I want to be me! I'm gonna be free! 'The Divergent Series: Insurgent'

divergence
1. The action of diverging: moving off in different directions from the same point.

'The Divergent Series: Insurgent' (catchy title!) is one of those young adult, "Dystopian Future" movies that they have now instead of High School movies. Remember High School movies? Jocks, nerds and misfits battling each other for their place in the social pecking order. Long corridors full of lockers, yellow school buses, sports day humiliations and Prom dances. A soundtrack of non-threatening punky-pop sounds. The kids united in their first world problems ("Dad won't let me borrow his car!") and all that raging against the world that adults created. Yeah, well they don't make those any more. Unless there's a singing competition involved. Or vampires. Or both. I blame 'Glee' which seems to have seen off the genre for good.

What they have now is "Dystopian Futures". Instead of school you have a whole post apocalyptic world organised into factions. You have a feisty female trying to make sense of the world and the lies that she's been told. You have the beginnings of a rebellion and kicking against oppression. You get to blame your elders. There's an anxiety and paranoia about everything. You have betrayals and death- match fights to contend with. The villain is rich and smart and controlling. A bleak future is mapped out for you. And there's usually some great big "mad bugger's wall" to tear down before things can get better. In short these films are all about growing up and facing the fears of adulthood and responsibility. I love 'em! They're a lot more interesting than the high school soap operas of my day and we all need a break from vampires. In a world where most adults can't even face up to anything it is no wonder that these tales connect with a wide audience.

I'm sure that when the dust has settled on the decade  'The Divergent Series: Insurgent' will be looked upon favourably as one of the better examples of the genre. I like its 'Brave New World' caste-style social setup, it's fear of individuality and the idea that those who don't conform must be controlled. It's well done and  feels more believable to me as a possible future than that of 'The Hunger Games'. I think Tris is every bit as compelling a character as Katniss Everdeen but with the added advantage of not having a love-triangle thing holding her down all the time. Sure, she is motivated by love and sometimes she is saved because she is loved,  but at least we don't have to sit through the usual guff about choosing between 'team Hunky guy' and 'team sensitive guy'. Divergence seems to be less about romance and more about transcending the self. For me it's the better for it.

You also get a lot more thrills and spills for your money than the plodding, lugubrious 'Hunger Games' series. There's always something interesting happening; whether it's a well executed chase scene, a new concept, a fight or a dream-like visual effects sequence. Even the running-down-corridors-with-guns bits are good. There are moments where it all becomes as gloriously daft as anything in The Resident Evil series but the concepts keep it grounded and compelling. It's complicated but not confusing. The "are we still in a drug induced mind trial, or are we back in reality?" mind game playing is especially well done in this film (this is the 'Inception' of YA movies) and it props up a tense, exciting final act. It left me wanting answers; wanting more. Job done I'd say.

Play Your Cards Right. Jason Statham in 'Wild Card'.

"You've got to know when to hold 'em,

Know when to fold 'em,

Know when to walk away

And know when to run."

                                                                                    

                                                                            -Kenny Rogers 'The Gambler'

Ostensibly it looks likes such a good hand to have been dealt: A William Goldman screenplay (read 'Adventures In The Screen Trade' now if you haven't already), an action director ('Con Air' , 'The Mechanic') who knows how to get a good "performance" out of Jason Statham and the man himself, Statham, willing to go the extra mile and deliver dialogue heavy scenes as much as blows to the face. Sadly, it's not a winning hand. There's something missing that's quite hard to pinpoint. Sadly it falls far short of being the 'Casino' or 'Leaving Las Vegas' of Jason Statham movies. Instead it's the 'Sin City 2' of Statham movies in that it promises to be an exciting reinvention of genre trappings but just tediously regurgitates them instead.

Ex British special forces (of course!) hard man Nick Wild (the name is in the title! geddit?) has a tortured past, a gambling problem and a strict moral code. He works as a sort of hired muscle chaperone in Vegas and gets drawn into trouble with the mob when a girl from his past calls on him for help. So far so every Jason Statham film. What sets it apart is the Vegas location and the writing which flirts with the idea of going down interesting Scorsese/Tarantino roads but pulls short. There is plenty of chat but not much that could be called memorable or quotable. There's a squirm-inducing torture scene but also some silly slow motion ultra-violence with credit cards and coins that wouldn't have looked out of place in an X-men film. There is character development, but nothing that takes us beyond the familiar; nothing that feels different enough to the hundreds of run of the mill trouble-with-the-mob stories already out there.

But it is a nuts and bolts Jason Statham chassis underneath it all and that's good enough for me. It's closer in tone to 'Hummingbird' than the usual 'Transporter', 'Crank', 'Expendables' model and possibly a little too straight-faced to be enjoyable. The strangest about it is that it is actually a re-make of an unremarkable Burt Reynolds vehicle from the mid eighties - also penned by Goldman and based on his own novel. Apart from heightened levels of bone crushing violence it doesn't feel like the script has moved on much at all and you wonder why the author is so drawn to the material.

Even so it is the first Statham movie in a good while and there's nothing wrong with it; just nothing to make it really stand out. I'll probably end up watching it every time it shows up on tv and that's generally the highest plaudit you can give this sort of film.

Whip It Good, Lullaby Of Birdman and Up Jupiter.

A double whammy of 'Fifty Shades of Gray' and half term have pretty much made the cinema a no-go zone this week. Fortunately I've got a backlog of films to write up. I'm not going to labour it because of other commitments but here we go.

Drum roll please......

First up is 'Whiplash'

You've probably heard great things about 'Whiplash' and read all the rave reviews. It's better than that.

'Whiplash' is without a doubt a masterpiece. It's tight, tense and totally absorbing. A sadistic music tutor pushes his students to the limits and beyond. Who knew a film about jazz drumming could be so thrilling and so dramatic?

All sentimentality is stripped away. Instead we see the bruising dedication and sacrifice needed to excel in any field.....and it isn't pretty.

The opening scene should be taught on every screenwriting course. Everything we need to know about the two principle characters, their motivation, their goals and the major themes are all revealed within a couple of minutes in one location. It's a masterclass. The final scene is probably the best closing ten minutes of any film so far this decade. All points in between aren't bad either. Acting, editing, direction and sound are all top notch.

'Whiplash', then, a great film about the near impossibility of achieving anything great.

'Birdman' (or 'Being Michael Keaton" as I like to call it) on the other hand is a nearly great film about the impossibility of achieving anything great. It is good and deserves the plaudits that it has had thrown at it but I do have reservations. It's exactly three scenes too long. Three scenes that do nothing other than build to a shaggy dog story punchline. Three scenes that stretch your patience and goodwill just a little too far. There's also some unnecessary magical realism, way too much camera trickery (dazzling long takes are the cinematic equivalent of an extended guitar solo), a lesbian seduction apropos of nothing and the sense that this is little more than a "fuck you" to the audience and the critics. Apart from that I liked it.

Keaton is twitchy but never annoying. Ed Norton reminds you that he's a damn fine actor. Emma Stone is great and Naomi Watts and Angela Riseborough somehow make the best of their roles; not an easy task considering this film hasn't got a clue what to do with its female characters.

I see 'Birdman' as an extended skit exploring one terrible day where an actors' worst nightmares come together. On that level it is a thoroughly enjoyable black comedy. Oscar worthy? Yes. Better than 'Whiplash'? Nah.

"Great film" and "great art" are two things that are never going to said of 'Jupiter Ascending'. I was kind of looking forward to this in a perverse sort of way. I fully expected it to be this year's 'John Carter' a much maligned, misunderstood, future cult classic. It's not. It's a terrible movie. Terrible but not awful. It has some interesting ideas but it needs a better springboard for them.

It's from the Wachowskis, who gave us 'The Matrix' trilogy and 'Cloud Atlas'. As you might expect it features lots of running around in cool outfits and some hippy trippy cod philosophy. Instead of Neo we have Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) transcending her dull, boring life (she cleans toilets - that's right - Mila Kunis cleans toilets) to fulfil her greater destiny as "the one". Instead of Trinity we have Channing Tatum with mascara as a pixie-eared Wolfman warrior flying around in roller blade styled rocket boots (I'm not making this shit up - I've seen it). Instead of unknowingly enslaved humans being harvested as batteries we have unknowingly enslaved humans being enslaved as....clocks....or something.

The plot as far as I understand it is basically Mila Kunis' face trying to save the Earth from Eddie Redmayne's face. Beyond that I don't really have much of a clue as to what was going on and frankly I don't care. I just couldn't buy in to any of it at all. At least with 'The Matrix' the Wachowskis were ripping off Grant Morrison. At least with 'Cloud Atlas' they had the  authorial voice of David Mitchell to contend with. Here they are just ripping off themselves and it's a right old mess. It just can't settle on the right tone to adopt. At times it is high camp like 'The Fifth Element' or 'Flash Gordon' but then at other times it is as po-faced and serious as the first ten minutes of 'Man Of Steel' or the senate debates of 'The Phantom Menace'. Just as you think it wants to be  'Guardians Of The Galaxy' it grinds everything to hold to engage us with a supposedly "hilarious" bureaucratic red tape sequence that is presumably inspired by Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams. It falls completely flat. The design is 'Dune' by way of 'Chronicles Of Riddick'.  It's like Disney trying to do a fairy tale in space and then neglecting to put any wonder into it. And Sean Bean is in it.

And fuck only knows what Eddie Redmayne thought he was doing. If he wins an oscar for 'The Theory Of Everything' it should be instantly taken away from him for mincing around in this. What is he doing with that voice? That comedy voice? A hoarse whisper that is even more laughable and unendurable than Tom Hardy's Bane. And that's going some.

There's no chemistry between any of the actors, no spark to the action, too many tedious sub plots and apart from the occasional visual flourish every ten minutes not much spectacle. You can also tell it was designed as a big 3D movie because there are those irritating glowing embers flowing around the screen all the time. It barely passes as one dimensional. It's bound to end up as a late night staple on ITV4 in years to come. I Look forward to that.

Turning rebellion into money. 'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1'

So I waited until the final showing, on the final day, of its run at my local multiplex before venturing out to see "Mockingjay Part 1'.  That should give you some idea of how motivated I was to cross it off my "must see" list. Here's why - despite having enjoyed the first two films  I just kind of presumed it would be a stodgy, turgid, bore of a movie; the middle part of a pudding that you no longer want to eat; an elongated bit of a filler before the final act; deliberately and obviously designed to stretch out the franchise in order to make the maximum dollar from teenage girls.

It's worse than that.

It is without a doubt one of the slowest, most aggravating and pointless films I've ever had the mis-pleasure of sitting through. It's not a bad film in terms of craftsmanship. But in terms of intent; in terms of enjoyment it's fucking awful. Seriously, if I'd have had a Mockingjay pin on me I would have been grinding it into my palm like Harry Palmer in 'The Ipcress File', just in case I lost all sense of my self to the ongoing torture of it all.

I don't mind that it doesn't work as a film in its own right and plays like an episode of a tv show that you've resumed watching after a year's break and now really don't care about. I expected that. I do mind that it has little plot structure - it is all middle -  but I can live with it. What I really didn't expect was that it would be so mind numbingly dull. It surely has to be the talkiest film ever marketed at teens. But it's just blah, blah exposition talk all the way through. Show, don't tell is the mantra of screenplay writing. This is all tell, tell, tell until you get sick of hearing it.

"Katniss isn't ready to lead the revolution", Katniss witnesses a war atrocity,  "Katniss is now ready to lead the revolution", the revolution gets under way but is almost suppressed, Katniss is determined to save Peeta's life, Peeta is rescued, Peeta attacks Katniss. There you are - seven scenes that could be whizzed through in a half hour; fifty minutes tops. But no, what you get is people standing around in front of video screens saying stuff like - "we are now going to disable their shields and block their broadcast" like it's a bad episode of Knight Rider or something.

Look, I think Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress but here she spends most of her time looking bewildered. Now, you could say that this is a clever and evocative portrayal of post traumatic stress disorder....and.....you could say that it is the definitive depiction of a sullen, gormless, teenager....or...you could say that it looks like she just doesn't know where her character is emotionally from scene to scene. Here, she has two expressions - mouth open and mouth closed. I blame it on the director. His (because why would you choose a female director for something that has connected with teen girls across the globe) CV  includes Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez videos before moving on to the dizzy heights of everyone's favourite movies - 'I Am Legend' and 'Constantine'. Showing her face in big close up for the entire running time is the approach he takes and by the end it's so overdone you could despair. He can't even coax any interesting moments from Donald Sutherland, Woody Harrelson or Julianne Moore and worst of all (made sour for being one of his last roles) Philip Seymour Hoffman looks old, looks ill and looks completely out of it. His eyelids still do more than anyone else in this film.

But here's the real kicker, the thing I really hated about this film was that underneath all of this slow burning drudgery, is that there is still a lot of really strong, interesting ideas waiting to be explored. The series as a whole has the theme of rebellion against an autocratic centre and the cost of that on a personal level. This part of the saga should be exploring how rebellion is promoted, propagated and, mythologised whilst  showing the pros and cons of constructing a legend around a central figure. Instead, here's Jennifer Lawrence staring into the distance, or walking down a corridor, or looking really, really sad. For a film about unconformity it is tediously, distressingly conformist in all the worst ways.

Can't wait for Part 2 !

When Five Tribes Go To War....

"Fuck Off Legolas!"

So I finally, finally got around to seeing 'The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies' last night. I know, I know - slovenly on my part - but here's the thing....I read the book as a child but never finished it. As far as I'm concerned, the story of 'The Hobbit' ends once Smaug is out of the way. To be honest 'The Hobbit' ends for me once Gollum is out of the way....but that's just me. What I'm trying to say is that I never felt any pressing need to see the conclusion.  But here it is and....well, I enjoyed it...but I'm also glad it's all over.

I applaud Peter Jackson for what he has done. He filmed the unfilmable, remained true to his singular vision over 15 years and pushed technical boundaries. For the most part he didn't fuck it up, which is truly remarkable.

Now I may not particularly like the third LOTR film and I never want to sit through 'The Two Towers' again, but that's my problem with Tolkien not Jackson. Tolkien doesn't really lend itself well the way scripts are structured. For me LOTR and The Hobbit both have great openings, languid middles and "are we there yet?" endings. But plotting kind of misses the point of Tolkien anyway. Tolkien is about immersing yourself in the detail, the descriptions, the glacial shift of events, the sense of a truly never ending narrative - something properly mythical. It's amazing that Jackson managed to capture the essence of that and make it entertaining for a mass audience over the run of six films.

There's no point me reviewing the film properly, you'll have seen it by now and have your own judgement. For the record I liked it the least of the three 'Hobbit' films and have plenty of gripes but at least it didn't quite turn into the CGI battle bore I expected, but I did think it lacked a little of the awe and wonder of the other films. At times it did feel strangely dated already - something that wasn't helped by the use of some shoddy back projection work. Of all the films in the series this one noticeably has the most inconsistent standards for SFX. It runs the whole gamut from wonderful to laughable with some bits clearly loving laboured over and others rushed through for completion date.

The battle of the five armies becomes the battle of some superhero dwarves on a hilltop  - but strangely this seems to work.

Bilbo gets lost a little - even though it is his story and he has little to do other than hold the ring, hold the Arkenstone and roll his eyes. He doesn't actually do very much of anything. But that's not to take anything away from Martin Freeman who is reliably brilliant and the smartest bit of casting that Jackson did for the whole saga.

Those dwarves though. All looking like they went to the same hairdresser and got a blow dry. You expect one of them to have a purple rinse.

And Smaug went down too easy for my liking.

And Legolas is still in it. I'll miss inwardly telling him to fuck off every time he's on screen.

And "Love hurts so much!". Thank you Tauriel, you may go now.

And what was with the comedy coward routine?

And how come the eagles  save the day again (as they do in LOTR) but we spend no time with them, or learn anything about them?

And what was with the worms? What did they do?

And...and....well, you see...the more you think about it, the more I don't like it... so I'm going to stop there. I think the 'The Hobbit' on the whole was great fun, an exuberant blast of family entertainment. It was never going to please everybody, it was a terrible idea to spread it out over three films instead of two and it has plenty of flaws but I'm glad it's there and I'm glad it's not an abomination.

But I'm also glad that I won't have to sit through another one.

Imitation Games. 'Ex Machina"

...and she took a face from the ancient gallery...

The renaissance for intelligent big budget sci-fi movies continues apace with Alex Garland's 'Ex Machina' which is probably better than any of last year's crop and is an assured and timely British film. 

Young software engineer Caleb gets to meet his genius employer Nathan at an isolated, subterranean location. After signing disclosure documents Caleb is asked to run a series of "Turing test" styled sessions with Ava, a human simulacra, to determine if she truly is an artificial intelligence. During a power outage Ava implores Caleb not to trust Nathan....and so the games begin, certainties collapse and paranoia and mistrust intensify.

It's a great set-up and immediately engaging.  We don't have a tedious build up to meeting Ava, we don't have tons of tedious pseudo-scientific exposition and we don't have our intelligence insulted.  The film is tight, tense and perfectly paced. The three leads are uniformly great and it helps that there isn't a big star name onboard to distract us. Well....I guess Oscar Isaac is a well-known actor....but here's the thing...I didn't even realise it was him until I saw the end credits. That's how good he is; that's how stupid I am. Likewise I didn't realise that Alex Garland had directed this as well as written it. It's an assured debut that simultaneously coaxes brilliant performances out of the whole cast, presents its special effects with a matter of fact nonchalance, maximises atmosphere from the minimal sets and approaches the material with intellectual rigour. We've definitely got his unadulterated vision on the screen.

It's clear to see what his influences are - 'Blade Runner', Kubrick, 'Metropolis', 'The Stepford Wives', 2000 A.D. comics, computer games. This is the stuff he will have grown up with. It's what I grew up with; probably you too. What's remarkable is that he's thrown his hat in to the ring with such iconic fare and doesn't come off looking stupid. He manages to distill the fascination and fear of artificial intelligence and fashion it into a gripping drama - something even the much vaunted 'A.I.' Kubrick/Spielberg collaboration failed to do. 

A younger Alex Garland might have been tempted to turn the last act into a slasher film - with a   psychotic killer robot on the rampage in an isolated location. There is still an element of that on show but Garland shows the restraint learnt from  scripting 'Never Let Me Go' and steers us towards a convincing and satisfying conclusion. 

I loved every moment of it and thought it was pitch perfect from the opening shots of office workers plugged in to their media devices right through to the use of Savages' 'Husbands' as the closing credits music. My palms were sweating, my mind was working overtime and I was reeling from the visceral thrill of it all. Geoff Barrow from Portishead (the band, not the place!) contributes to the excellent soundtrack and there is just an overall sheen of class and confidence to the whole project.

Objectively, it's not perfect by any means. For all the exploration of A.I. themes this is still a fable about male fear - with Ava as a monstrous female - beautiful, manipulative, unknowable. It's undeniably a film made by a man....about a genius male creator.... making a fuckable robot.... and then being afraid of it because it might just have an interior life of its own. It also has a strong element of porno chic. Maybe I was just too sensitive to that because the film was preceded by the awful trailer for 'Fifty Shades Of Grey' with which it seems to share a similar interior design aesthetic. It may not be a feminist sci-fi film then, but I don't think it's a misogynistic one either. Concerns about the eroticising of Ava are addressed in the plot and to give Garland the benefit of the doubt I do think he is making valid points about objectivisation and the eroticising of technology. He's not a leering, horny idiot - that'll be Zack Snyder.

If you know your sci-fi and/or have an interest in emerging technology then you won't find anything here that is particularly groundbreaking. The conversations between Caleb and Ava could have benefitted from a bit more depth for me. I'd have liked to have seen them challenging and testing each other on a higher philosophical level. The conversations between Caleb and Nathan hold more interest. Even so I enjoyed my first viewing immensely. Only time will tell if the film has got that repeat viewing factor. Personally I'm not sure there is enough intellectual substance here for University courses to be referencing it is a main text in ten years time. Even so, I am sure that it will provoke plenty of post cinema pub discussion about the ethics and limitations of artificial intelligence and I'm sure that was Alex Garland's intention.

Go see it!

Plot 1. Action 2. 'Taken 3'.

What do you mean "more family-orientated"?

So 2015 kicks off with 'Taken 3' - a much more family-orientated take on the franchise in every sense of that phrase. We spend an interminable amount of time reacquainting ourselves with the Mills family. Poor Bryan, he has so much to contend with - his little girl is now all grown up and pregnant and his estranged wife wants him back in her life. All of this soap opera is of course just a pretext to ratcheting up his pissed off meter for when the inevitable something bad happens.

Alarm bells started ringing even before the film started. What people responded to in the first film was the brutal violence, a ruthless hero and an edgy plot involving sex trafficking. 'Taken 3' has a 12A rating and like 'Expendables 3' the desire to get bums on seats has resulted in a compromised, toned down addition to the franchise. People get shot in the head but there's no blood flying around the screen, no real sense of threat and no impact. It all feels very 'safe' this time out.

Remember that the unique selling point of 'Taken' is Liam Neeson being bigger, smarter and more merciless than the bad guys. He has a "particular set of skills" and part of the fun is seeing him employ them in a determined manner against the clock. Mix in some European locations and realistic car stunts and you've pretty much got your movie right there. All of that is jettisoned this time out. It's less of a 'Taken' sequel and more of a 'The Fugitive' variant as Bryan becomes a murder suspect on the run, out to prove his innocence. Yawn.

Part of the problem is the Los Angeles setting. Instead of the disorientating and threatening European milieu we have a reliance on over familiar locations - storm drains, diners, garages, car parks, Californian mountain roads. By the time a car rolls down a hillside and explodes you'll be thinking you could be watching any cop movie or television show made at any time in the last 40 years. It's all a bit ordinary.

But here's the thing....despite all that it still somehow manages to work. Neeson is as stoic as ever, the plot is as preposterous as it is predictable but it's undeniably entertaining in an undemanding way. I suspect the script started out as its own thing but then got opted with a view to shaping it into a 'Taken' movie. The most interesting element has Forest Whitaker as the lawman assigned to bring Neeson in. It's refreshing to see a genuinely smart detective on the case and he makes a good foil for our hero. Whitaker is fine but he plays his character in much the same way as his role in 'The Shield'. It all adds to the general tv feel of the thing.

Dougray Scott turns up in it too. It's strange to think that this man was once touted as a potential Bond and is now a sort of Poundland version of Gerard Butler. It's a cruel business.

So 'Taken 3' then. A lot of fisticuffs, a fair bit of bang bang shooty bang bang, one confusing and dull car chase and a lot of stupidity. It's okay. A bit better than 'Taken 2'; nowhere near the heights of 'Taken'.

2015 is underway and the bar has been set low.

A Mystery Inside An Enigma. 'The Imitation Game'.

Benedict Cumberbatch has pretty much cornered the market in playing arrogant anti-social geniuses so it is no surprise to find him here playing arrogant anti-social genius Alan Turing. What is a surprise is that "Cumberbatch fatigue" hasn't set in and that he still has enough weaponry in his acting arsenal to find new levels of sensitivity and subtlety and manages a performance that makes you forget all about Sherlock. Keira Knightley, Mark Strong and Charles Dance are all great too.

It's an excellent film and uncommonly entertaining considering that this could so easily have become a talky, worthy bore. There's a fractured narrative, lots of spy-story intrigue and plenty of thematic strands to follow but it all works. It never becomes convoluted and never loses sight of the emotional pull or the human tragedy. Yes, yes it's about cracking impossible cryptic codes but it's also about trying to crack social codes and it's about us trying to decypher the man, understand the sacrifices made and realign our perspective of the war. The story of Turing and Bletchley Park deserves to be as well known as 'The Dam Busters' but it is right that the social condemnation he suffered and the secrecy surrounding his achievements is given equal gravitas.

The title 'The Imitation Game' refers to the paper on machine intelligence that established Turing's name academically but as the film goes on it becomes clear that this is a wonderfully multi-layered title that feeds into all the key themes. It's clever, but it's not clever-clever. If anything the worst parts of the film are the scenes where the life lessons are overemphasised. When the line -  "Sometimes it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine" you can almost see the highlighter pen underneath it and there are some preposterously cinematic "Eureka!" moments, but not to worry, I'd rather it went for the mass audience over the art house crowd.

It's not a thriller but it is thrilling and a film you should see.

Dook! Dook! Dook! The Babadook.

I finally caught up with 'The Babadook' this week, just before it disappears from cinemas, and I'm glad I did because it is almost certainly the best horror film of 2014.  If it even is a horror film. The emphasis is on psychological unease rather than formulaic jump scares and it's reminiscent of films in the vein of 'Repulsion', 'Spider' and 'We Need To Talk About Kevin'. It's not a monster movie. It's a "monsters of the mind" movie.

In an Australian suburb a single mother struggles with her grief several years after losing her husband in a car accident that happened as they drove to the hospital to give birth. The boy who was born on the same day as Amelia's husband died is now a 'difficult' six year old with a vivid imagination, an arsenal of home made weaponry and all manner of behavioural problems. All the sympathy and support seems to be drying up. The school authorities are getting serious, Amelia's sister is distancing herself and her employer is losing patience. All of these problems compound the feelings of grief and resentment. And now there is this pop-up book - 'Mister Babadook' that seems to be foreshadowing other horrors to come. The monster is waiting outside this unhappy house. Dook! Dook! Dook! Can you hear him knocking?

If you look at any of those Top Ten horror film lists you'll see 'The Exorcist', 'Halloween', 'Rosemary's Baby', 'The Shining', 'Let The Right One In', 'The Omen' , 'Carrie', 'Don't Look Now' and 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' as perennial choices. They are all to a larger or lesser extent about our fear of children or fear for children. 'The Babadook' has nods to all of them and is worthy of joining the canon. This is not a reheating of hackneyed themes but an intelligent progression and exploration of the genre.

It's an accomplished debut film from Jennifer Kent. The framing and pacing of the film recall the early work of that other Antipodean director - Jane Campion but it definitely has a distinct flavour of its own. An American or European take on this material would probably have turned out quite ordinary. This is also one of the best edited horror films that I've seen in a long while. It has a slow burn set up but it never drags its feet. Scenes seem to last exactly as long as they need to and the audience is trusted to fill in the gaps. What a joy it is to see stop-motion and in-camera effects rather than the usual barrage of CGI imagery. There are even sequences inspired by film pioneer Georges Méliès and German expressionism. It's the perfect antidote to stupid fucking creepy doll movies and quiet, quiet, bang! scares.

Essie Davis and Noah Wiseman are fabulous as mother and son. Horror films are normally derailed by actors not being up to the job if the role calls for something beyond screaming and looking worried. Your sympathies and viewpoints will shift a lot with these characters; these performances keep them as believable people you really care about.

Is it scary though? Well, yes....and no. This is always a problem. What's 'scary' differs from person to person. I would say that 'The Babadook' is more "unsettling" than "scary", but then again I don't particularly find 'The Shining' "scary" even though I admire it. This film certainly wrong-footed the audience I saw it with, who thought they were going to see another 'Annabelle', but then couldn't quite figure out where to scream and giggle. The intention is not to provide a rollercoaster ride of jump scares or create a new "Freddy' or 'Jason'. Instead, this is a subtle and powerful impression of a mind unravelling itself in the face of domestic horrors and the gentle drift into mental illness.

'The Babadook' embraces everything good about the horror genre, draws on the best material within that genre and reshapes it into new and unnerving shapes. It's ambitious and distinguished and exciting. It also has a great ending that doesn't need a big stupid twist or apocalyptic destruction to make it work. It's small-scale but epic in its implications.

'Annabelle' felt like the nadir of modern horror. 'The Babadook' feels like a good place to start again. Let's hope it is. After all, you can't get rid of the Babadook.

Dook! Dook! Dook!

"My God, It's Full Of Stars!".....And Tears. 'Interstellar'.

I hate Christopher Nolan 'cause he made me cry.

crying

crying

touchy feely

trying not to cry

crying

drowning in tears

some space stuff

crying again

I don't do crying at the movies. I'm far too aware of how I'm being manipulated to let that happen. I've sat stoney faced through 'Titanic' and others. But 'Interstellar' really got to me - on a deep level that I can't quite fathom. It made me cry. Bastard!

And I don't just mean 'cry' as in wiping a tear away from my cheek at the end of the movie. No, I mean welling up a third of the way into the film and then pretty much not being able to stop. I mean, bawling like a baby crying. Bastard! Bastard, bastard film!

Maybe it was because I was a bit ill with a bad cold. Maybe I had an allergic reaction in the cinema. Maybe it's because 'Interstellar' is a harrowing, emotional powerhouse that doesn't let up and resonates on intensely personal and epic levels. Maybe it's because it's about love transcending everything. Maybe it's because it's the best film of 2014 and I'm not even remotely a Nolan fanboy. Maybe it's because it's a masterpiece and we've forgotten what they look like. Whatever. It's a bastard. An incredible, beautiful, unforgettable bastard,

And to think I thought it was going to be shit because the trailer looked boring.

Bastard.

Q: So what is 'Interstellar' about? 

A: It's about three hours long and makes you cry for about one of them. Even during the action scenes. Bastard.

Q: Is it as good as '2001'?

A: Did Kubrick make you cry? Well, did he? No, he didn't.

Q: Is the story any good?

A: I dunno, what do you want? Exploring our place in the universe, reaching out to save ourselves, making the ultimate sacrifice, crossing the boundaries of space and time, the minuscule made epic and the epic made minuscule. It hasn't got giant robots hitting each other if that's what you're asking. Or space lizards. Or Batman. It has got crying.

Q: I heard it's full of plot holes and bad science. Is that true?

A: It's science fiction, you dullard! You might as well pick fault with the stars. Or tears.

Q: Should I see it in on an Imax screen?

A: Just how big do you want Matthew McConaughey's tears to be? Look, just go and see it. It's bold, it's ambitious and original. It's cinema at it's best. On one level it is a film about cinema, about Nolan pushing the form a little bit further. Just don't watch it on your mobile phone.

Q: What's the big twist?

A: It's a poem about humanity. That's the big twist. No gimmicks, no logic puzzles. Humanity.

Q: My friend says its "meh". My friend says it's not as good as 'The Dark Knight'. My friend says it's not Christopher Nolan's best film. What do you say to that?

A: Your friend is a fucking idiot.

Q: Is it sentimental?

A: Yes, but it's sincere and it's not trite.

Q: What else can you tell me about it?

A: Nothing. I don't want to. Just go and see it for yourself.

Q: Will I cry?

A: Probably. Yes. Unless you only want space battles.

Interstellar. It's not flawless but it is perfect. And it made me cry.

Bastard.

Dysfunctional Family. 'This Is Where I Leave You'.

Despite being an only child I have a penchant for movies about fighting siblings. Any film that features a strong ensemble cast, a confined social situation and well written dialogue will usually work but they are rare beats these days and so it was a delight to watch 'This Is Where I Leave You' as it is a proper movie for grown ups; strong on comedy and strong on drama without the need to pretend its a rom-com or high art.

It is what it is - a film about a dysfunctional family trying to get through testing times. It has enough wit and insight and warmth to make it worth your while and whilst it won't be on anyone's end of year best of list it's definitely worth catching it if you can.

When the patriarch of this dysfunctional family dies the four siblings are forced to spend a whole week together under one roof with their mother and various spouses, exes and ghosts from the past. It's reminiscent of 'The Big Chill' and 'Peter's Friends' and is as good as either of them. It's got a great script and a cast that know how to make it work. What's not to like? Plus you get a great turn from Jane Fonda, a showcase for Jason Bateman at his best and the always reliable Tina Fey. Quite how the director of 'Real Steel' (the boxing robots movie) managed to pull this off is a mystery but he has and this is a fun movie to stumble across.

The Woman Who Fell To Earth. 'Under The Skin'.

I finally caught up with 'Under The Skin' recently and I still don't know what to make of it. It's an odd film because it's everything that it's not.

It's an intimate indie film, set in Glasgow and the surrounding highlands, largely shot on hidden cameras - but it has the budget to match its ambitions, a gloss finish, Scarlett Johansson and state of the art SFX.

It's about a super sexy serial killing alien....without any genre trappings whatsoever. Imagine a Ken Loach version of 'Species'. Imagine David Cronenberg doing 'Local Hero'.

It is deliberately ambiguous, defiantly arty and admirably ambitious....but it also feels slight, self important and empty.

It's flamboyant and naturalistic; visually stunning in a way that does and doesn't call attention to itself. Fascinating but simultaneously repetitive and static.

It has moments of greatness; the beach scene would have made a stunning short film in itself. There are also plenty of mundane moments that just make you wonder if the filmmaker's had a proper grasp on the material.

It's a sensual experience rather than a narrative one, which is fine in itself.... but the trouble is that it's disturbing, erotic and freaky...without ever really getting...well....under the skin.

In short it's too arty for mainstream audiences and probably not challenging enough for the art house crowd. There's plenty of room for debate, reflection and interpretation but for me it felt like a sandwich when I wanted a full meal. What does it mean to be human? Can we ever really know another person? Identity. Sexual politics. Objectification. The filling is all there but there's no bread to hold it all together. I guess it's all about seeing ourselves through alien eyes. In which case I will probably stick with 'The Man Who Fell To Earth' as the main course when I want an 'exotic alien takes on humanoid form and trippy shit happens' movie.

Definitely worth seeing and whilst maybe not as compelling or as challenging as you might want it to be it's a striking piece of work.

A mixed bag of contradictions then - just like humanity itself.

The Filth and the 'Fury' - or, 'Das Boot' on caterpillar tracks.

So there was I thinking that 'Inglourious Basterds' was the last word in second world war movies when along comes 'Fury', with Brad Pitt still killing Nazis in Germany - this time in a tank.

The 'Fury' is a Sherman tank helmed by Pitt, who has led his crew through the best part of the conflict. Logan Lerman is the wide eyed innocent forced to join this battle hardened crew.

Director David Ayer is no Tarantino and this is not as multi-layered as 'Basterds' but fortunately he does understand that what makes this sort of drama work is not the battle scenes but the camaraderie between a group of men who know they could die at any moment.

The cast are uniformly great. Pitt achieves something of a career best here. He plays Don 'Wardaddy' Collier very differently to his Lt. Aldo Raine. This character is stalwart in front of his men whilst teetering on the edge of breakdown in private. Other 'A' listers would have turned the role into a show off piece but Pitt is wise enough to play it subtly; blending into the background but always making his presence known. We get a real sense of the psychic toll the conflict has taken on him as much as his will to get the job done right. Logan is cleverly cast as the greenhorn - it really is as if someone has just thrown Percy Jackson into the frontline. He is the film's conscience. Shia LaBeouf method acts to his heart's content in the background but does more than enough here to silence his haters. Like Pitt, he's not over the top. There's no "look at me acting" ticks - just someone really understanding the part and living it.

It's one of the filthiest, dirtiest, grungiest films of its type and progresses the "authentic" aesthetic of films like 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Das Boot' to the level where you can actually taste the mud, blood and gasoline in your mouth. The attention to detail and the "lived in" feel of the design is just incredible. If Sergio Leone had ever got to make a spaghetti war film (he did try) it would certainly have looked like this.

I once fell asleep in the cinema during 'The Fast and The Furious' (by the same director funnily enough) but there's no way anyone could nap through this. It's LOUD as hell. Every shell fired seems to make the walls of the cinema quake. Really worth seeing this on a big screen if you can. It's also visually rich and I applaud the director and cinematographer Roman Vasyanov for making the cramped interior shots as interesting as the exterior carnage. There's a bravura opening sequence which is as powerful a mood setter as anything I've ever seen. The last shot is pretty good too.

You can feel the gears begin to crunch a third of the way into the film as the pace drops for some lengthy character scenes. This will lose some of the audience no doubt, especially the "show us the gore" crowd (and there is plenty of gore), but these will be the same people who find Tarantino "too talky". Screw you if you can't put up with a bit of talking. The middle part of the film turns to that most modern of movie cliches - 'the uncomfortable dinner table scene'. It's actually very well done but doesn't crank up the tension to the same degree as similar scenes in 'Inglorious Basterds' (and I promise that this is the last time I will mention that film, or Mr T, in the write up of this one - sorry but it's difficult not to reference it repeatedly). It's a necessary scene in my opinion as it shows the two leads trying to hold on to a scarce moment of normality but I'm not sure it pays off to the extent it should. It felt like a manipulative device, a cliche, and that lessened the emotional impact. There's a lot of different ways that scene could have ended and you suspect in real life it would have turned a lot nastier. But that is always the trouble with films like this. Make the milieu as brutal and as authentic as you can but then sweeten it to make it more palatable/watchable for audience. That's fair enough though; otherwise you'd end up with the cinematic equivalent of a Sven Hassel novel. Nobody wants that.

The final part of the film where this single tank has to hold its position against insurmountable odds is one of the most realistic combat sequences ever filmed and also a preposterous '300'-ish war story fantasy. It's a stunning piece of film-making though, by anyone's standards, and rivals 'Gravity' for that cumulative bad-situation-made-worse effect.

In short, if you like your war-is-hell films then you'll love it. It has the claustrophobia and unrelenting tension of 'Das Boot', the cynicism of 'Cross Of Iron' and the mise-en-scene of 'Saving Private Ryan'. If you don't like war-is-hell movies then I don't know....Brad Pitt takes his shirt off...what can I say? The Box Trolls is playing on another screen. Maybe you should see that. Let me know how it was.

I Know You've Got Soul. 'Northern Soul'.

I don't  really like 'northern soul' music, it's too much like chewing the same piece of gum all night for my tastes; I prefer my soul funkier, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the film 'Northern Soul'. It does the job of capturing a very specific slice of British sub-culture and should resonate across generations and tribal cultures.

As you would expect, the film is strong on location and painstaking detail. It doesn't feel like the cast have just put on period clothes. It feels like they're living it. This isn't a rose-tinted look at the seventies with a few funny jackets and wigs, this is the real deal. It's a grimy, smeared glass, beer stained look at the period. The camera lens even seems to capture the light and dust of the past.  This film doesn't go for the easy route of filming in black and white (as in 'Control' the Joy Division biopic) but really strives to get the colours, the textures and lighting right for authenticity and emotional impact.

Two friends get into the scene and live for the weekend. Loyalties are tested, lives are changed, dreams are broken. It's not much of a story and nothing we've not seen before but the music, the dancing and liveliness of the film make it exhilarating to watch.

Director Elaine Constantine believably captures the euphoria of the dance floor but doesn't shy away from the ubiquitous drug use, the elitism, and the male dominance of the scene. She captures the essence of what it is like to be these young men full of energy, full of anger, channeling their focus onto something that makes them feel alive but absolutely nails the claustrophobia and frustration of their lives away from the dance floor too. It's"feel good" but not light, it's political but not overt, life affirming but not sentimental.

The two male leads are strong enough to carry the film (despite having little more than 'Hollyoaks' and 'Casualty' on their cvs) and there's fine support from the rest of the cast. I particularly thought John Thomson and James Lance got their respective DJ roles spot on. Ricky Tomlinson, Steve Coogan and Lisa Stansfield are in it too, but largely irrelevant (especially Tomlinson) and these are little more than extended cameos used to prop up a cast of largely unknown talent. If anything, the film could have been braver in dispensing with the more obvious narrative trappings altogether. But then it probably wouldn't have got made.

I'm glad that northern soul has finally got the movie it deserves. It's good but not great. It's no 'Quadrophenia'. It's no 'Saturday Night Fever'. But it's not a bad attempt. As a drama it does lack something but I'm still glad it's out there and keeping the faith.

Now, if somebody wants to give me some millions to make the definitive c86 / goth / dreampop / shoegaze movie then I am available for talks. Thanks.

Amazeballs!!! I Liked 'The Maze Runner'.

Help the young adult and his friends escape from the maze....

In Greek mythology, the Labyrinth was constructed by Daedalus for King Minos of Crete and designed to hold the Minotaur, a half man, half bull creature, which was fed human sacrifice. Each year Minos demanded that Athens send him a tribute of seven young  men and seven maidens to honour him and thus avert going to war. Each year the delegation was sacrificed to the beast until Theseus faced, and defeated, the Minotaur in the King's Labyrinth. Daedalus had constructed the maze with such cunning that he himself was barely able to find the way out and, having killed the Minotaur, Theseus was only able to escape because he could retrace his steps using Ariadne's thread, literally a "clew", or "clue".

I bloody loved the story of Theseus as a small child. It was my favourite and I read this book over and over again.

But as an adult it poses an interesting problem. Scholars agree that the Minotaur was held in the centre of a labyrinth. But a labyrinth is not the same as a maze. A labyrinth is a unicursal path, a winding straight line. The route is secure. It may seem to be chaotic at times but there is always one clear path to follow. In short, you cannot get lost in a labyrinth. How the hell then did Daedalus the so-called "master designer" struggle to find his way out? Why didn't the Minotaur just walk out? And how come Theseus was such a thicko that he needed a thread to find his way out. Idiots! the lot of them.

Anyway, that is why I was never allowed back into the Classical Studies classroom.

But we have learned that a labyrinth is not the same as a maze.

This is a labyrinth

This is a maze

In a labyrinth, you just have to trust the path, find the centre, not get eaten and then leave.

In a maze you have free will. You have choices, there is no middle area goal to reach and you will almost certainly get lost.

A labyrinth is a contemplative path, as is a maze to a certain extent, but a maze is more about the tension between fate and free will.

The maze in 'The Maze Runner' is an ever shifting maze within a labyrinth. Theseus would have lasted about five minutes in this one. Ariadne's thread would have been fucking useless.

Labyrinths and mazes are found all over the world, and they are important cultural works, giving insight  into our history and psyche. Prehistoric labyrinths served as traps for evil spirits or as paths for initiation rites or dances. In Medieval times the labyrinth symbolized the hard path to finding God. Pilgrims to Chartres Cathedral completed their arduous journey by shuffling around on their knees in prayer (possibly whilst being beaten too) following a labyrinth laid out on the floor.

In alchemy and in the Renaissance labyrinths lose their centre. The person in the labyrinth is the centre, a reflection of learned wisdom. Symbolically labyrinths and mazes reveal complexity and simplicity, mystery and design, intuition and received information. Labyrinths and mazes are bloody brilliant!

I am someone who grew up with a love for reading Greek myths, who became obsessed with dungeons and dragons, who lived through the survival horror that was '3D Monster Maze' on the ZX81, who still shudders to think of the number of times that he died in 'Deathtrap Dungeon', who watched The Crystal Maze every week and is someone who can still be found running around computer generated corridors with a blaster in his hand. Mazes have always been a part of my life. And what is the inter-web if not the ultimate maze? What is blogging if not a twisty path of false starts, dead ends and long rambling threads where the writer can't ever seem to get to the bloody point?

So then, what can I say about 'The Maze Runner' without using the phrase "it's 'Lord Of The Flies' meets the 'Hunger Games'". Well it's two of the most entertaining hours I've spent in a cinema this year. There are times when the 12 year old in me just wanted to burst out screaming with excitement because it was that good.

The best thing about books for 'young adults' (as we're calling them now) is that they cut the bullshit, keep you fervently turning the pages to find out what happens next and resonate with those trying to come to terms with all manner of bewildering social structures. It's why grown-ups want to read them too - there's a pace and ease you just don't get in even the best adult "escapism" novels. Most of the young adult novels adapted for the screen are allegories. The dystopian future is already a cliche but a fucked up world already surrounds you when you're 12 years old. Why wouldn't you want to explore that on some philosophical level. What choices to make? What path to follow?

'The Maze Runner' seems to be the purest distillation of the form so far with an idea so simple but so immediately thrilling that it is wonderful.

We are thrown into the action from the very first frame, unable to get our bearings, running for our life, quickly brought down by the first obstacle. It is a tour-de-force opening, probably the best pre-credits sequence this year and indicative of what will follow. This is one of those film that makes you wonder how it passed with a 12A certificate. It's nail biting enough to watch as an adult. It's dark, puzzling and ever threatening. It feels very real.

So you don't know who you are, you don't remember anything at all, but here you are - in an open prison with no guards but also penned in by huge, solid, impenetrable walls. This is the Glade, a green oasis,  and you are not alone. There are others here, the same sex and age as you - but just as lost, just as blank. You survive on what you forage. This community only has rules of its own devising, based on a fragile consensus. Every morning a gap in the wall is opened by some unseen force. Beyond is a vast maze. Every night the gap closes. If you are caught inside you are never seen again. There is something that preys on the trapped and every day the maze is different. Is it better to exist in ignorance in the Glade or look for answers in the maze. What would you do?

Come on - that's brilliant - isn't it? I love it. There's little bits of films that are important to me in there  - 'King Kong', 'Planet Of The Apes', 'Escape From New York', bits of primal fears like 'Alien' along with a bit of cult movie appeal along the lines of 'The Village', 'Cube', 'Logan's Run' and of course, a great big dollop of the good old 'man-hunts-man' plot along the lines of 'The Most Dangerous Game/Hounds Of Zaroff/The Running Man'. Yeah, well I'm all in with that.

It ticks all the boxes for me - but I didn't expect it to be this good. Like 'Hunger Games' I thought we'd spend an hour getting to the chase, I thought we'd have a love triangle and I thought we'd get lots of Californian, shiny teeth moppets to get annoyed by. Instead it was breathless, gripping and superbly crafted. These teens all have interesting faces, like they've stepped out of a Sergio Leone film instead of central casting. They can act too. Will Poulter, from 'Son Of Rambow' and 'We're The Millers' is outstanding once again. If anything, the blandest of the lot is our hero Dylan O'Brien, but that's fine, he needs to be a cypher anyway. It's very well directed by Wes Ball who doesn't have many credits to his name but this film never feels 'safe' or family friendly. The action is visceral and brutal but best of all - you can see what's going on. No shaky cam, no fast edits, just great choreography and camera movement. There is CGI but it is convincingly done and not overused. The 'Grievers' that patrol the maze are a genuinely scary creation but the maze itself is nightmarish as its walls grind and shift into ever more elaborate traps. At times it's pure cinema in as much as the plot doesn't really matter - there's just a universal appeal in seeing people trying to escape a maze.

The ending should be a problem. By now you should know that the nature of films like this is that they are a franchise and exist only as part of a greater whole. I can rant on about how films should always be self contained and like most people I am bored when a  series of books is dragged out into ever more elongated and prolonged sequels. For once though, it felt right to leave wanting more. What is it all about? Other than the obvious themes already touched upon I've really no idea. The film ends by replacing one set of questions with another set of questions. But for once that feels quite fitting. We have come full circle to the starting point.

Socrates describes the labyrinth line of logical argument thus in Plato's Eutydemus: 

"Then it seemed like falling into a labyrinth: we thought we were at the finish, but our way bent round and we found ourselves as it were back at the beginning, and just as far from that which we were seeking at first."

And so there we are, I started out talking Greek mythology and labyrinths and that's where I'm going to exit. In the middle of all this is something like a film review. I liked 'The Maze Runner' a lot and hope it doesn't get lost in the glut of young adult adaptations already out there. Go see it and run your own maze.

HELLo Dolly! It's 'Annabelle'.

I went to play Creepy Doll Movie Bingo with new movie 'Annabelle' but failed to get a full house because I made a stupid mistake. Yep, I sort of assumed that a Creepy Doll Movie would at the very least have a creepy doll doing something other than just sitting there looking creepy. Even, if it wasn't going to do a full Chucky on us it should at the very least have swivelled it's eyes, or talked or puked or something. No. Nothing. This has to be one of the most underwhelming horror movies ever theatrically released.

Even if you find inanimate objects scary you will be disappointed.

If you find women with long hair, sewing machines and popcorn scary than you might just find something here to give you a fright. Otherwise forget it.

It's one of those films where you can say that the trailer really is the movie. Everything else is padding. Apart from one scare lifted directly from 'Insidious'.

'Annabelle' is a sort of sister film to 'The Conjuring' and it makes that particular bland, mainstream horror film for people who don't really like horror films look like 'The Shining' in comparison.

Look, I know it's not aimed at me, I'm a jaded horror movie veteran, but it's difficult to see who will enjoy this unless you are a pre-teen who hyperventilates at the sight of the BBFC certificate card. Find any spooky 70s tv movie on Youtube and it will be scarier, better constructed and more involving than this. The trailer for 'The Babadook' that came on before this is actually better than the entirety of 'Annabelle'.

For a moment I thought it was going to have an edge to it. It alludes to the Manson murders and sets you thinking that this is going to have a serious subtext about how America never really recovered from that dark period where the 60s turned into the 70s. But no. It's just window dressing; shorthand period detail. You could, if desperate, find some subtext, something about the fears of motherhood but it's all been done much better before - most obviously 'Rosemary's Baby'. 2014 and we're still being served up Rosemary's Baby rip offs. Thanks.

As a horror fan, you learn to live with stupid characters doing stupid things, but this takes incredulity to a new level. The wife has to go to the bookshop to look up devil worship. Husband bins the demonic doll and like a boomerang it comes back; wife decides to keep it anyway. Husband hears a noise in the night, ignores the phone on his bedside table, fails to phone the police even though the couple have already been victims of violent assault and wanders around the house to investigate by himself.  Mother constantly seems to leave baby in dangerous situations. None of the incidental characters points out that not only is the doll really, really creepy but that it's butt ugly to boot.

A major part of the appeal of 'The Conjuring' was that it was based on real events and there is indeed a real 'Annabelle' doll. It looks like this:

A really, quite nice raggedy doll.

Not this:

I mean, who would love this? Who would put this above their child's bed?

The thing is....if you're going to go to all the trouble of making a doll look this creepy you'd think you'd want to showcase it in a better movie. But 'Annabelle' is almost incidental in this dull, tired, bland nonsense. The 'true' story is quite interesting if you can be bothered to look it up. Why not make that that the movie? Why not make a movie where something happens? But then again, I guess why would you, when all you need to do is get some no name actors, a no name director (oh, I'm sorry - he did 'Mortal Kombat') and film just enough good material to make a trailer.

Piss poor straight to DVD crap that somehow got released as a major film in the run up to Halloween. Go and see 'Bride of Chucky' instead.