I don't know anyone who does not hold some affection for Pixar's "Finding Nemo". Colourful, exciting, funny and the introduction to the great character of Dory. Dory won so many peoples hearts back in 2003 with her love of life nature yet struggling with short term memory loss.
13 years later, and pretty much out of nowhere comes the sequel, Finding Dory.
Based a year on from the original, Nemo is now found and Dory has remained with the titular clown fish and his father, Marlin, although she seems to be having memories of her own family. This leads Dory to search out her lost lineage and embark on multiple adventures with new friends whilst Nemo and Marlin chase after her.
There is very little new to add to the mix with Finding Dory, it is still very colourful and full of laughs just not as many or that original. Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed our watery outing, it didn't fill me with the joy and wonder of the first expedition across the big blue.
Hank the septopus (an octopus with 7 legs) is a great addition to the cast and the three sea lions (especially Gerald) are a little treat, but it is the titular character that had the problems for me. Dory's repetitious behaviour and spoken lines just started to wear thin by the end of the film. In short doses in the original she was a great addition to the cast, but to hold pretty much the whole film on her own, it seemed to really slow down in parts. I know this film is mainly aimed at a younger generation, but as the original was release over a decade ago, the older, nostalgic cinema goer is also adding to the ticket sales.
I know I should not be expecting great things from this as Pixars run of sequels is not that great (excluding Toy Story 2) with Cars 2 and Monsters University, but Pixar is Pixar and the bar is set so high with them by their own doing.
Never get out of bed, never go to the window, never look behind the curtain...and that is where our story begins.....
Roald Dahl has always been a favourite author of mine, from an early age I remember my "granddad" George reading about his marvellous medicine, hearing about The Champion of the World and the tales of a Fantastic Mr Fox. I recently purchased a collection of all his works that I could read to my daughter and look forward to the days that we can read these stories together and hopefully she will have the same experiences.
The BFG always reminds me of George, he almost looks like him.
I felt awash with emotion and joy when the "Runt" first appeared on screen and hearing the immortal gobblefunked speech of the giant just brought back so many fond memories, but to counteract this, there was Sophie. I know child actors are a thing to take with a pinch of salt, but we really have been blessed in some recent films and TV shows (take the Netflix Original series "Stranger Times" for an example), Sophie was OK in parts, but the just downright awful in others. Even to the point were it took me right out of the nostalgic moment.
This is a nitpick but one that did not deter from the thoroughly enjoyable experience.
The BFG is wonderfully portrayed by Mark Rylance and the Giants of Giant Land have great personalities that really stand out from each other. It has been a while since I have read the original story, but it all came back to me and as I recall the film encapsulates it very well.
Some of the CGI is a little ropey when it comes down to the interactions between Sophie and the BFG, mainly when she is sat in his hand, but the characters models are just divine.
Possibly a little too scary to start with for younger children, but all this is resolved in the first few minutes and they will be soon laughing at all the whizzpopping
I saw the trailer for Nerve during one of my recent visits and it had no impact on me whatsoever. I liked the premise, but my interest had dissipated by the next trailer in the list. Then a few days later I caught some of the reviews and was intrigued. How can this run of the mill, uninteresting trailer bring forth a film that my go to critics are praising, this sparked my inner film buff and the ticket bought soon after.
With technology and online celebrity becoming vastly beyond it's means, the crux of Nerve seems very plausible and likely. Participants either choose to be a "Watcher" or a "Player" in an online truth or dare game without the truth element. Watchers film players and throw increasingly tense dares their way. The more risque the dare, the higher the price and and if you fail or bail you lose everything. How far would a regular girl go before enough is enough?
We spend the majority of the film with Vee, a shy girl who due to the loss of her brother a couple of years earlier does not seem to be getting the most out of her life, purely existing. The good thing is, Vee is actually a character that is likable. In most tween fiction films, the main protaganist is someone I cannot stand and therefore the consequences do not hold any threat because I just don't care. Recent examples are Bella (Twilight), Catniss (Hunger Games) and due to this I avoided such films as The Maze Runner series or Divergent franchise. With Vee being a likable and endearing character, it makes all the difference.
With only a short run time, Nerve starts pretty quickly and is over with before you start to pick holes. There are some enjoyable moments that make the journey to number 1 a much more engaging route. The ending for me was a little flat and unfortunately predictable, I liked were it was going and then it took the easy way out, but I am sure this is the way the book it is based on ended so little extra they could do there.
The side characters are there to add a little extra tension to the running, but they are far too generic to care about. Thankfully, after the opening scenes we spend little time with them. Dave Franco as Ian is well played, a "Player" that Vee gets attached to with something hidden in his history.
Easily something I could watch again when it eventually appears on some streaming service and one I can recommend with a cold beer, glass of wine and a duvet
I saw the YouTube sensation that is "Lights Out" a couple of years ago, thankfully in a well lit office early in the day. That 3 minute short was truly terrifying. Created on a very, very tiny budget but managing to capture the fears of a lonely woman going to bed with little noises freaking her out until the climatic finale. It had a massive impact on me and one that still lasts to this day. Prior to the release of this film, it would be one that I would always recommend a watch to for any horror aficionado.
I have put the video here for anyone that is interested....
When I saw the trailer for this, just after the new Blair Witch trailer....really?....I thought, "surely 3 minutes was enough to convey the message of the film, can it be dragged out to a 80 minute movie?"
I was almost expecting the film to start with the original, like Pixar always have a short animation at the start of their films, I was wondering if this would be the same, unfortunately not. This would have proven that 3 minutes and little to no budget can achieve pretty much the same as dragging it out for another 77 minutes.
Now don't get me wrong, there are some genuine scary moments that really flare up the goosebumps in the extended version and thankfully it never seems to slow down for the whole run time unlike recent horror films, but there is not much you can do with this which is why the short works so well.
The fact that Diana can appear literally anywhere in the shadows is a haunting notion, nowhere is safe whilst always being nerving and ominous, and with the character being physically there instead of a CGI cartoon character the added tension was noted.
As far as a horror movie, Lights Out is enjoyable, scary in parts and with decent pace, but I still feel that the 4 minute version achieves a lot more than this big budget version. I hope this is not a new venture for James Wan scouring youtube channels for his next ideas.
Is there any real differentiation between a Jason Statham film since Snatch? I hadn't seen the original "The Mechanic" and noticed that it was on Netflix, so a couple of days before I thought I would catch up on the next Stath-franchise. I then received a new thread called, "Because you watched The Mechanic", these films were...Transporter, Transporter 3, Hummingbird, War, Safe, Blitz, Wild Card. All these films have the same premise, Mr Statham has really been type cast since his initial role as Frank Martin, The Driver.
The Mechanic, although a fun 90 minutes, was nothing new and original but still something that easily whiles away the early hours whilst feeding a baby (this was how I watched it anyway), so my expectations were pretty low for Arthur Bishop's next outing. Unfortunately, I hadn't lowered them enough for the disaster that I was about to see.
It seems there were two separate films at work here, two generic Jason Statham action romps just merged them into one mishmash of a film. The plot was incoherent, the run time of the film (although short) seemed to drag as nothing really happened on screen that engaged, even Statham seemed very bored with it all. Jessica Alba, as lovely as she is, seemed to be there for no real reason at all and for most of it, I don't think she was. The bad guy was so 80's Bond villain-esque that it just seemed so generic.
In my review of Jason Bourne, I commented that the original films changed the dynamic of the Action/Adventure film and subsequently the for next 10 years the genre seemed to take a formulaic route. It seems that Jason Statham films have become stuck in a rut, but that rut is somewhere still in the late 90's.
I know that until we see a return to form of Turkish or Bacon from Mr Statham, I will resort to late night feed entertainment from Mr Generic rather than a visit to the cinema.
