Kill Your Friends (2015)

"At some point in the coming year, one of us will be fired. 

I have no intention of it being me."

Someone's clearly seen 'American Psycho'...

An A&R man working at the height of the Britpop music craze goes to extreme lengths to find the next hit record.  

I'm all up for a bit of dark humour, bleak philosophy and shocking visuals, all of which 'Kill Your Friends' doesn't really have. 

Imagine a really bad rip off of 'American Psycho' and 'The Wolf of Wall Street' set in London and you'll have 'Kill Your Friends'.

Based on the critically acclaimed novel by Scottish writer John Niven, the film centres around Stelfox, played by Nicholas Hoult (AKA the boy from 'About a boy', which is a role I don't think he'll ever shake), and is set in late 90's London. The Britpop scene is massive and record labels are stumbling over one another to try and secure the next UK, or International, hit record. This alone sounds like an extremely compelling film that could definitely go somewhere. There's an attempt at bleak and satirical humour with a dark outlook on the music industry which, ultimately, should have been more interesting than it was. 

For me, the film's main issue is that it is totally unoriginal. Whiffs of other films are ever-present in this badly executed rip off of 'American Psycho' with Nicholas Hoult giving his best Leonardo Di Caprio impression from 'The Wolf of Wall Street'. Talking to the camera with "shocking" statements and dark humour has been so over done that it really takes a special performance alongside some fantastic writing to pull it off. Unfortunately, Nicholas Hoult doesn't have the acting chops to deliver the lines and the rest falls into the pitfalls of cringe worthy clichés with a director that is trying to shock and be different. 

The film is way too long. The first half is the better half of the film, there's more of the subtle advances and plays that Stelfox makes as he tries to work his way to the top of the label but the second half falls into obscurity and pantomime. It becomes so unbelievable and so ridiculous even for a film that is based so far outside the boundaries of realism. 

It explores the allure of power and the corruption that money can bring but we are battered over the head with the message of the film. Ideas and concepts that have been explored more eloquently in other films are ushered down our throats as if being fed to an infant and we do end up gagging on them.

I thought a lot of what was being said about the music industry was true but it tries to push it to the extremes and then goes too far. It makes some valid points but, in the end, feels a little too much like someone trying to be clever and "against the grain" for the sake of it. It's bleak and depressing outlook on life and art becomes tiresome and the film turns into a rant. Relatively new director Owen Harris goes for it but doesn't pull it off. He clearly has some potential but just not with this film unfortunately.

Films that feature generally despicable characters as their lead walk on a very thin line with the audience. If a lead character isn't relatable or likeable it's hard for the audience to get on board with that lead, so the character must be extremely interesting to make us want to watch on. 'American Psycho' hits the nail on the head with Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman, he's not the type of character that you should like but, somehow, you can't stop watching him. He's fascinating and his philosophies enthral the viewer and we want to see more. Jordan Belford in 'The Wolf of Wall Street' is both fascinating and funny which keeps us on the right side of that line. Unfortunately 'Kill Your Friends' can't keep us on that line and we drift further and further away from Stelfox. He's amoral, violent, cynical and unlikeable so is he interesting? 

No, he's pretty dull to watch.

Is he funny? 

He tries to be... About 90% of his little rants and quips to the camera don't land the way they should.

Towards the end, we're tired of him and the film itself. It becomes more and more excessive but it just feels desperate and immature. It lacks the sophistication of the films that it is ripping off and fails to engage us. It attempts to make us agree with it's bleak outlook but we're long gone by that point. 

Overall, 'Kill Your Friends' is unoriginal, tiresome, terribly executed and, in all honesty, badly acted.

Like an unwanted gift at Christmas, this film is simply a combination of different films that have been repackaged in an attempt to make us forget that we have already seen it. It poorly imitates them and fails to come up with something original. 

Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015)

"All right, scouts. 

Let's kick some zombie ass!"

Scouts Guide to tits, gore and fart jokes.

After the zombie apocalypse arrives, three young scouts discover the true meaning of friendship as they fight to save their town from the impending doom.

'Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse' promises a lot with the wild and entertaining premise but doesn't quite deliver on all the levels that you'd expect.

I went in to this film with a relatively open mind. I hadn't seen the trailer and, admittedly, judged a book by it's cover and went in on a whim based on the old grindhouse style poster. 

It kicks off with three stereotypically misfitted friends who are still in the scouts, despite being in high school. You've got the relatable one, the foul mouthed one and the goofy one and that's just about all you really need to know. The zombie apocalypse breaks out and the young scouts must use all of their training to save themselves and those they care about. 

It sounds like it should be a lot of fun right? 

You'd sort of be right. 

I wasn't expecting a lot from this film and, with that state of mind, I wasn't particularly disappointed. There's gore and ridiculous zombie kills and that is exactly what you'd expect in a zombie horror/comedy, which was fun, but in terms of the actual story and the film itself? It's relatively bland.

The film had a lot of potential but squanders it. I was hoping for a lot more of the scouts and how their training comes in to play with how they cope with the apocalypse. That side of the film would have been a lot more interesting but that doesn't really come in to play until literally the very end scenes. There's so much build up to the actual show down that the rest of the film lags behind and we begin to lose interest. 

Granted, the zombie apocalypse that they depict in the film would be a blast but they just don't capitalise on all the possibilities. You've got all that scout training at your disposal with a lot of breathing room for some great zombie moments but most of the time is spent around  the "puppy love" storyline and too much build up. I wanted to see more badass zombie survival skills with some more action to balance out the pretty mediocre plot but, unfortunately, you're left a little cold at the end. I'd have loved it to have been more of a 'Home Alone' with zombies scenario but that's not the world we live in... But hey, what about that for a movie premise?

I did like the message and what it was aiming for with the three best friends. It concentrates on their friendship and the fear of growing up, while still managing to have a little fun with it too. The characters are your run-of-the-mill teens but the heart of the film was in the right place. 

When the humour wasn't overly immature there were some really funny moments that had me laughing out loud. The scenes with David Kouchner from 'Anchorman' as Scout Leader Rogers were particularly funny but that's expected with his comedy background.

It's definitely a film for young teenage boys to enjoy. Plenty of girls, gore and swearing, which is fine when you're 14, but it gets a little tiresome without much else going for it. I was hoping for a horror/comedy along the lines of 'Shaun of the Dead' but it was just your pretty bog standard toilet humour. I love a good fart joke as much as the next guy but it's a very immature film so, if that's not your thing, then I wouldn't recommend 'Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse'.

Overall, 'Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse' had a lot of potential but isn't as good as you'd expect. It falls short of the expectations of the genre with a lot of pre-pubescent humour and mild zombie gore. It has some laughs but, on a whole, leaves you with a forgettable horror/comedy. 

It feels like a student short film that's been stretched to a feature when it should have been left alone.

Such a wasted opportunity for what could have been a really funny zombie comedy.

A good film to switch your brain off to but not one that you'll remember.

"What are you, the Taliban?"

Yeah, that's a joke from the film... *Sighs*.

Spectre (2015)

"You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond."

What year is it?

Are we back in the 60's?

I think it's time to send James Bond... Back to the future! 

A cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a mission to uncover the mysterious organisation known as SPECTRE.

As I sit and write this review, I find myself at a loss for words. I can't help but reminisce about the glorious 'Casino Royale', I try to forget about 'Quantum of Solace' and I now laugh at my eager assumption that 'Spectre' was going to be better than the passable and somewhat overrated 'Skyfall'.

We are now lumped with 'Spectre', a film that can only be described as grey. I think it's finally time to admit defeat old chum and hang up the Daniel Craig bond films that unfortunately peaked with the first entry - 'Casino Royale'.

We begin the farcical journey into Bond 24 with Sam Smith's 'Writing's on the Wall' which can only be described as a winners single from the X factor. The traditional opening sequences are meant to be short, unique and artistic precursors to give us the style and the feel of the movie ahead. Unfortunately, the opening credit sequence does exactly that and gives us the precise style and feel of the movie ahead... It's pretty dull.

The film has a hopeful opening featuring the impressive "Day of the Dead" festival in Mexico and had all the makings of a classic Bond set up. Unfortunately, things went south too quick for me to even give it the benefit of the doubt. Terrible CGI mixed with a horrendous fight sequence set me on the back foot for the rest of the opening. 

What follows is a boring, generic and unoriginal bond rip off that feels lazy. From Daniel Craig's half hearted performance as an old and sluggish James Bond to the story itself which was the most cliche ridden script I've had to endure in quite some time.

Daniel Craig looks tired and uninterested throughout the entire film. His take on Bond in 'Casino Royale' was fresh and exciting. He had all the charm that Bond should have with a hell of a lot more power and ferocity that the other Bonds lacked. In 'Spectre' he's now a characterless bore who honestly looks like he wished he was somewhere else. I was hoping that they'd kill off Bond, not for some unexpected and controversial twist but rather because I was bored of watching him. 

Christoph Waltz plays exactly the villain that you'd expect when you think of Christoph Waltz playing a Bond villain. Complete with fluffy white cat, shoulder pads and an evil lair of course. For being one of the top actors in cinema recently, I was extremely let down that they didn't utilise his talent more than playing a cardboard cutout of a villain that belongs in the 60's. 

The film was praised for having Bond chasing an "older woman" (more a woman of Bond's age as Daniel Craig put it in an interview) which I was curious to see but she is in it for all of 5 minutes and serves little to no purpose other than to have Bond practically force himself on her. Combine this with an abysmal female character such as Léa Seydoux as Madeleine Swann, who is not much more than a piece of meat, and we have successfully taken an uncomfortable ride back in time. Although this isn't an adventure filled journey to Hill Valley, no this is a stroll back to a period where women belonged in the kitchen and men would fantasise about being a secret agent having sex with numerous interchangeable women. It's shocking that a script like this was passed with such blatant and out of date sexism. I thought Bond was modern and up to date after 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' but it appears I was mistaken. Why must tradition dictate how the Bond films progress when a lot of the traditions are out of date and, to put it simply, a bit silly. The love story between Bond and Madeleine is totally forced and over the top to the point that it almost felt like a Disney film romance where they decide to get married after half an hour of knowing each other.

If this is a film that is meant to be a return to "classic Bond" then I fear for what could possibly be next in the lingering franchise.

James Bond is meant to be fun, exhilarating, action packed and full of adventure but 'Spectre' seems to moan and groan its way through to get to the end. When we finally arrive to a grinding halt at the last stop on this rickety train ride, the ludicrous finale makes us sigh and be thankful that the lights go up in the cinema. 

In a James Bond film, it's taken as a given that you have to suspend belief to a point and that is actually part of the fun of the James Bond world. However, 'Spectre' asks too much of the audience's willingness and ability to overlook the believability of the film.

Overall, the whole film feels like a cheap rip off of James Bond. Bad writing, horrendous characters, dull performances and lazy filmmaking makes 'Spectre' unoriginal, boring and pretty tiresome. Maybe this would have passed in 1950 but we're 65 years on... I think we've progressed slightly since then.

I could honestly forgive all that I've spoken of if 'Spectre' was, at the very least, a bit of fun. 
If it was a little lighter and did the "retro" throwbacks in good humour then I could have at least had an entertaining time with it but it's the fact that it takes itself so seriously is one of the main contributing factors of its downfall.

While this is simply my own opinion on the film, I fear my 'Back to the Future' references won't be enough to pull back some light into what has been a pretty down beat stream of thoughts... 

This is heavy.

Sicario (2015)

"You're asking me how the watch is made. 

For now just keep your eye on the time."

Probably not a film that the Mexican tourist board will be screening any time soon.

An up and coming FBI agent is enlisted by a secretive government task force to combat the war on drugs at the border. 

From the director of 'Prisoners' this seemed like it had the potential to be a really interesting movie and it sort of is? 

It has its flaws but it also has some really excellent filmmaking that takes us deep into some dark places.

Straight from the start, the tone is set for this film. It's a dark and brooding film about the horrors of the war on drugs and the gang violence that is inevitably involved. Emily Blunt as Kate Macer is kicking down doors but not getting anywhere. When the opportunity arises for her to join a government task force to get her teeth sunk into the cartel, she takes it without hesitation. 

The first act of this film is exactly what I was hoping for and expecting from seeing the trailer and knowing director Dennis Villeneuve's work.

It has you on the edge of your seat with a foreboding sense of unease that unsettles and worries you. When you step across the border with Kate Macer you really feel like you're stepping into a foreign and dangerous land, you're experiencing the danger with her and through her. 

The performances in this film are, on the whole, pretty good. Josh Brolin, as always, gives an interesting and measured performance as the task force leader Matt Graver. He is working alongside the mysterious Alejandro, played by Benicio Del Toro, who seems to have an agenda of his own. The combination of these two characters contribute to the main mystery of the plot and compliment Emily Blunt's character very well.

Emily Blunt's character Kate starts off as an intriguing character but, unfortunately, doesn't particularly go anywhere. For being a strong female lead, she's not really that strong and I would argue that she doesnt end up being the lead. She cries a lot in this film. I would have loved to have seen her character stand up for what she believes in but we just sort of lose interest in her towards the end. Disappointing for what could have been a very unique and powerful character. Her character is a very obvious metaphor for an ideals driven government and a failing democracy, which was really interesting, yet I still felt like you needed more from her. 

As we dig a little deeper into the story, things get a little messy and a little off track. The film slows down but not necessarily in a good way. The uneasy sense of dread that was ever present in the first act gets lost in the crossfire of the slow plot. There are some interesting moments that hold the story together but you begin to check your watch around the end. 

The points that the film is trying to make are understandable and compelling but how it goes about it is heavy handed and sometimes a bit in your face. It lacks a lot of subtlety that would have balanced out some of the issues. 

There is a certain shock factor that goes with the film which was effective in some instances but was overused towards the end. It feels a little like shock for shock value's sake but it makes its point and leaves you thinking about it. 

This isn't really a spoiler but one major thing that threw me off was the fact that throughout the whole story you are following Kate Macer's story, you are invested in that character (to an extent) and you are wanting to know how it all ends. Despite this, in the last part of the film the narrative suddenly and completely switches to Benicio Del Toro's character. This throws you off completely and really disappointed me. You've spent the entire film with a relatively dull Emily Blunt and then just when you think it might actually all be worth it? You are given a different characters finale... That's like going through the entire 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy and just when you think you're going to see Frodo get to Mordor... it cuts away.

One major thing I have to point out is that the film is actually shot by the masterful Roger Deakins which is an automatic plus point for any film. The cinematography that is used in 'Sicario' is engrossing and extremely creative. You are pulled into the scenes through the slightly off kilter and unusual cinematography that suits the film to the ground. I wouldn't expect anything less from Roger Deakins. 

Overall, there's a lot that I liked about 'Sicario' but there was also a lot that I didn't like. It features some beautiful cinematography and the makings of some decent tension but, ultimately, slightly let me down in the end. 

On a side note, how about Benicio Del Toro? 'Sin City', 'Che', 'Snatch', 'The Usual Suspects' etc etc...

The guy's a badass. 

Crimson Peak (2015)

"Ghosts are real, that much I know. 
I've seen them all my life..."

A scary ghost story... That's not very scary... And doesn't feature many ghosts.

After a family tragedy, aspiring author Edith Cushing is swept off to a mysterious house by an even more mysterious English gentleman.

'Crimson Peak' features one of the vaguest trailers I've ever seen (which was one of the reasons I was excited to see it) and boasts a haunting story wrapped in a dark and creepy mystery by a visionary director. It all seemed too good to be true... And you know what they say about things that seem too good to be true?

You guessed it.

'Crimson Peak' starts off extremely well with the set up of a great mystery and some interesting(ish) characters. We are oblivious to the answer of the puzzle that the film is presenting and I couldn't wait to get deeper into this classic ghost story with a modern "Del Toro" twist. Unfortunately, 'Crimson Peak' is a classic example of style over substance. Stunning cinematography and creative art design without the story or backbone to support the lavish excesses of the film.

What bothers me most about 'Crimson Peak' is the promise that it makes to the audience which it fails to deliver on. From the trailer and the opening of the film, we are promised a fantastical mystery, haunting ghosts and eccentric drama but we only really get the grand eccentricities without much else. 

Ghosts are few and far between in this film which, for an apparent ghost story, is a let down. The ghosts that we do see are so over the top and CGI ridden that they almost become pantomime. They have no influence on the plot and, by the end, you begin to wonder why they are even really in the film. We are focused more on the love story between the charming gent that is Tom Hiddleston and a forgettable Mia Wasikowska. Despite a few jump scares and a lot of walking down dark candlelit hallways, I struggle to find the poignant significance that the film rests on the ghosts. We are pretty much told in the beginning (through Edith Cushing's writing) that this is a story with ghosts in it, not a ghost story but I was hoping for at least a little bit more purely based on what the film is sold as.

Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain definitely give the best performances in the film as the mysterious Sharpe siblings. Tom Hiddleston as Thomas Sharpe is both charming and repulsive alongside his very unstable and obviously dangerous sister - Lucille. Their sibling dynamic is interesting and holds your interest despite a flat performance by Mia Wasikowska as an equally dull character - Edith Cushing. She plays an ambitious writer who falls hopelessly in love with Mr Hiddleston and is apparently our lead in the film who we feel absolutely nothing for... 

However Jim Beaver gives a short but sweet appearance as Mia Wasikowska's father Carter Cushing. I haven't seen him in anything else before but he gives a solid performance as her nurturing father and we really come to admire his principles and his style.

What has to be said for 'Crimson Peak' is that the cinematography and art design (in true Del Toro style) is beautiful. It is unique and interesting to look at and really creates a whole new world for the viewer. The house itself comes alive and really adds to the mystery of it all, albeit that mystery is a bit of a let down but it's a gorgeous film to look at nonetheless.  The sets are real and have obviously been built which made the film feel alive. This is a principle I wish they had applied to the ghosts and, considering Guillermo Del Toro's practical effect background, I was hoping for more of that.

It is a confusing and convoluted story that boasts a unique plot twist that is a massive disappointment. For the entirety of the film we are wanting to discover what the answer to the mystery is but, at the crucial moment, we don't really care that much. It is a pretty boring and unoriginal "twist" that made my stomach sink. I kept waiting for so much more but it never comes. The violence in the film is deliberate and gratuitous which I think worked extremely well in some scenes but not so well in others. It gets more and more ridiculous by the end and I was totally out of the film by the big finale. 

Overall, 'Crimson Peak' wasn't nearly as great as I was hoping it was going to be. Despite being a beautiful film to look at, it's undeniably a let down. It had all the potential to be a great film but squanders it on a convoluted, benign and dull plot. Guillermo Del Toro gave us 'Pan's Labyrinth' and I was hoping this was going to top that masterpiece but it seems I was expecting too much.

'Crimson Peak' isn't a horror film, I'd say it was more of a gothic romance tale, despite the misleading marketing of the film. I was searching for the deeper meaning and trying to dissect it in a different way because I wanted so much to enjoy this film but, conclusively, it's not scary, it's a bit predictable and feels a little pointless.

I'll still see anything that Guillermo Del Toro releases, he's an interesting and unique director and I think that he's still got a whole lot more to offer but, in this case, definitely on the verge of a misfire with 'Crimson Peak'.

Regression (2015)

"It's incredibly important that you tell us everything."

See Hermione, this is why you attend your Defence Against the Dark Arts classes.

A father is accused of a heinous crime that he has no memory of committing.

I had a few hours to kill this weekend so I thought that Ethan Hawke in a thriller about gruesome satanic rituals would be a safe bet for something enjoyable to watch. Probably says more about my thought process than I first realised but that's where we're at.
I had seen the trailer which, admittedly, looked pretty decent and I'm a fan of witchcraft and the likes so I buckled up for some dark cinema.

Unfortunately, 'Regression' honestly left me a little bored.

It sets out with a man being accused of a crime that he can't remember committing which involves satanic rituals and his young daughter who, since the crime, has been living in the local church. Ethan Hawke plays the cardboard cut-out movie detective who doesn't like playing by the rules but is a good detective nonetheless. He takes on the case and, just like that, we have our movie.

I think there's a lot wrong with 'Regression' which, for me, is mainly the culmination of some questionable writing and acting. This fatal blend always results in a totally unbelievable film that you can't invest yourself in. 

Ethan Hawke gives a passable performance as the detective handling the case but it certainly isn't his best. There's a lot of shouting and intense stares but not a lot of great acting on display. In his defence, there's some awkward dialogue to get out and he has some pretty flat performances to bounce off which doesn't help at all, Emma Watson being one of them. She delivers an average performance of a character who could have been so much more interesting. I know for a fact that her character is more interesting than what's on screen because it's almost the exact same character from a well known piece of literature but, incase of spoilers, I'll leave it to be discovered. In short, she's flat as a pancake in this film and it really takes it's toll on the viewer.

When you mix this unstable cast with a cliché ridden script then it just becomes dull. There's not much tension or atmosphere created, there are a few jump scares that are a bit cheap and it has an ending that should have been a lot more impactful that it was. It has all the trademarks of a dark and sinister film with the ambient lighting, the moody tone and the brooding mystery but lacks the substance.

What was frustrating about 'Regression' was that it had some pretty interesting ideas but it felt like a movie. Nothing that is said or done is believable, every scene feels like a scene from a film rather than a natural flow of narrative. It does a terrible job of pulling you into the story which is a tough thing to recover from. It has a handful of scenes that hold a glimmer of hope but a scattering of good scenes amongst a film falling short of the mark isn't enough to pull it back. 

The film has to be commended for it's attempt in doing what it does towards the end but it just makes a meal out of it. The mystery is the most important part of this film and what clues you do get to solve the puzzle are not the most subtle. It's heavy handed in every way and, on the whole, becomes overly pantomime compared to what it could and should have been.

In terms of the imagery in the film, there are definitely some images that creep you out. The scenes involving the satanic cult are quite horrific but, again, it feels like style over substance in this case. 

Overall, 'Regression' boasts an interesting trailer that does capture the vibes of the film but I couldn't help but feel disappointed. You can really see what they're going for but, ultimately, they just don't pull it off. It had potential but doesn't capitalise on the promise that it makes. The intriguing concepts were good but have, unfortunately, been explored better in the past which leaves 'Regression' a little stale and redundant.

Not a great film for a dark night in with the wind howling outside but maybe just one to catch if it's in the reduced to clear bucket. It's the type of film that you won't feel bad paying like £2 for instead of the full cinema ticket.

It's the Halloween season so here's hoping there'll be some more dark films to help me remember why I love Halloween!

The Martian (2015)

"Hi, I'm Mark Watney and I'm still alive... obviously."

It's like 'Cast Away' meets 'Apollo 13'.

When a severe storm hits a manned mission on Mars, Mark Watney is left on the desolate planet alone after his crew members escape, presuming he is dead. 

'The Martian' has all of the elements that should make a great film. Matt Damon in the lead role, Ridley Scott directing and a tonne of cool space stuff. 

Luckily, it delivers on the promise. 

Recently, director Ridley Scott has been a hit or a miss with his new movies but it was nice seeing him return to a smaller film about a man fighting to survive. Granted, he's fighting to survive on Mars but, with that in mind, it's a relatively small and contained film for the most part. The film focuses on Matt Damon's character Mark Watney and his struggle to survive on the lonely planet. No one knows he's still alive and it was really interesting to watch him deal with his new predicament. We experience his highs and lows and watch as he battles the unforgiving planet using his technical knowhow and intelligence. 

Considering that the film is set on Mars, what surprised me about 'The Martian' was how human and relatable it was. It isn't your typical Sci-fi film and it benefits hugely from that. There was a lot of humour in the film, alongside a very likeable lead in Mark Watney. Matt Damon gives a fantastic performance right up to the end and you are genuinely rooting for him to make it, which is rare in a lot of movies recently, and you care about the outcome. It manages to involve you in his struggle through the use of his video diaries (which made a bit more sense rather than him just talking to himself) and really gave you an insight into his character. He's an intelligent botanist who loves his work so it was really interesting to watch him use science to combat the problems of the desolate planet where nothing lives.

The film is long and it feels long but not in a bad way. It comes in at well over two hours but, with a story like this, you appreciate the long running time as you can settle onto the planet with Watney and it makes the build up all the more exciting. I wouldn't say there was a lot of tension in 'The Martian' but it has a lot of "hold your breath" moments that will keep you on the edge of your seat.  

The way Mars is portrayed in this film is actually really believable and there is a certain amount of respect conveyed for the planet. Sure, it's a desolate and harsh wasteland where nothing can survive but you also see the beauty and the splendour in it. It has been uninhabited for millions of years and you undoubtedly feel the life and spirt of the planet. Somehow I don't think that Matt Damon was actually on Mars so they do a fantastic job in creating Mars and making it look real. 

The supporting cast have their ups and downs. Some great performances from Jeff Daniels and Chiwetel Ejiofor who hold the other half of the plot up very well and some not so great performances from a bland Jessica Chastain and a forced love story involving Kate Mara which was totally out of place and unnecessary. Sean Bean makes an appearance as well alongside a random and strange 'Lord of the Rings' reference that breaks the fourth wall and confused me...

The last act of the film does slightly let it down in my opinion but I won't go into details incase I unintentionally ruin the ending for anyone. 'The Martian' does fall into a few cliché pitfalls but the rest of the film more than makes up the slightly disappointing ending. To cut a long story short, I was just a little disappointed with how it ended after how well it had been going. 

Overall, 'The Martian' is interesting, it's fun and it's exciting. We get to see some really cool science in action and we actually care about the outcome for Mark Watney. The cinematography is unusual and beautiful and the effects are nothing short of phenomenal. Despite the ending falling a bit short, I still undoubtedly enjoyed 'The Martian' and would definitely recommend it. The film really captures the idea of the human spirit and why the fight for life is important.

Although I must say, Tom Hanks grows a better beard in 'Cast Away'.

Love you Tom. You're the man.