When The Wind Blows: The End Of The World

When The Wind Blows is a British animated disaster film directed by Jimmy Murakami. The plot of the film revolves around an old married couple James and Hilda (John Mills and Peggy Ashcroft), who are trying to survive a nuclear war by building a bomb shelter in their front room. The film is incredibly dark and has themes of death, disease and hopelessness.

I had to watch this film for one of my University classes, so I didn’t really go in with much expectation, but I have to say this is a hauntingly beautiful film in many ways and it far exceeded my expectations.

The art design for this film is unlike anything I have ever seen before. It switches between different styles of animation quite often with each bringing a significantly different feel. From an artistic viewpoint, colour is used very specifically in this film for a variety of reasons, to show loss and devastation as well as to show hope. This colour symbolism is very on the nose, but it is that way by design, this film knows what it is and knows what its message is, and it wants to be very clear about it. When The Wind Blow is an anti-war film through and through.

This film is from the director of beloved Christmas hit The Snowman, but this is very unlike his previous work. Despite having a low age rating, this film is definitely not suited for kids to watch, it is disturbing and traumatic, but in reality, that is how nuclear war would be. The film ends and if you don’t want spoilers skip ahead, with both of the main characters dying of radiation poisoning, this is incredibly sad, but realistic. This film is almost educational as it shows the effects a nuclear war would have on people as both character get sicker and sicker across the film, it also encourages people to be critical free thinkers and question what they are told: because ultimately a big part of the film is that James believed every word the government said to him and that is what killed him.

Overall, this film won’t be for everyone, it is upsetting and depressing, but it is also important to see because it has a lot to say about war, about society and for that I will say it is a must see!

Pros.

The message.

The music.

The animation.

The ending.

Cons

It is incredibly bleak.

4/5

Justice League Dark: The Mystical Side Of DC

Justice League Dark is an animated science fantasy superhero film. The plot revolves around a team of DC Superheroes, the more mystical ones, who have to investigate a pattern of strange behavior that has turned fatal. The Justice League themselves can’t understand the problem, so it is down to Batman (Jason O’Mara), and his strange collection of allies to save the day.

*Justice League Dark is one of my favourite DC comics, I have read many runs of the team over the years, so when I heard about this project, I knew I had to check it out. I was disappointed, this was an incredibly average film, nothing more, nothing less.

I will admit it was nice to see the team of Constantine (Matt Ryan), Zatanna (Camilla Luddington), and Deadman (Nicholas Turturro), get together; furthermore, it was nice to see Matt Ryan return to play Constantine, he is fairly synonymous with the character to me. However, my issue was the overall story just felt flat. The best issues of the comic have strong horror elements, but I didn’t get that here, other than the shades and a few other things it was mainly without horror.

What’s more though I liked Constantine I felt that a lot of the other characters were short-changed so that he could have more screen time. An example of this would be Swamp Thing (Roger Cross), who has been a major part of the team before in the comics, here only gets a few lines. Worst of all after he gets defeated, he just goes away and we don’t see him again, which feels like a big unresolved plot thread.

As I said before, this film is everything I would expect from a Justice League Dark film, a group of the more mystical DC heroes fighting against a supernatural opponent, but that isn’t enough to sustain my interest across the film’s runtime, I wanted more. More depth to the characters, more scope to the narrative, I don’t know exactly what but, something that felt better than bog standard.

Overall, this film fell short my expectations, it didn’t wow me in anyway, in fact it annoyed me a lot of the time. I wish they had put more time and energy into the characters and the story overall, if they had this might have been something special.

Pros.

Matt Ryan.

It is nice to see all of the characters team up.

A solid foundation.

Cons.

Other than Constantine and Zatanna very weak characters.

How they handled Swamp Thing.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Bling Ring: Crime, Fashion And Celebrity

The Bling Ring is a satirical crime film, written directed and produced by Sofia Coppola. The film tells the tale of the real-life Bling Ring a group of teenagers who robbed the homes of famous Hollywood celebrities when they were out of town, their victims included Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan and Orlando Bloom.

I have to say for years I had no interest in this film, but when someone told me recently that it was directed by Sofia Coppola, the person behind Lost In Translation and The Beguiled, I decided to give it a go. To describe this film in a sentence, it is the very definition of style over substance. I understand that might have been an intentional choice on the part of the director, but it works to the film’s detriment.

The cinematography and editing of the film of the film is all very flashy and looks pretty, but overall it feels incredibly dated. There is a slow-motion sequence of the gang walking down the street to the song Power by Kayne West and it feels incredibly 2013. However, some of the film’s elements like the random inclusion of interviews here and there do a lot to breakup the film and keep it engaging.

The story itself is interesting, we are invited into the world of these selfish self-absorbed teenagers who think there is nothing more important than being rich and famous, they are the epitome of the words vapid and vain. We root against these characters and want to see them fail, though the film makes you think is it really the characters fault or is it the culture they have been raised in?

The social commentary elements add some depth to this film, but not as much as you would like. It still feels very shallow.

The cast is fine and serviceable, but they are nothing special. The main characters, I can’t remember their names, are entirely eclipsed by Emma Watson’s character who is a supporting character at best. Watson is basically playing herself, if a slightly bad version, because as I often say she can’t act. Her character is very hateable, and the ending really hits that home.

Overall, this film feels like it has ideas of grandeur, of being an art house film that has something to say about society, but instead it feels hollow and lacking, which is a shame as this film had potential.

Pros.

Interesting story.

Social commentary.

Sofia’s style.

Cons.

Emma Watson can’t act.

It feels dated.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Colour Out Of Space: Nicolas Cage And H.P Lovecraft, Terror And Mania

Colour Out Of Space is a horror film directed by Richard Stanley. It is an adaption of the H.P Lovecraft story of the same name and marks the start of a Lovecraft trilogy that Stanley wants to direct. The plot follows a family of farmers whose life starts to take a sinister turn when a meteor crashes in their front garden; said meteor and the things that come out of it interfere with time and space and create monstrosities.

This film is everything you would expect from a Lovecraft horror film, monsters from a hellish other plane, grotesque mutated humans that make your skin crawl and a deep and unrelenting sense of existential dread and terror. Straight from the beginning when we are introduced to Lavinia (Madeleine Arthur), we see the mystical elements that make up this story and the wider Lovecraft universe.

Adding to this sense of madness Nicholas Cage plays Nathan, Lavinia’s father, he is just a humble farmer and family man. As the film progress we see Nathan become more and more insane as his life slowly falls apart and he is forced to kill his Alpacas and his Wife and Son. Cage as we all know is fantastic when it comes to playing manic characters, he has great energy and is able to flip out on a dime. Cage’s performance in this film is just as insane as we would expect; his casting was a touch of genius.

The ending of this film is also great as it ends with this sense of calm, but also heavily implied ideas of post-apocalypse. It has a looming sense of hopelessness that I find perfectly embodies the Lovecraftian spirit.

My only issue with the film is that they could have spent more time showing us the other plane that would have been really cool, the little taster we get is great, but I would like more. Furthermore, the wider Gardner family outside of the two I have already mentioned are all fairly one note and feel paper thin; I would have liked them to have more to do.

Overall, this is a perfect Lovecraftian horror film, it has everything you would want it and boasts a fantastic Nicolas cage performance, it is slightly let down by some of the less developed characters, but it is a hell of a start to a trilogy. Overall, if you like Lovecraft, Nicolas Cage or just horror in general then this is a must see!

Pros.

A near perfect Lovecraft adaption.

A great ending.

Nicolas Cage.

The unrelenting horror.

Cons.

Slightly underdeveloped in parts.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Dracula: How To Destroy Potential In One Episode

Dracula is a three-part horror TV series developed by Sherlock creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. The story is yet another retelling of Bram Stoker’s seminal novel Dracula this time with a twist. This time around the Harker family take up a new position in the narrative, and the struggle between Dracula and Van Helsing is shown to exist across multiple lifetimes and members of the Van Helsing family.

This series left a bitter taste in my mouth. I love Dracula and I’ve read the book several times and consumed most media related to it and my issue with this iteration of the story wasn’t the changes or the fresh take, but how they chose to end it. That third episode was woeful, and that seems to be near universally accepted. Not only do they have Lucy Westenra, and the rest of the characters as 20 something club goers, which is painful to see, and informs me that Moffat and Gatiss haven’t ever actually talked to a young person in their lives. It is beyond cringey. Worse so, they decide to have Van Helsing and Dracula die together almost as lovers, which is not only a slap to the face, but also a kick in the balls.

It is such a shame that the third episode is as bad as it is, as the other two episodes were nothing sort of terrific. I liked the changes to the established story in the first few episodes as they made sense, and the direction the story took was fresh and interesting. I liked most of the stuff they were putting down, it had just the right amount of good horror mixed in as well. What’s more the new Dracula Claes Bang is magnificent; he is my favourite on-screen iteration of the character so far. He plays the character with just enough humour to be likeable and just enough menace that you never want to let your guard down. I would love to see more of his interpretation of the character, but sadly we will never get that.

Overall, the first two episodes of this show had it set to be something special, but the horrific, cringey mess that was the third episode not only shot the series in the foot, but also put a stake through its heart and set it on fire. The first two episodes would have been 5/5, but that third episode ruins it all.

Pros.

Claes Bang Is Great.

The First Two Episodes Are Magnificent.

Some Of The Changes Work.

Cons.

The Cringe Inducing, Lore Destroying, Baffling Third Episode.

The Idea Of Having Dracula and Van Helsing Romantically Linked.

3/5 and that’s being generous.

Reviewed By Luke

The Witcher: A New Fantasy King Rises

The Witcher is a fantasy drama series based on the novels by Andrzej Sapkowski. The plot of the series revolves around Geralt of Rivia (Henry Cavill), a Witcher, a mutant who hunts monsters. Over the course of the series we see Geralt try to escape destiny and his responsibility towards Princess Cirilla (Freya Allan), a child whose fate is tied to Geralt’s through the law of surprise. The series builds to these two characters meeting.

I have to say before I get into this review, I am a huge Witcher fan, I love the games and the books. So, I had been eagerly awaiting this series for quite some time. This series does play homage to both of these, that have come before, taking elements from both. I would say it probably leans more towards the books in terms of faithfulness.

When I first saw him on screen, I wasn’t quite sure how I felt about Cavill as Geralt, but he did grow on me overtime. I think Cavill did a good job as the character and I can’t wait to see where he takes the character in the next season. I think he especially did a good job with the voice; he sounds just like the voice actor from the game; if you close your eyes and listen you will see what I mean.

The breakout star of the series for me is Anya Chalotra as Yennefer, who did a great job. Yennefer is the love of Geralt’s life, and their relationship is a huge part of the series. I think the writing of her character was quite weak in the first few episodes, but when she becomes a full-fledged Mage in about episode 2 or 3, she becomes far more engaging.

The world of this show is fantastic it is deep and rich, it is easily one of the best fantasy worlds ever brought to the small screen. The story is told in 3 separate sequences that all take place outside of one another. Geralt has one, Ciri has one and Yennefer has one, they all come together in episode 6, but before that it can be a bit confusing to figure out what is happening and when; on second watch it all makes a lot more sense.

Overall, this is one of Netflix’s best new shows and can easily fill the void left behind by things like Game Of Thrones. If you’re a fan of the games or the books or just fantasy in general, you will love this series and it is definitely one to watch!

Ps. The fight sequences are a thing of beauty.

Pros.

A Solid Lead.

A Rich Developed World.

Multi Layered Characters.

A Loving Homage.

Anya Chalotra Is The Breakout Star.

Cons.

The Out Of Sequence Story Telling Can Be Confusing.

4.5/5

Reviewed By Luke

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