asda-man Reviews

Tenet (2020)

A palindromic WOW

[10/10 · 26 August 2020]

If there was one film that was going to put a halt to a pandemic then it was always going to be Tenet. A film so Earth-shattering in size and spectacle that people would pop on their masks, sanitise their little hands and sit one seat apart from everyone to experience the first blockbuster since corona came and ruined our lives.

Christopher Nolan tends to divide opinion with people thinking he's the next messiah of the film world or a pseudo-intellectual bore who places big set-pieces above multi-layered characters and a meaningful plot. I'm very much on the former side of the scale. I rarely give a film 10/10 but I have given every Nolan film this rating post The Prestige and therefore regard him as one of the greatest filmmakers of the 21st century.

Reviews for Tenet were decidedly mixed when previews were given to critics last Friday and so I did have some creeping doubts when I sat in front of the gigantic IMAX screen in Nottingham today. However, these doubts were put to rest within literally the first fifteen seconds of the film starting where I quickly realised that there was simply no experience quite like watching a thunderous Christopher Nolan film.

The plot is almost impossible for me to spoil because my teeny tiny brain could barely comprehend any of what was going on. It also didn't help that half of the dialogue was lost due to the booming score. Not sure if this was due to the cinema I saw it in or poor sound mixing which Nolan has been criticised for before, naughty man. Frankly, I didn't care. A clue is given early on by an exposition-friendly scientist character who tries to help us understand the whole time inversion basis of the film where she quips, 'Don't try to understand it. Just feel it.'

The concept does become slightly clearer as the film goes on, blowing our helpless minds in the process but it doesn't matter particularly. Part of the fun of watching a Christopher Nolan for the first time is getting as lost in the labyrinth of plot as the protagonist is. Inception and Interstellar felt almost as impenetrable upon first watch and have now been cracked thanks to multiple views and countless explanation videos on Youtube.

Even if you can't be bothered to think, you're bound to be in awe of the spectacle of it all. Nolan never does anything by halves and by Christ he's pulled out every stop for this film. There's a string of insane action sequences which had me scooping my jaw off the floor countless times. The behind the scenes extras are going to be fascinating because I still can't wrap my head around how half of these stunts were done.

Things only get more spectacular as the film goes on with sequences playing backward and forward sometimes at the same time. The intensity is also ramped up to 11 thanks to Ludwig Goransson's thumping, headache-inducing score. I was a little worried that things might feel a little odd with the absence of Hans Zimmer, but fear not, this is still the relentlessly thrilling Nolan blockbuster we all want be immersed in. It's a real cinematic experience which cannot be put into words.

Detractors are always going to find things to criticise. One review called it 'humourless' which I find a little bizarre. Do they really want Kenneth Branagh to perform a tap-dancing routine as he's plotting to destroy the world? In actual fact, I was surprised to find quite a few witty lines which allowed us to stop holding our breath and breathe for just a second or two. If I were to find any criticism with the film then it would be that Kenneth Branagh's character (although brilliantly played) is a bit of a two-dimensional villain. However, he's so memorably vile that I found myself actually being quite terrified of him.

During the explosive third act, my head was completely scrambled and I found myself wondering whether this whole film was the work of a genius or a madman. Who the heck could conjure up something this intricate and convoluted, yet remain so blissfully entertaining? What ever your opinion of Nolan you surely have to admire the sheer ambition and innovation he brings to the world of film. I can only imagine that the layers of Tenet's genius will be revealed upon multiple viewings and they're viewings that most of us are going to want to take. My head was completely spinning when I stepped outside into the real world. To sum Tenet up in a one-word palindrome, WOW!

The Turin Horse (2011)

You'll get more enjoyment from staring at a horse for two and a half hours

[3/10 · 22 July 2019]

Bela Tarr was a filmmaker I had never heard of until I read a wonderful article in a blog I noticed that the person who wrote this blog had a very similar interest in films to me, and so when I heard him rave about The Turin Horse and how Bela Tarr was one of his favourite ever directors, I just had to seek it out! Now, I had heard some peculiar things about this film that did put me off slightly. I heard that it was two and a half hours in length and only had 30 shots. Don't get me wrong, I love a long take as much as the next fat person, but 30 in 150 minutes sounded excessive and potentially tedious. I also heard that the film had no plot at all and just followed an old man and his daughter going about their day-to-day business, which put me off. However, The Turin Horse had such rave reviews from everyone who had seen it. The imagery did look beautiful, and I was really looking forward to experiencing something unique and new. Unfortunately my fears were pretty much met.

I've seen some crushingly boring films in my time. The highlights of boredom (or lowlights) for me would have to be the Austrian snooze-fest, Import/Export which I watched because it appeared on Film 4's extreme season, where they showed pretty hardcore stuff. I had never heard of it and decided to give it a go and was met with the dullest thing I had ever seen. This was the most boring film I had seen, until I set my bleeding eyes on the Hungarian art-house drama, Uzak. A film which basically followed two of the most boring characters on the planet watching TV and wondering around the house and street aimlessly. It was the first film I had actually hit fast-forward on.

Whilst, The Turin Horse isn't quite as inexplicably boring as these two films, it is still probably one of the most boring films I've seen. Like Uzak, it's Hungarian, and if I've learnt anything from Hungarian films it's that Hungary must be the most lifeless place on Earth. The Turin Horse actually manages to outdo Uzak in terms of boring characters, and gives us THE two most boring characters on the planet. A grunting father and daughter who live in the middle of nowhere and only speak when they have something to grumble about. If these two met up for coffee with the two brothers from Uzak, I could only imagine the stimulating, jovial conversation that would flow between them!

The Turin Horse is hardcore arthouse. I'm into arthouse films when they offer some sort of story of experience. I just can't get my head around films where literally nothing happens. Some people find art in watching the mundane activities of life, but I'm afraid that it just does not interest me. For me, The Turin Horse was basically the same short film being repeated six times, as it takes place over six very long days. It goes like this: They get up, the daughter dresses her father because he's far too boring to dress himself, she goes out to the well and fills up some buckets, brings them in. Then they have a muck about with the most tragically lifeless horse you've ever seen (I think boredom catches), and then they eat a potato and go to bed. Repeat. I didn't find anything "mesmerising" or "gripping" in these activities, as many reviewers have stated.

Whatever you do, don't believe the DVD's blurb! The blurb actually makes it sound like a really interesting apocalyptic thriller. It says that the film has left audiences "gasping for breath" which was obviously just mistaken for audiences being rudely woken up when the film had finally finished. Apparently there are "a bizarre series of disturbing events" unless this counts the arrival of some gypsies who get shooed away by the father, because they obviously brought far too much life to the film. The "terrifying, all-consuming finale" may be all-consuming but it's not that terrifying. A better blurb would say, "Imagine a film which captures the boring, daily routine of your own life and amplify it by ten thousand."

However, The Turin Horse isn't all bad. Yes it has nothing going for it in terms of plot or characters (something I consider as the most important aspect of a film, especially one at 150 minutes long), but there's no denying how outstandingly beautiful the film looks. It looked so promising when it opened and I was hoping that all my fears would be dashed! It opens with a five minute take of the Turin horse pulling a wagon with the father on, but thanks to the beautifully fluid camerawork it's anything but boring! The way the camera floated around the fog reminded me a bit of Gaspar Noe's visual spectacle, Enter the Void, a film I consider to be the absolute best on a visual level. On top of that there was a wonderful haunting score featuring very melancholic violins and an organ, a score that would drop in and out of the film regularly, and a score which I liked greatly.

The imagery and music are the only redeeming features. Sometimes the film looked like a moody painting, painted in ink. There's no denying how atmospheric the whole thing looked, and the fact that all the scenes were done in one uninterrupted take is highly impressive. Even if there are no interesting actions being filmed, I did like the way the camera would move from one perfectly framed shot to another so effortlessly. I especially loved the haunting shot of the daughter sitting out looking out the window like a desperately lonely ghost. I also did like the dread-filled ending where the father carries on his boring life regardless of a total apocalyptic blackout.

For some people this is enough. For some, masterful direction, atmosphere, a beautifully melancholic score and gorgeous visuals and cinematography is enough to warrant labelling a film a masterpiece. However, for me I require more. You can have the most beautiful visuals in the world, but if you don't give a fig about who's in them or what's going on in them, then they don't really mean much. The Turin Horse is totally and utterly plot-less, pointless and outrageously laborious. It's one of the most boring things I've seen, but it is also beautifully made. There's no denying Bela Tarr's talent as a director, and if he had a real plot then he would be extremely powerful, but this has no plot. So if your into watching drips eating potatoes through the lens of a masterful director, then you might just be in luck!

Finding Your Feet (2017)

Superior Brit Com

[10/10 · 27 February 2019]

There's no shortage of British comedies featuring all of our Dames finding romance with some twee comedy thrown in for good measure. The Best Exotic Marigold hotel had the grannies queueing out of the cinema doors to catch a glimpse of Dame Maggie Smith blasting out Dowager-esque zingers on a holiday to India. It brings new meaning to the term 'silver screen' when everyone in the audience is way past sixty, but it's a very profitable market for cinema chains. Many of these films provide a few laughs but are rather forgettable, fortunately Finding Your Feet isn't just one of the best examples of twilight comedy, it's one of the best examples of British comedy full stop.

The film slithered out to a limited audience in 2017 failing to garner the attention of the likes of Calendar Girls and Best Exotic Marigold, however it pretty much blows every comedy of that ilk out of the water. Why it hasn't received the praise it deserves is beyond me. Everyone I've sat down to watch this with has sang its praises, even a grumbling millennial who instantly dismissed it because they didn't want to watch a film about 'old people falling in love' admitted that it was in fact, 'very good.'

It follows Imelda Staunton, a stiff snob who relishes her new title of 'Lady Sandra Abbott' who finds herself in crisis after discovering that her husband has been having a Doctor Foster style affair with a lady not much younger than herself. Rightfully so, she storms out of that life and decides to rekindle with her estranged sister, Celia Imrie who couldn't be more opposite in character. What follows is a genuinely heart-warming tale that will have you grinning from ear to ear one minute and gushing with tears the next.

What makes Finding Your Feet so involving is the beautifully fleshed-out characters. Lady Sandra Abbott may come across as unlikable and toffee-nosed initially, but the film takes time to peel back the layers so that your sympathies fully lie with her by the end of it. She's also brilliantly played by Imelda Staunton who never really disappoints in any role. In fact, the talent on display here is really top drawer stuff. Timothy Spall particularly impresses with his moving performance as does the always reliable Celia. It's also always a joy to see Joanna Lumley in a role, even if her screen time is limited.

Anyone expecting to find a forgettable comedy about oldies learning to dance are in for a massive surprise as there's so much more to Finding Your Feet than this. I wasn't prepared for how emotionally devastating some of it was going to be. I very rarely feel my tear ducts wobbling in a film, but there were several moments in this where I thought I was going to blub, but perhaps I'm getting more emotional in my old age and can relate to the characters a bit more!

Naysayers have slammed the film for being 'predictable' but I'd disagree. The narrative seems to unfold with the characters, making everything far more involving than your average romcom. There's an equal amount of comedy and tragedy to stop it from being overly sentimental and it ends on such a heart-warming note that you'd have to be made out of marble to not feel your cockles getting warm. This is a truly special little film which deserves to be watched time and time again in the calibre of other British comedies such as Bridget Jones and Love Actually.

Halloween (I) (2018)

The High Noon of horror

[9/10 · 22 October 2018]

Oh look it's that time of year again! Because nine sequels, one remake and a sequel to that remake wasn't quite enough, Blumhouse have only gone and produced another bleedin' horror featuring the William Shatner mask-wearing madman, Michael Myers. In fact, this sequel makes all the other Halloween movies obsolete by totally ignoring their existence. It's a very wise move considering that Jamie Lee was unwisely bumped off in 2002 so that a cliché-ridden teen slasher film could follow. This sequel could've been equally as terrible, however I'm relieved to say that it's not.

I've seen every Halloween film so I consider myself quite a fan and it excites me to say that this is unquestionably the best sequel in the franchise and may even be as good as the original. David Gordon Green has put all the tired slasher tropes in the corner and actually focused on making a good film. It opens fairly bizarrely with a couple of Brits visiting old Michael in his maximum security asylum for their podcast, hoping that he'll have something to say for himself after over forty years of silence. Spoiler alert, he doesn't. Then the title hits the screen and John Carpenter's beautiful score fills the air and you realise that this film really has got back to the basics, in the best possible Scream 4 kind of way.

We then get to see the ultimate final girl, Laurie Strode who's looking quite different to how she was imagined in H20. To say that the events in 1978 traumatised her would be an understatement. This Laurie is utterly obsessed with the idea of Michael returning so she's created a little fortress in the middle of nowhere and laden it with traps to capture him once and for all. This has understandably put a strain on the relationship with her daughter, but her granddaughter seems pretty groovy with it. The new characters are all interesting and relevant to the story, however the film doesn't take long to get into the character we really want to see.

As if by fate, Michael manages to escape after some bright spark decided it'd be a good idea to transfer him and a load of other loons to another loony bin. Seeing him wondering around the streets and heartlessly butchering random people is thrilling and chilling in equal measure. Out of all the Halloween films, I'd say that Michael definitely gets the most screen time in this one, which is fantastic news. He's also never looked better, Halloween proves to be a masterclass of lighting and camerawork. It's incredibly well-made for a slasher film and David Gordon Green isn't afraid to show some creative flair behind the camera.

In the style of High Noon, however, the film is basically one big build up to the showdown between Michael and Laurie. It's very well executed and when the climax does arrive, it's every bit as thrilling and unpredictable as you could hope for. The suspense and intensity levels are very high and less hokey than the fight in H20. In the end, you couldn't have asked for more in a Halloween sequel. You couldn't really have asked for a better face off.

Horror fans will also be pleased to know that the body count is very high and pretty violent at times. Of course this doesn't make it a better film, but it makes it far more entertaining to watch. It's also not afraid to make you laugh and I was surprised to find myself laughing amongst moments of dreadful horror. It's also worth noting that Jamie Lee brings her all into the role and it's humbling to see that she hasn't forgotten the character that turned her into the superstar we know her today as. Halloween isn't just the best sequel in the franchise, it also proves itself to be one of the finest slashers to come out in the past two decades.

A Star Is Born (2018)

A miracle birth

[9/10 · 8 October 2018]

A Star is Born A miracle birth

Stars: Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga, Sam Elliot

Cooper's A Star Is Born had everything going against it when it was announced. Hollywood is renowned for its lack of originality but remaking a film for a third time is garishly lazy, even for them! It began with Janet Gaynor in 1937, then Judy Garland had a go in 1954 before passing the song-and-dance baton onto Barbra Streisand in 1976. I mean, how many times can a star really be born? Well, apparently the answer is at least four times as our Lady Gaga is now having a go playing the reluctant starlet rising to fame. Gaga wouldn't have been an obvious choice for a leading lady after her horrendously wooden stint in American Horror Story which bizarrely earned her a Golden Globe. Type-cast pretty-boy, Bradley Cooper also wouldn't spring to mind as the perfect leading man, let alone as writer and director. The whole project sounded doomed from the beginning.

However, ladies and gents, take those cynical hats off because by some miracle turn, Bradley Cooper's version of A Star is Born isn't just good, it's pretty much great on all levels. Following in the footsteps of the 70's Barbra Streisand version, Cooper unsurprisingly decides to focus on the music industry rather than the movies. This means that both leads find themselves outside of their comfort zones as Cooper must pretend to be a world-class singer and Gaga has to do a Cher and become both a phenomenal singer and actress at the same time. Somehow, they both manage to pull it off.

Bradley Cooper is more known for his comedy roles in The Hangover and the films of Academy favourite, David O Russell (The Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle etc.) and has given no indication of just how far he can stretch his acting abilities. Here, he completely transforms himself into Jack, the raging alcoholic with a troubled past and a penchant for popstars. I'd certainly be very surprised if he doesn't earn an Oscar nomination for his performance which at times feels painfully all too real. Gaga also impresses as Ally, although this is a role which doesn't particularly stretch her as an actress. A popstar playing a popstar rising to fame wasn't exactly going to be difficult for her, at one point she mentions being signed with Interscope Records (her actual record label) and you wonder if she's really acting at all. She really does mesmerise in the singing department, however, and the scenes involving heated arguments feel frighteningly genuine.

The plot itself sticks quite faithfully to all the other Star is Born's. Alcoholic superstar falls for talented nobody and transforms her into a superstar whilst he spirals into a deadly hole of addiction, whilst almost derailing her career. It's a very simple story and the film does feel quite overlong. The first half is the strongest and paciest section. After about and hour or so, the film does start to feel a little repetitive and I was left wondering where else it was going to go. What packs a real punch though is the ending. Of course, it won't come as any surprise for those who have seen any of the other versions of the story, but here it's no less powerful and executed pretty much to perfection.

Cooper's directing is also very arresting. There's a very raw and real feel to whole film which grounds the film in a reality rarely seen in Hollywood blockbusters. The camerawork is often handheld and intimate so that we always feel close to the characters and their lives. Whilst I wouldn't quite say that the film is an instant classic like some critics, A Star is Born is well worth your time. If not least for the powerful ending which sees both Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga at the very top of their respective games.

71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance (1994)

Not top-tier Haneke

[6/10 · 24 July 2018]

As a massive Haneke fan, 71 Fragments and Time of the Wolf were the only films of his I had left to see. I ticked 71 Fragments off last night and was left feeling slightly underwhelmed. It isn't a bad film or anything, it's just very pedestrian for Michael. It lacks the emotional power of The Seventh Continent, the shock of Benny's Video and the technical skill of Code Unknown, yet it resembles all three. If those three films had a hideously depressing threesome, then 71 Fragments would probably be its mediocre child.

Thankfully it's not as horrifyingly boring as The Castle or the second half of Benny's Video, even though the plot description sounds like it could be. It follows about four unrelated characters going about their everyday business. There's a ping ponging student, a stowaway boy, a depressed couple and a lonely Granddad. Haneke gives us very brief snapshots of their lives which is reminiscent of Code Unknown and Happy End, although not as focused or engaging. I didn't find any of it boring, just a little bit repetitive. The ending also isn't as shocking as it would like to think it is.

So in the end, it's a well-made little film which some interesting themes and the odd great scene, however it's not worth going out of your way to find. To my mind, Haneke's greatest films are: Amour, The Piano Teacher and Hidden.

Epidemic (1987)

I'd rather have the plague than sit through this again

[2/10 · 10 July 2018]

Christ am I regretting spending fifteen squid on this Lars Von Trier 'E Trilogy' boxset. I absolutely adore all of his other films (aside from The Idiots) but The Element of Crime proved to be a tedious exercise in style over substance and Epidemic somehow manages to be even worse.

Devoid of any style or substance, Epidemic painfully depicts the writing process of a 'horror' film between Lars and his writing partner Niels. It's an interesting meta idea but the whole thing feels chopped and forced together. The film looks messy just by looking at it with it's shoddy camerawork, grainy black and white photography and a strange 'Epidemic' watermark which remains in the corner the whole way through, like you're watching some sort of pirate copy.

It may only be 1hr 40mins but it feels longer than the extended version of Nymphomaniac. It's nonsensical and boring, I can imagine that the majority of the film was adlibbed. There are a few fantasy sequences which are shot nicely but that's about it. The ending was also intriguingly startling as we watch a woman have a never-ending hysterical turn in the style of Isabella Adjani in Possession.

Unless you're a big Lars fan who can't help but be curious about his first three features then don't bother watching either Epedemic or The Element of Crime. I can't imagine why you would anyway, although I do recall Epidemic appearing on a list of the scariest horror films. Can't understand why though, this is not a horror film and is not scary in the slightest. Skip.

The Element of Crime (1984)

Like watching a Simpson's character being pulped and put into a blender

[3/10 · 5 July 2018]

As a Lars Von Trier fan I thought it was about time that I took a look at his first three feature film and bought the 'Europe' or 'E' trilogy on Amazon (other retailers are available thank you please). Although Lars himself isn't a particularly likable character, his films are wonderfully distinguishable. Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark are amongst my all-time favourites, and I find myself consistently drawn to his 'Depression' trilogy which imagines Charlotte Gainsbourg in various levels of mental distress. After watching The Element of Crime, it's clear to see how far Lars has progressed as a filmmaker.

The Element of Crime is like watching one of The Simpson's being pulped to death and put into a blender, an incoherent yellowy mess. It opens with some interesting surreal imagery depicting a horse being pulled out of some water. It left me hoping for a nightmarish Lynchian journey and whilst it was certainly odd, I found myself wanting to float to actual dream land rather than compelled to watch the one presented on screen.

I couldn't tell you what the film was about. The back of the DVD calls it a neo-noir about a cop tracking down a serial killer and that's about the gist I got as well. Some English bloke drives around in a beaten-up tin car and pointlessly encounters people. The dialogue is completely illogical and never makes sense, this means that you can't feel any sort of connection to the characters or care about what they're doing. The film is entirely interested in bizarre visuals and fancy camera movements.

There's no denying the strong sense of style. The cluttered mise-en-scene and strange lighting creates a stark atmosphere, however this simply isn't enough to sustain a 100 minute movie. I'm afraid to see what Epidemic and Europa now have to offer, I can only hope that they're an improvement on this boring mess.

The Ritual (I) (2017)

Lads holiday gets ruined by gigantic moose man

[6/10 · 17 May 2018]

You'd think people would've got the idea now. Don't go into the woods! Especially if you're out in the middle of nowhere, in a Scandinavian country, with only a compass to rely on. The Ritual might not be all that original but it's a solidly made little film which will certainly appease hungry horror fans who live for watching a group of friends get butchered one by one. It also ends up becoming surprisingly layered and moving, it's certainly more intelligent than its B-movie exterior it hides behind.

It's a premise we've all seen before. In fact it's exactly the kind of formula The Cabin in the Woods was poking fun of, there even happens to be a cabin in the woods, would you believe it! A group of thirtysomething men decide to go on a walking holiday (which is a bit of an oxymoron, but there you go, some people enjoy it) after their friend gets brutally murdered by some crackheads robbing a corner shop. He was the only one who wanted to go on a Scandinavian hiking trip so they all go in tribute to him. Unfortunately, Rafe Spall is now wracked with guilt because he did nothing to help his friend and instead cowardly hid behind an aisle, which is something we'd all probably do if we were put into that godawful situation.

Alone in the gorgeous Swedish outback, one moaning member of the group bruises his ankle so they decide to take a short-cut through some deep woodland which has 'Blair Witch' written all over it. They're not even that phased by a deer hanging on a tree with its guts pouring out, they just want to get some rest in an old creepy cabin which has an even creepier Wicker Man-esque moose/reindeer thing upstairs. The film does an excellent job of building up a sense of foreboding and threat. You know something isn't quite right but you can't work out what's going on. It's a film which keeps you guessing right up until the surreal third act.

Some have said that the film is at its best when it's hinting at things in the shadows and that's sort of true, but you'd surely be disappointed if the evil was never revealed. There's a great sense of friendship with the cast of characters and for a horror film, it's actually very well-acted. You believe everything which is going on, which is important in a film which gradually gets more and more bonkers as it goes on. It's also nice to see a more mature British cast in a slasher flick instead of a bunch of whiny Americans. Who would've thought Thomas Barrow from Downton Abbey would be under attack in the woods?

Lots of people have expressed dislike towards the ending, but for me that's when I realised that the film was actually more intelligent than what it's given credit for. It instead becomes a kind of parable for facing your demons and accepting your faults. Like the creature is symbolic for grief in The Babadook, the one here is also symbolic if you dig deep enough. If you don't take the ending too literally then you'll find it to be surprisingly touching and meaningful, it certainly stayed with me when the credits started to roll.

The Ritual is a good example of a supernatural slasher flick albeit not exactly an original one. its high production values are let down by the formulaic screenplay which enables you to predict the direction in which it's heading. It also bordered on the ridiculous at times, although I do admire films which decide to take a more surreal route. All in all, if you're a horror fan you'll find a lot to appreciate in The Ritual. Even if it doesn't offer much new, there's certainly worse ways to kill ninety minutes.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)

A peculiar beast

[7/10 · 11 April 2018]

Yorgos Lanthimos rears his ugly Greek head again, fresh from the international success of 2015's peculiar The Lobster. He's gone on record to say that he doesn't know how to make a straight-forward film and his fifth feature seems to confirm that statement. The Killing of a Sacred Deer is as odd as the title might suggest and certainly won't be for everyone, but those who like their movies on the different side are likely to find a lot to lap up.

It boasts an all-star cast with Colin Farrell and Nicole Kidman appearing as a wealthy husband and wife who's lives get turned upside down when the young Barry Keoghan enters their lives with sinister intentions. You could say that all this talent is somewhat wasted due to how they're all made to deliver their lines with an air of monotone autism to them. Farrell and Keoghan's characters dryly reel off information at one hundred miles per hour and no one acts remotely normal. It's an acting style which will immediately put a lot of people off straight off, but it does add to the creepy atmosphere which sustains throughout.

Lanthimos directs the film with a suitably strange style, reminiscent of David Lynch and Michael Haneke at times. It isn't a film to be taken literally, I think the whole thing could be interpreted as a dream or a kind of metaphor. It has its roots in Greek mythology which can certainly be seen through the bizarre events which unfold.

It's difficult to talk about the film without unravelling too much of the plot, which shouldn't be done. The film isn't as shocking as some reviewers like to claim. It certainly isn't as disturbing as Dogtooth but it does break some cinematic taboos by addressing some dark themes involving children, but these aren't anything we haven't seen before in the films of Haneke. There's no gratuitous violence or sex, although some of the imagery involving these might linger.

In short, if you like art films and have an open mind then you'll absolutely love The Killing of a Sacred Deer. It's beautifully made and memorable, however audiences are likely to find the stilted characters difficult to engage with. It's also slowly paced, which I didn't have a problem with although I do think it would've benefited from some tighter cutting. It isn't a masterpiece like some claim, but it isn't unbearable rubbish either. It lies somewhere between them both.

Get Out (I) (2017)

Get in

[8/10 · 5 March 2018]

It's been about one whole year since Jordan Peele's Get Out was unleased onto cinemas and I've only just managed to see it! I call myself a seasoned horror fan but why on Earth did it take me so long to see a four-time Oscar nominated horror film? You know it has to be special when the Academy (who famously shun all genre movies) consider giving it a gong for Best Picture. After all, Get Out is the first all-out horror film to be nominated in the category since The Exorcist in 1973. Unless you decide to count the likes of Black Swan and The Silence of the Lambs which have elements of horror but are no where near as obvious as this film.

Is it all that superior then? Personally I think we've seen better recently in films such as The Witch and It Follows, but there's no denying that it's a cut above the rest. It's certainly far more intelligent than most films nowadays, which the Academy miraculously realised after awarding it an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay last night. It follows black British star Daniel Kaluuya as he goes to meet his white girlfriend's parents at their large middle-class home. Everything seems fine a first but gradually things start to take a sinister turn as some very white guests arrive and seem to almost close in on our black hero. To say anything else would be to ruin the terrific surprises in store, I went in knowing almost nothing about the plot and was certainly all the better for it.

Get Out takes a simple horror movie premise and turns it into a thoughtful and scarily plausible satire about racism. What's nice is that it doesn't shove it down our throats in a ham-fisted way like say, Mother! (which I loved, I must say) but there's stuff for keener viewers to dig in to. It never patronises its audience and is always interested in building up a sense of paranoia and suspense around a likable protagonist who we can all root for. It also manages to provide an exciting third act which manages to satisfy and thrill in equal measure.

It's difficult to believe that this is Jordan Peele's debut film. The technical competence is pretty outstanding, although he has had plenty of experience starring in film and TV before so he must've learned something about being behind the camera whilst being in front of it! He shows great flair and vision behind the camera, always remaining focused and expertly building tension. Where most directors would go in for the heavy-handed approach, Peele uses subtlety and restraint. Even the barmy revelation is presented with such confidence, that you don't doubt the logic for a second.

Get Out might not be the ground-breaking classic you were hoping for, but it's certainly a fine horror film with enough comedy to comfortably cleanse your pallet. Despite always having its tongue in cheek, it carries an important message about liberal racism and does an excellent job at making the audience feel what it's like to be a black man in modern America. The ending perhaps could've been less predictable and convenient, but Get Out offers plenty of hidden riches in repeated viewings.

Coco (I) (2017)

Another brilliant film from Pixar? I should coco!

[9/10 · 10 February 2018]

Pixar needn't fear about entering the land of the dead after Coco dazzling audiences and critics alike. They've been teetering lately with their three most recent films (The Good Dinosaur, Finding Dory and Cars 3) all of which received relatively mixed reviews from a studio who have churned out more timeless animations than any other. Coco sees them back on top form though by emotionally weaving an engaging and constantly surprising story about family, love and loss.

It follows a spirited Mexican lad called Miguel who wants nothing more than to be a musician. Unfortunately for him, his family are from a long line of music-haters after Miguel's great great great grandmother's husband left her and her daughter alone in order to pursue a career in music. Since then every child from the family has been raised to detest all kinds of music (as any sane family would do) which means Miguel has to tinkle his ivories in secret whilst worshipping his superstar musical idol, Ernesto De La Cruz. For reasons never quite explained, Miguel ends up in the Mexican land of the dead where a madcap adventure ensues, never failing to entertain along the way.

Coco fools you initially by pretending to be a straightforward family adventure film with stunning visuals and cute characters, but a genuinely shocking third act twist reveals itself to be so much more. It's quite barmy how a film targeted for children is more unpredictable than the majority of films aimed at adults in this day and age. Nevertheless, this is Pixar and we all know that despite being family friendly, they're really made for adults!

What makes the film so memorable though is its pure emotion. Pixar have been pulling at our heartstrings for years from the infamous opening of Up to the tragic demise of Bing Bong in Inside Out. I'm happy to say that Coco is no exception. I'm not one to cry in films but I must admit to being quite choked up several times in Coco, particularly in its closing moments. This isn't manipulative, sugary, trying-desperately-hard-to-make-you-cry kind of emotion seen in the likes of the recent Wonder but genuine tear duct pulling. This is a film which genuinely cares about its characters so the audience does too.

Some people are calling this the best Pixar film ever but I think that's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. It lacks the innovation of say, Inside Out and the comedy of Up but that's not say it's a great film because it is. Pixar have just churned out such a high calibre of animated features that to say one is better than the other doesn't really count for much. Coco will certainly be beloved for years to come though, I know I'll be watching it with my kids all the time if anyone would have them with me.

Phantom Thread (2017)

A Mighty Breakfast

[9/10 · 10 February 2018]

The movie world jumped for joy when they heard that Daniel Day-Lewis was reuniting with Paul Thomas Anderson once more for another period epic. Although it was upsetting to hear that it would be Day-Lewis' final swansong, there was no doubt that it would be a suitable film to bow out in style with and I'm delighted to confirm that that's true.

Although not as powerful as the duo's previous There Will Be Blood, Phantom Thread is an exquisitely crafted film with phenomenal performances and enigmatic characters that dare you never to tear your eyes from the screen. There's a tremendous tension bubbling beneath the film's stylish exterior, yet that tension never quite explodes in the way you might expect.

Phantom Thread is a love story with a strange twist. It follows a fashion designer called Reynolds Woodcock who is about as fascinating as a character gets. A beyond fussy workaholic who lives with his coldly reserved sister (played beautifully by Lesley Manville) and feels utterly cursed despite living lavishly. We meet him at his lowest point during breakfast where his latest relationship is in tatters. His sister convinces him to go away for a while where he meets Vicky Krieps' Alma, a shy waitress who becomes besotted with the eccentric genius after he orders enough food to feed the Vatican City. From then on we're treated with the weirdly captivating ups and downs of their beyond volatile relationship.

Some might say that nothing much happens in the film's 130 minute running time. I heard an old dear behind me say, 'well that was far too long. I would've edited that down.' But thank god they didn't hire her as editor because there's so much more going on beneath the surface. This is a character-driven film, very much like Anderson's previous There Will Be Blood and The Master and as such requires multi-layered, strong performances to carry the narrative along and this film does so in spade loads.

It doesn't come as much surprise that Daniel Day-Lewis gives an outstanding Oscar-worthy performance given that the man already has three of them. It would be wonderful to see him win a record-breaking fourth but it looks as though this year belongs to Gary Oldman. He completely transforms into the character and was extreme as ever when preparing for the role. Everyone on set had to refer to him as his character's name and he even learnt how to sew and make dresses. The result is another astonishing performance, if it really is his final film then it's a pretty spectacular exit.

Equally as magnetic is Vicky Krieps, a relatively unknown actress from Luxembourg who is entirely believable as the young muse falling head over heels in love with Woodcock's peculiar charm. Lesley Manville is also quietly hilarious as the ultra-frosty sister whom Woodcock adores. In fact there's a quiet hilarity running through the entire film. Woodcock's eccentricities make him appear as a ticking time bomb, waiting to explode at any moment. The slightest noise at breakfast riles him, as does cooking anything in butter. His outbursts are both funny and sad at the same time. Funny because they seem so trivial and sad because this is obviously a man who struggles to find happiness in anything despite having it all.

The film is also beautiful to look at, as any film about beauty and the fashion industry should be. You could proudly roll it down the catwalk for everyone to marvel at. Anderson even worked as his own director of photography for the film and the result is luscious imagery, some even quite haunting. There's a heightened sense of reality in the film which makes it feel dreamlike in quality.

In some ways Phantom Thread is the opposite of There Will Be Blood. It's far more subtle and contained with most of the drama happening within Woodcock's majestic home. It doesn't have the same raging intensity and is instead surprisingly tender. It leaves you with much to think about and even if you're the kind of person who doesn't like their films to leave them thinking, you can't help but be astounded by the highest calibre of acting. Films like this don't come around too often so let's treasure it and cherish it even more so that it could be the last time we see the greatest actor of our generation on screen.

The Greatest Showman (2017)

Great Show!

[8/10 · 29 January 2018]

"Ladies and gents, this is the moment you've waited for" are the first words Hugh Jackman warbles in this box office smash hit. I'm not entirely sure that the world has been waiting for a jazz-handed, all-singing, all-dancing musical about P.T Barnum (the man who invented the business of show) but the audience numbers prove otherwise. Like a bad penny, Jackman's returned to the world of musicals, only he's looking a little happier in this one compared to Tom Hooper's sprawling adaptation of Les Miserables and his voice is sounding a little better too! Or is that just the autotune? Either way, Jackman and the rest of the cast look like they're having the time of their lives in Michael Gracey's infectiously joyous debut. I must admit to being a little apprehensive about seeing it, fearing the worst for a High School Musical-esque cheese-fest, but was immediately drawn in by the spectacular visuals and mighty music. From start to finish, The Greatest Showman does what P.T Barnum knew how to do best, entertain. The film moves at a glorious pace, piling on the impressive images and sounds until your senses feel overwhelmed. Gracey displays great skill and confidence from behind the camera, at best it displays similarities to Baz Luhrmann's musical masterpiece, Moulin Rouge! It's hard to believe that this is a film from a first-time director. Unfortunately it's the screenplay by Jenny Bicks and Oscar-winner Bill Condon which stop this show from soaring to the heights of Zendaya's pink-haired trapeze artist. The story is undeniably cliché and predictable. It's the rags to riches tale we've all seen countless times before, only this time with more song and dance routines. The film almost peaks too early by rushing through Barnum's rise to stardom and then not giving our hero much to do through the rest of the running time. A flat love story is introduced between Zac Efron (who remains fully-clothed for once) and Zendaya but neither character is developed enough for us to care what happens. Shock, horror, Hugh gets too fame obsessed and ends up neglecting his wife and children only to realise his sins in the end so we can neatly tie a bow and let the credits roll. There are also moments of sugary sentimentality enough to make even the soppiest person cringe. But in the end none of that matters, The Greatest Showman is a pleasure of the guiltiest kind. It knows exactly what kind of film it is and it does it very well. There isn't a duff song in the film, although that's no surprise given that the lyrics were penned by the duo who wrote for last year's stupendous La La Land. The choreography is also top-notch, daring you not to take your eyes away from the screen. Despisers of musicals might want to steer clear, but those who are a sucker for a catchy showtune will undoubtedly find a lot to admire. It's perhaps not something I'd shout from the rooftops and ruin my street cred, but I was a big fan and strangely I can't wait to see it again.

Wonder (I) (2017)

Little to wonder about

[6/10 · 22 November 2017]

A Hollywood movie about a deformed boy battling adversities starring Owen Wilson? Yes, it's exactly as predictable as it sounds. I hate to sound like a cynical old man (I'm actually only 22 with the mind of a fifty year-old whoops) but I've sat through my fair share of schmaltz which mainstream audiences seem to lap up. People seem to be completely sucked in by the manipulative tearjerkers which we've seen over the past few decades such as My Sisters Keeper and Marley and Me, but ultimately, they're sentimental nonsense and therefore phony.

Wonder is the 'heart-warming true story' of a boy who has a facial disfigurement and affects the lives of those around him. In all fairness, Wonder isn't a bad film. It's well-made and entertaining enough but certainly isn't anything memorable. It feels like an Oscar-bait movie but I have a suspicious feeling that Stephen Chbosky will be winning as many Oscars as he did for his previous debut, The Perks of Being a Wallflower.

It's likely to gain comparisons to the superior 1985 film, Mask due to having a central character facing similar issues. However whilst Mask handled the subject with maturity and objectiveness, Wonder smothers on the treacle and treats the audience like children who have an irrational phobia of people whose appearances are abnormal. In that sense, Wonder is a fantastic film for children to see and I was delighted to see plenty at my free screening with their tight parents.

So the film basically ticks off every cliché in the book. Deformed boy gets bullied, deformed boy finds friend and then falls out with said friend, deformed boy gets new friend etc. but it was nice to see a focus on other characters such as his neglected sister. It's interesting though how the other big character, Julian doesn't get a similar backstory. Maybe it has something with him being a two- dimensional bully?

No doubt audiences are going weep and applaud, and the film will do well at the box office. However, I prefer my movies with a sense of Haneke-realism to them. The saddest films I've seen feature absolute zero sentimentality. Requiem for a Dream rips your heart out and stamps on it. If Wonder wanted a similar effect, then it failed miserably. As a children's film however, it's fabulous and carries an extremely positive message which wraps itself in a lovely bow in the finish.

Nothing Bad Can Happen (2013)

Jesus Christ!

[9/10 · 16 November 2017]

It's rare to find a film which manages to disturb and horrify without ever being exploitative or using cheap shock tactics like you'd see in the August Underground movies but Nothing Bad Can Happen manages to do exactly that. I came away from the film feeling drained and disturbed in a way that I haven't felt since Pascal Laugier's Martyrs which should certainly ring alarm bells if you can't handle upsetting subject matters in your films. Although Nothing Bad Can Happen is undoubtedly a superb piece of filmmaking, it's something I wouldn't recommend lightly due to explicit sequences involving abuse of all kinds and cruelty to animals.

The film follows the true events surrounding a young self-proclaimed 'Jesus freak' called Tore who happens to have some form of autism which makes him think and act very differently to others. Tore places all of his faith in Jesus Christ and is naively taken in by a truly evil family who take advantage of his absurdly good nature. It's a fascinating meditation on evil in society and the dangers of religion. Despite being a truly gruelling watch, Nothing Bad Can Happen never gratuitously relishes in the violence and is always focused on delivering a powerful message. The fact that these events are true makes the film all the more relevant and important.

First-time director Katrin Gebbe shows astonishing confidence behind the camera. Despite the ugly subject matter, the images always try to find beauty and light through the bleakness. There's a hypnotic sense of realism to the whole film which reminded me of Justin Kurzel's equally uncompromising Snowtown. The acting from the unknown cast is similarly impressive, particularly breakout star Julius Feldmeier in the lead who manages to make Tore an engaging and sympathetic main character. Sascha Alexander Gersak also feels toe-curlingly real as the malevolent patriarch determined to break Tore's Holy spirit.

You could easily mistake Nothing Bad Can Happen as being the lost film in Lars Von Trier's 'Golden Hearts Trilogy' which correspondingly follows mentally-challenged protagonists as they battle through life's brutal hardships. It's just as tough to watch as seeing Emily Watson getting stoned by feral kids or Bjork dancing through life despite desperately trying to raise enough money for her son's operation. It'll be too much for some people and it does get worse as the film progresses but the reason I watch films is to be moved and provoked by some sort of emotional response. Nothing Bad Can Happen does this in spade loads.

This is a haunting piece of work which will bury itself under your skin and stay there long after the credits roll. It's a torturous watch at times but it carries an important message which is extremely relevant to society today. The pacing is very slow at the beginning but it's also immersive and character-focused meaning that it's easy to engage with. There was not one moment where I was bored or distracted in its 110 minute running time. It's a heart-breaking watch which will shake you to your core. A stunning debut but proceed with caution.

Mother! (2017)

House party from hell

[9/10 · 13 October 2017]

With just six feature films under his belt, Darren Aronofsky is still one of the most innovative and striking directors working in Hollywood today. With his unique visual style he creates intimate stories which have the power to grip you by the throat until the very last shot. 'Black Swan' is probably my favourite film of the last decade so you can imagine my delight at discovering that Darren had been secretly filming Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem in a horror film for God knows how many months. It was a shock well worthy of the cheeky exclamation mark pegged onto the title. It looked as though Darren had returned to his melodramatic roots after spending years working on a forgettable biblical epic.

Although 'Mother!' also has biblical overtones, it's perhaps less obvious than watching Noah's ark rock around a stormy ocean. It is interesting to note, however the almighty split of opinions on Aronofsky's latest work of art. People talk all the time about 'marmite' films, where critics and audiences alike seem to adore or outright detest a film for equally valid reasons and 'Mother!' is exactly that. Some find it tedious and ridiculous, whilst others find it gripping and intoxicating in the best possible way. I must admit that when I first saw the film, it completely went against my expectations and I was left sitting in a rare state of shock trying to process what I had just seen. Suffice to say that after about 10 minutes, my opinion landed directly on the 'love it' side of the fence.

The less you know about 'Mother!' the better the experience will be so I won't delve into plot points. The biggest surprise for me was discovering how funny the film is. The trailers make it out to be like some sort of hardcore horror movie in the vein of 'Rosemary's Baby' meets 'Repulsion' but I was amazed to find myself laughing so much, particularly in the first half. The preposterousness of the situations make for darkly comic viewing in a similar kind of way to 'Calvaire' a Belgian horror film with equally pitch-black comedy. It could be mistaken for bad writing, but it's entirely intentional. It all comes from the fact that J-Law's character is presented as the only sane person who the audience can relate to, whereas pretty much every other character is totally unrepeatable.

The film builds slowly but always intrigues. Just like Natalie Portman's Nina in 'Black Swan' J-Law's titular 'Mother!' character is always shown in tight close-ups with the camera intensely following her every move. It makes for claustrophobic and uncomfortable viewing at times, particularly as the action never moves away from the house, which makes the insane third act work even more effectively for it. The point of view is also very subjective, it's made clear that Jennifer isn't quite right in the head and we see all her strange and horrifying delusions as if we were in her shoes. It's fantastically focused filmmaking (nice bit of alliteration there for you) which helps to build up the intensity.

The first half might seem more than a bit weird to most moviegoers but it isn't anything compared to the hysterical second half which has to contain some of the most insane sequences ever committed to film. I won't go into details but I was left feeling incredibly stressed and bemused which is exactly how the film wants you to feel. Visually it's astonishing and some of the camera-work is dizzyingly terrific. It also contains some seriously shocking content which left my mouth agape and I'm someone who considers themselves to be a hardened horror nut. It's the kind of big budget surrealism which is devastatingly lacking in Hollywood.

Of course none of it is supposed to be taken at face value and there are plenty of metaphors to chew over after the film has finished. It's just a shame that Darren and Jennifer have been so open about what the film is actually about as it means that the sense of mystery has gone already. The film could've and should've been left up to interpretation. Directors such as David Lynch and Michael Haneke would never dream of telling audiences what their films are about because every audience member's ideas are valid and have meaning to them. Anyhow, although the metaphors and symbolism are a little heavy- handed in the film, they are no less brilliant and intelligent.

It's also worth mentioning the excellent performances in the film. Although that really doesn't come as a surprise when you have heavyweights like Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem and Michelle Pfeiffer starring all in the same film. Each role is very challenging though and the fact that they all pulled each part off and made it believable is a credit to them. The real star of the show though is Darren Aronofsky whose directing style manages to unequivocally sweep audiences away on a mad, horrifying journey which isn't soon forgotten. 'Mother!' is a very special film. It's divisive but most great works of art are. You will get a strong reaction, no matter who you are or what that reaction might be.

Twin Peaks (2017)

The greatest TV series of all time

[10/10 · 8 September 2017]

It's 11pm and I have just finished watching the last episode of Twin Peaks: The Return. Normally I'd give something else a watch before tottering off to bed but the images and ideas presented in the two-hour finale are relentlessly whirring around my head. David Lynch has done it again. 25 years ago he re-invented television with the original series which mixed offbeat comedy with pure horror and surrealism. Audiences were enthralled by the mystery of who killed Laura Palmer, only to find that the startling cliffhanger left in 1991 wouldn't be resolved until 2017.

David Lynch has had an exceptional career. Debuting with surrealist masterpiece, Eraserhead and providing us with horrific treats in Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart and Lost Highway. In 2002 he created what I believe to be the greatest film of all time, Mulholland Drive and seemingly disappeared off the Earth in 2006 after the impenetrable INLAND EMPIRE. However, we can now forgive Lynch for the frustrating ten-year hiatus because he has generously provided us with 18 hours of unadulterated perfection. The Return could very well be his magnum opus.

There has never been anything like this on TV and there will probably be nothing like this ever again, unless Lynch decides to delve back into the small screen again, of course. The series was shrouded in secrecy so people didn't really have a clue what was going to happen when the two-hour opening aired. Unsurprisingly all expectations were cut dead within the first fifteen minutes. The whole season is nothing like the original run, in fact less than half the time is spent in the beloved town of Twin Peaks.

This season is more interested in doppelgängers in Las Vegas, murders in South Dakota and frightening absurdities in the red room. Mysteries are constantly being raised and very few clear answers are ever provided. The series also runs at a very deliberate pace. Lynch really isn't interested in wrapping things up quickly, in one scene we watch a man sweeping the floor for three minutes, yet somehow none of it is boring in the slightest. Instead we feel lost in an intoxicating dreamlike atmosphere where anything can happen. Many will find the lack of nostalgia and glacial pacing frustrating, but this is truly a ground-breaking work of art.

It also has to be noted that Kyle MacLachlan's performance is the one of the greatest in TV history. It has to be said that he has never particularly shone in his acting career, aside from Dale Cooper (obviously) but here he does something extraordinary. Playing three different characters, MacLachlan shows an astonishing acting range and never fails to compel whenever he's on screen. There are also memorable performances from Naomi Watts, Laura Dern and David Lynch himself, all in challenging and remarkably interesting roles.

What's really extraordinary about this 1000 minute masterpiece is that is manages to encompass every human emotion, often at the same time. At one moment side-splittingly funny, then pants-wettingly terrifying the next. There are also moments of desperate sadness, tension and surprise. What ever the feeling though, there is always a strong sense of mystery in the air. Don't expect many easy answers though.

Many people were disappointed by the ending which offered absolutely no closure in the slightest. Much like the original series, the season ends on a extraordinarily haunting note. In fact, it could quite possibly be the most haunting ending of any film or TV show I have ever seen. Rather than providing answers, we're left with even more questions than we had at the start but that's where its brilliance lies. If Lynch gave us a cosy ending where all the pieces tied neatly together then we wouldn't be talking about the series for years to come. There is so much to analyse and digest, fans will be picking this series apart until the end of days.

Unlike anything else on TV, Twin Peaks is always unpredictable. You can never guess what is going to happen next and although it isn't easy to understand, it isn't really supposed to be. This is an experience where you can leave your brain at the door and just go along for the sensational ride. Forget Breaking Bad. Forget Game of Thrones. Forget what ever you thought the best series on TV ever was. The greatest thing to ever grace the small screen is categorically and unquestionably, Twin Peaks: The Return.

Stalker (1979)

I'd rather get stalked than sit through this again

[2/10 · 25 August 2017]

This was my first taste of the film geek's favourite, Andrei Tarkovsky. I knew that it would be slow, but I was hoping for something hypnotic rather than just plain boring but that's exactly what I got. Imagine The Lord of the Rings on no budget at all and replace the fellowship with three miserable Russians and you've got yourself Stalker.

Many call it a masterpiece which isn't surprising. Any old foreign film made in the 70's with tortoise-speed pacing is considered a masterpiece to film snobs. No doubt some boring old fart will tell me that there's something intellectually deep about this drivel but life's too short to give a toss.

I'll save you the time of watching it, unless you suffer from insomnia, in which case stick this on, it'll do you wonders. A miserable potato-headed Russian leaves his family to take a drunk writer and professor on a trip to a mystical place called "The Zone". Don't worry, it sounds far more intriguing than it actually is. It turns out that "The Zone" is just a dank field with a misshapen house in the middle of it. The potato-headed Russian keeps telling them how "The Zone" is dangerous and ever-changing. No one ever comes out alive etc. etc. but it's quite clear that the only thing mystical about this god-forsaken zone is that the producers could afford colour film stock instead of black and white.

They wonder around this field and take many pit-stops to talk about rubbish which no one gives a toss about. At one point the potato-head lies in a puddle and harps on about the philosophical properties of music. You get the idea... I should also point out that it takes a good fifty minutes before they ever get to this zone, so we're treated to the three miserable musketeers evading the police complete with a seemingly never-ending shot of them all travelling on a train track.

They bop about in a field, they bop about in a house. It occurred to me that this film could be watched on fast-forward so that's exactly what I did. Please note that I have only ever done this to one other film in my life, a Turkish delight entitled Uzak. If you enjoyed that one, then you might want to give Stalker a go too. I fast-forwarded only to find that absolutely nothing else happened aside from the threesome plodding around an empty house and some tunnels. I was only left with regret for not doing it sooner, realising that it took me 1hr 40mins to do so, although by that point I felt like I'd spent my whole life watching this film.

You can call me a close-minded millennial for all you like, I don't care. I have a very eclectic taste in film, it was only yesterday that I watched an old Japanese film entitled Kwaidan which I enjoyed very much. It was the same length as this film, not terribly fast-paced in the slightest but it had a story to tell and was visually entrancing. I'm not one of these people who need quick-cuts and conventional plotting to keep me enthralled. David Lynch is my all-time favourite director and his films are often extremely slow but always absorbing, so don't disregard me as one of those hopeless kids who consider Transformers an artistic masterpiece.

After I skipped through Stalker I felt empty. I grabbed myself a beer at three o clock in the afternoon and sighed. There's no denying that the film is powerful, as it drove me to drink. This was my first and last film by Andrei Tarkovsky. A director who makes Ingmar Bergman look like Michael Bay.

Dunkirk (2017)

How many times can Chris outdo himself?

[10/10 · 20 August 2017]

Life can deal you such cruel hands. I am the biggest Christopher Nolan fan so I've been excitedly awaiting Dunkirk ever since it was announced three years ago. I've been avoiding every trailer and every clip in fear of needless spoilers and have been savouring every review since its release. Now, almost one month after its release I have finally been able to see it! If it was any old film then I would've seen it on the day of its release, however this is a Christopher Nolan movie which means that it has to be seen on the biggest screen possible to get the full effect.

So I took a trip up to London to catch Dunkirk on the BFI Imax, the biggest screen in England and I can safely say that it was worth the wait. Dunkirk is quite possibly the greatest cinema experience I have ever had, or at least the best since Interstellar which created similar immersive intensity in Imax. But even without the gargantuan screen and crystal clear sound, Christopher Nolan has created not just the greatest war film ever but one of the greatest films of any genre. It is truly a one of a kind film, breaking all kinds of war movie conventions and doing things that have never been attempted in any film before it. Extraordinarily, Nolan has outdone himself once again.

Dunkirk is the equivalent of a cinematic pressure-cooker. From the moment the film begins, it's put on high heat and it barely lets up for its entire 100 minute running time. The opening scene is sensational. We watch as a tragically young soldier picks up a leaflet depicting how British troops are surrounded by Germans. There's an instant atmosphere of dread and panic which only intensifies when the first bullet explodes out of nowhere. We're used to guns firing all the time in films. This is the first time the sound of a bullet has sent shivers up my spine. The noise is so loud and so sharp that I found myself jolting in my seat and for the first time in a war film, feeling the same sense of fear the soldiers on screen are feeling.

The weight of the situation really hits hard. The idea that these people could die at any moment feels Earth-shatteringly real. This is largely down to Christopher Nolan's directing which tries to squeeze as much realness as possible out of everything. Long takes are used as well as very few visual effects. The images feel so real that you almost forget that you're watching something that was staged. There's a moment near the beginning when a German plane flies over the troops and the roar of the engine matched with the fear in the soldier's faces and the over-powering dreadful score make it one of the most terrifying scenes I have ever seen on film. When the bombs hit, it's utterly devastating but filmed in the most beautiful way, largely in one shot which makes it feel all the more real.

The main focus is on a story which presents a week of soldiers trying to survive on Dunkirk but there is also a more talky story which sees Mark Rylance taking his boat out to pick up some troops as well as an almost dialogue-free story where Tom Hardy (face-covered again) has tries shooting down enemy planes. It could have been messy but in the hands of Nolan these stories are expertly weaved and executed to perfection.

Unsurprisingly many audiences haven't quite taken to the film. Average moviegoers expecting an ordinary film with characters you can root for are going to be disappointed. Dunkirk is pure cinema and is something that cannot be described or put into words, it's something you simply have to experience. It's the reason why I love films and why I go to the cinema, to be taken on a journey. This is why I'm a fan of directors like David Lynch and Stanley Kubrick whose works consistently provide an immersive escapism into another world. Dunkirk is exactly this. It's a film which sweeps you along with it and completely immerses you in the event.

Whatever you look for in a film though, you can't deny the technical mastery of Dunkirk. I mean no hyperbole when I say that Dunkirk features some of the most spectacular images I have ever seen in a film. Planes sweeping over oceans, thousands upon thousands of soldiers lining up on a dark beach, ships sinking and engulfing people in water. These are some of the most breath-taking and indelible visuals I have ever come across. However, there are also quieter moments which haunt my mind. An older soldier throwing himself into the ocean and a heart-breaking final montage which ends each story on a spine-tingling powerful note are just as spectacular as the monumental set-pieces.

Hans Zimmer also deserves a mention for providing yet again another remarkable score. Music always plays a big part in Nolan films, but in Dunkirk the music almost becomes another character. It's often dark and brooding but also serves to ratchet up the tension with a constant ticking which adds to the overall intensity. At times of relief though, it's uplifting and gave me perhaps the biggest chills I've ever had whilst watching a movie.

Dunkirk is more than just a film, it's a work of art. I can't think of a more intense movie experience than this. by the time the film ended I felt shaken and adjusting to reality outside of the cinema was difficult. This is the first war film to actually drop you in the middle of the war. It's definitely worth going to see on Imax for the full experience, but it's just as unmissable on your TV at home. Hopefully the Academy will now finally recognise Nolan for the incredible talent that he is after Interstellar was cruelly snubbed. Dunkirk is truly extraordinary.

Twin Peaks: Part 1 (2017) Season 1, Episode 1

Quite possibly the greatest TV episode of all time

[23 May 2017]

Before I start delving into the two-part premiere of Twin Peaks: The Return, I'd like to give you some context to my Lynch obsession. To me David Lynch is the greatest filmmaker that has ever lived and I mean no hyperbole by that statement. His films aren't for everyone but there's no denying that there's nothing like them around, he's simply incomparable to his peers. Watching his films is like viewing a painting or listening to a piece of music, there's something inside of you which either likes it and accepts it or doesn't.

I am definitely more of a David Lynch fan than a Twin Peaks fan. For me, the episodes directed by the man himself are by far the strongest and most ground-breaking, particularly the final cliff-hanger episode which stands as one of the most fantastically immersive things Lynch has ever done. I also much prefer the dark, horrifying vision of Fire Walk With Me which departed from the jovial tone of the TV series, signified by the opening shot of a television being destroyed. However, there are still hardcore Twin Peaks fans who consider the film an abomination due to how drastically different the story and tone is. These same people are going to be incredibly frustrated by the opening of season 3.

David Lynch seemingly (and tragically) disappeared from the edge of the Earth after the release of his impenetrable feature film, INLAND EMPIRE in 2006. So you can imagine my excitement when it was announced that Twin Peaks was going to come back with 18 episodes, all directed by David Lynch. That's almost 18 hours of pure magic after over ten years of nothing Lynchian on our screens. The announcement was made back in 2014 so we've been patiently waiting for what feels like an age for Twin Peaks to come back on our screens and the other night it finally appeared! No one knew what to expect when the two-hour premiere was about to start. The production has been kept absolutely top-secret and the teasers released by Showtime barely show more than three seconds of new footage at a time. However, I can guarantee that no one in the world would predict how the opener turned out as it did. In typical Lynch fashion our expectations were completely and utterly subverted within the first ten minutes. Those expecting a cosy rehash of the original series must be incredibly disappointed because this is not the old Twin Peaks we know and love, however it is unapologetically the David Lynch we know and love.

I was immediately reminded of Eraserhead in the opening five minutes which sees the kindly giant chatting with Dale Cooper in stark monochrome adjacent to a puffing gramophone. They're in the iconic red room which they've been sitting in for twenty five long years. Everything about the scene has the director's fingerprints all over it and it's beautiful to see. The giant spouts total nonsense to an aged Cooper to which he responds, "I understand" a hysterical in-joke for Lynch fans. Things don't become much clearer in the next 100 minutes.

Shockingly, the premiere spends barely any time in Twin Peaks and is more interested in startling events surrounding New York, South Dakota and Las Vegas. Old characters are met fleetingly and with more weirdness than usual. The structure and atmosphere of the show resembles Mulholland Drive more than the original Twin Peaks as there are so many strange strands and subplots which all somehow relate to each other in intriguing and inexplicable ways. It's interesting to think that most of the feature film, Mulholland Drive is actually a pilot episode; so this new season may give us a glimpse of what the shelved Mulholland Drive TV series could have looked like.

Like most David Lynch films, the best way to experience it is to just go with the flow and ask questions later because nothing makes sense. It feels like we're watching an explosion of Lynch's unconscious mind on film, only I do believe that there is a solvable plot in there unlike the anarchic madness of INLAND EMPIRE. There are some extraordinary scenes of pure cinema which cannot be explained with words. The New York segment, for example, is utterly hypnotic and finishes with one of the scariest moments I have ever seen on screen thanks to nightmarish imagery and a terrifying sound design. I literally flew out of my seat, something I haven't done since the tramp sequence in Mulholland Drive. There are also moments of surreal terror in the red room which go beyond anything we've ever seen in the world of Twin Peaks.

It's the most astonishing two hours of telly I've ever experienced. It's a true work of art and the directing is unparalleled. No other director can conjure up such an immersive dreamlike atmosphere quite like this. Detractors will moan about how they don't understand it but it isn't supposed to be totally understood. It isn't a Christopher Nolan sci-fi flick, it's a surrealistic painting designed to terrify and thrill. After watching The Return and being thrown back into normal life I stuck on an episode of Game Of Thrones (which I've just started watching) and was struck by just how ordinary it was.

The original Twin Peaks was ground-breaking stuff and The Return looks as if it's going to be no different. This is unlike anything that has ever been on TV before and is already way ahead of its time. Thank the heavens that Showtime have given David Lynch free reign to truly create what is bound to be a masterpiece. David is back with a vengeance and reminding us what we've been missing whilst he's been on hiatus for years. It's incredibly exciting to think that a whopping 16 more instalments are left. Who knows where they're going to take us, but it's going to be one hell of an unforgettable ride.

Train to Busan (2016)

Zombies on a train

[9/10 · 21 September 2016]

Zombie films have been hitting our screens since the dawn of time. Well, it certainly feels like they have anyway. Popularised by George A Romero's terrific Dead trilogy, zombie films have since been rearing their heads like hordes of the undead themselves. Whilst they can be a lot of fun, more often than not, they can also be cliché ridden and trashy. We have had some quite enjoyable zombie films recently such as, Cockneys Vs Zombies and The Horde but we haven't really had a properly great zombie movie since 2004's Shaun of the Dead. Train to Busan changes that.

I saw Train to Busan on a whim. I'm travelling in Singapore and had a few free days so I thought that I'd check what's on the cinemas here. Train to Busan caught my eye but I had never heard of it, however I saw that it was Korean and that it had zombies in it, so I was sold! To my surprise, I came out of the cinema having just viewed easily the best zombie film in a decade. Korean films have hardly ever let me down and Busan is no exception.

As there's very little coverage of this film on the Internet, I'd better give a rough plot outline. It basically follows a selfish father who is cold and neglectful towards his cute young daughter. For her birthday, she wants to travel to Busan to see her mother so he reluctantly takes her on the train to Busan (creative title) however, a rather inconvenient zombie outbreak occurs as they board the train. The rest of the film is a claustrophobic and thrilling fight for survival as the survivors desperately try everything in their measure to get to Busan on a undead-infested train.

What makes this film so great is the characters. Most horror films (particularly ones with zombies in) sprinkle a load of disposable characters in who all die in a predictable order. We don't often particularly care when they die, in fact we're more likely to relish the gory death shown in all its bloody gory. In contrast, Train to Busan focuses in on a line of memorable characters who we actually care about and want to see survive. They're developed in such a way that when someone cruelly perishes, we feel a great sense of loss and emotion. This is where the film's strength lies. What's also interesting is that they're not all stereotypes either. The protagonist isn't your typical hero, he's a character who is grossly selfish and unlikable at the start, but he subtlety develops into someone you begin to care about and admire.

The film starts off as a good little zombie thriller. There's a sense of realism to the whole situation as we're made to watch the panic unfold on the train in an effective way. There's also a nice comic touch to the whole thing with some witty dialogue so it never takes itself too seriously. It also somehow never gets boring even though the film is essentially two hours set on a train, which is no easy task. There's always tension and a sense of peril. You get the feeling that anything could happen to these characters at any given moment. Once the film reaches the mid-way point though it stops being good and starts becoming great.

Things get going fairly quickly so the characters develop through the action, making the film all the more gripping as it goes on. It's an unpredictable ride with lots of thrilling set- pieces to keep you on edge. The final half hour is essentially non-stop action and it becomes exhausting to watch without ever feeling too ridiculous. What really impressed me though was the emotional charge in the second half. There are a few scenes which had me welling up with tears, which I wasn't expecting. I just got so absorbed in the characters and their intense situation. The use of music and editing is also hugely effective in pulling at your heartstrings.

There's really very little which Train to Busan does wrong. If I were to nitpick, I'd say that I would've liked more gore. Zombie films always give a good excuse to give us an array of fun, gory effects but this film is surprisingly restrained. There's a lot of hand-to-hand combat and nothing else creative. However, this does sort of add to the realism of the situation as you're not going to find many axes or chainsaws on a train. It's still not as bloodless as World War Z.

I can't urge you enough to watch Train to Busan, especially if you're a fan of Korean cinema. It doesn't just offer plenty of nail-biting thrills and impressive special effects, It offers emotion and splendid characters whom you can properly invest in. It's a powerful film which wears its heart on its sleeve and contains more character development in two hours than The Walking Dead has in six seasons. Once the film was over I became overcome with emotion. I felt like I could just break down and cry at what I had just watched. This is so much more than a zombie flick, at its heart it's a devastating drama about family and the importance of human kindness. I loved it.

Blair Witch (2016)

Same old tricks again

[6/10 · 15 September 2016]

Love it or hate it, The Blair Witch Project is an essential piece of filmmaking and a masterpiece of movie marketing which popularised the found footage sub-genre. Personally, I'm not a fan of Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez's original film. Despite a creepy final ten seconds and an intriguing set-up of the Blair witch legend, the film is basically 80 minutes of people arguing in the woods over a lost map. There's no big payoff, nothing is ever shown and mostly I just find very boring and tedious.

So when Blair Witch was revealed, I wasn't exactly excited like a lot of people were. I love the Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett duo and so I was looking forward to their next project, The Woods which of course turned out to be a secret pseudonym for a sequel to The Blair Witch Project. Early Reviews came out and I suddenly became very excited. People were calling it a game changer for horror films and one even went so far as to say that the film will wreck you, so of course I was sold. I avoided all trailers and decided to pop over and see it on opening day, hoping to watch a genuinely scary found footage horror film. Unfortunately I came out extremely disappointed.

Blair Witch isn't a bad film, but it's certainly no game-changer. In fact, it's nothing much to write home about at all. It is simply an average horror film and in my opinion the worst offering from the directing/writing duo so far. One of the main problems is that it plays out almost exactly like the original Blair Witch Project, albeit a bit more souped up. Instead of having a group of characters going into the woods to investigate about the legend, we have a group of characters going into the woods to find Heather, the main character from the original, who happens to be our protagonist's sister. If there was no mention of Heather then Blair Witch would definitely be classed as a remake, rather than a sequel. Even fans of this film admit that it follows almost every beat of the original: there's the getting lost, finding twig men hanging outside the tent, running away in the dark from something that can't be seen and even the iconic old house finale.

Blair Witch offers no new surprises and the first half of the film is almost as tedious as the original. We're not really made to care for any of the characters and none are properly developed. They're just your average group of young adults being lined up for the slaughterhouse, with the technicians from The Cabin in the Woods at the control panel watching it all play out. When a character dies, we don't really care which is sort of a problem when we're made to stay with them for 90 minutes. There are some nice moments of good humour, but for the most part not a great deal happens in the first half. It's just like watching some friends go on a camping trip. It would've been an ideal opportunity for some character development, but instead we just get the usual arguing and banal banter.

Once we hit around the midway point, spooky stuff starts happening but it's all stuff we've seen before. There are some tense moments when characters go off on their own and hear strange noises deep in the woods, but there's never any payoff. A good scare is like a good joke. There has to be an extended moment of suspense and then an explosive punchline, but Blair Witch seems to always miss the punchline. I was always on edge and waiting for something scary to happen in the woods, but nothing really ever does. I did like the real sense of panic and distress though as we realise that these characters are going to end up lost in these woods for what could be an eternity. But whilst the atmosphere is good, the scares are too uninspired to be effective.

Things do start to pick up in the last twenty minutes though. After what feels like endless screaming and running in the woods, we come across the dreaded old house from the first film. This is when things start to become intense and genuinely horrifying at times. There's a huge sense of dread and unpredictability which had me on the edge of my seat. I thought, "finally! Maybe this is the part that's going to wreck me" but it wasn't. Despite a couple of effective jump scares and moments of intensity, the finale fails to live up to the expectations which it promised. It did a good job of building up tension, but just like the scenes in the woods, it failed to conjure up a truly scary punchline. In fact, the film ends with a very disappointing whimper which left me wanting a lot more.

I don't mind slow-burners but there has to be a payoff worth waiting for. In the end, it's a perfectly serviceable horror film. It uses the found footage aspect well and makes good use of utilising new filming technologies. It's also better and far more entertaining that the original, but that's not really high praise coming from a detractor of it. I suppose that I just fell for the hype and I don't want you to do the same. It has moments which are scarier than most mainstream horror films, but there's nothing that will shake you to your core here. Hardened horror nuts are not going to be impressed. It may be worth a quick look when it gets released on DVD but it's not worth seeing on the big screen. In a year full of great horror films, Blair Witch disappointingly seems to be the first hiccup.

Where the Dead Go to Die (2012)

This ain't Pixar folks

[5/10 · 13 September 2016]

This review is going to be subjective because I'm not like most people who get scared by horror films like The Exorcist or The Shining. I get scared by strange things. Things that bury themselves into your psyche and fester for a long time. That's why I'm such a fan of David Lynch's surreal films and why (what most people would describe as) an unwatchable mess like Inland Empire is a frightening masterpiece to me. Similarly, some people find videos of glitches from The Sims hilarious, whereas I find them chilling with those strange and nightmarish impossible contortions. Where the Dead Go to Die is like one big Sims glitch.

Many will see it as an atrociously animated and badly voice acted mess, and they wouldn't be wrong. This has to be the worst animation ever committed to film. In fact, it looks as though it was made on The Sims with a few disturbing expansion packs which allow your sims to woohoo with animals and travel to a kaleidoscopic hell. This will make the film borderline unwatchable for some people, but for me it made it all the more horrifying. Likewise, a little boy being voiced by a man mimicking a screechy child's voice is much more frightening to me than being voiced by an actual child. It's extremely uncomfortable as it feels like we're watching something Satanic that shouldn't be watched.

Where the Dead Go to Die has to be one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen and I don't get too disturbed easily either. This film is up there with Salo, Martyrs and all he rest. If it was a live action production then I'm pretty sure that the anonymous director, who goes by Jimmy ScreamerClauz, would be arrested. Whilst the animation is beyond poor, the ideas are still there and these ideas are seriously messed up. I don't want to spoil it for people who want to experience this mind fudge, but there are some depraved ideas involving children which are explored explicitly in this film. They may only look like blobs, but that didn't make it any less upsetting to watch, for me at least. Especially combined with the horrifying musical score in the background.

I feel like I should delve into the story a little bit. Where the Dead Go to Die is an anthology film which follows three characters living in the same neighbourhood (I think) who all come in contact with a demonic dog. The first segment tells the story of a boy who is convinced by the dog to kill his mother's unborn child as it's the antichrist. This story certainly gives you a taste of things to come. It's just utter madness with some terribly disturbing ideas and images thrown in. The second story kind of lost me a bit, but it concerns a man who steals people's memories after killing them. It's the weakest story and is mainly an excuse to go overboard on the hellish, surreal imagery. The last story is the strongest and most disturbing. It concerns a neglected boy with his dead Siamese twin's head stuck to the side of his face, who falls in love with a little girl. Needless to say, she harbours some very dark secrets at home.

You can try and think about the absolute sickest thing in the world and this film will show you worse. I can't decide whether I liked it or not. You could argue that it's a film designed to shock you for the sake of it, but there is actually a story here (several actually) and I'd argue that this Jimmy ScreamerClauz bloke actually prioritises the story over the moments of depravity. This isn't like August Underground where it's just one sick pointless scene trying to outdo the other. The disturbing themes do actually have something to do with the surreal story, particularly in the last segment. There's a moment where I was almost moved to tears, just due to the intensity of the concept presented on screen. The relentless bleakness also started to get to me after a while.

Where the Dead Go to Die is not a good film on a technical level, but it's unlike anything I have ever seen. There's no denying that it's innovative, whether that's in a good way or not. It does get bogged down in its moments of relentless surreal glitchy imagery, but when it focuses, I found myself strangely captivated. On one hand I find the film trashy and stupid but on the other I find it startling and original. It's an endlessly dark, depraved and upsetting film. It disturbed me, horrified me and affected me both emotionally and physically. It's a film which I won't ever forget, and that has to be worth something doesn't it?

Don't Breathe (2016)

You won't be able to

[9/10 · 5 September 2016]

Being a horror fanatic, I'd been in the know about Don't Breathe for months before the trailer had even come out. It had premiered at some weird festival and started generating a lot of hype. "The best horror movie in decades!" You know that sort of thing which people seem to say about every good horror movie coming out. So I'd been excited about it and I was also a fan of Fede Alvarez's fun Evil Dead remake. I avoided any trailers and tried to put aside the general hype after being disappointed with Green Room earlier in the year and just went in with the mindset that this was going to be an above average horror film. I needn't have worried because Don't Breathe totally lives up to the hype.

Don't Breathe is exactly the kind of horror film I love. Intense, thrilling and relentless. It's set mainly in one location and follows three young tea leafs robbing an elderly blind man. Fede does a great job of crucially making us care for these criminals, or at least one of them. Jane Levy is the girl you'll be rooting for here and we're given a lovely bit of context which outlines her desperate situation so that our sympathies lie with her. It takes just enough time to build the characters and the plot so that we care about the rest of the film.

Once the kids step into the little old house the film really begins and I was left holding my breath until the very end. At first I was a little concerned as I couldn't see how the filmmakers could spread robbing a blind OAP into a 90 minute film. I mean, he's blind, how hard can it blummin' be? It turns out very. This isn't just any old blind man, this is an ex soldier with ears like a bat who's still equipped with the skills to beat any grown man to a pulp. He's a character who you'll go away remembering thanks to Stephen Lang's dominant presence as well as the character's dark backstory which is best left unrevealed.

Don't Breathe spends most of its running time squeezing every last bit of suspense it can. It reminded me a bit of the French horror, Inside, although of course far less extreme. Just in the sense that it's an absolute roller coaster despite being confined to one location and a few characters. It's a really intense film and at times I was left covering my mouth just in case I made a noise which the blind man could hear. All of the tension comes from Fede Alvarez's superb directing skills though. We're given long and still takes instead of quick shaky edits so you can see what's happening on screen. The use of silence is particularly key in creating tension though and the effect is used to its absolute best here.

Whilst the film isn't the most original, it still feels fresh and unpredictable thanks to the superb high level of quality across all departments. The directing is masterful, the writing is taut, the music is effective, the acting is good for the most part, although the young Tom Cruise lookalike was a little wooden at times. The film also offers some deliciously dark ideas which I've never seen explored before in a horror film. So whilst we've seen this kind of scenario before (Livid has exactly the same premise) Don't Breathe still proves itself to be one of the very best of its kind.

To say any more about Don't Breathe would be to spoil the nail-biting twists and turns in store. All you need to know is that it's a relentlessly intense experience which never gives you a chance to breathe. It looks like Fede will have a long and promising career in horror, as with only two films under his belt, he has proved that he has the skills to create some of the best horror films that Hollywood has to offer. And let's just take a moment to appreciate all the fantastic horror films 2016 has had to offer. In any other year, Don't Breathe would've been my number one but with films like: The Conjuring 2, 10 Cloverfield Lane, The Witch (my personal favourite of the year so far) and the upcoming Blair Witch, we've been treated to a surge of seriously high quality horror. Don't Breathe can still sit proudly among them though. It's a taut, adrenaline-fuelled ride which I can't imagine anyone not enjoying.