Film Reviews by NP

King Kong, from the very start of this, is portrayed as the good guy. Endlessly shifted and chained up by the APEX organisation (or corporate human beings in other words), we feel desperately sorry for his plight – especially as he has a special relationship (via sign language) with little Jai. Jai is played by Kaylee Hottle, and in many ways is the star of the show. As cute as a button, she will break your heart. She really will.

Spoilt Maia Simmons (Eiza González), daughter of rich baddie Walter (Demián Bichir) seems to be on an upward curve. Ruthless and stunningly beautiful, she often refers to Kong disparagingly as ‘the monkey.’ She really should know better. After being built up as a force to be reckoned with, it’s supremely satisfying to see ‘the monkey’ end her life without even thinking about it, rendering her mission and her posturing entirely worthless.

So then, when it becomes apparent that the much abused Kong is now a target for Godzilla, we’re instantly on Kong’s side; but Godzilla is supposed to be a (kind of) good buy as well, isn’t he? Not here he isn’t. He’s mean and brutal and goes for Kong relentlessly – and all the big ape wants is ‘home’.

So when (I told you there’d be spoilers) Mechagodzilla turns up, created by APEX, naturally, from the DNA of previous Big Bad Ghidora, it’s Godzilla’s turn to get ragged. And he does. Mercilessly, relentlessly and repeatedly.

Sitting in my cinema seat, a bottle of Coke Zero gone warm in my hands, I’m egging the machine creature on. Hit him, I’m thinking, and again – but the attack does not let up for a second. Godzilla is a spent force, a rag swung about in Mechagodzilla’s metal claw – and still it doesn’t stop. With Kong out of action, this promises to be a measured, horrifying end for the big lad. My allegiances change. This is a bit much, I’m thinking, this is cruelty to animals (forgetting that all this is CGI special effects)! So my sympathies at last drift towards the Big G, floundering and utterly humiliated, along with most of the surrounding architecture.

Even I’m not going to give away the finale, but it as perfect as it could possibly be. Directed by Adam Wingard, who made a valiant attempt to breathe life into The Blair Witch franchise a few years ago, this is an absolute triumph, a stunning looking blockbuster in all senses of the word.

Of these Legendary films, ‘Godzilla’ was good, let down by too many bland humans and not enough monsters, ‘Godzilla King of the Monsters’, was a vast improvement. This, with its sci-fi trappings involving a hollow Earth and Kong portrayed as a genuine king of that world, is absolutely breath-taking. 9 out of 10.

“I’m not your slave,” says Mark.

“Yeah you are,” says Shannon.

So much about this is good – if only a bit more effort was made to allow it to make some degree of sense. True, disorientation can be frightening, but it would be more satisfying to have at least something to hold onto.

It appears to be a revenge slasher, artfully filmed and directed by Karen Lam. It may also be seen to be anti-male. The only honourable man here is Mark (Anthony Shim), who is nevertheless treated as a lapdog by his girlfriend Shannon (Mayumi Yoshida). See this review’s opening quote. Of course, this could be something to do with the other role played by Yoshida.

This is a film that exists entirely in its own world. The antagonists do exactly as they wish as brazenly as they like because there are no authority figures present, no rules, and no police.

It’s a shame that the care and attention that went into making this production look so good, and the decent acting on display, all culminate in something that doesn’t gel, that wilfully doesn’t attempt much in the way of logic and that ultimately emerges as a bit of a chore to sit through. My score is 5 out of 10.

This story concerns a blind pianist who becomes involved in a murder. That’s it as far as the synopsis is concerned, because if I give any more away, it would lead to revealing a plot twist, which in turn would lead to revealing many more plot twists – and there are lots of them. One on top of another. All spaciously revealed, but relentless. Before long, things get confusing; and yet the twists keep on coming. By the time the final, big reveal occurs, you’re exhausted.

‘In Darkness’ is nicely played, looks wonderful and is almost very good. Surprisingly for a film as polished as this, some of the dialogue is drowned out by the music, which is a fault usually found with low budget ventures.

As far as the acting is concerned, the splendid Natalie Dormer (who co-wrote this) is engaging throughout, and it’s always nice to see James Cosmo. Neil Maskell and Joely Richardson also deserve mentioning.

The film is ultimately undone by its ambition, and while I applaud the notion of trying to go for something that constantly rearranges viewer expectations, a little more restraint might have propelled this to greatness. My score is 5 out of 10.

A group of stupid, beautiful, arrogant, shouting, grinning idiots get lost in the woods whilst filming themselves. Yep, it’s another found footage film – a genre just as legitimate as any other in my view.

There is much high speed gibbering. There’s a nerdy girl who wants to fit in with the cool pretty kids … but no-one notices she is cool and pretty herself! That’s lucky! No matter how terrifying and other-worldly things get, she’s still preoccupied with the boy she fancies. Ah, the priorities of the in-crowd wannabe.

I often say this in my reviews, but it continues to amaze me how one simple rule is ignored: make the characters likeable, or at least relatable. That doesn’t mean they can’t have flaws, or be bland and uninteresting; if you care about them, you care about what happens to them. Not so much here – there are a number of false endings, and the film outstays its welcome somewhat because the audience is never invited to invest in this bunch of twits.

I sound more scathing of ‘Nightlight’ than I mean to be, because there are a few nicely sinister moments; chiefly, when the ubiquitous camera seems to become momentarily operated by a mysterious third party. Sadly, this is never really elaborated upon, other than more proof that ‘something is out there watching them.’

When we finally reach the end, it is quietly effective, and if I’m ever tempted to re-watch, it will be because of such moments, and not because of the characters, who are, after all, supposed to be the heart of the story. My score is 5 out of 10.

This is an interesting and enjoyable take on the werewolf myth, although the ‘wolves’ are unambitiously realised – victims of a low budget perhaps. I applaud the restraint. The alternative would be unconvincing men-in-hairy-suits – although that would have been kinder to the actors than the skimpily dressed marauders we get here.

The acting is mainly convincing - one character reminds me of a skinhead Brian Blessed – and the monsters are seen only briefly, and then in the blur of motion. The costumes very accurately mirror those worn in Roman Britain, where events are placed. The locations are beautiful and very nicely directed by the BAFTA Award-winning Stuart Brennan (who also writes and acts in this).

There are some slight continuity problems with the irregularly present snow so effectively trailed in the various overhead shots, and there are some nods to modern audience expectations that might not sit well with historical purists, but I really enjoyed watching this well made slow burner. 7 out of 10.

‘Yeti/Abominable’ wastes no time with build-up or character development; we can deal with all that once the threat has been established – which it is, straight away. We catch up later with the various personalities and back-stories of the characters later on during a lull in the varied attacks from the white furred central character.

The soundtrack is very exciting, even if it is so far over-the-top compared to some of the action/gore scenes, it threatens to drift into parody. For all his low-budget scariness, there are moments where the audience is invited to empathise with the Yeti, and there are some good twists in the story.

Whilst never attempting to reinvent the shaggy monster myth, this is a commendable production, featuring some good, crisp location filming and moments of gut-wrenching gore. Despite some occasionally dodgy acting, I enjoyed it. My score is 7 out of 10.

The surgically enhanced smoothness of Jennifer Lawrence takes a bit of getting used to in a story about a couple living in a huge, run-down house. She puts in a great performance, as does Javier Bardem. As husband and wife Him and Mother, they are joined by a strong supporting cast too.

‘Mother’ also looks very good. Director and writer Darren Aronofsky imbues the whole thing with a uniform style of contrast – the stifling claustrophobia of a spacious, rambling house.

As time rolls on, and a certain degree of chaos ensues, it becomes apparent the story being told is becoming increasingly secondary to the stockpiling of allegories Aronofsky wants us to be aware of. They seem ever-so-slightly open to interpretation, but the house and Mother ‘represent’ Earth and Him is a creator of sorts. There’s a wonderful turn from a deliciously spiky Michelle Pfeiffer as a rude and intrusive guest (she and her husband are probably Adam and Eve). As the guests grow and tighten their hold on the house and her husband, Mother understandably doesn’t really care about them – and is given no reason to, unpleasant bunch that they are. Problem is, the audience isn’t given reason to care about them either. Perhaps that’s the point.

My interest ebbed as the two hours rolled on and it became clear that no satisfying story or plot was going to manifest – just more of the same, and then yet more. Some people have raved about this film, and that’s wonderful, but for me, I found the tale itself too thin, squashed by the blatancy of the director’s ambition. My score is 4 out of 10.

For a film that clocks in at nearly three hours, this is very easy to watch. That shouldn’t be confused with comfortable viewing: one of the first scenes we see involves the burning of a weasel. Far worse atrocities are displayed further on, but enough potential spoilers.

There is no incidental music here, no pretence at pace. There is very little dialogue and it is filmed in crisp black and white. To say it is bleak is underselling it – there is a very real beauty to the endless fairytale countryside and architecture, and it is all evocatively directed and produced by Václav Marhoul (it took ten years for him to get the venture financed).

A Jewish boy who is not named until the end, wanders around war-torn Eastern Europe and witnesses, and becomes involved with, many appalling situations. There are no answers, no solutions, just more of the same.

I was pleasantly surprised to see some familiar faces among the weather-beaten parade of characters in this decidedly un-mainstream Czech production – Udo Kier, Harvey Kietel, Julian Sands and Barry Pepper.

The story is told in episodes – if the running time is daunting, you can take advantage of the pauses and visit at your leisure. Due to the grim tone and repetition, that may be the most rewarding way of viewing this. And it truly is rewarding. Breath-taking in fact, with spectacular turns from the cast, especially Petr Kotlár as the boy, who becomes understandably affected by the relentless atrocities around him – when the ending comes, is it too late to save him? It’s well worth finding out. My score is 8 out of 10.

For a disaster film involving flooding and alligators, ‘Crawl’ does exactly as it says on the tin. Luckily for the viewer, Director Alexandre Aja and his cast and crew ensure that the resultant ride is every bit as spectacular as it could possibly be.

Apparently this is based on a true story. That would be quite a loose adaption, I’m thinking, because the characters of Hayley and her father Dave (impressively lunged Kaya Scodelario and Barry Pepper) go through absolute turmoil that might well have ended the lives of those not lucky enough to be on the silver screen: some critics have criticised ‘Crawl’ for the fantastical nature of its plentiful near-death moments. My opinion is that, although a straighter take on the story maybe more sympathetic factually speaking, it wouldn’t be as thrilling as this – after all – it is a drama, not a documentary.

I enjoyed every single moment. The characters are introduced well and given a relevant back story. The alligators seem to be a mix of real creatures and CGI, but I couldn’t tell the difference, and the images of savage flooding are faultlessly created. My score is 9 out of 10.

This is a beautifully filmed slow-burning horror, with an extraordinary performance from Emilia Clarke (Verena) and her magnificently expressive eyebrows. Alongside her, Marton Csokas is excellent as the initially cold and spiky Laus, who employs Verena as a nanny to his son Jakob (touchingly played by Edward Dring) who is rendered silent by the passing of his mother.

We have three main players here – the actors, the cinematography and the story. Possibly the story lags behind the magnificence of the others by suffering from a slightly muddled ending. I found ‘Voice from the Stone’ completely absorbing from start to finish, so the criticism is a mild one.

The atmosphere casts a melancholy, creepy shadow over everything, and that’s where this film succeeds, and in the growing relationship between the three main characters. There are no CGI tricks here, no jump scares, and the pace moves at a leisurely pace – all of which might not appeal to some.

Director Eric D. Howell has weaved an almost magical world here, cut off from society for the most part and drenched in autumnal brilliance. The cast bring the characters life wonderfully. My score is 8 out of 10.

I usually try to go into films without knowing anything about them, but afterwards it is often interesting to find out more about their production.

‘The Mask of Thorn’ is the second part of a trilogy. This concerns perceived do-gooder Bethany Lovell (Eve Kathryn Oliver), who suffers from suspiciously overbearing parents and an inability to fit in with her schoolmates.

To add to her troubles, the mysterious Thorn turns up to pursue her. Nice camerawork and lighting don’t disguise the fact that he’s an actor (Atticus Machiavellian – really?) in a mask (of Thorn, presumably, which is fair enough). He’s even been given glowing eyes to make him more frightening. What really sells him, apart from his predilection for violence and killing (often in the same manner) is the sound design. Guttural breathing and snarling has rarely sounded so meaty.

Some acting is dire, some not so bad - there’s a character in a horrendous 70s wig (this is set in the 80s). Conversely, my favourite character is foul-mouthed Julia (Lydia Cashman), whose line-up of expletives is wonderful.

For anyone who criticises the clearly tiny budget on display, MJ Dixon (the director responsible for the enjoyable ‘Haunting of Molly Bannister’ and ‘Cleaver: Killer Clown’) productions are a labour of love, financed by himself and fanbase crowdfunding enterprises. While the end result doesn’t always match the admirable intent, it certainly has moments of interest and effectiveness. My score is 6 out of 10.

This is a micro-budgeted chiller directed with a great deal of flair by MJ Dixon. It tells of a fragmented family, and the youngest daughter’s apparently malevolent doll. It reminds me more than a little of Andrew Jones’ ‘Theatre of Fear/The Midnight Horror Show (2014)’ in that there is very effective use made of close-ups, blurred imagery, creepy lighting and the camera prowling around ve-ee-ery slowly; just as something threatens to reveal itself, we move briskly to another scene. It’s all very effective.

It isn’t without its problems. In close-up, the titular doll is quite eerie looking, again mainly due to the muggy lighting; viewed at other times, it looks distinctly unthreatening and ordinary. It’s also true to say that often, the acting is flat, and that kills off much of the carefully layered atmosphere.

For the most part, I really enjoyed this and often found myself genuinely chilled by it.

The soundtrack, by Hockeymask Heroes, adds greatly to the unnerving atmosphere. My score is 6 out of 10.

This anaemic and little known horror film from the 1960s has some good moments and performances from its little-known cast – but its lack of gore or horror atmosphere makes the 84 minutes something of a slog.

This is made by the company Planet Film Productions, who are perhaps best known for their Terence Fisher-directed ‘Island of Terror’, which involved Peter Cushing fighting jelly monsters called Silicates. Perhaps the word ‘genteel’ describes the company’s output, or less kindly, ‘dull’.

I admire anyone for wanting to create something horror-based; it is my favourite genre by far. With all due respect to everyone involved here, it seems they have little idea how to tap into to any kind of unsettling atmosphere, any way in which to raise a few scares or much in the way of tension.

While the ceremonies and debonair French vampires have an unusual and enjoyable quality, you have to sit through talky scenes of no consequence to get to them. Day for night filming takes place, but is so ineffectual, the night-creatures appear to be walking around in sunshine. Director Lance Comfort, for whom this was his last film, makes fine use of colour, giving this low budget venture a bright veneer, with some lush red used for the cultists’ ceremonies.

Hammer films had become a force to be reckoned with long before this was released, and watching ‘Devils of Darkness’ makes it easy to see why: Hammer had a company style, which ran right up to their final releases, that has proven difficult to emulate. Subsequent Planet Films would hire Hammer alumni and still struggle to generate the elder company’s technique.

A mainly bloodless piece with a spiralling storyline, ‘Devils of Darkness’ isn’t a bad film, but it isn’t a terribly good one either. My score is 6 out of 10.

Dad, two bratty kids and sassy teen daughter we’re encouraged to fancy (determinedly unimpressed, wielded to her headphones and manicured perfectly to look like a goth call girl), move into a new house. The house has a past, of course, and spooky things happen. We’ve seen it many times before.

Having said that – other than the *vile* kids, for whom every precocious act is dismissed with an excuse – this solid story is well done. The creepy incidents are regular and well handled and the look of the house, both inside and out, is agreeably sinister.

The problem is, Dad John’s three offspring are so much more repellent than any horrors the story offers, that it really harms the film – or at least, my experience watching it. Todd Lowe plays the hapless John well, but he earns his money on this project.

Of course, you’d move out as soon as things started happening, wouldn’t you? That is a common challenge with these kind of films – the balance is in making the characters need to stay at the residence worth putting up with unwelcome supernatural activity. Whether ‘The Remains’ succeeds in that department is up to the individual. My score is 6 out of 10.

You’ve probably seen film like this before; I know I have. However, if you’re in the mood for a haunted house-type horror, we could both do a lot worse!

The acting is excellent, the scares are carefully piled up, the characters are flawed but appealing – even the caterwauling child is a genuine cutie. When the relationship deteriorates between the couple, it’s actually effective because as the audience, we are made to care about them both. Tianna Nori and Mark Matechuk are believable as Joanna and Jeff, both imperfect, but both likeable. There’s not a bad performance on show, but this story certainly belongs to the couple.

Possibly as the end credits roll, you’ll be struck how this fails to break any new ground, but events are unravelled so expertly, you’ll have enjoyed the ride anyway. My score is 8 out of 10.