REVIEW: Great Expectations

Another retelling of the classic by Charles Dickens.

The thing is, you have to ask yourself, how many times can you be told the exact same story and be entertained? It seems like one more time isn't a complete waste of time.

Great Expectations sticks very rigidly to the original Charles Dickens story, so if you are familiar with the novel then the film isn't anything radically different. It starts with a young Pip (Toby Irvine) who helps an escaped prisoner, Magwitch (Ralph Fiennes). Magwitch is soon caught and sent back to the prisoner ship from which he escaped. Pip is then sought out by Mr Jaggers (Robbie Coltrane) as the local Miss Havisham (Helena Bonham Carter) wants a new playmate for her adopted daughter, young Estella (Helena Barlow). Pip grows up loving Estella and dreams of becoming a true gentleman. His prayers are answered when he grows up, and Pip (now played by Jeremy Irvine) receives and inheritance from an unknown benefactor. He moves to London to live his dream of being a gentleman. However, something is missing from his life, and that is his love for Estella (now played by Holliday Grainger) who has been brought up by Miss Havisham to be cold-hearted and to hate all men, as Havisham herself was jilted at the alter. As Pip starts to find out who his mysterious benefactor is, his life of luxury starts to unravel around him.

Now, I will admit straight away that I haven't seen any of the other versions of Great Expectations, except the 1946 classic version directed by David Lean. I guess you could argue then that I haven't been desensitised to the story by Charles Dickens because I've seen it so many times. However, the charm with this retelling of the story isn't with the story itself, but the way in which it is told.

The first thing that stands out by a mile is the direction by Mike Newell and the cinematography by John Mathieson. The Kentish countryside is beautifully shot through the thick mists and creaking ironwork at Joe's (Jason Flemying) blacksmith shop. The tension was just oozing from the screen when Pip was having to go behind Joe and Mrs. Joe's backs (Sally Hawkins) to try and feed Magwitch. While the London sets didn't hit anywhere near the beauty and tense Kentish countryside, it certainly felt authentic and claustrophobic as Pip is pushed and shoved when he finds his way to his new lodgings.

Then there's Miss Havisham, arguably the film's biggest attraction beyond the budding relatioship between Pip and Estella. Helena Bonham Carter seems like the perfect person to bring the jilted and bitter character to the screen, because let's face it, she's pretty good at playing unhinged characters. And Bonham Carter doesn't disappoint as she grabs the role with both hands and really gives it everything. She's creepy as she tells the young children to come close to her, so she can tell them a secret, only to cover them in her rotten vail to bring them in even closer. She then turns it to childlike shock and innocence when the fire catches her decaying wedding dress and she is engulfed in flames.

However, while Bonham Carter is excellent within the role, it is Pip and Estella and their love/hate for each other that keeps the film rolling. While others may disagree, I thought that Grainger's portrayal as the twisted and manipulated Estella was almost spot-on. The inner turmoil she faces when confronted with her own feelings for Pip when she has been promised to another man by Miss Havisham is heart-wrenching. The only thing that let's the side down is Irvine's portrayal of Pip, as he seems a bit wooden and emotionless in comparison. While he does a standard job, it just doesn't seem enough in comparison to Grainger.

So, if you are a fan of the traditional Dickens' tale, then this version of Great Expectations is pretty solid in what you should be expecting. The cinematography is pretty top-notch in comparison to how some other previous versions look and most of the acting is spot on. The only thing that arguably lets it down is that the third act becomes a little confusing as it tries to cram in every single one of Dickens' plot twists and turns from the original novel.

**** / *****

REVIEW: Alex Cross

Literature to film adaptions have always been hot property. It's pretty much a given that the film will have a built in fan base from the books, but will also hopefully bring in more fans, with the potential for merchandise being quite high (an easy one being to rebrand the book as a "movie tie-in edition").

However, it's never going to be an easy ride to please existing fans and new ones. The old fans want to see a film version of the book they have read, whereas the new fans want action, violence and romance (aka. the basics). Just have a look at One For The Money for an example of how to get it drastically wrong.

Alex Cross is a a film based on a series of books by James Patterson. A series of books - KERCHING! The film follows a homicide detective, Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) who lives a happy life in Detroit with his wife, Maria (Carmen Ejogo), their children and thier Grandmother, Nana Mama (Cicely Tyson). Lead by Richard Brookwell (John C. McGinley), his long standing partner since school, Tommy Kane (Edward Burns) and their colleague, Monica Ashe (Rachel Nichols), the team soon start investigating some terrible torture murders. The murderer is soon nicknamed Picasso (Matthew Fox), because he keeps leaving drawings of his victims behind with clues as to who is going to be next. They soon make a link that the murders are revolving around German Businessman, Erich Nunmacher (Werner Daehn) and billionaire CEO, Leon Mercier (Jean Reno) and plans to attack them at a public conference. When the Picasso murders turn personal against Cross and his partner Kane, they vow to hunt down and kill the Picasso killer, even if it means putting their own lives on the line.

Alex Cross is a film that barely makes any kind of impact. I haven't read the original source material, but doing a slight bit of research online reveals how loosely the film is actually related to the book series and how many changes the filmmakers actually made makes me think that this is a film version in name only. If you have to change character names and motives for their actions, then why not make your own film? Having said that, the plot for this film felt more like an idea for a TV pilot rather than a film. There was hardly any big set pieces that set this film out from small screen adaptations (such as 24 or Dexter) and most of the conflict came from the characters.

Which brings me onto my next point, the casting for this film was completely off. Tyler Perry felt like he was being forced to do this film and had zero chemistry with his on-screen wife, Carmen Ejogo or his life-long partner, Edward Burns. It was like they barely knew each other, yet Perry's character was supposed to be having his third child with his wife and had known his work partner since they were at school together. When Perry and Burns were exchanging lifelong memories in the many downtime moments in the film, it felt like they were just going through the motions of the words written in the script rather than having any emotional investment. I guess it just made it so obvious after seeing End of Watch, a film which has many flaws of its own but got the on-screen chemistry of its leads spot on.

Which brings me onto my next point, for an action/thriller film there were certainly plenty of boring moments. It felt like every single scene was entered too early, providing the audience with too much bogged down dialogue which didn't push the plot or characters forward. Banter in the car between Perry and Burns in the car before they got to the first Picasso crime scene was boring and dull. Any date nights and dialogue between Perry and Ejogo were boring and lacked any spark. The woman was pregnant for crying out loud, yet Perry didn't seem to have much of a reaction (I know it was going to be his third child with her, but still!)

Finally, the worst point of Alex Cross was the fact that when the film finally did pick up in the third act, the camera work was so damn shaky that you could literally see nothing that was happening. I'm all for shaky, hand-held camera work when necessary - heck, I could even stand a bit of the Bourne Identity's most shaky moments - but Alex Cross was so shaky that it was almost like it was trying to hide some bad production values or direction. With an ending reminiscent of Beyonce's so-bad-its-good thriller Obsessed, where the villain is left hanging from a damaged ceiling, not even then could it rack up the tension. Which is strange, because at the mid-point of the film, two successive events happen so quickly that it was easy for the film to create an atmosphere of "anything could literally happen" and "anyone could die at any minute". However, the third act is so paint-by-numbers that this is quickly diminished.

So, Alex Cross is a film that lies to its audience in the first instance by promising them an adaption of a book series, but actually delivers something else. It then disappoints its audience by being a lacklustre action film and a boring thriller film. It just fails on all accounts.

* / *****

REVIEW: End of Watch

Found footage. It's everywhere. It's infecting cinemas and the films that are being shown in them.

It was revolutionary back in the 1990s, (namely with The Blair Witch Project) but now it seriously comes off as "old hat" and a hinderance to the story being told.

Who seriously records that much? How many different people carry cameras at the same time? And more importantly, who edits this 'found footage' into a coherent film?

End of Watch doesn't dodge these problems, but hits them head-on. Unfortunately, it only poses a problem for the opening of the film as the story being told and the characters being presented to us are engaging enough to forget that we are watching a found footage film.

End of Watch follows two buddy cops, Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Peña) who are back patrolling Los Angeles' mean streets after a blip involving a shooting and their names having to be cleared. The two cops are pretty much the stereotype cut-outs that we expect - Taylor being the cocky joker with the new budding relationship with Janet (Anna Kendrick), whereas Zavala is the settled married man, who has a baby on the way with his wife, Gabby (Natalie Martinez). It's when Taylor and Zavala carry out a random money/guns bust, they are targeted to be killed by the largely unseen cartel leader.

That's largely it, because the film largely focuses on Taylor and Zavala's relationship as the buddy around together on every day routine call-outs, including missing children, drugs busts and house fires. Oh, if the stereotypes of Taylor and Zavala weren't enough, there is also the mean, controlling Sarge (Frank Grillo), the annoying cop who plays by the book, Van Hauser (David Harbour), the tough female buddy duo Orozco (America Ferrera) and Davis (Cody Horn) and finally the rookie cop who really isn't cut-out for the job, Sook (Kristy Wu). Fortunately though, the film decides to largely gloss over the supporting characters as the film gives plenty of screen time to Gyllenhaal and Peña to truly blossom as characters and make us care for them as 'brothers', much like they see each other.

Pre-screen press material has hinted at the amount of time that Gyllenhaal and Peña spent with the real LAPD and in each others company to build a relationship and it's certainly paid off. Their friendship is effortless on screen - when they laugh and joke about each others relationships, it's like they actually have been friends for years and when they go through pain/heartache, they are there for each other like true brothers.

Unfortunately, for everything the film and the filmmakers get right with Gyllenhaal and Peña's on-screen relationship, they completely mess up with the cartel gang that are set to kill our protagonists. Demon (Richard Cabral), Wicked (Diamonique), Big Evil (Maurice Compte), La La (Yahira Garcia) and Peanut (Alvin Norman) are completely underdeveloped. They are introduced strongly enough, by gunning down and completely destroying a rival gangs barbecue and then hinted at some long standing ties with the LAPD, but then they practically disappear for the entire second act of the film. The threat to Taylor and Zavala is largely unseen and just hinted at through clues from other members of the LAPD and a weird night-vision sight on the Cartel boss who gives the order to kill Taylor and Zavala. Then, when the Cartel cronies are brought back into the film for the third act, they are caricatures of the characters that they were introduced as - shouting each other down with inane dialogue about having to come up with a 'plan' to kill the cops, calling each other and other people "Puta" a lot and then finally throwing in enough swearing, that frankly, a person who suffers with tourettes would be ashamed of. When the gang deliver the final blow of the third act, it frankly falls a little bit flat as they just aren't the strong antagonists that the film needs them to be.

Secondly, the direction and filming style from David Ayer was nauseating at times. I get the hand-held style of the film was meant to be hand-held, but it's established that there are three cameras (two that are attached to Taylor and Zavala's uniforms and then one hand-held one), but the editing of the film suggests that they were surrounded by about 10 cameras. It made the whole point of the film being found-footage to be redundant. If Ayer had decided to keep the three gritty hand-held cameras but then juxtapose them against some beautifully shot cinematography, it would have arguably been more effective. Instead, we get shaky camera work that brings on bouts of motion sickness, because Ayer obviously thought that the hand-held style would bring a real sense to the film. But, it didn't.

So, for everything that End of Watch gets right, it arguably has something that equally brings it down. It's like Ayer focussed so much on getting the budding relationship between Gyllenhaal and Peña right, that he overlooked other aspects of the film.

*** / *****

REVIEW: Argo

Ben Affleck is on a mission. A mission to prove he is the next Clint Eastwood.

After having starred in such classics as Gigli and Jersey Girl... I mean, Good Will Hunting and Pearl Habour, he has recently been out to prove that he can also direct. After the interesting Gone Baby Gone and the fast-paced The Town, Affleck is now back with the intriguing political thriller, Argo.

Argo is set in 1979 when the American Embassy in Iran is stormed by Iranian Revolutionaries, because they want their ex-leader returned to them who has been granted exile by the United States. During the attack on the Embassy, six Americans manage to escape and hide out thanks to the Canadian Embassy Leader, Ken Taylor (Victor Garber). With no where to turn to and the rest of the workers at the American Embassy being taken hostage, it falls down to Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) who has the idea to pose as a Canadian film crew on a location scout, before sneaking the American Embassy workers out of the country. It's a tall order and requires help from Producer, Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and Make-Up Artist, John Chambers (John Goodman), as he is getting little help and support from the American Government.

First off, Argo is a well-made film, as Affleck proves once again that he can easily handle the camera from behind-the-scenes as well as acting in front of it. The film starts off at an immediate fast-pace, as it opens with the storming of the American Embassy and the escape of the six Americans, Bob Anders (Tate Donovan), Cora Lijek (Clea DuVall), Joe Stafford (Scoot McNairy), Lee Schatz (Rory Cochrane), Mark Lijeck (Christopher Denham) and Kathy Stafford (Kerry Biché). The threat from the Iranians is obvious and great as high flying arial shots show us the amount of Iranian Revolutionaries and how annoyed they are by the hiding of their ex-leader. Interestingly, the film also shows the dark side of the American leadership, as when they find out that six of their workers have escaped, they turn down the initial plans for their escape. However, I felt like this was an avenue that wasn't properly explored - it was easy for Affleck to show the Iranians in a bad light, but it would have made the film much more interesting and tense if his character, Mendez faced much more threat and disbelief from the American Government as well. I know the film is fact, as this may not have been factual, but hey... it's called artistic license!

Another strong point to the film is the cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto and production design by Sharon Seymour. The smoky interiors and the retro clothing and props all helped to set the mood and time period of the film without being too over-bearing. It was when the group of six undercover Americans and Mendez were creeping around the Iranian bazaar on a fake location scout, that cinematography and direction by Affleck really blended together so well - the dusty and bleak surroundings combined with the claustrophobic shot choices really helped amp up the tension to the maximum. In fact, most of the film's tension was really brought to the forefront of the story in the final act, when they were trying to escape Iran in the airport, which was all handled very well by Affleck and writer, Chris Terrio.

However, while Argo has a brilliant mixture of tension right at the beginning of the film and during the final act, it's surprisingly absent in the middle. There could have been some tense revelations into how the undercover American workers were hiding out in the Canadian Embassy (there was a slight glimmer of this when one of the women witnessed an execution right outside her window, but that was it) or even the conflicts that the American Government Officials were facing back at home (again, there was a glimmer of this when they were debating which plan to go with), but neither of them seemed to really go anywhere. I was ready to love this film, especially after Affleck's last outing, the brilliant The Town, but somehow it felt a little but underdeveloped - much like the crappy Sci-Fi flick they were blagging as their legitimate film script in the actual film.

However, the lack of tension during the middle of the film did allow for some much needed character development between Mendez, Siegel and Chambers as they planned their "fake hit". The finding of the worst film script, the meeting with the script agent to buy the script, the designing of the film poster and then the press release of the script read-through all helped secure these characters as a believable team and some biting jokes at the Hollywood film system! It's just a shame that the same amount of care wasn't given to the American Embassy workers stuck in Iran - it would have been worthwhile to devote some screen time to the group bonding together, as it would have helped amp the tension up even more when they were sneaking through the airport undercover at the end.

So, overall Argo is a brilliantly tense political thriller that is another step towards helping Ben Affleck prove he is the next generation of Clint Eastwood's, who can act and direct. While the film did feel like it lulled a little bit in the middle, the amazingly tense opening and finale more than made up for it. A complicated, political story well told...

**** / *****

REVIEW: Silent Hill: Revelation 3D

Films based on video games are rarely translated well. Horror films based on video games tend to do even worse.

Is this an opinion? Fact? It certainly seems more like the latter, as all we have to do is look at a film series like Resident Evil to see how silly the films can get. Having said that, the first Resident Evil was pretty decent, but not much like the games; It was the sequels that started to get really silly.

It's safe to say that the Silent Hill franchise seems to be going the same way as Resident Evil.

The film, Silent Hill: Revelation 3D follows Heather (Adelaide Clemens), who is soon revealed to be Sharon aka. the evil Alessa from the original Silent Hill film. She has since changed her name, something that's revealed she constantly does, along with her Father, Harry (Sean Bean) in order to try and hide from the evil clutches of the town, Silent Hill. Still with me? Well, that's as complex as the plot gets really, because what follows is a fairly simple search and find as Harry is taken capture in Silent Hill and it's up to Heather to try and find him before it's too late. She luckily has help from another new kid at her school, Vincent (Kit Harington)... but she actually has to end up helping him too (fat lot of good he is!) As much as Resident Evil (used to) rely on zombies, SH:R3D also relies on it's own set of recognisable characters from the games. There's Pyramid Head (with his oversized sword/knife), the blind nurses and the trapped townsfolk of Silent Hill (who according to the film series believe they are being held captured by the evil soul of Alessa.)

First off, I have to say that I'm not a massive fan of the game series. I never actually owned any of them, but I used to play them around my friends house when I was younger all the time. I remember especially being creeped out by the nurses in the hospital, so I was quite excited to see the nurses being featured in this film. It's a shame that my excitement was so short lived...

Also, this film has much more in common with the Resident Evil series than I first realised. Let me go about this in some kind of order. We first have to look at the main characters. In Resident Evil, Alice went from being a helpless "nobody" to an ass-kicking zombie machine (ever since the second film). In Silent Hill, Sharon was a young girl who was literally dependent on her Mother (she was held capture), whereas in SH:R3D, Heather aka. Sharon has now become the ass-kicking heroine that Alice has become. Albeit, Sharon isn't as cartoony as Alice, but all the way through this film she is shown to be much stronger and a hell of a lot more independent. It was good to see that relatively unknown Adelaide Clemens did a fairly decent job in carefully balancing the scared youthful girl against the strong independent woman well. It's just a shame that her supporting roles couldn't really help her out with such believable characters. In particular, Kit Harington was fairly weak as the love interest, Vincent and their relationship seemed particularly forced - it didn't help that the film felt rushed, so they didn't really have any time to blossom as a couple before Harington placed an awkward kiss on Clemens lips. Sean Bean is basically left to a cameo, much like the first film, and seemed like he was doing the filmmakers a favour by being in this one.

Next up is the use of the film's monsters. Much like zombies used to be the icons of the Resident Evil film franchise (it now seems to be the ass-kicking adventures of Alice that have taken over), the monsters of Silent Hill really are becoming the stars of the show. Just take a quick look at the film's poster and you can see that Pyramid Head is taking a position up at the forefront. Again, it's a shame that the film lets them down somewhat and in particular the writing of the film, because it just feels like it goes from one set piece to another while being tied together by the weak prospect of Heather finding her Father. What I mean by that is, one minute Heather is hiding from the mannequin monster (where a supporting character is killed off extremely quickly) and the next minute she is hiding from Pyramid Head and then she is in a room full of nurses. It felt like one of those Horror Mazes that open up during Halloween, except this time the film has gone for gore and being gross rather than being suspenseful.

Not looking good so far is it?

While we are on the topic of the film's monsters, SH:R3D also follows in the footsteps of Resident Evil: Apocalypse where it decides to throw a curveball and make it's main villain (Pyramid Head) a last minute hero to help the heroine. In RE:A it was the Nemesis that suddenly helped out Alice kill off Major Tom Cain, SH:R3D decides to make Pyramid Head help out poor Heather while she unties dear old Dad. Now, I wouldn't really have brought this up as a criticism, but in RE:A at least it was hinted at (the Nemesis being a mutated version of a former friend of Alice). In SH:R3D we are given nothing - not one little clue that Pyramid Head is going to help Heather. He just... does it. Which is also stupid, because it leaves Heather with absolutely nothing to do. For about 50% of the film's finale, she was literally sitting around and just watching what was happening. For all the time that I was being lead to believe that she was this ass-kicking heroine, she fades back into the background for the finale. Also, without giving anything away, the final battle scene is so stupid and over-the-top, it felt like I was watching a late night WWE wrestling fight with fantasy characters.

The final comparison to Resident Evil has to fall back to the film's title. Resident Evil started off using understandable subtitles (Apocalypse and Extinction) but then fell into the realms of "Why the hell are they using that?!" (Afterlife and Retribution). It seems that Resident Evil has used all the understanding subtitles, because I have no friggin' idea why Silent Hill used "Revelation" as it's subtitle for this sequel. At absolutely no point in the film is anything new revealed. Everything we are told, we already know.

Heather has an evil twin/sister/mother in the form of Alessa in Silent Hill? Yeah, we already knew that.
Heather's mother's soul is trapped in Silent Hill? Yeah, we already knew that.
The towns people believe that Silent Hill is under a deep rooted curse from Alessa? Yeah, we...

You get the picture.

The only remotely small thing that was revealed is that there is a small cult of people in Silent Hill who have been trying to get Heather back, because they believe she is the key to stopping Alessa. But it's not enough; It's a throwaway moment that isn't really built upon properly (mainly because of the weak characters and rushed plot). I remember watching the first film and having so many questions raised by what I was seeing that I was thinking about it for hours afterwards. SH:R3D is such a straight forward schlocky B-Movie horror film that I literally forgot about what I had just watched by the time I got home.

So, SH:R3D is pretty much a unnecessary extension of the first Silent Hill film. While it does have nice nods to the game series, a plot that doesn't waste time in getting to the action and some recognisable monsters, it just fails to entertain on the most basic of levels. I just wish the filmmakers would of had more guts to add some originality to their film rather than just riding on the coattails of the previous one.

* / *****

REVIEW: Skyfall

It's been 50 years. 50 years since James Bond first appeared in cinema screens. With six different actors playing the titular role, 23 different big-screen adaptions and countless different directors who have taken the helm of the Director's chair, many would have thought that the franchise has ran it's course.

How is it then that Skyfall, the 23rd big-screen adaption of James Bond, still manages to be a near perfect film?

Skyfall opens with James Bond (Daniel Craig) on a mission to retrieve a hard-drive from professional hitman, Patrice (Ola Rapace) that contains a list of undercover MI6 agents across the globe. However, the mission goes wrong when M (Judi Dench) gives MI6 operative Eve (Naomie Harris) the order to shoot the target without a clean shot, which results in Bond being shot and falling to his death. With pressure from Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) and the British Government (who see MI6 and the 00 agents as redundant), M is forced to seek early retirement. But, the return of Bond (who has been hiding out in a tropical paradise and drinking everything he can find), the revealing of the undercover MI6 agents on the hard drive to the public and an attack on MI6 means that M isn't going to retire without sorting out MI6 first. The attack soon turns personal as M and Bond realise that villain, Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) knows M and will stop at nothing to get his revenge. Both Bond and M must delve into their own pasts and test their loyalties to one another in order to defeat Silva.

Skyfall is a massive change of pace for James Bond. After the breakneck speed of Quantum of Solace, which was a direct sequel to Casino Royale and shown us Bond's unstable state of mind when an attack is made personal, Skyfall opts for a much more character-driven piece. While this isn't a bad thing, it means that Skyfall is a film that is much more of a thriller revolving around the characters themselves, rather than a film full of espionage. In fact, the only mission that Bond goes on is at the beginning of the film to retrieve the hard drive. Once Silva is introduced about half way through the film, all the attention turns to Silva's determination to take revenge on M, and the high thrills of the 007 espionage that we are used to from previous Bond films are all but forgotten. Again, I have to say that this isn't really a bad thing at all, but it certainly is a bold move from Director, Sam Mendes and Writers, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan.

In fact, Skyfall seems to have Director, Sam Mendes' stamp all over it. With previous dramas, American Beauty, Road to Perdition and Revolutionary Road filling up his repertoire, it doesn't take a genius to work out that this Bond film was going to focus much more on the character dramas, arcs and relationships rather than being filled with fast-paced blistering action. Since Judi Dench had been introduced as the new M all the way back in 1995 with the release of Goldeneye, some 17 years later it's up to Mendes who finally allows the Oscar winning actress to finally shine and truly share the limelight with James Bond. While Dench had somewhat of trouble in The World is Not Enough, it is Skyfall that really shows the inner struggles that she faces when leading agents into missions that could lead to their death. It is these decisions that she has made which finally catch up with her in Skyfall.

As well as a deep storyline, Skyfall is also a film that is beautifully shot. Cinematography by Roger Deakins really helps contrast between the neon glare of Shanghai, where Bond first encounters Bond girl, Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe), the warm glows of the casino in Macau, the rain drenched streets of London to the barren landscapes of Scotland. Like I said, Skyfall is definitely more of a thriller, and Deakin's cinematography definitely helps each location take on it's own character to further put us on edge as an audience. In fact, Deakin's work really takes a shine when the film's third act takes place in the desolate Scotland. The dark and dreary broken down mansion where M and Bond try to hide out is perfectly balanced against the stark whites and grey of the mist covered moor land. The brilliant sound design of squeaking floorboards and the far distant cries of wildlife cranks up the tension even further. It's almost like a masterclass in creating a thriller without having to rely on a booming soundtrack like most other horror/thriller films use.

As well as the amazing locations, Skyfall features some brilliant characters backed up by some solid acting. Craig is fast becoming one of my favourite Bonds as he continues to deliver a Bond who is always facing his demons, rather than a Bond who simply shoots and spits out cheesy one-liners. Dench is sometimes bogged down with on-the-nose dialogue, but she is finally given a role that she can sink her teeth into (an example being when she says, "I'm going to catch whoever did this" after looking at the coffins of MI6 agents who were killed in the bomb attack on MI6 - a simple stern look could have got that message across.) While the roles of Q (Ben Whishaw), Eve and Sévérine are somewhat relegated to supporting roles, they all did brilliantly well in establishing their characters with the small amount of screen time they were given. In particular, I would have liked to have seen a bit more from Marlohe (Sévérine) - her struggles with Silva are briefly mentioned, but a scene between the two of them would have been great to see. However, it's Bardem as Silva who definitely steals the spotlight in every single scene that he is in. His careful balance between teasing menace and bumbling crazy man is pretty much spot-on. I've said it before, but a captivating villain is what makes a film even more intriguing to an audience - we don't want to root for the villain to win, but if we understand their troubles as much as the hero does, then the villain becomes more than someone who is purely evil.

One of the only criticisms that I can think of for Skyfall falls to Director, Sam Mendes. While the film is definitely a character piece that delves into the troubles between M, Bond and Silva, the few action chase scenes that Mendes does throw in seem to be quite badly done. The only stand-out really being the crane scene on the moving train, but the rest of the chase scenes feel rather pedestrian and don't really properly contrast against the slower scenes in the film. I don't know if it was the editing or the shot choices, but I didn't really feel myself going towards the edge of my seat during the action scenes, which would have made them welcome releases between heavy character scenes. In particular, the scene where Silva causes a Tube train to crash through the ceiling reminded me of the awkward tram crash in Coronation Street! If the Tube had been full of passengers and shot in a way that didn't make it look like a carefully choreographed crash scene, it could have been a really gritty scene. I guess the lack of action only becomes a problem because Skyfall comes directly after Quantum of Solace, the Bond film that was largely criticised for being heavy on the action but light on the story.

So, overall Skyfall is an incredibly shot Bond thriller that allows us to care for the characters that we have come to know and love over the past 50 years. While I have mentioned that the film does fall flat with some of the action scenes, it is the character struggles that really take centre stage. After Craig's Bond that was simply out for revenge in Quantum of Solace, you should know by now that this Bond (and M!) is someone who has a lot of demons to face.

****½ / *****

REVIEW: Frankenweenie

All horror films involve a monster of some kind. Some of them are figurative monsters, including psychopaths, ghosts and ghouls. Whereas, some of them are literal monsters - brought back from the dead covered in stitches and cuts where their body is loosely held together.

However, Frankenweenie takes the well established route that these literal monsters are not monstrous at all. They are simply misunderstood.

Frankenweenie is a feature-length version of a previous Tim Burton short film released in 1984. This version follows a similar path, where young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) loves his dog Sparky to bits. His parents (Catherine O'Hara and Martin Short) are worried that he is falling behind the rest of the boys his age and need to brush up on his sports, namely baseball. Unfortunately, when a rogue balls flies across the street, Sparky runs to get it but is run over and killed. When being told about the power of Science by his teacher, Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau), Victor has a sudden idea of how to bring back his beloved dog, Sparky. When the local creepy boy from school, Edgar E. Gore (Atticus Shaffer) catches wind of what Victor has been up to, he forces him to bring back a dead fish to life, so Edgar can present it in the school science fair and win first prize. However, the dead fish comes back to life invisible, something that didn't happen to Sparky. Soon all the children become aware of what has happened and bring back old pets of their own for the science fair. However, when Victor realises that pets that if pets are being brought back for greed rather than love, they don't actually come back completely as you remember them. Needless to say, chaos ensues and it's up to Victor and friends to save the town from being overrun.

First things first, Frankenweenie is arguably Tim Burton's best film in a looooong time. With recent duds Alice in Wonderland and Dark Shadows leaving a bitter taste in audience's mouths, Frankenweenie shows exactly what Burton is capable of when his heart is fully behind a project. The care and attention paid to the characters, their story arcs, mannerisms, Tim Burton-esque style, and even the stop-motion filming all harks back to previous films that Burton has been involved with like Corpse Bride and The Nightmare Before Christmas. It almost felt like Disney let go of their strangle-hold grip on Burton and granted him full artistic direction over this film. The result is the most un-Disney like film I have ever seen in my life, but it was extremely refreshing to see something so different. While the film is not for younger viewers, it's an absolute delight for older children and aficionados for the traditional horror monster films from the 1930s.

As mentioned, it's largely the filming style and direction that largely makes Frankenweenie stand out from the crowd. While the theme of the story is very similar to the recent kids horror stop-motion film, ParaNorman, the two films almost couldn't feel any more different. While ParaNorman liked the throw horror film nods to it's audience without going into too much depth, Frankenweenie decides to emulate the horror genre, while still making it suitable for older children. A prime example is when the proverbial hits the fan at the end of the film and monsters such as a cat/bat hybrid, sea monkey gremlins, a giant monstrous rat and a humongous turtle Godzilla hit the town of New Holland, they are genuinely quite freaky monsters. While the sea monkeys were quite humorous and reminded me of the Gremlins, the rat monster and the cat/bat hybrid genuinely provided some chills with their disgusting design and chilling roars/moans. At some points, I had to remind myself that I was watching a children's film!

However, the heart of Frankenweenie truly lies with the relationship between boy and his dog. The childhood innocence mixed with the raw emotions of loosing a pet meant that when Sparky 'sparked' back to life, it honestly felt like it was the right thing for the character to do. Usually with horror films, there is a constantly feel of paranoia from the audience and a feeling of knowing that a character should not do what they are doing - thus leading to stupid and annoying characters. However, Victor was a character that was not annoying, he was someone who simply wanted his dog back and when he did get Sparky back, he seemed very sensible and level-headed in how he looked after his dog who had a new lease of life! It was only when the other children stole his idea to bring back their own pets to life that the cliche stupid horror characters came back. However, this was OK, because the other children became the antagonists (the villains) to the story and so it was OK for us to hate them!

The only slight criticism that I can think of for Frankenweenie was that the start was a little bit slow to get going. When we are introduced to Victor, Sparky and Victor's Parents worry about his isolation from other children his age, it could have been a prime opportunity for Burton to introduce other characters fully and develop Victor's relationship with his peers visually, rather than us being told by his parents.

However, this is only a slight concern in a film that is otherwise a brilliant, loveable and sometimes scary throwback to the original horror creature features! While it's not a film for the very young, it's certainly a film that's full of heart and even some scares to test older children and horror fans alike.

****½ / *****

REVIEW: Paranormal Activity 4

How much can you do with the haunted house sub-genre of horror films?

Doors slamming. Windows opening. People/objects floating. It's all been done before really, but it's what we go for. It's what we've come to expect, but we don't want it to be all tired and "done before".

Unfortunately for Paranormal Activity 4, it does use all the tried and tested haunted house techniques, and it does them well, but it doesn't really make for an interesting film.

Paranormal Activity 4 picks up five years after the events in the first and second film. Katie has long since disappeared with her sister's baby, Hunter and their whereabouts remain unknown. However, a new family start experiencing supernatural phenomenon, including the daughter, Alex (Kathryn Newton) the Mother, Holly (Alexondra Lee) the Father, Doug (Lee Dunham) the young son, Wyatt (Aiden Lovekamp) and Alex's boyfriend, Ben (Matt Shively). Alex soon starts falling suspicious of the creepy young boy across the road, Robbie (Brady Allen) when he befriends her brother, appears in their playhouse in the middle of the night and also the fact that his Mother has been taken ill for a long period of time and will happily leave her son alone with the neighbours who are practically strangers. Alex and Ben decide to set up recording devices through the numerous laptops that they have throughout the house in the hope that they will catch something, as well as video clips from their video camera, camera phones and Skype conversations. What follows is some predictably creepy scenes, that we have come to expect from Paranormal Activity, except this film tries to mix things up by having creepy things happen equally as much throughout the daytime as well as during the nighttime.

One of the main disappointments that I had with Paranormal Activity 4 was that it added very little to the mystery surrounding Katie (Katie Featherston) and Hunter and what it does add is so muddled and confusing that it seems to trip up over itself a lot. While I'm all for films that play to an audience's curiosity and not spelling everything out as clear as day to them, Paranormal Activity 4 fails to even provide enough developed clues for us as the audience to guess and investigate along with the characters. It's suddenly revealed that Wyatt may have a shady past (I don't want to give too much away!) but it's not developed enough, like having Alex and Ben investigate into it further, for us as the audience to properly register it so we can put the clues together ourselves.

Instead, the characters of Alex and Ben simply record footage for us as the audience to watch and be scared by, as the characters themselves don't seem bothered in watching the footage back themselves to investigate the hauntings further. Say what you will about Paranormal Activity 3 and it's dodgy ending, but at least the characters seemed genuinely freaked out and wanted to know more. Whereas the characters in Paranormal Activity 4 simply don't seem to care (especially the parents who don't believe their daughter at all!) It's especially evident when Alex discovers the use of the symbol seen in the promotional material (a circle within a triangle), but instead of a big investigation to uncover more about the cult or the demon, we are treated to a fleeting piece of exposition about it being a symbol to sacrifice a virginal offering to a demon. That's it. That's all you get.

However, I cannot deny that Paranormal Activity 4 probably has one of the most creepiest endings of all the films (despite the reappearance of the dreaded witches from PA3.) Although the film makes use of the demon face jump scare from the first film's ending, it doesn't feel as cheaply used as it was in the first film. But, even though the film does have a decent build up to it's end, the appearance of the end credits are so jarring and sudden that I couldn't help but feel a little cheated that we didn't get a proper ending. While the whole film was plummeting towards it's predictable finale, it would have been nice to see just a little bit more of a tense chase scene between Alex and the possessed woman across the street (who shall remain unnamed!), or maybe a final showdown of some kind (not necessarily a fight, but maybe an exorcism of some kind) but we don't get any of this.

However, the characters for PA4 were a decent fresh crop of faces that did an acceptable job with the little material that they were given. Matt Shively did a decent job of not overstepping the mark into annoying boyfriend stereotype in horror films. Although it was obvious that Kathryn Newton was picked for the lead role for her girl next door looks (and it's kind of disturbing that the poster seems to be sexualising a teenager) she also does a decent job as the concerned, older sister. However, the biggest acting props have to be given to the two young boys, Aiden Lovekamp and Brady Allen who always amp up the creepiness to 10 with their blank, pale, demonic faces...

So, overall Paranormal Activity 4 is a pretty paint-by-numbers found footage haunted house flick. There's nothing new here and there's nothing extraordinary - it's just pretty average. While some of the scares are effective, particularly the ending, I felt cheated by the tagline "All the Activity has lead to this..."

If this is all the backstory and scares that we were waiting for after sitting through four films, then I wish I had never started in the first place.

** / *****

REVIEW: Sinister

Horror films have always had an element of detective work in them. As the audience, we are usually presented with a monster and along with the characters, we are to try and work out the motive for being so evil.

However, most horror films reduce this to stupid teenagers (played by 20 year olds) who make the most ridiculous decisions when trying to work out the mystery. But Sinister sets out to try and make a serious horror investigation film aimed at horror fans.

Sinister follows family man, Ellison (Ethan Hawke) who had found fame 10 years ago as a true crime writer. Unfortunately for Ellison, his 15 minutes of fame has long past and he has since been reduced to writing trashier true crime stories. He has a history of moving his family, including his wife Tracey (Juliet Rylance), his son Trevor (Michael Hall D'Addario) and daughter Ashley (Clare Foley), into homes near to the scene of the crime that he is writing about. This time however, he takes it too far; he moves them into the actual house where the murder took place. As you can guess, seeing as this is a horror film, spooky noises start going bump in the night and Ellison is being warned away by not just the Sheriff (Fred Dalton Thompson) but also his Deputy (James Ransone). As Ellison starts making connections between seemingly random murders that sprawl across the USA, he starts to uncover something more sinister is at work behind them than what he first thought.

Before I start my review properly, I do have to praise Sinister for setting out to make a serious horror film that attempts to include a serious investigation into the crime and the forces behind the crime. It's a refreshing sight to see where the writers Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill had set out to try and seamlessly combine the horror genre with the crime genre, and it's a match that goes very well together. When Ellison finds the old Super 8 films in the attic of the house, I found myself being genuinely intrigued to see what the next murder scene would be and to try and gather the clues myself when I was watching it. The mood is set right at the beginning and the film is written and directed (again, by Scott Derrickson) in a way that captivates it's audience into trying to work out the mystery alongside the main character. I say this, because all too often horror films loose their element of investigation and intrigue in favour of shock and gore.

However, it's unfortunate that Sinister is let down by the fact that it doesn't seem to go anywhere. It's pretty obvious from the film's set-up that there is something... else behind the crimes and the killings of innocent families, so the fact that the film relies on this big reveal as it's plot twist is a little bit underwhelming. I could look over this obvious plot twist, but unfortunately the film doesn't really try to explain (in an interesting way) the forces behind the murders or at least a substantial reason why they are doing it. Instead, we are left to feel that the reason why the murders have been committed is simply because they are evil. Like I said, a little bit underwhelming. And finally, I obviously won't go into details about the film's ending, but it seemed to be a bit jarring and felt like we were cheated out of a final confrontation scene between Ellison and the force behind the crimes. The film just kind of... stops.

Despite having an underwhelming finale and an underdeveloped villain (things which I will admit, are fairly hefty flaws), Sinister still manages to create a very effective atmosphere in creeping out it's audience. Director, Scott Derrickson definitely knows how to craft together a suspenseful scene, because many a times I found myself waiting for the jump scare and expecting the tension to stop after the scare, only to find that the tension was still being built up afterwards. I felt like I could never let my guard down as soon as the sun went down and the last time I remember feeling like that was when I saw the first Paranormal Activity. It's what I want from a horror film; I don't want to be second guessing when the tension will be built up and I don't want to be sitting around impatiently for the jump scare to happen because I know I will be 'safe' afterwards. While some of the scares were a bit repetitive involving the thumping footsteps from the attic, they were still very well crafted.

A good scare is nothing without the music and another major positive for Sinister is that the original music by Christopher Young is brilliant. The slow build-up of sounds were captivating and I just found myself being absorbed into the story and the scares being sold on screen. I don't find myself often being so interested in the music of a film, because it's often said that good music, along with good editing, become background to the film that is being projected on the screen - it's only usually when it's done wrongly that it becomes obvious to the audience.

So, if you like your horror films scary and to be taken deadly serious without relying on boobs, blood and gore, then Sinister is definitely a film for you. It effectively builds scares and has a very strong build-up for three-quarters of the film, it's just a shame that the entire film is let-down by a lacklustre finale and severely underdeveloped main villain.

*** / *****

REVIEW: Taken 2

The pressure of the film sequel is pretty much the equivalent to the pressure a music artist faces when they release their second album.

The first time it comes around, it's almost like it's an true expression of the filmmakers behind it, where they have more freedom to create. However, when the sequel comes along, there are pressures from studios and audiences to give them what they want, rather than what the filmmakers want.

Taken 2 is a film that has definitely felt the pressures from audiences and studios as it suffers from a painfully thin plot.

Brian Mills (Liam Neeson) is back and still working as a part-time bodyguard, but this time he is shown to be working for the cash rather than it being because he has a "set of particular skills". While on a job in Istanbul he has a surprise visit from his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace) and estranged wife, Lenore (Famke Janssen). However, unbeknownst to the family who are having a happy family time in Europe (even though Paris didn't treat his daughter too well in the first film!), Murad Krasniqi (Rade Serbedzija) the Father of the criminals who Brian killed in the first film, is plotting his revenge. What follows is a similar hostage problem as the first film, except this time it's Brian and Lenore who get 'taken' and not Kim. It's left to Kim to free her Father and then team together in order to save Lenore before Krasniqi takes his revenge.

I'm just going to come out and say it, Taken 2 is not a very good action film and it's main problem lies in the fact that it's very anti-climatic. From every chase scene that the film introduces right up until the final battle between Krasniqi and Brian, the film just fails to build any tension. While the first Taken was filled with the threat from the sex trafficking trade and the ruthless criminals who had stolen and were drugging up Kim and the other girls, Taken 2 just resorts to kidnapping Lenore and holding her hostage in a room until Brian finds her. There's nothing threatening about the main problem in Taken 2 and the film suffers largely because of it.

However, the Director Olivier Megaton does craft together one good fast-paced chase scene, even though it does require you to suspend disbelief... a lot of it. We are led to believe that Kim, who is struggling to pass her driving test back in the USA, can suddenly pull 180 handbrake turns and drift around corners on the mean streets of Istanbul in a beat up taxi. But, I can look past this unbelievable plot point, because it's the only real tense action scene in the entire film. The rest of the film resorts to running around Istanbul, shooting bullets into walls (not bodies) and fatal punches/cuts being left off-screen. The rest of the film just felt a little bit... boring.

I can't help but feel that a lot of Taken 2's problems were out of the Director's hands. Firstly, the film felt like it was cut apart beyond all recognition. In a weird move, the film has been edited down to fit into a 12A rating in the UK (meaning that anyone can see it, as long as under 12s have an accompanying adult with them). The first Taken was rated 15 in cinemas and then 18 in an Unrated DVD version. It involved hard drug abuse and the sex trafficking trade as it's main threat and it felt like the return of the serious hard action film. Taken 2 is just a watered down family-friendly version of the first film to a point where some scenes don't even make sense. A prime example being the two final fight scenes, where one bad guy seems to be defeated by Brian pushing him over and Krasniqi is defeated by a hand push in his face. It was just ridiculous.

The other main problem was in the casting and the acting. While Neeson, Grace and Janssen were all in returning roles, they all seemed to be on auto-pilot. There was no gravelly, threatening voice from Neeson providing a lengthy threatening speech to the villain (ala. "I have a particular set of skills" from the first film), Grace's character was too busy getting in the way for the first half of the film and then disappearing for the second half and Janssen's character was left to being an unconscious victim for the majority of the film. However, the biggest problem with the characters lay with Krasniqi as he was a villain who had very little backstory and then did very little with his screen time - his motive was simply revenge for his son's death, with nothing else even hinted at. It felt like he should have had a more ruthless personality where he was an ex-serviceman or the owner of the sex trafficking circle from the first film that Brian had destroyed. But instead, we get nothing.

So, Taken 2 is a big disappointment for fans of Taken. It's completely devoid of tension, plot or character which to be honest, are the bare essentials for any decent action film. It seems like Brian, Lenore and Kim will be staying at home and avoiding Europe at all costs from now on, just like you should be avoiding the cinema to see this and waiting for the DVD - let's face it, Taken 2 will obviously get the Unrated DVD treatment.

** / *****

REVIEW: Resident Evil - Retribution

By the time a film series reaches it's fifth instalment - especially a horror film series based on a video game franchise - it's pretty much game over.

Resident Evil - Retribution doesn't really do anything to try and lift this curse as it falls into the many traps and pitfalls that other horror franchises have done that have come before it.

The film follows Alice (Milla Jovovich) who is still being relentlessly stalked by the Umbrella Corporation and their deadly T-Virus. This time, she is being attacked by Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory) who now works for Umbrella (after being an ally for Alice in earlier film, Resident Evil - Apocalypse). Alice is captured and being held in an underwater testing facility off the coast of Russia where Umbrella has created many scenarios to test the T-Virus to showcase it to many nations across the globe and start a new viral weaponry arms race. It's a ridiculously grandiose storyline for a film that largely takes place in an underground facility (much like the first film, back in 2002). This time, Alice is joined by Ada Wong (Bingbing Li), Leon S. Kennedy (Johann Urb) and Luther West (Boris Kodjoe), while she is also lumbered with a cloned daughter, Becky (Aryana Engineer) - no joke! However, Retribution isn't happy with just bringing in some new recognisable faces from the game series, it also reintroduces some old faces from the film series in the form of Rain (Michelle Rodriguez), Carlos (Oded Fehr) and James 'One' Shade (Colin Salmon) - the dude who gets diced up by the lasers in the first film.

So as you can see, Resident Evil - Retribution is a complete miss-mash of established film characters and well-known game characters and it's exactly what you'd expect from the fifth film in a series. The narrative is getting so complex by now that it's hard to remember who's who, who works for who, who is a clone and who is real. In fact, I'm still not really sure on the who's real and who's a clone.

But, despite having an overly complex character list, Retribution has no plot. Well, almost no plot.

The film takes it back to 2002, back to the original film, and creates a plot that is basically a copy of what we've had before. There's an underground/underwater facility, a timer/bombs which provides the countdown to when the characters have to be out by, a rescue mission to get someone out of the facility (it just happens to be Alice this time) and lots and lots of zombies and other 'biohazards'. While I liked this simplistic plot in the first film, for a fifth film it felt like a little bit of a cop-out. You'd expect something to happen to finally take down the Umbrella Corporation or to finally put a cap on the T-Virus, but no. Instead the characters take down a disused Umbrella testing facility that has already been used to spread the T-Virus across the globe. So, when the bombs finally go off at the end, it doesn't really do anything to the Corporation or the spread of the virus.

However, despite having problems with the basics, Director Paul W.S. Anderson sets out to prove that he is a Director who can still let his style shine through, despite being clouded by a dodgy script. For the first time since the first film, Retribution attempts to add some horror and suspense (mainly in the "Suburbia" testing scenario), where Alice and her clone daughter, Becky are creeping around into attics and wardrobes to hide from a zombie attack. He also knows how to stage a good (albeit slightly cheesy) action scene - particular highlights include Alice's first fight against the zombies from the Tokyo testing scenario where she kills a horde of zombies with just a pistol and a chain and the giant mutated Licker chase scene through the Russia testing scenario.

It's just a shame that his action direction isn't as strong as his writing skills, because Retribution features some of the worst dialogue I have seen in a long time. When Alice "argues" with Luther West about trying to save her clone daughter, Becky at the end of the film, I was cringing in my seat. I don't think Jovovich could have played the scene any more deadpan than she actually did. If it was just painful dialogue, then it would have been bearable, but unfortunately Anderson's weak script is also full of plot holes (more so than in your average Resident Evil flick, I would argue). The 'real' Alice somehow knows how to do sign language to her deaf clone daughter and clones manage to easily navigate their way through to different scenarios are just a couple. (The latter might not seem like a massive plot hole, but when you realise that the different testing scenarios were constantly full of those infected by the T-Virus in order to stage an outbreak, containing that outbreak was imperative.)

I could go on and on really, but it wouldn't be fair. Resident Evil - Retribution is what it is and I'm happy to sit back and say this. By now, you're either a fan of the Resident Evil films, think they are utter tripe or haven't seen a single one of them. To be fair to Retribution, it does pick up some of the slack left behind by the boring Afterlife that came before it, but there's no denying that the Resident Evil series by now is lacking some bite.

**½ / *****

REVIEW: House At The End Of The Street

There's something about the horror genre. Something that means that it can rarely play it 'straight' anymore.

It's a genre so well-trodden that it means to keep entertaining it's audience, many of them have taken the post-modern route. We are so familiar with horror films as an audience, that it would be unbelievable for the characters we see on screen to not be aware of the horror cliches either.

Unfortunately, House at the End of the Street plays it's characters so blandly that they fall for almost all horror cliches going.

The film follows a young Elissa (Jennifer Lawrence) who moves into a new countryside home with her Mother, Sarah (Elisabeth Shue). Fortunately for them, the house was so cheap because the house next door saw a terrible crime - a whole family was murdered by their young daughter, Carrie-Ann (Eva Link). However, they soon learn from their bitchy neighbours that the house isn't as empty as they thought it was, because the only surviving member of the family, Ryan (Max Thierot) decides to live a reclusive lifestyle on his own in the family home. As the audience, we quickly realise that Ryan's quiet life isn't as peaceful as he makes it out to be, but unfortunately it takes the characters a lot longer to work this out. What follows is a game of who to trust, and Elissa wants to befriend Ryan, Sarah doesn't want her daughter anywhere near him and the rest of the residents want Ryan to leave their town for good.

Now, as I've already mentioned, the main problem with The House at the End of the Street is that it's a film that feels really outdated. Characters will readily go and investigate a strange noise or go and investigate a dark basement on their own, with no real fear for their life. It's pretty standard horror fare stuff, that even someone who isn't the least bit interested in horror films will understand is a bad idea, yet the characters in this film don't even make a passing mention to it. The most glaring example I can think of is when one of the many times that Elissa is home alone at night and she steps outside to investigate a strange noise (instead of barricading herself inside), only for a friend from school to sneak up behind and "scare the piss" out of her. In fact, it's one of the only few times that the film tries to successfully build tension, yet it's completely blown away by a shockingly cliched fright.

It wouldn't be so bad if the underwritten characters were being driven by decent performances, but it felt like every actor was in this film for the pay-check. I was particularly disappointed in Jennifer Lawrence and her poor decision to star in this film. Fresh off the back of The Hunger Games, I'm sure that she had offers coming in all the time, but I think she need to learn that a bad script cannot be changed into a good film. She didn't really add anything to her paper-thin character - Elissa wants to help Ryan... why? Well, we're never really told except for her Mother saying that she likes to try and change people. The performance from Elisabeth Shue also wasn't particularly inspiring. She had a chance with a brilliantly awkward scene, which involved the Mother vocally airing her distrust for Ryan and wanting him to stay away from her daughter, but instead she plays the scene quietly and timidly.

Say what you will about horror films - and many say that they are predictable - but House at the End of the Street tries to challenge the predictability of horror film narratives. It doesn't play so much of a whodunit, but more of a whydunit. It's obvious from the very beginning as to who the culprit is, but the second half of the film tries to tease the audience with the motive behind their actions. While it's not a completely original twist (many people have made comparisons to Psycho and the lesser-known Sleepaway Camp) but I must admit that it caught me out until near the end - I thought I had it all sussed out, but then it threw one last curveball.

However, unfortunately the choice in going for a whydunit means that the first half of the film feels a bit stale. It's not made explicitly obvious who the culprit is until about halfway through the film (even though it's painfully obvious) which means that it falls to the development of characters to try and keep it's audience's attention... but, it's like the most boring episode of the OC, ever. We have the seemingly nice boy, Tyler (Nolan Gerard Funk) who turns out to be a complete tool. There is also the grungey outcast girl, Jillian (Allie MacDonald) who can't handle her alcohol at the cool kids party. And of course, the quiet new girl with Elissa. They're like stereotype cut-outs of teen soap opera dramas and they're very very boring.

So, if you like your horror not very scary, with some weak teen drama in the mix, but with a pretty decent (but not original) twist to the story, then House at the End of the Street will be right up your... street. If not and you are a die-hard horror genre fan, I'd make a U-Turn and give this one a bit of a miss. (See what I did there?!)

** / *****

REVIEW: Tower Block

The dangers of a tower block. We already know them to be breeding grounds for drugs and violence, but new Brit thriller Tower Block also wants to add crazed sniper to that list.

Tower Block follows the last group of residents on the top floor of a tower block as the await to be rehoused before the crumbling tower is demolished. However, when a young boy is beaten to death right outside their doors, the residents decide to lock themselves away and refuse to talk to the police, rather than help. In fact, it's only the feisty Becky (Sheridan Smith) who tries to have a go at helping before getting knocked out, but even she remains tight lipped. Three months later and a mysterious sniper has the tower block on lockdown and the rag tag group of remaining residents must try and band together to find a way out of the tower block or wait to be picked off one-by-one.

Now, I'll probably get trashed for this one (again!) but Tower Block is yet another film that uses the locale of an ageing tower block to come out this year (see The Raid and Dredd 3D). However, it's safe to say that the location is where the similarities end. Rather than having the villain holed up in the top floor of the building and having he hero's trying to find their way to the top, our hero is already at the top floor, the villain is seemingly untouchable in a different tower block and it's a desperate attempt to find a way out. However, a setting is nothing if the Directors (James Nunn and Ronnie Thompson) and Director of Photography (Ben Moulden) didn't know what to do with it. Say what you like about our Brit flicks (whether you find them too slow or too low budget) but we certainly know how to make a beautiful looking film. The camera work and mise-en-scene to this film is brilliant. The sweeping shot across Becky's flat, as she hides inside and the young boy is being beaten up outside, is just one example of the interesting filmmaking on show here. My only criticism can be that I don't think the gritty setting was used to it's fullest (there were floors and floors of empty and decaying old flats and corridors that could have been used.)

Tower Block's main strength doesn't really lie in it's gritty locale as it falls mainly to the leading roles of Becky (Smith) and Kurtis (Jack O'Connell). They really do hold this film together and really do well with what they have been given. Unfortunately for Smith, she is the one that is given the least to work with. She's a plays a feisty young girl who lives an independent lonely life on her own (shown to us when she brings a date home for a one night stand), but her character arc never really goes anywhere - she's still feisty at the end and still alone. However, O'Connell really has a meaty role and is arguably more of the lead character out of the two of them. He plays Kurtis, a loveable lone rogue who makes the residents of the tower block pay him £20 a week so he won't break into their flats. It's only when the proverbial hits the fan that he reluctantly bands together with the rest of the residents to try and find a way out together. The fact that we see him struggle with this helps his character to develop and become more likeable (unlike Smith's character, who is all too ready to join forces) and also have a few funny one-liners in the process.

But it's not all smooth sailing for Tower Block as there are two main pitfalls which really hold the film back. Unfortunately for Smith and O'Connell, even though they do really well with the roles that they were given, the rest of the supporting cast are rather underdeveloped and underacted. Characters like Jenny (Montserrate Lombard) have brilliantly silly scenes (she plays a young chavvy Mother, who constantly shouts at her kids), yet when she is grieving over their deaths, she is barely given any screen time for us to actually care. Carol (Julie Graham) and her son Daniel (Harry McEntire) suffer a similar fate when we just don't seem to care that they have lost their Husband and Father - and neither do they. Bad writing or bad acting? I'd probably go with the former. It's only really when Neville (Ralph Brown) looses his wife, Violet (Jill Baker) and sits silently in the corridor stroking her hair on his lap, that we really get any insight into the loss that these characters are experiencing.

It's basically the bad writing that really holds the film back. Characters are given silly on-the-nose dialogue which sounds really stilted and staged at times - when Carol delivers her "You're not in control anymore" speech is where it's especially evident. The underdeveloped characters also really hinder the reveal of the mad sniper. Their motive is extremely weak and completely laughable - it seems that writer, James Moran doesn't understand that a compelling villain is just as important as interesting protagonists. The villain in Tower Block is given zero backstory and is in no way personally involved with what they wanted revenge for that it makes me wonder if the film would have benefitted from having a faceless villain.

However, the biggest crime against the writing and structure of the film is the fact that some parts really do drag. What we are given is a whodunnit mystery narrative, where we try and guess who the killer is, but we are only really given one potential suspect. So, the film is basically left for us to just wait until the next death scene, which to be honest gets quite boring.

Overall, Tower Block had great potential to be another brilliantly British affair, following in the footsteps of Attack the Block and the more recent The Sweeney, however underdeveloped characters and a weak storyline means that the film greatly suffers.

**½ / *****