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

Chicken Run: Who Is Really Escaping Who

‘Chicken Run’ is a stop-motion animated comedy film, focusing on the efforts of a group of Chickens to escape the farm they live on before they get turned into pies. ‘Chicken Run’ is Aardman Animation’s first film as such, it set the benchmark for the studio.

Though many love this film, I think it is a weak start for the studio. I think though the film is serviceable and, not offputtingly bad, it pales in comparison to Aardman’s later works.

Stop-motion animation for me is hit or miss, sometimes in the case of things like ‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ it can work well and enhance the film overall, whereas in films like ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ it can be vile and off-putting. This film I would say is more like the latter than the former the stop-motion animation, for the most part, is good, much like the studios later work with Wallace and Gromit, but there is something off about the human characters; specifically their faces.

The two main human characters are Mr Tweedy (Tony Haygarth), and Mrs Tweedy (Miranda Richardson), they’re both serving the antagonist role; while they’re meant to be threatening, they’re not meant to be creepy. However, there is something about the stop-motion animation with these characters that gives them an unsettling look; there is something about their cold dead eyes and manic facial design that is deeply off-putting and, I can only assume that this was unintentional; as this is not a horror film.

However, the stop-motion animation of the chickens is fine, so at least that is a small mercy. My issue with the chickens is that I don’t find them likeable, they never connected with me, the humour that characters like Fowler (Benjamin Whitrow), provide does nothing for me at all, it doesn’t land.

A lot of the chicken characters are annoying stereotypes this is best shown in Babs, (Jane Horrocks), who is there to provide comedic relief but the whole joke is that she is dumb. Overall I found this to be a very charmless film. What’s more, the fact that they include Mel Gibson as an American Rooster called Rocky feels forced in as though having a big Hollywood name on the poster would sell more tickets. It feels like more of a Dreamworks decision rather than an Aardman Animation one.

Overall this film will do fine entertaining small children but, anything beyond that is a harder sell. The main issue with this film is that it lacks any kind of charm at all. At least Aardman Animations film’s after this improved.

Pros.
It Is Watchable.

Cons.
It Is Strangely Creepy.
The Humour Doesn’t Work.
The Characters Are Unlikable.
Mel Gibson Feels Out Of Place.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Paddington 2: Paddington Goes To Prison

‘Paddington 2’ is a live-action animated film and sequel to the 2014 Paddington film. The plot this time around sees Paddington (Ben Whishaw), be implicated in a crime, after a pop-up book of London, that Paddington was going to buy for this aunt’s birthday goes missing. This results in everyone’s favourite Peruvian bear going to prison and the Brown family having to try and prove his innocence.

‘Paddington 2’ is a very strange film to me, in many ways it is because I didn’t see the plot of this film coming. Not only was I not expecting to see Paddington as a jailbird this time around, but I also wasn’t expecting the shift in tone. Make no mistake this is still a happy family film, but there is definitely more of a sense of melancholy this time around; a sadness in the air. The reason why this moodier tone works is because of the first film; it made us care about Paddington as a character, perhaps more deeply than we first realised, as such when we see him lose the court trial and, go to prison it can’t help but break your heart.

The Villain of the film Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant), fixes my only issue with the first film, that being the villain was weak, Buchanan is a central part of the narrative throughout. Not only that but, he is much more threatening than Kidman’s villain from the first film, as he represents a real sense of danger to Paddington and his well being. Grant’s performance ranges from comedic and sympathetic, too loathsome and hateable, his Buchanan is an antagonist that you love to hate.

However, my issue with this film which I believe makes it worse than the first film, is that other than Paddington and Buchanan the rest of the cast are barely used. Whereas last time around each character had a moment to shine, without taking focus away from our hero, now these moments are few and far between; this is a shame as the series had amassed some real talent. What makes this issue more pronounced is the fact that while in prison in the film adds even more characters to its ensemble, which stretches the moments each character gets to shine even thinner.

Overall this is still a very good film and, the end of the film is very heartwarming and feel good. However, this is definitely the darker of the two films and also sadly the inferior. Still worth a watch.

Pros.
Paddington.
The Occasional Bits Of Humor.
Grant’s Villain.

Cons.
Over Crowded.
Wasted The Brown Family.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Paddington: AKA Marmalade, The Solution To All Of Life’s Problems

‘Paddington’ is a live-action animated comedy film based on the adventures of the iconic Peruvian bear. The plot this time around is an origin of sorts, in many ways a soft reboot of the franchise, it explains who Paddington (Ben Whishaw), is and details his first encounter with the Brown family.

‘Paddington Bear’ is a quintessentially British character, he has been a popular feature of media in our fair isles for well over 50 years as such he was bound to end up on the big screen sooner or, later. It pleases me to tell you that this is a fantastic reboot for the character reintroducing him to modern audiences, while still showing all the reasons he remains such a beloved character.

Paddington himself is handled in the same animated live-action way as something like Pikachu, in 2019’s ‘Detective Pikachu’. I believe that this is a good move as the animation always looks convincing, as in it looks like he is really there on screen with the other characters. However, the joy of this style of animation is that they can have this while still keeping the wacky over the top slapstickness of the character as well, a real best of both worlds situation. Ben Whishaw does a great job voicing Paddington, managing to capture the charm and, the innocence of the character, making him very lovable.

The human cast around the titular bear is like a who’s who of famous British actors including Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Jim Broadbent and Peter Capaldi. Each character has their own moment to shine whether it is Capaldi’s characters redemption or, Bonneville’s character growing to love Paddington over time. All of these individual moments are well done and, have a lot to offer the wider world of the film.

The standout for me amoungst the human cast is Sally Hawkins as Mary Brown. As the mother of the family, Mary gives off more warmth than the sun; she loves Paddington from the moment she sees him, the surrogate mother-son relationship they have is incredibly heartwarming.

My one fault with the film is that it never does much with its villain Millicent Clyde (Nicole Kidman), her motivation is that she is resentful because her family have become a laughing stock after having a run-in with Paddington’s family years prior. As such she seeks to kidnap Paddington so she can stuff him. There a few scenes where she is mildly threatening, but as the main antagonist, she is given very little to do.

Overall a stellar reimagining that brings Paddington lovingly into the 21st century.

Pros.
Paddington Himself.
The Animation.
Sally Hawkins.
This Being An Actual Good Reboot.

Cons.
Wasted Villain.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Nativity 2: A True Testament To David Tennant’s Acting Abilities

‘Nativity 2: Danger In The Manger’ is a British comedy Christmas film and, is the second film in the Nativity series. The plot this time around focuses on the children of St Bernadette’s as they enter the ‘A Song For Christmas’ competition, for the chance to have their song be a Christmas number 1. This time around the class is lead by anxious teacher Donald Peterson, (David Tennant), taking over from Mr Maddens, (Martin Freeman), and his character arc revolves around becoming comfortable being a father and, beating his twin brother at ‘A Song For Christmas’.

Nativity 2 is better than the first film, make no mistake these are still very average films, they’re both good films to turn your brain off and, zone out to, or to have on in the background while you are tiding; for a bit of holiday cheer. The thing that makes ‘Danger In The Manger’ better than the first film is that it throws all logic out of the window, very early on. The first film had fantastical suspend your disbelief moments, but by and large, it tried to maintain a sense of realism, that under the right albeit extreme circumstances that these things could happen in real life.

However, this approach was a crutch and, one that was holding the film back, by completely letting go and, giving in to the insanity and, the inherent obscured nature of the premise this film can give us both barrels; throwing everything at us and, not worrying about if it makes sense or, being coherent.

This new approach also helps to make Mr Poppy, (Marc Wootton), more bearable. Now for anyone who has read my review of the previous film, you will know that Mr Poppy was one of the major downsides for me, he makes the film loses any sense of adult appeal and, made it feel as though it was solely aimed at kids. This time around Wootton is better, not because he has given any better of a performance because believe me he doesn’t but, because the film knows how to use him better; or at least in a less grating way.
He is given less of the limelight which greatly helps and, his back and forth with Tennant is far, far better than it ever was with Freeman.

David Tennant for me makes this film he easily gives the best performance and, puts everyone else to shame. He manages to play both the loveable well-intentioned teacher as well as the evil sibling/ strict teacher effortlessly. He truly is a credit to this film.

To conclude ‘Nativity 2: Danger In The Manger’ is better for letting go of any notion of sense or, logic and Tennant as always elevates the film far beyond anything the script or, other performances can do. There are also some more cute songs, but you knew there would be going in.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Layer Cake: James Bond Use To Deal Drugs

‘Layer Cake’ is a British Crime film, focusing on the exploits of London based criminal XXXX, (Daniel Craig), as he tries to leave the drug business. This is the first film directed by Matthew Vaughn, of Kingman fame, and serves as one of Daniel Craig’s breakout roles.

The plot of the film is nothing new, drug dealer wants to retire, but then finds out he is too valuable to the boss; so said boss is decidedly not in favour of letting him go. The subplots of the film revolve around XXXX trying to stop a Serbian hitman from killing him and, his colleagues after a drug deal goes bad and, XXXX trying to find a girl who has gone missing. The culmination of all of these plots coming together make for an incredibly interesting watch, gripping through and, through. However, at times the plot does become a little messy, I think one of the subplots could have been dropped and, the film would still be incredibly engaging.

The style that has made Vaughn so famous is on full display in this his debut film, the editing and, cinematography of the film feel very Guy Ritchie esque, but lovingly like a homage to a contemporary rather than a blatant copy. Also to my joy, this film steers well away from a lot of the pacing and, plot issues that plague some of Ritchie’s work, especially in something like Revolver.

Another thing that makes this film so good is it’s leading man Craig is charming and charismatic throughout, he carries this film. There are moments in this film that are reminiscent of his later role as Bond, literally shot for shot the same; you can see where the Bond filmmakers looked to when they were casting. Outside of this year’s Knives Out this might be Craig’s finest performance to date, this is definitely a star-making turn for him.

‘Layer Cake’ is one of the best, and to an extent one of the last, big-budget, British gangster films, the genre that gave birth to such films as Lockstock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch and The Business to name but a few. It is true to say that they don’t make films like this anymore, they’re very off their time, the late 90s early 2000s and, it is a shame that we don’t get these sort of films anymore. However, more recent films like Legend have carried on this tradition to a lesser degree, and are still excellent, speaking of Tom Hardy he is also in this film, albeit briefly.

Overall this is a superb film, a must-watch, and proof that Vaughn and, Craig are incredibly talented; I can’t recommend this film enough.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Nativity: Time For The Annual Christmas Play

‘Nativity’ is a British Christmas Comedy film the plot follows Paul Maddens, (Martin Freeman), a failed actor who has now become a teacher; the story details his struggle as he tries to upstage his drama school rival Gordon Shakespeare, (Jason Watkins), who is also now a teacher at a private school, the two men go to great lengths to see who can produce the best nativity play.

The cast reads like a who’s who of B and, C list British celebrities of the time, with many famous faces making an appearance. However, despite a lot of celebrity cameos, the cast is mostly wasted and, underused; Freeman is the only one who’s performance borders on okay. The worst offender is Mr Poppy, (Marc Wootton), he is dumb and, annoying a lot of the time having a lot of energy but not much charm or, charisma; his inclusion is meant to appeal to kids as his humour is on their level. Poppy becomes a much bigger part of the series, yes there is a series of ‘Nativity’ films, however Wootton’s performance is much better in these later instalments.

Freeman is the best performer here as he captures the down on his luck but, well-intentioned lead to great effect. When he realises how much the kids care about him and, want him to be happy there is a genuinely great emotional moment; which I challenge you to say didn’t bring a tear to your eye. You can tell that Mr Maddens does genuinely care about the children and, it is all thanks to Freeman’s performance.

The children of St Bernadette’s are all suitably cute and, endearing and they play off Freeman’s character well; the relationship between them and him really help with Paul’s character development helping to show him in a more sympathetic light.

In terms of Christmas films, this is nice and inoffensive if you’re not very discerning then this is a great switch your brain off and enjoy kind of film. The message is very wholesome and, festive and, it is very nice to see Paul get back together with his ex-girlfriend who left to go to Hollywood; it does appeal to my romantic heart.

Overall this is great holiday junk food: generating that feel-good quality that a lot of these sort of films have. The sequences set during the actual nativity performance are well done, the songs are catchy and, the whole thing itself will be very relatable to anyone who has ever been in a Christmas play before. Overall this is fine but, it is far far from a Christmas classic like Home Alone or, Gremlins.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Ps. More Christmas film reviews are incoming.