The Secret Life of Pets (2016)

"I got big plans. 

I'm gonna sit here and I'm gonna wait for Katie to come back."

Like 'Toy Story', but with your pets.

Max's life as the favourite pet is turned upside down with the arrival of a new dog - Duke.

I was so excited to see this film after seeing the hilarious trailer that circulated the cinemas and social media a few months ago. Animation seems to have found its stride these days so seeing another one is always (or so I thought) guaranteed to be fun.

Unfortunately, 'The Secret Life of Pets' doesn't quite live up to the hype that the trailer promised and it left me pretty disappointed.

Max has the perfect pets life until his owner adopts a new dog called Duke. The pair don't get along and, after bumping into a rabbit hell bent on destroying mankind, the two must team up and put their differences aside.

Pixar have always been the top dog (as it were) for animation and, no matter how hard they try, other studios never quite do it as well. Pixar make films that are intelligent and fun that entertain both adults and children alike, which is the golden recipe for animated films. Illumination Entertainment hit a good note with 'Despicable Me' and now they return with 'The Secret Life of Pets' after their last film 'Minions' that took over $1 billion worldwide. I liked 'The Secret Life of Pets' probably just as much as I liked 'Minions'... Which wasn't an awful lot.

'The Secret Life of Pets' is definitely more of a kids film than it is a film for all ages. There were a few jokes thrown in there that only the adults would appreciate but it's more aimed at the kids to laugh at the fluffy bunny and the clumsy dogs. 

What really disappointed me was how much they could have done with this story and didn't. It felt like a very "by the numbers" plot with worn out ideas and jokes. It wasn't particularly new or exciting which is what animation should be. They have the power to push the boundaries of what's possible in the genre, especially with the leaps forward in technology, and they didn't.

If 'The Secret Life of Pets' had been released 20 years ago then maybe it could have found it's place as an animated classic but, for the most part, it just felt a little dated and admittedly slightly boring. The animation is good but it's not among the best we've seen recently. Even the title is a bit on the nose because the film is literally about the secret life of pets.

My biggest gripe about 'Minions' was taking a really popular secondary character and giving them their own movie, it loses the novelty and they can't sustain a whole movie on their own. "The Secret Life of Pets' had a similar problem, the characters all felt like funny secondary characters in a sub plot or short film, which I feel probably would have worked better. None are particularly likeable and they are pretty much banking on you liking them because they are "cute".

What I did enjoy about the film was the fact that they effectively captured the characteristics of the animals. They had clearly done a lot of research on the different animals and picked up on some humorous traits. Chloe the cat and Mel the pug were fantastic and really caught the essence of what we love about those animals. 

The voice acting on a whole was pretty good with the likes of Kevin Hart voicing the evil mastermind bunny, who is leading the revolution against the humans. Hart is becoming over exposed recently and his voice is completely recognisable but, despite this, he is still one of the funniest characters in the film.

The comedy is sporadic for adults but the kids in the cinema were loving it. It's silly and it's slapstick and you don't need to think too much about it. 

Overall, 'The Secret Life of Pets' wasn't as good as I had been lead to believe. The best bits were undoubtedly shown in the trailer which is a real shame because the trailer itself was great.

Watch Disney's 'Zootropolis' and you'll see how to do these films right.

Genuinely believe my turtles get up to way worse than the plot of this film when I leave the house...

The Hateful Eight (2015)

"One of them fellas is not what he says he is..."

Better late than never... Right?

A bounty hunter and his prisoner find shelter from the Wyoming winter in a cabin with a group of unusual characters.

Having totally missed ‘The Hateful Eight’ in cinemas, I was pretty keen on getting my hands on the Blu-ray release. For one reason or another, it never found its way to Cineworld and, because my Cineworld card obviously doesn’t cover other cinema chains, finding the time to go elsewhere got harder and harder until it slipped by without me seeing it. 

After the script leaked, it was nearly scrapped by Tarantino and made into a novel, I held back from reading the leaked script so that I could enjoy it as a film, the way it was intended. 

I am a fan of Quentin Tarantino’s movies, especially his early work, but he's not been getting much praise recently. 'The Hateful Eight' was released to mixed reviews and I was becoming more and more afraid because it seemed that it was being pegged as the downfall of the once fresh and exciting director.

On the whole, I’m happy to say, that my fears were misplaced. 

‘The Hateful Eight’ is pretty much just John Carpenter’s ‘The Thing’ set in the wild west. Tarantino openly used it as his inspiration and it is clear to see why. He tries to recreate the claustrophobic, tense and suspicious atmosphere that 'The Thing' is famous for. The characters are all cornered with nowhere to go and none of them trust each other. It even has Kurt Russell in one of the leading roles.

The film kicks off with Samuel L. Jackson's character - Major Marquis Warren - crossing paths with bounty hunter John Ruth, who is taking dangerous outlaw Daisy Domergue to Red Rock to hang for her crimes. A cold winter storm hits them hard and they have to take shelter in Minnie's Haberdashery, an isolated cabin that is already housing a group of misfits. Not long after, suspicions arise about the honesty of some of the group in the cabin...

Each of the characters have their own motives and goals which clash with the others that are residing in the cabin. The cabin even seems to have motives of its own as it becomes a character in itself. 

A film like this lives and dies by its cast and I can't really find any real flaws in the troupe of actors. Samuel L. Jackson has his first leading role in a Tarantino film, despite it being their sixth collaboration. He's still a bit of a caricature but he's always an interesting actor to watch. He can be up and down, subtle then obvious and he always makes you laugh. He handles the lead role with ease and has some of the best scenes in the film. One in particular is when he's antagonising old war veteran General Sandy Smithers with an unforgettable tale that really shocks. 

The other stand out performances of the ensemble are Kurt Russell as the mean John Ruth (who I"m pretty sure is meant to be a Tarantino version of John Wayne), Walton Goggins as Sheriff Chris Mannix and Tim Roth as Oswaldo Mobray. Each of the characters have very distinct characteristics that make them unique and interesting to watch. They all deliver some really stylised and unusual performances that will stick with you.

I think that if you love Tarantino's dialogue, style and characters then this will probably be right up your street but if you don't then it might be a stretch too far. It has a huge running time of 167 minutes for the digital release and a whopping 187 minutes for the 70mm roadshow so if you're not a fan then it's going to be a long 2 hours and 45 minutes. 

As with most of Tarantino's films, the dialogue is one of the main driving forces in the film with long and intricate monologues and extended conversations between characters. It builds characters and adds tension to specific scenes that only Tarantino could pull off. Like I said, if you're not into that style then the film will probably drag but for me it doesn't feel like nearly three hours. 

Ennio Morricone does the score, for which he won his first oscar, and it's funny because I don't think it's his best score. It's almost like someone trying to do their best Ennio Morricone impression but, nonetheless, it's a Morricone score so it's still epic. It's different having an original score in a Tarantino film and you do miss that signature soundtrack that Tarantino would put together from his record collection.

There are some shocking scenes that you know to expect from a Tarantino film and they do deliver on shock value while adding to the story. If you are squeamish then you're not going to handle some of the later scenes in the film, aside from 'Kill Bill' this has got to have some of the most violent set pieces I've seen in a Tarantino film. 

I wish I could have seen the roadshow version in all it's 70mm glory, it would have enhanced the viewing experience tenfold and was shot with that in mind. It's meant as a throwback to the golden age of cinema when going to the movies was an event that people would get dressed up for. There would be an intermission and a musical overture and Tarantino actually created that same layout for 'The Hateful Eight'. Also, to see Robert Richardson's cinematography on the big screen would have been incredible. He captures some stunning moments that remind us why cinema is king and why the Western was so important to our cinematic landscape.

Overall, a solid movie that reminds us of why we love watching Tarantino's films. They're fun, entertaining and cinematic. 

Tarantino's masterpiece? I don't think so but an enjoyable movie? Absolutely. 

And at the end of the day, I'll never get tired of hearing Samuel L. Jackson saying "motherfucker".

Hush (2016)

"I can come in anytime I want. 

And I can get you, anytime I want."

Note to self, if you’re deaf and living in the woods on your own, maybe don’t leave all your doors and windows unlocked and your phone in another room...

A deaf writer isolates herself in the woods to finish her book when a masked killer appears at her window. 

I’ve been known to enjoy a horror film or two and, after being given ‘Hush' as a recommendation, I was in the mood for some good old slasher fun. 

If you’re up for a horror flick that’ll keep you entertained without having to think too much then ‘Hush' might just be the movie for you.

For a lot of reasons, I both loved and hated this film. It's a constant back and forth between horror film cliché and horror film innovation.

'Hush' starts off with a dated premise but with a fresh take on it. Maddie, a writer, has moved herself to a house in the middle of nowhere so she can finish her new book. At a young age, a disease left her deaf and unable to speak so she has had to learn to cope in isolation. A masked killer shows up at her remote house in the woods and we have our movie.

Kate Siegel plays Maddie in the film and she delivers a competent and engaging performance. Her character is deaf and mute so trying to portray those aspects realistically while still conveying emotion and drama is quite a task for any actor. Good acting in any horror film is a bonus so it's nice to see Siegel bring some credibility to the character. I've not seen her in much else other than 'Oculus', by the same director, which I didn't love but I'd be curious to see some more of her work.

What I found really intriguing was the new dimension that was brought to the horror genre with Kate Siegel's character being deaf and mute. It isolates her even more and makes things even more challenging when the masked killer shows up wanting to kill her. They play on the idea a lot and make good use of it for the tension and atmosphere. She can't hear the killer so everything becomes visual and makes for some relatively tense viewing when she doesn't know where the killer is coming from.

It's a pretty straight forward slasher film. A masked killer wants to kill isolated woman in the woods. Not exactly ground breaking storytelling and, as much as I'd like to say that it does, it doesn't elevate itself much above that simple premise despite the added element of the deaf protagonist. It's pretty much just plain old vanilla. 

With any slasher flick you have to watch the line between cheesy fun and serious horror. You have to really know which side of the line you land on because, when the line starts to blur, the problems start appearing. 'Hush', for me, felt like it was trying to be a serious horror film so when the clichés and flawed logic started cropping up, I knew that it wasn't deliberate. 

There are a lot of convenient plot points that allow the story to progress that don't make a whole lot of sense and we end up screaming at the screen because of the lack of common sense that Kate Siegel's character Maddie shows. Bad decisions and wasted opportunities just take you right out the film and make you question everything Maddie is doing.

The tension is pretty decent but not nearly as tense as it could have and should have been. It's a little scary but not as scary as it could have and should have been. It's has some gore but it's not as gory as it could have and should have been... You get where I'm going with this?

It lacks impact and packs only a gentle punch that seems to simply graze your cheek rather than knock you flat out. With a set up as isolated and as claustrophobic as 'Hush' is, it should be a white knuckle ride that keeps you breathless and dreading the next appearance of the killer. Foreign horror films with similar premises like 'Switchblade Romance' and 'Inside' have got this tension and execution nailed but Hollywood doesn't seem to have the balls to go all out and grab us by the throat. We want to be pushed with horror and the genre should have the ability and freedom to do that.

Overall, 'Hush' is a flawed film but it does make some new choices behind the safety veil of clichés and genre conformity. It does try something different, which is to be commended, but the film lacks impact.

A better version of this film would probably be 'The Strangers' from back in 2008. 

Plus it has Liv Tyler in it so you can't really go wrong there.