the ordeal is for little Regan.
The practical effects work is also something to be revered, as some of the most iconic shots in all of horror cinema come from this film and they were all practical, the head-spinning scene is proof of my point.
The plot of the film never lets up, never giving you a minute to catch your breath, even at the end, the twists and turns keep coming; keeping you guessing even after the credits roll.
The acting in this film is the stuff of legend, and so many movies have tried to harness or harken back to it in more recent year, with Linda Blair selling the possession of Regan so well that you start to believe it. Max Von Sydow, plays the tired old priest, who is beginning to lose his faith brought out to fight the incarnation of evil, to perfection, quickly making him a horror icon.
Lastly, the dream sequences at the start of the film that mark the beginning of Regan’s possession, are so hauntingly beautiful, the cinematography for these scenes has almost a dreamlike air to it; which really help to give them their flavour and set them apart from the rest of the film.
The later sequels would go on to tarnish the film’s legacy to a degree, but nothing can, or ever will change that fact that this is one of the most impactful, inspiring, captivating horror films of all time. That is simply a fact.
Ps. The Exorcist TV show was pretty good as well.
5/5
Reviewed by Luke
Category: Film Review
Creature Design and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
Across all of Horror Cinema, there have been a collection of creatures that have not only captured the imagination but, also terrified. These creatures have all been practical, not CGI. When you think of monsters like The Creeper from Jeepers Creepers, their looks sticks out because of how well designed and realistic it is. Creature design and attention to detail can mean the difference between a terrifying horror movie villain and a joke. It’s on that note I talk about the subject of today’s review Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is a horror film; based on the children’s books of the same name. The plot of the film revolves around a group of teenagers that find a book in an abandoned house, the curious leader of the group Stella, (Zoe Colletti), decides to take the book home; a decision she will regret forever. Once she takes it home and looks through it, stories start to appear on their own; targeting her and her friends.
Going into this film, I was expecting something akin to the Goosebumps film of a few years ago; with the stories coming to life and running amuck; how wrong I was. The stories that come to life feel personal and precisely tailored to each character, as the book plays off each one of their fears, whereas, in the other film, it was merely random. The scares work well and, though there are a few jump scares peppered throughout, there is also a keen scene of atmosphere and dread which permeates the film. However, the most praiseworthy aspect of the film’s horror is by far the creature design. Now there are several creatures in this film, as it is broken down in a collection of short stories, with a broader narrative to bind them all. Each separate creature is unique, and it is plain to see how much care has been put into them down to the smallest detail. This is no doubt the influence of producer Guillermo del Toro, who is known for his love of practical monsters. I believe these villains are the films greatest strength and help it to stand apart from the 1000 other generic horror films with forgettable monsters and demons.
The characters, unlike the monsters, are all rather one-note, being dull and nonmemorable. The group of kids never really graduate from the teenage outcast stereotype and, are more caricatures; you won’t remember who any of the characters are 5 seconds after the film ends and, you won’t remember their names during it. That said, the film is on the whole incredibly well done and impressive, even the low age rating doesn’t take away from the film, as it does in some cases, the horror and the deaths are all well-executed and chilling without the need for excessive gore, and I think that says a lot to the film’s credit.
Overall this was a horror film where you can tell the people making it care, the creature design speaks to that, it masters the subtle art of scares so entirely that you will be thinking of the film’s monsters long after you’ve gone home, shame the same can’t be said for the characters; this may well be the horror hit of the summer, and I for one can’t wait for more scary stories to tell in the dark,
4.5/5
Reviewed by Luke
Angry Birds 2 and the Animation Stigma
Animated films have been around for well over 50 years, and they first came to be to show the potential of Cinema, to be able to show what is effectively art on the big screen. When these films first came out they were intended to have mass appeal to be viewed and enjoyed by everyone, but somewhere over the years animated films became just for children; with everyone who is not a child and likes them being made to feel some shame about it. How did it get to be this way? Well, probably because early cartoons and animated features were aimed at more mature audiences and had humour and themes that adults would respond to and enjoy, an excellent example of this would be the Flintstones. However, as this new medium began to grow companies and executives, began to think about merchandise. Adults weren’t buying merchandise, or at least not to the same scale kids would in the decades later, so companies started to release new animated films and cartoons that would appeal to kids, viewing them as an untapped market. This brought the era of “Saturday Morning Cartoons”, and though in more recent times there has been a rise in adult animation again with the likes of South Park and Rick and Morty, animation is still seen as something mainly aimed at kids; all because of that one fateful shift. This is a massive shame because it means a lot of people miss out on some of the best stories and films because they think they’re too old for them; which is entirely untrue. Everyone can enjoy animated movies and to think differently is not only dumb but, also funding the trend of live-action remakes I have previously mentioned. That brings me to today’s subject, Angry Birds 2. I fell victim to the preconceived notion of what animated films were when I went to see this; I was proven to be a fool, and henceforth will go and see animated films with an open mind.
Angry Birds 2, is an animated adventure comedy, based on the mobile game of the same name. In this instalment, the heroic Birds are forced to team up with their Piggie rivals when an even more significant threat appears which could spell the end for both civilizations. I thought the animation was beautiful, with each character having a clear and distinct look. The voice cast all worked well too; they didn’t bring me out of the film to think ‘oh that’s Danny McBride’, which helped me to get lost in the world far more quickly. The themes of the film while not new, the fear of being forgotten, or alone, resonated with me and I thought Red’s, (Jason Sudeikis), character arc over the film was well done and added something to the character. With the over characters adding nicely here and there. For me, the real highlight of the film was the side story of the Hatchlings, who lost one of their member’s little sisters and so had to go through a series of wacky adventures to try and get them back, each more whimsical and unbelievable than the last. I believe it is these sequences that capture the heart of the film, and I would gladly watch a whole film just focusing on the Hatchlings and their adventures.
To Conclude, animation is something that can and should be enjoyed by people of all ages, as these tales have something to offer us all; and Angry Birds 2 proves that and shows how great and touching a film can be.
4/5
Reviewed by Luke
Dora and the Lost City of Gold
Dora and the Lost City of Gold is a family action and adventure film based, of the Dora the Explorer kids TV program. The plot revolves around Dora, (Isabela Moner), going to the city after her parents go away on an expedition. Once there she meets her cousin Diego, (Jeff Walhberg), who she has not seen in 10 years and tries to adapt to high school; then through a strange series of events ends up being shipped back to the jungle to try and track down the titular Lost City of Gold, Diego and plucky group of friends in toe. Now before I get into it, the main reasons I wanted to see this film was that it looked hilariously bad and, because it hit me with a lot of nostalgia from my childhood. I wasn’t disappointed the film overall is very funny, there are laughs that both children and adults will find amusing, these range from fart jokes as they walk through quicksand, to self-referential jokes about the nature of the show, mainly Dora talking to the camera and saying, “now you say”. The comedy works greatly as Moner plays it mostly straight, seemingly unaware that what she is doing is weird, or odd.
Furthermore, her father played by Micheal Pena is also a standout of the film making for some hilarious scenes. To continue on the thread of funny scenes, I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about the drug-induced hallucination scene. Said scene takes place towards the film’s third act, as the gang are running through a field of flowers that all release spores, these spores make the characters view each other and the world around them, in the same art style as the TV show, this scene is a masterstroke, as it shows audiences what they know and love and was easily my favourite of the whole film. This film doesn’t just appeal to children there is also a lot for adults to like especially the high school sequences which have a lot of culture clash humour, which is a welcome twist on the show. The animated characters of Boots and Swiper easily steal the show, Swiper is funny and likeable while also being threatening and believable as the villain. Benicio Del Toro’s captures the character perfectly he’s memorable as the character, and I would like to see him reprise the role in further films. Danny Trejo voices Boots Dora’s pet monkey which she claims can talk and in one hilarious scene he does, and Trejo milks it for all its worth; being one of the films best scenes. The adventure of the film is rather standard it never really does anything that any other movie hasn’t done before, so if you’re going for novelty or originality, this may not be the film for you.
Overall, Dora and the Lost City of Gold might not be anything new, in terms of adventure films, but it is fun wholesome fun for the whole family, it captures the spirit of the show and adds something new to it with a self-referential take. There is a lot to love about this film, and it is one that both parents and kids can enjoy together.
4/5
Luke
The Lion King and Disney’s Live Action Craze.
Remakes, the word probably causes some form of emotional response in you, whether its optimism at seeing a film done again or a tired cynicism and disbelief in Hollywood’s lack of new ideas. Over the last two decades, we have seen remakes of everything from The Evil Dead to Ghostbusters. Some add to the original in some meaningful way while others are just a transparent cash grab, it is in the latter category that we find the subject of today; Disney’s The Lion King. Disney has been on a quest to seemingly remakes as many of their classic animated films as quickly as they can, with 2019 having not only the Lion King but, also Alladin and Dumbo. The results are inconsistent; Dumbo was a bland mess of a film, while Alladin was surprisingly good and provided something new on the original animated film, The Lion King follows in the footstep of Dumbo. The 90’s Lion King was an undeniable classic, and no one seems to know this more than Disney. The 2019 live-action Lion King, while technically impressive, is also shot for shot the same as the original down to some of the lines of dialogue. They add nothing new; except for one or two new songs. This is not wholly a bad thing as it is nice to hear all the old songs again and see all the old characters, but it does make you question why this film was made as it does not justify its existence, which is the primary thing a remake needs to do. The only achievement of the Lion King remake is it shows the heightened form of near hyper-realistic CGI. When you realise how much of this film is CGI, you understand just how impressive it is. A justification of the remake would be to lure in new audiences and make a new version for the younger generation, and that would be an excellent reason for this film to exist if there was anything wrong with the original, but there isn’t. While this does work as dumb summer blockbuster fun, the same result could be achieved by having a re-released the original.
In many ways, this film is the inferior of the two, the cast highlights this; the new voice cast composing of the likes of Beyonce, and Donald Glover is just not memorable and a lot of the big-name stars who are in the film almost sound like they aren’t trying, perhaps they just couldn’t turn down that sweet Disney paycheck. This makes me worry about Disney’s upcoming live-action films like Mulan; hopefully, these films will follow after this years Alladin and add something to the original movie, otherwise, these films are going to start rubbing people the wrong way, and people will stop being interesting in them. The Lion King is by no means a bad film, nor is it a good film, it is a film that has no reason to exist. If you want to watch a film that captures all the same notes as the first Lion King, watch the classic animated film. Ultimately remakes aren’t going anywhere, in the end, Hollywood will remake all of our favourite films if there is still money in it for them. Hopefully, we can get more films like the Evil Dead, where the creative team want to add something to the property rather than do it for money’s sake.
5/5 (For the Original)
Luke
Annabelle Comes Home and the over-saturation of the Conjuring Universe.
Annabelle comes home is the latest film in The Conjuring Universe and the third in the Annabelle series; about the killer doll of the same name. This newest entry answers the question of what happens after series heroes The Warrens take Annabelle home for the first time. That said Ed and Lorraine Warren, (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) are mostly absent for the entirety of this film with it instead focus on the rag-tag group of the Warren’s daughter Judy, her babysitter Mary Ellen and her friend Daniela as they battle Annabelle and a series of spooks and demons. Therein lies the problem with this film; it feels like a Conjuring 2.5 that no one wanted. For those who aren’t intimately familiar with the Conjuring series the first Annabelle film setup what she can do and her place within the universe after being introduced all the way back in the original Conjuring, and then the second Annabelle film established her creation and backstory. In short, this third film served no purpose, the end of the original Conjuring reveals the dolls addition to the Warrens collection, so in terms of broader narrative this film added very little new. Whats-more this film makes it painfully apparent that Warner Brothers are testing the water to see what new spin-offs they can make, the Bride? The Ferry Man? That suit of samurai amour? To this end it the film almost feels cheap with it just being used as a test case.
Furthermore, I found the inclusion of the Warren’s annoying as I and many others would have just preferred the Conjuring 3; where they would have something interesting to do, instead of just being around to plan their kids birthday party. Moreover, and this is a problem not only with this film but the wider Conjuring Universe, the scares have become that formulaic that they are no longer scary if you have seen one movie you have seen them all. The over-reliance on jump scares and audio ques is painfully apparent, and the audience is noticing; this film has been one of the worst performers of the whole CU. My criticisms are coming from a place of love as I genuinely do have a great fondness for these series, I feel burnt out, disappointed, disenchanted with what once was great. This latest entry while not a bad film by any means is a beacon of everything I’m saying and is incredibly average. The cast is a collection of stereotypes and cliches, with one having a dead parent who she feels responsible for; haven’t we all heard that one before. The only member of the cast who makes you feel anything is horror veteran Mckenna Grace, who plays Judy as vulnerable and in need of some friends. What makes her character so good is the reason she is alone is that all of the other kids know what her parents do and fear her for it, making for an interesting to think about the dynamic between parent and child; with a sweet moment in the end. Ultimately this film is more like a feature-length episode of Goosebumps, having lost all the edge that made the franchise so popular. While I remain hopeful for the Conjuring 3, this film shows a worrying trend in the Conjuring movies, reaping the lack of scares that comes with using the same jump scares over and over again. It’s watchable if not memorable.
2.5/5
Luke
The Nun
The Nun is the latest film in the Conjuring Universe, fleshing out the character of Valak, the Nun, who first appeared in the Conjuring 2.
The plot of the film is a Valak origin story, set in a Romanian convent during the 1950’s. Following Sister Irene, (Taissa Farmiga), Father Burke, (Demian Bichir), and Frenchie, (Jonas Bloquet), as they investigate a suicide at the convent; which is much more than it appears.
The Nun is not a horror film at least I didn’t think it was, yes it does have jump scares, more on that later, but on the whole, it felt akin to a Gothic adventure film, not too far from the likes of Crimson Peak. The reason for this is the horror the film presents.
The jump scares, though well done, are predictable, so the film is left to rely on its atmosphere; which is not constantly menacing, like many other horror films are, instead it is gothic in it’s purest form. The non-horror nature of this film is a hard thing to describe; the closest parallel I can draw is to the Hugh Jackman staring Van Helsing film, yes there are horror elements, but it is an adventure film first and foremost.
Why the film chose to structure itself like this is anyone’s guess, but evidence for it comes from the protagonist’s quest to find the blood of Jesus, even some of the shots in the film are more in line with the Brother Grimm as opposed to something like Insidious.
That said, I liked the atmosphere and, the film itself.
The actors themselves do their best with the material they have, Farmiga, in particular, is very good. However, despite this, they are all underdeveloped, outside of the role they play in the narrative; which is a shame as they could have been so much more. Frenchie, in particular, proves my earlier point, he is the comedy relief of the film. Without him, the film would be a lot darker, a lot more like a traditional horror film, but his oneliners and, demon zombie killing shotgun prowess make the tone of the film similar to something like last year’s the Mummy, neither wholly action or horror.
To conclude if you like jump scares this film won’t let you down. However, if you like well-crafted horror films it will. With a tone similar to that of the Dark Universe this film is more gothic action adventure than horror. A strange film in many ways, but crucially not a bad one.
3/5
Reviewed by Luke.
American Animals
American Animals follows a group of dissatisfied young men as they plan out and execute an art heist– inspired at least in part by actual events. Featuring Evan Peters, (Warren), Barry Keoghan, (Spencer), Blake Jenner, (Chas) and Jared Abrahamson, (Eric), respectively, however, Peters is the standout star.
Peters has already proven time and again that he is amongst the best young actors in Hollywood– this is a testament to that. Peters is incredibly believable as Warren, a young man who wants his life to be more than it is, a man who is willing to go to great lengths for adventure and excitement; no matter the cost. Though throughout the film we witness Warren and the other characters become villains to an extent, but you can’t help but root for them.
The writing for the film is phenomenal, with scenes that stress both the humour and the tension of the film; a lesser film wouldn’t have been able to balance these elements. The emotional stakes are very well implemented if a little overdone at times, with them showing you the emotional cost not only of the victims but the criminals themselves.
More to the film’s praise the stylised editing works to strong effect, being not too dissimilar to something you would expect to see in an Edgar Wright film. What’s more the editing as a tool to show the differences in perspective between the people recounting the story is very interesting.
To conclude, what sets American Animals apart from other crime, heist films is it’s attention to character relationships and focus on the emotional impact actions have on the characters. Knowing nods to other genre greats like Reservoir Dogs make this an incredibly enjoyable ride. The blend of tension and comedy featured, maybe the films strongest pro. Very worthy of your time.
4/5
Reviewed by Luke
Searching
Searching follows a father after the disappearance of his daughter; as he frantically realises, that he didn’t know his daughter very well at all. The film plays on the themes of family and, the effect grief can have on the parent-child relationship. It does this through the lens of modern technology, having a similar layout to Unfriended; with social media messaging and live chats being pivotal.
However, unlike Unfriended were this all-digital format added to the overall film, here the opposite is true. The need for everything to be on a phone screen or webcam is limiting, sometimes frustratingly so; with it even becoming a detriment at times.
The writing for the film is solid throughout with twists and turns that you won’t see coming, is it on the level of something like Gone Girl? Well no but few things can be, but a lot is done to make the mystery intriguing.
Main protagonist David Kim, (John Cho), is believable but unlikeable, particularly in his early film relationship with Margot with it feeling awkward, but I suppose that is the point. He isn’t supposed to be likeable instead he is supposed to be the embodiment of the desperation, a man that has had his whole world taken from him and will do anything to get it back.
The character of Detective Vick, (Debra Messing), is superbly done, with her development meaningfully adding to the third act twist.
The film does suffer from pacing issue, many times I felt myself losing interest, these moments are few and far between, but are still present throughout.
Overall it is a solid thriller mystery, not one I would say rush out and see, however, the writing and, the strong performances stop it from being mediocre. Ultimately better than meh, but certainly not worthy of the Hitchcock comparisons.
3/5.
Reviewed by Luke.
Yardie
Yardie is a crime film focusing on Dennis “D” Campbell, (Aml Ameen), as he deals with his brother’s death and begins a quest to find those responsible; so far so generic. I wish I could say it gets better from there– it doesn’t. Yardie marks the direction debut of Idris Elba; this prospect made the hopeful for the film.
However, though the film itself is well-directed everything else is just bland, making this film a huge disappointment. Narratively the film is contrived with there being a plethora of redundant character choices. Namely shown when D has to leave Jamaica because he is about to start a gang war, how, is never really explained. The same applies to other parts of the film, such as when one of the rival gangsters kidnaps D’s daughter, only to then give her back; maybe 10 minutes later. Ultimately the narrative leaves you going, “wait what”, a lot more than it should.
Furthermore, from the trailers of Yardie, I believed there was at least an element of character study to the film, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. The characters are all incredibly underdeveloped, with there being nothing to set them apart from characters in any other crime film. Even the protagonist D is boring, easily replaceable and not so easily remembered.
The most egregious flaw of the film is that it has no edge, it plays it safe, perhaps too much, even being overly sentimental at times. I believe the film tries to use this sentimentality in place of actual emotional resonances which, if true, shows almost a misunderstanding of the genre.
Furthermore, the constant slip in accent that some of the characters have is laughable, but it is not meant to be.
To conclude, the problem with Yardie is just how boring and forgettable it is, though there are some small positives, Yardie is a film that you would turn off halfway through if you were watching it at home.
1/5
Reviewed by Luke










You must be logged in to post a comment.