Sean the Mondasian Cyberman

Two of my favourite filmmakers in the industry right now are without a doubt Phil Lord and Chris Miller. Outside of Pixar, this pair are easily the duo making the most stunning and original animated movies right now. I was blown away by The LEGO Movie, and Spider-Man: Into The Spiderverse was by far one of the greatest Spider-Man films Sony has made to date. The Mitchells vs. The Machines was therefore a film I was very much looking forward to watching.

Fortunately it lived up to expectations. As someone with a deep passion for film and who has never considered himself 'normal', the main character of Katie (Abbi Jacobson) is extremely relatable. Like Katie, I have also recorded videos with my dogs, and I spend a great deal of time on my phone. I also went through a similar period of excitement when I was accepted onto an undergraduate course in Film and Television Production, and this is something that allowed me to really connect to the character. I understand this type of person, and I get the emotions she's feeling.

But I don't think this is just a film that only those of us into film or have been to university can relate to, however. Like all great films, I think it's a movie that resonates on a universal level. How many of us have been on a family holiday that has gone disastrously wrong, or had moments where our parents have embarrassed us by bringing up something from our childhood? Anyone who knows me knows that the concept of 'family' means a lot to me, so I really enjoy films like this that explore it, and what it means to be connected to your loved ones. The script here puts it perfectly. 'Family' is not just about 'you', it's about listening to the people around you, even if you find their interests boring or uninteresting.

I think a greater message in this film though is the idea that 'weird' is good. Throughout the movie we are shown that the Mitchells are a dysfunctional family unit, that they're flawed and that they do things that others wouldn't consider normal. But that's what makes them who they are, and that's what leads to them saving the day. The seemingly perfect family are captured by the robots because they don't think outside the box. They're too perfect. Real heroes are flawed. I think that's an extremely important and powerful message to relay, especially in a family animated flick like this that will be watched by children who may worry about being seen as weird or different.

As with Spider-Man: Into The Spiderverse, one of the standout aspects of this film is the animated style. The Michells vs. The Machines carries on Lord and Miller's approach of delivering unconventional animation, and that means we get this wildly imaginative mix of kids' scrapbook drawings with the 3D CGI animation style, with some of Katie's video effects and editing style. It really helps to give the film character and identity, that would otherwise be lost if they stuck purely to the traditional CGI animation.

There's some really fun commentary here on how we all tend to be addicted to our phones too. I absolutely love that the main antagonist is simply a smartphone (voiced by Olivia Colman), and that it's defeated by being submerged in a glass of water. It's a really clever and witty way of approaching a robo-pocalypse storyline, by taking this object we all have in our pockets, and portraying it as this evil mastermind.

One of the best and most unexpected action sequences is the rise of the evil Furbies. I think every one of us has at one point wondered if those things are possessed, so it's hilarious to see them actually turned into these evil machine-controlled creatures out to get the Mitchell family. Like The LEGO Movie, it takes a popular IP and presents it in a way that fits the story, which means at no point does it feel like a random advert for Furbies coming late into the film. It's just seamlessly integrated into the narrative, in a way that makes complete sense.

The jokes in this film are exceedingly smart also. My favourite was possibly the running gag regarding how dinosaurs technically had feathers, which reminded me so much about the comments you see frequently on social media about how Jurassic Park's dinosaurs are not true to how they would have been in real life. There are so many memorable lines in this film however, particularly in relation to tech companies and their more shady attributes. It's a screenplay filled with so much wit, and the jokes all land perfectly.

Overall, The Mitchells vs The Machines is another strong outing for Phil Lord and Chris Miller. Just like their previous movies, this film offers a unique animated style, whilst continuing to deliver on the heart and humour that their filmmaking approach is so known for. Pixar better watch out, because Lord and Miller are delivering some truly spectacular animated hits right now.

Ever since Black Mirror debuted their choose-your-own-adventure movie Bandersnatch, Netflix seem to have really doubled down on these interactive stories. It's an area that clearly interests the streaming service greatly, although it's weird that the idea has suddenly gained prominence now, given that the concept has been around virtually forever. Bear Grylls' attempt, 'Animals On The Loose', is a film adaptation of his interactive family series 'You vs. Wild', and the feature adaptation provides somewhat mixed results.

The idea is a sound one. Bear Grylls is completing conversation work at a sanctuary, when poachers break into the facility and set the animals free. It's a serviceable plot that provides a solid structure for the movie, and explains why the viewer has been drafted in to assist Bear on his latest endeavour. This results in various fourth wall-breaking sequences in which Bear directly addresses the audience and asks what he should do, placing the choice firmly in the audience's hands.

The problem is that the audience's decisions don't leave much effect on the narrative. Making the wrong choice merely leads you back to the beginning of the scene where you messed up, which can lead to the film feeling somewhat repetitive when you are forced to sit through large chunks of footage that you've already seen. It would be better had they found a way for an incorrect outcome to lead to new sequences that audiences would otherwise not witness if they made the right call, as it would at least provide a new aspect to the narrative rather than merely forcing viewers to watch what came before.

The other issue that the solutions to protecting these animals or returning them to their habitats don't exactly feel true to life. The most obvious example of this is when Bear tries to hide a herd of elephants from the view of the poachers driving past the river. To achieve this feat, he simply leads them behind the trees and tells them to shush. Remarkably it works, but it's clear as day that in real life elephants would not simply obey a human instruction such as this. It's too convenient, and stretches credibility.

There are some truly exciting moments of peril featured in this movie however. One standout scene sees Bear nearly chocked to death by a snake hiding in the river, whilst another displays a face-off between a cheetah and a baboon. These scenes are a ton of fun to watch, and help to establish the danger behind these animals being on the loose, not just for the humans but for the animals themselves. The strongest moments are when the film leaves you wondering if this fictional version of Bear or the animals could actually die, as it least injects an element of risk to the choices you are about to make.

Bear Grylls himself also makes for a likeable presence. He's an endearing guide for the audience, providing helpful tips and pointers for survival techniques in the wild. The audience's familiarity with Bear also adds an air of legitimacy to proceedings, as we are used to see him hosting documentaries about natural survival in his extensive list of television shows. He's someone who has broad international as well as British appeal, making the selection of Bear as the film's guiding figure a smart choice indeed.

It is a little on the short side for a feature movie however. You V Wild: Animals On The Loose clocks in at around only an hour in length, which feels more like a running time for a television special than something billed as a feature film. Most movies usually average at around 75 to 90 minutes in length, which means Animals On The Loose falls somewhat on the short side compared to most feature attempts. It's a shame that they couldn't have expanded this runtime to at least a 75 minute running time, as 60 minutes leaves the viewer feeling somewhat shortchanged.

Overall, 'Animals On The Loose' provides a passable attempt at an interactive film. Whilst the solutions to the escaped animal issue feel somewhat unrealistic and the movie can feel a little repetitive if you make the wrong choices, its likeable lead and fun moments of peril allow it to rise above its less than stellar elements, and provide a solid piece of entertainment if there's nothing else to watch. Just leave your brain behind at the door and you should be fine.

The Sherlock Holmes tales have inspired countless film and television adaptations, from BBC's Sherlock to the iconic Basil Rathbone movies. Something which the franchise has rarely delved into however is the realm of spin-off material. In some respects this is somewhat surprising, as the Sherlock Holmes stories feature a wide array of interesting characters outside of Sherlock himself. Enola Holmes focuses on the little-known sister of Sherlock and Moriarty, the titular Enola (Millie Bobby Brown), and is based on a series of books by Nancy Springer featuring the sixteen year old child sleuth.

One of my favourite aspects about this Netflix film is that it features a very unique spin on the detective tale. Instead of our lead interacting solely with the characters within the picture, Enola constantly breaks the fourth wall and gives various knowing looks to the camera. This fourth wall breaking style is something that has been utilised on a frequent basis on television (most notably in the sketches of Morecambe And Wise and in the sitcom Miranda), but it's rarely seen in the film. The Deadpool films and The LEGO Batman Movie of course do something very similar, but Enola Holmes is one of very few examples of cinema adopting this approach. It's a shame because it works extremely well, immediately making you feel engaged with the narrative, and inviting you as the audience to act as another character within the screenplay.

The film revolves around Enola's attempts to track down her mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter), who has gone missing, and along the way we meet a variety of larger than life characters who either knew Eudoria or connect to the mystery as a whole. My favourite of these encounters has to be martial arts instructor Edith (Susan Wokoma), whose status as Enola's first teacher and rather enigmatic stance in regards Eudoria's disappearance creates a certain level of intrigue which really adds to the movie's mystery tone. There's clearly a lot about Eudoria which we don't know; she's essentially a living cypher waiting to be unravelled, a puzzle waiting to be solved. She may not be physically involved in much of the narrative, but her presence is very much felt as this figure who keeps her cards very close to her chest.

When Eudoria does eventually show, it makes for a somewhat bittersweet moment. There's clearly a lot of emotional baggage left unresolved by their reunion, but both us as the viewer and Enola as our heroine are very much happy to see her appear safe and well. It's great that her return doesn't nullify the harsh disappearing act she made at the beginning without so much as leaving a note for her poor daughter. I think with plot points like this it's important to show that these scenarios are not simply just resolved by showing up again and giving a hug. Eudoria still abandoned her daughter, and left her wondering if she was even still alive. It's abundantly clear that Enola is hurt and upset by her own mother choosing to abandon her like she did, as it's reflected in Millie Bobby Brown's excellent understated performance, and I hope they explore this further in the upcoming sequel.

One of the clear highlights of this film is the casting of Henry Cavill of Sherlock and Sam Claflin as Mycroft. These two actors are excellent in their portrayals of these iconic characters, offering a substantially different and distinctive portrayal to the Sherlocks and Mycrofts that we are used to. In this film, Sherlock and Mycroft assume more of an antagonistic force, with the pair trying to locate Enola whilst Enola is trying to avoid them. Mycroft in particular is more villainous in his portrayal, as he displays a determination to place Enola in a finishing school for young ladies which Enola has no interest in attending. It's a fresh spin on characters who have been portrayed numerous times in multiple forms of media, and it means that this film stands apart from past works inspired by Arthur Conan-Doyle's stories.

This addition of more iconic elements of Sherlock mythology is however something I would have liked to have seen a little more of in the film. Whilst Jack Thorne's screenplay overall is excellent, with a highly engrossing sense of childlike whimsy, there are some noticeable absences of certain iconic characters within Sherlock lore. It's fun getting to see Lestrade (played brilliantly by Adeel Akhtar) trying to hunt down Enola at Sherlock and Mycroft's request, but it would have been nice to have seen John Watson incorporated into this story, as well as the likes of Moriarty and Mrs Hudson. Hopefully we get to see these characters feature in the sequel, as it seems odd to watch a film set in the Sherlock universe without them present.

One person I did not expect to see present was the actor Burn Gorman, who gets a decent sized role here as an assassin sent to kill Enola's new friend Twekesbury (Louis Partridge). Burn Gorman is best known for playing Owen Harper in Torchwood, and had seemed to somewhat disappear following his time on the show. Here he plays a character called Linthorn, and it's great to see him back. He's amazing in a role that is worlds away from Owen; here he's expected to play a colder and much more menacing figure, and he plays it with such a looming presence that he sends chills down your spine as a viewer. This is someone you really wouldn't want to cross in a dark alley, and it's a testament to Burn Gorman's acting talent that he manages to play both roles so convincingly despite of their extreme contrasts.

Overall, Enola Holmes is one of the highlights of Netflix's otherwise spotty cinematic track record. Jack Thorne's screenplay delivers a fun, whimsical and truly unique approach to the world of Sherlock Holmes, although the omission of certain characters from Sherlock lore can't help but feel a little noticeable as the film progresses without so much as a reference to these individuals' whereabouts. Enola Holmes is a highly engaging piece of filmic entertainment, and proof that it's about time more Sherlock Holmes spin-offs were made available to watch.

When I posted my Twitter poll a few weeks ago asking if I should watch School Of Rock, many of you voted in your numbers to say I should check it out. In some respects, I'm surprised I haven't given it a go before. I like musicals, I think Jack Black always turns in a great performance and I like a bit of rock and roll. I guess the days before streaming made it hard to watch these films unless the TV schedules aligned, or you happened to find it on Lovefilm, but now Netflix makes it much easier.

It begins strongly, with Dewey Finn (Jack Black) playing a rock concert with his band. Immediately you get a sense of the film's tone, with a hilarious failed stage dive that suggests a comedic touch throughout the motion picture. Dewey is later fired from the band, which acts as a decent pivotal moment to set up his 'want' to create a new group that can set him back on the rock scene.

A couple of key supporting characters in this film are Dewey's roommates Ned (Mike White) and Patty (Sarah Silverman), who tell him he must get a job to play his share of the rent. It's a quick and easy way to establish a motive for Dewey to assume Ned's identity and fulfil the supply teacher role at the school. School Of Rock makes you fully understand and relate to his reasons for committing what is in reality a fraudulent act, and you can relate to his decision-making process. We all need money in order to survive, after all.

Dewey fulfilling the role of a teacher is a lot of fun from the off. It's just so amusing seeing him come in, and effectively strip the rule book out of the window, removing grades, stealing kids' lunches and given them a break time every few minutes. They really play fast and loose with the juxtaposition of this seemingly dumb and useless character suddenly finding himself in a position where he is expected to teach a bunch of posh kids, who all have parents with incredibly high expectations. Their parents have paid through the odds for their private education, and they want their money's worth for sure.

Child casts can make or break a film like this, but the kid actors in this film are brilliant. The amount of talent they possess is incredible, not just in their music and their acting, but also in their own comedic ability. They have so many witty moments throughout the movie, one of my favourites being when they hurl a load of insults at Dewey at Dewey's request. You really have to applaud the casting director Ilene Starger, who did an amazing job at finding such gifted children.

Probably one of the most interesting characters in the film is the school's principal, Rosalie Mullins (Joan Cusack). She has a pretty strong character arc, transitioning from this stern head mistress constantly worried about the looming presence of the parents who fund their kids' place at her school to this woman who learns to loosen up and have some fun. She arguably goes on more of a journey than any of the others in this flick, showing this surprisingly deep story of a woman who is too concerned about how others view her and has to let go of these worries in order to come out of her shell.
Of course, no musical would be worth its salt without a good tracklist, and School Of Rock has a decent set of songs. There's some catchy numbers here that feel reminiscent of popular hits such as 'Welcome To The jungle' and 'School's Out'. It captures the rock and roll vibe well, and it's no surprise that they adapted this film into a West End musical.

Unfortunately there are some problematic aspects to this film. The first being something that feels a little mean-spirited coming from our main protagonist. You see, upon discovering that the auditions for Battle of the Bands is over, Dewey - acting on a suggestion from band manager Summer (Miranda Cosgrove) - decides to tell the organisers that the kids are terminally ill patients from the local hospital, and have fallen foul of a rare blood disease. This doesn't feel right to me, because it feels like emotional blackmail, and they don't really earn their place in the Battle of the Bands concert either. This rather cruel lie means that they don't even have to audition, and are just automatically included in the show by default. It would surely have been more satisfying to have shown them win their place through talent rather than through such a mean bluff.

There's also a scene in the third act that doesn't quite work on a moral level. Dewey's deception has been discovered, and the kids decide to skip class and hop on the school bus for the planned field trip, telling the bus driver (who somehow believes them, despite no staff member in sight) that he's expected to pick Dewey up from his home and take them to the concert. When the kids arrive at his flat, instead of doing the right thing and taking them back to the school, Dewey hops on the school bus and takes them on the field trip to the concert for their performance. It's frankly bizarre, and essentially child abduction given that these children are supposed to be at school and their parents have no idea where they are. It's weird that nobody noticed how problematic this is, and pointed it out during the Pre-Production process, especially when they have a scene that shows the parents worrying out of their mind.

Overall, School Of Rock is a fun family musical with a great star turn from Jack Black. Whilst there are some problematic elements to the screenplay, it's still a great feel good flick, and certain to entertain even the hardest of souls. It's no wonder that it was adapted into a West End musical, as I bet it's one hell of a show.

Wonder Woman 1984, it's fair to say, has received something of a mixed reaction. When the initial reviews came in, the critics loved it, but as more and more set their eyes on the film the enthusiasm waned. Even general audiences have been a little divided, with some appreciating the movie's aims and others taking issue with some of the ideas presented within the screenplay.

Personally I enjoyed it. Whilst it may not have quite reached the heights of the first Wonder Woman, there's plenty to appreciate here. The opening sequence, for one, is stunning. This sees a young Diana Prince competing in a major sporting event in her home land of Themyscira. It's a really breathtaking segment that draws you into the movie from the start, and the accompanying narration by Gal Gadot as the Adult Diana works well with the imagery.

Similarly the opening battle of the film in the shopping centre makes for a thrilling action sequence. I always like it when we see a superhero fight what is essentially an everyday crook for them, as it shows that they have their own mundane days in their field of work. It's not always big universe-shattering events, sometimes it's just a pair of thieves. There's a greater meaning too behind seeing Wonder Woman save a kid being dangled from a shopping centre balcony rather than an entire world or nation. It's a more personal touch, and it helps to ground the heroics significantly.

The bigger threats do come later into the film however, as Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal) gets his hands on the mysterious wishing stone, and wishes to become the stone itself. Maxwell is a fun character; he's a TV personality who craves power, and takes it from those who cross his path. He's kind of what I'd imagine an evil Stephen Mulhern would be like, if his TV persona wasn't an act he obviously put on for the cameras. I really like the monkey's paw aspect of the wishing stone, and its human embodiment; the idea that you get what you wish for but at a cost always holds for some great dramatic potential, especially when our hero is granted her wish, at the cost of her powers weakening.

Talking of Diana's wish, this is an element I have seen some critique over. The base of her wish fulfilment involves her boyfriend from the previous film Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) returning from his death - albeit in a different man's body - but as mentioned, the price paid is her powers growing weaker. Some have taken issue with how Steve is essentially using a random stranger as a vehicle, which means that when Diana and Steve sleep together she is essentially doing stuff to his body without his consent. I don't see it that way however. The body, in my view, is the vessel, it's not the person inside. When Diana was with Steve, she wasn't with a random stranger. She was with Steve. Diana wasn't, therefore, forcing herself upon anyone.

The Steve aspect of the narrative is overall a lot of fun. Essentially you get the same fish out of water aspect from the first film, although this time the roles are reversed. This time it's Steve out of his comfort zone, in a different time period he is used to, and it's very entertaining seeing his reaction to 80s clothes or escalators. I'm always a sucker for that kind of fish out of water stuff, so personally I got a lot of enjoyment from watching Steve's perspective on this new world.

I do feel it would have worked better narratively speaking, however, had Steve not been played by the same actor from the previous film. We are told Steve looks different, and that he's a different man - but he spends the majority of the film looking exactly the same, precisely because it's Chris Pine. I get that the film is told from Diana's perspective, so it's essentially what she is seeing, but it does just make you wonder why they even bothered with the Steve Trevor body swap if they weren't going to do anything with the concept. We get the odd glimpses of the stranger - played by Kristoffer Polhala - such as when Steve is looking in the mirror, but the point that in reality he doesn't look the same as the Steve Diana knew isn't really shown to us enough as the audience. In fact, you end up even forgetting that Steve Trevor is using another man's body. Instead of telling us that this is Steve in a different man's body, how about showing us by having Kristoffer Polhala effectively playing Steve Trevor, with odd flashes of Chris Pine instead? In any story the idea should be to 'show, don't tell'. But here it's 'tell, don't show'.

One of my favourite aspects of this film is Kristen Wiig as Barbara/Cheetah, and in a largely straight role for an actor largely known for her comedic roles, Kristen Wiig totally knocks it out the park. She is endearingly awkward as Barbara before she makes her wish, and later shockingly cold when she loses her humanity as the cost for her wish to be like Diana. You really buy into Barbara's wish to possess the strength and confidence of Diana Prince, and it's hard not to agree with her to an extent when she asks Diana why she should be forced to give her newfound strength back. Kristen Wiig was a very solid casting choice for sure.

If the film is let down by anything, it's how surprisingly little there actually is of Diana Prince fighting as Wonder Woman. For a film entitled 'Wonder Woman 1984', Diana actually doesn't do that much vigilante work. Whilst this decision does mean we get some great character moments that help to build further on the relationship dynamics between Diana and Steve, it does mean that most of the action is stuff that was already shown in the trailers or on The Graham Norton Show. The film could perhaps have introduced more moments for Diana Prince to show off her skills, and give us more of the 'Wonder Woman' that the title promises.

On a more positive note, Wonder Woman 1984 has perhaps one of the best mid-credits scenes of any film to date. This features the original Wonder Woman Lynda Carter as the 'Golden Warrior' Asteria, and it's a very cool moment for sure. It does make you wonder if they're planning for Lynda Carter to have a major role in the upcoming third Wonder Woman film, as this mid-credits sequence seems to suggest. Could two Wonder Woman actors collide?

Overall, Wonder Woman 1984 is a highly enjoyable follow-up to the first movie. Whilst it perhaps doesn't feature as much 'Wonder Woman' action as you would typically expect, and the decision to keep Chris Pine as Steve Trevor in the context of the film may seem a little strange considering the body swap concept, it features some truly stunning sequences, and two great villains in Maxwell and Barbara. Wonder Woman 1984 is a film that doesn't quite reach the heights of the original, but it gives it a damn good try.

It doesn't matter how much time passes, there will always be some people who won't accept others' differences. This is a fact of life that never changes, even if people have become more tolerant of others being different to them over the centuries. It means a film like The Elephant Man will always be topical, no matter who watches it and in what year.

The Elephant Man is directed by David Lynch, and you can feel his signature style throughout. The film has a few sequences with the surreal imagery that has become so prevalent in his work, such as the nightmares of the titular elephant man John Merrick (John Hurt) involving elephants and people holding mirrors up to his face, and the closing shot as John dies of stars followed by the face of his mother. But they aren't as abstract as the rest of his directing projects. They have a much more clear-cut meaning; the former neatly demonstrating John's constant fear of how others treat him as a monster, and the latter a beautiful moment that symbolises his death.

David Lynch also makes the stylistic choice to shoot this film in black and white, along with a sound mix that seems to cleverly evoke films from the 40s and 50s. This is a move that really works in favour for a film, as it allows it to accurately reflect the Victorian period. I can't even imagine what a colour version of The Elephant Man would look like, as the black and white stylings add a historic feel to the piece that would ultimately be removed if it was ever to be colourised.

Thank God we have come such a long way from this past setting though, as this film does such a great job at showcasing just how cruel the Victorian age was to people like John Merrick, who were essentially laughed at and mocked for their differences. This is largely displayed in cruel freak-show exhibitor Bytes (Freddie Jones), who sees John as nothing more than a 'creature' in his possession. It's truly shocking just how soulless this man is, parading this poor deformed man around like his own personal puppet and not even caring for his health when he manages to get John back in the third act, and he collapses upon being shown to the crowd. He is a man who has no humanity; his only motivation is money.

The mirror of Bytes is doctor Frederick Treves (Anthony Hopkins), who couldn't possibly show John any more humanity or compassion if he tried. He teaches John to speak, gives him a permanent residence at the hospital and even invites him round to his house. This is such a crucial and effective part of the narrative, as it shows that not every member of humanity is a monster in this period; there are still people who care, and genuinely want to help. It's an aspect of the film that conveys such strong feelings of hope and optimism among all of the harsh treatments of poor John Merrick.

Speaking of John, this film gives actor John Hurt one of the greatest performances of his career. For the entirety of the film, he is under such heavy prosthetics, and you would assume that would restrain his performance somewhat. Instead he manages to rise above it and gives a powerhouse portrayal of this tragic figure. He conveys so much emotion, sometimes just in simple grunts and others in these speeches that really command your attention about how he's not an animal, and he really makes you feel for this man with this deformed face. He can't help the way he looks, and it shouldn't matter anyway.

One of the best aspects of The Elephant Man is the relationship between John and actor Mrs Kendal (Anne Bancroft). Mrs Kendal develops quite a fondness for John, which gifts us some really moving scenes between the pair. This includes one of the film's most standout moments, when Mrs Kendel devotes the play at the theatre to John, and John stands in the royal box to the praise and approval of the other theatregoers below. It's such a touching moment, as John finally gets the acceptance he has been searching for, and it's a scene that truly lingers in the memory.

Overall, The Elephant Man is a directing masterpiece by David Lynch that tells one of cinema's most tragic tales. It also features one of the late Sir John Hurt's greatest ever performances, and fully demonstrates just how much of a talent he was to the film industry as a whole. The Elephant Man is a film that will never lose its meaning, a truly timeless classic that will survive the tests of time, and it shows exactly why we should embrace people's differences rather than fear those who are different.

Released in 2002, Blade's sequel (entitled, appropriately enough, Blade 2) was not a film directed by any old director. No, this was directed by legendary Mexican director Gullermo Del Toro. A man known for supernatural, horror and just the plain weird. On the face of it, he seems the perfect fit for a Blade movie.

And, as this film proves, he totally is. Blade 2 features some truly stunning pieces of cinematography, be it the literal blood bath in the villain's lair or the magnificent sunset when Blade's (Wesley Snipes) latest romantic interest Nyssa (Leonor Varela) flitters away due to exposure to sunlight. It's a striking film to look at, and you would expect no less from a director of Gullermo Del Toro's talents.

It's also not a film for the faint-hearted. This film surprisingly is only a 15 and yet it features some really gory imagery. There's one scene towards the end where spikes are protruding through Blade's chest, and you see the blood splattered on said spikes. I'm surprised this didn't get rated 18 like the first film, as it feels as though there is the same level of intensity here as in the previous instalment.

The reapers are such an interesting concept for this film, and much better than the antagonists in the first movie. Their main selling point is that they feed off the blood of both humans and vampires, and this isn't something I've seen done before. It's such a unique angle for the sequel to take; something different from the generic villainy from the first movie.

A twist I really did not see coming was that Whistler (Kris Kristofferson) - who it seemed had died in the first film - is, in actuality, still alive. It seems shooting himself was not a sure-fire way to prevent himself being turned into a vampire, and it honestly makes this character feel like quite a tragic figure. I would guess that this means he will get the same sense of thirst as other vampire figures in this franchise, and will require something similar to Blade's antidote in order to properly control it. It will be interesting to see if this is covered whenever I choose to watch Blade Trinity, as at the moment it feels like a question waiting to be answered.

This is not the only twist in the movie however, as Blade's new ally Scud (Norman Reedus) is not the helping hand he initially appears to be. When we meet him he seems harmless if a little rowdy, but when his true intentions come clear, it really hurts as viewers to see this man we trusted turn out to be on the wrong side. It's a great twist precisely because we are made to care for him though, and whilst unexpected it doesn't come entirely from nowhere either. Even early on in the film, Whistler doesn't appear to entirely trust him, and so the idea is seeded that he might not be quite so innocent. The double twist is even more interesting, as we learn that Blade had already cottoned on to Scud hiding his true allegiance - a double bluff that makes for a satisfying end for Scud.

That's not the most shocking event in this film however. That goes to the moment Priest (Tony Curran) is bitten by a reaper and starts to transform into one of them. This is a truly horrific sequence, which ends with Priest's comrade Chupa (Matt Schulze) forced to put him out of his misery by shooting him through the heart. And yes, that is the same Tony Curran who later played Vincent Van Gogh in Doctor Who.

Overall, Blade 2 is that rare event in cinema where the sequel truly surpasses the first film. Featuring superb directing by Gullermo Del Toro, this is a sequel that successfully manages to expand on the first entry, whilst also providing both the shocks and the heart that any good stories require. Blade 2 is what happens when you combine a franchise with a visionary, and it's a film that any Marvel fan should totally check out.

Released in 1998, Blade is a curious film at its heart. In some ways, it feels almost like a prototype for the tone of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In others, it couldn't feel more different. It feels like something of a missing link between the periods and during the MCU.

The film takes something of a light approach to the source material, which would go on to define such big Marvel cinematic hits such as Iron Man and Captain America: The First Avenger. It's a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously, with the occasional quip or two delivered by Wesley Snipes, as the titular Blade. Wesley Snipes' take on Blade is somebody who you could easily picture fighting alongside Thor or the Hulk without feeling too out of place, and it's something that you would imagine Marvel Studios must be at least considering as a part of the multiverse shenanigans due to be introduced in Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Although Kevin Feige would certainly squirm at the level of graphic violence displayed here. I thought AMC's 'The Terror' was bad, but this is gore turned up to the max, with everything from sprinklers pouring out blood in a night club to lead vampire villain Frost (Stephen Dorff) sliced in half with a sword, only for his body to grow itself back together. It makes for some truly striking images, and helps to sell just how cutthroat the vampire underworld is. The vampires mean business, and that means Blade means business.

Speaking of Blade, Wesley Snipes was clearly born to play that role. He is perfectly cast as the vampire killer who is also half vampire himself, conveying an intimidating screen presence that shows this is a guy not to be messed with. He's tough, gung-ho and someone who scares the vampires witless. Wesley Snipes' Blade is the very definition of a badass, and the MCU's casting Mahershala Ali has got some very big shoes to fill.

The twist regarding Blade's mother (played by Sanaa Lathan) has to be one of the greatest I have ever seen in any film to date. I did not for one minute suspect that Blade's mother was still alive, as it seemed fairly concrete that she was dead, but to have her turn up and reveal herself to be allied with Frost was one hell of a plot reveal. Especially as it provides some interesting mother and son conflict, with both characters being on opposite sides of the coin, and offers a mirror to what Blade could have become had he given in to his vampire side.

I am not such a fan of Frost. As a whole he feels too generic as a villain, one who follows the kind of narrative tropes we have seen a dozen time. He's trying to fulfil a prophecy, he wants to awaken the power of a spiritual God and he wants to turn everyone simultaneously into being like him. Of course, the 'Chosen One' also turns out to be Blade, and he wants to keep him alive because he needs him for his plans. It's essentially villain 101, and again directly emulates the MCU, which also struggled with its own villain problem in its initial films.

Blade's sidekick Karen (N'Bushe Wright) is a more impressive aspect of the story. Karen is not only likeable and endearing, but she's also a sidekick who feels like she's of use to the protagonist. Her medical skills, for instance, come in very handy in trying to find new ways to interfere with the vampires' blood streams in order to best eliminate them, and her work on a cure for Blade offers an interesting insight into what drives him to fight these creatures that plague the world of the story. Does he do it out of vengeance for what they made him, or because he knows that somebody has to stop them and he's the only one who can? Of course, he turns down the chance to be cured because the 'war' against the vampires is still ongoing, but it's a really great part of the narrative from a character point of view.

I really wasn't ready for Whistler (Kris Kristofferson) to die though. His death is such a tragic way for him to go, essentially committing suicide because he is too far gone after being attacked by the vampires in order to survive and not turn into one himself. It shows just how devastating life as a vampire is, and how much of a threat it poses for those you care about, that it's better to kill yourself than to allow it to consume you, and the fact that it happens to this man who acted as a mentor to Blade for years off-screen makes it all the more sad.

Overall, Blade is perhaps one of the bloodiest and most satisfying superhero films of them all. Featuring some shocking imagery, a lead who totally dominates the screen and a truly unexpected twist, Blade is a film that you would be foolish to avoid forever. Its only downfall is one that also plagued the MCU in its early days, which is testament to just how strong this opening film in the Blade franchise really is.

There's an argument to be made that Rowan Atkinson's comedy is perhaps the most universal of them all. His comedic schtick relies largely on slapstick, which due to its visual nature bypasses any language barriers across foreign land. So it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that the Johnny English franchise has been successful enough to warrant a complete trilogy of three films.

The third entry, Johnny English Strikes Again, is probably the one with the flimsiest plot. This instalment revolves around a Theresa May-esque prime minister (played brilliantly by Emma Thompson) discovering that the UK has been the victim of a string of cyber-attacks; naturally, it is up to Johnny English (Rowan Atkinson) and his partner Bough (Ben Miller) to save the day. It's quite a basic story, and the villain - tech genius Jason Volta (Jake Lacy) - is obvious from the very start. It's about as predictable as you can get.

It's also a little muddled, with some scenes that don't seem to advance the narrative at all. For instance, I am still not entirely sure what the point was in having Johnny and Bough to investigate the villain's yacht, only to get caught straight away by Ophelia (Olga Kurylenko), who is later revealed to be a Russian spy. It's an entirely pointless scene without even a trace of peril, as they successfully manage to escape three minutes later anyway, and are barely any closer to solving the mission. All that they achieve from trying to sneak on the boat is discovering that Ophelia knows something about the cyber-attacks occurring across London.

The reveal that Ophelia is a Russian spy also doesn't quite work. Whilst it's very clearly signposted that she is a spy, when it is confirmed it still leaves a ton of questions about her character motivations and why she acts the way she does. If she has sussed out that Johnny English is a spy too, then why would she try to kill him? If they are on the same side, then surely there's not much point in trying to eliminate somebody aiming to reach the same end? Why not just tell Johnny she is a spy rather than assuming he'd work it out for himself?

The comedy, on the other hand, is on fine form. Johnny English Strikes Again features all of the typical humour you would expect from a Rowan Atkinson comedy feature, from magnetic boots playing havoc with kitchen utensils to Johnny English in full knight armour falling down the stairs. This film is stuffed with great gags, one of my personal favourites being Johnny firing tear gas at French cyclists. Imagine that happening during the Tour De France...

There's also a stunning virtual reality sequence, where Johnny puts on a pair of VR goggles and is instantly presented with a computer generated interactive layout of the villain's hideout. This is a wild and gloriously inventive sequence, where Johnny - believing himself to actually be inside in the gaming world - crawls through traffic, whacks innocent people over the head and knocks a tour guide off a big red bus, as he interacts with various items in the virtual environment. As someone who has played a great deal of VR lately, I too have often felt immersed within the virtual landscape, so this exaggerated take on the same feeling of immersement made me laugh a lot.

Another highlight is the scenes of Johnny as a 'Geography teacher'. These scenes are brilliantly entertaining in just how wacky they are, as we see how Johnny has been teaching these kids the art of spy work. The camouflage child in particular makes for quite an amusing visual gag, as he manages to blend into various surroundings around the classroom - including the whiteboard.

Overall, Johnny English Strikes Again is a fun diversion for an hour and a half. It may have a weak and muddled plot, and the villain of the piece may be a tad predictable, but there's still plenty of laughs to be had. Just make sure your brain is fully switched off.

Like many people, I grew up with Winnie The Pooh. The 100 Acre Wood adventures are those sort of childhood stories that it's impossible not to have had them read to you when you were a kid. Christopher Robin, as a result, is a film I have been interested to watch ever since its release. And so it came to today, Easter Sunday, when myself and my parents decided to finally stick it on the television.

Christopher Robin is simply a charming little family flick. Its plot concerns a grown-up Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor) trying to find his childhood sense of fun once again, with the help of Winnie The Pooh (Jim Cummings) and friends. It's not by any means a masterpiece or a film that is likely to be held in such high esteem alongside the likes of The Godfather or The Wizard of Oz, but it doesn't need to be. It's not that kind of film. It's just a small and lovely narrative about a man who has lost his way, and forgotten how to have fun.

It's great to see such a stellar cast of British acting talent also. In this one film, we have Peter Capaldi as Rabbit, Toby Jones as Owl, Sophie Okonedo as Kanga and, of course, the excellent Hayley Atwell as the wife of Christopher Robin, Evelyn.

The problem with such a large ensemble is that certain characters tend to disappear. For instance, out of the stuffed residents of 100 Acre Wood, the film largely focuses on Winnie The Pooh, Tigger (Jim Cummings), Eeyore (Brad Garrett) and Piglet (Nick Mohammed), which means the others are sidelined, particularly in the third act of the movie. It would have been nice to have seen Kanga, Roo (Sara Sheen), Owl and Rabbit make it to London, as it would have felt like the characters had more to do, beyond simply existing within the world of the story.

The plot does, also, take a while to get going. It takes around thirty/thirty five minutes for the inciting incident to kick in, and another ten/fifteen on top of that until the grown-up Christopher Robin meets the rest of the guest cast. The narrative is quite uneven, with the focus of the story changing completely in the third act, where it moves from a story concerning Christopher Robin rediscovering his inner child to Pooh and friends trying to return his important paperwork to their mate.

Despite that, however, it never gets boring. There's some really great humour throughout, my favourites concerning Christopher reading the wrong book to his child at bedtime, and the stuffed animals surprising the taxi driver when Tigger becomes convinced his reflection in the window is another Tigger.

Mark Gatiss also features in this film as Christopher's boss Giles Winslow, and he is utterly brilliant in the role. He does a really good job at playing the mean boss who lounges around whilst his employees do all the work, and his reaction to the discovery of what Tigger had put in Christopher Robin's briefcase (where the important paperwork should be) is priceless. He is arguably the closest this film has to an antagonist, and Mark Gatiss is on fine form in that sort of narrative role.

Overall, Christopher Robin is a sweet family movie, with oodles of charm and a poignant message about unleashing your inner child. It's light, fun and a hugely enjoyable way to spend an hour and forty minutes, displaying a great sense of humour and an impressive all-British cast. It's just a shame it didn't do better at the Box Office, as it deserved better than the lukewarm reception it received, from critics and viewers alike.

Pixar, it's fair to say, never go for the typical or the obvious. Soul is a prime example of that. It's such a weird idea, to make an animated family film about a man who has a near-death experience, but it's what makes Pixar stand out from all of the other animation studios. Their films feel so mature and poignant, whilst catering to audiences of all ages, and that is always such a commendable quality for a movie to possess.

I just love the animation in the soul world known as The Great Before. It's so colourful and zany, it has its own unique stamp that's incomparable to any other animated film, and like the best fictional worlds it feels lived in. And the animation style when jazz musician Joe Gardener falls from the stairway to the Great After displays such creativity and energy, it really displays the talents of everyone at Pixar.

I think one of the most stand-out things about Soul however is just how diverse the animated cast is. 90% of the main characters are black, which shouldn't really be a big deal, but it happens so rarely in animated films that it's great to see ethnic minorities represented in grander numbers than before. There's plenty of people who look like me, a white person, in animated films, but I like to see that same logic applied to people who don't necessarily look like myself, the racial groups who are not as well represented, and deserve greater recognition.

This also has one of the best casts in animated movies. Jamie Foxx is the perfect voice for Joe, and Tina Fey is delightfully giddy as Soul 22. Graham Norton gives a very good turn as Moonwind, and Richard Ayoade made me laugh a lot as Counselor Jerry B. Rachel House as the accountant Terry is a very neat fit for the character, and the Post-Credits Ferris Bueller gag got a chuckle from me, even if it is a joke that has been done a lot.

This film for me was like a mix of Ratatouille and It's A Wonderful Life, with the crazy body shenanigans of Jamie Foxx's Joe (in the body of a cat) having to guide Tina Fey's Soul 22 in his body through his own life without Soul 22 messing it up. It's very reminiscent of Remy's control over Linguini in the kitchen in Ratatouille, with the scenes regarding Soul 22 discovering the wonders of life whilst living inside Joe sharing certain similarities to the plot of It's A Wonderful Life.

Soul is a film I had lots of fun with. I hope they find a way to make a sequel work in years to come.

One of the greatest tragedies of the COVID-19 pandemic is how it has affected the West End; it's sad to see such a great industry struggling, as it is truly one of the greatest things in this country, so it was great to see the BBC decide to shine a light on something which we cannot afford to lose with this one-off show.

And the BBC really pulled out all the stops here. This feels like a real love letter to stage musicals, with so many big names such as Sheridan Smith, Elaine Page, Indina Menzel and my Mum's favourite Michael Ball contributing in some fashion, be it with a performance or a countdown of musical numbers voted for by the public.

It's great to see so many shows like Wicked and Les Miserables represented, alongside newer musicals such as Everybody's Talking About Jamie and Six The Musical. The latter being a musical I personally really want to see.

The frequent nods to The Greatest Showman makes me hopeful that they will make a stage version one day, because I'd love to see a stage adaptation of that film, either in the West End or as a touring production. Somebody really has to make that happen.

A decent family flick. It reminds me a little of some of the iconic Amblin Entertainment family movies (which I suppose makes sense given this was made by Amblin), in that it has some of those dark undercurrents alongside the light whimsy, and concerns a young boy who struggles to fit in.

It certainly owes a great debt too to classic family stories such as Harry Potter and The Sound of Music with those darker elements too, such as the lead being an orphan and the villain's origins relating to the Second World War.

Jack Black is just as entertaining as you would expect, playing the typically larger than life role that we as the audience have come to expect from the portrayals he takes on. It's great also seeing Kyle Maclachan, who played Mr Hyde in Agents of SHIELD, make an appearance in this too, as the evil warlock Isaac. He's brilliant at playing these villainous roles, embodying so much screen presence and menace. Cate Blanchett as Florence is a solid casting choice, and she does a good job with what she has too.

I'm not a fan of the child acting however; the kids in this film are like a true representation of what people mean when they criticise child actors in film and television. Even the lead child actor who plays Lewis doesn't escape this, who like the rest of the children gives a largely flat and monotone performance.

I also don't really buy the characters of Jonathan and Florence as friends. They spend so much of the time bickering that you find yourself wondering why they would want to spend so much time with each other. They clearly don't like each other's company!

Overall, however, this movie is a fun ride. It may not be the greatest movie of all time, but it's a solid enough piece of entertainment.

I don't usually watch the DC films, because they don't tend to be as good as the Marvel Studios offerings, but I heard from a few people that this film is something really special, and I know that the critics gave it glowering reviews.

And boy were they right. This film is absolutely phenomenal, and not like a typical DC movie at all. It actually feels more like a Marvel Studios offering, sort of like a strange mash-up of Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger.

Patty Jenkins' directorial style is utterly breathtaking. There's so many stunning pieces of cinematography in this film, and the action sequences are so well choreographed. I particularly loved the Young Diana training sequences at the beginning, and when Diana is in the WW1 trenches and walks across No Man's Land.

Gal Gadot was so perfectly cast as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman. She oozes the presence of an Amazon warrior, really conveying a sense of the majestic and powerful. You really wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of her!

Honestly, though, I was grinning throughout this film. I'd even go as far as to say it's better than Marvel Studios' Captain Marvel (but I love that film too), which is a first for me because I usually always prefer the Marvel offerings to DC's output. I just feel like between the two this delves deeper into the character of the lead, and her flaws, and does a better job with the fish out of water comedy (that scene in the clothes shop in particular is hilarious).

Okay, I don't think I've ever seen anything like Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse film. It's just such a refreshingly unique animated movie, and I absolutely adore it.

This is a prime example of why I say Chris Lord and Phil Miller are two of the greatest directors right now. They inject their films with such flair, and take these iconic IPs that others would just slap the name on and call it a day, and do something wholly original.

It's not just about making a franchise movie for them, it's about making a statement.

And God, does this film make such a bold statement. It's such a beautiful, beautiful piece of art. The way they have taken such care and dedication to replicate the feel of a comic book, from the page turns to the comic book panels and the text boxes is just mind-blowing. Their direction makes it feel exactly like watching a living and breathing comic-book.

And the animation is utterly stunning. The colours are so bright and punchy, and I love how they have gone for a sort of stop motion 2D feel with it. It's still CGI animated, but it has that feel of 2D animation down to a tea.

Oh, and the story is just so good too. Miles Morales is immensely likeable from the very beginning; he is exactly what Spider-Man should be. An everyday teen who is caught between his personal problems and his superhero life. Kingpin's motivation for starting the collider, an attempt to bring in alternate versions of his loved ones who passed away, works so well and means you are really able to understand where he is coming from, even if he is deranged and going about it the wrong way. And the whole thematic hook throughout of 'the leap of faith' is just perfect; the pay-off is executed flawlessly in a stunning piece of animation, and comes in a place where it feels totally earned.

The humour is on-point (I loved the recurring puberty and Rubik's cube gags in particular), and the female Doctor Octopus was a genius spin on Otto Octavius.

I don't think I could praise this film enough. They just got it so right, and I can't wait to see how Spider-Man 2099 factors into the sequel.