choc_raisins

Genuinely, my hopes were not high. Having watched and reviewed all of the Paranormal Activity franchise thus far, I have looked on as what was once an admirable and innovative idea slowly descended into nothing more than a numbers game, generating more and more revenue for less and less quality. When the first PA was made, it was for next to nothing, but for the love of film-making, regardless of its potential profit. As time has gone on, the film-making appeared to be less important, the story more confusing and convoluted and with the best will in the world, it seemed like the audience was the last consideration of a juggernaut that relied on them, yet didn't really care enough about them to offer what they thought they'd paid for. Therefore, it was not altogether beyond belief to maybe give this an airing with something of a cynical back foot. Not for the first time since this series began did I sit down to view the offering, all the while wondering if my life would be better spent doing something else. On occasions such as this, I always end up considering my position on my death bed, as a draw my last breath. How much would I pay to have the time again that I wasted on some of the **** I have sat through in the name of entertainment? Thankfully this 'cousin' of the franchise decides to change the perspective a little, focusing its attention on Jesse, who has recently graduated from high school. It is on the night of this celebration at the end of his education that we are introduced to him and his friends and family. Continuing to shoot the project from largely a first-person perspective, much like its predecessors, you are immediately familiar with the PA universe and writer/director Christopher Landon improves upon his previous writing gigs on earlier PA movies by bringing a much needed lighthearted sense of mischief to proceedings in the early scenes. Like all PA movies, of course, things start slow, even pedestrian, and you can be sure that if you're just there for the scares, you probably don't even need to take your seat for the first twenty to thirty minutes, as this time has traditionally been reserved for character development and plot setups. This time does enable the audience to engage with the characters, as Jesse and his friends waste time in the days after school has finished, getting into trouble with local gangs, playing with the dog and poking around in places they shouldn't. All of this, of course, is recorded on Jesse's new camera, bought from the local pawn shop with money given to him as a graduation gift. The portrayals of these characters are very good and the actors involved inhabit them completely, making the script appear natural or even improvised. Things only really start to get 'interesting' upon the event of Jesse's neighbours death. Anna, who lived directly underneath him had already been classified as a little odd by Jesse, given that she covered her windows in newspapers so no-one could see what she was doing inside. Furthermore, events taking place shortly before her mysterious death only confrm to Jesse and his friends that she was indeed at least a little bit unhinged. If you're familiar with the franchise (and you need to be, or the latter stages of the film will make no sense whatsoever) then you will know the drill. The format is pretty much unchanged, really, but with a good degree less navel-gazing. Previously, as audience members, we have been left to our own devices somewhat, sitting for long periods throughout each film at an aparently static screen, waiting for something to happen. Not so here, as the fixed point perspective of the camera in question has gone, now being carried around throughout. In this respect, and in the respect of Jesse's new abilities in the first act, you could rightly be reminded of Chronicle, for example, where the spare character is the camera itself. Not so much a prop, but more an intergrated tool lodged firmly into the narrative. Without giving too much away, you can guess that things go from playful, to awkward, to uncomfortable, painful and then ending somewhere around terrifying. This is not new territory for makers or viewers alike and to suggest that you get pretty much what you expect from this will come as no great surprise. It is not particularly original, but based purely on performance and a pleasant upskill in terms of scripting and direction, this episode may well have saved what was becoming a predictable money-making bore.

In order for us, the viewers, to understand the appeal and validity of 300: Rise Of An Empire, it is important to remember its roots. If you bear the original in mind, and then ask yourself what progress has been made in the form of storytelling, visual invention, direction, action and scripting between this and that, then you might start to form an answer as to why this is not as great as some have claimed, all on your own. Telling partly the same story as the original film, but changing the perspective is a nice idea, if for no other reason than the possibility of maybe witnessing something previously unseen from Leonidus' adventures the last time around. Unfortunately, there is no new appearance from Gerard Butler here, but many of the previous cast do make welcome returns. Lena Headey's Queen Gorgo, to the now ex-King Leonidus, is just as beautiful, bullish, stubborn and independently oligarchical as ever, but probably features even less than the first outing. David Wenham is back again as Dilios, the one that got away, returning to Sparta to tell the tales of valour, courage and sacrifice that the original three hundred achieved in their battle with the god-king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), who is also back, having flesh added to a character that was sorely lacking a backstory the first time around. But the real focus of this new adventure (or new version of an old story with added opinion) concentrates on the leader of the Athenian fleet. Yes, ladies and gentlemen please welcome Sullivan Stapleton, as the difficult to pronounce and even trickier to spell Themistocles. And any new hero really needs a new adversary, so as if fighting the entire Persian Army and a King (who is also a God, don't forget), we are introduced to the testicle-shrivelling Artemisia played by Eva Green. Artemisia, the real power behind Xerxes' throne is rampant, driven, single-minded and extremely dangerous. Femme fatales don't come much more 'fatale' than this here **** from hell. But for all of the new faces and mostly welcome old ones, what is it we really have here? The same comic-book stylised battles, ad-infinitum, slow-motion death throes, spattered scarlet aplenty, interspersed with rousing speeches and verbal sparring. Like its parent, Rise Of An Empire is beautful to look at and grand and glorious in scale and intent. But strip from it the eye-candy, which is incase we forget, the real appeal of the original, we are left with a passable script and less enthralling acting than before. Eva Green's performance as Artemisia is probably the most interesting, if not the most rounded. Lena Headey's return as Gorgo is the most fulfilling, but she has the fortunate happenstance of not having to carry the entire film on her shoulders. Aussie Stapleton however, is responsible for the rise or fall of his fleet and the film and honestly, you have to question whether he has the same presence as the formidable Butler as Leonidus. There will be no 'THIS IS SPARTA!!' quotes this time around, I'd wager. In summary, an average return that thankfully doesn't undewhelm visually, but fails to really add anything but previously missing plot holes in a story we have already seen before. With some interesting, if not altogether satisfying characters, Rise Of An Empire is a sickly thrill a minute, but like a decent sweet and sour chicken, you'll probably be hungry again in half an hour.

Go on, you can tell me. Have you ever jumped into the back seat of your car as it trundles slowly through the car wash, just because you can, free for a moment of the responsibility of control, just for a different of view things? No? Well, me neither. Already, I feel inadequate, quirk-wise, and the opening credits haven't even finished. Afternoon Delight may be the perfect film for someone, just not for me. I have way too much testosterone coarsing through my innards to really get down with the ladies here. The story of (now, when you've watched it, you can tell me which) a disillusioned/selfish/vacant/bored wife and mother with a flagging sex-life, a challenged libido and a distinct lack of direction is not as voracious as it may be, but is written well, with enough reality at its core to be recognisable to many of a certain age. Kathryn Hahn leads this ensemble of considered female examples. To call them stereotypical is probably unfair, but they are more obvious when you're old enough to have met most of them already. None are particularly striking or surprising, with characters that are mostly old enough to know better, but are still barren of satisfaction, and not just in the bedroom. Emotionally needy and only slightly psychologically challenged, this collection of women, though seemingly empowered, still seem at odds with a world of opportunity and their apparent inability to grasp it firmly by its very hairy bollocks. If this is a mans world, then you just might have these ladies to thank for it, wasting their time with not even beginning to understand what they want, instead of knowing their own minds and just **** well taking it. "You want to blog with her? Name one good thing that's come from blogging.." Well I can think of one. This review, for example. Cited for best direction at Sundance, you can easily spend the first half of the films' running time just wishing that these women would stop suffering under a cloud of whatever it is these soccer moms are ailed by. The arrival of stripper McKenna (Juno Temple) into the lives of these frustrating, frustrated women is a breath of fresh air for the audience and you would expect this to be true also for Rachel (Hahn) when she invites her to stay at her house, conveniently forgetting to check with her husband or son beforehand. And this is where we have a problem. The story is at odds with itself. You can ask why she even needs to ask permission to invite a friend to stay, for as long as she wants? But she really should. This is about respect, after all. This is something she clearly needs from others, yet seems unable to provide it herself. If the intention was to make Rachel unbalanced and slightly avoidable, then this seems like a triumph. Personally, I get the feeling that we are, regardless of our gender, supposed to be engaged by her (we are to an extent), to understand her (we do, she is quite transparent) and to empathise (oh no, you can forget that, missy). Throughout the majority of the running time, Rachel becomes progessively more unlikeable and self-absorbed, pining for for a youth that's long gone and quietly regretting the life she's had since, for a number of reasons. Hahn's portrayal of Rachel is excellent and the acting performances are enviable throughout, with Juno Temple continuing to impress and deliver a range of performances only touched on here, but Afternoon Delight has trouble with what it wants to say, or come to that, even if it has something to say. As a contemporary temperature gauge for how women of a certain age feel today, then it's all well and good, but you have to ask what the audience can take away from this, aside from a nodding appreciation if the audience also happens to be female and middle-aged. And if that is even the case, is there anything here besides recognition worth sitting through this navel-gazing story that is ultimately quite unpleasant, if we're brutally honest. Seemingly trapped in two stories, one of a lonely stripper, one of a lonely housewife, the two could rightfully be expected to meet somewhere in the middle with either one or both of these women learning from the other, making two worlds collide for some kind of purpose, but this never really happens. Or at least, I never saw it happen. Both of the two main characters are reluctant to change, yet neither is satisfied with their life as it is. Perhaps, despite being confident and assured, they try to learn to understand that their world does not stop immediately outside their bubble. Well acted and scripted, the story is naive and beneath the audience it is trying to impress. The performances are easily the best thing about the film and the same cast with something more to chew on would have made a more satisfying project come to life with their abundant flair. This plods and lollops from one selfish, tired complaint to the next, rarely getting up enough steam to generate actual enthusiasm from an audience that were clearly

Okay, so he's at it again. You can almost hear the quotable tweets (if there were any), even as the lines slur from Neeson's mouth. Having become something of a staple, albeit surprising, action-hero in the past few years with the likes of Taken and its risible sequel and others, Liam Neeson returns to play an Air Marshall with problems of his own on a flight that requires nothing if not his full attention. And the film opens well enough, introducing us briefly but intriguingly to the main protaganists that we will be spending the majority of our time with. Neeson's brooding Air Marshall, Michelle Dockery's approachable stewardess and Julianne Moore's smart but passive/aggressive passenger. All of this is expertly done, like the good old days of 'Airport' movies, that give you just enough of a characters' backstory to keep them interesting, though not enough to be sure whether they will make it to the end of the film with the rest of us. Think of the setup in The Poseidon Adventure for example, in 1972, and you're not going far wrong. There are more than just these three characters of course, as this flight is almost full and paying attention at the time will do you a service as the clues are there should you choose to look and alot goes unmentioned, though not unnoticed, in the first few minutes. In this regard, the film does well to demand your attention and hold you there. While it tries to be subtle, it is not aiming for a highbrow audience, which is evident early on, as Neeson's Marshall is something of a predictable maverick and if not riddled with the standard imperfections of a Hollywood hero, then he certainly enjoys enough of them (doesn't like to fly, knows how to bend the rules, chequered past etc) for us to realise his character traits before he has the chance to tell us. All of this before you're even twenty minutes in. So far, you're in danger of becoming a contented dozing passenger in this story, like most of the planes' occupants. But like Neeson here, you are part of a different world, the world that sees what others do not. You are being slowly cosseted by the film, absent-mindedly blindsided by the trickery of the admittedly admirable, if occasionally dawdling, story-telling. You see what he sees, so you must be like him, right? The film engages you early on, as Taken did in the same fashion. The plan of all this, of course, is to have you quite blatantly siding with the hero and if possible, cheering and clapping for him by the end. But this ride, for that is ultimately what it is, is not quick in the delivery or as obvious as it may first appear. There are obvious nods to conventional thinking and then again, unspoken polarising opinion delivered in the form **** here or there or maybe where the script delivers something other than would normally be expected of a thriller that does not class the intelligent viewer as its target demographic. In this respect, it is a surprising, not to mention welcome, twist to proceedings which impresses more by what is not written, but implied of the audience by the film. But before we get ahead of ourselves, this is not a classic. It is, as we have mentioned, an action movie, through and through and would we have it any other way? Probably not. The performance from Neeson is predictably gruff, but maybe lacking the soul of a desperate father. Yes, there is peril here that the man has to cope with, but it not as believable that he would do these things for these people had he not been the parent of all of them. In this respect, Neeson's character, dutiful though he may have been, appears not quite believable enough. In the face of all the odds stacked against you, would you go to the same lengths? If not, does that make you less human, or the character in focus less believable? You decide. In all though, Non-Stop is good value for its running time, if a little slow to begin with, albeit purposely. The story is never too complicated to befuddle the less observant, yet clever enough to impress those looking for something more than just another Snakes On A Plane. Enjoyable, often actually thrilling, with a passable script and decent, if not outstanding support from Dockery, Moore and the underused and recently award-winning Lupita Nyong'o. Good throwaway fun.

It's a bit like putting my youngest child in Heathrow Airport's Flight Control tower and just letting him get on with it. I'm sorry, really I am, but I simply cannot buy into an annoyingly precocious child being responsible for the safety of all mankind, with the power of all of humanity's armed forces at his disposal. I don't care how much training (not much, evidently) he is purported to have had or whether or not he has been bred and nurtured for this very purpose. I am not eleven. Adapted from the book (not read it, sorry, nor am I going to) this tale of one child's training as a future Admiral in the next Starship Troopers sequel (oh alright, I take that back) has had its own set of problems, development-wise, judging by just how long it took to reach us. Pitched as a sci-fi with eye candy, exploring more than the average number of themes for this type of thing, our hero, Ender Wiggins (Asa Butterfield) takes destiny and apparent fate by the scruff of the neck and goes about trying to save us all from the evil Formics, a race of bug-type aliens that previously tried to colonise earth some fifty years earlier, ultimately failing, but killing tens of millions in the attempt. Ever since, plans have been afoot to take this war to the enemy planet and do away with them once and for all. And the best people to tactically outsmart the foe on this possible final day of freedom are apparently young children with no actual experience of warmongering whatsoever. So, a global blockbuster epic of galactic proportions. And with it, a hefty $110 million in the making. Perhaps it's because I never read the book(s), but I didn't know or care who any of these people were. The film takes alot for granted with regard to its audience, assuming that we have a clue what the hell is going on in the lives of everyone involved, what their motivations are and what, if any, relevance they have to events taking place. Such hefty production expenses would usually have to ensure that the film reached as many people as possible, but it really didn't feel like the previously uninitiated were being considered, which is unfortunate, given that this would have comprised most the paying members of the audience. Add to this the incredulity that those very same audience members will have felt by having this young man in charge of their very existence and just how likely, even in magical Hollywoodland, that would actually be. I can swallow quite a bit, but even this seemed more far-fatched than the clearly questionable premise was to begin with. Now I don't want to come across as a bully, but Asa Butterfield really doesn't have the gravitas to pull off a tactical master of the universe. For a start, he looks like he's about twelve, he has no charisma to speak of that would garner any kind of respect, especially from other children, who are, without doubt, the most difficult of demographics to get any kind of common-sense, consideration and deliberation out of. Even more so with teenagers. His direction may have been to play Ender as understated and thoughtful, but these qualities are not enough to make this character believable. Age is not on his side here, and what he lacks in years, he must therefore make up for in other areas. Sadly, this was not the case. Perhaps there are elements of Ender that we (them that didn't read the book) are not aware of. Again, we return to the problem of the characters not being fleshed out well enough for the more clueless in the audience (ie, me) to appreciate. I just don't know. I didn't read the book, so I don't know. What I do know is that I felt like I must be missing something fairly relevant to a plot that I was largely unaparty to. The performances from the grown-ups on show were all pretty good, though none were outstanding. Harrison Ford, Viola Davis and Ben Kingsley all supported the fledging war-maker suitably, although most of the time, they appeared to be just as reticent as me to believe this mere slip of a boy could muster enough respect to command a trip to the shops, far less potential genocide of an entire alien race. Looked pretty but lacked a cohesive narrative that the newcomer to the stories could follow and was sorely lacking with the choice of Butterfield as the lead. Not to be too harsh on him, but the finger of blame should probably go to the casting department in this regard, for choosing an actor that already had a serious handicap in this area, through no real fault of his own. This will come and go and you probably won't notice.

You may never look at your local chemist in the same way ever again. In 2010, The Hollywood Reporter broke the story that Geoff Moore and David Posamentier had agreed to collaborate on their own screenplay of the same name for Occupant Films. Yep, we're going back that far. Back as early as 2010, Paul Rudd was on board to play the role that Sam Rockwell eventually ends up with here. That being Doug Varney, amiable pharmacist in his father-in-law's business, about to take the reigns as his father-in-law finally retires. There were further cast changes before getting anywhere near filming, including that of Jeremy Renner, who replaced Paul Rudd in the lead role for a short period Put upon by his driven, opinionated and abrasive wife, played here by Michelle Monaghan, life was simple enough for Doug. It may not have been the life he had been expecting, or even wanted, but it was secure, unsurprising and dull. The small-town life does not suit everyone, after all. Events take a turn for the eyebrow raising when Doug meets Elizabeth (Olivia Wilde, in a part originally intended for Jennifer Garner before she fell pregnant for the third time), a bored, listless and gorgeous trophy wife who wanders her palacial home bought for her by her husband, drinking copiously and popping pills to keep her smiling, when all around her is loneliness and sorrow. Filmed over five short weeks in Maryland, this tightly scripted, somewhat niche, independent effort will continually make you smile. Rockwell brings his usual blend of charisma and incredulity, seen before in the likes of Choke and Seven Psycopaths. His portrayal of Doug, a genuine good guy on the path to new discoveries and a dawning realisation that he could have exactly the life he wanted if he just put his hand out and took it is interesting to behold, and a salutory lesson for those that think the answers to all of their problems lie in the bottom of a bottle of prescription medication. Mild-manned becomes reckless and, dare we say it, happy. At least for a while. We witness the spiral that Doug enters into with the aid the pills he has been giving to others that reside on the very shelves he works around every day, and the often hilarious consequences that befall this new recruit to the medicated army of pharmaceutical dependence. Buoyed by his new highly-charged relationship with Elizabeth, Doug becomes more carefree, letting this new world open up before him, allowing himself the luxury of hedonism for the very first time. Enveloped in their new love affair, he and Elizabeth hatch a plot so that they may both free themselves of the emotional shackles that currently bind them. Needless to say, their plan doesn't go to, well, plan. The supporting cast here are old hands, suitably able and effortlessly talented, each and every one of them. Monaghan's Kara, a patronising, control-freak that appears to have tired of Doug and his lack of drive years ago, is not usually seen leaping to roles that cast her in a negative light and it could have backfired, but she does more than enough to make the audience dislike her, if only for the harsh treatment of the loveable Doug. Femme fatales don't come any more alluring than Olivia Wilde, who could play the role of Elizabeth in her sleep, had she a mind to. This is not challenging work for her, but she is excellent as the apparently new raison d'etre for Doug's existence. She smoulders with a purpose. For a while, the audience will wonder if she will show a different side as she keeps you guessing with regard to her true intentions. In all, a very enjoyable hour and a half that will entertain you throughout. The writing is excellent as is the delivery. It is a simple tale, told with some nice embellishments from a great cast. You will do very well not to grin almost throughout. It has relatively few laugh out loud moments, but nonetheless, you can expect to be impressed by this project that zips by without you so much as missing the time.

Well, it happened with Craig Ferguson, so why not this Craig too? It's not impossible for British actors and/or comedians of seemingly arguable levels of talent to make it inexplicably big across the pond. Just ask Russell Brand. Craig Fairbrass writes and also, despite the billing on the DVD case, stars in this story of a man looking for his daughter after Taken has already been out for years and the producers decided it might just be a good idea to take advantage of that films' critical and financial success by trying to copy it by tapping into that paternal-revenge-lust dynamic that Neeson had going on, salaciously lapped up by the baying hounds of Daily Mail readers everywhere. As if to prove the point (if the point still really needs proving) that anything is possible in the golden land of opportunity, not only do we get a British 'star' of questionable note in the lead role here, but also, inexplicably, an appearance from none other than James Caan (oh, and Jason Patric too). Ladies and gentlemen, Mr James Caan. This man was in The Godfather, remember. That being the case, this must be good, right? I mean, you don't just turn up for anything after being in The Godfather, do you? Do you? Judging it purely on the first fifteen minutes (and why not, as most people will rightly be forgiven for turning off by then), it is safe to say that questions about the quality of the project are on the lips of everyone watching with most, if not all, of their full attention (not that this is a pre-requisite for following the plot, you understand). I mean, if you had been told your daughter has been found dead and you had to go and identify the body, would you really spend some time chewing the fat with one of your old work buddies over a glass or two of scotch, making happy quips about your future? Before you have even gone to check if the poor dead girl lying in the morgue was actually related to you? Well, our apparent hero does here. When we have established that this, in fact, is not his daughter, he automatically assumes, despite his estrangement from her for some months, that her lack of presence in her own apartment that he rifles through, can only mean that she is missing and therefore, somehow in danger. Twenty minutes in, and your plot has just realised that it's naked in front of all its friends. Perhaps it's all just a horrible dream. If you stick with The Outsider beyond this limp and pedestrian first act, however, the film does actually take a positive turn. Fairbrass and Miller could never be accused of sophisticated wordplay, but you have to ask if this even necessary given the demands of their target audience. There is enough fisticuffs and 'shooters' to keep those of a certain persuasion interested, but this is not Bourne or The Raid, so don't expect too much in the way of elaborate action choreography. In all, a low-ish budget project with an unchallenging script played out by those that are both too good and not good enough respectively to be in it. It's a valiant stab by Fairbrass to crack a market that he probably doesn't really deserve a piece of in the first place. It suffers too much from a lack of imagination in direction and cinematography and will, barely, keep you looking at it throughout. One rightly for the bargain bin at your local BP forecourt.

I always feel somewhat inadequate writing about movies with a massive understanding of their place and time. Perhaps it's an inferiority complex I carry around with me, questioning my own ability to pass judgement (such as it is) on a subject I am never going to fully appreciate and, if we're honest, have no right to pass comment on whatsoever. How very dare I sit, critically finger-pointing, at something that I have absolutely no comprehension of? It's like asking my ten-year-old to judge figure skating at the winter olympics. Approaching the all round general unpleasantness of the second world war in film is never an easy task, as it still holds a massive amount of importance to many, and rightly so. You need to be on your game, as events touched millions of people so radically that any apparent sign of disrespect, be it by a lackadaisical approach to storytelling or maybe an ambivalent nonchalance to the feelings of an audience most likely highly invested in its telling, would speak volumes about not only a lack of attention, but also cinema's duty of care to remember not only those featured, but all of those that go unmentioned. Unusually, the story we are told here is from a perspective less viewed. This is the story, predominantly, of a young german girl, Liesel (Sophie Nélisse) separated from her mother and tragically from her brother shortly before the onset of war. The reasons for their estrangement are never conclusively revealed, but it is hinted on occasion that her mother was rumbled for being a communist and subsequently disappeared with the shadowy aid of **** minions. Liesel is adopted by the Hubermans, Hans (Geoffrey Rush) and Rosa (Emily Watson). Hans is an unemployed and aging accordion player with an honest heart and a caring soul. Rosa does other people's laundry to make ends meet, has a sharp tongue and little patience. She makes no secret that adopting Liesel was for financial gain, due to the allowance provided by the government for such care. And it is here that we spend most of the running time, as Liesel is introduced to education. She learns to read, aided buy the loving Hans, who creates an opportunity for her to create her own dictionary of words on the walls of their basement. Liesel, initially fearing her new surroundings becomes more comfortable, makes friends (and the odd enemy) and integrates herself into this little town with as few ripples as possible. She strikes up relationships easily as her happiness expands and the audience cannot help but smile as this sweet, radiant child begins to enjoy life for what seems like the first time. And then, without warning, Percival will have our lead dressed in the uniform of what has become a symbol of hatred and fear, singing songs praising the Fuhrer. This comes, of course, out of a childhood innocence and a over-riding sense of impending fear of speaking out, but the innocent vision turned mindless, wanton evil, even defended by ignorance is often a jarring juxtaposition for the audience to deal with. When the war inevitably arrives, then we are afforded the trials that come with a nation under siege. Normally, our English speaking souls would be watching the valiant endeavours of our brave soldiers fighting against the evil Reich, but here, the war is a bit player that does not feature as much as it might. There are air-raids and conscription, not to mention a fair degree of destruction and death, but for a young girl, this is as an accurate representation of her experiences of wartime in her home town as we could feasibly expect to witness. Director Brian Percival has done a truly admirable job, recreating a mostly happy perspective. Even in times of hardship and strife, normal lives continued to be normal, as much in this little german town as anywhere else in Europe at that time. Percival's skill here is making the war a subtle, circling monster in the life **** that has no real understanding of what **** events are going on around her. When this newly formed family unit takes in a young Jewish man because of a promise made in another time, Rosa's first thought is to turn him in, concerned that food is already scarce and her soup would become even thinner with an extra mouth to feed. Hans is resolute, however, and the young man is nursed back to health as Liesel warms to him, as a sister to an older, unfamiliar visiting brother. Nelisse's performance as Liesel is excellent, rounded and complete. It may just be fifteen or twenty minutes too long. Overall, however, a very satisfying experience all round.

You may or may not be familiar with the work of Jason Pargin already. If you've ever visited ****, then you may know him by his pseudonym, David Wong. Here, Pargin adapts his own book, written by his alter ego, of the same name, starring his pseudonym self. Confused? Well get used to it, because this is about as normal and mundane as it gets. Aided and abetted by director Don Coscarelli (Bubba Ho-Tep), Pargin (or Wong, please yourself) has created a world that defies categorisation. Labelled with various degrees of futility as another Naked Lunch, Hithc-Hikers Guide or Bill & Ted, John Dies At The End is a cult indie just waiting to be recognised. Starring Chase Williamson (David) and Rob Mayes (John), this complete and total **** of a story is difficult to pigeon-hole, tricky to second-guess and nigh on impossible to forsee (unless you have read the book, of course) Labelled thusly by Imdb "A new street drug that sends its users across time and dimensions has one drawback: some people return as no longer human. Can two college dropouts save humankind from this silent, otherworldly invasion?" JDATE is all of these things and plenty more besides. This laughable synopsis barely scratches the surface of this bizarre tale of two friends that innocently do the wrong kind of drug one night at a party and all hell breaks loose. Whether this is in their own heads or not, or how much of it may be nothing more than overactive imagination, well, that's a decision you need to make for yourself. I wouldn't try, however, as just like mother nature, just when you've think you've got a handle on it, it throws something at you like a duck-billed platypus, just to **** up your initially well-thought out explanation of mammals. And to be honest, I was more oblivious to the existence of this story and its magically tragic characters than the director himself, who only became aware of its existence by happy accident. It was made known to him as a recommendation from Amazon, after buying a completely different book. Taken by the natty title, Coscarelli decided to give Wong's adventure a whirl and what you see here is his (and Jason's/David's) adaptation. I was even slower, only catching the second book 'This Book Is Full Of Spiders' in the saga as a recommendation on Audible. If nothing else, it proves that Both Coscarelli and I are nothing if not open-minded and appreciate the benefits technology can offer. Essentially, without our computers, I would have missed a great story and cinema would be one very odd film short of complete. Regularly gory and occasionally amusing, seeing these characters on screen is like getting a hug from an old friend that you haven't seen for some time, but can't honestly say you've missed all that much. Yes, it's nice to see them and the casting is creepily accurate, but this is such a strange and bizarre world, that just like the aformentioned Naked Lunch, you're not sorry to be out of it when you're done. It doesn't have anything like the same creeping dread and slithery tension provided by Cronenberg, however, concentrating its running time with comedy more than horror. The Shaun Of The Dead approach of being surprised by something so otherworldly and just how someone completely unprepared to deal with it copes with being put in this situation is where the story hangs its hat. The second book continues this approach with most of the characters of not make re-appearances, as well as that legendary soy sauce. Ultimately, this film is bonkers. In that respect, it is frightfully honourable to the original text, with only a few things changed to make a very strange book slip comfortably from page to screen. The casting, as mentioned, is brilliant. Sometimes, you might get lucky and find that the casting director has matched up maybe one character that you have forseen yourself whilst reading the initially faceless pages. Here, we are treated to at least three characters that you can name without so much as hearing them speak. A good translation from one medium to another, but it really does benefit from having a copy of the book recently soaked up, as otherwise you may find yourself bombarded by things that just do not make sense. When you begin to understand that this is just another part of the beauty of the story itself, you can relax, knowing that, perhaps, you shouldn't try and take it too seriously. A survival horror game, reduced to feature-length proportions for a greedy audience. It's not a classic and the script is, much like its source, simple, alarmist and base. Still, bloody good fun, nonetheless.

Loyalty and what may be construed as blinkered enthusiasm have been the catalysts for many things. Here, this crowd-funded Kickstarter project gathered enough momentum from lovers of the original television series of the same name to get it across the finish line and get the film greenlit. People power. Don't you just love it? Well, yes and no. I do love the fact that the opportunity for someone to beg for money to get their project made is a viable option and an achievable reality. However, where does this stop? If I get enough people to give me a dollar, should I make 'my' movie too? As Jeff Goldblum says, "you realised that you could, but didn't stop to ask yourself if you should." Having not seen the television series on which this film is based, yet still acutely aware of the dreams upon which all these small investors precariously hang, you have to wonder just how good an idea this was. Hindsight will no doubt prove me wrong, however. As an example of this expectation, you don't have to look too far. I'm reviewing it. I didn't watch the television show, yet I am still reviewing the film. Already, the reach of the film has gone beyond the apparently rather flimsy grasp of it small screen predecessor. But does that make it any good? As it is being paid for by the fans, should it actually be allowed to be anything else? A studio risking its own money is one thing, but playing foolishly with other people's money would not be a wise move at all. This had better work. For everyone's sake. Otherwise this won't be happening again, any time soon. Kristen Bell reprises her role of the titular detective from all those years ago, drawn back to the town she went to school in to help an old friend who has been charged with murder (he is still walking around and not locked up, why is this?) and at the same time, take the opportunity to attend a school reunion and spend a few days with her father, who still lives there in the family home. Three birds, one stone. Feeling a little too much like an extended television episode (what would I know, I've never seen the show. that's just how it feels) the script is sharp in most places and witty in others, even if the direction seems a little uninspired. For starters then, the writers have done sterling work and have seemingly honoured the literal quality of the show, mooted to be one of its strong points in various quarters. Bell's Veronica is a little bit sassy, confident and smart and you can see why this teenage detective would have gathered a loyal following at the time. Beautiful, smart and funny? What's not to like, right? The character Bell plays may well be a tentpole for girls of a certain age, reassuringly brainwashed into believing that they could be like their hero, or come to that, anything they want. A nice positive message, regardless of its place in reality. The delivery from the majority of the cast falls a little flat and at times you do wonder if you have inadvertently stumbled into a live-action re-make of Scooby-Doo as convenient plot devices are a little too commonplace here to feel natural. The narrative is, at best, convenient and if we're brutally honest, its screams at a market that is less demanding than your usual thriller-driven cinemagoer. In all, a fairly harmless re-visit to a much loved franchise. Safe, certainly, for possibly those reasons mentioned above. Whether the responsibility placed upon the project by the method by which it secured its financing has forced it to play a little safer than we might expect. A vanilla production which will have a hard time impressing an audience outside its already wide circle of friends, even if it touches more people along the way, due to its revelatory conception. Alright, I guess, but it won't be setting the world alight.