Frailty (2001)

"Sometimes truth defies reason."

That dude from 'Titanic' is one crazy motherfucker...

A man confesses to an FBI agent his family's story of how his religious fanatic father's visions lead to a series of murders to destroy supposed "demons."

Scrolling through Netflix after a busy weekend I stumbled upon 'Frailty', a film that was on my list of films to watch but had been lost in the scenery. It was a quiet Sunday so it seemed the perfect opportunity to sit down and watch something new. 

Actor Bill Paxton makes his directorial debut with this unusual and complex film about religion, family and murder.

The film kicks off with Matthew McConaughey confessing to an FBI agent that he believes his brother is a wanted serial killer. Obviously, at first, the FBI agent is sceptical but, after hearing McConaughey's story, he is more inclined to believe him. 

There is a lot of atmosphere that hooks you into this film early on, there's movie rain falling hard outside, McConaughey is monologuing and there's quiet talk of murder. You instantly get on board with the characters and you are transported back in time to the early 70's where the main story takes place.

It actually felt similar in tone and style to 'True Detective', which McConaughey also stars in, it's moody and atmospheric and isn't in a rush to get to where it needs to go. 

It centres around two young brothers who, in the middle of the night, are disturbed by their father, played by Bill Paxton, who claims that God has spoken to him and told him that they have to rid the world of demons. He is sent weapons from god and a list of those who have to die.

What 'Frailty' does extremely well is that it allows you the space to decide for yourself what is going on. It balances the both the possibility that their father has been visited by an angel and the idea that he's simply out of his mind. Bill Paxton plays the part perfectly, he's calculated and calm about the whole scenario and genuinely makes you believe that he's spoken with God. He doesn't look or sound insane, quite the opposite. He's the authoritative figure in the home of the two boys and, not having a mother present, he is in total control.

It no uncertain terms, it explores some pretty wide yet relatable themes and ideas such as religion and nature vs nurture. It's all mirrored in the two young brothers who are subjected to the insanity that follows their fathers divine visions.

There's a lot of tension and an uneasy sense of dread that builds up as things begin to spiral out of control for the two young boys. The young actors do a pretty solid job, they are believable and have some really tough scenes to act. Alongside Bill Paxton, the three as a family unit are realistic which makes it all the more tense when those ties.

Underneath the human themes there's another level, if you want to dig deep enough, that throws what you've seen into question. There are a few plot twists and turns that will keep you interested and it's hard to tell exactly where it's going. The ending throws up a lot more questions than it answers and leaves you on an eerie and ambiguous note, which some will either love or hate. 

This ambiguity is present all the way through the film and is part of what makes it so intriguing. I'd love to watch it again with the knowledge that you gain the first time round. 

Overall, 'Frailty' is a surprisingly interesting and complex film with a lot of hard concepts to think about but, not only that, it's also an entertaining thriller that stays with you after you've seen it.

McConaughey McConaughoo again proves that he's one of the best in the business and Bill Paxton proves that he can be an axe-wielding religious fanatic and direct a movie at the same time. 

Good job.

Criminal (2016)

"Hurt me... 
I hurt you worse"

Oh the cheese... The cheese!

A dead CIA agent's memories are implanted into a death-row inmate in a last ditch attempt to stop a diabolical scheme. 

This high concept "sci-fi-esque" film boasts an impressive cast so, as you do when a film features the likes of Kevin Costner and Gary Oldman, I went in on blind faith that it'd be worth seeing. 

Unfortunately, 'Criminal' proves that logic to be deeply, deeply flawed...

The film kicks off with Ryan Reynolds, a CIA agent, on the run from some bad guys in London. It had the same feel of films like the 'Bourne Identity', Gary Oldman was shouting orders in some anonymous government HQ, it was pretty action packed and had some decent atmosphere. Safe to say I was on board. 

As the film progressed from the hopeful opening, the problems began to appear. Literally, like 10 minutes in. The clichés started rolling out in full force and the plot falls into "straight to DVD" B-Movie obscurity. You've even got the evil, foreign mastermind hacker in an abandoned building, why do these evil genius hackers never hack in the comfort of some nice surroundings? Maybe with a sofa and a nice view? 

The sci-fi concept of this film was actually quite interesting, take someone else's memories and transfer them into someone else. Throw a CIA agent and a dangerous criminal into that mix and I'm sold. However, the way the concept is executed in the film is nothing short of a mess. For such a promising idea they manage to dilute it down, extenuate it to the point that it becomes boring and toss it carelessly in with a convoluted plot. Nothing is explained and there are so many plot holes that you end up just giving up. 

The believability factor in any sci-fi film is extremely important, it must be believable within the world that the story takes place for us to buy into the advanced ideas and none of what happens in 'Criminal' is believable.

The cast of the film are totally wasted. You have the likes of Kevin Costner in the lead role acting alongside Gary Oldman and Tommy Lee Jones, this should have been a fun and exciting 90's throwback action flick but, instead, they are reduced to cheap dialogue and hammy performances. 

Tommy Lee Jones looks as if he couldn't be bothered but showed up for the free food and the cheque...

Gary Oldman shouts his way through the film in a blind rage and Ryan Reynolds is chucked away in the first couple of scenes. 

Kevin Costner tries out a pretty strange criminal character that punches his way through innocent civilians to get to whatever giant plot hole is conjured up for the finale. He does some very despicable things to some pretty ordinary people which makes you question every plot point that follows it. Should we really be rooting for such a horrendous character in the end?

As it all begins to draw to a close, the cheesiness becomes stronger and stronger. It's like a cheesy 90's action film without the fun. It's over the top and not in a good way. It runs to the end like a TV movie and, if you weren't in the cinema, you'd have probably changed the channel long before then.

The violence in the film is gratuitous, it's violent for the sake of being violent and there's no call for it. I'm all up for a violent romp in the right context but in this film it's just bizarre. There are some scenes that are so violent that you begin to laugh because it's so ridiculous. It's like watching 'Taken' but instead of Liam Neeson breaking the necks of criminals, he's breaking the necks of innocent people. It's not fun anymore it just becomes a little uncomfortable.

Coming in at just shy of a two hour run time, for a film like this, that’s verging on the ridiculous. It seems to lumber from one convoluted plot point to the next with clunky dialogue and disposable scenes. It’s a sloppy plot that hangs together by a thread. 

Overall, 'Criminal' is a shoddy piece of filmmaking that wastes its fantastic cast.

Only thing criminal about this film is the fact that it robs you of nearly two hours of your life...

Zootropolis (2016)

"We may be evolved, 

but deep down we are still animals."

What the hell is going on with Disney these days? Churning out god awful remakes of all their original films and then, out of the blue, they hit out with an awesome little movie like this?

In a world run only by evolved animals, an up and coming bunny cop and a cynical con artist fox must team up to solve a mystery. 

If that synopsis doesn't hook you in then I don't know what would.

There are a lot of awful kids movies that the grown ups have to sit through but this film stands among the best that prove adults and children can enjoy the same film. 

Straight off the bat, this film gets everyone laughing. No matter what age you are, when those lights go down, everyone gradually progresses from chuckles into giggles and then into full blown laughter. 

You start the adventure with a very likeable bunny named Judy Hopps, voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin, but nobody takes her dreams of being a cop seriously because she’s a bunny. After moving to Zootropolis, she meets a cunning fox named Nick Wilde, voiced by Jason Bateman, who is a bit of a con artist and the two clash immediately. For being animated animals, the pair have some really good chemistry on screen. The voice acting is perfect for their personalities and you instantly warm to them. When a film can make you care about a bunny that wants to be a cop and a fox that dresses like Charlie Sheen, you know you've got a unique movie on your hands. 

The animation is top quality and, with any good animation, you barely notice it after a while because you become so engrossed with the plot. It’s no longer an "animated film”, it just becomes a film that happens to animated. 

The film has a lot of fun playing with various different film & television references which are great to pick out if you notice them. Some are a bit more in your face than others but they are so well done and so apt for the situations. The best references in there have to be ‘The Godfather’ moments, they had my sides splitting.

From Idris Elba to J.K. Simmons, there are a lot of famous voices playing various different characters and they all do a fantastic job. All the characters are comical and really come alive on screen. The fluid animation does a lot of the heavy lifting but the voice actors all bring so much life and charisma to the characters.

The story is fun and intriguing and it actually tackles some pretty interesting themes and ideas. One of the main issues explored in ‘Zootropolis’ is discrimination. It breaks it down in a fun and childlike manner, in true Disney fashion, and holds up a mirror to our own society. It tackles racism along with sexism and does a great job of explaining it in a way that children will understand and enjoy. For a film about cuddly animals dressed up as humans, it actually has a lot of depth to it. It has a moral and it makes its point eloquently, something that is lacking in a lot of "grown up" movies.

Overall, ‘Zootropolis’ is a great movie for young kids but also an extremely entertaining movie for adults. It’s smart, it’s funny and it’s just really good fun.

Well done Disney, now just stop what you're doing with all the classic remakes and we'll be happy.

I cannot recommend this film enough. 
Release the inner child in you and go see ‘Zootropolis’!.

The Girl Next Door (2007)

"One sound down here and I promise I'll kill the both of you. 

Not just punish you, kill you. Dead."

I was not physically or emotionally prepared to watch this film...

After her parents are killed, a young teenage girl is subjected to unspeakable abuse by her aunt whom she has been sent to live with.

After spending some time looking for new and unusual horrors to watch, I stumbled upon 'The Girl Next Door'. A film that I had never even heard of but apparently had a reputation behind it for being powerful and disturbing. I had to import it from the U.S. but when I finally got down to actually watching it I was totally taken aback. 

It's not 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' or 'Halloween', where you're egging on the killer and having a pretty fun time revelling in the horror, 'The Girl Next Door' is a serious and harrowing look into a severe case of child abuse. 

This film isn't even just a horror. It is truly horrific drama.

Based on Jack Ketchum's novel of the same name, the film is set in 50's America in the suburbs of a sweet little town. It plays on the expectations of the glossy, romantic feelings we have of that time period. Teenage kids having fun, drinking coke and riding their bikes. Underneath this picturesque 'Stand By Me' type town lies a dark and horrific underbelly of violence, abuse and torture. All this fuelled by "Aunt" Ruth Chandler.

The film centres around young David Moran and his orphaned crush - Meg Loughin - who, along with her crippled sister, has just moved in with her Aunt Ruth. Things begin to take a turn for the worse for Meg as David notices some strange goings on in the Chandler household.

There is an ever present sense of dread throughout the whole first act of 'The Girl Next Door'. This isn't an enjoyable tension that a lot of horror fans thrive on, this is the uneasy feeling that things are going to go from bad to worse and you're not sure if you even want to stick around for it. You're not waiting for a masked killer to strike, this horror comes from the home and from a figure in authority. A mother.

The level of realism that the film creates is both fantastic and unbearable at times. You genuinely feel shocked at what you are seeing and it can be hard to keep looking at the screen. A lot of this believability comes from the acting talent in the film. When you think horror, great acting is not normally what springs to mind for a lot of films but 'The Girl Next Door' actually had some really solid and engaging performances.

Blanche Baker as Aunt Ruth was the standout performance of the film. Ruth abuses her power as the authoritative figure over the group of young teenagers and convinces them into doing her bidding. Her portrayal of Ruth is terrifying, calculated and unhinged but most importantly, alongside director Gregory Wilson, she brings a psychology to the role that a lot of directors and actors would miss. Despite her manipulative personality and blatant abuse of power, you get a sense of where she is coming from. To her, it's perfectly rational what she is doing. This is what is even more terrifying about her character and makes her all the more devastating when she's in control of the young group of boys.

The two young leads of the film - David and Meg, played by Daniel Manche and Blythe Auffarth, are both very confident in their characters and have some extremely challenging scenes that even the most seasoned actors would find daunting. 

The torture and violence in the film isn't gratuitous, fetishised or exploitative. It's integral to the plot and, unlike modern torture porn that continually crops up, it's not there for enjoyment. What happens is sickening to even think about let alone watch on screen. Despite the extreme nature of the scenes, it's handled very creatively and tastefully for what it is. Child abuse is always an insanely grey area and is so borderline that few filmmakers have the ability, vision or balls to do it. It can so easily go wrong for any director of any level.

The film deals with some really challenging themes and ideas and pushes you to the limit of what you can emotionally handle. It makes you feel uncomfortable and makes you question your own involvement as an audience member. By watching these scenes along with the characters, it implicates you and makes you feel involved. By watching David struggle it makes you want to scream at the screen and you feel powerless to help, as he does. 

Overall, 'The Girl Next Door' is not an enjoyable experience but it's an experience nonetheless. It hits you in the gut with some really hard to swallow ideas and images. It's got a crystal clear message and hammers it home with a sledgehammer. Even I barely managed to finish it. I found myself groaning in shock and horror at the events that unfold in the climax. I'm glad I've seen it but I don't think I'd like to watch it again, once was enough and certain scenes will stick with me for a long time.

For all it's gruelling to watch, it's got some really important things to say. Child abuse is still happening in this day in age and this film gives us a pretty clear insight into what needs to be done and the consequences of not acting. 

It's a hard film to get through and I can't really say that it's rewarding to get to the end. If you're strong enough to sit through it until the credits without flinching or cringing then you've got cajones man...

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

"Devils don't come from hell beneath us. 

They come from the sky."

Batman v Superman: Yawn of Justice.

Bloody hell... Okay, here's the official synopsis on IMDb:

Fearing the actions of Superman are left unchecked, Batman takes on the man of steel, while the world wrestles with what kind of a hero it really needs. With Batman and Superman fighting each other, a new threat, Doomsday, is created by Lex Luthor. It's up to Superman and Batman to set aside their differences along with Wonder Woman to stop Lex Luthor and Doomsday from destroying Metropolis.

This synopsis represents exactly what is wrong with the film itself. It's confused, it's too long, it's not structured, it's self important and it's too cluttered.

The hugely anticipated DC Superhero face off is upon us and, racking in at a gargantuan 151 minutes long, it encapsulates everything that's wrong with the superhero movement that seems to have the world drooling at the mouth for more. 

Where do you start with a film like 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice'?

The beginning is normally the best place but with this film it never really feels like it's started. You go from scene to scene expecting all the pieces to come together in a fluid way but they never do. 

We are pulled in so many different directions from the beginning that it starts to feel like there's too much going on and, as the film progresses, this crack in the foundation gets wider and wider. Tonally, the film is all over the place. It doesn't know what it wants to be. There's no thread that takes you through the plot in a slick and concise way as you stumble clumsily from scene to scene. It doesn't feel like one flowing story and, especially when you have so many different things going on, it should be seamlessly put together. It feels like there was a check list of elements that were required and they built a film around these elements.

I could forgive a lot of the plot holes and narrative issues if I could at least have a good time with it but, my god, it's so monotonous. How can a film about two superheroes fighting be as boring as 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' was? If it had been released 15 years ago it maybe could have been fresh, perhaps even exciting but, in this day and age, we have seen so much better so have come to expect so much more. 

It plays by the numbers and goes where you expect it to. There wasn't much new in there and it had no personality and no character. It's got a dark and brooding tone without the quality to back it up and justify it. 

Nolan's 'The Dark Knight' strikes the perfect balance of dark tone, story, character and action. It set the bar so high and no one has really come close to it, not even Nolan himself with his subpar follow up 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

There are so many meaningless and fatty scenes with dialogue that should have been cut away the instant an editor got their hands on it. The entire film runs like the first cut of a film. First cuts will have absolutely everything in them and it's at that point that you sculpt and mould it into a story. This film seems to have skipped that process and just went straight for release. Obviously this isn't the case but it sure feels close to it. 

For me, Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor is one of the worst performances in the film. He does exactly what you'd expect Jesse Eisenberg to do. He's the same character in everything he's in and 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' is no exception. The awkward, fast talking, "intelligent" teenager act is growing old with Jesse Eisenberg and I think he was the wrong choice for the main villain in this film. I think they tried to modernise the character but, in doing so, end up turning him into a pantomime villain. He's over the top (not in a good way) and it becomes embarrassing to watch at times. 

Ben Affleck's Batman was probably the best part of this film. He was damaged and broken which makes him unstable and dangerous. Ideally, he should have had a film of his own. There was too much going on too quickly for us to even get to grips with this new and very different Batman. His introduction was the most development we see in the film and it gave us another layer to Ben Affleck's Batman. However from then, after this hopeful introduction, we are only given pieces of the other well known characters with little to no development to make us care enough to invest ourselves in them. They very much rest on the expectation that the audience already loves the characters which, unfortunately, is both lazy and disappointing. 
Giving us a guy in a bat suit and calling him Batman doesn't necessarily make him Batman.

The trailer definitely showed too much. A common problem these days. 

All of the most interesting moments of the film were showed in the trailer. Not spoiling anything here but the character Doomsday was shown in the trailer so it comes as no surprise when the heroes have to face off against it. 

It looks like the cave troll from 'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' and it looks as awful as it does in the trailer, a big hunk of CGI mush. The whole scenario was crowbarred in to give them all something to fight together. 

Of course, not before we get an extended crotch shot of Wonder Woman to introduce us to her character. Played by model Gal Gadot, she gives as good a performance as you'd expect "Miss Isreal 2004" to give. With such pressure on all filmmakers to finally give women the representation they deserve in films, we get the ultimate female superhero - Wonder Woman - with all the sexist glory from the 40's and 50's.

The visuals were one of the more redeemable aspects of the film. They had a very dark stylistic edge to them and packed some great images into the fight scenes but, at the end of the day, it's all just style over substance with Zack Synder. He has some impressive visuals but the storytelling just isn't there.

What's even more frustrating is the fact that it did have some potential. The elements of a great action flick were there but they were just lost in the confusion. There were even some interesting themes and concepts knocking about within the mess. If 45 minutes had been cut off the run time and one story selected to follow, it would have been the foundation of a much better film. 

Overall, the film is boring and sloppy. The whole story and structure were a mess and it stumbles it's way over the finish line with a groan.

I think the over saturation of superhero movies is solely down to us. Despite the quality of the film and the dreadful reviews, the much anticipated 'Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice' had a record breaking opening weekend as it took in an estimated $170 million. That's the biggest opening weekend of all time for a pre-summer release. It just goes to show that if a film makes money, it really doesn't matter how good it is. 

They'll make a lot more of them and they'll make them cheaper in order to capitalise on the superhero surge until it's bled dry. We'll eat up anything with a DC or Marvel logo stamped on it until the next wave hits us. I think it'll be the 'Star Wars' franchise next but, in the meantime, I'm sure we'll get another 8 or 9 DC movies in the next few years with spin offs, prequels, sequels, merchandise, McDonalds toys and TV shows to go along with them.

Does the onslaught ever end?

Angel Heart (1987)

"You know what they say about slugs. 

They always leave slime in their tracks."

If this film proves anything, it’s that no matter how little screen time Robert De Niro has, he’ll always steal the show. It also proves that there was a time when Mickey Rourke didn’t look like a melted tire.

Private eye Harry Angel is hired by the mysterious Louis Cyphre to track down a missing person. 

I discovered Alan Parker’s 1987 film ‘Angel Heart’ on a whim after a Blu Ray shopping spree and, before I knew it, I was thrown into a supernatural world full of detective work, murders and satanic cults. "These are a few of my favourite things!”.

The film kicks off with small time private eye Harry Angel, played by Mickey Rourke, going to a meeting with a mysterious business man named Louis Cyphre, played by the great De Niro, who pays him handsomely to look into a missing persons case. As he begins to look into the case, strange things begin to happen around him and to the people he's been meeting with.

It sounds like your bog standard detective movie and, it kind of is, but it’s got so much more going on that it elevates itself from the norm.

We are given very few details as we embark on this mission with Harry Angel and are left to fend for ourselves a lot of the time. Rourke works his way through clues and leads but the tension starts to boil as we begin to realise, with Harry Angel, that there are more malicious forces involved in this than Louis Cyphre is letting on.

Mickey Rourke, despite being heavily overshadowed by De Niro in the marketing, is the lead in this brooding film and he’s very good as Harry Angel. He's very charismatic and sits right into the role. He’s unkept and hungover, doesn’t play by the rulebook and smokes a lot. Despite this archetype, he does it so much better than most. He’s got style, good looks and a great acting range that brings believability to a lot of scenes that would be typically unbelievable. These tough scenes are what separates him from the rest and prove that he has the acting chops to stand toe to toe with the likes of De Niro in this story. 

Robert De Niro, for only being in the film for a couple of scenes, really sets the tone for the rest of the film. With his razor sharp nails, slicked back long hair and sharp suits, he’s got an equal amount of mysterious style and grotesque depravity about his character that just sets the plot alight early on. He instantly involves you in Harry Angel’s story. Marlon Brando was originally considered for the role but I can't imagine anyone else doing it as classy as Robert De Niro does.

The imagery in ‘Angel Heart’ is what will stick with you. Key moments in the film are enhanced by some powerful images that will burn into your subconscious. One scene in particular is a sex scene involving Harry Angel, passionate sex and horrific flashing images are intercut while blood rains from the ceiling onto their naked backs. 
The film has a "look" and it expertly executes it. It's also a period piece so the costumes and the sets add a lot to this as well, you're transported to the place and the time in every scene and Rourke revels in it. 

The film has a lot of excesses and a lot of style and director Alan Parker manages to balance the two with flare. It pushes the envelope and you can tell everyone was having fun with what they were doing. The characters are interesting and every piece of the puzzle that you get paints a rich and developed picture.
The film is a bit of puzzle and it's part of the fun with any murder mystery to try and put it all together but it's got a larger agenda to it than that. It has a lot of moving pieces and, when you put them together, the bigger picture becomes clearer. Not crystal clear though, more like looking through a cloudy window, you can see the view but there’s a lot you’re missing.

Overall, this is a little gem of a film that you should definitely check out. It’s entertaining, intriguing, atmospheric and makes you think. It deals with some pretty horrific ideas and themes but I guarantee you’ll not be able to look away.

It’s got a great story and some unexpected moments that makes me want to rewatch it over and over.

The very 80's trailer below actually hits the nail on the head by tagging it as 'The Exorcist' meets 'Chinatown', I can't compete with an 80's movie trailer voice-over...

The Witch (2016)

"Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?"

Stay away from the woods. As a life rule, just always stay away from the woods...

A family in 1630's New England are torn apart by witchcraft and black magic.

I love the Salem Witch Trials. Having been to Salem, Massachusetts, I have had an obsession for the trials, ancient witchcraft and the psychology behind it all for years. Needless to say, when I heard about this film, I was very excited.

Seeing the trailer for ‘The Witch’ filled me with hope that there are still well made, artistic and genuinely scary horror films out there. There were endless positive reviews and word of mouth was building for this movie but, unfortunately, seeing it wasn’t nearly as fulfilling as I had hoped it was going to be.

The film starts out extremely well. It has bucketloads of tension, mystery and some seriously fucked up imagery and events. Like a rollercoaster, it gradually pulls us up to the height of anticipation and, just when you think you’re going to go over the edge at top speed, it stops and slowly brings you back in reverse and the ride grinds to a halt.

The slow pace of the film didn't bother me, it was the structure of the film that felt sporadic. The story was relatively well balanced and had lots of details that brought it to life but the tension and the horror weren't consistent. Personally, I think it gave too much too soon and didn't have much left to build to. It goes pretty much where you expect it to go, not that it's predictable but it's not a surprise when it all happens.

Don't get me wrong, 'The Witch' has its moments of pure horror but they are so few and far between that the film begins to drag after its fantastic opening. The tension is lost in moments of poor acting and the meaning of certain aspects of the film are lost in the confusion.

This leads me to one of the main problems with the film. The acting. The characters speak in an old English dialect and you can tell that the actors either don’t understand what the lines mean or have simply memorised the lines. It gives you the impression that they are more focused on making sure they get the lines right rather than delivering a meaningful line of dialogue. It feels like a bad theatre production. Unfortunately, this was especially the case with the younger actors, an unavoidable issue with young actors speaking in a dialect that they aren't used to but the older actors should have had a better grip of it. Probably the best actor of the family was Ralph Ineson who delivered the most believable performance.

The cinematography was interesting and really suited the tone of the film. The way it was shot was like an old painting from the 1600's come to life. This was a stroke of genuis from cinematographer Jarin Blaschke but style alone doesn’t necessarily redeem a film and it certainly doesn’t with ‘The Witch’.

A lot of the themes and ideas have been done so well in ‘The Crucible’ that it’s hard to top them anywhere else. Despite taking a different approach and a different flavour to 'The Crucible', it still felt like a cheap knock-off off and didn’t feel authentic. It had a lot of potential but falls short of the mark, which is especially frustrating because it's dealing with a lot of folk tales and mythology that are gripping and horrific. When you have such rich and textured lore to draw on it's a shame to see it wasted.

I could see what they were going for but I just don’t think that it paid off in the end and left me unsatisfied.

Overall, I was really disappointed with 'The Witch'. I expected so much and only got about 40% of what I had hoped for. It has some decent imagery and a handful of moments that make the film worth the watch but, ultimately, it doesn't deliver on all aspects. There are two key scenes in the film that will send a shiver up your spine but the rest falls into obscurity.

The glowing reviews feel a little misplaced after seeing the film but, who knows, it may just be my own personal bias towards the source material. Only one man's opinion!

A little bit of style over substance for me in this one but, in the end, it's something new and it's something relatively original so I'm happy that the horror genre is moving in this direction... Hopefully.