Category: Movie reviews

IT (1990)

Rating 15

Length 3hr 12

Release 18.11.1990 (no UK date given)

About In 1960, seven preteen outcasts fight an evil demon that poses as a child-killing clown. Thirty years later, they reunite to stop the demon once and for all when it returns to their hometown.

The Good

  • Tim Curry is unrecognisable and perfectly chilling as Pennywise. The film also makes use of ITs ability to shape shift which adds to the horror.
  • Presenting the story as it does in the book; revealing the past as the characters remember makes it a smoother narrative.
  • They stay together, the adults I mean. Not splitting up which is against every horror rule going like the new film.
  • John Ritter! The late, great John Ritter is one of the better casting choices and it was wonderful to see him in a horror role that didn’t scare the bejesus out of me (my first experience of Ritter was playing Ted in Buffy and it’s taken me a long time to warm to the actor as a result). I was expecting him to take on the role of Richie, so I was surprised to see that it was Ben. One that he did very well.

The Bad

  • Much like the film, it’s too long. It was intended to air as two episodes and that might have improved things, but I am certainly leaning towards the opinion that I’m no longer a fan of films that go much beyond the 2Hr mark.
  • Richard Thomas was a good choice for Bill, but whoever had the idea to give him the hair needs to not work in movies! Also, he surprisingly didn’t have the leader power I expected him to have. Yes it’s an ensemble, but he is the leader of the Losers and the actor should have a presence of that.

The Ugly

  • It simply wasn’t scary enough. Perhaps this is a version that was hyped way too much over time, but I was bored. Possibly even more so than when I read the book, if that’s even possible.

Final Thoughts

A mini series for its time and not something I’ll rush to watch again. Time has not been kind to the scares and perhaps the subtlety and restraint of Curry’s performance does not match the expectations brought about by modern horrors.

Jaws (1975)

Rating A/12

Length 2Hr 4

Release 26.12.1975

About When a young woman is killed by a shark while skinny-dipping near the New England tourist town of Amity Island, police chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) wants to close the beaches, but mayor Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton) overrules him, fearing that the loss of tourist revenue will cripple the town. Ichthyologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and grizzled ship captain Quint (Robert Shaw) offer to help Brody capture the killer beast, and the trio engage in an epic battle of man vs. nature.

First Thoughts

I remember seeing it for the first time on a midweek school night when it aired on ITV. I very much remember being scared.

I remember it being one of the last films I watched as part of my course in the first year, going to the seminar and being one of two students that showed up.

My last viewing before today was for my brother’s birthday, in which I got us tickets for an outdoor screening in London.

The Good

  • It’s a Visually stunning movie. There’s a reason why it’s on so many university courses. This is the go to film for camera shots, framings and movement. The night time shots appear to be filmed in the day with a tonal shift placed over it, allowing you to get a sense of time and still be able to view the action.

  • Much like Creature From the Black Lagoon, it’s a film of two halves. We open in a New England island town and explore tourism politics and economics. Okay, that sounds a bit boring on paper, but it gives us some epic scenes with the Mayor and the townspeople as they ignore the horror that unfolds. The second half is a much more intimate affair and deals with man’s relationship with sharks. What I love more than anything though, is the fact that you learn something new each time you watch.
  • The dialogue is artful and meaningful. Something that has perhaps been lost over the years is visually rich films. Just because there’s a spectacle, doesn’t mean the audience can do without quotable sound bites.
  • Words are not the only audio that has an impact. Much like many horrors, John Williams has created a score that prepares you for the scares Spielberg has in store. The best example being when Hooper goes into the water and he reached the hole in the boat. The music has already, by this point, conditioned you in a Pavlovian way to expect Bruce to make his appearance. It’s been lampooned and referenced so much now that you don’t need to have seen the film to know the association.
  • The trio of Brody, Hooper and Quint. They normal men who are not ripped, they’re not carefully cast to ensure a particular demographic take their seats. The fact that you can’t really pick one of them out as the MVP says everything about the ensemble.
  • The fear factor will never diminish. The film keeps our ‘monster’ so well hidden that it’s really our imaginations in charge. While perhaps the physical effects of ‘Bruce’ the Shark may not be what they once where (speaking more of the commentary of others) I do feel it’s such a well crafted film that you may just be distracted enough.
  • There are so many scenes that you can pinpoint as being iconic but my favourite will forever be the comparison of scars. It’s everything that you need in a scene; it’s a showcase of character, it’s humour disarms you and right out of nowhere there’s a gut punch from Quint. That monologue! Visually, having Hooper’s out of focus reactions is haunting. The scene is brilliant at that point and ending it on a downward note would have been fine. Spielberg however pulls it out of the macabre with a rendition of ‘show me the way to go home’ and it’s that upward lift that perfects the scene.

The Bad

  • While I do love the ending and the casual conversation that we fade out to, I can’t help but wish we could see a Brody family reunion.

The Ugly

  • The popularity and success of this movie has resulted in so many rip offs of varying quality. For every ‘good fun’ The Meg that reaches the cinema, there’s a Sharknado in a bargain bin or 3am time slot on a random channel. Not to forget the sequels… of course we all wish we could.

Final Thoughts

What can I say, it’s one of the best films I’ve ever seen. It’s the reason why Spielberg’s work pre-Minority Report is my favourite of any director.

Enemy of the State (1998)

Rating 15

Length 2Hr 12

Release 26.12.1998

About Corrupt National Security Agency official Thomas Reynolds (Jon Voight) has a congressman assassinated to assure the passage of expansive new surveillance legislation. When a videotape of the murder ends up in the hands of Robert Clayton Dean (Will Smith), a labor lawyer and dedicated family man, he is framed for murder. With the help of ex-intelligence agent Edward “Brill” Lyle (Gene Hackman), Dean attempts to throw Reynolds off his trail and prove his innocence.

The Good

  • This is one smart ass thriller. One of those Rubik’s Cube movies where not everything really fits together until the final twist. These don’t exist anymore: we’ve been left with GI Butler and his mind boggling saving the President/World/Career vehicles that give you a very different brain ache.
  • I do love that even though this is perhaps my 50th watch, my heart is still in my mouth and hoping the plot does (and doesn’t) change. I’ll go out on a limb and say, for me, it’s the best and most rewatchable Will Smith film.
  • Take a look at that cast list! I think this film caught my attention with Gabriel Byrne and Seth Green, but we have second generation actors Jake Busey and Scott Caan as out cats to Smith’s mouse. Pretty much everyone on Jon Voight’s team will have you reaching for IMDB because they have been, are and will be faces from many a movie.
  • That face off is up there for me with the final showdown in Leon. It’s gritty and grand, while feeling so very claustrophobic. I just love it.

The Bad

  • Babe, the fucking cat! I love cats and that one’s gorgeous but it’s not practical (there’s no way it’s in that bag AND surviving) and I don’t feel like it tells me much about it’s owner. If it doesn’t serve a purpose, cut it out.
  • Jack Black needs lessons on acting with a god damn phone. Every single time he would close the flip of his phone and THEN tell the person on the other end ‘already on it.’ Or some derivative. It shouldn’t annoy me, but it does and now I’ve passed it on.

The Ugly

  • It feels long. It feels closer to a 3 hour movie and while I don’t feel like we stand still for a single second, it loses steam in the last third. It’s almost like it’s one scene or one location change too long.

Final Thoughts

It scares me how ‘retro’ 1998 seems: it was only yesterday!!! Dated tech aside, this film is as relevant today as ever it could be. America undoubtedly has the most corrupt government in the history of the free world and with so many privacy breaches, leaks and hacks this movie will scare the shit out of you.

The Frighteners (1996)

Rating: 15

Length: 1Hr 50

Release: 24.1.1997

About: Once an architect, Frank Bannister (Michael J. Fox) now passes himself off as an exorcist of evil spirits. To bolster his facade, he claims his “special” gift is the result of a car accident that killed his wife. But what he does not count on is more people dying in the small town where he lives. As he tries to piece together the supernatural mystery of these killings, he falls in love with the wife (Trini Alvarado) of one of the victims and deals with a crazy FBI agent (Jeffrey Combs).

Treat

  • Michael J Fox and Jeffery Combs are perfectly cast. Fox’s role is a little bittersweet knowing that it’s his last as a Hollywood leading man and a career cut way too short. It’s a character that allows Fox to show give a much more layered performance.
  • Combs looks like he’s having the best time playing the messed up FBI agent. There’s nothing I’ve seen where he doesn’t bring his a-game and this is no exception.
  • The feel of this film not only recalls Back to the Future, but Goonies, Beetlejuice and Ghostbusters as well. I went into the film knowing it was directed by Peter Jackson however it really does have the tone of a Zemeckis film.
  • I quite like the romantic sub plot of Frank and Lucy. Perhaps a little in bad taste, what with him still being at the table and all, but their chemistry works and her dead husband was a dick.
  • The cameo of R Lee Ermey as a loud and shouty sergeant Is a subtle stroke of genius. I haven’t seen Full Metal Jacket, but I’ve seen enough clips to get the reference. If it had been someone else doing it, it would have been a lovely nod. To get the original actor on board is awesome.

Trick

  • Not the fault of the film. It was an amazing task at the time, but there is slightly too much CGI for me. I love the construction of the etherial ghosts, but the form coming out of the wall and the apparition cloaked as Death seem to lack the same quality.
  • I did not like the ghost fucking the mummy! Just weird. I am also aware, however, I could watch this another time and the exact same scene could have me pissing myself laughing.
  • It’s about 20-30 minutes too long for me. Perhaps it’s because recently all the films I’ve watched have rarely passed the 1 hr 30 mark, but I don’t think anything is gained with the added half an hour.

Final Thoughts

A film that is better than its box office suggests and a perfect watch for Halloween. It’s also a must see for fans of Jackson’s follow up films that relied heavily on the technical achievements from this movie.

Weekend at Bernie’s (1989)

Rating 12

Length 1Hr 37

Release 16.3.1990

About Fun-loving salesmen Richard (Jonathan Silverman) and Larry (Andrew McCarthy) are invited by their boss, Bernie (Terry Kiser), to stay the weekend at his posh beach house. Little do they know that Bernie is the perpetrator of a fraud they’ve uncovered and is arranging to have them killed. When the plan backfires and Bernie is killed instead, the buddies decide not to let a little death spoil their vacation. They pretend Bernie is still alive, leading to hijinks and corpse desecration galore.

The Good

The set up is perfect, the execution brings about many a hilarious situation that you wouldn’t believe the protagonists could find themselves in. How you can develop a narrative around a dead body and it not become tasteless, is baffling. Part of that I think is to do with Terry Kiser and his rather comical ‘death’ face.

Andrew McCarthy is the lazy, opportunistic Larry and it’s quite possibly my favourite role of his. He provides a lot of the comedy and is flawless with his Bernie interactions.

It’s pure 80s gold; from the house and decor to the outfits and it’s the side of the holiday destination we never got to see in Jaws. If only Secret Cinema would do an immersive experience of this and your warm up to the movie would be to hope from one house part to another, I would be so happy.

The Bad

  • The soundtrack is a little lacking. By which I mean there’s one great song that’s recycled throughout. This needed one or two more songs in the mix.

The Ugly

  • Jonathan is too cringe worthy as a character. He’s too uptight and too much of a shmuck. I hate that he gets the girl at the end because he’s done nothing to win her over. I’ve never really hated him before, but today while watching it I really struggled with even tolerating him.

Final Thought

This could be, and might very well be, a rather flawed movie. However, I will never care. This isn’t even a guilty pleasure, there’s no guilt to be had about loving this movie.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Rating PG

Length 1Hr 59

Release 10.4.1987

About Living in exile on the planet Vulcan, the ragtag former crew of the USS Enterprise steal a starship after receiving a planetary distress call from Earth: a space probe has entered into orbit around Earth, disabled global power on the planet and evaporated the oceans. Captain Kirk (William Shatner), Spock (Leonard Nimoy) and the rest of the officers travel back in time to retrieve now-extinct humpback whales, which Spock has deduced will communicate with the probe and send it away from Earth.

First Thoughts

I always loved this movie. It still remains my favourite out of the Original Series silver screen outings. Yes, I am aware that Wrath of Khan is the ‘better’ movie, but I will always be too freaked out by the bug that’s put into the Botany Bay Landing Party’s ears.

So here it is, the equivalent of the Ewoks in Star Wars. We’re boldly going… so save some humpback whales.

The Good

  • It’s funny. Almost like a good Carry On in that harmless, social nuances and situational sort of comedy. It makes a nice change to have a lighter feel to a sci-fi and a wonderful contrast to the death and grieving that’s had over Spock.
  • On paper, it seems like such an outrageous plot. Time warping to save a pair of whales to communicate with an unknown probe. However, it has a strong message about conservation that are still being spoken about today! Not only that, it gives an opportunity to split the crew and send them all on their own McGuffins.
  • Gillian, played by Catherine Hicks is brilliant. I’d have loved to have seen a Buck Rogers type follow up to see how she was doing. In all seriousness, as a kid I looked up to her. A woman in a position of power that cares about animals. Today, I’m just as happy that upon arriving in the future she chooses her own path and insists “I’ll find you.” To the womanising Kirk.
  • DeForest Kelly! He always reminded me of a loving, but grisly, grandpa and he will forever be my favourite part about this film. Especially so when finding a lady on dialysis, he grumbles about the dark ages before giving her something that regrows her own kidney.

The Bad

  • The film feels like it takes forever to get going and land the crew in 1986’s San Francisco. Them being fishes out of water is really part of the film’s charm and I could have done with a few more scenes.
  • I’d have also liked to have seen more development of Gillian’s relationship with where she works and the bloke she slapped.

The Ugly

  • I don’t like that it doesn’t sit as a stand alone. You require an understanding of at least the previous movie to understand some of the films finer quirks. Films within a non trilogy/saga franchise should allow for a plot that nods to the fans, without alienating new comers. Even I struggled with it this time; Search for Spock being one of my least watched meant I had forgotten about the Vulcan’s memory loss.

Final Thoughts

I still love it. I still find it charming if not a little silly. It’s not ideal as a stand alone, but is the reward for putting up with pervious sub-par films.

The Craft (1996)

Rating: 15

Length: 1Hr 41

Release: 8.11.1996

About: After transferring to a Los Angeles high school, Sarah (Robin Tunney) finds that her telekinetic gift appeals to a group of three wannabe witches, who happen to be seeking a fourth member for their rituals. Bonnie (Neve Campbell), Rochelle (Rachel True) and Nancy (Fairuza Balk), like Sarah herself, all have troubled backgrounds, which combined with their nascent powers lead to dangerous consequences. When a minor spell causes a fellow student to lose her hair, the girls grow power-mad.

Treat

  • As with many films of the 90s, this has an amazing soundtrack. From Our Lady Peace to Letters to Cleo, this is the embodiment of teen movies of the time.
  • Fairuza Baulk is incredibly, freakily good in this film. Especially when it comes to her going completely bat shit crazy. I’ve seen a few articles calling her out as the hero of the film and there’s certainly something to that, if she wasn’t a murdering psychopath.
  • The cast on the whole is solid and it took me forever to recognise Riverdale’s FP Jones (Skeet Utlrich) as the ‘heart throb’ Chris.
  • The film deals with some heavy shit and doesn’t sugar coat life in high school the way some others do; self harm, sexual assault and feminism are all dealt with fully and tastefully. However, it is the film’s exploration of racism that really has power. I’d not seen a film like it and it’s fair to say none have since.
  • The theme of witchcraft is something I’d not seen in this way before; dispelling the stereotypes allowing for the film to explore everything from sisterhood to wish fulfilment. It’s something we later see in Charmed, Buffy and Hex.
  • The effects are incredible, even now. I think that’s largely to do with using practical effects where possible. Obviously there’s the snakes and various bugs towards the end, there’s the levitation and there’s the ‘glamour’. However my favourite is when Bonnie’s skin peels away.

Trick

  • For a film that builds up a strong friendship, I struggle that there isn’t a balance by the end. I’ve never really liked that Sarah begins being isolated and alone and ends the same way.
  • As much as I love Rochelle’s storyline with her racist bully and Bonnie’s about her self image, both are sidelined and lack fully development. So often, after the invocation, the two girls seem very out of character and more extensions of Nancy. Perhaps that’s the point, but I’m not sure I like it as it leaves Sarah little room to forgive them.
  • There are two sexual assault scenes. Two! Just repeating that because it’s very important that we acknowledge both. There’s the initial Chris and Sarah scene which is bad enough. Read; he is a dick for what he does. However, there is another involving Chris as the victim. Nancy rapes Chris and it’s something that needs to be acknowledged, on and off the screen, but is lost in his death and Nancy’s unraveling. While media is getting better on screen in dealing with sexual assault, I feel as if this was glossed over a little too easily and could have been a perfect time to explore and deconstruct another misconception about gender and sexual assault.
  • Why the fuck does Nancy say ‘where are you going?’ In some really shit Jamaican accent?! I’ve always pissed myself at that choice of delivery and can ruin the tension built up in the scene.

Final thoughts

A film I enjoy watching more than I do critiquing it. You find flaws when you’re looking for them, and this is one film where I preferred ignorance.

Jurassic Park. Halloween Edition (1993)

Rating: PG

Length: 2hr 8

Release: 15.7.1993

About: In Steven Spielberg’s massive blockbuster, paleontologists Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and mathematician Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) are among a select group chosen to tour an island theme park populated by dinosaurs created from prehistoric DNA. While the park’s mastermind, billionaire John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), assures everyone that the facility is safe, they find out otherwise when various ferocious predators break free and go on the hunt.

This is no normal review. In fact, it’s possibly not a review at all. Everyone knows this is my all time favourite movie and has been since July 1993 when it set me on my path to geekdom.

It’s a film I’ve watched so often, but I don’t think I’ve ever considered it as a horror, or a film to watch as a lead up to Halloween so the fear factor is never going to be there. I’m too amazed and in all honesty, I want to be there too.

So instead, I’m considering how many tropes and themes that come up in horror movies apply to Jurassic Park. I thought I was on a dud mission, but I was very quickly proven wrong.

Creature Feature

The creature feature is perhaps the most obvious genre this dinosaur disaster fits into. There’s narrative similarities within Jurassic Park and the Creature From the Black Lagoon, a tonal structure that Spielberg brings organically from Jaws and there’s even an audio/visual reference to one of the greatest creature feature: King Kong, just invade you were wondering what they might be keeping on the island. In the same way Black Lagoon has that embedded wonder, Jurassic Park is all smiles until things go very, very wrong.

One key trope from the creature feature (and arguably other horrors) that is seen multiple times is the Scream Queen. Both of our females give their lungs a good airing when found face to face with the prehistoric reptiles and join Faye Wray, Julie Adams and Susan Blackline as Hollywood Hollering Royalty.

Science, Bitches!

Science and playing God is a staple theme in many a horror movie. Frankenstein, The Fly and Jekyll & Hyde all have scientists take on the god-like role of creator. In much the same fashion as the previously mentioned films, the scientists of Ingen fails to understand the true nature of the monster in their captivity and they rebel against the creator.

Of course, this is on a much grander scale so the stakes are higher and the town at risk is bigger. While the revulsion for the monster isn’t present, it’s clear not everyone is happy with the creators.

The Slasher

Hear me out because yes, there’s no Freddy or Michael but some of the rules still apply. I am, of course, talking about the raptors and their story arc.

The fact that we don’t get a sighting of the raptors until the last 20 minutes or so is frightening in itself. All we’ve seen, is their destruction and lethal potential, much in the same way we don’t see the shark in Jaws or the knife break flesh in the infamous ‘shower scene’, our imagination makes quick work of filling in the blanks with scares and blood. The raptors are isolated, imprisoned separately, from the rest of the park. Too dangerous: they indeed claim the film’s largest body count.

Of course, like Michael Myers, when they find freedom the raptors set their sights on human victims which brings us to the glorious stalking kitchen scene. Replace the predatory reptiles with Ghostface and this scene could fit seamlessly into a Scream movie.

I’ll agree that there’s more than one, and there’s no motivation forthcoming but you have to admit, sometimes the explanation sucks and ruins the movie.

The Harbinger of Doom

A trope I only really became familiar with thanks to Cabin in the Woods. A meta horror that calls out all the tropes is perfect education for film.

So, there are two characters that fit the bill of a harbinger within Jurassic Park. The first is Robert Muldoon, who is vocal about the raptors and their dangers. However, the key role goes to Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm. Not only is his entire persona as a theorist of chaos an ideal fit, he has a passionate speech warning Hammond of his companies’ naivety in playing with Science, even going so far as call it ‘rape of the natural world’.

Both Malcolm and Muldoon give us some foresight into the horrors that are to be faced even if, as Malcolm puts it, he ‘hates being right all the time.’

Haunted House

So it’s an island, doesn’t mean the haunted house rules don’t apply. The clear trope that can be seen is the fracturing of the group, repeatedly. Those that do end up on their own; Muldoon, the lawyer and Arnold, die in rather painful and bloody ways.

Now you’ve read this, you may see Jurassic Park in a different way, or maybe you’re like Ian Malcolm and consider it …

Either way, go check it out on Netflix. There it isn’t butchered like a Michael Myer’s victim on Halloween (yup ITV! I’m looking at you)

Han x

Paranorman (2012)

Rating: PG

Length: 1Hr 32

Release: 14.9.2012

About: A misunderstood boy takes on ghosts, zombies and grown-ups to save his town from a centuries-old curse.

Treats

  • This is one of the best stop motion films I’ve watched. It’s a craft that brings with it a magical feel and Is perfect for the world of Paranorman.
  • The story is a charming Blithe Spirit and Sleepy Hollow mash-up. Despite the nods of familiarity, it does seem unique and a refreshing change to the typical zombie movie.
  • The character of Neil is delightful and adorable. His relationship with the solitary Norman is what makes the film. Well, that and him playing with his dead dog.

Tricks

  • For me, it spends a little too long developing the characters and the relationships than the story. For all of its cuteness and sweet message of forgiveness, it feels like it takes forever to get going.
  • Now, I was entertained by the visuals, but a lesser film would not have kept me engaged long enough to care about the plot.

Final Thoughts

A cute pallet cleanser to watch after some of the heavier horrors. Some Easter Eggs and adult humour that will go over little one’s heads.

Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion

Rating: 15

Length: 1Hr 32

Release: 25.4.1997

About: Ten years after their high school graduation, Romy (Mira Sorvino) and Michele (Lisa Kudrow) haven’t exactly accomplished everything that they set out to do. Despite their strong friendship, their personal and professional lives are still lacking. When they hear of their upcoming high school reunion, they take it as an opportunity to show their classmates how much they’ve changed — first by trying to reform themselves, then by creating a lie that eventually spins out of control.

First Thoughts

This was an Easter cinema trip for me and my mum in 1997. I’d wanted to see Men in Black, but mum refused point blank. The Lisa Kudrow film with the pinks and glitter would be more up her street, right?! Well, she took me and I enjoyed it. I remember her saying she regretted it, but I wasn’t certain why until rewatching it years later.

The Good

  • It’s a cool, quirky and funny story that nearly everyone can relate to. It’s retro camp, styled beautifuly and the only thing that improves it, is going to an independent cinema and being handed a post-it by the boy behind.
  • The sound track is fabulous. It’s that retro vibe that’s in right now. Hadn’t spotted it the millions of times before, but Whip It is played at the prom.
  • Janeane Garoflo was the definition of angry sarcasm in the 90s and she steals any scene she’s in. Underused, as she is in many movies, but she’s certainly memorable and the film manages to give her a strong story arc that I prefer to the main two.
  • Alan Cumming is a sweet, low key Hugh Grant in this. He’s able to switch from geek to chic with ease, but the perfect part is that he’s a likeable love interest. Perhaps rather unknown at the time, to me he was part of the High Life cabin crew and has forever remained a joy to watch.
  • It’s as quotable as other 90s films, but the killer line comes after the quick outfit change. Who hasn’t wanted to bark Romy’s Line “and I don’t give a flying fuck what you think…” to their bully? It’s pure brilliance.

The Bad

  • I still find that the dream sequence throws off the narrative. While it’s weird enough for me to like it in itself, as part of this film it’s very out there.
  • The tone and it’s perceived target audience is totally off. It’s not the double entendre humour of Shrek; that ‘he’s making up for something’ that gets the parents chuckling but goes over a kid’s head, but a much more obvious humour that doesn’t altogether fit well with a film that could double with Clueless.

The Ugly

  • That dance. It’s unbelievably cringe. As with the dream sequence, there are times when I watch and love it and its certainly what makes this film a cult classic, but it would never help Romy and Michele’s cause.
  • Alan Cumming in the dream sequence is too ‘blow up doll’. It freaks me out and is as not, as Michele puts it, ‘dreamy’. I’d put it in with the same trope of the ‘ugly’ girl who just needs her glasses taken off to make her ‘hot’.

Sherlock Gnomes (2018)

Rating: U

Length: 1Hr 26

Release: 11.5.2018

About: When Gnomeo and Juliet first arrive in London with their friends and family, their biggest concern is getting a new garden ready for spring. When everyone in the garden suddenly goes missing — there’s only one gnome to call — Sherlock Gnomes. The famous detective and sworn protector of the city shows up with his sidekick Watson to investigate the case. The mystery soon leads the gnomes on a rollicking adventure as they meet all-new ornaments and explore an undiscovered side of London.

The Good

  • The recreation of the great hall in the Natural History Museum is rather beautiful and it doesnt stop there. London is painstakingly recreated.
  • It’s a funny take on the Sherlock legend. This outing is more like Toy Story with Gnomes than the first. It’s rather clever with its jokes and its overall plot.

The Bad

  • Gnomeo and Juliet are a bit redundant and the inter fighting just proves that Romeo and Juliet we’re doomed to fail had they not been so dramatic.
  • I also really didn’t like that they sacrificed the characters and their relationship for the sake of the plot. It feels a little cheap.
  • Sherlock’s mind palace starts off as a cute transition, but by the third venture its lost its novelty.
  • The set up takes too long for such a short film.

The Ugly

  • I’m not sold on the Elton John soundtrack. Yes, it has the Britishness but it lacks the charm by being a sole artists back catalogue.

Toy Story (1995)

Length: 1Hr 21

Rating: PG

Release: 22.3.1996

About: Woody (Tom Hanks), a good-hearted cowboy doll who belongs to a young boy named Andy (John Morris), sees his position as Andy’s favorite toy jeopardized when his parents buy him a Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) action figure. Even worse, the arrogant Buzz thinks he’s a real spaceman on a mission to return to his home planet. When Andy’s family moves to a new house, Woody and Buzz must escape the clutches of maladjusted neighbor Sid Phillips (Erik von Detten) and reunite with their boy.

The Good

  • “You uncultured swine” there are so many pun-tastings lines in this beauty. It makes the dialogue smart, funny and, therefore, a film that grows with a child.
  • The Joss Whedon influence. ‘They’re not lying down on the job.’ – scene moves to the soldiers lying down on the job. While I don’t know I can confirm that he wrote THAT line, but Whedon has explained that it’s something he did in Avengers Assemble. There’s a few other lines like this and in this they come across like dad humour, which I find strangely comforting.
  • You couldn’t have better actors than Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. That line ‘you. Are. A. Toy.’ has perfect delivery and one I parrot.
  • Its pace is brilliant and never has any lulls. In fact it’s the perfect cause and effect movie for any Film Studies student to analyse.

The Bad and the Ugly

  • Sid scared me as a child. He still scares me now. The only thing that scares me more are the mangled toys. I don’t know if this makes me a pussy, but it gave me nightmares and was pretty much the reason why I didn’t like it as a kid.

Final Thoughts

It was, much like a Lion King, a film I disliked as a kid. However, I’ve grown to love it and I’m very much looking forward to part 4 in a few weeks time.