Shaun of the Dead (2004)

The first part of the Cornetto Trilogy is an ‘homage’ to the horror films that were made by George Romero. Having not seen the ‘of the dead’ series of films all the references that are littered throughout this film are lost on me. The setup of the film is that Shaun (Simon Pegg) and his friends are trying to survive a Zombie Apocalypse and get his girlfriend back who has recently dumped him. 

The film is funny because the film doesn’t take itself too seriously. There are plenty of references to George Romero films that most people would get and that is perhaps another reason why people would like this film. Having not seen these films, I still find the film entertaining and that shows why this film is so good. 

The performances are really good with Simon Pegg being a notable highlight. Even though he isnt the most successful person in the world. There is a likeable quality about Shaun, he does try to do the right thing but just seems to find being next to Nick Frost’s character as the easy approach. Nick Frost is funny in this film but he is one of those people that can be annoying at times. His character is suppose to be a stoner waste of space and yet becomes quite useful as the film progresses. When he turns into a Zombie it is handled quite well and nobody plays a monkey as well as Nick Frost. The other performances are all work and no one lets the film down.

Shaun of the Dead is a funny and entertaining film. Whether it’s the best film in the trilogy is something that is open for debate. Personally I think that Hot Fuzz is the better film but this is still a great film with great performances and shows that you can do horror comedies well. Admittedly the film hasn’t aged that well in some respects but in terms of humour and pacing, this film continues to be an entertaining film.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

The final part of the Dark Knight trilogy is the weakest. This was the third part of the triple bill and by this point in the cinema experience, I felt like things were going well. I wasn't feel fatigue or getting uncomfortable with the seat I was in but I always knew that this film was going to test me. Set several years after the events of The Dark Knight and Bruce Wayne has become a hermit but a psycho called Bane is going to cause more damage to Gotham than anyone could imagine.

GOOD POINTS

Some good scenes

Despite the run time, there are some good scenes throughout the film.  The opening scene with Bane on the airplane immediately comes to mind but there are plenty which show that Christopher Nolan might someone who likes the big philosophical ideas but he knows how to put interesting scenes together. Also the scene at the football match when Bane launches his masterplan is also very good because its simple and not flashy but to the point and does what it needs to do.

Tom Hardy as Bane

Tom Hardy saved this film for me. Back in 2012, the headlines were that Bane's voice was hard to hear and I don't know if time has fixed that problem (I don't think its a restored cut) but I didn't have any problem hearing Bane. Tom Hardy gives a personality to what is a fairly one dimensional character. Back in 1997, he was just Poison Ivy's hired help but in this he is breaking things up because he believes to be right and doing things for the right reasons. The character and film would have been weaker without Tom Hardy.

Michael Caine is heart-breaking

Michael Caine has been brilliant throughout these three films but he really steps it up in this one. The way that Alfred feels like is breaking his promised to Thomas Wayne is one of the saddest moments in the film and its because we care about Alfred because of what Caine has done with the character. Some might argue that Michael Gough is the best Alfred but in my mind, Caine manages to make Alfred feel like a loyal but integral part of Bruce Wayne's life.

BAD POINTS

There doesn't feel much enthusiasm for it

The first film felt like it had a point to it and the second one also did. This one felt like it was being made because the previous one took $1 billion dollars and Warner Brothers. It feels like there is no real discipline to the flow of the story with Nolan allowing himself to let philosophy take centre stage of the film when it didn't really have any need to.

I don't care about Cat Woman

I think that Selina Kyle isn't a very interesting character. She worked when played by Michelle Pfeffer in Batman Returns but in this she just feels like an irritation. I think it isn't really Anne Hathaway's fault although I don't think she really helped. 

Too Long

At close to three hours, this film is too long. Plain and simple. The whole Gotham under Bane's rule goes on so long that it feels like the film doesn't really belong in the film. You could have cut a bit of this and it would have been a much better product as a result.

OVERALL

This is a disappointing film if you compare it to the previous films in the trilogy but on its own it is ok. The film is too long and the film feels like it has to be something it doesnt want to be. I have no problem with moral messages in a film but the film has to be entertaining for it to work and despite the best efforts of everyone involved, they never manage to pull it. off.

The Dark Knight (2008)

The second of the Dark Knight trilogy is the best. After the teaser at the end of Batman Begins, the most iconic villain in comic book history (probably) makes his first appearance in a movie since 1988. The plot sees Batman take on the Joker as he tries to dismantle the corruption and crime in Gotham whilst Harvey Dent is trying to clean things up in his own way.

Good Points

Heath Ledger steals the show

This has always been my opinion and is the case upon watching again. Every scene is great and its perhaps the biggest loss in this franchise that Ledger died. The face paint along with the manner in which he talks helps create a version of the Joker that is completely different from the version that Jack Nicholson plays. His best scene is in the interview room when Batman is beating him up and then he has that great speech with the detective about why he uses a knife instead of a gun. Every scene is great.

Bale is great as Batman

Due to the plot, there wasn't very much of Bale in the Batman costume and he makes up for that in this film. He has some great moments in the costume most notably with Joker but he is also more confident as Bruce Wayne. He has got the swaggering playboy part down quite well and it makes a clear distinction between the two sides of the character. 

Pace is better than the previous despite longer run time

The first part of Batman Begins was perhaps slower than it should have been but this version doesn't have a problem with pacing. Each scene has something going on and even when the Joker isn't involved the acting helps you forget that and everyone (almost) is on the top of their game.

Rachel 2.0 is a big improvement

Katie Holmes was the weak link in the performances in Batman Begins and Maggie Gyllenhaal is much better in the role. I think that she makes more of the opportunities the character is given than Katie Holmes would have done. The love triangle between Bruce, Rachel and Harvey worked very well and only lasted as long as it needed to. It's a shame that Gyllenhaal wasn't in Batman Begins because I think that she would have made that film just that bit more entertaining.

Much more enjoyable

This film shows what can be achieved when you inject a bit of thought into a film. At this time Marvel was just gearing up for Iron Man and so was what comic book movies should be aiming for. This film deals with many things but still has the action stuff that people would expect. Batman and the Joker don't meet each other too many times and that works for the better so that when they do it means something and those scenes are great. 

Bad Points

Boat scene is too much

There are some high stakes scenes and they work but the final one on the boats is one too many. It goes on too long and doesn't really lead to anything and in the final act this really slows things down and 

Aaron Eckhart not great

When a lot of the central performances are so good, anything not as good will stand out and unfortunately Aaron Eckhart does stand out but not in a great way. I think that he is fine but next to the Joker he isn't as good. I think that he is there more so that the Joker can prove a point that be there for anything good. 

Overall

This is a great movie with a great cast and a story that works very well. The directing isnt flashy but is still great and everything works perfectly. This film was great when I first saw it in the cinema in 2008 and its still great in 2024.

Batman Begins (2005)

For the first time ever, I have seen three films in one day at the cinema. I had seen two films in one day but there was a gap of a couple of hours between them. I have always liked the trilogy and saw them when they originally came out, but there was something about seeing them in one go that proved to irresistible to turn down.

The opening part of the trilogy is not as gritty as people think it is. It is gritty compared to the Batman films that have come before it but its not that gritty and perhaps feel more grounded than gritty. The film follows as Bruce Wayne goes away to understand the criminal underbelly to try and exact revenge on the person who killed his parents all while the corruption of the city tries to stop him and the League of Shadows tries to get Wayne to be one of them.

The horror of the neon campiness of the Joel Schumacher which nearly killed the franchise is consigned to the history books with a film directed by someone who has a vision and a plan for bringing this character back from the dead.

Good Points

Strong Central Performances

Christian Bale is very good as the caped crusader, we see him through all stages of grief and he is believable as Bruce Wayne and as Batman. This version of Bruce Wayne feels the most grounded out of all the versions that we have seen in the movie. Bruce Wayne in this movie has the playboy lifestyle that has always been there in the character but Bale makes it seem a facade and hiding his true character. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are great as Alfred and Lucius Fox respectively and are as awesome as ever. Gary Oldman makes the character of James Gordon feel a bit more important than he has in the previous films.

Good Action sequences

Despite this being a more grounded version of Batman, there are still the action sequences which are all very good. Christian Bale never stuck me as an action star or someone who could do them but he manages to pull it off. This version of Batman is a more talkie incarnation of the character but it is still lends itself to the action sequences that cinema-goers would expect.

Visuals are good

We have the dark gritty version of Gotham in the Tim Burton films, the camp neon light version in the Joel Schumacher versions and now we get a better version in this movie. It has a futuristic feel and yet current. It does feel like it was film in a real street in a real city that is doubling as Gotham which is a nice middle ground from the two previous versions. 

Bad Points

Villain could have been stronger. Scarecrow was a better villain

I liked that there was some personal backstory for the character of Ducard but I would have liked to see more of Scarecrow because I think Scarecrow was a more traditional villain for Batman and he was played brilliantly by Cillian Murphy. Liam Neeson is great don’t get me wrong but I think that he was overshadowed by Murphy. 

Katie Holmes is not a great Rachel

Trying to be kind to Katie Holmes but she isn’t very good as Rachel. Rachel is suppose to be this form of support to Bruce and yet there isn’t that connection with Bruce Wayne that there should be. This was her only performance and it was a good thing. 

Overall

This is an underrated Batman movie, it’s the middle of the trilogy in terms of quality but it zips along at a good pace. This being the first part of the trilogy at the cinema. It has a story which it takes time to tell but doesn't feel like there is any padding or rushing at the end. An enjoyable film which even nearly 20 years later holds up and should be a film that people watch.

Speak No Evil (2024)

Be careful of remakes. Especially if the remake is of a film that only came out two years ago. I saw the original when it came out and liked it very much so my eyes rolled into the back of my head when I heard this film was coming out. Also the fact it was a Blumhouse production didn’t fill me with confidence because they aren’t known for subtle horror. I rewatched the original to try and be able to compare the two which might be unfair to both but I felt it was needed.

In the original a Danish couple are invited to a Dutch couple house after they became 'friends' on holiday and things go wrong pretty much straight away. In this version, a British couple invite an American couple to their isolated farm and things go strange very quickly.

GOOD POINTS

Good Performances from the adults

The central performances were really good with McAvoy being the best of the four adults. Never thought he was great as Charles Xavier in the X-Men films but he showed another side in this film. Mackenzie Davis was good as someone who felt like she wanted to do the right thing but seemed restricted. Scoot McNairy was also good as the husband who didn’t want to rock the boat or stand up to McAvoy’s character. All four of the performances work well together and this adds to the tension that runs throughout the film even from the very first scene.

Fixing the Bunny Rabbit Problem

The reason for the family returning after sneaking out always bothered me in the original but they fixed it in this film. In the original it seems like it is a normal toy but in this version it’s the daughters emotional support so it can’t really be replaced providing a decent reason for returning.

Enough mix of original and new

I always think if you're going to remake something then do something different and there are enough different things in this film that make it feel new but enough of the elements from the original to feel like it has done something new but not rubbishing the original and that's not an easy thing to pull off. I was happy that there were things that I recognised but not too much. 

Isolated Setting

I’m always a fan of isolated settings and the change from the original is moving the story from a cabin to an isolated farm. Simple idea but it’s used effectively and felt very claustrophobic in the third act. Apart from the opening part in Tuscany (?) and a scene at a resturant, the film takes place largely in one location and there is always something tense about the country that this film uses well.

Nice Atmosphere

The whole atmosphere and vibe was really good. It wasn’t as dark and grim and the original (more on that in the bad points) but it still had the same atmosphere they you would expect in a horror film and that with the performances help create a film that stands on its own compared to the original.

BAD POINTS

Disappointed with the ending

The ending was too upbeat for me. Having seen the original which has the nice couple stoned to death and the daughter becoming part of the psycho family minus her toy he whereas in this version they all drive off into the sunset.

This is probably harsh on the film as most people probably haven’t or won’t see the original so on its own merits it’s a fine ending but I think that horror films work better when they have a more downbeat ending.

OVERALL

I was sceptical when this was announced as Hollywood remakes of foreign language films rarely turn out better than the original but I did like this more than the 2022 version. I still like the original but found things just worked better for me. James McAvoy is a bit of a hit and miss actor for me but I thought that he excelled in this role. I hoped that he would be good based on the trailer that I saw and he didnt disappoint. It's not been as good as year for horror films as I would have liked but Speak No Evil manages to be as of writing the best horror film of 2024. Well acted, well structed and well directed.

The Critic (2023)

This was a preview screening and the last time I attended a preview screening it was 'Fly Me to the Moon' which had a decent crowd. The number of people attending this screening at 7:45pm on a Tuesday night? 3. Not the best indication of how many people are interested in this film. The set up of the film is that Ian McKellen plays Jimmy Erskine who is a theatre critic and when he gets sacked from the newspaper he works at, he hires an actress who he has routinely rubbished to seduce the editor of the newspaper so he can blackmail him and get his job back.

GOOD POINTS

Good Central Performances

Ian McKellen is always worth the price of admission alone and despite my issues with the characters, I thought he was fun to watch. Gemma Arterton was perfectly fine as Nina but I do wonder what she saw in the role that made her agree to do it, The thing about Nina was that she was a likeable person but she could have put up more of a fight against Erskine. Mark Strong is another actor that can always be relied upon to deliver a solid performance.

Looks Very Nice

This film looks very nice and I believed that we were in the 1930’s. It feels like a lovely world to be in even though this time period has been done to death but the cars are lovely to look at, the costumes are very nice  the interiors are all very much of the period but this is me struggling to find things to add in the good section,

Alfred Enoch (almost) steals the show

He’s not one of the biggest names in UK film or television but Alfred Enoch gives a very good performance as Tom who is the secretary/lover of Erskine. He appears and then disappears for a while before coming back to be the person that almost steals the show. He works very well with McKell

BAD POINTS

Too Slow

The film has a slow pace and normally I don’t mind that but I have to feel like it’s building up to something and the film took way too long to get to that. The film had a running time of around an hour and 40 minutes and yet I don’t think it was until the hour mark that the film felt like it was heading to something.

Average Plot

Aside from the slow pace, the plot is the biggest weakness. The idea of someone blacking their boss and using an adversary as an ally could have been a good idea but it’s sort of used as sub plot to deal with the fall out. Again if the plot had been structured better then it would have worked out better and if the film had been given maybe another 10-15 minutes then things might have worked out better. 

Rushed End

I read in the IMDB that they reshot the ending and it shows. In no time at all, Tom admits what he and Erskine have done and Erskine is in a prison cell writing a letter to Tom saying that he is being left out of it and gets to live in Erskine’s house and become his beneficiary. There is no time to take in the downfall of a figure like Erskine and thats a shame. Again if the plot were better then we would have got a more satisfying ending 

OVERALL

I wanted to like this movie more than I did. I think that if this film were on at Christmas on TV then I would say it was very good but I found myself wondering just what this was doing in a cinema. I thought that it was one of the more disappointing films that I have seen at the cinema this year.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)

This film is easily my most anticipated movie of the year. This is also the third part of my ‘Film coming out in 2024 where the previous instalment came out at least 20 years ago. The previous films in this series are Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F and Twisters. It was nice to see the screening quite full with about 70 people in for a 1pm Saturday showing. Easily the best attended film I have sat through this year.

36 years after Beetlejuice, we see Lydia who is now a drug dependant TV star who presents a paranormal show when she gets word that her father has died and takes her daughter Astrid back home and things go strange from there. 

THE GOOD POINTS

Michael Keaton

Keaton feels like he is having the time of his life playing Beetlejuice this time. Having watched Beetlejuice the day before seeing Beetlejuice Beetlejuice it was obviously the same performance with the same enthusiasm but it seems like he is having fun playing it this time. There are a couple of musical moments from Beetlejuice which made me chuckle the first time and in the church it was a surprise.

Other Central Performances

Winona Ryder manages to make the Lydia we see in this film the older version of the one we saw in Beetlejuice. The relationship between Ryder and Ortega is a nice one as its believable that there is friction between the two but at least there is a relationship that doesn't feel too dissimilar to the one between Lydia and Delia. Jenna Ortega was perfectly cast as Astrid and she's written in a way that makes her sceptical to her mother's day job but doesn't make her come across as an unlikeable.  Ortega probably got cast because of Tim Burton's involvement in 'Wednesday' but I still think that she's a very good actress and there were a couple of times when she smiled and I thought it was a weird to see her not have a dour look on her face but she manages to hold her own with memorable characters and also Beetlejuice.

Catherine O'Hara is very good as Delia. Like Ryder, she seems to be playing an older version of Delia instead of a new interpretation. She's not quite as vain as she was in the first film but she's changed enough to still seem like the original Delia. When she is introduced she is in some horrible looking art gallery so has managed to carve out a career which didn’t seem likely in the first one. Justin Theroux is ok as Rory but does seem to be just there as people are running around. He has things to do but compared to other characters, he doesn't seem quite as good. Monica Bellucci is the villain Delores and while she doesn't have much in the way of dialogue, she still comes across as a decent baddie and something to drive the story. Willem Dafoe is always great in whatever he is in. I think this is the third time I have seen in 2024 and each performance is really different to the other and equally as impressive. He is one of those actors that can deliver a great performance in whatever he is in.

Practical Effects

I had heard that Tim Burton wanted to use practical effects instead of relying on CGI. This is always a good way of making movies because practical effects more often than not age a lot better than CGI. Rewatching the first film, it’s amazing how the effects stand up. The effects used in this film are really good and even though there are special effects used they are kept to a minimum (I suspect) and the practical effects have their day in the spotlight. 

Seemed like they cared

Sometimes when a film comes back after a prolonged period of time, it’s easy to see the film as basically a cash grab. Trying to squeeze a few dollars/pounds out of a nostalgic crowd but whilst that might be the case with the executives at Warner Brothers, it does feel like everyone involved in the production cared about what they were doing. Tim Burton cared about this world and that is whilst there are enough references and nods to the previous film, things have been updated for a modern audience.

Wedding Scene

The whole wedding portion of the film is probably my favourite of the entire film.  There have been a few films recently where the film just sort of ends and doesn't have a big final confrontation but we definitely get that in this film with all the main characters converging on the church. The use of MacArthur Park was used in a superb way. 

Soundtrack

Its something that has stood out to me more a lot recently and even though the songs used is kept to a minimum they are good enough for me to buy the soundtrack. Always happy to hear Tragedy in any form, Right Hear Waiting by Richard Marx is funny when it comes out of Michael Keaton's mouth and as I just wrote, MacArhtur Park is the best song in the film. 

Right amount of Beetlejuice

One of my genuine worries going into this film was whether they would overuse Beetlejuice. He was only in the first one for about a quarter of an hour in a 92 minute film. I feared that they would stick him in way too much just to please a new audience but thankfully even though I think he is in it for way longer than was in the first film, it always feels like he is there for a reason. 

Charles (a.k.a The Elephant in the Room)

The absence of Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin was to be expected because of Alec Baldwin's legal troubles and although I though that there was a chance we could get a Davis cameo. It was always interesting to see how they would deal with the absence of Jeffrey Jones. They deal with it in a creative way. They killed him off but they could have just had a throw away line but instead of this they went to animation to show the death happen and then his body appears throughout the film. Not sure who did the voice but I thought the fact they incorporated it into the story like they did was a big plus point.

Beetle Baby

This felt like vintage Tim Burton. Its fair to say that Burton hasn't quite been on the sort of form that he was on in the 1980's and 1990's but he is back in this film and the peak of this is the Beetle baby (not sure what the correct term would be). It's genuinely a creepy baby and the way its introduced into the story is nightmare fuel. The return at the end was unexpected and also reminded me of how creepy the doll was. The unexpectedness along with the appearance works to make it just as effective.

Bob

R.I.P Bob. I was quite sad when Bob has his souled sucked away. Despite not having any words, he is a likeable character and I wish he would have survived to the end.

THE BAD POINTS

Some plot strands didn't work

So there was the Astrid falls for Jeremy and there is his plan to use Astrid's soul so that he can get back to the living after killing his parents and slipping which led to his death. This plot end abruptly like it didn't really matter. There was the Delores plot strand which whilst it did seem the most important because it featured in the trailers. There was Beetlejuice trying to marry Lydia again and Lydia trying to rescue Astrid before she boards the soul train. A lot going on and it could have been cleaned up a bit. Maybe just having Lydia trying to rescue Astrid would have been the best singular plot.

Pace slowed a bit

There was a part in the middle for about 10 minutes or so where I felt the film wasn't working for me and it was just because it felt like it was plodding a little bit. My mind did wonder a little bit but thankfully it wasn't too long before my attention returned to the film.

Film sort of ends.

Perhaps my biggest issue with the film is that the film sort of just ends. After Beetlejuice is defeated there is a rushed montage of events where Lydia and Astrid go travelling, Astrid falls for some guy playing Dracula and then has a baby which turns out to a fake out and then the credits start. The previous one has a upbeat clear cut ending, this ending suggests that there could be another one. I think that the film would have been better had they come up with a clear cut ending.

OVERALL

I was so happy when this film turned out to be as good as I hoped. I tried to keep my expectations in check but when Beetlejuice is one of your favourite films then its hard to keep expectations at a reasonable level. The film delivers something that might be tipping over to nostalgia but I don't care. I think that despite the few minor flaws with the film, this is a very good Tim Burton film and I hope there aren't any more because I am not sure that they could get away with it.

RATING - 4 out of 5