I almost feel sorry for Spectre , because Spectre will always have to deal with the shadow of Skyfall looming menacingly over it. Not to give Skyfall a bad name, it isn't Skyfall 's fault that it was so ridiculously good, but the film that followed it will always suffer as a result of its ridiculously goodness. Fortunately for Spectre , it didn't suffer too much Set Pieces Galore Despite being a fourteen year old boy, action sequences in films aren't often something I really care for. I much prefer the scenes in which the character's are interacting through other, less violent means. I think the problem lies in the lack of emotional involvement, when I see the heroes and villains beating the living daylights (no pun intended) out of each other I don't actually care, because all of the character is sucked out and instead all I see on screen are a few lifeless beings breaking lots of stuff. Spectre , however did manage to capture my attention. What made it...

I'm not that acquainted with the films of Ridley Scott. In fact the only film (other than The Martian) that I've seen of his is Gladiator. Now don't get me wrong, I like Gladiator as much as the next man (provided that the next man likes Gladiator a lot), its a hugely epic film, with a grand story and excellent action, but it's not exactly fun. Really, it hasn't got much personality at all outside of super manliness because violence. The Martian is surprisingly different, because The Martian is a lot of fun. From first glance, it may seem like a super serious, super intense Gravity/Interstellar style movie and, whilst it does certainly warrant some comparisons to those films, it's very different in tone. There are constant jokes being cracked throughout the film, mainly by Matt Damon's character Mark Watney, all of which are genuinely funny, giving the film an enjoyable atmosphere (I know there's no atmosphere in space, please don't sue me) ...

Comedies aren't particularly known for their plots. They're almost always extremely messy and often quite forced, clearly just existing to set up the jokes and to give the film a reason to be a film in the first place, as opposed to just a stand-up routine. Now, as a result of this, most comedies are reviewed based on the quality of their jokes, as no one is really expecting anything good (or really anything at all) in the story and the character departments. I did this in my Night at the Museum 3  review, although I did still briefly mention how the plot wasn't that good. So, taking all of this into account, imagine my surprise when Bill turned out to be not only extremely funny, but also surprisingly well written on a story and character level. Admittedly, I wasn't expecting anything less in the humour department, especially from the Horrible Histories crew. I've mentioned before about how much I love the programme (although I must admit I never really d...

In the middle of 2014, I remember thinking to myself that I didn't really care about Pixar anymore. Back then I just thought it was because I'd grown out of it. I was 12, I was older now, I could legally buy a Marvel film on DVD, I could get library books out without my parents knowing, I didn't need to watch these silly children's films. In hindsight, however, I see it differently. The problem wasn't me, it was Pixar. Just look at the last films they'd made; Monsters University (2013), Brave (2012) and Cars 2 (2011). None of these were awful films by any means, but they weren't really up to Pixar's usual standards. Then along came Inside Out and I realised that I was being ridiculous. I hadn't grown out of Pixar, there's no such thing. Whilst Minions  appealed mainly to younger audiences by being just plain silly, with silly jokes, silly stories and silly characters, Inside Out, just like Pixar's best work, appealed to everyone by being ...

Basically all superhero films come to the same conclusion nowadays; big evil villain man is going to destroy the world unless you destroy half of a city to stop him. This may seem great on paper, the higher the stakes, the higher the investment of the audience, right? Except, the audience doesn't care about the world. The world is just a setting, plus, it's a setting that will almost certainly not get destroyed, because it never does. At least, not in superhero films.  Ant-Man is different. The world isn't at risk of being completely and utterly destroyed, the only thing at risk is the characters. Now at first glance that may appear less likely to invest the audience, as surely just a couple of people don't matter as much as the world? Well, not to the audience. The film, if it's a good one, will have taken time to develop these characters so that you actually care about them and, therefore, when they're lives are at risk, you're invested. This ...

10/10

Funny is hard. The problem with funny is that funny is subjective, meaning that some people may find one thing funny and another thing not funny, but others may find one thing not funny and another thing funny and as a result of that trying to make funny ends up being a matter of who you want to please with the funny you are producing and whether or not the funny you are producing is even funny at all. You can't come up with a definitive answer to what people find funny, but you can generalise. For example, big, colourful, silly, over the top humour usually resonates more with children than adults, therefore most animated children's films you go and see will be just that, colourful and silly. There are exceptions, obviously. The best animated films (from studios such as Pixar and occasionally Dreamworks) can get a balance of madness for the kids as well as more subtle, smart, intelligent humour for everyone else.  Minions is not one of those films. That's not to...