Parks Reviews

Dracula (1979)

Between Hammer and Coppola

[8/10 · 17 December 2023]

I've never understood the criticism of John Badham's "Dracula". This was the film that killed his career, post "Saturday Night Fever". It was his "1941" or "Heaven's Gate", and he wouldn't return until "WarGames" a few years later.

Most of the criticism seems to be that the film is unfaithful to the novel which is entirely unfair given that every other single version is as well. And yes, that does include the cheekily titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula" from 1992, which was nothing of the sort.

More reasonable criticisms would be that the film has a washed-out, bleached aesthetic. That Trevor Eve is a bland Harker and that Olivier's outrageous accent wouldn't be out of place in "Young Frankenstein".

But this shouldn't stop you enjoying this version of the tale. This version makes the best use of the Yorkshire setting of any other adaptation. It's splendidly "Wuthering Heights" and Gothic. The Yorkshire folk are also hilariously grim and miserable and as a dour Yorkshireman myself I appreciate this.

Frank Langella is hypnotic and sinister as Dracula and even now the film features a number of spooky, macabre scenes - such as Dracula clawing at a window, Dracula scaling walls like a spider or the encounter with Mina in the catacombs. The final confrontation with Dracula is also exciting and thrilling.

Why did this fail at the time? I think audiences still had Christopher Lee very much in mind when this movie came out. They couldn't imagine a Dracula with no fangs, no dripping blood and a romantic, brooding presence.

In the modern post-Twilight era, we are now more used to the idea. Dated or not, "Dracula" 1979 does feel like a film that might be more appreciated now than it was then.

"Unfaithful" indeed! Bah!

Halloween Ends (2022)

Another Sequel We Have To Pretend Doesn't Exist

[4/10 · 9 January 2023]

I am one of those horror fans who LOVES the original movie. Not just like - utterly loved it. I'm aware it's not for everyone, but it is for me.

Obviously I've followed the franchise through its sequels and remakes. And while there have been some highlights there have been many, MANY more disappointments.

The half-hearted "Halloween II" from 1981 - which Carpenter didn't want to write and it shows. The decent "Halloween IV" followed by the inane "Halloween V" that bottled out on the ending set up by IV. The enjoyable H20 followed by the absolute disaster that was "Halloween: Resurrection". The interesting Rob Zombie remake followed by the WTF Zombie sequel.

Halloween fans are used to having our hopes raised, then dashed, is what I'm trying to say.

And now we have the conclusion to the new trilogy. Sadly, it's a familiar sinking feeling we're left with. After the superior 2018 movie, my hopes were high indeed that THIS time we'd get good, coherent sequels to finally finish out the story.

And despite the spotty and inconsistent "Halloween Kills" I still held on to hope. It was a middle part after all. David Gordon Green and Danny McBride could still bring it home for "Ends".

But.

Sadly.

Not.

I've read DGG's comments that the plot of "Ends" was always intended. Maybe it was. But it's a sad reflection on the story that ends up being told here, that it FEELS like the writers were fired after "Kills" and replaced by someone told to do a complete 180 on what had come before.

The complete change in character on the parts of Laurie and Allyson is the most jarring problem with "Ends". Laurie goes from guarded survivalist to unguarded optimist. The reason, we are told, is that she has learned to move past fear.

I mean. That's lovely for Laurie. But hard to swallow when it happens offscreen in between a movie which ended in tragedy and slaughter and this one.

Allyson is even worse. From an intelligent, open-minded young woman who wants to understand her grandmother's trauma, she has now regressed into a whiny, irritant who refuses to listen to her grandmother's (understandable and reasonable) warnings.

There is seemingly no reason for their character overhaul other than the story needs them to be different people than the ones we met in earlier films.

I didn't have so much of a problem with Corey and at least his character journey did make some sort of sense. All the same, it did muddy this movie's intended (I think) message about letting go of fear. Actually it contradicts that message entirely.

It's not all bad news. There are some parts of "Ends" that I enjoyed. But that's the frustrating part. I can't like the film as a whole. I can enjoy it only sporadically.

And there it is; the story of the whole franchise. Hugely enjoyable in parts, massively frustrating at others. It is no wonder that we Halloween fans constantly come up with new ways to watch these films - (Halloween 78, Halloween II 81, H20) or (Halloween 78, Halloween 2018) - and pretending those other movies just never happened.

I'm afraid that "Ends" ends up in that same bin - and along with it, the middle part "Kills" as well. They can be filed alongside Busta Rhymes's kung fu, Rob Zombie's white horses and Silver Shamrock's masks.

Hellraiser (2022)

Dumb, but thinks it is smart

[3/10 · 1 January 2023]

To be honest, that whole "pain is pleasure" thing that powers the original movie never really worked for me, and I never made it past the first sequel, "Hellbound".

But I was intrigued enough by the trailer to try this new movie.

I have to give it credit for at least attempting to give some additional explanation to the original story of the Lament Configuration.

But unfortunately that weighs the whole thing down with a new set of rules which make very little sense even within the confines of this story.

For example, Cenobites are fast-moving and all-powerful - except when the story needs them to be slow and a bit dumb. Nothing can stop the Cenobites, except when the movie needs to hit "pause". Victims are relentlessly taken straight away, except when we need a character to stop and think about their choices.

The underlying tale of accepting pain in actual life is not bad, but bludgeoned home by moralising monsters clad in leather at the end of the movie. The Cenobites aren't so much monsters in this film as they are flawed philosophers, turning up every now and again to chunter some trite nonsense about choices and desires.

Also they actually kill people in this movie. Which is not nearly as terrifying as the original concept that they were carrying off their victims for eternal torment. How prosaic.

And at the end, it remains flat. Unscary. Unfunny. Uninteresting. Like another installment in a particularly bloody soap opera.

And please spare me the "deep" dialogue if this reboot does get a sequel.

Nope (2022)

M. Night Shyamalan's "Nope"

[4/10 · 12 August 2022]

Do you remember 2002's "Signs"?

I remember being very excited to see it. It was a film with a scary, suspenseful premise, and some dashes of humour that it maintained for the first two-thirds of the film but then... it just sort of crashed and burned with a limp third act.

Okay. So I was very excited to see Jordan Peele's "Nope". And it was a film with a scary, suspenseful premise, and some dashes of humour that it maintained for the first two-thirds of the film...

Uh-oh.

I'm not seeing it. I'm just not understanding the great reviews of this film. The last third goes off the rails. Motivation goes unexplained and the way to survive these events is as silly as the one from "Signs".

There are things to like about "Nope" - Jordan Peele really does write fun, realistic dialogue and his "Gordy" sub-plot if nicely sinister. But... yet... Nope....

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

Funny, Moving, Clever, Kind, Everything

[10/10 · 17 June 2022]

It is hard to review this film without diminishing it.

The plot - which makes perfect sense as it unfolds - is actually insane. At several points I stopped and realised what I was watching was just BONKERS.

Yet still, I loved it.

And despite how bonkers the film is. And how deeply philosophical it is, it remains a very emotional film. A very sweet-natured and kind film. That's partly the script, partly the wonderful performances.

I genuinely cried, I uncontrollably laughed. And when the film was over I thought about what I'd seen. And so I had to watch it again. And that time I saw even more and loved it even more. And now I want to watch it again.

This is a rare gem. A film as close to perfection as is possible. It looks stunning. It will make you think. And it just made me feel better for having seen it.

It's my new favourite film. And it's just EVERYTHING.

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Tried So Hard To Like It

[3/10 · 27 December 2020]

We're now 41 years after "Superman". 31 years after Tim Burton's "Batman". 20 years after "X-Men" and a full 12 years after Marvel ignited the superhero movie phenomenon with "Iron Man".

The point of this is that maybe making a superhero movie this cliched would have been okay ten years ago, but now it just looks lazy.

The second movie is traditionally the "losing powers" movie. This was established in 1981 by Superman. I don't want to spoil things for you, but take a wild guess what happens in the second Wonder Woman movie?

However, this is after a prolonged prologue on the important of truth. In capitals. TRUTH. I don't wish to beat you over the head with this message, because the movie will do that. TRUTH. Do you hear?

From there, we've got a long hard slog ahead of us for about an hour on the evolution of the film's main villain. A long and overly convoluted storyline which I'm afraid isn't that interesting. Especially as we have already established that LIES ARE BAD.

Kristen Wiig does her usual klutzy, awkward, cringey thing at this point too. But she's BEST FRIENDS with Diana! How do we know this? Because we cut to a scene where they are sitting and laughing and Diana actually tells Kristen's character, "Oh you are so funny!"

All we needed was Ron Burgundy to add, "And we are friends! And we are laughing!"

I mean. Come on. If Will Ferrell was making fun of that sort of writing in 2004, there's really no excuse for it now.

After about 60 minutes we finally start to get some action sequences, but they are cut short by detective work explaining things to the audience that we already know. "So HE'S the...!" "Yes! It's incredible but...!"

Maybe this dialogue would have served a point if we hadn't spent an hour with the villain explaining all this to us already.

Wonder Woman is then faced with a DIFFICULT CHOICE which is very much like but not precisely EXACTLY the same as Superman's in Superman II. And then it's time for the big climax.

The big climax is a lot of dialogue which goes kind of like this:

VILLAIN: You will never defeat me! For I am all powerful! Ha ha! WW: No! You will never win! For I have the power of TRUTH!

Honestly, I've never heard such a lengthy debate during fight (at least not since the previous Wonder Woman 1).

It goes on like this for some time until WW wins the day via the power of rhetoric, although - call me cynical - I was unconvinced.

Honestly, if I'd seen a movie as cliched and formulaic in actual 1984 I might have been impressed. As it is, I got fed up trying my hardest to overlook its' flaws and trying to like it about an hour in.

Liking a movie shouldn't be this difficult.

Child's Play (2019)

Don't Compare Them

[7/10 · 26 October 2019]

I think it's a mistake to compare this with the 1988 original. They are actually radically different films. Andy is much older in this film, Chucky is not a vicious serial killer, but a misunderstood AI and all traces of black magic have gone.

This is good and it is bad. It does remove some of the cheese factor from the original, but on the other hand, the terror of a small boy being chased by a killer doll is always going to be scarier than a bunch of smart-ass teens trying to out-think a cyber doll.

This also plays out in the fact that this Chucky can walk around and talk and no-one can think anything of it. On the one hand, this means there's no big moment where Chucky springs to life. On the other it does mean that Chucky can become slowly creepy in a way he wasn't able to in the original. There are some really excellent moments of horror exploited in this way. As when Chucky sits up, watching Andy and playing the screams of a victim, over and over.

On the whole, I think I enjoyed this film for what it was and tried to put the original out of my head. It is rarely very scary, but it does manage to be gorier and more imaginative than I expected. However, I found the climax a little disappointing. I was hoping for more carnage in the store, but it had enough humour and horror, thrills and gore to keep me entertained.

And as someone who has always preferred Michael, Jason and Freddy to Chucky, I think I'm going to commit sacrilege and say I prefer this to the 80's horror. But only just.

Rocky IV (1985)

80's Time Capsule

[6/10 · 23 August 2019]

Here's a fun game; if you had to choose films to show to millennials to explain the 80's, what would you pick? The serious minded amongst you might go for Wall Street or if you wanted to illustrate how Vietnam stilled loomed in the American psyche you could go for Platoon. Cold War hysteria could be summed up by The Day After or WarGames. But if it's pop culture you're after, then you might choose a John Hughes film, or if you wanted to show how MTV culture took over then you might go for Flashdance.

But maybe the best choice would be Rocky IV which squishes together all of the above in just 90 minutes. PLUS it features a talking robot and a pulsing soundtrack of 80's power rock.

In the film, Rocky fights for World Peace by attempting to beat the living snot out of an evil Russian. No, don't laugh, just 6 years after this film was released, the Soviet Union fell. Coincidence? I think not.

The film itself is literally one cliche after another, accompanied by endless montages. And yet it is still somehow lovable. Possibly because it IS so familiar, so formulaic, so flashy and so desperate to work its audience into a frenzy.

In the end, while you will find yourself cringing at the dialogue, it's hard not to get caught up in it all. I defy even a hardened cynic from enjoying the movie.

But seriously, what the heck is it with that talking robot? I've seen this film about a dozen times and have no idea what the point of it is. Poor Burt Young, his character went from being a serious Pauly to being a stooge for a glorified vacuum cleaner.

Thriller: Mirror of Deception (1975) Season 5, Episode 5

You'll Never Complain About Political Correctness Again...

[2/10 · 19 August 2019]

Ugh. While I enjoy "Thriller" on the whole - including the 70's fashion, attitudes and backdrop - it made this episode a turgid slog.

The story is a "Girl Who Cried Wolf" type affair, with poor spunky Kim Darby from "True Grit" forced to go up against a whole raft of patronising jerks who keep telling her not to worry her pretty little head about conspiracies as her friends disappear one by one.

Possibly the most worrying of these is the usually lovable Keith Barron. In this role he's forced to petulantly shout down Kim whenever she even attempts to allude that there might be something wrong. "I'M GOING TO BED!!!" he yells.

Helpful.

That Kim is proved right in the end is not much of a relief. It's a 60 minute journey to get there, most of which you'll spend shouting at the telly for our male heroes to get on with it.

Were things REALLY that bad in the 70's? I find it a little hard to believe.

Maybe it was just the writing was that bad back then.

Hammer House of Horror: Witching Time (1980) Season 1, Episode 1

Oh Arr, Oi Be A Witch, Oi Be

[6/10 · 15 June 2019]

In the first episode of HHofH, a narcissistic composer finds he's got a 17th century witch in the barn of his farmhouse. She's transported herself through time to escape the witchfinder and to wreak havoc in the present.

I should add that the witch has a quite wonderful "oh arrrr" West Country accent, which means she gets to go around saying things like, "You be MOIN now," while pawing her hapless male victim.

It's good fun, in a male-fantasy sort of way. Naturally this witch is a RUDE witch, floating about in a smock that doesn't come close to covering her cleavage. She's also quite keen on menacing the composer's wife in the shower, so if you are a teenage boy in the early 1980's, then this is the show for you.

Budget and time limitations being what they are, the conclusion isn't necessarily spectacular, but it's fine for 80's tv horror.

Hammer House of Horror: The Thirteenth Reunion (1980) Season 1, Episode 2

Ho-Hum House of Horror

[4/10 · 15 June 2019]

In this 2nd episode of HHofH, an investigative journalist visits an 80's style health farm (no touchy-feely stuff about emotions, just mean men in cheap tracksuits barking at overweight people).

But, to her surprise, the journalist finds that one of her mates appears to be getting fattened up...

I didn't hate this episode, and up to a point the mystery driving the plot is interesting enough to keep watching. But really, if you've ever seen a horror film before in your life, you know where the story is going, right? The biggest problem with the big plot twist is that there isn't one.

Still, a nice atmosphere and some decent black humour prevent it from being a complete dud.

Hammer House of Horror: Rude Awakening (1980) Season 1, Episode 3

Denholm Elliot & His Lolly

[7/10 · 15 June 2019]

While not exactly the stuff of nightmares, it is good English macabre fun.

And nightmares are what it's all about. Denholm Elliot has a recurring dream about visiting a house, and hearing someone ask "Why did you do it?" before things all go pear-shaped for him.

But the dream recurs so often, he starts to wonder if he ever actually wakes up from it..

This imaginative conceit is played mainly for larfs. Denholm plays a swinging real estate agent who may or may not be having an affair with the woman of his dreams, his secretary Lolly. Lolly is a hoot, changing appearance with her every iteration, from Marilyn lookalike to Naughty Schoolgirl. And the phrase, "Why did you do it?" does become rather spooky after a while.

It won't necessarily chill the blood, but it may give you an early-80's chuckle.

Hammer House of Horror: Growing Pains (1980) Season 1, Episode 4

Hammer House of Annoying Children

[1/10 · 15 June 2019]

I'm just working my way through the series "Hammer House of Horror" and for this first time, this episode FEELS like work.

Child actors don't HAVE to be bad. It takes real work on the part of the director. I suspect this one had never met an actual child before.

This story concerns a workaholic couple whose son dies in possibly the dumbest way possible (again, direction) and who decide after a period of precisely zero mourning to replace him with another (motivation is not this writer's strong suit).

New Son is weird. There is no build up to this. He just comes that way.

This is conveyed by his speaking in an over-polite monotone. He only shows emotion when threatening his mother that he's going to tell on her (at this point she has done precisely nothing for him to tell about but hey ho). He then goes on to say this will mean he gets taken away again.

Failing to see a downside here as, at this point in the story, he's done nothing but be a royal pain. But for some reason the threat seems to work.

From there, I honestly don't know what happens. Is new kid psychic/demonic? Possessed by spirit of previous kid? There's some sort of sci-fi thing introduced at this point, none of which explains either weird kid or sudden appearance of ghost kid.

Anyway. There's a moral to this story. Being a workaholic is bad. Although with children like this in the home, I think I'd spend more time in the office too.

The Roly Poly Man (1994)

Bizarre Aussie Fun

[8/10 · 5 April 2019]

I came across this film by accident after midnight on tv in New Zealand.

It starts out as a fairly standard spoof of private eye movies, with down on his luck PI, Dirk Trent investigating a cheating husband who seems to have disappeared.

But THEN...

A bizarre plot featuring (I'm not kidding) giant Amazonian leech-monsters, a horse driving a taxi, an exploding nun, an autopsy on a teddy bear and a creepy morgue attendant who dresses corpses in wedding dresses.

All of this peppered with Dirk's voice-overs. Lines like, "I wasn't going back to the big house. I'd been there before. That was where I met Spider. I'l never forget him. Or the tattoo on the inside of his muscular thigh."

A very silly, very funny, very strange comedy from comedian Paul Chubb. If you like early Peter Jackson, I think you'll be into this.

The ABC Murders (2018)

Like Zac Snyder Meets Agatha Christie

[1/10 · 1 January 2019]

Remember the Zac Snyder superhero movies? Remember how he managed to suck all the wonder and joy out of Christopher Reeve's Superman and turned him into a sulky emo brat? Or how he took the Dark Knight and turned him into a "Death Wish" style sadist?

I mention that because the BBC seems to think that those films were a huge success and have decided to make their Christie adaptations as relentlessly grim as they can.

Ooooh "edgy".

The thing is, it is almost comical. Everyone is miserable, obnoxious, creepy, dreary and rubbish. Really, the only way the could have improved on the air of misery would be to have all scenes of Poirot shot in the pouring rain with a random pigeon pooing on his head.

The direction follows the script. Every room is dark, with faded wallpaper and shabby furniture. Miserable urchins stalk the streets. Thank god there's no technology that can convey smell. I'm sure this film would reek of faeces and rotting cabbage.

The thing is, I wonder who the BBC thinks this will appeal to? Surely Christie fans will find it too Scandi-noir, too violent, too gritty? While non-Christie fans will be put off by those Agatha-elements which are retained?

I suspect whoever wrote this does not like Christie very much. There's a long speech in part 1, rubbishing the country house style murder mysteries. The thing is, it's not even cutting edge. BBC writer, I need to point out to you that Anthony Schaffer made the same point so much better in "Sleuth" nearly 50 years ago. And without riding on Christie's coat-tails.

So yes, another tale of misery and woe. I got 3/4 of the way through episode 1 when I realised this was the tv equivalent of sitting in a puddle of vomit and decided to watch the Suchet version instead.

And what do you know? The sun occasionally SHINES in this version. I'm sure the BBC finds that trite. They're such serious artists there, don't you know.

Prince of Darkness (1987)

Nice Idea, Poor Execution

[4/10 · 20 November 2018]

I consider myself a fair-weather fan of Carpenter. "Assault on Precinct 13", "Halloween" and "The Thing" are all classics.

But "Prince of Darkness"? Too much of it comes over half-baked. The script feels fake and forced. Some of the performances are sub-standard. The special effects are pretty tepid, with the some of the least scary, most laughable possessed and/or zombies I've seen (with one or two notable exceptions).

The plot is interesting but never explored to its full potential - for example, at one point Satan possesses a computer but the Prince of Darkness types nothing but the most banal nonsense on it.

Given the number of zombies and bugs in it, the movie feels to me like a Lucio Fulci movie, only without the full-on bonkers conviction of Fulci. And I found myself wondering what the Italian would have done with it.

I guarantee you this; it wouldn't have been dull. Unfortunately, Carpenter seems to be holding back for most of this film. He seems to prefer to have the characters explain the plot to each other. Sadly, this prevents the real horror from being unleashed. Which is sort of odd, considering the subject matter.

Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)

Ignore The Disinformation

[8/10 · 3 January 2018]

Never in my experience have I come across a more concerted disinformation campaign by a small core of obsessive fans.

Every regular cinema-goer I have asked has told me this film is a good Star Wars movie, with enjoyable characters, twists and action. But after reading the reviews on this site, I actually wondered if I should skip this film at the cinema. I'm so glad I didn't.

Just as when The Force Awakens premiered there seem to be a small but incredibly vocal bunch of Star Wars fanatics who are incredibly angry that the series has not moved in the direction their own fan-fiction and are unable to see beyond that.

The Last Jedi's story and script is a refreshing take on Star Wars. Kylo Ren is easily the most interesting and complex villain since Darth Vader, and not some pantomime villain like Christopher Lee or Iain McDiarmid. The action is thrilling and inventive and the humour in this film is not heavy-handed.

There are the usual flaws in Star Wars films - it's marketing-heavy (let's not forget that George Lucas created this franchise with marketing in mind). It has to work really hard to explain its own mythology (George Lucas hadn't thought it through when he wrote part IV - he didn't even know it WAS part IV at the time). And there are lots of exposition-heavy scenes to explain why it's so urgent we need to get to X to obtain Y etc etc.

But actually, in comparison to previous Star Wars movies, these flaws are mostly kept to a minimum. And there's a nice subtext in this film about how the Force belongs to everyone, not just a select few with a high midichorien count. Whatever the heck THAT is.

In short, the one and two star reviews of this film are an absolute disgrace. This is an enjoyable, exciting movie. It does NOT contain the worst lines (that would be part 2) it does NOT contain stupid plot holes (that would be part 3) it does not contain cloying childish humour (that would be part 6).

If you're able to view Star Wars films as just that - films - and not scripture then you will likely enjoy this movie.

Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Taika Waititi Does It Again

[9/10 · 17 November 2017]

"Thor: Ragnarok" is be the best time I've had at the cinema in a long time. And the most enjoyable superhero film I've yet seen.

Possibly what makes this even more delightful is how unexpected it is. Cards on the table. Prior to this film, Thor was boring. I have seen "Thor: The Dark World" twice. I still can't really remember what it was about.

And here's where Taika Waititi's talent shines through. We hear a lot about those directors who make "beautiful" films. And here I'm mainly thinking of Ridley Scott and Zack Snyder who make great-looking films, but seem to feel that characterisation and motivation just aren't important.

But Taika Waititi appears to be a director who understands that it's characters who drive a great story. Here, he allows the actors room to find their characters through improvisation. "Thor: Ragnarok" finally allowed Chris Hemsworth to show us that Thor is more than a god-like superhero with a firm jaw, and it pays off in spades.

But it's not just Hemsworth who benefits from Waititi's direction. "Thor: Ragnarok" is so stuffed full of great performances you'll walk out of the cinema arguing over who was your favourite character. The "new & improved" Hulk? Cate Blanchett clearly having great fun at the Goddess of Death? The dazed & confused Bruce Banner? Amazingly enough, that's just the start of it. Often the stars of the film are the new side-characters. Valkyrie is absolutely terrific, Scourge has a believable journey; Korg is a hoot and the banter between Jeff Goldblum as the Grandmaster and the wonderful Rachel House as his guard is a joy.

But focusing on Waititi's directorial strength as an actor's director isn't to diminish the visual style of the film either. Some of the scenes - most notably the Valkyrie attack on Hela are stunning. And the scenes on Siccar take the retro-cool 1970's aesthetic of James Gunn's "Guardians of the Galaxy" and runs even further with it.

Finally, the story is genuinely satisfying with an ending that doesn't rely on constant bashing and brute force winning the day. There's actually a pretty smart resolution at work here, involving a major sacrifice.

"Thor 3" flies in the face of those who predict the bursting of the superhero bubble. This film opens so many doors I can't wait for Marvel and DC to keep on exploring new ways to tell these stories.

It (I) (2017)

Stephen King finally captured on screen

[8/10 · 28 September 2017]

IT is not my favourite adaptation of a Stephen King novel. Obviously, that would be "Shawshank". But there's something about IT that feels more authentically Stephen King than any of the other adaptations I've seen (and I've seen a LOT - I've even seen "Firestarter" and King's performance as Jordy Verrill).

This is not to say that it is wholly faithful to the novel. It is not, and with good reason. There are some parts of IT-novel that would never work on screen. Let's just say that the turtle only gets a cameo role as a piece of Lego in this film and quite right too.

But where the film seems to capture the strengths of King is in warping reality, just a little. Venturing into the basement and seeing something that might be eyes, glowing in the dark. Passing by a creepy picture every day and trying to NOT look at it... just in case...

These are the experiences we've all had - but in King's world the thing you know that CAN'T happen sometimes does. And sometimes those eyes in the dark look right back at you.

Director Muschietti captures this spot-on. Also King's ability to take more prosaic horrors like school bullies or overly-affectionate fathers and add them to the palette. I could hear the audience around me tense up whenever Mr. Marsh was on screen.

The reason it works so well is that the film takes the time to develop (most) of the child characters well. Unfortunately, a film's running time is a tyrannical thing so Stanley and Mike lose out. In Stanley's case, I think this might be a problem for chapter 2. In Mike's case, I didn't mind so much - the acting in this film is uniformly good except in the case of the actor who plays that part. I'm sorry, but he was wooden in comparison to the rest of the Losers.

So this is not by any means a perfect film, but I can see why it has been so spectacularly successful. It's a terrific ghost-train ride. If you go in with the right frame of mind it will make laugh, jump and be enthralled.

IT is definitely NOT the scariest film ever made though. Go in with that expectation and you will be disappointed. This is a film that wants to entertain as much as scare - it's often as funny as it is spooky.

But IT does have one ace up its sleeve - the nightmarish creation that is Pennywise. We all have a built-in suspicion of the creature who smiles too wide, whose friendly grin so easily becomes a snarl, a rictus of bared teeth. King didn't create our shared fear of clowns, he just built on it. His Pennywise is a creature that will be hard to forget, and I even though I didn't feel that scared during the film, I felt my mind going back to him for a few days after I saw it. Bill Skarsgard gives an amazing performance as a being not quite in its own skin, and the subtle special effects merely emphasise his strangeness.

I'm looking forward to IT Chapter 2 much more than I ever expected. This is a far better film than I thought it would be. But I'm also hoping that Chapter 2 will really take the gloves off and try to terrify in a way that Chapter 1 shied away from. Chapter 1 did feel a little like an R rated kid's film, or "Stranger Things" with a more meaningful monster. I hope that in Chapter 2, the fears are fully-grown. But this will do nicely for now.

Dunkirk (2017)

Dunkirk or "Christopher Nolan Wants To Hit You Around The Head With a Bat"

[4/10 · 22 July 2017]

There's not much said in "Dunkirk" for a lot of the time. Occasionally, officers heave into view for some handy bits of exposition, but mostly this is a film where the soundtrack consists of tortured metal grinding, diving bombers screaming, engines roaring and Hans Zimmer's score.

And what a score it is. More industrial BWAAAMPS and thuds, as if the sounds of battle were not horrific enough.

It's to make the point that war is hell. I get that. Although I've also come to the conclusion that war could potentially be worse if it was accompanied by a Hans Zimmer score.

The story mainly consists of one event that took place during the Dunkirk evacuation, seen from three different points of view, that you then see three times during the movie. Yes, playing around with a non-traditional narrative structure is cool and clever. But it's also kind of pointless in a film like this.

I mean, we in the audience sit there, potentially in suspense - will the thing that we've seen happen twice before in the movie happen again the third time?? Well, of course it will. Suspense gone. Patience running thin.

The movie ends abruptly on a note of patriotism. Nothing wrong with that. But hearing Churchill quoted as Elgar swells isn't exactly subtle is it? But Christopher Nolan seems to have lost touch with subtlety. He wants his audience bludgeoned, beaten, BWAAAAAMP'ed into submission. I think I'll stick with David Lean.

Baby Driver (2017)

Slight and Insubstantial

[5/10 · 3 July 2017]

I'm a bit perplexed by the ecstatic reviews. Perhaps it's just that "Baby Driver" is different compared to Marvel Movie #21 or Generic CGI Robot Saga #5.

Either way, the strengths of the film seem to be summarised as follows:

Cool soundtrack. Great editing. Some mildly funny lines. Some great car chases. Kevin Spacey is always great in everything. Except maybe "Nine Lives".

I'm struggling to say more about it than that. It was pleasant, it passed the time. I didn't get bored. But I'm struggling to understand the 10 star reviews which bypass the spit-through characterisation and the repetitive story (it's essentially just three car-chases interspersed with a very flimsy plot). The romance between the two leads is pleasant enough, but it is pretty by-the-numbers teen stuff.

In the last third of the film it falls apart completely. The motivations of certain characters start to make no sense other than they move the plot to where it needs to go for the next set-piece. I'm honestly still trying to figure out why Kevin Spacey's character acted as he did at the end.

So you see what I mean? It's a decent film. I'd buy the soundtrack, and watch it on DVD. But I suspect if it didn't have the name Edgar Wright on the credits you could probably reduce its IMDb rating by about a third.

And now that I think about it... Marvel Sequel #21 probably had more depth to it. And Guardians of the Galaxy probably had the better soundtrack too.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

Shriek! Yeek! Aiee! Squeal!

[5/10 · 17 June 2017]

There are so many great things about this film - the opening dash for the poison, the traps beneath the palace, the mine chase and the exciting confrontation on the bridge, and of course Harrison Ford.

Which makes it all the more frustrating that it also contains such boneheaded elements and irritating side-kicks. Neither Willie Scott or Short Round seem to be able to communicate without yelling or screaming, even when not in peril. From "YOU CALL HIM DOCTOR JONES!!!" to "DIAMONDS!!" or "TONIGHT'S THE NIGHT I SLIPPED THROUGH YOUR FINGERS" to "VERY FUNNY! HA HA! ALL WET!" The shouting (and the over-acting) never ceases.

This isn't just some middle-aged cynic speaking by the way. Even as a 15 year old seeing this in the cinema, I wished Short Round could be replaced by Squashed Flat.

Add to that a frankly ridiculous escape from a crashing plane, an embarrassingly awful "funny food" routine and some pretty bad racial stereotypes and it's really only the fact that Spielberg stages the action well that kept me watching.

It's hard to say whether this is worse than Crystal Skull, which had serious problems of its own. But despite that, I think part 4 is not as much of a chore to sit through as parts of this film.

Train to Busan (2016)

Action-Packed Zombies - Heavy-Handed Storyline

[6/10 · 4 February 2017]

There are good and bad things about "Train to Busan". It's a claustrophobic zombie movie that makes the most of having its protagonists trapped on a speeding train with a horde of ravenous zombies.

It doesn't milk that situation of being trapped quite as effectively as "REC" but the action sequences are spectacular and the zombie attacks are very well-staged.

Other reviewers have praised the social satire element of the film. Hmm... I found it might have worked better if it were not laid on with a trowel. The "douche" fund-manager, the evil executive who just NEVER MISSES an opportunity to screw someone over. I found it painfully sentimental at times and "Yes, I get it" obvious at others.

At this moment in history, when the rich and powerful are turning us against each other in order to further their own interests we do need films with messages like this. And on the whole I enjoyed "Train to Busan" more than I didn't. But if there is to be remake, I do hope the film-makers allow for a little more subtlety in there.

The Witness for the Prosecution (2016)

Grim

[4/10 · 1 January 2017]

I suppose it's a question of taste, and some people may find the BBC adaptations more realistic than the ITV Poirot & Marple adaptations, but I'm afraid both this and last year's "And Then There Were None" just leave me thoroughly depressed.

While both have been well-acted and well-directed, there seems to be an insistence on making things as bleak, miserable and depressing as follows, from the coughing-fit sex scene to the muted colours with no really likable characters at all.

Perhaps it is wrong to expect stories of murder to be fun. And maybe shows like "Midsomer Murders" cater for the likes of me.

I just find it irritating that in order to gain critical respectability, the BBC feels a need to pour a thick layer of dismal over their Christie adaptations. As excellent an actor as Toby Jones is, I found myself longing for Charles Laughton's bombast and energy.

And yes, I must admit, I miss the flashy, cartoony ITV Marple series. What a shame the BBC now has the rights to those stories too.

Jurassic World (2015)

Great Fun - Don't Think About The Subtext...

[8/10 · 26 December 2016]

I thoroughly enjoyed this sequel to Jurassic Park - which is practically a remake of the original in terms of storyline, but manages to re-energise the series by having likable leads and a genuinely scary monster.

The plot is by-the-numbers for a monster film. Tree-hugging animal lovers talk about animals, while evil corporate types talk about assets. As a bonus, we've also got an oily Vince D'Onofrio muttering about using the beasts for military purposes. I think we know who's going to make it and who's going to end up as dino-snax.

But I forgive it that, for the spectacle and the verve of the piece. I even forgive it for wasting Irrfan Khan, my favourite Bollywood actor.

What's harder to stomach is the not-so-subtle message that women who don't take care of kids aren't proper women. Dudes can get away with this sort of behaviour but Bryce Dallas Howard's character (and her assistant) clearly have something wrong with them for not going all dewey and matronly when kids show up. Even the mother (Judy Greer, who seems to be making a career as put-upon mom in films lately) is shown as letting down the side by working. Hey, where's dad in all this? Funnily enough, no-one mentions how he neglects his kids by daring to have a job.

It's a bit mid-1970's in terms of attitude is what I'm saying. But - sigh - I'll overlook that too. You can think too much about these things. Howard is actually pretty good in the movie, Chris Pratt is great and the raptors are just adorable.

The kids aren't too annoying. I'm not fond of kids in films. I suspect if I was in a Jurassic Park film I'd get eaten in the first 10 minutes for admitting that.