Jurassic World (2015)

"We have an asset out of containment!"

Something tells me that the 'Jurassic Park' franchise should have just stayed a fossil...

22 years after the events of Jurassic Park, Jurassic World is now a fully functioning theme park. In order to bring in new customers, a new dinosaur is created which backfires horribly.

I was totally surprised at the hype that was suddenly upon us with the release of 'Jurassic World' with it being 22 years after the original film, with a sequel that wasn't as good as the first and a third film which should never have been made in the first place. I'm pretty sure I could have happily lived the rest of my life without a 4th Jurassic movie and after seeing the film? I'm still sure I could have happily lived the rest of my life without seeing a 4th Jurassic movie.

What I actually really enjoyed about the film was the park itself. It was very well thought out and was exactly how I imagined the park would look when I originally saw 'Jurassic Park' when I was young. It feels like a Disney theme park and, if it was to happen in reality, Disney would probably own it... 
It had the merchandise stands, the food stalls, the attractions and the rides that you'd want in a Jurassic themed park. It is all geared towards the experience, much like Disneyland, and you really get that it's a worldwide phenomenon. Kudos to the filmmakers for this vision of the park, they nailed it in that sense. Although, being that the events of 'Jurassic Park' still happened before 'Jurassic World' I don't understand how, legally, the park could still be opened... Just saying...

I thought some of the humour in the film was good and some of it really reminds you of the spirit of the original. The entire audience was laughing which was nice. Chris Pratt had a lot to do with this and he's altogether decent as the leading man. He's become very popular lately and there are rumours that he is to play Indiana Jones in yet another reboot. After seeing him in this, I can understand why. He's a good hero, he's got charm and humour with the action abilities to go with it. He even managed to do the slide under the closing gate, perhaps this is a glimpse of what is to come?
I would like to see him play something other than his character from 'Guardians of the Galaxy' but I don't see that happening anytime soon, he does it so well.

Unfortunately that's about as far as my praise can go with 'Jurassic World'.

The plot of the film is totally predictable, generic and as cliché ridden as you like.

One of my main issues with 'Jurassic World' is that the trailer revealed way too much. There are some pretty significant plot points that are revealed in the trailer that completely ruin parts of the film. You know exactly what is going to happen in the big scenes because you've already seen them in the trailer. This then ruins all of the tension and the drama that they try to create in these scenes which really takes you out of the movie. 
With such a big blockbuster there should be little doubt that there will be people filling the seats without seeing 20 odd trailers first.

Alongside huge plot points being ruined in the trailer, you already know a mile off what's going to happen and how it's going to play out. It isn't subtle and you can guess it from the start. Predictability is a massive flaw in any film and, when compared to the original, there's just no contest. The original 'Jurassic Park' had bucketloads of tension, drama and thrills which is poorly imitated in 'Jurassic World'. I guessed it about 20 minutes in and it played out to what I thought. This definitely indicates some poor writing, there could have been other (and better) plots that could have taken the franchise in a fresh direction or in a more unexpected direction at least.

There are a lot of references to the original film which was fun at first but only a handful would have been sufficient. Instead, you are constantly reminded that you are watching a film and are taken out of the story with the amount of "subtle" references and winks to the audience. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first few but they become tiresome when you're an hour and a half into the movie. I would have loved to have had them all out of the way in the first 20 minutes so that I could sink into the story and forget that I was in a cinema. If I wanted to be reminded of the original film, then I would just watch the original. I understand that it's a sequel so you don't need to bludgeon me to death with it. 
Combine the references with the unlimited supply of product placement and it becomes very hard to actually get into the plot with all of the distractions. Mercedes were the only cars available in 'Jurassic World' apparently, alongside Beats headphones and the trusty Coca-Cola ads. Chris Pratt even manages to take a moment out of a scene to take a big sip of Coke before he continues with his lines. For me, all this just blocks me from actually getting into the plot but if you can get past that then fair play to you.

Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire is just an embarrassment as a 21st century female character. She plays the manager of the park who is asked to look after her nephews who have come to visit the park. She's a poorly written female co-lead whose main worry of the film is about her own maternal instinct. 

She's ridiculed when she tries to be strong and is undermined by her inability to avoid falling in love with Chris Pratt. She inexplicably manages to run away from a T-Rex in heels... She also trudges through a prehistoric jungle in them for the duration of the film, I've seen women on a night out in Glasgow that couldn't last pre-drinks in their heels so how she managed it in 'Jurassic World' is nothing short of amazing. 
Poor show from a film that had the perfect opportunity to have a strong female lead like Ellen Ripley in 'Alien' or Sarah Connor in 'Terminator'. I would have liked to have seen the roles reversed, to have Chris Pratt as Claire's character and have Bryce Dallas Howard as the badass dinosaur keeper/trainer who has to save the day.

There was a harmonious groan from the audience when the on-screen kiss took place and it was a testament to how ridiculous it really was, because all you really need in life is a good man to take care of you right?

It's not a good sign for a film released in 2015 when the effects in 1993 look better than today. The best parts of the effects in 'Jurassic World' were the practical effects. 

Why is that? 

It's because they're real! They look believable! 
The rest of the CGI in the film, in comparison to the practical effects, look very fake because you just don't believe it. Granted, the big fish that eats the shark in the trailer looks great and obviously couldn't be done practically but what was so great about the original 'Jurassic Park' was that the CGI was only used when the filmmakers couldn't do the effect practically. Unfortunately this philosophy is long extinct now and has been replaced by CGI everywhere. It's sad to see because it was spawned by a film that opened the doors with the use of CGI. If it had used more practical effects and less CGI then it could have been a fitting homage to the original and still look great. Technology has come a long way in 22 years and I'm pretty sure a lot more of the CGI could have been done practically.

What I find ironic about the film itself is the fact that it centres around the parks issue of bringing in more customers to the park by creating this super-mega-ultra dinosaur. Everything has to be bigger and better and it backfires on them. This seems to be the case with 'Jurassic World' because after the first three movies, instead of coming up with something original and innovative, they just opt for a bigger dinosaur than the last in an attempt to bring in cinema goers. It's a slap in the face to the audience when the park-goers are demeaned for coming to a bigger attraction which is exactly what the filmmakers have done with the film. It is now a slippery slope because it has had one of the biggest opening weekend ever at the box office, so far it's just $2.8 million shy of 'The Avengers' in 2012. This could well take over 'The Avengers' but nonetheless this means that the door for another sequel has been opened (which was announced literally just after the opening weekend) which I'm sure will sprawl into another 3 or 4 movies... 
How much bigger does it get? 
Will it be an even bigger Indominus Rex than before? Where does it end?

Money, money, money.

Ultimately, 'Jurassic World' is generic. It's a relatively good time as far as blockbusters go but I wouldn't look too deep. It has some laughs and there are enough dinosaurs to keep you occupied but as far as being on the same level as 'Jurassic Park', it isn't even in the same league. There's not much of an attempt to do anything spectacular with the film to make it different or unique. Instead, there's a big dinosaur that is set loose in the park with an excessive amount of CGI. The actual park was the best part of the film and Chris Pratt saves it. This was a fantastic opportunity to breath life into a dead franchise and return it to the glory of the original film, to capture some of that magic with technology they didn't have in 1993. They could have taken it in so many different directions with the park being opened up but instead they go the easy route of just having a big, DNA spliced, CGI dinosaur to wreck havoc. 

I always attach the trailer at the bottom of these but, in this case, I'd recommend you don't watch it unless you've already seen the film...

Spy (2015)

"I look like someone's homophobic aunt!"

It's just 'Get Smart'... without Steve Carrell... or Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson...

Nobody seen that movie?  

A desk-bound CIA analyst volunteers to go undercover in a dangerous mission to save the world after all of the other agents identities are compromised. 

So just 'Get Smart'... with Melissa McCarthy.

'Spy' stars Melissa McCarthy and follows her comical adventure as the new (and the only) CIA operative on a dangerous mission. It wasn't a film that I was particularly excited for but, despite this, I was still expecting a few laughs and some fun slap-stick action.

The film starts off relatively well with a few mild giggles and pretty much stays there for the overly long 2 hour run time. There aren't many laugh out loud moments but you'll be amused for the most part. We get all the Melissa McCarthy fat jokes that we can handle and don't feel too bad to laugh because, after all, she's making the jokes herself... so it's alright to laugh at the fat chick apparently.

Love her or hate her, Melissa McCarthy is a comedy force to be reckoned with. She knows her strengths and what people want and I was feeling a little sick of seeing her playing the exact same role over and over again. However, for the first half of 'Spy' she plays against what you'd expect. It was definitely a slight change of style for McCarthy as the undervalued Susan Cooper, she's very reserved and not at all confident in herself. As the film goes on, her confidence as a CIA agent, and as a woman, grows and she eventually goes full McCarthy.

Unfortunately, the film feels very sluggish at times. Long and drawn out "banter" or waffling steals a lot of time from scenes that eventually just become a little cringe-worthy. A couple of comebacks are great and can be really funny but when it drags on, it really drags on. The run time was stretched to 2 hours but if you were to cut out a lot of the waffling then it would be a solid 1 hour and 30 minute film, which probably would have helped the comedy value immensely. It's just hard to watch a film with so much fat around the edges that, as an editor, I'd love to trim off to get to the punchline. 

There are some surprising action sequences in the film that feel a little out of the blue but are a welcome surprise. There are car chases and some well choreographed fight scenes that could rival some recent action films that have been released which isn't what you'd expect. There's also quite a bit of gore in the film that is, again, slightly out of the blue in this relatively light hearted comedy. It's certainly not 'Evil Dead' or 'Saw' but it has its moments.

It does have some nice references to a lot of classic spy movies and it's fun to watch them play with some of those conventions. However, for me, it was just too close to being a female 'Get Smart'. Most of the characters and the jokes run dangerously close to it and 'Get Smart' just does it so much better. It features a CIA agent that is constantly undervalued and underestimated going on a mission that no one expects them to accomplish. There are twists and turns that are pretty predictable with some pantomime villains but they still manage to save the day, despite their clumsy nature. There are even some scenes in there that are straight out of 'Get Smart' and I found myself wondering at points in the movie why 'Spy' was even made. 

There are a lot of well known faces in 'Spy' and it was nice to see them having a bit of fun with some comedy, not always delivering it perfectly but they look like they are having fun. 

Jude Law was a bit shakey but McCarthy reels him in and provides some much needed comedy timing in a lot of his scenes. His more serious parts of the movie are undoubtedly better but McCarthy is definitely the comedy glue that holds most of the film together, despite some over-indulgence on her part but she keeps it together. 

Jason Statham surprised me as the dimwitted CIA goof. He had a funny character and played against the normal roles that he does, almost laughing at himself in a lot of his scenes. He's actually pretty funny as the clown of the film and it's nice to have him take himself a little less seriously. His wild and fantastic monologues are a recurring joke that he has, they poke a bit of fun at his own films and he's clearly having a ball with it. 

I thought Rose Byrne was pretty awful as the daughter of the evil villain, she's not funny enough to be a funny character but not evil enough to be taken seriously as a villain. She's in a strange grey area where you don't really know if she's being funny or if she's just giving a bad performance...

I realise there is a huge fanbase for Miranda Hart in the BBC TV series 'Miranda' but she's so awkwardly bad in 'Spy'... I understand that this is her unique style of comedy, the awkward but charming ditz, but for me it was clunky and out of place in 'Spy'. Each to their own but, in my opinion, she was the worst part of the film. 

Ultimately, I think 'Spy' is a bit of a knock-off of 'Get Smart' that provides a handful of laughs but not nearly a many good ones as I was expecting. Don't get me wrong, you'll definitely laugh but the best jokes are pretty scattered throughout the film rather than a steady flow of gags. Melissa McCarthy is, for the most part, decent as Susan Cooper but there's a lot of comedy in there that just doesn't land. 

'Spy' limps through and survives as a comedy but as an original comedy? Maybe not. It's just on the right side of 'Get Smart' that it gets away with it but it's too close for comfort at times. 

This being said, each to their own with comedy because what makes me laugh could be totally different to what makes someone else laugh. Comedy is a bit like the horror genre in that sense but I think as movie it isn't great. 

Poltergeist (2015)

"They're here..."

Because everyone was crying out for a 'Poltergeist' remake? Is that why they're here? Because I don't know anyone who was asking for a 'Poltergeist' remake...

A family must come together to rescue their youngest daughter after a group of evil spirits take her hostage.

Just when you thought it was a slow year for horror movies, 'Poltergeist' comes along... and makes it worse.

My expectations are always hopelessly low when sitting down to watch a remake of a horror film, it's a sad fact but it's unavoidable. About 90% of the time you get exactly what you expect... a heap of garbage. However, on the rare occasion, you do get something great. My last experience of this was the 2013 remake 'Evil Dead' which surpassed every expectation I had and proved that a good remake can be done. 

It's worth sitting through the bad ones to find that little gem.

'Poltergeist' is the latest remake fiasco and there was a tiny glimmer of potential in the opening but just when you allow yourself to give it the benefit of the doubt... 
It takes a big ghostly CGI 3D dump on what you hoped it would be.

Not being a particularity huge fan of the original, I thought the remake might be a fresh take on the horror classic (that is admittedly slightly dated now) and help bring it to a whole new audience. Unfortunately, this remake does what it says on the tin and literally just mimics the original film. It replaces all the great practical effects with a heap of bad CGI and all the bad clichés you can think of. 

My main issue with 'Poltergeist' was that, being a remake, it should have taken a modern approach to the 80's horror classic. The original film was certainly unique and new for the audience of the time because they hadn't really seen anything like it before, the clichés of today weren't clichés in 1982. In 2015, we've already seen and grown tired of all the traits that 'Poltergeist' inspired. This means for a modern team of filmmakers to remake the original, they should have known to take it in a different direction as to avoid all the clichés in these types of films. Instead, what we get are all the exact same scenes and concepts from the original film except for the fact that they're using an iPhone in the scene.

This means that the remake comes across as being behind the times, clichéd and predictable.

There's a pathetic attempt at scaring the audience with a handful of jump scares (that you've already seen in the trailer) and some cheap looking CGI that just bombs in doing what it half sets out to do. It's definitely not scary and even the jump scares aren't jumpy. 

The scariest thing about this movie is thinking about how much money was spent on it...
All $62,000,000 of it. 

The characters are hollow and bland and you just don't care about them. The young boy of the family is the only watchable one of the children and you really don't care about the daughter that gets kidnapped by the spirits which is where the drama should be.
What the hell is Sam Rockwell doing in a film like this? 
Sam Rockwell (whose body of work includes 'Green Mile', 'Moon' and 'Seven Psychopaths') is about the only watchable thing in this poor remake. He has a certain level of charm and humour as the father of this crumbling family, he's down on his luck after losing his job (but still has enough money to buy a new house apparently) and is struggling to keep it together. That's about one of the only positives I can give this film.

The plot is a carbon copy of the original with a group of characters that you don't care about. Put those dull characters alongside some bizarre paranormal investigators that are trying to be funny and it just makes you cringe. Like, really cringe. 

There's no tension or atmosphere, it's all just recycled scenes or moments that you've seen a hundred times in a hundred different movies. You always have to suspend disbelief when it comes to a lot of the horror genre and 'Poltergeist' is no different but when things become so silly that you can't even do that then what's the point?
This could have been the perfect opportunity to revitalise a horror film that influenced the genre in the 80's.

It's a cheap money grabber that is just an insult to true horror fans. It really grates on my nerves when the horror genre, and it's fans, are demeaned and cheapened. As if we'll just be satisfied with a few jump scares and a badly thrown together film made to cash in on a 30 year old movie's good reputation.

And to finish it all off, there's a whole parade of sad product placement that is just the cherry on top of this horribly messy, paranormal cake.

So... What's left?

It's a horror film that's not scary. That's pretty much what it boils down to.

It's based on a film that's over 30 years old and doesn't do (or attempt to do) anything new with it. It has a decent actor at the helm but all the Sam Rockwellness in the world couldn't save this remake.

If you're still looking for a good horror this year then you'll have to wait a little longer by the looks of it.

12 Monkeys (1995)

"Look at them. They're just asking for it. 

Maybe the human race deserves to be wiped out."

Apocalypse? Time travel? Insanity? Brad Pitt?
You had me at hello.

A convict is sent back in time from a post-apocalyptic future to try and locate the source of the man-made virus that wiped out nearly all of humanity.

'12 Monkeys' had been sitting on my list of films to watch for years and I finally got round to seeing it for the first time recently.

Not being a massive fan of Terry Gilliam's films ('Brazil', 'The Fisher King' and 'The Brothers Grimm') I was a little hesitant at first but I'd only heard good things about this classic film.

After seeing '12 Monkeys' I'm so sad that I hadn't watched it sooner.

What I loved from the very beginning of '12 Monkeys' was the futuristic and the, literally, insane world that it creates around Bruce Willis' character James Cole. You're given so much information in such a short time but you really understand the visual language of the world from the first scenes. You're thrown into a situation that is unfamiliar and you have to grasp onto James Cole before you're thrown into another time period. The style is very reminiscent of French films like 'The City of Lost Children' and every detail from the costumes to the sets give you clues and information. This all culminates to create a rich tapestry for you to engross yourself in.

There is a lot of tension in the film but not in a traditional sense, you never quite know where the film is going and that is where the tension comes. We already know that there's been a worldwide disaster but it's very vague as we are following the plot from James Cole's point of view. We are fed information from the past, the present and the future which is scattered throughout the film and it's enjoyable to piece together as the film progresses.

The idea of sending a human back in time to save the world isn't a particularly new idea but it is the way it's presented in '12 Monkeys' that makes it so unusual. In the totally unbelievable world that the film is set, it manages to somehow make everything believable in a way. It isn't particularly interested in the mechanics of time travel but more about the implications and possibilities that it could hold, despite the unpredictability of the machine itself. 

Ambiguity is a defining factor in '12 Monkeys' and it does leave you to ponder the ending (and some of the details of the film) after the credits roll. There is enough information in the film for you to make up your own mind but there's always room for discussion, which is how a film like this should leave you.

It's no doubt an intricate plot and I think it would merit a second viewing.  

Bruce Willis, who was already well known for his action roles in the mid 90's, changes things up and delivers a mature and interesting performance where he toes the line between reality and insanity. You're kept on your toes with whether or not James Cole is actually from the future or if he has just lost his mind. He becomes more and more unstable as the film goes on and I love it when a film can keep you guessing. It constantly has you questioning little details and probing for more information.

Brad Pitt definitely steals every scene he's in as the totally mad Jeffrey Goines. He's hilariously delirious and plays a vital role in the film despite his initial circumstances. You genuinely want to know more about his character. He plays off Bruce Willis perfectly and brings believability to the character. It can so easily fall into farce when playing a madman and become ridiculous but Pitt balances it and reels it in when he needs to. You can see elements of his character from 'Fight Club' in Jeffrey and it's fun to watch him on screen.

There are definitely a lot of references to classic movies with the futuristic scenes and it's easy to see where they found their inspiration. I was hugely impressed by the little homage to Hitchcock that is prominent near the end of the film with some clever references to 'Vertigo'. I'm not normally a fan of Terry Gilliam but I thought he did a fantastic job balancing the story and the characters with the ideology and concepts of the film. 

If I had to criticise the film then I'd have to say that the romance that "blossoms" between James Cole and Madeleine Stowe's character - Kathryn Raillyis a little forced but it's a small complaint in what is, ultimately, a pretty great movie.
You'll always be able to pick small plot holes in time travel movies with the nature of time travel itself. Timelines become a little muddy and there will always be a slight crossover at points but that's nigh impossible to avoid.

Overall, if you haven't seen '12 Monkeys' then get yourself a copy and enjoy this wacky and complex movie that'll entertain and challenge you. It is a unique, complex, fun and twisted story about the past, the present and the future with a message. It's got some awesome performances with a great story so what more could you ask for?

"...and if you forget one thing, I will have you shaved, sterilized, and destroyed!"

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.