⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Colin Trevorrow
Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D’Onofrio, Ty Simpkins, Nick Robinson, Omar Sy, B. D. Wong, Irrfan Khan
Certificate: 12A
Run Time: 124 mins

‘Jurassic World’ is the next sequel to land into cinemas this Summer, hot on the heels of big successes such as ‘Furious 7’, ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ and ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’. Released a whopping 14 years after its last instalment which received rather mixed reviews, along with the second entry, ‘Jurassic World’ has a lot to live up to. Stepping up to the task is newbie Colin Trevorrow, his first big budget film and coming after the likes of Steven Spielberg and Joe Johnston, Trevorrow has really thrown himself in the deep end. In terms of the film’s cast, ‘Jurassic World’ boasts an entirely new cast from its predecessors with the exception of B. D. Wong who plays the park’s chief geneticist. The film stars Chris Pratt, who found success with last year’s excellent, ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’, who plays the park’s chief trainer, Owen Grady and Bryce Dallas Howard who plays the park’s manager. Rounding up the cast are Vincent D’Onofrio, Omar Sy and Irrfan Khan. So with a lot riding on this film, especially coming off the heels of the critically adored, ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’, is ‘Jurassic World’ an instant classic or is it another worthless Summer sequel that continues to contribute to the decline of the ‘Jurassic Park’ series?

The first words to come to mind when describing ‘Jurassic World’ are clunky, predictable and overlong, but for all its flaws, ‘Jurassic World’ is very entertaining and has first-rate visual effects. The cast is a bit hit-and-miss (more on that later) and the film does also feel a little juvenile at times, but the film has a very satisfying ‘throwback’ feel straight from the opening credits. Trevorrow has, without doubt, created what is easily the second best film in the franchise despite not being able to reach the heights of the original.

The first 20 or so minutes of the film is very shaky with a sloppy ‘goodbye’ scene between members of the family, headed by a dreadful, overly emotional Judy Greer and the film almost has a Christmas-like, ‘Home Alone’ feel but as soon as the dinosaurs are introduced, the film completely changes tone and matures. The visual effects are tremendous and the prehistoric dinosaurs are wonderfully realised. There is a jaw-dropping sequence early on in the film where an underwater whale-like creature (a Mosasurus) devours a crocodile and one feels a sense of dread as something what we perceive to be aggressive and fierce can be eaten up with ease by an even bigger creature. The Indominus Rex, the focal point of the film’s narrative is the villainous creature who escapes out of its enclosure and rampages across the park, is absolutely terrifying. Watching this creature wreak havoc across the theme park is very entertaining and the numerous attempts of the park’s rangers trying to defeat it is mesmerising. This is a big aspect the film gets right – the visual effects really contribute to a sense of scale and there are many absolutely astonishing sequences that also harken back to the film’s predecessors. Woven in to the film is a very nostalgic ‘throwback’ feel and at times, the film almost feels like an Indiana Jones flick.

The film’s main flaw is its predictability – everyone loves watching dinosaurs rampage and fight, but the story is very wafer-thin, one can almost predict every scene and get it right almost all the time. The story is your typical ‘dinosaur escapes and creates chaos, someone has to stop it, massive fight at the end and happy ending’.

In terms of the film’s acting, Chris Pratt is excellent in the lead role, whilst Bryce Dallas Howard plays the typical damsel-in-distress. They have absolutely zero-chemistry together, but Chris Pratt’s performance just about manages to impress so the audience can overlook this. Vincent D’Onofrio, who plays the film’s villain, gives a very hammy performance and right from the get-go, the audience know he is the big bad guy and this contributes to the film’s predictability. Judy Greer is also very soppy in her role as the mother and Omar Sy is completely wasted in a small role that doesn’t require a lot of talent. Irrfan Khan, who plays the owner of Jurassic World, Simon Masrani, is very good and outmatches Bryce Dallas Howard in every scene he shares with her in the film. B. D. Wong, who featured in the original film, returns to play chief geneticist, Dr Henry Wu, in a small but pivotal role.

The film is also quite overlong and the final battle comes very late into the film at which point I found myself fairly tired and drained from a lot of excessive action early on in the film, but the final battle is enthralling to watch and Trevorrow conveys a real sense of vulnerability and it’s a very satisfying finale.The film would be much better at around the 100 minute mark as it does drag on.

Overall, ‘Jurassic World’ is a very worthy addition to the franchise and above all, is very entertaining and boasts impressive visual effects that make up for the film’s flaws. It is unfortunately very predictable, overlong and there is some hammy acting, but the film’s grand sense of scale and its generally entertaining action sequences make up for this and ‘Jurassic World’ ends up as a sound Summer film that is good fun to watch. No, it won’t be the best film to be released this Summer but it’s certainly not the worst either. With Trevorrow stating that he will not be directing the fifth instalment, it will be interesting to see which direction the ‘Jurassic Park’ series heads into.

 (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Neill Blomkamp 
Starring: Sharlto Copley (voice), Dev Patel, Hugh Jackman, Sigourney Weaver
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 120 mins 

‘CHAPPiE’ is the third feature film from South African director Neill Blomkamp, behind the masterful ‘District 9’ and solid, but not great ‘Elysium’ and once again, Blomkamp reunites with actor Sharlto Copley who played the lead role, Wikus van de Merwe in ‘District 9’ and the over-the-top bad guy Agent Kruger in ‘Elysium’. Here Copley provides the voice and motion capture for CHAPPiE. Blomkamp seems to be sticking to his guns here, ‘CHAPPiE’ seems to be very familiar territory – science fiction set in the heart of Johannesburg, some big ideas, news interviews to aid the story and another Kruger character in the form of mullet-headed Aussie Vincent Moore played by Hugh Jackman, who seems to be having a lot of fun here. Throw in a failing society, in this case, Johannesburg is a city plagued with crime with a company led by Sigourney Weaver in more of a glorified cameo, where crime is kept to a low by a robotic police force and finally, the first of these robots is created by Deon Wilson, played by Dev Patel, that can think and feel for itself. Granted, on paper, this premise doesn’t sound entirely original, but judging from Blomkamp’s previous work, it should at least be fun. Right?

‘CHAPPiE’ may be quirky and a bit of an oddball, but this film is elevated with its tremendous, refreshing warm heart and again, Blomkamp really does get the audience to think with a lot of thought-provoking questions. It is very entertaining and the cast seem to be having a lot of fun here, and even the rave rap duo of Die Antwoord aren’t too bad! The film is supplemented by a completely bombastic, yet memorable score by Hans Zimmer which really fits the film.

The premise might be tired but this film injects new life to the genre and puts a new spin to it with its thoughtful questions and the ending is masterful and very satisfying. It’s funny, it’s entertaining and requires the audience to think, which in my opinion, ticks all the right boxes.

Sharlto Copley is fantastic as the titular character who is developed quite a lot and the audience really feel for it. From his oddball design to him using expletives is mesmerising to watch and Copley manages to convey the character’s emotion in a way that really connects with the audience. Dev Patel and Sigourney Weaver play their roles competently, but it’s Hugh Jackman that is the other cast member who shines and he seems to be really enjoying himself here as mullet-headed, hot-blooded Vincent, a co-worker of Patel’s character, Deon Wilson, who’s MOOSE project never got traction and so is supremely jealous of him.

What genuinely baffles me is the film’s very lukewarm critical reception which is completely undeserved and the film has clearly been misunderstood – it is this year’s, ‘Transcendence’, a film released last year that again was received negatively by critic’s which I found to be a really good film that posed some thoughtful questions. The marketing for ‘CHAPPiE’ has arguably been very poor and the trailers don’t do the film justice, nor do they even hint at the direction that the film goes in, which is a good thing but perhaps this is why the film has been misunderstood, due to its misleading marketing.

Overall, ‘CHAPPiE’ is a very solid third feature by director Neill Blomkamp which has unfortunately been let down by very poor marketing and has been completely misunderstood by critics. It is entertaining, fun and poses some really thoughtful questions. It’s not without its weaknesses, the film does take half an hour or so to get into its swing, but when it does, the film travels at a rip-roaring pace and is ultimately very satisfying. The entire cast seem to be having a lot of fun and Hans Zimmer’s score is innovative and quirky, supplementing the quirkiness of the film itself. Blomkamp should feel very pleased with himself and it will be interesting to see which direction Blomkamp takes the ‘Alien’ franchise in with his just-greenlit sequel.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Bennett Miller
Starring: Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Vanessa Redgrave
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 134 mins 

‘Foxcatcher’ is the third feature film from director Bennett Miller behind ‘Capote’ and ‘Moneyball’, both films garnered very positive critical reception and both ultimately went on to be nominated for a slew of awards with Philip Seymour Hoffman being awarded an Oscar for his portrayal as Truman Capote. ‘Foxcatcher’ appears to be a hat trick for Miller as it entered the Palme d’Or at the 2014 Cannes Film Festival in the main competition section and Miller even went on to win the Best Director Award. The performances in this film, like in Miller’s two previous films, have once again gained a lot of attention and the main cast of Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo have been very positively received, with Carrell and Ruffalo up for acting awards at this years Academy Awards. The film was delayed a year for Miller to complete editing and also to avoid last year’s very crowded Oscar race. So this is sure-fire Oscar bait and it’s even been delayed back a year for it to be made into a supposedly even better film.

‘Foxcatcher’ has a very grim, sullen, bleak storyline full of its ups-and-downs between characters and is a very character-driven tale based on Mark Schultz’s (the main character of the film played by Channing Tatum) memoir, ‘Foxcatcher: The True Story Of My Brother’s Murder, John DuPont’s Madness and the Quest For Olympic Gold’. The film follows this exact journey that the memoir is titled. Mark Schultz is invited to John DuPont’s 800-acre estate, ‘Foxcatcher Farm’, who DuPont (Steve Carrell) promises to train him for the upcoming World Championship and coach fellow wrestlers. DuPont constantly urges Mark to enlist his brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo) who has settled into a comfortable life with his family. However DuPont is determined to ‘collect’ Dave and there are disastrous consequences between the three characters.

‘Foxcatcher’ is a fascinating, enthralling and meticulously crafted film packed with excellent performances all-round from the cast. Steve Carrell is the standout and is very disturbing and calculated as John DuPont. The camera shots are excellent as are the locations that the film uses which help to create a very eerie, disconcerting, yet seemingly safe atmosphere. The film does get a bit self-indulgent at times and is quite a long stretch at 134 minutes. There are a couple of parts which are a little bit dull and it’s a bit disappointing how the audience grow to know the characters only for the film to end so abruptly, but then again, the ending events are abrupt anyway!

The acting is most definitely the film’s main strength. Steve Carrell is fantastic and it’s really good to see him not playing in a comedy film – he really uses his acting chops here. Carrell totally deserves commending for his work here and deserves his Academy Award nomination for Best Actor and arguably deserves the win. Similarly Channing Tatum, also in a leading role, is excellent here as the gruff, ambitious Mark Schultz and the work that he has put into his role is incredible, down to the facial expressions. Mark Ruffalo is probably the weakest out of the three main cast but he also has buffed up physically for the role and offers a very competent portrayal of Dave Schultz. In terms of supporting cast, Vanessa Redgrave is the standout as DuPont’s elderly and ill mother who regards wrestling as a “low sport” to which DuPont does fall to a very low standard as the film progresses. It’s a small role, but one that is effectively acted by Redgrave. There is a scene mid-way throughout the film where Regrave’s character observes Carrell teaching his class, who then spurred on to try and impress his mother, Carrell awkwardly begins to demonstrate some moves to the other wrestlers. The chemistry between these two actors is just incredible and the scene is fantastic. Likewise, the chemistry between Tatum and Ruffalo is also fantastic and they have many fantastic opportunities to demonstrate this, which they do especially in a pivotal, gut-wrenching scene in the middle of the film. Without the first-rate acting in this film, the film would not have seen this success and the acting really helps to propel this film high.

The camera shots and locations for this film are just incredible. There is a lots of blurring of characters, particularly Carrell’s DuPont creating a sense of foreboding and furthermore, the locations are extremely fitting. The wrestling training facilities are done to perfection and DuPont’s quarters are very decadent with a slightly sinister ‘Psycho-esque’ spin on the mansion.

Granted, the film can be very slow at times, but it really helps to give the film a slow burn and allows the audience to savour what Miller throws at them. There are a couple of instances when the film does get a bit too slow where Miller indulges a bit, but this is more than made up for in many exceptionally acted and intense scenes. The film is very disturbing and Carrell’s character is very unpredictable and this helps to further enthral the audience in this surreal, gritty world.

‘Foxcatcher’ is an excellent film that is well worth the wait and it should definitely hold its own in the upcoming Academy Awards. It is a very slow burn and the film is enthralling and Miller’s slick, often meticulous direction really pushes the film into the next tier. The phenomenal acting is the film’s main strength and four excellent performances, particularly a very noteworthy Steve Carrell in a very dark, sinister and serious role, who is utterly brilliant as the calculated, psychopathic John DuPont. This is a stellar film and Bennett Miller has done himself proud – this film is screaming for awards!

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

‘The Woman In Black: Angel Of Death’ is the sequel to the film that essentially revived Hammer – ‘The Woman In Black’ and it was the highest grossing British horror film since records began. The film, adapted from Susan Hill’s hit horror novella in 1983, was another resounding success and the novel has also been adapted into a stage play by Stephen Mallatratt and is the second longest-running play in West End’s history, after Agatha Christie’s, ‘The Mousetrap’. In 2013, Hammer decided to greenlight a sequel to the smash-hit film and the novel was penned by crime writer Martyn Waites with Susan Hill having creative input and also helping to write the script for the film.

This time, the story is set in the height of the Second World War where London is being bombed. Headmistress Jean Hogg (played astutely by Helen McCrory) and Teacher Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox’s debut film role) are evacuating a class of children to the countryside, in this case, the dreaded Eel Marsh House where almost immediately a dangerous presence is lurking and the children are slowly being picked off one by one. Who could it be? The Woman in Black, of course!

The film doesn’t hold itself up anywhere remotely near to the original but as a standalone film, it fulfils its purpose just fine. The film isn’t particularly memorable and the scares are pretty second-rate (quiet…quiet…BANG!) but director Tom Harper sure has an eye for aesthetics here as the film is excellently shot (save for a couple of moments where it really does get a bit too dark) and as far as sequels go, this one still shows that there is some sparkle left.

Despite the scares being ultimately very second-rate, the film did keep me on the edge of my seat. Harper creates a really creepy atmosphere and the film needs to be rewarded with some excellent scares, but it just never happens and every single scare is either a rehash from another horror film or it’s something as trivial as a bird bashing into a window. The audience deserve a pay-off and every single creepy moment just ultimately falls flat. There is plenty of room for some really spine-tingling, effective scares but the film just goes with the usual claptrap which is a really big shame. The first film relied on jump scares as well but there were ultimately a couple of really chilling scares in it and what this film also lacks is a sense of suspense which the first film masterfully did. What’s especially baffling is that whenever there is a close-up of the Woman in Black, she actually looks almost pantomime-like which is a real shame and really detracts from the film. The make-up of her in the first film was very sinister and the couple of times that there was a close-up of her really managed to jolt the audience. Here it’s the other way round.

What the film also lacks is an exciting cast – Phoebe Fox, Helen McCrory and Jeremy Irvine (who plays the dashing love interest for Fox’s character) are fine, but a really good performance from a well-known actor would really have elevated this film. In the first film, there was Daniel Radcliffe who was excellent in his mature post-Harry Potter first role and even Ciaran Hinds and Janet McTeer did a decent job too. This just doesn’t happen from any of the cast here and an exciting cast could definitely have helped the film move up a tier.

The cinematography however is beautiful and the film is very aesthetically astute. The look of the film is very bleak, sombre and really fits in well with the Second World War period setting. What lets it down unfortunately are moments where the film is a bit too dark and the details are quite hard to pick out. The use of all the devilish ornaments scattered around the house are effective too and really help to conjure up a creepy atmosphere.

Overall, ‘The Woman In Black: Angel Of Death’ is an inferior horror sequel to its original, but in terms of how sequels go, it’s a perfectly fine one. It manages to create a creepy atmosphere but the scares are unfortunately very weak. The cinematography is a plus though and the fact that stylistically, it can just about hold up to the excellent cinematography of the first film is of merit. But as Arthur Kipps says at the end of the original novel, “They have asked for my story. I have told it. Enough.”

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)