Re-Animator DVD Review

The Evil Undead

Released : May 24th 1985

Certificate : 18

Director : Stuart Gordon

Cast : Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Bruce Abbott

Plot : A medical student (Abbott) takes in a new room mate who has just moved to study medicine alongside him, and continue his secret work on his death defying serum.

In the 80’s, there were milestones of horror films made, and the genre in itself evolving. With the new practical effects available, there was the ability to make some hilariously violent films, on a shoe string budget. Re-animator, was alike The Evil Dead movies, one of these stand outs of the 80’s. For all manner of reasons you have some of most iconic horror films ever made, such as The Shinning, Poltergeist, The Thing and An American Werewolf in London. Stuart Gordon, made his one hit wonder film here based loosely on the writings of infamous early literature writer H.P Lovecraft.

As with some of the horror films that were made during this time, they became famous for their practical effects and gore, rather than for their craft of cinema. The first Evil Dead film introduced this style to the decade, and Re-animator raised the bar. So as with many gory horrors of the time, the makeup department surpass the importance of the writing and acting of the film by many a mile. With acting that would rival Halloween in its infamous quality, Re-animator is able to bring laughs even without the gore. As the acting alone, with the leading performance of Jeffrey Combs, bring the film well into the realm of so bad its brilliant. And this quality is head across the board, with all but one stars being aptly awful. Whether the acting choices of the film are intentional or not doesn’t really matter, as the spectacle is still as entertaining whichever is true.

And the serial nature of the plot is to match. The film has gaping plot holes that you could walk through, cliches that match the dialogue, and due to the budget the film has about 6 settings for the entire film. The film is 1 hour and 44 mins long and is a combination of the over the top gory violence, poor acting and outright jaw dropping terrible features all around. The vibe of the film is perfectly captured by its original tag line, “He has a good head on his shoulders… and another one on the table”. As what this film is infamous for is that of its villain that carries his own head around for the majority of the film. As for flaws for the film that actually matter, they revolve around the highlight of the film, which is the special effects. For some audience it would be acceptable to gain very little pleasure from this film. For each year the practical effects become more and more dated, and there are plenty of other terrible horror films with a better level of gore. Hence the original shock factor that made the film famous disappears, so does maybe its laughability. For some might not find the dated nature of the practical effects as hilariously over the top as others.

Re-animator is a little know gem, as it deserves nothing else than that (it was lucky to snag a mention in the ‘stoned’ dialogue of American Beauty). But while of the majority of today’s horror film turn out quality just a low, unintentionally, with the promise of genuine scares, this film is a refreshing awful look at the early days of the genre. While it isn’t quiet on the level of Evil Dead 2, it did come before that film, and its style and structure may have well influenced ED2. A film that you watch for the lack of quality across the board and for the special effects, a brilliant comedy horror cult film.

Verdict : A key film in the genre of; it’s so bad and over the top, that its quiet brilliant.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “I was busy pushing bodies around as you well know and what would a note say, Dan? “Cat dead, details later”?”

Take Shelter DVD Review

Twister

Released : November 15th 2011

Certificate : 15

Director : Jeff Nichols

Cast : Michael Shannon, Jessica Chastain, Shea Whigham, Tova Stewart

Plot : Haunted by apocalyptic dreams and paranoia, Curtis (Shannon), quiet family life is disturbed.

A small festival film that didn’t perform hugely at the box office. It gained great critical success and a few awards at minor festivals. Written and directed by film maker Jeff Nichols, who while isn’t well known has gone on to make more ‘small’ but critically acclaimed films after this one. He is the writer/director of Mud (one of MCConaughey’s break out roles), Midnight Special and this year Loving. Before this film he had little motion picture experience apart from one short. Shannon, the lead, would go on to collaborate on all of Nichols, as well as The Iceman and Man of Steel.

Nicholas style of storytelling, from what I have seen, is rather unusual. In the way that it has inventive and thought provoking story lines, but which are told and present very subtly and ‘non-Hollywoodised’. There good return to importance of character and a sombre tone throughout his films, these are some patterns which are established here and seem (from what I’ve seen) to continue throughout his work. Take Shelter takes its time with the development of its main plot, which is the mental state of our lead character Curtis, as he goes on a journey through these visions and the conclusions and actions that result from them. The effect of the style of presentation is hit and miss. Its ability to maintain tension and build the growing anxiety of the characters is done well, slowly and first and then at a developing pace it turns the screw on the tension. This isn’t done to such a degree that makes the film hugely memorable unfortunately, but keeps you hooked for the view time. This moderate level of success of the film, continues throughout the rest of the attributes, be it for some stand out aspects. Due to this, it is no wonder that Nichols has gone on to ‘better’ and more well-known projects, as there is definite promise here that isn’t quiet capitalized on.

For Nichols work here, there a pros and cons to both the writing and the directing. From the opening few shots of the film, you can see that Nicholas is a competent director, and is applying thought to the shot selection in order to actually develop the story. As with the poignant nature of all opening shots, we see Curtis in a wide shot, who is slightly off centre set. From this shot alone we can see that he isn’t quite sure of himself or of the world around him. Several other shots are of note, being that of his ability of knowing when to hold a shot wide stationary shot or when to pull in, executed well with the scenes of conflict and narrative progression. The writing however, isn’t quite as gripping. While it is serving the purpose very well of depicting our leads inability to describe his feelings, it doesn’t quiet garner the utopian family life or bound as well as it could to invest you with the characters.

Another solid feature of the film are the performances. Chastain as always is able to convey and depict the extremities of emotion in a striking hyperbole way, whether they are always grounded is down to personal taste. Shannon performance is slightly definitely the highlight of the film, with an ability to convey the characters conflicted nature throughout well, and deals with the extreme emotive cases with great intensity. But the film doesn’t quiet breach the barriers of good into great and make it a hugely memorable film experience. The entertainment and thrill that come from the inner conflict of our lead, doesn’t quiet carry over into the family dynamic of the film. While the direction mirrors the story’s meanings very well, the script doesn’t, with dialogue which while realistic doesn’t have the level of depth that is memorable.

Verdict : A film with a great concept, an excellent performance and directorial competence and promise, doesn’t quiet overcome issues of pacing and overall lack of grip of the film.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “I still take off my boots not to wake her.”

I, Daniel Blake Review

The Pursuit Of Happyiness 

Released : October 21st 2016

Certificate : 15

Director : Ken Loach

Cast : Dave Johns, Hayley Squires, Natalie Ann Jamieson, Micky McGregor

Plot : Daniel Blake (Johns) struggles with the complexities and harshness of the welfare system after a major heart attack. Seemingly unable to qualify for benefits, alike single mother (Squires), together they face poverty.

Ken Loach, the quietly famous British director famous for the classic Kes, reunites with frequent collaborating writer Paul Laverty. Together their most famous work includes The Wind that Shakes the Barley, and more recently The Angles’ Share, and now I, Daniel Blake. Ken Loach in his most famous for his films about the everyday British citizen, within different stories. Often Loach’s film have a humorous edge but ultimately poetic sadness to them, the style which has made him famous. While his other films, alike with Laverty has a slight quirky edge to the story that accompanies the social commentary aspects of the film, I, Daniel Blake doesn’t contain such uniqueness or quirky edge. It is a straightforward social commentary about the poor suffering with the benefit system of Britain, told through a humours melodramatic tone and subtly directing and writing.

The first issue with I, Daniel Blake (as with the rest of Loach’s films) is that they don’t exactly enthral the average cinema goer. Loach makes slow paced subtle films that a rooted in clarity of character and dry directing. In other words, the films stay rooted in realism, and when this feature is carried to such extent such as with I, Daniel Blake, it can create issues with pacing. While the film isn’t particularly long, the very dead pan style of its storytelling, means that at some times the humours sweary nature of lead character doesn’t maintain a throughout entertaining sensation. This is where I, Daniel Blake differs from Loach’s other films, as the unusual, inventive or intense situations that the characters find themselves in is dropped, meaning that his style of filmmaking can become tedious at times.

Luckily it contains enough of the essential Loach elements to make it enjoyable. One being that Loach can find actors that aren’t mainstream and that fit characters like a glove, the two actors being Dave Johns and Hayley Squires. While the performances aren’t of the quality to make them hugely memorable, they are very enduring and what is most important about a Loach film, very realistic. With this realism means that there aren’t hugely emotional scenes that demand great floods of tears, as in mainstream Hollywood dramas, and for this reason may not seem as impressive as others. However, the two actors, Squires in particular disappears into these characters, and this joined with Loach’s directing style completely immerse you in their reality. It is likely for such reason, why the film comes across monotonous and dim, because this is their reality.

Loach’s style of directing and the overall craft of the film is very subtle, but effective in this pursuit of realism. There are many sequences where the audio is drowned out by the hustle and construction sounds going on around the characters, to help build the world of working class Britain. Similarly, Laverty script which contains little exchanges and idioms of the characters equally construct the setting of Newcastle. What is most poignant about Loach’s style, is the way he doesn’t show everything. He is a very selective director and will linger on certain shots longer than perhaps other directors would do. Many of the scenes take place in the council housing and Loach plays of this via shooting through doorways frequently to show the scene and characters. This sells the cramped and limited existence of the characters. The direction does become slightly repetitive, as the walking of characters, indoor scenes and emotive scenes are all shot in a separate way and rarely deviate. So, Loach style which is sombre enough as it is, when joined with such a bleak story does create a very dreary picture. While this is the aim of the film as it attempts to reflect the reality of these characters, it doesn’t quiet have the stirring drama and humour to heighten the film to a captivating as well as poignant drama. But there is great skill across the board to immerse the audience in this world as to convey the story and point.

Verdict : The film creates a excellent level of affinity with the characters and the world, but moving and humour elements are few and far between to make the film stand out, as realistic as it is.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “Run the mouse up the screen.”

Modern Horror Series : It Follows

It’s Behind You

Released : February 27th 2015

Certificate : 15

Director : David Robert Mitchell

Cast : Maika Monroe, Daniel Zovatto, Keir Gilchrist, Jake Weary, Lili Sepe, Olivia Luccardi

Plot : After an innocent sexual encounter, teenager Jay (Monroe) is told by her partner that he has passed on to her an odd curse, in which she will be followed by an entity.

2014 was a big year for modern horror, with three standouts gaining big critical (although not box office) success. Those being, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night, It Follows and The Babadook. It is rare, given the amount that fly under the radar, for a horror film to be praised by critics, and each of these films was for very different reasons. It Follows got noticed for both its indie vibe as well as its retro feel and setting, with homage paid to both the set design of the classic 1970’s slasher horror film as well as the style of filming. Directed and written by David Robert Mitchell (a filmmaker famous for little else) made a unique film, not only for the reasons listed, but also for the ‘monster’ of the film as well as the imagery that is used.

It Follow is full of imagery and style the reference many classic films, Halloween being a standout. While the directing is unique from Mitchell, the music score, the 70’s setting, the blonde and other aspects all reminisce of the classic horror film. From just this alone, it becomes clear that some a lot of thought has gone into the film from Mitchell’s end. Just as Carpenter in Halloween introduced the use of in depth and out of depth and movement in the corner of the frame into the horror genre, Mitchell plays with it both in his directing as well as pure nature of his monster (an anonymous being that audiences scan the frame to spot in scenes). The way the film has a close nit set of friends who are young and deal with the issue also brings in elements of many 70’s and 80’s classics. The imagery that Mitchell uses as well, although may be obvious and clear in meaning, are enjoyable to have present as it is rare that a director in this genre takes the time with such qualities. What all this amounts to, and is clear from the very opening sequence of the film, is that Mitchell is very skilled director who has thought out this little project of his very well.

Due to such skill, It Follows was able to create genuine scares without the use of much blood or a monster as such. This is a very rare feature of horror films, where the way in which a scene is presented, rather than what is being presented create more of the scares in the film. It was a quality achieved in Halloween, as it was just a man in a mask, and is again done so here, as it just a person following you. So above all else, It Follows was elevated to the level of prestige that it was due to its directing. As to the storyline, which the imagery suggests, there is a theme of innocence, and the loss of it that come with growing older. While the film doesn’t attempt to make a bold point about this topic, in horror films this is something that is repeated. In the slasher films revolving around teenagers, the sexually active ones are killed off first, and It Follows seems to play off this convention as its main theme.

It Follows isn’t a horror film for everyone for the following reasons. Not every horror film fan will appreciate the directional choices such as the imagery and the intertextuality that takes place. Also the story structure, which is basic on dialogue and characters, and could be labelled as repetitive at times as that characters continuously run away from ‘the following’, may result in a bore for some. But for people who appreciate the artistic craft and execution over a flasher ‘fun’ blood feast, they will have a very special time.

Verdict : A very unique horror film which has a great level of freshness to both its story and directing, providing genuine scares and a great atmosphere throughout.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : “It could look like someone you know or it could be a stranger in a crowd. Whatever helps it get close to you.”

Modern Horror Series : Howl (2015)

British Werewolf on a British Train

Released : October 16th 2015

Certificate : 18

Director : Paul Hyett

Cast : Ed Speleers, Holly Weston, Elliot Cowan, Sam Gittins

Plot : A late-night train breaks down in a wood, where a werewolf circles.

This is one of the most conventional horror films around in recent years, a straight to DVD film about people being eaten by werewolves on a train. These films have always been the bottom of the pile for the horror genre, but it recent years especially there has been a huge surge in the amount of moderate budget horror created. Most of which doesn’t make it to cinemas and is lucky if it gets a spot-on television. But out of this vast abyss of corny horror films, Howl managed to scrape a 70% on Rotten Tomatoes, miles ahead of most of ‘these’ film types.

First off, as with these generic horror films, they are extremely predictable and Howl is no exception. You can guess the people which will die early on within seconds of them being on screen. The biggest reveal this film has to offer is the surprise that there is more than one werewolf. Also, these films rarely have imagination to the direction, with the age-old point of view shots from the creature’s looking at the victims through the woods. Howl fits with this as well, with Hyett (Howl being his most famous picture) using his fair share of the troops. The acting as well will be often, terrible, Howl manages to maintain a mostly acceptable level across the board. And the writing could have been done by anyone, with characters making the poorest decisions and character archetypes of the genre being used fully. But surprisingly Howl manages to be an entertaining film, as when a film fits these conventions like a glove to a well-executed standard, and has enough budget in the special effects department, it can be irresistible.

The horror genre is one of the most successful genre at creating bad films, which make a good time. The film’s enjoyment can be mirrored by the style behind of special effects. When you finally see the beast, it is so over the top and borderline laughable, that you simply suspend all rational thoughts other than to just be entertained by the carnage. There is something extremely entertaining about a film which executes this style with fair levels of skill, harking back to the genre’s early years such as Friday the 13th. Films which knew that the sole pleasure that they offered was the thrills, chills and laughs and watching one character at a time being gruesomely dismembered. This is exactly what is offered by Howl, and the only aspect that makes it work is plenty of action and predictability and solid special effects department. The reveal scene of the first werewolf in all its glory comes unfortunately late in the film, but as you can see when you google the film, is such an odd spectacle that it’s just enjoyable.

It’s very easy to be critical of films like this, and any criticism that are made could be just as easy applied to any straight to DVD horror film that came out in the last 10 years. The only unique criticism that could be thrown at Howl is that the werewolves, don’t look like wolves. But this film can serve as a great guilty pleasure film, if the mood is right you can relish the violence and the cliché nature of the film type. So, Howl manages to separate itself from ‘the rest’ by the following. All the clichés are meet, which would usually be a drag but when they are done in such a (overall) visually well executed manor, with a great batch of monster to boot it offers great fun. Most likely the film isn’t worth by many people’s standards the price stage of the Blue-ray copy, but it’s a good bonus as well.

Verdict : Have fun in watching an classic style of horror film executed just as badly as all the rest. But with a lot of blood and hilarious monsters it’s a fun guilty pleasure.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “Bear’s don’t Howl”

Modern Horror Series : We Are What We Are (2013)

Dinner Time

Released : October 25th 2013

Certificate : 18

Director :  Jim Mickle

Cast : Julia Garner, Ambyr Childers, Bill Sage, Michael Parks

Plot : A family with an ancestral tradition find their rituals threatened when the mother dies of an unexplained cause. This leaves the daughter (Childers) with the duty of performing the family’s yearly acts.

We Are What We Are became noticed via its appearance at the Cannes Film Festival in 2013, it was up for a minor directorial nomination. The film was since meet with across the board positive critical success. Director Jim Mickle has gone on to have similar small film critical success with the equally dark and violent thriller Cold In July (2014). The film’s most abstract plot is that of a family with a cannibalistic ritual living in a secluded American town. The advertisement campaign didn’t boast this feature too much, and rightly so, as to label the film a straight out cannibal horror would be wrong.

For horror fans that are hoping to see a full blown flesh eating riot, they will be disappointed. As while this film is definitely horrific in parts, the film is more alike a family drama with sharp gothic atmosphere and horror sequences. The spends most of its time with the relationship between the children of the family, and their relationship with the father. Behind this is a slight religious aspect as the father believes the family has gained a level of purity from their rituals. So this is worlds away from a The Hills Have Eyes type cannibal film. This makes for a unique experience that for the whole works very well and provides some edge of the seat sequences, however pacing does become an issue. The highlights of this film is the two lead characters, the daughters, Rose (Garner) and Iris (Childers). These teenage actors bring a heightened level or performance that carries the film, and it’s the most impactful aspect. They carry the film in the sense that for a horror that devotes much of its time to drama, these performances needed to be solid in order to make the film work. The themes the children deal with in this film such as innocence and duty are gripping as well, equally to that of the violent sequences. These performances also balance out what is at times an over the top performance from the father figure (Sage).

Other positive aspects are that of the atmosphere that the film builds. There film as a strong gothic feel to it, which while is achieved with recognisable tropes, it is executed very well. This may be a flaw for some audience, as with the ‘scares’ being few and far between, some might understandable not be hooked by the atmosphere and the acting alone. Which is the man flaw in the film, is that it does drag in parts. This is mostly the price that the film pays for being tasteful with the cannibalistic side of the film, and focusing on something more character driven. The film takes time with its atmosphere building and character setup, which does mean the first act of the film fairly weak and the dialogue isn’t gripping enough to keep you totally engaged. By the second act it is worth it though as the film picks up, from both a character drama viewpoint and a straight out horror one. But the film doesn’t quiet manage to shake off the tropes of the gothic genre that it uses throughout, and when you combine this with the fact the film doesn’t use many conventional horror sequences (e.g. violent flesh eating and murdering), it can be easy to see how this horror is acquired taste which does require a patient cinema goer.

We Are What We Are is a bold piece of horror filmmaking which although uses conventional tropes, it is very refreshing to see a film of this genre that focuses more on characters and their arcs, rather than just resorting to blood and guts. The film does also have a couple of twists and turns to keep the narrative interesting, some are predictable, some catch you off guard. And what the film is mostly famous for is its final sequence which is rightfully left out of the trailer and is a more conventional violent treat which will please audience not hooked by the dramatic elements.

Verdict : An unique horror film with a refreshing level of depth and acting, but a script and a few more thrills to match would have helped.

Verdict : 3/5

Quote : “We have kept our tradition in its purity.”

The Hustler DVD Review

Pool Hand Luke

Released : October 27th 1961

Certificate : 15

Director : Robert Rossen

Cast : Paul Newman, Jackie Gleason, Piper Laurie, George C Scott, Myron McCormick

Plot : The story of  ‘Fast’ Eddie Felsen (Newman), a top of his game pool hustler who’s been making good money on the road. But when he challenges Minnesota Fats (Gleason), the rumoured best pool player in the country, and meets a shy girl called Sarah, things get difficult.

 

The Hustler is another ‘classic’ to be made out of a Paul Newman lead. The film has big respect amongst filmmakers, enough that Martin Scorsese directed a sequel to the film called The Colour of Money, with Newman returning to the role of Fast Eddie. It gained one Oscar for cinematography, and six additional nominations that included all of the four main actors for their roles as well as best picture. While Newman in his earlier career had films much more noted than this, this was one of his very earliest, coming before Cool Hand Luck and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

From the general synopsis of the film you’d expect to see a drama based on a series of dramatic pools games, the film devoting much time to the drama of different games in isolation as he Eddie works his way to the top. While the film does contain this, there is a more prevalent storyline that occupies the majority of screen time. This is the story of Eddie’s relationship with Sarah which takes an unvarnished look at alcoholism, loneliness and depression. So for all the charm and charisma of Newman as an actor, the taste to this film may be surprising. For the romantic relationship of these two characters, the writing is realistic in the way that it is economic and understated. The script doesn’t contain clichés (for the time it was made) and doesn’t over-dramatize the topic matter dealt with. The result of which are characters that you may not ‘like’ or approve of, but this is a result of writing that is not hyperbole and is true to the characters (a line doesn’t feel out of place or made for memorabilia value).

For the acting across the board it ticks all of the boxes that are needed for great drama. The lead from Newman is as brilliant as ever, although it does fall into vibe of the rest of his characters in a career that’s slightly type cast. But the character development that his role goes through and that he is able to realize is superb, to really convey a character that is a changed man by the end of the story. The supporting performances are a great match to Newman as well. Gleason performance who plays Minnesota Fats, a confident and collected pool player who has been the best for years, is very entertainingly realized, but with a slightly rushed character arc. C Scott, who plays the manager of Fats, a rich but determined businessman, is the biggest standout next to Newman who grounds a performance with a gripping arc, despite being borderline over the top in some scenes.

Piper Laurie’s performance may not be as acclaimed, due to the characters weak cautious nature, which at times become tedious. But despite this Laurie very well captures a deflated character with little enthusiasm, a hard character to get behind but a well-acted on none the less. So The Hustler isn’t the engrossing sports drama in the way that many would expect, with an abundance of gripping pool room game scenes with poignant dialogue. Instead it is engrossing due to its flawed and ‘damaged goods’ characters which have brilliant arcs (which for their time would have been much more original than today) and performances that make it a standout character study piece.

Verdict : A sports drama that would seem dated made today likely, with pacing that will drag for some audiences. The performances and the script elevate the film beyond these flaws, in a slow burning melancholy drama.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : You have the best excuse in the world for losing; no trouble losing when you got a good excuse.

 

Green Room DVD Review

Mein Band 

Released : May 13th 2016

Certificate : 18

Director :  Jeremy Saulnier

Cast : Anton Yelchin, Imogen Poots, Patrick Stewart, Alia Shawkat,  Joe Cole

Plot : A down on their luck punk band take a last minute gig at a neo-Nazi club. After witnessing a horrific act, the band become hostages within the green room.

After gaining festival and critical praise with violent indie thriller Blue Ruin, writer director Jeremy Saulnier returns with Green Room. Most notable in its cast is not only the heavy weight of Patrick Stewart, who embodies the leading neo-Nazi, but also the late departed Anton Yelchin, who is most famous for his role in the recent star trek films. Very similar in structure to Blue Ruin, we have characters who are quickly set up to do battle in a film which depicts a brutally violent winding road of the characters survival. This film also marks what the director calledanother film in his unofficial ‘inept protagonist trilogy’.

From this set up, of inept protagonist, confined setting of film, feature of neo-Nazi and a director who’s breakout film is a violent unusual thriller, a pretty clear picture can begin to be built as to the nature of the film. This is a white knuckled survivalist thrill ride, made in the same vain as slasher horror films as the characters get picked off one at a time for the enjoyment of the audience. Some have claimed that the film spills into the horror genre due to the extent of the violence in the film, this doesn’t seem to ring true due to the way the film is quiet self aware and sarcastic in some scenes with the topic matter. Along this vain the film is very much aware of what it is in structure, which was a wise choice from Jeremy Saulnier as it made the film a lot more entertaining, with a tone and mood which is near perfect.

There are always flaws with a film of the style, which will offend audience depending on your inclination to this type of film and willingness to suspend criticism for the sake of ‘fun’. The characters themselves are likely going to be the issue that many audience will find with the film. Despite the striking good performance from both the well known and unknown actors of the punk band, they lack audience empathy. This ties in with the concept of the inept protagonist. Blue Ruin contained equally inept characters, but was able to build a higher level of emotive connection with the protagonist that you were more invested in the story. With Green Room the punk band aren’t given a back story, nor have much likability. For some this is not an issue and can relish the thrilling aspects of the film without any connection to the characters, others will see little interest or justification for the violence inflicted on them.

Despite this flaw and other issues, Green Room delivers a great level of edge of your seat thrills and tense atmosphere that keeps you in the palm of the movies hand. This effect is achieve via a combination of the brutal violence on screen, the very high standard performances throughout and the craft of Saulnier. While Saulneir might not have as much imagination with the dialogue or story of his writing, he is able to build the tension superbly as he did before with Blue Ruin, and here the claustrophobic environment is an asset to his work. While this in essence is a film style that has been done many times before in its different guises, Saulnier attitude towards the subject matter and a real fell for the humorously dark tension builder, Green Room is a riot of a time which captures you while you’re watching.

Verdict : A thrilling fun time, which rekindles the film type of watching the characters fall one at a time in spectacular style.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : Nazi punks! Fuck off!

Captain America : Civil War DVD Review

Avengers Angered 

Released : April 29th 2016

Certificate : 12A

Director : Joe Russo, Anthony Russo

Cast : Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Elizabeth Olsen, Scarlett Johansson

Plot : After a mission goes wrong, the governments of the world decide that the Avengers too dangerous to not have restrictions. The political proposition that restricts their actions divides the team, while Bucky reemerges to cause additional friction.

As the Avengers world enters its final films before the climatic epic that will be Infinity Wars, Civil War stands out as both an Captain American independent film and a Avengers film. The buss for the film was monumental due to the trilogy of impressive trailers, the marketing campaign of which team (Captain America or Iron Man) you side with and the fact that the Russo brother return to direct after making Captain America : Winter Solider, what many consider one of Marvels best films. With the hindsight of this review being late, it is now evident that Civil War is one of Marvels most critical acclaimed films to date.

Aspects of the film that were rightfully praised across the board were that of the films ability to involve both in depth and emotive story lines as well as the spectacular action. Something that the Russo brother were able to bring to the second CA film, and have definitely done so a second time. It will be interesting to see whether the Russo brothers or Joss Whedon take the mast on Infinity War. Whedon wasn’t the writer for this film, as he was for the other Avengers movies. Instead this time we have Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, who have written for all of the CA films. They deserve mention as Civil War had a near perfect balance of humor and drama that keeps the film entertaining from multiple stand points. The one liner for all the characters within the climatic airport scene, kept the film from taking itself too seriously very effectively.

Another aspect of the film that is also a stand out, and should set and example for the recent comic book universe is that of utilization of character. As DC continues to be diversity among audience despite such big characters on screen such as Suicide Squad, it seems the films need to utilize the character more effectively. Civil War does this brilliant, with a lengthy run time there is plenty of time devoted to the differing characters, which was needed since there was introduction of new characters. A common complaint in the vain of character for this film would be that of the villain, many labeling him as unnecessary and forgettable. The villain played by Daniel Brühl has a subtle nature to his performance that is likely the reason behind this criticism, where the film is filled with larger than life characters.

Issues with the film are few and far between in a very high standard Marvel outing. The films ending, avoiding spoilers, uses poetic licence to a large degree to allow for the set up of Infinity Wars. Which in a way makes the Civil War itself seem slightly rushed in its resolution to allow for a idealistic return to a ‘team’ formation for the hero’s next outing.  Some could complain about the lack of gritty nature to a film that is stage as a dramatic and daring division between one of cinemas greatest assemblies. But there are little issues that many die hard fans as well as general observers will find in this picture. With action sets and stunts that will please many cinema goer, and the emotional edge and depth to story that is unprecedented in the Avenger universe to this date, Civil War is a real game changer. It can be easily seen that Infinity War will be held to the same quality as this film, and it will have a lot to live up to. As here we have the intelligence, character drama and action quality that possibly surpasses all previous Avenger films.

Verdict : Big on the brains, action and heart, this is one of Marvels finest.

Verdict : 4/5

Quote : Can you move your seat up?

The Nice Guys Mini Review

Released : June 3rd 2016

Certificate : 15

Director : Shane Black

Cast : Ryan Gosling, Russel Crowe, Angourie Rice, Margaret Qualley, Matt Bomer

Plot : In 1977 Los Angeles a private investigator (Gosling) teams up with fist of hire enforcer (Crowe) after their paths cross due to two merging cases, the disappearance of a girl and the death of a porn star.

Shane Black, an writer director who is behind Lethal Weapon, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Iron Man 3, is returning to the buddy cop structure for another period piece comedy. Adding to his list of A list actors to his film, he has opted for Ryan Gosling for the depressed, alcoholic, private detective single dad. And Russel Crowe for the aimless, struggling alcoholic, angry enforcer.

For Shane Black fans, or people who are aware of his work, it is difficult not to compare the film to his past work as a reference point for how good The Nice Guys is. Given that here the standard hasn’t lapsed as well as the formula and tone, it is largely down to personal preference which film remains as Blacks best. As The Nice Guys is another shinning example of Blacks ability to construct brilliant (and funny) set action pieces, wit and blunt humour of the script and a diluted plot that serves a chaotic backdrop of our duo.

Gosling and Crowe work brilliantly together, but given Blacks record with creating the perfect on screen duo, this is to be expected. This makes you wonder whether its down the actors chemistry, or that is just a by product of Blacks script writing process. For the duo dynamic, what might be felt for some is a slight lapse in quality from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, due to these characters being less original than KKBB. But this isn’t down to Ryan and Russel’s effort, by any means. Neither one of them shines more than the other, as both actors approach the film with the perfect amount of character commitment and professional playfulness to bring both the verbal and non-verbal humour jumping of the screen.

Flaws with the film are limited, due to the fact that it is contains such an infectious amount of energy and wit that Black always brings.But some hypercritical could argue that it is a rehash of past buddy cop films or that down to personal taste it doesn’t hit their funny bone. This is a very niche audience thou, as The Nice Guys is a huge fan and general audience pleaser.

Verdict : A film that’s a irresistible comedic treat, with a period piece set that is a great move for Black.

Verdict : 4/5