Reviews

Caesar comes up with a new plan to wipe out the huge threat that is a Gaulish village by adapting them to Roman life by building huge apartment complex's nearby.

A comic book that's just over 40 pages long being adapted into an 85 minute long film? It can't be done can it? Well Asterix: The Mansions Of The Gods proves that this can be done while remaining faithful to the original material. This film is genuinely like one of the comics has come to life. And even better it will entertain both kids and adults with something for all ages to laugh at. It's got lighthearted slapstick and gags both of the visual and spoken variety. It's a surprisingly funny film and also very entertaining. At one point halfway through it seems to look like it might drag but it picks itself back up and continues on the same form it was originally from. It does look like it might be a cheesy film due to it's mixture of a very British cast from all different areas of Film and Television, etc but it is successful and is actually a good film.From watching the trailers it does seem to look like another dodgy foreign film with a bad English dub done by some big names to sell it better and that is possibly what has been done but it pays off well because this adaptation is a good one.. The plot is well done and there is potential for gags throughout as the events unfold and the writers take advantage of nearly every opportunity to do this and these grabs for laughs usually end up with a few chuckles from the audience no matter what age they were. The script and plot are both very well done and clearly remain faithful to the source material and all the original Asterix comic books. And then it ends. From start to finish 85 minutes goes by very quickly and having been thoroughly enjoyed by most of the audience.

Funny and very entertaining Asterix: The Mansions Of The Gods is a very well done adaptation that stays faithful to the original material. It has something for kids but will also entertain the adults taking them. It's another one of this summers pleasant surprises.

**** <-- Four Stars (Out Of Five)

A family is haunted by a "terrifying" figure that only appears when all the light's go out.

Notice the word terrifying in the plot summary for this review. Notice how it is in speech marks. Notice how it gives a sense that once again not even I of all people found this horror movie scary. And I didn't, and I don't think anybody in the screening room did either. In total I think there are about two jump scares which are only just effective are barely successful and the reason none of the intended scares are scary is because they are all so predictable and you can see them coming from a mile off. The main threat in the film doesn't actually seem to be very scary and all I could think of when it came on screen was that it looked like a female version of Gollum just with a less extreme hunchback... It's not scary and the same can be said for the film itself. The acting in the film is good and adds a bit of realism to what is a very unrealistic/ dodgy film. One reason that the film isn't majorly scary is the fact that the majority of it is spent away from the scenes of horror and in other places trying to figure out what the actual threat is, where it came from and how to get rid of it, yes some of these scenes are slightly interesting but they go on for too long and just make the creature that is haunting even less scary than it already was. So in the 20 minutes spent in the dark with this threat there are only about two jump scares which are slightly scary despite still being predictable. It just makes it more of a Godsend that it's a short film at 81 minutes. At least it's not as bad ,to the point where it's almost not even laughably bad, and over two hours like this years earlier horror release The Conjuring 2.

It's not scary and the threat is like a female version of Gollum with less of a hunchback and the majority of the film is spent in a non-threatening/ safe environment. At least it's not as bad as The Conjuring 2.

** <-- Two Stars (Out Of Five)

David Brent ,from The Office UK, returns and this time he's on tour with his band Forgone Conclusion.

Not being the biggest fan of The Office UK or the trailers for this film I wasn't really sure what to expect from the return of Ricky Gervais' comic creation. But as always I went into the screening room with an open mind and to my surprise I actually found this film quite funny. The majority of the jokes in the film are very Hit Or Miss but luckily most of them are hit's and only a couple do seem to unfortunately miss with most of the audience. Seeing as this is a film based on a band tour there are obviously a number of songs throughout and one or two of them aren't very funny as they seem to be intended but there are some which are successful especially one about halfway through the film which does possibly go out to ,from the eyes of Gervais seeing how Brent would see things, unintentionally offend. But the majority of the possible offensiveness does seem to be done with a moderate amount of taste and not to anger or majorly offend people to the point of complaint and uproar, it does make the majority of people laugh and it's the way Brent is, unintentionally offensive and that's what makes him funny in this film. However, luckily not all jokes go along this line and there are also a number of safer/ less risky/ cleaner jokes that also muster up a lot of laughs. There are many points where the audience begins to laugh out loud because of the barrage of gags being thrown towards them from the cinema screen and this is one of the reasons that some people might want to go and see this film again. One of the downsides to the film is that it does seem to end to quickly the pacing throughout is good and well done but when it gets to the end of the film things seem to become rushed as if the writers want to make sure that the film definitely doesn't drag and yes this is something that the film does well but I think if it did have an extra five minutes it wouldn't affect it very much and would most likely neaten out the ending and give it a more comfortable, less cramped time frame. One more thing Gervais is able to do is ,like in his previous TV series Derek but not as strong, is the plot/ script has a certain amount of emotion that gives a different feel to the film but it doesn't get to the point where things begin to seem weird and feel awkward. Overall it's a successful funny and mildly emotional film.

David Brent returns with lots of laugh out loud moments and a small amount of emotion in David Brent: Life On The Road. If the ending and some of the songs were better then the film would be that tiny bit better.

*** <-- Three Stars (Out Of Five)

Based on the 1930's novel, four children sail out to an island near their holiday destination until they come across another group of kids in their own boat which then leads to a series of incidents with a mysterious man living in a houseboat.

Apparently this film is based on a "timeless,classic novel". Unfortunately this adaptation is neither timeless and I highly doubt it will ever become a classic. This is mainly due to the fact that a film that seems to be a sloppy mixture of a bad BBC 90's Christmas special, dodgy Countryfile and the acting and script of a primary school production (but a little bit worse) has and never will be a classic. As you may well have already worked out from the opening of this review, I didn't enjoy Swallows And Amazons. One line of dialogue is "This was going to be a very long summer" and I just sat there and thought "This was going to be one extremely long film!". And it was. It went on and on and on and as it went on the plot and the events unfolding on screen become more and more ridiculous. Yes it's a fictional film and you can stretch the boundaries with this sort of thing, but even with where this film goes it goes well over the boundaries and near the ending goes from about 90 to well over 1004 on a scale of how much nonsense the film is producing. As for the acting of the four lead characters all I can say is it is some of the worst acting I have ever seen by children in a film, even the older ones couldn't act for all the money in the world it's like primary school play, but much worse and ten times more annoying. One stand out child actor in this is the youngest lead who doesn't stand out for the best reasons. In a year where we've seen brilliant performances from younger actors in such things like Pete's Dragon and The BFG, this child knocks down that giant well built and strong tower with a piece of A4 paper. It's one of the worst performances of the year and yes he's a child but still a primary school production with an angry child in the supporting role not delivering his lines properly because he wanted the lead role is better. In fact it seems that the only person who can act is Andrew Scott who is one of the only decent and bearable thing about this film, unfortunately he's not actually in the film that often and doesn't have very much to do.What doesn't help is the fact that the script is unbearably stupid and annoying, all one character seems to say is "I don't like this..", "I don't like that...", "I want this...", "I want that.." and "Let me do this or I won't do that" and it gets so annoying and repetitive and causes the film to become longer and longer than it actually is. And that's about the middle ground of things along with the film getting more and more ridiculous as it goes on. There is so, so much wrong with this film and it get's worse and worse as it goes on.

If you enjoyed the original book then you'll hate this adaptation of Swallows And Amazons, if you haven't read it, you'll still hate it, if you hated the book, guess what.. You'll still hate it! From the most annoying child actors ever to one of the worst scripts ever Swallows And Amazons gets more and more ridiculous as it goes on.

** <-- Two Stars (Out Of Five)

A teenage girl begins playing a game called Nerve where players are payed to complete life risking dares and are watched by anonymous people known as Watchers.

Once again another film this summer that seemed to be mis-sold. The trailers that were released for Nerve made it look like a film that would be hanging on the very edge of lukewarm only by its weak hand. But it actually turned out to be a very tense and entertaining film. As the dares get more life risking for the characters the intensity goes up but so does the entertainment factor. Emma Roberts ,in the lead role of Venus, gives a very good performance and Dave Franco ,who let us not forget gave one of the worst actual attempts at acting ever seen in last years Unfinished Business and wasn't the best in Bad Neighbours 2 but was alright in the chronic disaster that was Now You See Me 2, actually delivers what is a surprisingly decent performance and his character is one that adds to the films twists and turns and intensity. There are many different themes in this film and lots going on but instead of creating one great big, confusing mess it all goes towards making one of those rare film that target a teenage audience but also succeed in entertaining adults just as well.

Summer 2016 has once again delivered another surprise. Nerve is a fast paced, entertaining, action packed thrill ride. **** <-- Four Stars (Out Of Five)

While surfing alone on a secluded beach medical student Nancy (Blake Lively) suffers an attack from a shark circling the area. Stranded on a rock 200 yards from shore she must find help before it's too late.

A film about a shark terrorising a beach. For some reason this sounds strangely familiar? There is a lot in this film that is different to other films like it. In fact this is more of a survival style film that at times feels like The Revenant with a modern setting a female lead. While on the topic of the female lead. Blake Lively delivers what could be one of the best performances of the year by anyone and could very well be in for an Oscar nomination for her portrayal of a young woman who is stranded and alone in serious pain and scared to get back in the water for knowing that the shark is still around and the shore is too far away. With this comes a very clever and scary plot where you actually feel for the lead character and want them to succeed because of successful build up at the start of the film which for once isn't boring and doesn't feel unneeded. The film is very fast paced and tense which adds to the scare and fear factor and the intensity of the threat and its prescience. It goes by very quickly and is also very enjoyable in so many different ways. At just under 90 minutes the films does a really good job of not going on for too long, leaving you satisfied with all sorts of things like length, plot, narrative, etc,etc. It's also interesting and the plot adds to this with its fast pace and the lead characters quick thinking and initiative which just goes towards creating an even more intelligent and interesting yet entertaining film.

Smart, very tense, scary and highly entertaining, The Shallows is similar to The Revenant but with a modern setting and female lead. Oh it might just be one of the best films of this year. **** <-- Four Stars

After surviving a car crash that led to his parents death Pete is found ,after many years, in the middle of the forest. But how has he been able to survive for so long alone?

It seems to be that the only thing that this remake of Disney's 1977 musical feature is that a boy called Pete has a dragon called Elliot. So is this completely different remake any good? Yes. It is. And I was surprised. I wasn't sure what to think of the trailers as they didn't show much and I wasn't very sure of the film itself. But as always I went into the cinema with an open mind. And I think even if I went in thinking that it would be bad I would have most likely thought that this was a good film by the end of it. One of the many things that I enjoyed about Pete's Dragon was that at certain points it felt like it was paying s great homage to classic Disney films while seeking like it's own new fresh and original story, despite being a remake. It was also able to be heartbreaking but enjoyable at the same time. Throughout It seemed to remain on a constant high. Yes it does have a couple of moments where the narrative seems to take a small dive and one or two scenes are on the edge of dragging but the film is able to quickly pick itself back up and continue on almost the same note it was on. The dragon isn't the most realistic CGI dragon ever witnessed on screen but for once this fact doesn't get in the way of plot, character design,etc,etc. When it comes to acting Oakes Fegley (in the lead role as Pete) does a brilliant job of spending a lot of time talking to a CGI dragon that gives little but a lot of response. The rest of the cast (which includes Robert Redford, Karl Urban and Bryce Dallas Howard) also give good performances which make the film that bit more better and also show that a lot of care went into making it. All of this comes through in the final product which is both mildly heartwarming and thoroughly entertaining.

When it comes to live action Disney have ,from my perspective, more than made up for this years earlier remake of The Jungle Book, or if you enjoyed it then it continues on that same high streak. It's brilliantly entertaining throughout and not only one of this summers best films but possibly ones of the best of this year. **** <-- Four Stars (Out Of Five)

Based on the "sort of" tries story of Mike and Dave Stangle. Two immature brothers who are told by their family to bring responsible dates to their sisters wedding.

Another film that seems to be just over the mark from what I believe to be a style of comedy devoted to the stereotype of teenage humour. Or at least that's what I thought from watching the joyless trailers for this film. But as always I walked into the screening room with an open mind. So did I actually end up laughing at Mike And Dave Need Wedding Dates? Well yes I did laugh a couple of times.... Not very many but a couple. But the problem is the distance of time between each laugh was way too long. I laughed right at the very start and thought this could actually be good. The trailers might have just mis-sold the film. Unfortunately I didn't laugh for another 20-30 minutes. And this seemed to be how the pace of the film went. And the main reason I laughed at the specific gags I laughed at was because they made a difference to the constant barrage of crude "humour" being thrown towards the audience. The biggest problem seems to be that this comedy isn't funny. The lead actors do a good job in making some scenes funnier and Zac Efron delivers one of his best performances of the year ,but then that's easily done for him after the trainwreck on steroids known as Dirty Grandpa and the unfunny Bad Neighbours 2. If the script was better then the film would be better. That's really the only thing wrong with the film. There is one main stand out actress who can't act for all the money in the world and this is the person who is playing the sister of Mike and Dave.

Once again 2016 delivers another unfunny comedy but this one isn't as bad as others before it. Still it might leave some people wishing Mile and Dave were never invited to the wedding in the first place ** <-- Two Stars (Out Of Five)

After being attacked by a huge swarm of unknown ships the crew of the Starship Enterprise are separated and spread across a mysterious planet, there they must search for each other and battle a new villain who is against all that the federation stands for.

Star Trek: Into Darkness was well received when first released but afterwards many fans changed their opinions and it began to receive less than lukewarm feelings from people who went back to watch it, due to it's non Star Trek feel. So with new writers (Simon Pegg and Doug Jung) and a new director (Justin Lin, known for directing some of the Fast and Furious films) is Star Trek Beyond able to recapture the original feeling of Star Trek? Yes, it more than does this. In fact this ,the third film in the new series of Star Trek movies, feels like an extended episode from the original series. There is a lot of fun to be had with this film and in all honesty it might actually have a running time that is just over two hours but when watching it the pace is so fast and the action is so well shot the running time only seems to be just over 45 minutes. Another thing that new director Lin has been able to successfully do is bring the audience into the actual adventure, the audience doesn't just watch the film they are almost taking part, they are made to feel as if they are in the same world, the exact same situations as the characters causing them to not only laugh along with them when there are comedic moments ,which nearly always hit the right mark, but also feel involved in the action and the adventure. The chemistry between all the characters is always on top form and all actors clearly get on well making the on screen chemistry more realistic especially between Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Bones (Karl Urban). The characters of Spock and Bones ,helped by Pegg and Jung's script, go together so well creating a really well thought out and timed double act while still keeping the frame of the original characters, still providing the much needed action and adventure that is vital to this sort of film. As for the Visual Effects ,next to Ghostbusters, they are some of the best to be seen on the big screen this year and go towards creating an even greater sense of realism and once again pulling the audience in with immense ease.

Fans will be pleased by this new entry into the Star Trek series, because Star Trek Beyond not only feels like a successful extended episode but the acting, story, characters, action, effects and so much more go towards creating a fun, crowd pleasing sci-fi adventure.

**** <-- Four Stars

A young girl called Sophie is taken away from her orphanage by The "Big Friendly Giant" the only giant of his kind who fears the presence of all the other giants who happen to eat children.

Steven Spielberg teams up with Mark Ryalnce to bring Roald Dahl's classic story to the big screen. Is this adaptation able to capture the magic and mystery of Dahl's imagination? Sort of. The biggest problem that this film has is that ,like many others this year, it's too long and quite a few of the scenes throughout it seem to drag and make the film seem a bit longer and some members of the audience seem to loose patience. If some scenes were cut a bit more then the film would not only be obviously shorter but it would also possibly drag less throughout some scenes. Mark Rylance delivers lines that no other actor should be able to say with a straight face and therefore provides a couple of chuckles for the audience but this seems to be the only source of comedy in the film as it't not really a gag heavy film until the third act. On the topic of the third act it is one of the best points of the film and is one of the things that makes the film what it is and does capture the essence of Dahl's original words and in some shots Quentin Blake's illustrations can be clearly seen translated onto the screen which does show how Spielberg and screenwriter Melissa Mathison did want to capture the magic and mystery of The BFG. The visual effects do add to the feeling of the film and do also have a very Spirlberg'ian feeling to them especially during one slightly lengthy scene involving dream catching. But unfortunately the visuals and the acting don't distract from long scenes. When put all together it just seems like it's a couple of steps away from being a panto.

Yes the visuals and the acting are good and largely go towards making the film largely what it is but many scenes in The BFG are a bit too long and distract because of this. However just wait for the third act which is one of the best things about the film.

*** <-- Three Stars

Sequel to 2003's Finding Nemo but set one year after the events Dory remembers her parents and where she lived before meeting Marlin and Nemo all three go on a journey across the ocean and through a fish hospital to find Dory's parents.

After 13 years the geniuses at Pixar have released the sequel to Finding Nemo this time centring around the forgetful supporting fish character of Dory. So with Dory now taking centre stage do Pixar make another successful dive or do they violently Belly flop for the first time? To be honest there's not even any need to ask that question, it's Pixar of course the film is going to be good! Yes Pixar once again deliver another film that causes the audience to feel all kinds of emotions. They can laugh with the characters and they can also feel for them when the film gets a bit emotional. Pixar once again do one of the many things that they do best and that's providing adventure, animation and laughs for the kids and for the adults a different deeper story and moments and some laughs specifically targeted at them. Basically Pixar return and do what they do best and that's provide top quality animated films that appeal to all ages. Finding Dory is funny and has a feeling of the original film but is also able to feel like it's own original film ,which it is, and this is something that Pixar are able to do with all their sequels they have a feeling of the original film but the sequels are their own original story and plot. The start of the film does feel a bit rushed and a lot like the original but this is mainly to build up the plot of this film and rushed is slightly understandable but still a bit distracting but seeing as this is at the start and the film wants to jump straight into the plot it's a bit excusable but not completely excusable. There are many laughs throughout the film and nearly all throughout the film are successful and the same can be said for the emotional parts of the film ,mainly intended for the adults that are watching the film, are successful and get a different point/ side of the film across to the rest of the audience.

Brilliant characters and once again with something for kids and something for adults, Pixar strike high again with their newest film that's both funny and emotional, Finding Dory is another Pixar hit.

*** <-- Three Stars

When numerous ghost sightings and other paranormal events occur all over New York a group of paranormal investigators team up to get rid of this supernatural threat.

It's very evident that many people have said bad things about this film. This might explain the 4.9/10 user rating on IMDb, or it might just be thousands of people using multiple accounts to complain about a film which they haven't even seen yet because it hasn't been released in their country yet!! So what does someone who has actually seen the film, the entire film!, think? Well I thought that it was alright actually. It was actually fairly funny. After the opening I did have thoughts that I was going to be watching some form of Scooby Doo influenced Ghostbusters remake but as the film went on I thought it was alright and there were a fair amount of funny moments. Most of the characters were quite good and many had some funny lines. The effects in the film were also very good and made it more realistic and despite this being a 12A comedy it was scarier than this years 15 rated horror film The Conjuring 2. When it comes to the plot it does have a lot in common with the original Ghostbusters but this is obviously going to happen with this being a remake, but this remake does have a lot of original content and does still feel fresh. It is also fairly fun and the characters, plot and CGI make it even more fun and the same goes for the successful gags. There are one or two weird moments which do either drag a bit or have no real relevance to the plot apart from to introduce a cameo of a star from the original 80's Ghostbusters film. There are a lot of scenes in this film that have no real relevance to the plot and just don't have any relevance to anything but lengthening the film's 116 minute run time out. Not that the film is too long it's a decent run time and doesn't really have any problems with going on for too long apart from when scenes are just there for cameos.

Quite a few of the jokes are good but they do lack in the brilliant third act but Ghostbusters is a fun remake, unfortunately it seems to lack something at certain points.

*** <-- Three Stars

After settling down and getting used to life in London Tarzan must go back to the jungles where he used to live ,along with his wife and friend, to investigate strange goings on that have been occurring near there.

Many of the reviews for this film have been fairly negative and I hadn't seen any trailers for this film so I didn't know what to think when walking in but as always I went into the film with an open mind. And what I was greeted with was a fun, fast paced, inventive and imaginative, fresh new take on Tarzan. The plot of the film is really clever and I like the idea of seeing what happens to the character of Tarzan after the story that we all know. The action in the film is very good and it adds to the large amount of tension that the plot already holds. The acting is also very good from all and the way the film is shot you feel as if you are actually there in the world of the film and that you area character spectating all the events that are happening and this leads to the fact that the film is a lot of fun, I genuinely had fun watching this film which is something that can't be said for a lot of films that have been released recently. If there is one major problem with the film it's that the CGI animals are very clearly CGI animals as they aren't very realistic and the way they look also shows how very clearly computer generated they are. One other small problem is that the films could be cut a tiny bit just because it does seem to drag in the last five to ten minutes and the entire audience do seem to get a tiny bit restless near the end just because of length but the film is still fairly fun and because it isn't for that long and the film wraps up quickly this point is mostly ,but not completely, excusable.

Lot's of fun, imaginative and inventive, fresh and filled with fast paced action The Legend Of Tarzan is a fun new take on the famous vine swinging character.

**** <-- Four Stars

A group of mammals must try and save the world and stop it from being destroyed by a huge meteor hurtling towards the earth.

The third Ice Age film (Dawn Of The Dinosaurs) was actually fairly good and the fourth one (Continental Drift) was ,what I thought to be, an alright film when first released, but after a couple more viewings it isn't as good but is still bearable so I went into this film ,after seeing a few unfunny trailers, with quite a bit of trepidation but as usual I went in with an open mind. And I must admit I did laugh a few times in the first 15-20 minutes and it was fairly enjoyable. Then the plot went on and there were still one or two laughs just not as many. One of the standout problems that stops some opportunities for funny gags is that the film seems ,at times, to be too much like a cheesy American family based sit-com with certain side plot elements that have been seen hundreds of times in this sort of series and in many films over the years when the writers have run out of ideas. It does seem that at times the writers were trying to make this feature length or as near to the 90 minute mark as they possibly could just because of how much there is going on and how much seems to just be there to lengthen the time out and doesn't really have any relevance to the plot until the smallest possible detail where everything pieces together and only just makes sense and has some relevance and point apart from being there to make the film feature length. This leads me to many peoples recurring thoughts on the Ice Age series, Is it going to stop soon? Hopefully after this one and where it finishes they will leave it here. At a decent point that was watchable and provided some form of mild entertainment for just over 90 minutes.

Yes it's fairly funny throughout and mildly entertaining but it does seem to lack quite a bit in the middle and a lot of the subplots have been seen before. Maybe Blue Sky should leave the Ice Age franchise alone now while it still has a couple of drops left in the river which seems to be rapidly running dry.

*** <-- Three Stars

An American government agency recruits a group of the worlds most dangerous super villains to destroy a huge threat that can only be stopped by this group of people.

I was really looking forward to this film. So were many other people. It seems that critics ,not all but a fair majority, haven't been impressed by it. So does DC's newest film look as good as the trailers made it out to be? Unfortunately the answer is no. Suicide Squad is once again ,following on from March's Batman Vs Superman: Dawn Of Justice, disappointing. The film spends the first hour referring back to Batman Vs Superman, building up to next year's Justice League ,which is all Batman Vs Superman did, and introducing characters only to refer back to the points expressed in multiple backstories in constant flashbacks throughout the film. Then when the plot does finally kick in the pace and tone is literally Quiet Quiet Quiet... Enemies... BANG BANG BANG, GUNS GUNS GUNS, SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT, EXPLOSIONS, FLASH FLASH, BANG BANG BANG, KABOOM!!! All ended when a character says something like "That was fun" or "That was crazy". And while a quick filler scene is happening the crew reset the stage making it look a bit different and then the previous fight scene is done again. Back to the filler scene with the exact same basis then back to a fight and this is literally how the entirety of the entire second half of the film goes. It gets to the point where you've seen it once you've seen all of it you might as well leave because that's the next hour of the film. At certain points the script just seem to focus on the characters of Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) As they seem to be the most explored and developed characters just so you feel for them and so there is something else to show in the filler scenes and this leaves out the rest of the characters out and barely shown. One character that is affected most by this is Jai Courtney's Captain Boomerang who stands out when he's actually in a scene and provides most of the small amount of comic relief that the film holds ,so much for re shoots to make the film lighter and funnier. As for Jared Leto's Joker he doesn't seem to do much and isn't as psychotic and twisted as the trailers promised and is as much ,if not more, of a disappointment than the film itself is. He spends most of the film doing things that don't have relevance to the plot and just there to fill in between some scenes so the main team of bad guys can get from one fight scene destination to another. He has no real relevance until one scene that supports the films finale, but unfortunately he's just there for flashbacks and filler as he doesn't really shine and deliver what was hoped. Jared Leto himself has said that most of the Joker's scenes have been cut from the film and this is believable as there does seem to be a lot of him missing and certain scenes he was in might have made more sense if there was more explanation to them, but just like the rest of the film the Joker's story line is a bit of a mess. Once again a film studio needs to learn that lot's of action and fights with millions of dollars of the 175 million dollar budget spent on God knows how much CGI doesn't distract from a clunky plot and a film filled with problems.

Unfortunately Suicide Squad was mis-sold to audiences and a fun action packed film turns out to be references and build up to past a future films followed by tedious repetition of the same plot and fight scenes every 15-20 minutes. It's a big disappointment, and possibly more than Batman Vs Superman was.......

** <-- Two Stars (Out Of Five)

Batman goes on the hunt for The Joker who is kidnapping and torturing Commissioner Gordon and his family in a similar way to his own descent into madness.

One thing that immediately stands out about this film is how much it seems to want to be like the graphic novel that it is adapted from. This is because the dialogue seems like it has literally been taken from the novel itself and copied word for word, this is accompanied by animation that looks like it's just a moving version of panels from the original comics/ Killing Joke graphic novel. It basically seems to be a direct literal adaptation of Alan Moore's famous, classic novel. This might majorly stand out at the start of this film adaptation because the first 30 minutes of the film seem to be a bit slow and just a long build up and introduction to the lives of Batman and Batgirl/ Barbara Gordon and so later plot details are further understood or emotional pain for certain characters is deepened because of this connection with the characters. In fact the connection with the characters in this film isn't really that strong and at times they just seem to be there ,even Batman has this feeling when he is present in some scenes, this can also be said for the character of the Joker (voiced by Mark Hamill) he might be one of the best things about the film but he doesn't seem very understandable in his actions and motives until later in the film when his backstory ,if it is even his real one due to the character previously making up many different backstories making him more mysterious and in some cases creepy, is revealed and we see what his life was previously like and what drew him into the state of madness that has made him one of the most famous and iconic on-screen and comic book villains ever. As this is done the character of The Joker gets better and better and more enjoyable and the same can be said for the rest of the film as more is revealed and as more events unravel/ occur the pace gets quicker and the film gets better and more entertaining pulling the audience in and providing a more detective style superhero film which at times feels fresh, new and different.

If you ignore the first 30 minutes then Batman: The Killing Joke is a fresh animated superhero film that not only shows a new side to the character of The Joker but puts him centre stage as the star of the show. Overall it might have a dodgy script and seem like a literal direct lazy adaptation at times but it's an enjoyable film with some highly entertaining moments.

*** <-- Three Stars (Out of Five)

Anomalisa Author Michael Stone (David Thewlis) sees everyone as the same (Tom Noonan) until he meets Lisa (Jennifer Jason Leigh).

This film has had nearly every review say that it is one of the most perfect films ever made and nearly all of them have given it five stars. So is it as good as the reviews say it is? Yes. Anomalisa is one of those extremely rare films that makes you feel as if you are one of the characters. You feel what each character feels and when they feel it because of how well it is done. It's brilliantly made and the screenplay is fantastic. The acting in it is also superb and makes it seem much more realistic... and it's animated. It is one of the most realistic and human films ever made and the way everything is done and interpreted is amazing. It's funny yet dramatic which gives it an extra human feeling and adds more emotion to it in many scenes. It's cleverly written and has so many things hidden in it. The three cast members give brilliant performances and make the film seem more realistic and they really get you inside the characters head making the film much more powerful.

Funny, Heart warming and an extreme rarity to feel what the characters are feeling Anomalisa is probably the most realistic and human film ever and most likely one of the best films of the year. An amazing achievement for an animated film. ***** <-- Five Stars (Out Of Five)

Fifty Shades Of Black Spoof of Fifty Shades Of Grey, College graduate Hannah Steele enters a complicated relationship with wealthy businessman Christian Black.

Deep,deep joy. Another painfully unfunny spoof that takes nearly all it's material from previously made content. That is the basic definition of Fifty Shades of Black. There was only one point during this film that I wanted to laugh but because of how bad the rest of the film was I couldn't. There are two main problems with this film. 1. The script is really, really awful and is not funny in any way and 2. Nobody in this film can act! Those are two vital things to make a comedy funny the acting and the script and if both of these fail then the film is just terrible, which is what this pile of trash is. All jokes are about Fifty Shades Of Grey and it's content and might as well be an adaptation of a joke book of painfully unfunny sex jokes. There are so many moments intended to make people laugh but just end up being horribly cringe worthy moments because of either what can be seen or just what is being said. There were points where people moaned in disgust at the goings on on screen and the majority of the film was spent in silence. In total two different people ,out of 13, laughed at two different points, 3 people walked out during the film because of how bad it was.Nearly all of the characters in the film are annoying and this is made even worse by the terrible acting. During the film Marlon Wayans character describes something as "painfully uninteresting" and something else as being written by someone in year 3. Fifty Shades of Black is painfully unfunny and boring and could have been written by a dirty minded 8 year old. But then again the 8 year old would have probably wrote something much more entertaining and funnier.

It isn't as bad as other parody films but Fifty Shades Of Black is still a seriously unfunny film and is definitely one of the worst films of 2016. ** <-- Two Stars