The Farewell: An Emotional Goodbye

‘The Farewell’ is a comedy-drama film. The plot follows Billie (Awkwafina), a young woman who has to go to China for her cousin’s wedding. However, before she goes, she finds out that her Grandmother (Zhao Shuzhen), has stage 4 lung cancer, but her family don’t want anyone to tell her Gran about it as there is nothing to be done. The film is based on a real-life true story.

This film raises a lot of good ethical questions about what you should and shouldn’t do when you find out one of your relatives is dying. It also shows the difference between East and West in our societal views and our views on family.

Before seeing this film, I was not a huge fan of Awkwafina I thought she was fine, but she had never done anything to blow me away. However, this film and her performance in it completely blew me away with how powerful it is: she sells the emotion so well. You can see how much Billie loves her Grandmother and, the fact that not being able to tell her is tearing her apart.

The relationship between these two women is strong and deeply emotional though they are different people and, are symbolic of different ways of life, East Vs, West again, you can see the bond they share, and it is very affecting. This is furthered by the fact that the relationship between Billie and, the rest of her family seems strained. When Billie and her mum and dad moved to the States, it seems to have pushed them further away from their family. Not only is there this distance in the wider family unit but, also within the close immediate family. Part of what makes Billies relationship with her Grandmother so special is the fact that she and her mother seem at odds throughout much of the film; this highlights how her Grandmother might be her main female role model possibly.

My one issue with what is otherwise a very beautiful film is that the rest of Billie’s family are given very little to do, the story mainly focuses on Billie and her reaction to the fact her Grandmother is dying; the story is essentially the tale of these two women. However, as a result of this, the rest of her family come off as bit players they’re there and, might have the odd line or two, but they serve no real purpose.

The final sequence of the film Billie and her Grandmother having an emotional goodbye, followed then by us seeing how her Grandmother has impacted her life, and the reveal that the Grandmother is still alive is not only heartwarming, but it packs an emotional punch; I challenge you not to cry.

Pros.
Awkwafina.
The Ethical Questions It Raises.
The Relationship Between Billie And Her Grandmother.
The Emotion.

Cons.
The Family Are Wasted.

4/5

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

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

The Lighthouse: Descend Into Madness

‘The Lighthouse’ is a psychological horror film: the plot follows two lighthouse keepers Ephraim (Robert Pattinson), and Thomas (Willem Dafoe), who become stranded on an island and slowly begin to question reality and descend into madness.

‘The Lighthouse’ is a hard film to review, I’ve seen it a few times now, and I still don’t understand what is going on. To some, this will add to the joy of the film others will say that is pretentious and up its own arse; I personally would live by the rule if you liked the ‘VVitch’ you will like this. Personally, for me, the ‘VVitch’ is in my top 3 films, and I like Eggers style I like how there are multiple layers to his work that you can sit and think about after the credits roll. I think he is very novel in his approach to not only horror but, cinema as a whole as well.

That said, while I think this film is strong, I don’t think it is as strong as the ‘VVitch’. Eggers first film to me was the perfect storm then right cast, the right setting and the occult and witches are always a great mix. However, this time around something is missing that I can’t quite put my finger on.

It certainly isn’t the setting as I found the bleak deserted island to be haunting which made for a very oppressive atmosphere. I don’t think this film is scary, at least not in the traditional sense, but it is unsettling and creepy throughout; which I enjoyed. A lot of the answers that you can draw from some of the films moments certainly suggest a lot of scary things. Also, what is more, frightening than the idea of madness slowly creeping into your mind?

It isn’t the performances either as both leading men give it their all. Pattinson plays the quiet loner type well and, can also be suitably threatening when the time calls for it. However, his manic performance is upstaged in near every way by Willem Dafoe. Dafoe’s Thomas is a man obsessed with the light, what he sees in the light is never revealed, as such his crazed performance is both captivating, but also somewhat endearing. It is strange as the film devolves into both men being antagonist towards the other and then trying to kill each other, the only one I was rooting for was Dafoe.

The horror themes explored is where I find myself preferring the ‘VVitch’, I think. This film explores the ideas of obsession, isolation and Sea Legends, so things like Mermaids. While I think these are good, they can’t seem to top the ending of Eggers debut film with the devil appearing to tempt Thomasin.

Overall this isn’t the sort of horror film that will have mass appeal if you liked Eggers other work you will like this. A very hard film to score indeed.

Pros.
The Novel Approach.
The Acting.
The Atmosphere.
The Creep Factor.

Cons.
It Can’t Best The ‘VVitch’.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Mary Poppins Returns: Everyone’s Favourite Nanny Comes Back!

‘Mary Poppins Returns’ is a musical comedy fantasy film it serves as a belated sequel to the 1964 film. The plot this time around sees everyone’s favourite nanny return to teach the next generation of Banks children, how to have fun. The characters of original Banks children are in this film though they’re not played by the same actors.

I have never counted myself as a Mary Poppins fan, I know that it is a very popular film, but it never appealed to me personally. Now that I’ve said that, let’s get into the review.

I think this film has been rather unfairly written off, many people had very high expectations when the sequel was announced, and I believe no matter how good this film was, it would never live up.

I think this film has a lot of charm and all of it, and I mean all of it, comes from Emily Blunt. Blunt plays the new iteration of Mary Poppins and seems to be loving every minute, she has charm and class to spare and lives up to, if not eclipsis, Julie Andrews from the original film. Not only that, but Blunt can also hold her own when it comes to singing, she is fantastic in every song she is in; especially the lamplighter themed one in the second act.

I think on the whole the songs in this film are good, they’re catchy and memorable, without becoming annoying. Though this isn’t true of the film’s first musical number ‘(Underneath the) Lovely London Sky’ which is the worst song in the entire film as it feels like it goes on and on and won’t end; this opens the film on a bad note.

The plot of the film is fine, the Bank’s have to find some shares in the bank so, their house doesn’t get taken away from them. It is serviceable if a little uninspired. It completely wastes the talents of Colin Firth, who is the film’s villain as he is incredibly boring and one-note. The one good thing Firth’s villain does is allow for us to see Dick Van Dyke return, which admittedly is a crowd-pleasing moment.

Overall this film lives only because of how good Emily Blunt is in the role, it has nothing else going for it, in many ways it seems like money was the only thing that made Mary Poppins Return.

Ps. Don’t even get me started on Meryl Steep as Topsy, for another time.

Pros.
Most Of The Music.
Emily Blunt.
Dick Van Dyke’s Return.

Cons.
The Opening Song.
The Plot Of The Film.
Wasting Colin Firth.

3/5

Reviewed By Luke.

The House With A Clock In The Walls: Eli Roth’s Child Friendly Feature

‘The House With A Clock In Its Walls’ is a dark fantasy, horror, comedy film, based on a series of children’s book. The plot follows Lewis (Owen Vaccaro), a recent orphan who moves to live with his uncle Jonathan (Jack Black), when he arrives he realises there is more to his uncle then he ever knew; namely that he is a Warlock. The events that follow are Jonathan and his neighbor Florence (Cate Blanchett), fighting the evil Warlock, that use to be Jonathan’s magic partner and mentor.

This film marks a first for the director Eli Roth this film is Roth’s first film that isn’t out and out a horror film; Roth’s trademark gore is nowhere to been seen here. The strangest thing about this film is that it works quite well, Roth doing children’s dark fantasy seems to be the perfect match; this film feels very Del Toro esque which is the highest compliment I can give.

The horror elements are quite strong here, for a kids film, the gothic sensibilities this film wears on its sleeve are used to wonderful effect. It feels very much in the same vein as Black’s other children’s horror series ‘Goosebumps’, but better. The villain of the film Issac Izard (Kyle Maclachlan), brings with him a genuine sense of menace and threat. His dastardly plot is to turn back time and erase the human race; which is weirdly wonderful.

The central trio of heroes are all mostly great, the weak link is Vaccaro, but that is to be expected. I won’t go on about it too much as it is low hanging fruit to go after a child actor for being the weak part of the film, but he brings very little to the film no charm no charisma nothing.

Blanchett is terrific as Florence, a mater witch who has lost her magical ability as a result of losing her family. The transformation she goes through, which results in her becoming a part of the family is very sweet and affecting. Black also plays the caring uncle, very well he gives it just the right amount of warmth and humour, which makes him the star of the show. Black is also the main person on the comedy front and, he does a great job all of his jokes land well, which make for some great chuckle-inducing moments.

Overall this film is a great turn for Eli Roth as he proved he can do more than just ‘torture porn’, it could also be a great start for a potential franchise of child-friendly gothic horror films; hopefully Black and Blanchett return if they do a sequel.

Pros.
Black.
Blanchett.
The Gothic Horror Elements.
A Surprising Turn For Roth.

Cons.
The Plot Is Daft And Riddled With Plot Holes.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Let’s Be Cops: Rush Hour’s Lazy Cousin

‘Let’s Be Cops’ is a buddy cop, action, comedy film focusing on two men Ryan (Jake Johnson), and Justin (Damon Wayans Jr), who decide they want to be cops. They don’t, however, want to do it the proper way, so instead, they buy police costumes and even a police car online and pretend.

I remember watching this film when it came out in cinemas and thinking it was genuinely funny, although when I watched this film far more recently, I can’t say I felt the same. Maybe my sense of humour has changed in the years since this has been released? I say this because all the jokes that made me laugh out loud originally are no longer funny to me.

Other than the waterboarding scene, which remains amusing, the rest of the humour fell flat for me. It is as though the film is going for the lowest common denominator and can’t be bothered aspiring beyond that. It has great moments of comedy like the waterboarding scene and, Natasha Leggero as Annie is always funny: but overall these are only a few moments here and there, the film as a whole feels flat.

Johnson and Wayans are both serviceable, but never really go beyond that. I am a fan of Johnson’s style of comedy I liked him in ‘New Girl’, but his performance in this lacks any kind of heart; he is simply playing, a selfish asshole. Outside of Leggero the rest of the supporting cast is wasted they might be there to set up a Joke, or to be the object of desire for one of the characters, but nothing more than that. The film ‘Keanu’ with Jordan Peele and Keegan-Michael Key does a similar thing to this film, but rather than fake police officers they fake being drug dealers; the key difference is that ‘Keanu’ does it well and explores the characters.

Maybe I have changed, but this film feels lazy to me. A zero effort comedy film that pales in comparison to other buddy cop films like ‘Rush Hour’ or, ‘Lethal Weapon’. The premise has promise and could be done well, look at Keanu, but it feels like everyone here is phoning it in.

Overall this film has moments very few and far between, but overall it is the definition of lazy and a missed opportunity; that I thought was funny when I was 16.

Pros.
Natasha Leggero.
It Has Some Comedic Moments.

Cons.
It Feels Lazy.
The Comedy Mostly Falls Flat.
It Feels Very Of Its Time.

2/5

Reviewed by Luke

Paul: Close Encounters Of The British Kind

‘Paul’ is a science fiction, road comedy film the plot of the film revolves around two nerds Clive (Nick Frost), and Graeme (Simon Pegg), who after going to Comic-Con decide to go on a UFO road trip across America, while out on the open road they pick up a hitchhiker Paul (Seth Rogen), who happens to be an alien.

‘Paul’ serves both as a science fiction film, but also as a parody of the genre, the comedy of the film a lot of the time comes from making fun of the rules and conventions of the genre it is very much like ‘Shaun of the Dead’ it that regard.

That brings me on to my main point about this film it feels like a Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright film, but it isn’t. I don’t know if when my brain sees Frost and Pegg on-screen together, I immediately think of Edgar Wright’s Cornetto trilogy or if it a result of the film itself.
Like I said before the lampooning humour and, the defying genre conventions is very Wright esque; this film must have at least been a little bit inspired by him.

The humour of the film is very much what you would expect from a Nick Frost Simon Pegg film, so if you like that and think it is funny, you will likely feel the same way about this. I for one think the duo are hilarious and have superb timing and delivery. I think the mixing of the very British in a way humour with the American makes for some interesting and very funny results. Rogen and Kristen Wiig, who is also in this film, add to the comedy make-up of this film; both styles of comedy complement each other quite nicely.

Furthermore, the choice to have genre heavyweight Sigourney Weaver be the film’s big bad is a move that is as crowd-pleasing as it is inspired. Weaver adds not only a sense of class to this film but also science fiction authenticity. She relishes every moment she is on screen and, make each second of that time count.

Overall this film is a love letter to the science fiction genre that has inspired it and, there is no duo better suited to carry out this loving homage than Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.

Pros.
The Humour.
Simon Pegg And Nick Frost.
Sigourney Weaver.
The Blending Of British And American Comedy.
The Supporting Cast.

Cons.
Some Of The Supporting Cast Are Annoying.
The Humour Won’t Be For Everyone.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Mr Popper’s Penguins: The Love Between A Man And His Penguins

‘Mr Popper’s Penguins’ is a comedy film about a businessman who has lost the ability to have fun, until one day he receives a create and in that create is a penguin. Over time Popper (Jim Carrey), gets more and more penguins and forms a bond with them; this is their film.

‘Mr Popper’s Penguins is the sort of film that revels in the human-animal friendship space, think Alvin and the Chipmunks, or even animated fare like How To Train Your Dragon. These films, play upon the bond that people form with their pets.

Carrey is on top form as Tom Popper he plays him reserved, or at least reserved for Carrey, focusing on how the character slowly begins to care about these penguins and, realises what is important in his life. The message of this film is cliched family and the people you care about, or in this case penguins you care about, are more important than wealth and success. You see, that is the thing with this film in many ways it is incredibly cliche and has been done before, but that doesn’t make in any less effective. It is still incredibly good and sweet despite having not been fresh or, original.

The villain of the piece is a penguin expert called Nat Jones (Clark Gregg), who wants to take the penguins away from Popper and put them in a zoo. Jones is a good antagonist for the film as he is a character you love to hate as well as having a real sense of menace about him at times. You want to see Popper and his penguins continue to be together and be happy, so him wanting to take them away not only adds tension but also makes you consider what is best for the penguins.

Popper’s family, who also plays a role in this tale are all serviceable if not memorable I can’t remember a single one of their names.

The humour of the film delivers, Carrey is excellent and all of his jokes land. Also, the penguins have their moments of comic genius they gave me a good few chuckles as I watched.

Overall this is very enjoyable family fare and, the relationship between Popper and his penguins will speak to anyone who has ever loved a pet.

Pros.
Carrey.
The Villain.
The Penguins.
The Comedy.

Cons.
Cliched.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke