What can we expect from Deadpool 2

When it was revealed that there would be a Deadpool movie, many comic book fans were exhilarated with the prospect of seeing their favourite foul-mouthed anti-hero hitting the cinema screens.

And such was the success of the film that it not only became the highest-grossing R-rated movie of all time, but it seems that plans were quickly put in place for 20th Century Fox to release a follow-up movie.

Since Deadpool was released in February 2016, it’s earned the studio a massive $781 million at the box office, and has also had a significant impact in the form of soundtrack albums and mobile casino games. And so there’s a huge amount of expectation of what we can expect from this awesome character next.

Rumours on the internet suggest that we’ll be seeing Ryan Reynolds returning to pick up the famous Deadpool costume, and the writers Paul Wernick and Rhett Rheese will also be on hand to deliver another series of X-rated wisecracks.

Many movie-goers were fairly shocked that Marvel would make a movie that not only featured some seriously brutal violent scenes, but the inclusion of Deadpool’s steamy bedroom antics with Vanessa also showed that the comic-book company are more than willing to broaden its viewing audiences.

There looks to be some further moves in the adult direction later this year where the upcoming Doctor Strange movie will apparently become Marvel’s first horror release. And as well as 2013’s Deadpool PS3 game, the character has proven to be more suited to a mobile casino as being a star of a Lucky Nugget slots game alongside many other future movies-to-slots gaming hits such as what could be a fascinating gambling version of Leonardo DiCaprio’s The Revenant.

Although the dark humour of the Deadpool franchise look to continue with its sequel, it’s still too early to see what the character will be doing in Deadpool 2. Many have suggested that the film could be a buddy movie as it could introduce the powerful mutant, Cable, to be the butt of Deadpool’s more acerbic wisecracks.

And then others have pointed to the suggestion that the sequel could bring about the appearance of the X:Force team who would also be particularly well-suited to Marvel’s gaming ambitions. But seeing as it could be 2018 before we see the return of the Merc with a Mouth, it looks like the mobile casino offers the best way to catch up with the trailblazing Deadpool star.

Review: Memento

Written by guest contributor Cameron Gallagher

Christopher Nolan is arguably the greatest director to premiere in the 21^st Century, and Memento is the original film that put him on the map. With an incredible pattern of storytelling, Memento is one of the most “brain-scrambling” movies I’ve seen.

Following a man who can’t remember what happened just moments before, we are spiraled into a journey of “half forwards” and “half backwards” storytelling as he tries to uncover the mystery of who killed his wife. It’s hard enough writing and telling a story forwards, especially that of a good and compelling story, but to do it forwards, and backwards at the same time is insane. So basically to try to explain it as best as I can, this film begins at its end, as well as beginning and works its way to a center point, uncovering the mystery. It sounds incredibly confusing, but it is actually quite easy to understand thanks to Christopher Nolan’s very wise choice to swap between black & white and color.

As you can already probably see, this film is lacking nothing in the story space. It is masterfully written by Christopher Nolan, and is honestly the most original film I probably have ever seen. Even though the story itself is very straight forward, the tricks Nolan uses in order for us to feel and think in certain ways really creates an intense and revolving story. I love how we feel like the main character, we learn things as he does, because he can’t remember them.

This film like all other Nolan films to follow is beautifully shot and acted. Guy Pierce absolutely nailed this role with the uneasy feeling of someone who seems to know everything, but is completely clueless, and the best part is not once did I ever feel as though I was taken out of the film and didn’t understand what the emotions where within his character, or really any characters, heads.

I don’t want to say much more, because this film is something you need to experience. What really bothers me is the word that this film will be remade in the coming years. Like very soon! And this is something I want to bring up because after reading the article about this film being remade, I was struck with not understanding why they would remake this film which is only 16 years old.  After reading an article on The Hollywood Reporter, the man behind it Monika Bacardi said…

“Memento is a masterpiece that leaves audiences guessing not just throughout the film, but long after as well, which is a testament to its daring approach. We intend to stay true to Christopher Nolan’s vision and deliver a memorable movie that is every bit as edgy, iconic and award-worthy as the original. It’s a big responsibility to deliver something that lives up to the mastery of the original, but we are extremely excited and motivated to bring this puzzle back to life and back into the minds of moviegoers.”

So wait a moment? Why would you remake something 16 years after its release, not being a franchise or re-boot friendly film like Batman, Superman, Friday the 13^th, yet want to stay true to the original… and puzzle people? That means the original has already ruined the puzzle and we will be getting the same film, but with maybe more explosions if Michael Bay gets ahold of it (joking, calm yourself). Well I hope this doesn’t happen, because it’s mainly just a waste of filmmaker’s time. Go watch the Nolan one and enjoy! Memento of course gets a 5/5, and maybe if Michael Bay directs the new one, they can pull in a solid 0.5/5 lol. Hope you enjoyed my rant, and go see it for yourself and tell me what you think!

---

Score: 5/5

---

Memento Director: Christopher Nolan Writer: Christopher Nolan Studio: Summit Entertainment Running Time: 113 Minutes Release Date: 9/5/00

Review: The Babadook

Written by guest contributor Cameron Gallagher

It’s rare that an independent horror film has enough traction to be considered one of the scariest films pf all time, and terrifying by the director of “The Exorcist”. But what is even more rare is a horror film with such traction that actually delivers on many levels, and The Babadook did this 100%! I consider myself a “Horror Fanatic” as well as “Horror Analyst” (sounds comical right?). But in all seriousness, I really like to break down horror films and try to find the best of the best. Films like The Conjuring and basically anything by James Wan has impressed me, but recently I have been very disappointed with horror films (other than the ones I mentioned) because they fail to have another plot within the horror film. Other than the “lets scare the crap out of you” plot (which isn’t even a plot). The Babadook succeeded incredibly in its attack at telling a disturbing story of a single mother with a troubled kid, and that is what makes this film so uncomfortable. It’s so believable and incredibly troubling.

The Babadook follows the story I just told you, but after the troubled kid finds a strange book telling the story of The Babadook, things around the house become even stranger. This movie has some incredible cinematography. Just very clever lighting and camera work to create suspense and unease during the film, but never once did it seem to overpower any part of the story, where it seemed too over the top or strange.

Let’s talk about The Babadook itself. Now this film was originally marketed as a “Creature Feature” but if your quick to look past it, you’ll end up with the same feeling after watching The Village (no, not that bad) but remember, although this is a horror about a creature, that is not the main point of the story. This is the story about the pain and suffering a family has when losing a loved one (father and husband in this case) Now with that being said, The Babadook is real! Make no mistake, this isn’t some M. Night fake out crap, but just remember that this is deeper than what it seems.

Let’s talk about the creature itself. It is quite honestly terrifying. It could be the scariest character and creature in cinema history. I just wish there was more of it. Granted, it was the perfect amount for the film, but it was terrifying. The Babadook was so surreal in the sense of its nature, body type, and even wardrobe. It had an almost fantasy vibe to it, but was the sound it made is by far the scariest sound any creature has ever made. If I ever answered the phone and heard “Ba-Ba-dook…DOok…DOOK!!” I would literally shit my pants!

This movie hit all of the high points for me, and even though the ending was weird and felt a little off in the scheme of things, I think it fit the way the film needed to end, and that’s why I give The Babadook a well-deserved 4/5. If that ending was a little better, and maybe a few scarier moments it would be a 5/5 for sure! Please go check it out and tell me what you think!

P.S. Buy the Cool Pop-Up Cover Blu-Ray Edition…it is an awesome movie, but the case is spectacular!

---

Score: 4/5

---

The Babadook Director: Jennifer Kent Writer: Jennifer Kent Studio: IFC Films/ Entertainment One Running Time: 94 Minutes Release Date: 1/17/14

Review: The Revenant

Written by guest contributor Cameron Gallagher

I’ve never sat in a theater before where I felt like I was experiencing the film, not watching it. Experiencing every emotion and being pulled through the experiences of the characters frame by frame. Experiencing “PURE ART” at 24 frames per second. This is what I felt while watching The Revenant. It is an absolutely breathtaking film, outstanding acting, and an amazing story.

The Revenant is inspired by true events and tells the story of Hugh Glass and his fight for survival while trying to find revenge after being left for dead. I don’t want to give away much more of the storyline because it is one that is MUCH better experiencing, than just hearing.

Let me first start off by saying and you can quote me on this… THIS IS THE GREATEST CINEMATOGRAPHY I’VE EVER SEEM. Yes, it took some while to finally decide that it was. Being a filmmaker myself, I know what it takes to even light one small shot, or nailing the perfect exposure outside, and this film BLEW me away! This film was filmed in 100% natural light with no use of artificial light and I could not believe what I was seeing. Beautiful landscapes, smoke and fire, fog, epic wide close ups, long battle shots. I was sitting in my seat completely stunned by what I was seeing. I would see the film JUST for the visuals.

The ccting of this film is spectacular. If Leo does not win Best Actor for this picture, I will lose faith in the Academy. With little dialogue, Leo completely transformed into a character that I could relate with, even though I am not a trapper in the 1800’s left for dead… that’s impressive. The physicality of this film is phenomenal too! It is purely brutal. Blood, death, and the bear mauling!! That scene could be one of the most suspenseful and blood curdling scene I’ve ever seen.

From a filmmaking standpoint, this film could be one of the greatest of all time. The story is so heartfelt. Genuine. Compelling. Everything you would want in a screenplay, but not only that it felt so original. It didn’t feel like some recycled garbage or overly action packed story of revenge. I also loved the message about Native Americans. Large portion of my close ancestors/family (Grandparents and Great Grand Parents) are full-blooded Native American, and it was nice to see a film that showed the truth about how Native Americans could be brutal, and seemed like “villains” but had been completely taken advantage of and killed in large amounts to steal their land.

The Revenant hit every level for me. This was the greatest cinematic experience of 2015 for me. I could not think of a single thing I didn’t like about this movie. Please go check it out, I promise you won’t be sorry!

---

Score: 5/5

---

The Revenant Director: Alejandro Inarritu Writer: Michael Punke Studio: 20^th Century Fox Runtime: 156 Minutes Release Date: 12/16/15

Review: The Assassin

Written by guest contributor Cameron Gallagher

Martial Arts films can be that of elegance, beauty, and a cinematic experience unmatched… or they can be like The Assassin, dry, uneventful, and quite honestly boring. When I first received The Assassin I was undeniable excited considering this had won Best Director at Cannes along with being what looked like a spectacular Martial Arts “revenge” style film, but to my honest disappointment this was far from that. As I was watching the film with my wife, we both tried to convince ourselves “something better was coming” and “is this amazing or terrible?” This film had me on the edge of my seat, because my ADHD was begging for something to happen.

The Assassin follows the story of a woman Nie Yinniang, who is an assassin who kills corrupt government officials. After refusing to kill a man in front of his son, she is punished and is sent to kill a man she was once to marry… who is also her cousin.

The Assassin takes place during the Tang Dynasty in China, but at some times during the film I wasn’t sure it’s timing or place. It almost felt like it could be in some modern world out there.

I’m going to be honest, I was trying to like this film. I really was. I tried with every muscle I had to watch this and feel like I was watching an award winning film, but I couldn’t. Nothing felt right to me. Let’s talk about the cinematography. This film changed its aspect ratio several times for some effect. Now a lot of films have done this such as The Grand Budapest Hotel, or Interstellar, but for this film they felt unneeded and almost put there for the sake of changing cinematography.  There was shot after shot of things that made no sense, and I’m someone who looks for symbolism within cinematography, but it just wasn’t there. Don’t get me wrong it was very appealing and wonderfully lit in most cases, but just wasn’t enough to excite me. The other thing that was quite annoying at times, is the camera would sit in a corner for a 10-minute dialogue scene. Now that would be entertaining if this was The Shinning, but considering some of these 10-minute scenes, sometimes not a single word was said.

This film is DEATHLY slow, and I saw The Revenant and Titanic. Being a long film isn’t the issue, it’s how you break it and pace the film. This film’s pacing was off by a lot. A Martial Arts film needs to find that balance between actual fighting and the “downtime” of moving sub-plots along, but The Assassin failed to hold that balance. There was about all of 4-5 fight scenes, and generally most were over within 30 seconds. I was incredibly disappointed in the lack of combat scenes, especially because when I saw the 30 seconds of fighting, it was AMAZING!

Now, I hate to sound like I’m hating on a film, but I tried SO HARD to like this movie. It felt like it had an incredible amount of potential, but was wasted on insanely long scenes with almost no dialogue that felt most times meaningless. I love long shots, long scenes, but when they are filled with emotion, and The Assassin failed to make me care for a single character.

The one thing I will say about this film that was downright awesome, was the production value. Set pieces to locations were absolutely amazing! This film felt authentic in its production design, even though at times it felt modern, I never questioned its authenticity.

Overall I was very disappointed in a good film that could have been spectacular, especially considering the hype for this film. Please, go check it out for yourself and tell me what you think!

---

Score: 2/5

---

The Assassin Director: Hou Hsiao-Hsien Writers: Hou Hsia-Hsien, Chu Tien-Wen, Hsieh Hai-Meng, Zhong Acheng Studio: Central Motion Pictures/WellGoUSA Running Time: 105 Minutes Release Date: 1/26/16

Review: Making A Murderer

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

Even if you haven't seen Making A Murderer yet, you have heard about. It's been a huge subject for "water cooler" discussions in offices (do offices still have water coolers?) and has blown up on social media. An online petition even prompted a response from The White House!

So why has it caused such a sensation? Ten years in the making, the documentary tells the story of Steven Avery, an unremarkable man from Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The Avery family owned a large vehicle salvage yard in Manitowoc County from which they made a modest living. Steven Avery's life took a wrong turn in 1985, when he was arrested for the sexual assault of a local woman, Penny Beernsten. He was later convicted of the crime, despite having numerous alibis for his whereabouts at the time of the attack. Avery spent 18 years in prison as a result, until DNA evidence pointed in the right direction, towards another man guilty of several violent crimes in the area. Avery was freed in 2o03, once the miscarriage of justice was confirmed. Understandably, having lost nearly two decades of his life, he filed a lawsuit against the Manitowoc County Sheriffs Department and several individuals associated with his case. He was looking for damages in excess of $30m.

Soon after filing his lawsuit, Avery found himself behind bars again - accused of the murder of local photographer Teresa Halbach. Soon after, his nephew Brendan Dassey was also accused of involvement in the violent crime. The documentary delves deep into the case, alleging a conflict of interest for the Manitowoc County law enforcement officials who dealt with both of Avery's arrests.

Because Making A Murderer is on Netflix, it's not an ordinary documentary. An hour long show, even a feature length film, would not be able to go into as much detail a this show does. The documentary consists of 10 episodes of 45 minutes to one hour, and it unfolds at a slow yet beguiling pace. The tension soon ratchets up though after only a couple of episodes, and you'll find yourself hooked.

Film makers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos do a wonderful job of using the documentary format to tell the story of a true crime thriller, with all its twists and turns. I don't want spoil anything, but even after it's over, the hours and hours of evidence, there are still questions to be asked and answered. Certainly, there are still enough theories and counter theories online to show that Making A Murderer has got plenty of amateur sleuths thinking! The film clearly has an agenda - like almost any documentary - a story that it wants to tell, and whatever you may think about the innocence (or otherwise) of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, it will certainly make you think, and wonder exactly what it says about the American justice system. And there can never be too many thought provoking documentaries made. Let's hope the success of Making A Murderer heralds a new dawn for the documentary.

---

Score: 5/5

---

Making A Murderer Directors/Writers: Laura Ricciardi & Moira Demos Studio: Netflix & Synthesis Films

Review: Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

Online streaming services like Amazon Prime and Netflix have changed the television game over the last few years. Starting life content to stream films and TV shows people had already seen, they then made the leap into original programming. Ever since Netflix consulted an algorithm to tell them what people wanted to see and produced House Of Cards, they have been scrambling to out do the traditional channels and networks.

Of course, they don't even have to produce their own content all of the time. They also have the option of hoovering up the shows that traditional, risk-averse networks pass on. One such show is Netflix's Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, hands down the funniest sitcom of 2015. It was the post-30 Rock creation of Tina Fey and Robert Carlock, originally developed for NBC. According to Fey, the network "weren't feeling confident" about the comedy and so passed it on to Netflix. They made a huge mistake.

Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt has one of the catchiest theme songs around, and if it sounds familiar, it's because it is. We've all seen viral memes along the same lines: an excitable local resident gets interviewed about a crime, and his words get auto-tuned into an irritatingly catchy song.

The words in the opening credits are shorthand for Kimmy Schmidt's themes: "they alive, dammit. But females are strong as hell". The four women we see emerging from a bunker in the pilot episode's cold open had been held captive in there for fifteen years by a deranged preacher, the leader of a doomsday cult. The first face we see is that of the main protagonist, Kimmy Schmidt (Ellie Kemper). It's not what you might expect. She's not cowed, scared, broken or defeated. Instead, she smiles as bright as sunshine.

Soon enough, Kimmy and her three bunker-mates are shipped off to New York for a round of television interviews, but as they head back to Durnsville, Indiana afterwards Kimmy decides to make a break for it. She doesn't want to return home where she'll forever be viewed as a victim, one of the "mole women" who escaped from an underground bunker. She resolves to make a clean break and forge a new life for herself in Manhattan.

She finds herself a tiny basement apartment complete with a crazy landlady (Carol Kane) and an out-of-work gay actor roommate named Titus Adromedon (Tituss Burgess). She even stumbles her way into a job working for Upper East Side socialite Jacqueline Voorhees (Jane Krakowski). Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt's first season charts Kimmy as she adjusts to her new life and tries to deal with her past - she gets a job, a boyfriend, gets caught in a love triangle and goes back to school. She - accidentally - joins another cult, this one cycling and fitness based and reluctantly attends the trial of the man who kidnapped her, Reverend Richard Wayne Gary Wayne (Jon Hamm).

Ellie Kemper's larger-than-life performance steals the show, but her co-stars have chance to sign too. Tituss Burgess crushes every scene he's in as Kimmy's roommate and 30 Rock alum Krakowski is on career best form as the rich and out of touch Jacqueline.

Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is undoubtedly hilarious, but given the subject matter - a woman kidnapped and, it's strongly hinted, abused for 15 years of her life - is rare material for a sitcom, so maybe it's understandable that NBC passed, but the network should have been stronger and had more faith. Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt doesn't make jokes about dark subjects to offend or shock in the way a lesser show would. They aren't exploitative, and Kimmy's such a well drawn character that she is more than her traumatic past. Her story didn't end when she came out of that bunker.

Ultimately, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt doesn't trade on cynicism or offence for the sake of it. It's message is one of resilience and hope. You'll come away from binge-watching the first season on Netflix sore from laughter, but with a message you can take into your daily life: find that small, unbreakable you inside yourself, and never let it go.

---

Score: 4/5

---

Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt Directors: Tristram Shapeero, and others Writers: Tina Fey, Robert Carlock, and others Studios: Netflix, Universal Studios, Little Stranger Inc, Bevel Gears, 3 Arts Entertainment

Review: American Horror Story: Freak Show

Written by guest contributor Cameron Gallagher

After having watched Hotel, and just coming from Coven, I skipped Freak Show, because I was waiting for it to come to Netflix. Coven, has been my favorite of the entire shows run so far with the magical sense of horror and a compelling plot to go along with it, but after watching Freak Show, I have a new favorite.

Freak Show follows the story of a Freak Show (obviously) and their leader, Jessica Lange, and basically it is all of the insane things that come with a new addition, Sarah Paulson, a two-headed human, and how she basically creates the fall of the beloved Freak Show. This show had a lot of things going against it. Coming off a season like Coven, there is a lot the show would have to accomplish in order to not push away its viewers.

I think this show really flourished in its storytelling and visuals.  In previous seasons like Asylum and Murder House, the stories seemed to be sewn together, just barely hanging on by a thread and seeming a little too convenient for my liking, but Freak Show raised the bar for really bringing in multiple stories, and having them all fall nicely together, and being not only coherent, but VERY entertaining.

This is by far the best visually of the series. Everything from camera movement to the color palette of the series blew my mind. The style was pushed so heavily by the production team, you can feel the authenticity in its costumer design, sets, and cinematography. Every time I would see the circus tent, I would imagine what it was like to be there and the warm and hot feeling the Florida air had. It created a very surreal feeling.

The acting was phenomenal, as most of the seasons have been. Particularly the character of Dandy Mott. The psychological depth and hatred you had for this character… made you love him. You basically watched the beginning and formation of a serial killer, and it was incredible to watch how his character would justify things and his recklessness. I was very impressed with Finn Wittrock’s performance in the role.

Jessica Lange’s narcissistic backstory seems to be getting a little repetitive, considering all of the seasons have really had that same message behind her character, and the show can be a little slow at some times, but it was made up for in its acting and production value. AHS gets it’s well deserved 4/5. Make sure to check it out yourself and enjoy!

---

Score: 4/5

---

American Horror Story: Freak Show Directors: Various Writers: Various Studio: FX Episode Total: 13

Review: Sisters

Written by guest contributor Cameron Gallagher

Sisters is a film based around two things, and only those two things only. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. Feeling like a midlife crisis version of Project X, Sisters didn’t only disappoint because of its lack of originality and abundance of montages, but I was disappointed in Tina Fey in particular in how her role felt so forced and honestly not even a bit funny.

Sisters is about two middle-aged sisters, on total different sides of life. Tina Fey, living in her friend’s kitchen with a daughter who doesn’t care to be around her, lives in the remembrance of her party days, wishing she could have it back. Amy Poehler on the other hand, is a respected and well off divorcee, who is to straight up to date or even socialize properly.

As their parents sell their childhood house, the two decide to revive their high school parties and create the Project X of their generation. BUT… this movie did none of that excitement for me. This film felt like a jumble of party scenes mashed together by “compelling” dialogue and exposition.  This movie was so bad I honestly don’t have a lot to say about it. The cinematography was very boring.

Probably the worst part of this entire film was its climax. The climax of this film was so ridiculous and beyond dumb, that I almost didn’t believe it was going to be the height of the movie. I never once felt that there were stakes.

I didn’t enjoy any moment of this except for one. When a character is playing charades with two others after snorting “Stevia.” I died laughing… otherwise I didn’t laugh once. Overall I would not suggest seeing this movie AT ALL, go see Star Wars again or The Revenant.

---

Score: 2/5

---

Sisters Director: Jason Moore Writers: Paula Pell Studio: Universal Pictures Running Time: 118 Minutes Release Date: 12/9/15

Review: The Hateful Eight

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

At some point, all genius filmmakers lose their way. Francis Ford Coppola made Jack. Steven Spielberg was behind the camera for Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull. Michael Scorsese directed Gangs Of New York. And after the near-perfect run of three films that kicked off his career, Quentin Tarantino can join the list of directors who lost their way after following up Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown with four films that wasted good ideas and even better casts.

That's not to say that lost directors can't make comebacks. Lincoln and Bridge Of Spies proved Spielberg still had the chops to make a good film, while Scorsese scored hits with Shutter Island and The Wolf Of Wall Street. For many, the hope was that The Hateful Eight would set Tarantino on the path back to greatness.

It certainly has a promising premise. In an unhealed, post civil war America, bounty hunter John "The Hangman" Ruth (Kurt Russell) and his carriage driver O.B. Jackson (James Parks) are transporting wanted murderer Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to the town of Red Rock to be hanged. When they are caught in a blizzard they pick up two fellow travelers - bounty hunter and disgraced former solider Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and the would-be new Sheriff of the town Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins).

Unable to reach Red Rock due to the snowfall, they stop over at a cabin called Minnie's Haberdashery, which is in the temporary control of a mysterious Mexican named Senor Bob (Demian Bichir). There they meet others bound for Red Rock and beyond - the hangman of Red Rock, Oswald Mobray (Tim Roth), ex-Confederate General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern) and sullen cowboy Joe Gage (Michael Madsen). Ruth soon deduces that one - or more - of the inhabitants of the haberdashery are in league with Domergue and plotting her escape. He forms an uneasy alliance with Warren to find out who's plotting against him. In the meantime, there's also a rescue plot staged by Domergue's brother Jody (Channing Tatum) to deal with.

The plot and setting are reminiscent of the classic Reservoir Dogs, the film that launched Tarantino's career, but the similarities don't extend much further than that. The idea of these characters, each with their own rich backstory and shady motivation, in a tense standoff is an exciting one, but sadly a film that could be a thrilling ride is instead a slog - The Hateful Eight is as slow as a horse trudging through a blizzard. The film takes an age to get the haberdashery, and when it does it still moves, as John Ruth would say, "molasses-like".

There are more problems here than the pacing, though. Tarantino's films have always relied on the writer/director's ear for dialogue, but in the Western setting, his attempts at period-speak often hit the ear wrong. Thankfully he has a cast of talented actors who can, at times, spin gold from his thin threads. Samuel L. Jackson's easy charisma and underlying menace carry the film, while Walton Goggins gives the kind of scene stealing performance that can catapult a career into the stratosphere (even if his Gomer Pyle-esque accent takes some getting used to). Jennifer Jason Leigh, meanwhile, as the cackling unrepentant outlaw Daisy Domergue, imbues the unlikeable character with an unexpected resilience.

Elsewhere, Roth plays Mobray with a twinkly-eyed sense of fun that suggests he studied Christoph Waltz' Django Unchained performance closely, but Maden is underused as the gruff Joe Gage and General Smithers doesn't give Bruce Dern much of a chance to flex his acting muscles. Tatum excels, cast against type in a small role, and his scenes here suggest he could make a menacing villain in the right project.

It's the interplay between the actors that saves the film from sinking under its own weight. By this point in his career, Tarantino is clearly in love with his own voice: rather than edit Kill Bill down into a manageable film, he split it in two. Half of Death Proof was entirely unnecessary, but was somehow spared the cutting room floor. Both Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained were flabby and contained unneeded detours that distracted from the story. The hope was that The Hateful Eight would bring Tarantino back to his roots. But it did not do so. Remember, Reservoir Dogs ran at a taught 99 minutes. Instead of that, this film runs to a bloated 167 minutes.

Clearly someone, somewhere, needs to make sure Tarantino harshly edits his films in future - but let's face it, it won't happen. No one will say no to Quentin as long as his films keep bringing in money, and they do. Those of us who were once enraptured by his genius will have to simply hope that he realizes where he has gone wrong, and knows how to fix it. Maybe then the ninth film by Quentin Tarantino will finally live up to his lofty reputation.

---

Score: 3/5

---

The Hateful Eight Director/Writer: Quentin Tarantino Studio: Double Feature Films Running time: 167 minutes Release date: 12/30/15

Review: American Horror Story: Murder House & Asylum

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

Every well-regarding TV show in history has had its detractors. Even a classic like Twin Peaks divided opinion. Lost often split audiences right down the middle. I even know people who find documentary-of-the-moment Making A Murderer boring. But there's one show that seems unanimously loved, at least by people I know: American Horror Story.

Ever since the show debuted in 2011; friends, co-workers and relatives have been telling me to watch it. I always resisted, horror isn't really my thing, and there are so many shows to catch up on that it was always very low on my list of shows to watch.

But, one fateful day recently, I was browsing listlessly through Netflix when my fiance suggested that we watch American Horror Story to "see what the fuss is about". I agreed, and it's a decision I will always regret.

The anthology series is currently on its fifth season, American Horror Story: Hotel. Naturally, my experience started at the beginning with American Horror Story: Murder House. It's the season that is almost universally regarded as being the best. Given how much I hated it, I can only imagine how awful I'll find Hotel once I get to it (if I get to it!).

Murder house follows the Harmon family: psychiatrist Ben (Dylan McDermott), his wife Vivien (Connie Britton) and their moody teenage daughter Violet (Taissa Farmiga). They move into an old mansion in L.A. and are haunted by strange happenings and the apparitions of anyone who had ever died in the infamous "murder house".

Haunted house tales are as old as time, and the setting is perfect, in theory, for a creepy, suspenseful thriller. But instead of that, Murder House delivers a shrill, jumbled mess. The Harmon family seem to be going through about twelve different crises at once while the house itself is haunted by what seems to be an innumerable number of ghosts. Not content to tell a simple ghost story, the show throws everything at the wall to see what sticks: a school shooting, suicide, rape, a mutation in the basement, scientific experiments gone wrong, the antichrist...it's all there. And most of it doesn't need to be. Murder House feels as though it's written by an excitable child with ADHD.

American Horror Story's second season, Asylum, is much the same. It's worth mentioning that American Horror Story is an anthology series like True Detective and Fargo. Each season is distinct, following a different story and a different cast of characters, albeit with a revolving cast of actors playing different roles. So Asylum takes place in, well, an asylum. Unlike Murder House, it isn't set in the present day but in the 1960's. The season follows the lives of the nuns, doctors and patients who occupy Briarcliff Mental Institution. Again, the setting is interesting. Given the horrors that were seen inside the walls of mental institutions during this period in history, the potential was there for some really creepy, unsettling television. Creator Ryan Murphy even said the season was "based largely on truth and truth is always scarier than fiction".

"Based largely on truth"? Asylum contains with in its walls a former Nazi in hiding, experimenting on patients; mutated, feral, cannibalistic ex-patients who live in the woods, a serial killer who kills women and wears their skin, exorcisms, devil possession, the Angel of Death, rape (yep, again), oh, and aliens. Because why the hell not? It's fair to say that it has absolutely nothing to do with the truth. In Asylum, just as in murder house, a promising setting is ruined by jumbled storytelling. Absolutely nothing in Asylum makes any sense. In fact, both of the first two seasons lurch from idea to idea and don't seem to settle on anything at all. It's irritating, it's distracting, and it's certainly not scary.

I haven't yet moved on to season three (Coven), but I'm sure it will have as much frenetic, unfocused energy as Murder House and Asylum. All I want is for American Horror Story to live up to its name and tell an actual story. A solidly plotted story that sticks to an idea for more than five minutes, and carries it through to the end. Sadly, I think it's far too much to ask.

---

Score: 2/5

---

American Horror Story: Murder House and American Horror Story: Asylum Director: Bradley Buecker and Various Writers: Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchuk and Various Studio: 20th Century Fox

Review: Mad Max: Fury Road

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

Visionary director George Miller has taken a long and winding road back his trademark post-apocalyptic world, Max Rockatansky's home, "The Wasteland". Following the poorly received third installment in the Mad Max trilogy, Beyond Thunderdome, Miller's directing career took a turn as he spent time behind the camera for the Babe sequel and two films about dancing CGI penguins.

It's not the case that Miller had no desire to make another Mad Max film. Possibilities for a fourth film and/or a reboot were mooted for decades - at one point in the 90s it looked as though it would be an animated film - but as the franchise's star, Mel Gibson, aged and became less and less of a bankable star, it seemed less likely that a new Mad Max would ever see the light of day.

Against the odds, in 2015 we were finally able to return to Miller's hectic fever-dream of an Aussie apocalypse. Despite rumours of a cameo, Gibson didn't appear, replaced in the title role by Tom Hardy. It's much more of a sequel than reboot, though really it could function as either. Mad Max: Fury Road doesn't bother with an origin story or exposition, it barely bothers with plot: it throws you in head first to a fully formed world and invites you along for the ride.

The film is almost nothing but a spectacular car chase, reminiscent of the final 20 minutes of 1981's second Mad Max installment The Road Warrior - only louder and even more spectacular. What plot there is concerns Max being captured early on in the desert citadel run by terrifying despotic demi-god Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne). Joe has five "wives" locked up to sire him a healthy heir, but when they escape in a petrol tanker piloted by an ex-wife Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), Joe's army give chase - and Max gets caught up in the conflict.

When the film draws breath around 20 minutes in after continuous carnage, it may be the first time you draw breath too. It's easy to understand why most films aren't made with skeletal plots and stunt after stunt after stunt - in the wrong hands, Fury Road would be a mess of Michael Bay proportions, but in Miller's hands this recipe for disaster becomes something quite extraordinary.

Also, while plot may be minimal, there's still a message here. There seemed to be a lot of hate online (among knuckle-draggers, to be fair) about the film's supposed feminist overtones, but frankly, should it be controversial in 2015 to have a message of "women are not objects"? The fact that such a thing even still needs to be said shows that, if anything, we need more films willing to take this stand. It's true that really, Imperator Furiosa is the real protagonist, rather than Max, but there's nothing wrong with that. Max has always been an interloper in the lives of others, but Furiosa - with her metal arm and steely gaze - is just as able to hold up an action film as the title character. And Max remains vital to the film, even if he's not always its focus.

Fury Road shows, too, that there's still a place in cinema for practical effects (Fury Road makes relatively minimal use of CGI when compared with many modern blockbusters) and that the action genre isn't as dead as everyone may have thought.

There was a lot of competition for my favourite film of 2015. It was a tough choice, and when thinking about it I changed my mind maybe 3 or 4 times. In the end, I chose Mad Max: Fury Road because I came out the cinema with a grin from ear to ear - and everyone else was the same. It's exciting, it's thrilling, it's tense, it's important in a few ways but more than anything else: it's fun. Ultimately, we go to the cinema to be entertained, because we want to have fun. Mad Max: Fury Road delivers that in spades, and nothing else came close to it for that in 2015.

---

Score: 5/5

---

Mad Max: Fury Road Director: George Miller Writers: George Miller, Brendan McCarthy & Nico Lathouris Studio: Kennedy Miller Productions, Village Roadshow Pictures Running time: 120 Minutes Release Date: 5/15/15

Review: The Martian

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be counting down my top 5 films of 2015. Here’s #2, a redemptive sci-fi offering from director Ridley Scott.

After the recent missteps of Prometheus and Exodus: Gods & Kings, Ridley Scott reminded everyone why his name is so revered with The Martian. Based upon the novel of the same name by Andy Weir, The Martian has hard science to go with its fiction, a rarity these days.

The film stars Matt Damon as astronaut Mark Watney, a botanist who is stranded on Mars when a mission goes awry. Presumed dead by his mission commander Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain), Watney is forced to use his intelligence and ingenuity to survive on the hostile dead planet while awaiting rescue by NASA.

This is the second sci-fi film in my top five of the year. Ex Machina is the other, and while it doesn't share that film's philosophical bent, The Martian similarly uses science as a foundation for its fiction thanks to the meticulously-researched novel that is its source. It takes its visual and narrative cues from recent crowd-pleasing space dramas like Gravity and Interstellar (the latter of which also features Damon as an astronaut stranded on a hostile planet) but perhaps its nearest cinematic brethren is Ducan Jones' Moon. While it isn't as quirky as Duncan Jones' effort, both of them feature a lone protagonist talking to himself for much of their runtime.

Not to say that The Martian is dull (nor is Moon, for that matter). Thankfully, Matt Damon is as charismatic a lead as they come, and he imbues Watney with enough intelligence, humour and pathos to hold our interest. He's also supported by an excellent cast that includes Jessica Chastian, Sean Bean, Chetiwel Ejiofor, Jeff Daniels, Kristen Wiig and a scene stealing Donald Glover.

The film also looks beautiful, even the dusty red vistas of Mars look awe-inspiring, which is more than you could say of previous Mars-set bore-fests like Mission To Mars, to give just one example of many. The success of The Martian suggests that the problems of Scott's other recent films may be down the script rather than anything else. With a brilliant screenplay from Drew Goddard (World War Z, Cabin In The Woods) and a troupe of actors at the top of their game, Scott proves that with the right tools he can craft an exciting cinematic experience.

As the joke goes, The US government is forever rescuing Matt Damon, but this may well with the best film of all of them in that odd, specific genre. A smart, at times funny, and overall hopeful journey, The Martian helps to prove that there's life in smart sci-fi, and Ridley Scott's career - and life on Mars, too.

---

Score: 5/5

---

The Martian Director: Ridley Scott Writer: Drew Goddard (adapted from Andy Weir's novel) Studio: Twentieth Century Fox Running Time: 144 minutes Release Date: 10/02/15

Review: Inside Out

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be counting down my top 5 films of 2015. Here’s #3, a brilliant animated offering from Pixar.

There was a joke doing the rounds online after the first trailer for Pixar's Inside Out dropped. It described the film as the culmination of Pixar's ongoing quest to ask the question "what if [x] had feelings?". It began with "what if toys had feelings?" (Toy Story) through to bugs (A Bug's Life), monsters (Monsters, Inc), fish (Finding Nemo), cars (Cars), rodents (Ratatouille), and robots (WALL-E). Finally, with Inside Out, Pixar had reached the end of the line by asking - what if feelings had feelings?

Thankfully, there's much more going on in Inside Out than that glib joke would suggest. Directed by Pixar favourite Pete Docter, who was also responsible for the poignant-yet-hilarious Up (2009), it's Pixar's greatest achievement to date thanks to a smart script, brilliant performances and visuals as sumptuous as you would expect from Pixar.

Inside Out ostensibly follows the trials and tribulations of an 11-year-old girl Riley (Kaitlin Dias) as she is uprooted from her happy Midwest life and moved to San Francisco along with her parents. But Inside Out’s real story centres around the emotions that inhabit her brain: Joy ( an impossibly perky Amy Poehler), Anger (Lewis Black), Fear (Bill Hader), Disgust (Mandy Kaling) and Sadness (Phyliss Smith). As Riley tries - and fails - to adjust to a new city, a new house, and a new school, negative emotions begin to take hold and when an accident sees Joy and Sadness ejected from the "control room" inside Riley's brain, the odd couple must work together to get back in control before they lose Riley for good.

When I first read about Inside Out's premise I was worried that something as complex as a child's emotional development was being over simplified. The five emotions featured just didn't seem like enough. In practice, though, it works perfectly. Having too many emotions would clutter up the screen and the script, Inside Out manages the tricky feat of streamlining the emotions without dumbing everything down - and make no mistake, this is an intelligent film. It means that unlike some recent Pixar efforts, this really isn't one for small children, it genuinely feels like an adult film. If there's anyone left who doesn't take animation seriously as an art form, they should check out Inside Out and see if it makes them think again.

In the end, Inside Out is a poignant treatise on the importance of sadness, and other negative emotions, in life. Joy realises that she would not exist but for the much-maligned Sadness, and it's a realisation that's the beating heart of the film. In lesser hands this film would come across as corny, cloying and melodramatic. In Pixar's hands it's so much more - their best film yet, and deservedly in contention at the Oscars.

---

Score: 4/5

---

Inside Out Director: Pete Docter Writers: Pete Docter, Ronnie Del Carmen, Meg LeFauve & Josh Cooley Studio: Pixar Animation Studios Running Time: 95 Minutes Release Date: 6/19/15

Review: Ex Machina

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be counting down my top 5 films of 2015. Here's #4, Alex Garland's smart and stylish psychological sci-fi thriller.

Quick, see how many genuinely intelligent recent sci-fi films you can name. How many did you get? 10, 11, 12? Less? Four or five? Wracking my brains, I can only get enough to count on one hand. There are plenty of films categorised as sci-fi, but there are there enough that use the genre for its intended purpose: to ask questions, to make us think, to use the fantastic to look and where we are now, and where we're going. Personally, I blame Star Wars, for turning sci-fi into shorthand for "action films in space".

The good news is that films that but the "sci" in sci-fi are making a comeback. Christopher Nolan's Interstellar (2012) brought theoretical physics alongside blackhole related flights of fancy, while Ridley Scott's The Martian (another film from this year) was based on a novel that did not shy away from using - and explaining - hard science. Ex Machina, the directorial debut of 28 Days Later scribe Alex Garland (who also wrote the script) also belongs in this group. It has fantastical elements but feels grounded, and will leave your head spinning with ideas.

The film is heavier on ideas than plot. Caleb (Domhall Gleeson) is a talented young computer programmer for search engine giant Blue Book. He gets the opportunity of a lifetime when he is invited to meet his company's reclusive genius CEO Nathan (Oscar Isaac) and participate in an experiment with a groundbreaking AI (Alicia Vikander).

Ex Machina is quick out of the blocks; we see Caleb get chosen via random lottery to go visit Nathan's secluded, state-of-the-art home (that resembles a bunker more than a mansion) in the first few minutes, and the entire film then takes place on those grounds. Gleeson's Caleb is nervous, eager to please, deferential and almost apologetic about his intelligence. It's a smart, subtle performance, but scenes are frequently stolen by his sparring partner Isaac, who's unrecognisable, hiding behind bulk and a hipster beard. On the surface Nathan is pally and unusually down to earth for a reclusive, genius billionaire, but Isaac's performance hints and the reservoirs of anger beneath a placid surface.

Caleb is there to do a Turning test on Nathan's revolutionary invention, a robot named Ava. Nathan believes he may have created artificial intelligence, and wants Caleb to confirm either way by engaging in daily conversations with Ava for a week. What both men find as the week goes on is that it's not so easy to define consciousness. It's worth a mention that Vikander more than holds her own opposite Gleeson and Isaac as Ava. Her robotic exo-skeleton is a gorgeous special effect but means that her performance is mostly unspoken - she does most of her talking through smiles, frowns and her eyes, which shimmer with so much life that, really, no AI test should be needed.

Every conversation that Caleb has with Ava brings new questions. Is Ava making sarcastic jokes, or just repeating lines? Ava flirts with Caleb - is she doing it because she likes him, because she's programmed to, or is she just using Caleb to serve her own ends? Ava wants to know what will happen to her once the test is over. Caleb responds that it's not up to him, and Ava shoots back: "why is it up to anyone?".

That's what Ex Machina brings to the table. It brings questions that have no easy answers. The script could have come from Isaac Asimov or Phillip K. Dick, yet it's not derivative. Just when you think you have a handle on what's going to happen, the rug is pulled from under you. It shares DNA with sci-fi greats, but stands on its own two feet as an original piece of work. It's beautifully shot, and understands that action scenes and explosions aren't needed to hold an audience's attention.

If you're at all interested in sci-fi that explores difficult questions, trusts the viewer's intelligence and does not provide easy answers, then Ex Machina is for you. It's one of the best films of the year, and would be one of the best of any year.

---

Score: 4/5

---

Ex Machina Director: Alex Garland Writer: Alex Garland Studio: DNA Films, Film4 Running Time: 108 Minutes Release Date: 1/21/15

Review: Going Clear: Scientology And The Prison Of Belief

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

Over the next few weeks, I'll be counting down my top 5 films of 2015. Here's number 5, Alex Gibney's extraordinary documentary on the "Church" of Scientology.

You might not realise it, but there are good odds that at least some of your favourite celebrities are scientologists. Even if you're not a fan of well known Scientology godheads Tom Cruise and John Travolta, there are rafts of famous people still drinking L. Ron's Kool Aid, ranging from Beck to Jason Lee to Isaac Hayes. These days, Cruise is by far the most famous face associated with the Church, and largely thanks to his sofa jumping antics on Oprah, Scientology seems to be viewed as a kooky quasi-cult for the rich. Weird, sure, but harmless. If you're of that opinion, sit down and watch Going Clear and then see how you feel.

Writer-director Alex Gibney's compelling documentary is shot through with interviews with the journalist Lawrence Wright (on whose book the film is based) and former members, including Oscar-winning writer-director Paul Haggis, actor Jason Beghe, and most interestingly of all, Mark Rathbun (at one time the church's second-in-command) and Mike Rinder (formerly head of the church's "Office for Special Affairs"). The talking heads, though, are only half the story.

Like the book on which it is based, Going Clear is divided into two distinct halves. First we're introduced to the birth of Scientology via its founding father, L. Ron Hubbard. The man Scientologists refer to as "LRH" was a pulp sci-fi writer, churning out over a thousand books to make a living (at a penny a word). He is presented as a pathological liar, a man given to fantasically embellishing his less-than-stellar military career or straight up inventing "field work" studying indigenous tribes.

Hubbard veered away from the sci-fi that was his stock in trade with his 1950 book Dianetics, an attempt at hard psychology fused with his own confusing worldview; taking in outer space and past lives. Surprisingly, Dianetics took hold in certain pockets of America and gave Hubbard a second career as a pyschologist, philospher and P.T. Barnum-esque showman. When Dianetics proved to be a passing fad, Hubbard repackaged his ideas and called it Scientology, and the utopian ideals it claimed to stand for ("a civilisation without war, without instanity, and without drugs") struck a cord in 1960's America, and the Church of Scientology was born.

Of course, it was not recognised as a church and so, with the IRS hunting him for back taxes, Hubbard took to the seas and set up the church's "Sea Org.", a fleet of three ships, whose crewmates signed "billion year" contracts. During these segments of the film, those who saw The Master will shiver in recognition at the archive footage of Hubbard, the inspiration for Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character. Hubbard's mental state is somewhat danced around and it remains unclear whether he was simply scamming people for money or truly believed all the nonsense about thetans.

It's after Hubbard's death that Scientology goes from being a mentally unstable writer's wonky utopian vision to something far more sinister and scary. There was no succession plan in place following Hubbard's death in 1986, so David Miscavage took control. Miscavage looks and sounds like an 80's movie villain; the kind of guy who would bulldoze a youth centre to build a mall, or try to sack Andrew McCarthy for falling in love with a mannequin. In reality he's much worse even than that, and stories of espionage, blackmail, physical and mental abuse and the icy control he allegedly exerts over the likes of Tom Cruise, are too extensive to be listed here. Sufficed to say the testimony from the former church members interviewed (especially Rathburn and Rinder, who were close to Miscavage) is shocking and eye-opening.

Despite focusing with laser precision on dodgy church practices, Gibney avoids sensationalism. The film's tone is inquisative, Gibney is not necessarily aiming for headline grabbing revelations (though he gets some anyway), just to peek under the curtain to try and find out what really happens inside one of the world's most secretive organisation. The worrying thing is, there's almost certainly a lot more about it we don't know. There's not really much to criticise about the film, which is perfectly pitched and doesn't feel overlong despite the running time. It's a bit of shame they could not get interviews with any current church members, but as a title card at the end explains, they all either declined or ignored requests to participate.

Going Clear: Scientology And The Prison Of Belief is compelling - if sometimes horrying - viewing, and easily one of the best films of 2015, and I can't recommend it highly enough. Unless you're David Miscavage.

---

Score: 4/5

---

Going Clear: Scientology And The Prison Of Belief

Director: Alex Gibney

Writer: Alex Gibney

Studio: HBO

Running Time: 119 Minutes

Review: Elf

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

For a few years here in the UK, Elf would be shown annually on one of the national TV stations, Channel 4. There was one day every year, in December, when the whole country could sit down together and watch Will Ferrell's modern Christmas classic.

Okay, so it probably wasn't the whole country. I very much doubt the Queen was watching, but it could feel that way when scrolling through your Facebook and Twitter feeds. These days, the rights to Elf have been taken away by the subscription service Sky, in a move worthy of the Grinch himself. "Elf Day", as some called it, no longer exists, but plenty of people still watch the 2003 comedy as a festive ritual, like others do with It's A Wonderful Life, or Die Hard.

Elf's story is a simple one. Buddy the Elf (Will Ferrell) lives at the North Pole with Santa and the other elves, making toys for Christmas. But despite his name, Buddy isn't really an elf at all. Buddy is a human, an ophan who accidentally made his way into Santa's sack one Christmas. Kind-hearted Santa Claus (Ed Asner) keeps the child at the North Pole, where he's raised as an elf by, well, Papa Elf (Bob Newhart). As Buddy grows he becomes much taller, stronger, and clumsier than the other elves. Realising he's adopted, Buddy ventures to New York to find his real father Walter Hobbs (James Caan).

There's nothing hugely new or ground-breaking about Elf. For the most part it's your standard fish-out-of-water comedy as Buddy - constantly wearing his green and yellow elf costume complete with tights, pointy hat and shoes - raised in the magical North Pole alongside anthropomorphic animals has to adjust to real world New York. He has to deal with escalators, racoons that don't talk, and people who think it's weird when you smile at them. The jokes may be obvious, but Ferrell's wide-eyed childlike enthusiasm sells it. It's the role his overgrown manchild schtick was made for, and Buddy's arrival in the Big Apple contains many of the film's best scenes.

Ferrell is surrounded by a solid cast who are happy to allow him to take centre stage. Zooey Deschanel (pre-hipster glasses and dark hair) plays Jovie, a love interest for Buddy at the Gimbles department store where he finds accidental employment and James Caan is full of growling, barely contained menace as Buddy's biological father Walter, an overworked publishing executive who could not care less about Christmas and who is Buddy's polar opposite. There are also small but funny roles for Mary Steenburgen, Bob Newhart, Kyle Gass, Andy Richter director Jon Favreau and a pre-fame Peter Dinklage. It's hard to look past Ferrell when it comes to Elf, though, and it's almost a one-man show. Even during a slightly sagging and slow moving second act, Ferrell's career best performance is never boring.

Elf is not a perfect film, but as Christmas films go, it's up there with the very best. It deserves a viewing in your house this Christmas, whether you're watching it for the first or forty-first time.

---

Score: 4/5

---

Elf Director: Jon Favreau Writer: David Berenbaum Studio: New Line Cinema Running Time: 97 Minutes

Top 7 Batman Films

Written by guest contributor Cameron Gallagher

I'm going to be going over the Top 7 Batman films (in my opinion). Don’t forget no hate here or battles in the comments, this is meant to be a discussion on why I love the films I do and why I place them where. This list is GOING to upset many, but I will make sure to justify all of my reasons. I'm rating these based on watchability, acting, story, directing and fun. Let's get to it!

7. Batman Returns: This is by far the weakest film, I felt in all of the live action Batman movies. Although Keaton is iconic as Batman, Penguin and Catwoman felt so far-fetched I honestly think they are what tanked the film. This also is a very dark film and didn't have that dark yet light-hearted vibe to it, like the comics do. It's a great film overall of course, just not one I would put in my Blu-Ray player anytime soon!

6. Batman (1989): Let the hate begin! I know right, the original? Yes and here's why! Of course it's the original live-action Batman that portrayed the more modern and gritty Batman, but my problem with this movie is in its pacing and obviously dated feel. Even for 1989, this felt like an older movie, and for me it made it seem cheesier, but not in a fun way. Also like Batman Returns, this movie is pretty dark. Now obviously Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton are amazing in this, I just can't seem to re-watch it as often.

5. Batman and Robin: Yes, at its very core this movie is terrible, but not before being incredibly fun and witty. A lot of people hate, and I mean HATE, this movie but I think they aren't looking at it the right way. This movie feels like a light-hearted Batman comic. Over the top dialogue, crazy antics… that's what the comics felt like. Now of course, not all of the comics feel like this, but I feel like Batman at its core is a little hokey at times, but still with action. Also in this movie I love George Clooney. He isn't Oscar worthy, but I believed it. Now say I'm naïve, but I am an acting fanatic, and I think Clooney didn't do bad at all.

4. Batman Forever: This movie is by far the most re-watchable of all of the Batman movies before the Nolan Trilogy. I love Val Kilmer in this role and I thought Nicole Kidman was the only Batman woman I ever actually cared for. Jim Carey and Tommy Lee Jones KILLED their roles, and I love the introduction of Robin. This movie felt like everything great about Batman. Funny, serious, action. It all worked in this film for me!

3. The Dark Knight: WHHOOOAAAA, PUTTING THIS AFTER THE OTHER TWO NOLAN FILMS? I know, I know! I love this movie with all of my heart. Heath Ledger gives probably one of the greatest performances in the history of acting (pretty darn close) but the thing about this movie, was the horrible story between Rachel, Harvey, and Bruce. Horrible. Their chemistry on camera was so terrible. Also, beyond this film being excellently directed, well shot, and with incredible action scenes, it had the same effect Batman Returns did. It feels too depressing and not as hopefully as other Batman films. Of course Christian Bale kills Batman, but we already know that.

2. The Dark Knight Rises: This movie is incredibly suspenseful, and the ending to his film is one of the most bone chilling, goosebumps generating endings I have ever seen. Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon Levitt, and Anne Hathaway MADE THIS MOVIE! They were such well-written characters by Nolan, but so well brought to life, and this film to me tied together everything we love. Action, suspense, plot twists. It was all there. It did however have a few plot holes here and there that kept it from being amazing… like how the hell he got from that hole to Gotham in like two hours. But the Bane and Batman fights made up for it.

1. Batman Begins: This film holds every great film-making technique, storytelling technique, and character development in a Batman film, with being THE MOST re-watchable of all the films due to it’s comic book like nature. This movie has the tone of what Batman comics are to me. This film we got to see him slowly evolve and become Batman and learn how to be him. Kind of like the fun of watching Spider-Man, realize who he is. I love Scarecrow, and the first fight with Batman and those mobsters is so badass I get chills! I could watch this movie over and over! The training scenes, Liam Neeson, the Element of Fear, it all fell perfectly together to make an amazing Batman film that had me the entire time!

I hope you guys enjoyed! Don't forget DON'T HATE on me or anyone in the comments, and tell me what are your favorites from 7-1!

Review: The Ridiculous Six

Written by guest contributor Dave Fox

The Western genre has made something of a comeback in recent years. The likes of True Grit, Django Unchained and Slow West have shown that there's appetite amongst audiences for a good gunslinging yarn. The Ridiculous Six, Adam Sandler's first film in a four picture deal with online streaming service Netflix, jumps on that bangwagon as an attempted spoof of the classic Western The Magnificent Seven, but fails as both a comedy and even a coherent film.

Sandler plays Tommy, a.k.a White Knife, a white man raised by the Apache tribe after his mother's death. The film's plot, such as it is, begins when his estranged father, the outlaw Frank Stockburn (Nick Nolte) is kidnapped by Cicero (Danny Trejo) over the matter of $50,000. Tommy vows to make the money back and win his father's freedom. He resolves to steal the cash from the dishonourable and ropes in his half brothers Ramon (Rob Schneider), Li'l Pete (Taylor Lautner), Herm (Jorge Garcia), Danny (Luke Wilson) and Chico (Terry Crews) along for the ride.

I tried to go into this with an open mind, but knowing the background to the film made it difficult. Before the film's release on Netflix, it was allegedly passed on by three different studios. It's easy to see why when the scripts reads as though it was written by a purile teenage boy. Two prominent running jokes are Native American names ("Beaver Breath" and "No Bra" spring to mind) and a donkey with diarrhea. Each one of the Stockburn brothers is a broad stereotype, be it Li'l Pete the backwoods hick or Ramon, the Mexican who talks a lot about tacos. Sandler, meanwhile, gives a confused performance . His Tommy is a classic mystical, philosophical Native American - he aims for Eastwood-esque stoicism but lands squarely on the same somnambulant, bored performance he's been phoning in for decades now.

The bright spots are few and far between. Nick Notle plays his role with a twinkly-eyed charisma that suggests he thought he was in a different film entirely; Harvey Keitel chews the scenery with gusto as a malevolent saloon owner and John Turturro channels Peter Sellers as Abner Doubleday, the man who invents the rules of baseball (which calls "Sticky McShnickens") as he goes along. The baseball scene is incongruous because it's easily the film's funniest moment, and has absolutely nothing to do with the plot. It's funny purely because of Turturro, too, who does all the heavy lifting opposite a dead-eyed Sandler.

Aside from those small shafts of light, there's not much else to recommend. The only other entertaining thing to do while watching The Ridiculous Six is to spot the cameos from actors that could do so much better. Nolte, Trejo, Keitel and Turturro are joined by Will Forte, Chris Parnell, Jon Lovitz, Steve Buscemi and Norm McDonald for an easy payday while David Spade makes his customary appearance. Oh, and Vanilla Ice plays Mark Twain, which is about as logical as anything else here.

If The Ridiculous Six proves anything, it's that Sandler isn't about to up his game for his Netflix contract. If his next three films are this bad, he could single-handledly sink the company's reputation for producing exceptional original content. This film wants to be Blazing Saddles, but can't even match up to Seth MacFarlane's uneven A Million Ways To Die In The West. The truth is that there are hundreds upon hundreds of films to choose from on Netflix - and I would bet this overlong, unfunny, borderline offensive mess is the worst.

---

Score: 1/5

---

The Ridiculous Six Director: Frank Coraci Writers: Tim Herlihy and Adam Sandler Studio: Netflix Running time: 119 minutes Release date: 12/11/15

Review: Spy

Written by guest contributor Cameron Gallagher

Spy is a hilarious movie that truly shows the funnier side of some great actors and actresses such as Rose Byrne, Jason Statham, Jude Law, and of course Melissa McCarthy. After seeing Melissa McCarthy’s “Tammy” and “Identity Thief” I had lost all faith in her, especially because she WROTE TAMMY which was the worst of the bunch, Spy proves to me that she is a talented comedic actress, but still a horrible writer.

Spy is about a, well spy, played by Jude Law who after an issue, is replaced by Melissa McCarthy, who basically has almost no field experience. Most people will get caught up in Melissa, but I found that Jason Statham and Rose Byrne truly blew me away in this film. They were DROP. DEAD. FUNNY. I mean Statham’s character was so funny, I couldn’t stop laughing through whole scenes! Rose Byrne is very vulgar in most scenes, so is the entire movie, but I found that it really worked for the film’s tone.

Beyond it being funny, this actually has an interesting story. It’s no James Bond, but it is fun. This is one of those movies, you see some things coming, but others are really interesting and keep you on your toes. Also, I loved how Spy really doesn’t take itself seriously, even though it gets quite serious. It almost picks fun at Bond style films, while succeeding in being one.

That being said, the film was predictable. It wasn’t anything that ruined the movie by any means, but got a little repetitive in some areas. Also there was a few plot holes that didn’t make much sense, like another female spy, who we thought we would see again, and did for about 2 seconds. It didn’t work, but wasn’t a make or break plot point.

Overall Spy is a hilarious film, that is DEFINITELY worth seeing with a group of family and friends who love comedy. Check it out yourself and tell me what you think!

---

Score: 3/5

---

Spy Director/Writer: Paul Feig Studio: 20^th Century Fox Runtime: 120 Minutes Release Date: 6/5/15