Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

"If I'm gonna die, 

I'm gonna die historic on a fury road!"

It's like the film 'Waterworld'... But on land.

In a post apocalyptic world where mankind has gone totally insane, two rebels on the run may be the only ones able to restore order.

Having never seen the original 'Mad Max' films, I went into 'Mad Max: Fury Road' relatively blind to what had come before. I had been subjected to the two thousand different trailers that had been circulated in the run up to the release but, despite this, I was still reasonably excited to see what most were hailing as a modern day masterpiece. 

I am a huge fan of Tom Hardy and I knew that Charlize Theron has some serious acting chops. Admittedly I hadn't seen any films from George Miller other than 'Babe: Pig in the City' so I didn't really know what to expect...

Make no mistake, this film is wild. 

Straight from the start, you are thrown into a world of insanity, cars and violence. 

What I really enjoyed was the opening. It set the tone, the style and the pace which was exciting and exhilarating. It unapologetically hurls you into Max's world without hesitation and you have to find your feet in a world that has, ultimately, lost it's mind. 

It is fast paced, action packed and full of grit. 

There isn't much plot in 'Mad Max: Fury Road' but for the beginning you don't really care that much. There are enough fast cars and interesting concepts to keep you entertained and curious. However, this fast becomes a problem. We have a mission from a 'Grand Theft Auto' game where the characters have to protect the stolen "cargo" and outrun the bad guys who want it back. Essentially this is what the film is, no more, no less. Pretty quickly the fast pace and action become repetitive and the character development is minimal because we spend so much time on the action and spectacle. 

With a massive 120 minute run time of pure action and very little emotion or character, it starts to get a little... boring?

If the film had managed to find a balance of the fantastical action with some really great story then it would have been just unbelievable.

I was in awe of the spectacle and swept away in the excitement of the opening but I was waiting and waiting for the actual story to kick in, or at least a little more character. I'm all up for a simple premise that can deliver but with the two hour run time it just becomes a little self indulgent on George Miller's part. If it had been closer to maybe 60 minutes or even 80 then I think that it would have been a whirlwind of a movie that gets in and gets out before you even know what hit you. 

Mad Max himself is about the 4th most interesting character in the film. Max seems along for the ride for the most part with Furiosa taking the helm of this battle against the tyrant Immortan Joe, played by Hugh Keays-Byrne who, after a little research, I found out is actually in the original 'Mad Max' films. The film definitely centres more on Charlize Theron's character Imperator Furiosa, who is more developed and definitely more interesting to watch. It was refreshing to see a strong female lead who takes charge and uses her initiative in the plot, she's unfortunately alongside some other pathetically weak females but we'll let that slide. 

She kicks more ass with one hand than most men do with two!

I was interested in the idea that a world plunged into chaos would drive humanity insane. If all modern ideals and laws are thrown out of the window then the world would be in a state of chaos. Max says that in the beginning and it was interesting seeing everyone who has lost their mind in their own way. Is Max really the mad one? Or is it the world?

I thought the art department, costumes and cinematography stole the show in this one. It features some spectacular concepts with beautifully dark and apocalyptic designs that totally pull you into the world. It has depth and detail that create a world that you believe is a living and breathing thing rather than just within the confines of the run-time of the film. It doesn't have a beginning or an end, you just happen to be thrown into the world and taken out of it again. This is rare in a lot of modern films and when it's done right, it takes you away and engrosses you.

Tom Hardy is fine as Mad Max but, having never seen the original films, I felt he was a little characterless... I feel that this may have been remedied if I'd seen the original films but c'est la vie.

I revelled in the practical effects of 'Mad Max: Fury Road' and was impressed when the CGI was only used when it was absolutely necessary. The stunts you see in the film are breathtaking, especially when you know that they are actually being done in camera. It brings home the reality of the action and raises the stakes. You genuinely feel that the characters are in trouble, whether you care that they are in trouble or not is a different matter but you feel that they are in danger nonetheless. 

Therein lies the problem. There's not one point in the film where I genuinely felt a connection to the characters or cared when they were in danger. You can throw all the emotional music at a scene that you like but if you don't care for the characters then it's not going to move you.

Overall, 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is a technical achievement in filmmaking but I wouldn't say that it was a masterpiece. It's not as original as it tries to be but makes up for that in spectacular spectacle and action. 

If you are wanting two hours of non-stop action then 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is definitely the film for you. However, if you are looking for anything more then I think you'll be disappointed.

An enjoyable watch with some gritty action that will keep you entertained for the most part.

Big Game (2015)

“Find the president. Bring him home.”

A film aimed at young teenage boys pumped full of sugar.

A young Finnish teenager, on a hunting mission, finds the president of the United States after his plane was shot down by terrorists. 

I went into ‘Big Game’ totally blind as I hadn’t seen a trailer or even a poster. It's interesting to do this now and again because you never really know what you might stumble across. I've found some of my favourite films of last year by doing this but you do have to take the gamble that the film you're about to see could be terrible.

'Big Game' was somewhere in between... Maybe leaning slightly more towards the latter.

'Big Game’ stars a young unknown actor Omni Tommila, who I’ve only ever seen in ‘Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale’ and Samuel L. Jackson, who seems to be doing every single role that is offered to him recently.

Straight from the get go, I was intrigued by this film. As part of tradition, young Oskari has to set off on a hunting mission in the forest to prove his maturity to his kinsfolk. He’s not a natural hunter and is overshadowed by his father. This is an interesting and relatively relatable character who is struggling with who he is and who he is expected to be. 

However, my intrigue was quickly shattered and replaced by scepticism and a critical eye. Samuel L. Jackson is the president (let that sink in) and, after his plane is destroyed by some very pantomime terrorists, he is found by Oskari and must survive. 

‘Big Game' is extremely cheesy…

There are cringe worthy one liners, over the top action sequences and bucketloads of clichés. 

I don’t mind cheesy dialogue or some bad clichés when they are in the right context.

My main problem with the film was that it didn’t know what it was and therefore tried to cover all bases with the audience. 

It had too much adult content to be kids film but was way too childish to be a film for adults. 

It had cheesy and hammy acting with some over the top action, which can be a lot of fun in a kids film, but at the same time it had some really adult violence and plot points that really confuse the tone of the film. It is rated as a 12A and there were some younger children in the cinema that really shouldn’t have been watching some parts of the film. If it had picked one side or the other then it would have worked so much better, unfortunately it ends up just being confusing and just... cheesy. 

The humour in the film was unexpected and I found myself laughing quite a lot at the jokes but this was unfortunately balanced by my laughter at the film that was rapidly free-falling into farce. The “terrorists" in the film are so two dimensional and pantomime it’s laughable and some of the dialogue is so clunky that I wondered if it was actually written by the 12 year olds that the film is aimed at. No amount of Sam Jackson will solve that. 

What I did enjoy was the fact that Samuel L. Jackson still managed to get a “motherfucker” in there, I was waiting for it all movie and was thrilled when he got to say it. A small consolation in what is a pretty bad movie overall.

I thought Omni Tommila was the glue that held the film together and he actually outshone most of the more mature american actors. His character was defined and he had a clear arch and goal to accomplish. His chemistry with Samuel L. Jackson was also really believable, which is something that is hard to fake. His transformation from innocence was enjoyable to watch, despite the rest of the questionable film going on around him. 

What has to be said about 'Big Game' is that the locations they used in Finland are beautiful. Reminiscent of 'The Lord of the Rings' or 'Braveheart', the scenery and location becomes a character in itself and each scene captures another gorgeous part of the land that young Oskari is trying to survive in. The cinematography helps a lot too, it has energy and excitement which pulls you into the action and allows you to take in the spectacle of the landscapes.

'Big Game' does a tremendous job of promoting Finland and it's people, it portrays them as being strong and full of values. I find it strange that it has made its way all the way across here with the way the Americans are portrayed in it but I think there's enough Samuel L. Jacksonness in there to make them forget that it's not very flattering... 

For me, it felt like a 90's action blockbuster but without the nostalgic feeling to go with it. It wasn't quite a homage or a tribute to these movies as it did seem to want to take itself seriously but at the same time it obviously had some fun with what it was doing? This brings us back to the confusion of the film. I have a feeling it was meant to be a little more serious than it was but comes across as over-acted and cheesy so they just ran with it.

Granted, some of the action set pieces were enjoyable but it was mostly the humour of the film that saved it. 

Honestly, I think it was an attempt at doing a Matthew Vaughn film like 'Kick-Ass' and "Kinsmen: The Secret Service'. Vaughn manages to balance pantomime and comedy with some serious action and violence, however the difference is that Vaughn does it better and he knows the audience well. 

All of this being said, if you are to look at it from a young teenagers perspective then I think it definitely works a bit better. They wouldn't be as familiar with the clichés, the action is big enough to satisfy the spectacle quota of an action film and cheesy scenes don't seem as bad when you're a young kid. I was half expecting some hormonal titillation and more swearing but it was relatively reserved on that front. It'll fulfil the action quota and has a character that they can relate to as the young teenager is the hero of the film alongside some incapable adults. 

Overall, I think that young boys from ages 12 - 14 will absolutely love and enjoy this film but it will probably be lost on most of the audience. It's enjoyable from a silly and cheesy action flick point of view but the sobering fact is that if you actually look at it for what it is then it really falls short of the mark. 
There were some big names in this film but I imagine these names were purely to draw a western audience. The story is full of the biggest clichés in action films you can imagine with some “plot twists” that can be spotted a mile off.

Unfriended (2015)

"Online, your memories live forever... 

but so do your mistakes."

That's it... my faith in modern horror has officially been destroyed.

After their Skype session is hacked into, a group of friends are haunted by their dead friend's online account.

Do I even have to do a review after reading the premise of the film?

Okay, let's make this quick.

'Unfriended' was a horror that I had no interest in seeing, however, after some surprisingly good reviews, I thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.

This film is a mistake. Pure and simple. 

'Unfriended' is based around the suicide of Laura Barns, a high school girl who was cyber bullied in school and took her own life as a result. On the anniversary of her death, this clichéd group of misfit friends are Skyping when a mysterious account, claiming to be the dead Laura Barns, begins to hassle and threaten them.

The film explores a new way of telling a story as the entire film is set on the desktop of Blaire Lily, a young virgin (who promises that she'll go all the way on prom)... 

Not only do we have the virgin but we have the jock, the slut, the stoner and the boyfriend...

That's literally the list of characters. 

Not even in an ironic kind of way.

What really bothered me about the style of the narrative was it's inconsistency and it's use of convenient plot devices when telling the story. 

If we are meant to be watching the events play out from a desktop then why is there obvious and creepy ambient music with loud crashes when there's a cheap jump scare? It's like playing out 'Paranormal Activity' with a full orchestral score going on in the living room downstairs, conceptually it doesn't fit with what it's trying to accomplish.

The internet connection, that is conveniently lost when the plot needs it, is a pain to watch as the screen flickers and starts and stops. It'll give you a headache as it tries to create tension by cutting the signal and then quickly cutting in with a loud crash and a scream.

Blaire constantly types things then deletes it (so we know what she's thinking) and doesn't act like a real girl would. The things she says and does just aren't natural to the situation, even before the horror starts. She's a contrived character from the beginning and when you combine that with her "friends" (who all would never be friends in the first place), you get an annoying group of stereotypes that you'll be happy to see die.

If you are to strip the unusual narrative style out of the equation and look at the plot itself, then it's an abysmal attempt at a horror film. Not only do we have some extremely clichéd characters but they are not likeable at all. By the end of the film you are hoping that they are all going to get knocked off by this anonymous hacker. It's a sorry state of affairs when you are actually cheering the killer on and hoping that they'll all die. Not in a fun way, like you would with some cheap slasher flicks, but more so you can leave the cinema and get back to your life. 

The tension and "scares" in the film soon get old and predictable. Cheap attempts at jump scares begin to get on your nerves and the death scenes are laughable... Literally. 

The entire audience was in fits of laughter as the film went on and I don't think anyone was taking it seriously. 

It tries to be modern and up to date but ends up looking severely out of touch.

When huge story issues arise, the film consciously and obviously tries to cover the gaping plot holes with silly excuses that just end up making you question the entire integrity of the film.

The film was so focused on whether or not it could tell the story in this way rather than if it should. I don't consider it to be a "game changer" in horror like 'The Blair Witch Project' was and I don't think it'll ever be done again in the future. I commend them for trying but this was an absolute misfire. It was an interesting concept for a narrative tool but was obviously rushed so that it was the first to make it before someone else had the idea.

It had shallow and irritating characters, a boring and clichéd plot, terrible tension, zero horror and is predictable right up to the end, despite it's pathetic attempt at having some "plot twists". You can call it straight from the get go. 

It's definitely not scary and is, quite frankly, one of the worst horror films I've seen in a while.

Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.

 

The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

"I was designed to save the world. 

People would look to the sky, and see hope... 

I'll take that from them first!"

The Avengers: Age of product placement…

After Tony Stark inadvertently creates a villainous A.I. named Ultron, The Avengers must assemble once again to stop him from completing his evil plans.

I think I may have been the least excited person in the cinema on opening weekend of 'Avengers: Age of Ultron’. 

I could hear the excited chatter of fans debating over what was about to come on screen and there was electricity in the air. Not being a fan of superhero or comic book films I unfortunately felt like an outsider to the crowd as I sat through endless television ads and film trailers specifically aimed at the audience I was a part of. Mobile phones, car ads, video games and, of course, more superhero films were washed over us and I began to feel more and more sceptical before the film had even started.

I felt like I was sitting waiting for a live act to come on stage as the lights dimmed and screams were heard in anticipation of the long awaited blockbuster, something that is a rarity in cinemas today.

As I sit with my fingers resting on the keyboard writing this review, I feel a certain trepidation as I have to choose my words carefully. There seems to be a universal love and slight bias for comic book movies that seem to alienate everyone who doesn’t share the same view and affection for them.

I don’t want this review to come across as instantly negative so I’ll begin by talking about what I actually really enjoyed about the film. 

I thought the humour really lightened the tone of the film and had the audience laughing endlessly through scenes. It was nice to see many different age groups enjoying the film together instead of only one demographic, the film is obviously aimed for a certain audience but there was enough in it for anyone to enjoy. 

The spectacle and scope of the film was huge and it really felt like a big action blockbuster. The quick wit mixed with some of the fantastical action sequences was fun and I can imagine that it would have been thrilling to see in IMAX 3D. Slightly regretting not seeing it in IMAX but c'est la vie.

For me, I always find Robert Downey Jr. engaging and interesting as Iron Man in these films and he was just as good in ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’. He is witty, arrogant and obviously very well liked by the fans.

I thought James Spader as Ultron was decent, he had a Heath Ledger edge to some of his scenes and was menacing enough. Although, I found his moving mouth so distracting as he is made of metal… It’s a pet hate of mine, like animating a real animals mouth to speak in a children’s film. This being said, and not knowing all of the comic book history, I thought he was more threatening and developed than Loki in the first Avengers film. He brought personality to an A.I. and gave him character, he’s an enjoyable villain in a relatively light hearted film.

My main criticisms are that I felt that 'Avengers: Age of Ultron’ was a little over-hyped, a bit silly in parts and quite cheap.

It's so hard to avoid trailers with social media and the internet but the crazy amounts of trailers and teasers and teasers for trailers was gruelling and didn't enhance the viewing experience one iota. I understand that the film needs some advertisement but I can't imagine anyone wouldn't have went to see it if we'd only received one trailer...
Going in to this film you feel like you've already seen most of it and when you sit down to watch it, I actually had. There were some surprising moments in the film, and I'm sure there were a few shockers for the die hard comic book fans that flew over my head, but regarding the plot it's predictable and straight forward.

What really bothered me about it was that there was no tension in the film. You already know that the characters are going to be back for the other films so any scene where there's an impending danger you already know they're all going to be fine because the other films still have to come out. This just deflated every action scene and emotional moment for me.

I found parts of the film slightly cheesy. The one liners that weren't part of the humorous scenes felt quite unnatural and I honestly found most of them a bit cringe worthy. They were determined to tug at the heart strings to get some emotion out of scenes that weren't that emotional. I get the idea that it's a comic book movie but I don't think that solely excuses some of the more questionable dialogue...

What I immediately noticed in the film was the absolute bombardment of product placement. Endless shots of products were grabbing screen time from the first scenes, from Beats headphones to Audi cars and even Gillette razors, it was grotesque advertising aimed at selling whatever product had paid more for their time on screen. It instantly cheapened the experience for me and put me on the back foot as I consciously started counting the adverts within the movie. 

It was extremely clear that ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ was trying to build Hawkeye and Black Widow’s likability and importance to the plot, this being because they’re clearly the least liked characters in the Avengers. Unfortunately, instead of giving us something interesting or credible, they gave Black Widow an extremely forced love story with The Hulk and gave Hawkeye a contrived backstory. I imagine their contracts aren’t up yet and they have a bigger part to play in the next film but a little more imagination would have been appreciated. Instead, we're bludgeoned to death in an attempt to make us care for them.

The story between Black Widow and The Hulk was laughable, I expected more from director Joss Whedon, who has always been very vocal for strong female leads. 

It’s no secret that I’m not a fan of Mark Ruffalo and I just see him playing himself, even as the Hulk. His wooden performance isn’t great but it isn’t terrible either, he’s just Mark Ruffalo... Like him or not, The Hulk is always fun to watch as he wrecks and obliterates whatever is in his path. Forced love story aside, they do add another layer to his character in this film and it is a welcome layer as we get more of his predicament as he copes with his monster.

The CGI varied from being spectacular to abysmal in the film. Some scenes were breathtaking to watch and you actually forgot that it was special effects. These are the scenes that the audience pay to see in big blockbusters and make the action all the more enjoyable. However, some of the CGI looked incredibly fake and more like a video game than a scene in the film. For instance, the opening scene of the film, that is probably nearly an entire scene made up of CGI, looked terrible. I found it cheap and unbelievable which was a horrible way to start the blockbuster season when you expect great effects and believable action (within the confines of the world they create).

There were a lot of comic book references in the film that obviously went way over my head. Vision was one of them, an interesting idea but I could take it or leave it. There were so many characters being introduced and, despite the exhausting 141 minute run time, not enough screen time to give them any meaning or emotional connection. 

I found the structure of the whole film relatively predictable. The endless action sequences become tiring and I began to crave more story. The best parts of the film, for me, were not the large action sequences with the Hulk or Ultron's evil schemes, but instead it was the quiet moments with the avengers where we got an insight into their characters and the plot was being developed. However, I am in a minority as there is a quota of action and explosions to meet and I guess there’s not much time for philosophical ideas and theories when Ultron is imminently going to blow shit up.

I think what my main issue with this film (and the others) is that it promises so much but only delivers about 70% of it. Like a long running TV series that doesn't want to end, it never delivers the full potential. Always promising more if you tune in next week but next week never seems to be as good as what you were expecting. Each film is always rumoured to be the best yet but always leaves us with a cliff hanger, promising more in the next film. The only comic book movie I feel delivered on the hype was 'The Dark Knight', after 'Batman Begins' the bar was set so high and it was just smashed with the follow up.

Overall, ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ was an enjoyable film for what it was but will definitely not turn me into a comic book convert. 

I have a feeling the comic book film era will eventually fade away to be replaced by something else so the studios are getting as many films out as humanely possible to capitalise before they become unfashionable again.

Until that time comes, I’m sure ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ will sell all the toys, video games and merchandise that it needs to and we’ll be left with more and more spin off superhero films for the foreseeable future.

I imagine if you’re a comic book fan then this will satisfy your superhero cravings but I can’t say it lived up to the years of hype since the last one, I thought ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ was a better film in general but that’s coming from someone who doesn’t enjoy superhero films.

Definitely going to ruffle a few feathers with this one… 
I’ll play the villain in this case, maybe I should get a cape? 

"NO CAPES!"

The Salvation (2015)

"We’ve been hoping and praying for someone like you 

to come along and save us from our misery."

Not too many surprises with this gritty Danish Western but it packs a punch that'll knock you off your horse.

After a peaceful settler kills the men who murdered his family, he unknowingly unleashes the fury of a ruthless local gang leader.

After a steady stream of mostly forgettable American westerns that have been made in recent years, it's refreshing to see a unique, yet classic, take on the western by Danish director Kristian Levring.

'The Salvation' isn't particularly ground breaking, in fact, I'd say it was almost predictable as far as westerns go but it's an enjoyable ride nonetheless.

Straight from the start you can tell that this is a film that's definitely not going to pull any punches. Jon is a peaceful man who has settled in America for quite some time and he's now brought his wife and child over to live in America. Unfortunately, in a horrible twist of fate, two thugs rape and execute his wife and child. It's as hard hitting as you'd expect.
After claiming revenge on the men responsible, Jon then has to deal with the wrath of the dead mans brother, who happens to be the meanest and baddest gang leader in town...

Well known actor Mads Mikkelsen, known for 'Hannibal' and 'Casino Royale' plays Jon and delivers a tough and calculated performance as a man who is broken and betrayed. It is heartbreaking to watch his predicament go from bad to worse with every scene. He has to go head to head with gang leader Delarue and, as you'd expect, all hell breaks loose.
Mikkelsen manages to make you empathise with a man on the verge of being evil himself and makes you root for him because, let's face it, he has an incredibly tough time of it in this film. 
From the start you understand exactly who Jon is and you see his character transform as the film progresses. He is a peaceful ex-soldier who has made a life for his family and when that is taken from him, there's a change in him that cannot be repaired. He maturely and subtly takes us along with him in this dark and unsettling journey.

The supporting cast were all interesting characters with some well known faces, including Eva Green, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jonathan Pryce, who all give stellar performances. A special mention for Mikael Persbrandt who plays Jon's brother, his relationship with Jon is believable and heartfelt which definitely gives the film more weight.

It's a straight forward revenge story, with some interesting themes and ideas thrown in for good measure, but it carries a lot of classic trademarks of the western and makes use of them in modern ways.
I could guess where the film was going but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's not a film that has to fill the run time with endless twists and turns, instead, it takes us on a rough ride into some dark places. Jon and his brother have to deal with the calm before the inevitable storm brought by Delarue. The tension is subtle and gradually builds to the climax which is exactly the pay-off you are waiting for.

It was interesting to watch how each character reacts to the chaos that Jon creates. Each character has their own motive and plans and you really get a sense of a well formed world created by director and writer Kristian Levring. I've not seen any of his work but I'd be curious after seeing 'The Salvation'.

'The Salvation' is as hard hitting as it is violent. You feel every punch and gunshot as if you were standing mere feet away and that really brings it home for an audience. There are some bone crunching scenes that will have you looking away but, with that being said, you don't actually see a lot of it. It's all worked into the clever sound design and subtle editing. You're imagination will fill in the blanks of what you're not seeing and you see the aftermath when it's finished.

A lot of the cinematography in 'The Salvation' is just gorgeous. It beautifully captures the classic landscapes, sets and costumes and really takes the audience to the west. It's unique. It isn't quite like anything I've seen before, in a good way, and it captures the sunsets and romantic set pieces of the classic western, but contrasts them with some gritty imagery. It's a western fans wet dream and I'm sure people who aren't familiar with the genre will appreciate it just the same.

It has a soundtrack that encapsulates all of the classic western traits and it's beautifully apt in every scene. There's a score to be heard rather than ambient noise and every strum of a guitar spells trouble for Jon or whoever is going to get in his way. It is reminiscent of the classic work of Ennio morricone and that's probably deliberate.

Overall, 'The Salvation' is nothing new but, in it's own way, feels both modern and classic. It's full of realism and dark themes but it still knows what type of film it is. It plays to the strengths of the western and takes some interesting and creative choices within the confines of that genre. It boasts a great cast with some breathtaking cinematography.

If you're a western fan then you won't find anything new here but it's a well executed western that's tough and mean and definitely isn't to be missed.

John Wick (2015)

"In a bar, I once saw him kill three men... with a pencil."

Move over Neo... The name's John Wick.

After the son of a Russian mafia boss kills John Wick's dog, the last gift left behind by his dead wife, John Wick comes out of retirement as a hitman and goes after the Russian mob.

After what seemed like a lifetime since it was released in the US, we finally get a UK release of 'John Wick'. I was interested to see the film that is being hailed as Keanu Reeve's return to form and saw it on opening weekend.

What I loved about 'John Wick', straight from the start, is the level intrigue about his character. We get pieces of information about his dead wife and little snippets of his personality but nothing in black and white. As the film progresses we begin to understand that there is a hell of a lot more to him than meets the eye. He has a legendary, almost mythical, reputation surrounding him that almost no one could ever live up to... 

Almost.

John Wick is a badass.

It is so refreshing to see an action character who actually deserves his reputation for violence and fear. No matter where this guy goes he seems to be known by everyone. He is the most skilled hitman in America, who is slightly rusty from being out of the game for so long, but he is still a force to be reckoned with nonetheless. 
When it's all going down, he almost always hits his target, he lands headshot after headshot and is ruthless in his violent delivery. You can tell that it's a natural motion for him and it comes across as effortless. It irritates me when a character, in other films, is meant to be as skilled as John Wick but can't seem to hit anything, it takes me right out of the film and that's why I applaud 'John Wick'. You better believe when he sets his sight on someone, chances are, they are going to get a bullet in the face.

The action in the film is great. Watching Keanu Reeves kick some serious mafia ass is always going to be entertaining. The world that is created in ‘John Wick’ feels something like a video game. You, the audience, are playing as John Wick and there are different levels to get through which are progressively harder. There are rules in the film and principles that people live by that are fun to learn as they come along. You meet lots of interesting characters that are scattered through the film with bucketloads of unique details about the world that just bring the film to life. It makes for an extremely textured viewing that seems amiss in a lot of films of today. 

A fantastic soundtrack is also heard in 'John Wick' that features Tyler Bates and Joel J. Richard alongside artists like Marilyn Manson and Ciscandra Nostalghia, so it's a mixed bag of sounds and styles but one that suits the film perfectly.

Keanu Reeves is the perfect actor to play John Wick. He is likeable and relatable and you genuinely root for him the whole way through. They killed his dog, who wouldn't go on a vendetta?

Despite having some very questionable dialogue he still manages to make it work in a way only Keanu Reeves can and steals every scene he's in. It’s one of the few films I’ve liked him in since ‘The Matrix’ and I can definitely understand why ‘John Wick’ is being hailed as his return to form. He does all of his action sequences flawlessly and, from what I could tell, all of his own driving? CGI is so advanced that they could fake it but I think it was actually him doing the driving scenes in camera.

Alfie Allen plays Iosef Tarasov, the nasty piece of work who kills John Wick’s dog but, for me, the stand out supporting role is the mafia boss Viggo Tarasov played by Michael Nyqvist. He is likeable and you understand where he is coming from. He doesn’t want to take on John Wick because of his utmost respect (and fear) for him but because his son is being targeted, no matter how extremely stupid he has been, he has to stand by him. This is an interesting character and one that caught my attention straight away. Michael Nyqvist is a fine actor which helped give some believability to Viggo rather than turning him into a caricature of a mafia boss from every other film you've seen.

The film is a bit cheesy at times but in a playful way that actually seems to work in the film. There are lines of humorous dialogue and scenes that are totally ridiculous but are absolutely believable in the world that the film creates. If you were to pluck lines of dialogue from scenes and drop them into a different film then they would come across as totally hammy and pantomime but within the confines of ‘John Wick’ they are entertaining and apt for the situation. 

Overall, ‘John Wick’ is great fun. 

It’ll keep you entertained and on the edge of your seat. It creates a unique world that you can dive into and has some high voltage, white knuckle fight sequences that put Liam Neeson to shame. 

Let’s just hope there won’t be a John Wick 2…

The Babadook (2014)

"You can bring me the boy."

Don't you just love it when kids see evil monsters that are actually real...

While single mother Amelia copes with the violent death of her husband, her sons fear of monsters is realised as she discovers a menacing presence in the house.

'The Babadook' was a film that received extremely mixed reviews when it was released. I missed it in the cinema and regretted it because, generally, my rule of thumb with horrors is that mixed reviews are a good thing. Some of the best horror films out there have mixed reviews and, because the horror genre is so subjective, it's hard to judge what you'll find scary based on what others find scary. I'd heard that 'The Babadook' was one of the worst horror films in years but, at the same time, I'd also heard that it was one of the best.

I finally got round to watching 'The Babadook' after forgetting just about everything about it since the trailer was circulating in cinemas last year.

What I found unusual, straight from the start, is that both of the main characters are actually quite hard to like. This isn't because of their acting ability, Amelia, played by Essie Davis, and Samuel, played by the young Noah Wiseman, both do a stellar job in their roles. The film looks at the strained relationship between Amelia and Samuel and explores some deeply disturbing themes that I haven't seen before. The idea of a parent hating their own child is difficult to swallow and makes us dread what could potentially happen with the introduction of the Babadook monster. Amelia is so unlikable because of her relationship with her own son and Samuel is a difficult child for any parent to deal with which doesn't help matters. I sense a level of autism present in Samuel but it's not made clear.

This is where the tension of the film comes in. It's the gradual build up that makes us uncomfortable as time goes on. Most of the tension doesn't actually come from the horror which isn't necessarily a bad thing in this case. It's the fear of the unknown and the danger of the mysterious Babadook that gives us the chills. The disturbing imagery helps a lot, especially with the old fashioned silent film clips that are mixed with a twisted, childlike soundtrack. The fact that he comes from the pages of a childrens storybook is a nice and twisted touch as storybooks tend to be to help children sleep.

It's always nice to see a horror film that goes back to the roots of what scares us rather than relying on some cheap jump scares and bucketloads of gore. It's more about getting under your skin and making you feel unsettled. Director Jennifer Kent does a solid job in achieving what appears to be a feature film based from a short she made in 2005. She hasn't done much work other than 'The Babadook' but I'd be excited to see where she could go in her next film with a bigger budget and more support behind her.

The Babadook creature is genuinely quite creepy but it's more about what you don't see that makes you squirm. We get glimpses of horror and flashes of the monsters true form but very rarely do we see it in it's full glory. This works to the films advantage and allows our imagination to do a lot of the heavy lifting. There's a lot of stop motion and dark shadows that makes his entrance and appearance feel like a nightmare or an old silent film.

Creepy stuff.

There's a real feeling of claustrophobia in the film which can be a little disorientating and breathless (in a good way). The fact that Amelia is experiencing insomnia means that the film starts to play with our perception of time and makes us question whether or not what we are seeing is real. The tight setting that Amelia and Samuel are forced to live in together becomes suffocating as the tension rises and the feeling of dread descends over the house.

Overall, 'The Babadook' is a horror that, admittedly, isn't that scary but it doesn't feel the need to be in this case. It delves into some serious, unusual and very real issues and delivers a tense and psychological film with a heart.

The film, for me, is a metaphor for post-natal depression which is a tough idea to explore. The Babadook creature embodies the depression and darkness of the condition which is an effective way of dealing with the theme.

This definitely isn't a film to turn on late at night with a group of friends to scare the pants off you but more one to absorb on your own. It'll leave you with a lot to think about and maybe leave you with a chill or two.