Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) Review

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the most anticipated movie of 2015. It is the beginning of the franchise's third trilogy, and tells a new story in the universe of Star Wars. It maintains the old and gritty style of the original trilogy; there's very little CGI and much of the scenery and fighting looks old fashioned and authentic. This appeals to old fans of Star Wars and makes it aesthetically unique in a time when CGI saturated films are a dime a dozen.

I was concerned about the old cast returning. Last summer's Jurassic World created a new story for a new generation, as the story is what people come to see. I feared that The Force Awakens would fail to create that story by simply paying homage to the original cast. It was actually all balanced really well. The new cast (Finn, Rey and BB8) stole the show and told a wonderful new story, while the old cast were blended in and given due homage while still being kept relevant to the story, apart from Leia maybe.

The acting was superb, particularly from John Boyega, Daisy Ridley and Adam Driver. They're a young and relatively unknown cast, and I can't help but feel that these actors will reprise their roles for another trilogy in thirty years, because this film cements Star Wars as the number one franchise in the film industry. The story is great as well; it doesn't feel thrown together for the sake of the film, like I thought it would. It's engaging and balances action and emotion almost perfectly.

BB8 symbolises this film really well; it's old fashioned but it's also new and original. He is a great mascot, and he'll spearhead the merchandising to further increase the profits that The Force Awakens makes. The original trilogy finished up just over thirty years ago, and that means that people who grew up on Star Wars can now bring their kids to see the new ones. There's something really satisfying about that, and it's something that will likely continue for generations.

I'm not a huge fan of Star Wars, but I watched it and enjoyed it from start to finish because it's so accessible to fans and non-fans. They have blown their market wide open and in the process, made an excellent film. Believe everything you hear.

6/7

The Good Dinosaur (2015) Review

The Good Dinosaur is Pixar's latest film, which tells the story of Arlo the dinosaur finding his way back home with the help of his dog-like human friend, Spot. The incredibly realistic scenery steals the show throughout the film, and the caricature dinosaurs and human almost become uninteresting in front of the background, as seen in the photo above. Pixar have spearheaded the animation industry since the release of Toy Story in 1995, and they continue to showcase the evolution of animation. The main problem in terms of animation is the blandness of the dinosaurs. 

This story of the protagonist trying to find their way home has been done to death by Pixar. It's the plot of all three Toy Story films, Finding Nemo and most recently, Inside Out, which was released just five months ago. The audience knows they're going to get there, so any threat to the character not getting home just feels formulated. Emotional moments in this movie feel formulated as well, probably due to the characters not really warranting empathy. 

The poor timing of the release has plagued The Good Dinosaur and prevented it from following the natural development of a Pixar film's release. It's partly their own fault, as it's their second original release this year. They didn't release any film last year, and this film was scheduled to be released last year. While I understand that rushing a release does more harm than good, they should have postponed it until next year, as they are releasing a Finding Nemo sequel next year, but no original films. We've already seen a dinosaur film this year in Jurassic World, and The Good Dinosaur has been release three weeks before the highly anticipated Star Wars: The Force Awakens. All of these aspects combined has made for a very underwhelming release of this film, and that is reflected in the box office earnings. It will likely lose money, and that's a first for Pixar.

Pixar create great protagonists, and they make great antagonists to counteract them. At first glance, The Good Dinosaur doesn't have an antagonist but after thought, it has one of the best antagonists of any Pixar film; nature itself. Nature takes Arlo away from home, and does things that if done by a character, would be unforgivable. Nature is relentless, and yet the audience (and Arlo) can't help but admire its beauty. Nature is treated like a character, and this was executed really well. 

There are some redeeming qualities, and Pixar will probably never make a bad film, but this was nowhere near their high standard. A higher quality of characters and a better timed release would have made this film successful, and hopefully the company will learn some important lessons from this rather than begin to fear the risk of original films. 

3/7

Krampus (2015) Review

Krampus is this year's biggest Christmas themed horror movie. It follows the story of a family who are burdened by the company of their relatives for Christmas, and then further burdened by the company of Krampus, who is described as Santa's shadow. The director Michael Dougherty made Trick 'r Treat in 2008 (which was a great film) and following the financial success of Krampus, Trick 'r Treat 2 has been given the green light. The problem is that that's probably the best thing about this film. The entire story seemed forced and rushed from beginning to end. 

It starts out with the feeling of a festive comedy film and stays that way for while, but gets dark very suddenly. Horror movies generally have jokes and comic moments, and that's fine, but they were all crammed in at the start here, and then it became all action. A transition would have been better, or blend of both horror and comedy throughout. It seemed to get confused in between. The majority of the cast have made careers in comedy so it was a bit unusual watching them all play serious roles for the second half of the film. I didn't need to see David Koechner play the same character he plays in everything he's in, it felt like he was just there to fill that Christmas/comedy stereotypical uncle role. The rest of the cast were okay, but again, the film probably could have benefited from a more serious cast or a better dispersal of jokes. That said, the funny bits were funny.

It's difficult to not compare this with Trick 'r Treat because they're both themed and in the same vein. What stands out most about Trick 'r Treat is that it's fun and really captures that Halloween aesthetic. Krampus doesn't really capture the Christmas aesthetic at all (and so many other films do) so it won't stand out as a Christmas film, whereas Trick 'r Treat most definitely stands out as a Halloween film. Another problem is that it's not that fun. It tries to be but it's not. It turns into a survivor film in the final third, and on top of it being confused between horror and comedy, it becomes a little bit of a thriller too. The story trips over itself on too many occasions for it to be an engaging film.

This film has a monster, and in that monster they have an rare opportunity to create an iconic Christmas symbol, like the Mogwai from Gremlins. Gremlins was so successful for many reasons, but one of the big reasons was that it had a mascot. Krampus really didn't capitalize on this, and missed a huge opportunity to create a modern horror classic. You don't get a good view of the monster for much of the film, but when you do it looks awful. The story is derived from old Austro-Bavarian folklore, and there are many drawings and depictions of the monster available. We know that Michael Dougherty can execute this; look at Sam from Trick 'r Treat. I really can't understand why he hasn't attempted something similar here.

Overall, Dougherty had the right intentions but everything was executed poorly. It's a watchable and somewhat enjoyable film but fails to break any new ground.

3/7

Bridge of Spies (2015) Review

Bridge of Spies is Steven Spielberg's latest work, which follows Tom Hanks through a Cold War era story. He plays James Donovan, an American legal attourney who is roped into a hostage trade with the Soviet Union involving his client. Like any Spielberg film, it is a great drama with plenty of emotional highs and lows. It involves all the Spielberg elements; a good score, a coherent script (written by the Coen brothers), actors chosen for their suitability and talent rather than celebrity status and of course wonderful cinematography. It stands as a testament to Spielberg's mastered skill, and rightly so.

But it gets a little too patriotic at times. The story is obviously told from the American side and more than once, the treatment of American soldiers in Russia is compared to the treament of Russian soldiers in America. Neither are accurate, probably, and it's clearly just American bias in order to dramatize the story. But it is an American movie made for an American audience, so I shouldn't have expected any less.

John Williams was supposed to write the score for Bridge of Spies, but he fell sick before doing it. Thomas Newman is truly the next best thing in the film scoring industry, and he proved that with this soundtrack. I've been listening to it on YouTube ever since I saw the film. Unfortunately, John Williams doesn't have many years left, so Thomas Newman would be a wonderful permanent replacement for Spielberg films, as the score is always a hugely important part of his films.

The story is definitely engaging throughout, but some parts fall away. Frederic Pryor becomes an important part of the finale, but we only see five minutes of his back story, so it is hard to sympathise with him, whereas we see much of the other involved characters and can sympathise with them much easier. It is based on a true story, and while dramatised for the purpose of storytelling, some parts are inaccurate. Upon further reading, James Donovan was actually quite involved in intelligence before this event, but the films depicts him as misplaced among the event. It's something I can look past, but I would have preferred a truer depiction of the story.

That said, it's right up there with Lincoln to show that Spielberg is still in top form in the final third of his career. He has that magic ability to make you feel happy and sad at the same time in the final stages of the film. Even though I've pointed out faults, everything else was close to perfect. The acting was brilliant especially the chemistry between Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance. And it has replay value, it's certainly a film a will watch again.

6/7

The Walk (2015) Review

The Walk follows the story of Philippe Petit and his dream to walk a wire between the Twin Towers in New York. It begins in Paris where he discovers his love for walking the wire, and ends in New York where his dream is realised. For anyone who has seen the documentary Man On Wire, this is a story we've seen already, but in a different form. However, Joseph Gordon-Levitt narrates the story as it happens, making it not all that different from the documentary.

At the beginning, the story sort of stumbles over itself; he was a teenager at the beginning, then we see flashbacks of him as a kid, and then he's an adult. It wasn't very coherent, it would have made much more sense to show it chronologically. But after the first thirty minutes, it stays on track quite well. I feared that the film would memorialize the Twin Towers which would distract the story, but thankfully it didn't do that.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Phillipe Petit very well. Petit actually taught JGL how to walk the wire prior to filming, so he also got to learn Petit's characteristics, which he picked up on well. The supporting cast are also great. Ben Kinglsey and Charlotte Le Bon stand out, but no one gave a bad performance and the characters were all very well written.

I had heard a lot of talk about the height combined with the 3D effect making people nauseous, and I was quite worried about experiencing vertigo but it didn't bother me at all. Robert Zemeckis said in an interview that he wanted people to feel how high up Petit was, he wanted to put the audience on the wire with him. He accomplished that, you do feel high up but it's a different feeling to standing at the edge of a cliff. Perhaps people who fear heights may have issues.

The way in which The Walk differs from the documentary is that it's much more dramatic rather than informative, but that's what a feature film based on a true story is set out to do. Robert Zemeckis has a track record of making endearing drama films, something that is hard to come by these days. Stephen Spielberg did it in the 1980s, and not many big directors do it any more. What we have in place of accessible drama is Superhero films.

Zemeckis' films like Cast Away and Forrest Gump are accessible to children without being children's films, and I think that is his goal for every movie he makes. It makes his films memorable and unique, and this film fits right in to that category. This is the month that Marty McFly and Doc Brown travel to in the future in Zemeckis' own Back to the Future part II (1989), and it's great to see that he's still around and making a great film to mark the month.

5/7

The Martian (2015) Review

The Martian is Ridley Scott's latest science fiction film. A team of astronauts who have landed on Mars prepare to evacuate the planet as a storm threatens to destroy the ship that offers their only way home. Astronaut and botanist Mark Watney gets lost in the storm, and the crew are forced to leave without him. He's presumed dead, but we quickly find out that he's not. The film takes the audience through a process of him trying to survive on Mars by any means necessary.

It's really dense. It's a long film at 141 minutes and a lot happens in that space of time. It feels like some parts were shortened and not explained in order to make the film not run over three hours, which could be perceived as a good or bad thing. Good if you haven't much interest in the science part of science fiction and want to enjoy the story and visuals. Bad if you do have an interest in astronomy. I don't have a huge interest in astronomy and I'm sure the film was as accurate as possible, but I found myself asking questions about why certain things were happening.

And maybe that's okay. It makes the film really accessible to a wide audience. Last year's Interstellar was a very serious science fiction film that needed a lot of attention. The Martian is not like that at all. It offers a wonderful story without taking itself too seriously. There are funny bits, there are sad bits and there are happy bits. And the cast, especially Matt Damon, are really engaging and it's easy to feel the emotions that the characters feel.

The backup cast are extraordinary too though. There is a team of Nasa employees trying to interact with Mark Watney, and their story on Earth develops as the film goes on. The team of Astronauts on the way home also have involvement and we witess their character development too. We see great depth of character with the astronauts as they talk to their families back home and interact with one another. When I was going in, I worried that it would just be one character in one place for the entire film in order to make the audience feel as trapped as the character. This can be effective and memorable, but not particularly enjoyable. It worked well in 127 Hours (2010) and The Man From Earth (2007), but was not something I looked forward to in this film. So I was glad to watch three stories unfold and blend in to one.

The visuals from the scenes on Mars were spectacular. The landscape surrounded his settlement in the form of mountains, and that made the character seem not just alone, but imprisoned. The spacecraft that the astronaut crew travel on is classic Ridley Scott. It has kitchens and living areas that are reminiscent of the spacecraft in Alien. His science fiction films seem to have a motif that living in space becomes normal, and spacecrafts resemble houses. The space centre on Earth also had a lot of atmosphere and intensity.

Ridley Scott has had quite a hit or miss career. He has made Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator which all received Oscar nominations and won some as well. But he has produced some poor films this century such as Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood and Prometheus. From my experience with Ridley Scott films, I feel that he tends to care more about visuals, aesthetics and impressive sets, and doesn't give very much attention to the story and the characters. But Ridley Scott has very few films left to make, and it's brilliant to see him add another great film to his legacy. This film will be remembered as a classic not only for its stunning visuals, but for the compelling story it has to tell.

5/7

Dismembering Christmas (2015) Review

Two years I watched a film called Don't go to the Reunion made by a company called Slasher Studios. It was a Kickstarter project so I watched it with a pinch of salt and enjoyed it for what it was. Today I watched their second feature length film, Dismembering Christmas, with that same pinch of salt, but it turns out I didn't need it. The overall production has massively improved, and while the previous film was good for an amateur film, this one feels so much bigger and better. It doesn't feel amateur at all, it's actually hard to believe it was a Kickstarter funder project with a low budget.

The characters are interesting and the kills are extremely creative and fun. When those two things are applied to a standard slasher formula, it's a recipe for a good film. Mrs. Wallace reminds me of Annie Wilkes, she has that same eery presence about her. The bunch of friends in the house have good relations and we understand their connections without the dialogue being aimed too obviously at the audience. The story was well paced and the scenes were cohesive. 

In terms of direction and cinematography, I was blown away. Some of the shots were really impressive, particularly where the camera follows characters around the house. The kills are memorable thanks to strong imagery that is created, and of course, the whole film feels so Christmassy. They really nailed that aspect, which was important because many seasonal films can forget to include the all important seasonal presence. I'm certainly going to watch it again before Christmas. 

My only complaint is that it's quite short at 66 minutes. I understand there were limits due to the small budget, but an extra scene developing the character of Mrs. Wallace would have pushed Dismembering Christmas that extra step further. But on the overall, I'm massively impressed and happy with the finished product. I said that I couldn't wait to see what they did after their first film and they absolutely knocked it out of the park, so I'll repeat myself; I can't wait to see what they do next. A Halloween themed film next maybe?

5/7

Sinister 2 (2015) Review

Sinister 2 tells the story of a mother and her two sons running from the kids' father who is looking for custody of them. They live in a rural American farm house where they hope not to be found. We quickly learn that the house is possessed by Bughuul and one of the sons is being led to the basement by a ghost every night and shown old film reels of families being killed. The viewer is to understand that he is to kill his family next as the chain continues.

The premise of the film is good and interesting enough to hold the audience's attention for 97 minutes, but a list of things would have improved the quality of this film immensely. It would have been better as a standalone film, as it's not all that relevant to the first Sinister film. It would have been better without all of the paranormal parts, but that's probably just my opinion. And of course it's a product of Blumhouse, so jump scares dampened the otherwise sinister mood throughout (pun intended).

The cast performed well, all of the characters are interesting and engaging. The mother, played by Shannyn Sossaman gives a particularly strong performance. The director did his job extremely well, there are numerous wonderful visuals, particularly in the super 8 films shown to the kid and the part in the corn field (spoiler). He's a young director and managed to show off his skills well, but the film is not without its problems The story is okay but leaves the audience wanting more. The overall production is quite a let down, considering that the effort of all other parties is there.

I think it would be fair to say that there are a lot of strong points. The opening scene is good, the ending is good. But there are a lot of weak points too. When it needs to, it doesn't pack enough weight behind its punch, it just gives you a jump scare instead.

Blumhouse films always have the potential to be great. They have plenty of chances to take a risk, but time after time they play it safe. Unfriended was a big risk by Blumhouse and it paid off, I hope they can continue from that. But Sinister 2 is another safe horror film that could have been something more. It will make its money and a third instalment will probably be announced, but no new ground will be broken.

3/7

Inside Out (2015) Review

Pixar's new film Inside Out is their first release in two years and their first original release since Brave in 2012. Brave was a little bit out there for Pixar as they had never done a fairy tale before, and it didn't quite appeal to me like other Pixar films do. So for me, Inside Out is their first original film since Up in 2009. I loved growing up through the Pixar era as they brought such new and imaginative stories to the world of animation. In a time where remakes and sequels seem to be the biggest draw, Pixar were always against the wave in creating new stories while still being hugely successful. It's disappointing to see them develop multiple sequels now. A Good Dinosaur is another original Pixar film that will be released later this year (more about that later) but their schedule after that has sequels to Finding Nemo, Toy Story, The Incredibles and Cars. I feel like the company is selling its soul in order to make money.

But anyway, Inside Out itself is a great film. It involves all the qualities that every Pixar film has. The emotional highs and lows fluctuate perfectly and there are plenty of funny moments that you keep you laughing the whole time. There's no villain, and there's no need for one. The point of the film is to send a message; emotions work in different ways but all of them create a perfect balance. The story line might seem quite complex for youngsters, but Pixar know that that is only half of their audience. It's enjoyable for people of all ages, while never simplifying itself for the sake of being a children's movie. For those who can keep up, it teaches a really important lesson in how the brain works and even offers an explanation for bad and good moods. It has multiple classic Pixar easter eggs that are always fun to look out for, although they were much more subtle than previous films. 

Colour plays a big role throughout the film, as each colour represents an emotion. The inside of Riley's head is colourful while the real world is quite grey. The difference between the scenes inside Riley's head and the real world are great because it allows the two worlds to be interoperable without much confusion about which is which. The entire film might seem too complex for a childrens' story, and this particular task might have been an obstacle, but Pixar always know how to knock the ball right out of the park. 

My issue with Inside Out is the timing of release. Of course summer makes sense but they haven't released a film since June 2013. They used to release a film every summer, and 2014 marked the first time in eight years that they hadn't released a film in a calender, but they're releasing A Good Dinosaur in four months. That makes no sense. Why not release Inside Out in 2014? If it was a timing issue, why not push the whole schedule back and release A Good Dinosaur next summer? Two Pixar films in the space of four months might just be too much of a good thing, and while I'm happy to see another original film coming out, I think the timing is wrong.

However, this is a review of the film and not of the company, and the film ticks a lot of boxes. It's classic Pixar, it has plenty of replay value. These characters will be iconic in a few years just like Woody, Buzz, Mike and Sully. They create incredible characters who stay in the hearts of audiences young and old, and Joy and Sadness are no exception. This is a must see for all Pixar fans and general animation fans. Pixar have been spearheading the animation world since their inception and they are showing no signs of stopping.

6/7

Song of the Sea (2015) Review

Song of the Sea is an Irish animated film created by Cartoon Saloon based in Kilkenny. It was famously nominated for best animated film at the 87th Academy Awards ahead of the Lego Movie. The story is about two children from Donegal and they are brought to "the city" (Dublin) by their grandmother. The plot follows their journey back to their home as they pass through multiple tales of Irish folklore and discover that the stories that their mother told them before her death were true.

As an Irish person, I was extremely impressed with the portrayal of the Irish landscape and, in fact, the entire style of animation in general. In an age where CGI Animation films are a dime a dozen, it is refreshing to see an alternative form of animation being explored. It is such a unique and recognizable style that would give the Japanese a run for their money. Every frame feels like a work of art that you could hang on a wall. There was some really strong and memorable imagery in the shape of the islands and the seals popping their heads out of the water.

On the topic of memorability, the soundtrack was a really important aspect for this film (considering the name). The title track is a motif that runs throughout and I caught myself humming it long after the film had ended. In a film that is aimed at children and families, memorable songs are really important for the success of it, so it's great to see that they have hit the mark on this front. 

Since its inception, animation has been utilised for telling old childrens' stories in new ways. Old Irish folk tales have fallen behind in this regard as Japan and America have led the animating industry, although America have been telling European stories due to the lack of their own stories to tell. The Americans can't be trusted with anything Irish (because it would be riddled with leprechauns and shamrocks) so it's wonderful to see these Irish tales come to life from an Irish animated film. Mac Lir the Giant, faeries, selkies and Seanachaí feature in Song of the Sea, and this will hopefully bring relevance to these stories once again.

The film ticks all the boxes in terms of artwork, soundtrack and story, but the issue might be that the story is too complex for children to follow. It is aimed at children, and while I enjoyed it, it will probably be more difficult to engage with for the younger audience. They would be more likely to opt for Minions or Pixar's Inside Out, but Cartoon Saloon would have had to sacrifice some of its unique style to make it more enticing to that audience. 

On the overall, the film was massively enjoyable and deserved its Oscar nomination. I hope this film brings more success to Cartoon Saloon and allows them to create more feature films in the future.

5/7 

Jurassic World (2015) Review

Jurassic World is going to be the biggest film of the summer, and will compete with Star Wars for the biggest film of the year. Jurassic Park fans like myself have waited with bated breath for this film as it has been teased for the past five years (at least) and with that anticipation comes a huge responsibility to not disappoint. The original film holds a special place in many hearts as a childhood film, as do many Spielberg films, and even though he is still making films, Jurassic Park feels like his last true classic. It was really important for Jurassic World to avoid dwelling too much on the nostalgic factor. The truth about the Jurassic Park films is that the story does not need to follow certain people to keep fans interested, the concept itself is the headline and can be utilized with different characters. Director Colin Trevorrow made a great decision to not feature the old cast, and while there are multiple nods to the original, he does a wonderful job of creating a new atmosphere. 

The old cast of the original Star Wars will feature in the new film, and Harrison Ford was still playing Indiana Jones in 2008. Jurassic World could have so easily fallen victim to this trend, but thankfully it did not. Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard perform their leading roles excellently. Chris Pratt reminds me of a modern day Harrison Ford. He has a certain presence that brings a sense of importance to his role in the film. Another actor in this role probably would have made the entire film feel flat. Vincent D'Onofrio plays the bad guy really well, similar to his character in Daredevil. The only issue I have in terms of characters are the two kids. The story follows them and that allows the film to show off its attractions, but it was hard to care about them because I didn't have a reason to. The kids in Jurassic Park were much more integrated into the story and warranted empathy, but in this film I just wanted to see what happened with Claire and Owen. 

Product placement distracted the first hour of the film. I can recall eight brands I saw throughout. Trevorrow has insisted that the use of product placement is a satirical depiction of the corporate exploitation of popular entertainment, but that sounds like a poor excuse. If he really wanted to make such commentary, overexposing fake brands would have been much more effective. They should have focused on selling me Jurassic World, not Starbucks and Coca Cola. 

The plot of the film made sense aside from a few holes. It certainly didn't feel like it was written just for the sake of churning out another franchise film, and the different stories intertwined really well to create an exemplary climax. My main issue in terms of the plot (possible spoilers) is why the Velociraptors attacked Owen at the start but then didn't attack him later when they had the chance. The circumstances didn't change. Such issues didn't affect my overall enjoyment of the film though.

On a final note, this film isn't as quotable as the original film, and the imagery isn't quite as memorable but it comes pretty close. A lot of care was put into the production of Jurassic World and it certainly pays off. It is definitely worth watching whether you like the original or not, because it is a lot of fun. It is head and shoulders above the other two sequels and has set the standard for sequels to classic films. Star Wars, do your worst. 

5/7

Poltergeist (2015) Review

The Poltergeist remake is the latest addition to a quickly expanding group of poor and unimaginative horror remakes. It's hard to look at any remake as a standalone film without making comparisons to the original. It would have been more exciting to see a sequel years on from the original, like The Town that Dreaded Sundown (2014) and Scream 4 (2010). Maybe we could have seen Carol Ann grown up with kids of her own and seeing the story develop in that way. But no, this 2015 remake regurgitates the exact same story from the first but in a contemporary setting. 

Modern aspects add nothing to the film. Mobile phones, drones, and GPS systems are used and the only way they actually contribute to the story is that we get to see inside the other world as a camera is flown in on a drone. Do we really need to see what it looks like where the child goes? It just looked like a CGI zombie movie. Some things are better left to the imagination. We don't see inside in the original because we don't need to. 

The original 1982 Poltergeist was written and produced by Steven Spielberg, and we can see that evidently in the qualities of the film. He describes E.T. the Extra Terrestrial (1982) as a suburban dream while Poltergeist (1982) was a suburban nightmare. We see a Reagan-era family growing up in American suburbs and it was probably easy to relate to that in 1982. The 2015 film fails to possess these same qualities as we see the struggling family move into a really big house. All of the character are difficult to engage with from the beginning. 

On the topic of qualities, there is some pretty poor CGI in the original, but it adds a sense of charm to it and makes it feel like an 80's classic. This obviously cannot be reproduced in the remake, but the CGI in place was just boring and annoying. This is going to be a problem with the new Ghostbusters film if it ever happens. On top of all this, jokes are recycled from the original film, and that might generate a laugh or two, but it still offers nothing new. It relies heavily on jump scares to make the film seem scary, but it only made it feel like a Blumhouse film. 

The evidence of lazy writing and general film making is so clear throughout this film. The original can't be surpassed so why bother making a remake? It's a lazy method of generating money for movie studios. Original films like It Follows and Unfriended have been released this year and that's really exciting to see, but the Poltergeist remake is a setback for the horror genre. If anything good can come from it, remakes might stop getting made. Revisit the original at home instead of wasting your money on this film.

Oh, and a blue flatscreen has nothing on a static television set, but I guess that epitomizes this remake.

1/7 

Tomorrowland: A World Beyond (2015) Review

Before I begin to talk about Tomorrowland, it is probably important to note that I am a huge fan of Disney theme parks. I love all of the old documentaries about Walt Disney's vision of Tomorrow, his plans for Epcot (a utopian city in Walt Disney World that people could actually live in, but never got built) and the general retro-futuristic idea of the future that existed in the 1960s. Tomorrowland is an area in Disneyland theme parks that is modelled to that 1960's concept, and this film is based on this same idea.

I think it's important to realise that these retro-futuristic ideas that existed during the space age are not naive or even tongue-in-cheek, but they actually reflect the values of the people who lived in that era. Space missions were being launched and people honestly believed that jet-packs and robots were not too far away. Tomorrowland is a special place because it is built with those honest values and is not a replica. This film showcases these values too, but it does replicate them, naturally. It makes a solid comparison between the optimistic view of the future then and the pessimistic view now, and how that view can have a negative affect on society. David Nix (Hugh Laurie) turns the camera back to us in a memorable scene and asks us what we're doing to make the world a better place.

The film makes more social commentary in this regard as we see this future utopia in ruins, maybe suggesting that what could have been has been ruined by society's negative mindset. Director Brad Bird creates wonderful visual imagery to portray the utopian Tomorrowland that could exist. The main problem for this film is the confusing story line. It is hard to follow, not because it is cleverly complex, but because it just doesn't really make much sense. A lot of questions go unanswered and the ending feels a little bit lacklustre. The whole idea has a lot of potential but it doesn't hit hard enough when it needed to.

In terms of performances, all three of the main characters (George Clooney, Britt Robertson, Raffey Cassidy) perform their roles nicely and are well cast. Clooney's character is engaging and probably relatable for people that grew up in the 60's era. What this film lacks is a real antagonist. Instead, we have half of one who doesn't seem too evil and doesn't even really know what he's doing wrong. A real sense of evil would have added so much more depth to the story line and lifted some of the confusion.

Without spoiling the film, badges are given to those who have the ability to make the world a better place. The audience is confronted with another reflection of themselves. Do I get a badge? Do I deserve a badge? The film succeeds in terms of trying to restore and reproduce those old values and inspire the audience to have a positive outlook, but fails in terms of telling a story. It was an enjoyable film nonetheless and the visuals were wonderful throughout, but I'm not quite sure who the target audience is. It is supposed to be a family film but it is too complex for children and there are too many childish jokes for adults.

4/7