Cert – 12, Run-time – 1 hour 39 minutes, Director – Peter Segal

A CIA spy (Dave Bautista) trains a nine year old (Chloe Coleman) after she discovers his secret mission

The tough-guy trains/ looks after kids story has been done many times before. A big action star is put into a fish-out-of-water style tale as the tough-guy role is paired with a young child. My Spy is, in a number of ways, no different. Dave Bautista plays JJ, a CIA spy who, after a mission goes slightly wrong, is relegated to observing a mother and daughter in Chicago instead of going around the world to combat terrorists. The reason for the pair being observed being that they are the relations of the one man who got away from JJ’s mission-gone-wrong (Greg Bryk). All that he needs is one more weapon that, when paired with the one he already has, has the ability to destroy an entire city.

However, it’s not long until JJ and partner Bobbi (Kristen Schaal), a spy hopeful constantly pushed back to what’s known as “the van” observing what happens and telling the spies what to do, are discovered by the girl that they are observing. Sophie (Chloe Coleman) threatens to show her Mum (Parisa Fitz-Henley) recorded proof of what’s actually going on with their new upstairs neighbours unless she can get something in return for not doing so. It’s all pretty standard stuff.

Initially JJ takes her ice skating, something which he ‘amusingly’ can’t do himself, so that she can meet up with people from school that she’s trying to be friends with. Overtime Sophie begins to use JJ for more things, bringing him into school for a Parents And Special Friends Day, where he reveals some of his military and CIA past to great reception from both the kids and adults, and gradually making Sophie one of the popular kids. And, of course, it’s not long until JJ begins to train his growing nine year old counterpart in some of the ways of spying, something which Bobbi would prefer is taught to her, or nobody at all – especially as everything that’s happening goes against the mission in the first place.

All of this takes centre stage, at points you forget that there’s actually a villain or a reason for JJ being there to watch the two-member family. Bryk’s villain appears intermittently but most of the time rarely and briefly. However, once the humour begins to start and get rolling this doesn’t really seem to matter that much. One of the reasons you forget about this detail that’s mostly key in the third act is because you begin to get invested within the central relationship. The humour starts and as the gags have a greater success rate the film as a whole becomes more enjoyable. The first 20-25 minutes as the film seems to be filled with various odd references that fail to raise a laugh and give the impression of something tired and lacking, Notting Hill and Iron Man 2 are both referenced in the first 3 or 4 minutes; another line makes reference to dancing being “like the wedding at the end of Shrek”. It’s such lines that even the editors seem to want to get rid of as they immediately cut to either a new action or line of dialogue pretty quickly or just jump to a new scene entirely, knowing that some of these lines would possibly seem outdated or simply just tired in even a film released five or more years ago.

In fact the turning point of the film is when the highlights that are the characters of Todd (Noah Danby) and Carlos (Devere Rogers). Carlos being the talkative figure, although most of the time relaying what Todd has apparently said, although the character is shown to only ever grunt. There’s something about the pair that when the punchlines arrive, although they are the centre of only a couple of running jokes, that leads to the humour being brought in that most of the audience seems to react to. And once this humour is brought in it seems that the screenwriters click and realise what they need to do. Continuing along slightly similar lines with the humour, although just about avoiding being a one note film.

Much like the presence of the bad guy the amount of action present in the film is relatively minimal. yet enough to warrant the film a 12 rating (despite still being a family film – amidst some, as the BBFC puts it, “moderate bad language”). However, when it comes to the big finale of the film, which still features a fair bit of cliche, there is still a fair bit to like and enjoy. It’s done well enough to avoid feeling cheesy and have some mild entertainment value. Topping off what has been a fairly decent and enjoyable film. Yes, there are some bumps throughout it and the start is certainly uneven and begins to indicate something far too conventional and unfunny for its own good. But, as the film goes on and the humour develops it begins to pick up the pace, recognise what it needs to do to get better and just about fulfils that. Making for a decent family film that passes the time well enough and manages to just about subvert expectations. And it’s all down to that central relationship in which the viewer becomes mildly invested in.

While it starts off as the same cliche tough-guy – young child buddy film My Spy gradually turns into a funnier and more entertaining feature. Bringing the viewer in to the central relationship and providing them with enough humour from almost every character to avoid boredom from this surprisingly amusing family film.

Cert – 12, Run-time – 1 hour 45 minutes, Director – Jessica Hausner

A plant designed to make people happy begins to affect the brains of those creating and breeding it.

The best way to describe the gist of Little Joe is Little Shop Of Horrors meets Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. The titular Little Joe is a plant designed to bring happiness to those that smell it. However, the plant itself cannot breed, it’s sterile. So, because of this it finds a way to infect the minds of those that smell it; beginning to control them, making them happy and making the plant the priority in all their lives. Spreading from person to person as the feared plant controls those that it’s inside the minds of to share it with other people.

However, you can’t tell when someone has been infected by the plant, their behaviour remains mostly the same, despite one or two changes in relation to how they all seem to almost worship it and the success that it has; all building up to releasing it to the public at a flower fair. As this event gets closer there’s no denying that there are fine elements of tension that build up as the plant begins to dominate the minds of the breeders that care for it almost like a child. One prominent breeder being Alice (Emily Beecham), one of the leaders of the Little Joe programme, named after her own son Joe (Kit Connor); who the plant takes control of early in the film. Alice, despite not being taken over by the bright red straw-like top of the flower, sees the good in the plant and believes that it can be of great benefit to those around her. However, when co-worker Bella (Kerry Fox) begins to speak against what she is working on after a series of negative events and interactions involving her normally trusted and calm dog, Alice gradually begins to doubt her own work, and sees the strange behaviour in her co-workers.

None more so than Chris (Ben Whishaw). Alice initially has a close working relationship with Chris, something which her son Joe believes could be something more with the way that Chris behaves around her. As Whishaw’s initially quiet character becomes more outspoken about his dedication towards Little Joe Alice begins to notice some strange behaviour. Through such events, and the fact that we only see a small amount of people smell the flower there’s a fair deal of unease and slight tension in the film. Alice faces a dilemma both at work and in her personal life. Is she just making things up, or seeing things that aren’t there? Or is she slowly beginning to feel a distance with her son, amongst her colleagues, who is changing as he grows up, after all she is spending a lot more time at work.

Throughout the film the words “you need to talk to it” and “you can hear it talk back” are repeated by a number of different characters. The fact that the plant is treated as a living, breathing human with a mind of its own – which in a number of ways it does have – adds to the creepy and unsettling nature of the film. When mixed with the loud and tense effect of the lightly used score and music, which at some points does create an effective jump acre by itself when it just seems to start at the best possible point, there is certainly an effect when it comes to the horror element of this weird little independent sci-fi horror that will probably go under the radar for many people, which is a fair shame.

While the horror isn’t always present, which seems to be the intention of director and co-writer, alongside Géraldine Bajard, Jessica Hausner, there is certainly an eerie nature during a number of scenes, which while not exactly intense is effective. There’s something about the precise and rather clean direction of Hausner that adds to the overall air and feel that the film has. Taking time to linger on certain elements, creating a somewhat slow and steady pace that also helps to put the viewer into the mindset of many of the characters and feel a further sense of unease; while also allowing for the gradual pace of the plants spread to be felt in an almost sustained way.

As mentioned there’s a seemingly clean air to Hausner’s direction, something which when you see the slight twitches in the personalities of those that have been possessed by the plant you almost begin to question whether they have been taken over or not, even if only for a brief amount of time. What the film never does is make you doubt Alice. You know she’s right, even if she is doubting herself. You know that those around her are ‘wrong’, or at least have been taken over, that’s never denied or doubted. There’s a straight direction in which the film travels along, clear and direct. And this all leads to a bold and interesting final 15-20 minutes. The tension that’s played with throughout coming back and creating even more mild fear as to what could happen if this plant does eventually get released into the world. This is something that carries throughout most of the film. And while not quite present in every scene it’s definitely there every now and then, creating a particular feeling for the film as the tone doesn’t quite change from scene to scene, but the feeling does. Little Joe is certainly a unique film and it’s possibly not going to be something that everyone’s going to like. But, for what it is it’s a rather good cross between genres with some mild unease and great use of score and music thrown in for good measure.

Little Shop Of Horrors meets Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, Little Joe is an interesting blend of genres. Lined with good performances and wonderful use of effective music this is a very clean, direct film that while varying in style and feeling at some points certainly has a mild sense of appreciated tension and fear.

Cert – U, Run-time – 1 hour 42 minutes, Director – Dan Scanlon

Two brothers (Tom Holland, Chris Pratt) go on a quest to bring back their dad for just one day.

It’s clear from the second the audience enters the board-game inspired fantasy realm of Pixar’s latest feature that establishes it as something very different from what the studio has produced in the past. While all the standard Pixar elements are there this almost feels like a rather un-Pixar film, however, this is not to say that the quality is anything away from what the animation giant has offered in the past. There’s something about the almost mythical style of the world in which the film is set that helps to provide it with a feeling similar to that of a number of 80’s classics, especially the likes of Time Bandits and Labyrinth.

Ian (Tom Holland) and Barley (Chris Pratt) are two elf brothers living in a world of pixies, unicorns, dragons, centaurs, cyclopes and gelatinous cubes. Ian has just turned 16 and is looking to turn his life around, become more confident, socialise more and pluck up the courage to invite people to a party. However, Barley is a much more confident, unashamedly loud figure. His life revolves around board games such as Quest Of Yore – a role-playing game that he claims is based on the factual history of the world in which the film is set in. It’s this game that helps to lead him and Ian on their quest to find a phoenix gem that will help to cast a visitation spell to bring their dad back for just one day. The catch is that they’ve already brought back half of their father, the waist down.

Barley has a limited amount of memories about his Dad, whereas younger brother Ian has none, his aim is to just get to meet his Dad just once in his life. It’s this that very much creates the emotional core of the film, and it’s also this that proves this to be a Pixar film. While Onward isn’t exactly the big punch that some might expect from the studio that brought audiences Up, Inside Out, Monsters Inc and Toy Story 3 there are still one or two empathetic beats, especially towards the end of the film.

What strikes most about Onward is it’s design and humour. The animation is, as expected, a high quality. The studio that helped to master hair and water stands out now with realistic looking sweat on mythical creatures! This is mostly noticed in the first few scenes of the film, as the plot is gradually forming bit by bit. It’s said that sometimes if you’re noticing how great the animation is you’re not properly focusing on the film and the plot; this certainly isn’t always the case. But, in the case of Onward this is part of a problem. There are still some chuckles and good ideas, but as a whole the start of the film isn’t the most engaging thing, it’s relatively average. However, as the plot begins to take pace and the road-trip element of the film begins things begin to get better, and more enjoyable.

The true spirit of adventure and exploration that the film takes great pride in exploring, with its characters of all shapes and sizes. The various references to classic fantasy films – a restaurant displays a sign declaring “now serving 2nd breakfast” – and board games all help to further fuel the energy and creative nature of the film. Through the various landscapes of motorways, run-down taverns and caves there’s a lot that the viewer experiences throughout the journey, and the design of each setting is highly detailed. All of this happens while the central themes and ideas, which while fairly simple, are never forgotten. There’s a fair deal of heart about the film, and a clear passion for the setting and inspirations from the creators, and even a number of the cast members.

Aside from the road-trip that the brothers, and the bottom half of their father, go on one of the most entertaining ideas that the film presents is that of the boys mother (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) travelling behind them with the assistance of The Manticore (Octavia Spencer – who sounds as if she’s having delightful fun voicing the character), who claims that without her help the central duo will unleash a curse that will lead them to not be able to meet their dad, and could put their own lives in danger. This is as close to a villain that the film has. While the idea of the threat lingers, and in some scenes helps to escalate the fantastical nature of the piece. Yet, the lack of an actual villain, or even villainous presence, helps the film. It doesn’t exactly feel fresh, but it definitely allows for the tone of adventure to break through even more, and allows for more concentration on the central characters.

Onward is a film that revels in its basis. Paying homage to fantasy films and games that inspire it, and allowing them to fuel the creativity and imagination of the basis of the film. Whether exploring the various mythical creatures or the magic that lines of the film there’s a lot to like. While it takes a bit of time for everything to piece together and the road-trip to start once it does the plot, and the clear fun that the cast are having voicing these colourful and well-designed characters, help to bring the audience into the world of the film. A fantastical land rooted deeply in detail and thought, that never distract from the plot once it starts. The heart and humour are there, and while the tears aren’t present the finished product is certainly a worthwhile effort for all ages. Sometimes for everyone to enjoy no matter where they stand on fantasy, and also a great way to hopefully introduce kids to classic 80’s titles in a similar vein.

The tears don’t exactly flow in the emotional moments of Onward, but that doesn’t stop the adventure from being a funny, enjoyable and excellently designed one. Calling back to the likes of Labyrinth and Time Bandits this is certainly something different from Pixar, but it’s still a success.

Cert – 12, Run-time – 1 hour 52 minutes, Director – Peter Cattaneo

When their husbands and wives go off to fight in the war in Afghanistan a group of women form a choir to take their minds away from worry.

Director Peter Cattaneo may be best associated with his 1997 feature debut The Full Monty. The film was a big hit at the BAFTA’s and even managed to pick up nominations in the Best Picture, Director and Original Screenplay categories at the Oscars. When it comes to slightly obscure underdog comedies it’s often the film that many will call back to, the term “feel good” also being frequently used in the same sentence. And Military Wives does have similar hints to the director’s possibly most famous film; minus the nudity and most of the men, and with a fair deal more singing.

Inspired by – “inspired by” being the key detail, this is a largely fictitional story – the Military Wives Choir, famously formed by Gareth Malone in the BBC series The Choir: Military Wives, the story follows a group of women whose husbands and wives have gone off to fight in the rising Afghanistan war. Lisa (Sharon Horgan) has been appointed to lead the activities for the women in the hope of taking their minds off of the worries of what their partners are going through. However, it seems that the activities mostly consist of getting drunk in an evening and coffee mornings. That is until, during a brain-storming session led by Kristin Scott Thomas’ uptight, proper and mistrusting Kate, the suggestion of singing is thrown up.

It’s not long until the various members of the Flitcroft military wives singing group/ choir (the label is disputed between Kate and Lisa) are being run through their scales and being split into altos and sopranos – while one specific member is left in their own group (the running joke being that they can’t sing, which somehow manages to be consistently amusing). However, there’s disagreement between Kate and Lisa on what should be sung. While Kate would prefer hymns such as Morning Has Broken it seems that Lisa and the choir would rather sing The Human League. Throughout the film the pair disagree on what the aim of the choir is. Are they singing for themselves or other people? Is the purpose to entertain or create something more personal? It’s such feuds that begin to bring in the elements of drama that make the film the dramedy that it is.

Mix in the fear of the wives as they struggle to keep contact with their partners, “every time the phone rings, every time the bell goes. I mean, how do you cope” asks particularly young wife, married just before her husband went off to fight so that she was next-of-kin, Sarah (Amy James-Kelly). The worries of the other wives aren’t shown widely, apart from in group scenes of sympathy and comfort, the main focuses are certainly Kate and Lisa. Both of whom have their own struggles. Kate lost her son Jamie in the last tour and is still recovering, watching shopping channels on her laptop and buying any items she sees, from glass kettles to inflatable mattresses that can hold large amounts of weight. Meanwhile Lisa is struggling to properly connect with her daughter (India Ria Amarteifio).

For the large part Military Wives is very by-the-numbers. It’s fairly safe and middle-of-the-road. You see the trailer and what you see there is pretty much what you get with the film, and possibly a slight bit more. The “feel good” British underdog story. But, the most important thing is, is works. The humour does work, with a number of good chuckles scattered throughout, and the drama while relatively mild, keeping it to the 12 rating that the film has, does have some effect. When it all comes together everything manages to make for a perfectly fine, and rather enjoyable film. It’s just about what you expect it to be and in some ways it’s better for that being the case. Nothing feels overblown, and the film just about avoids being syrupy and overly-sentimental. The emotion is certainly there and while it isn’t exactly anything to open the tear-ducts of the audience there’s certainly a mild hit during one or two scenes. And, of course, when you throw in the humour the film is certainly an enjoyable one.

There’s a fair deal to like about Military Wives. It’s certainly what you expect it to be, but for that you get a fair deal of humour and some decently placed drama. The film is certainly not brilliant, but it is a good enough watch before the mass big-budget blockbusters flood the multiplexes this summer. And, it is a worthwhile watch made with heart and humour; something which is held closely by the film and comes across in its tone and all-round feel. Yes, it might be fairly by-the-books and simplistic, but that’s what brings in what many have described as the feel good tone. And for what it is Military Wives is in tune enough to be an enjoyable enough time with an audience at the cinema.

Led by some good performances and a good communal spirit Military Wives works because its finely tuned heart shows itself to be in the right place. Coming through in the humour and hints of emotion that are displayed from start to finish.

Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 50 minutes, Director – Richard Stanley

When a mysterious object crashes into the garden of a family’s newly moved into countryside home the land and wildlife in the area begins to mutate

Back in 2018 the world said that Nicolas Cage couldn’t possibly get more Nicolas Cage (although we are yet to see The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent) when it witnessed the utter blood-soaked madness of whatever Mandy was, word’s can’t really properly describe it. And in many ways that’s the truth. So, where does Cage go after Mandy, via one or two other roles and voicing superheros in the likes of Teen Titans Go! To The Movies and Spider-Man: Into The Spider-verse? To an adaptation of an H.P. Lovecraft novel, of course!

The mad state of cosmic horror that this adaptation of Color Out Of Space almost seems to have been perfectly tailored for Cage to act as he wishes, with it still fitting in with the tone of the piece. As the ground around the quiet countryside farm of the Gardner family begins to mutate and change into an almost unnerving shade of purple everything around them, including themselves, begins to become more absurd, but more importantly fearful.

One of the interesting things about Richard Stanley and Scarlett Amaris’ screenplay, and Stanley’s direction, is that it guides the viewers through various stages over the course of the film’s acts. Instead of having everything fly off the walls in the first 20 minutes there’s a gradual build-up to the film. Dwelling on the elements of cosmic horror and the slow release of the increasing effects that the crash-landed object from space are revealed there’s a sparing feeling to the film. Something which adds to the tension and actual horror that the piece holds. This is something that at times is genuinely unnerving; especially when it comes to the lingering elements of body horror, which also never feel too much, or too abrupt. There’s a specific point that the writers and director guide the audience to throughout the film where they flick the switch and all hell breaks loose. However, there’s build-up to this point. The fact that the viewer is taken to this point helps to push the context and make it enjoyable instead of just feeling as if it’s there for the sake of having everything go insane and, as some might say, ‘pure Nicolas Cage’.

One of the ways in which this is done is by the changes in the characters. The central family who are having their lives and newly moved into home invaded begin to show two different personality types. Their normal ones, scared at the effects that the titular colour is having on them with its attack, and the one that the colour almost seems to force upon them. A harsh, angered personality, or sometimes a silent, secluded one in constant pain. As the characters begin to flick between the two personalities the conflicting behaviours lead to an increase in tension. Any personality could appear at any moment, especially with Cage’s character, who the impact is the strongest, yet most delayed, on.

When mixed with Steve Annis’ cinematography and the visual effects, showing bright purple’s and violet’s in somehow the darkest of shades, leading to a sense of mistrust and further unease. The feeling that everything isn’t right is known when this strange and mysterious object lands in the front yard of this out-of-the-way cabin. However, the idea is established when such colour schemes and ideas are played with. The visual style of the film while simple is undoubtedly effective and brings the viewer further into the film. Further into the fear and entertainment factors and simply taking them along for the ride, and it’s very much this guidance, pacing and the gradual nature of the film that make it as enjoyable, entertaining and even tense and scary as it is.

In fact Color Out Of Space may be one of the most welcome surprises of the year with just how good it is. It’s easy to just pass off a Nicolas Cage film with this kind of look – at least in the final 20 minutes, when the madness is certainly deserved and warranted – as something tacky and almost Direct-To-DVD. It’s the type of thing he seems to have become associated with. However, as the actor seems to be entering into a new stage of his career, after what we saw in Mandy, and his much discussed future slate of films (including his potential franchise return in National Treasure 3), it’s certainly time that we again reassessed our view of him. There’s a lot to like about Color Out Of Space, and indeed Cage’s performance, which isn’t to distract from the rest of the cast, which includes Joely Richardson and even Tommy Chong, who all also put in a good turn. It’s well-paced, tense, well-told and knows how to build up to the point when it flicks the switch and exactly what to do when it finally does. Not to mention the fact that it has a genuine fear factor with a number of scary and highly unnerving moments.

Director Richard Stanley, along with co-writer Scarlett Amaris, creates a finely paced cosmic horror that once it finally flicks the switch it feels warranted, deserved and a step-up from the already tense and unnerving nature of the rest of the film which even manages to hold a somewhat unsettling colour palette.

Cert – 12, Run-time – 2 hours 6 minutes, Director – Todd Haynes

A corporate environmental lawyer (Mark Ruffalo) takes on one of the biggest chemical companies in America when it’s revealed that they’re poisoning the water of a town in Virginia

Dark Waters is a shocking film, there’s no denying that. There’s something about seeing the rotted teeth and insides of a cow, due to poisoned water, that only begins to start off the true effects of chemical giant Dupont dumping chemicals into the water of Petersburg, Virginia; affecting the health and lives of those living there. As you learn more about the company over the course of the film it’ll possibly make you think twice before next using a frying pan – even if not made by part of the company – or even drinking water. But, Dark Waters doesn’t dwell on the shock and affects of the knowing poisoning. Instead it focuses on the way it pushes and frustrates corporate environmental lawyer Robert Bilott (Mark Ruffalo).

Bilott finds himself representing farmer Wilbur Tennant (Bill Camp) after 190 of his cows are killed from the water in the stream that runs through his farm. While the film has a number of good performances from big name stars it’s Camp who steals the show in every scene in which he appears. Robert finds himself going against not only one of the biggest chemical companies in America at the time, if not the world, but also one of the companies that his firm, of which he is close to being made a partner of, represents. When the repercussions of this lead to tense relationships with those around him, including with his wife (Anne Hathaway) things begin to take a turn for the worst; especially when it comes to the severity of the full extent of Dupont’s actions.

As with Tom McCarthy’s Best Picture winning Spotlight back in 2016 sometimes the most action can be found in someone running to a photocopier, or possibly in this case Ruffalo foraging through stacks of old documents in order to find data and evidence relating to Duponts actions. There’s a fair deal of tension to be found within such events, especially within the way that director Todd Haynes captures this with limited, yet effective camera use. Often using a wide-shot or birds-eye-view to capture the enormity of the situation at hand.

Despite this Dark Waters lacks the tension, or perhaps suspense that a film like this seems to want. It doesn’t quite have the captivating intrigue of a film like Spotlight, or other legal dramas in a similar vein. While there are some interesting points there are occasionally moments which seem to pander or go on for too long, leaving the gap until the legal disputes – the highlights of the film – much longer. It’s such legal moments, battles in court and the true focus on the feuds between the company and citizens and lawyers, and indeed lawyers within the firm having something of a civil feud, that are the most interesting. Bringing the viewer into the world as Ruffalo’s situation becomes increasingly tense and prolonged over many years.

A prolonged feeling is something which does lie in some of the scenes of the film. Some seeming slightly too long and giving the film a feeling that it might be a bit too long itself. This is admittedly a slightly slow-burn, and while in some scenes this is effective in others it does seem to hinder the progress. Scenes that could do with slightly faster pacing to heat up the ‘action’ that’s unfolding on-screen. To further intensify the situation and make for a more engaging and intriguing story. While there’s a fair bit to enjoy within the film, there’s a fair deal that could be improved with some fast pacing, which is possibly the biggest downfall of the film. While the performances, direction and screenplay as a whole are good. The overall pacing is somewhat slow at times, which does prove damaging during some scenes and the overall feeling of the run-time of the film. There’s a fair deal of interest and intrigue in the film, however there are one or two things that prevent full impact.

Dark Waters is definitely an interesting film, and there are a number of shocking moments. However, the slow pacing of some of the non-legal moments do prevent from a full-punch impact.

Cert – 15, Run-time – 2 hours 4 minutes, Director – Leigh Whannell

After escaping an abusive relationship Cecelia (Elisabeth Moss), believes that her ex-boyfriend (Oliver Jackson-Cohen), who has recently committed suicide, is somehow stalking and terrorising her in an invisible form.

The Invisible Man is a title commonly associated with the ghouls and grim reapers of 1930’s horror cinema, amongst other classic Universal monster horror titles. We’re used to seeing the figure with his face wrapped in bandages, with thick glasses in the middle and donning a suit or smoking jacket, alongside the standard gloves. However, in an age where horror is becoming more of a social commentary, taking elements of every day life and intensifying them for effect – look at the likes of Get Out, Unfriended and even Hereditary – The Invisible Man preys on the idea of fear of what we cannot see.

In the extended opening sequence we see Elisabeth Moss’ central character, Cecelia (Elisabeth Moss), attempt to silently escape from the lavish shore-side home of her boyfriend, Adrian (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). The scene is filled with tension, her actions and behaviour suggest that she’s escaping an abusive relationship, her desperation and the fact that the house is flooded with CCTV adding to this. However, when she escapes there’s no relief, this is only the start, and we know it. Something is bound to go wrong, or rather get worse, and so the rest of the film is equally suspenseful.

As Cecelia is getting back on her feet, going out into the world after finding shelter in the house in the friend (Aldis Hodge) of her sister (Harriet Dyer), she finds out that her ex has committed suicide. However, after this news she finds herself being stalked and terrorised by an invisible force which she believes to somehow be her ex. Cecelia who after escaping from her life of isolation and domestic abuse already obsessed with a fear of being stalked and observed round any corner, or through any camera now fears that there’s something, or someone, watching her in every room. As attacks begin and her relationships with other people are tested Cecelia slowly begins to break down. The abuse she suffered when in a relationship restarts, both physically and mentally.

As her other relationships are viciously torn apart the horror of the film doesn’t lie in jump-scares – although there are a number of effective jump-scares throughout the film – but in the high levels of worry and unease that are in almost every scene. As Cecelia’s mental state begins to deteriorate the true extent of the horror is shown. This is not a film that examines a descent into madness; Cecelia is never mad, she’s desperate to end people perceiving her as mad. The audience knows that there is something following her, that’s made clear, it’s those that don’t believe her. And when mixed with Elisabeth Moss’ commanding central performance the nature of the film is often genuinely horrifying. How can you tell how good her performance is? When her hands shake with fear it looks real instead of forced, as is often the case.

Moss shows mass levels of fear that only increase as the titular monster seemingly lingers in every corner, despite not being present even the audience can somehow see it. Her screams and tears are far from the cliches of a number of female characters in horror films, especially in the likes of classic 1930’s Universal titles – after all we are now far from this age, and this is proof that the times have been changing for the better. This is a slightly unconventional character for this style of film, however the background and arc make for a unique and engaging piece. Bringing the viewer in with an interesting study on her behaviour and responses.

The idea of the fear of what we can’t see is effectively used and never feels gimmicky. Especially during moments of attack the impact of the film is often flinch inducing, even when nothing bad is happening. Thus creating the high levels of unease and worry that linger in every corner of every room – somehow making open spaces all the more tense.

Director Leigh Whannell shoots a number of action sequences from the possible perspective of the unseen attacker, however even this is sometimes doubted as he could be anywhere in the shot, or through CCTV cameras. By doing this the action and horror are escalated, Whannell having experience in both fields with his previous film Upgrade, and work on the Insidious franchise; of which he directed the third instalment. Combining both, often at the same time, he makes for an even more intense and almost edge-of-your-seat set of events. Overall the entire cast and crew manage to create something truly unique and suspenseful within The Invisible Man. Bringing a new style and edge to the modern trend of socially inspired horror films. Carrying tension, worry and pain throughout, led by a fantastic performance from Elisabeth Moss, this is truly something special, and not to mention fantastically tense and terrifying.

Elisabeth Moss dominates as the lead in this wonderfully unique, carefully crafted take on The Invisible Man. Something highly, and successfully, contemporary, this is a horror about the monsters of domestic abuse, a theme which is strongly held throughout and helps to add to the suspense and worry that the film so tensely holds.

Cert – 15, Run-time – 2 hours 1 minute, Director – Céline Sciamma

A painter (Noémie Merlant) closely observes a bride-to-be (Adèle Haenel) in order to make a portrait for her wedding without her knowing.

Portrait Of A Lady On Fire is a work of art that communicates its points through a story about communication through art. Many of the interactions between the two central characters, Marianne (Noémie Merlant) and Héloïse (Adèle Haenel), are based around various arts; such as song, writing, storytelling and; more than anything else, art. The reason that the two meet is due to Marianne being commissioned to paint a portrait of Héloïse for her upcoming wedding. However, Héloïse is not to know about this, so Marianne must observe her closely by day in order to create the portrait in secret. 

As the two begin to spend more time together their relationship, instead of getting closer, begins to open. The beauty of writer-director Céline Sciamma’s screenplay is that it never asks ‘will they, won’t they?’ It asks ‘when will they?’ Throughout the film the viewer is left in breathless suspense as the pair wait for their moment to show their feelings. The question is how and when. From the moment they meet it’s clear that there’s love and passion between them, the film doesn’t hide this – and neither do the truly mesmerising performances of both Merlant and Haenel. Love and passion which burn bright throughout the film in a deeply poetic manner. If there’s a film that sums up the idea of something being ‘poetic’ it’s very likely this. 

With a rather small cast there’s a minimal amount of dialogue. A number of scenes simply focus on Marianne sketching the rough outline for her painting, or carefully sweeping the colours onto the canvas. Even the character’s longing gazes and the lingering shots of the wonderfully shot landscapes – thanks to the stunning cinematography – manage to keep the viewer in awe throughout the entire film. There’s an honest delicacy that lies throughout the entire film when it comes to Sciamma’s direction. What brings this honesty is the fact that this is clearly a film told entirely from the female gaze – almost every single figure who appears in the film is female. They understand what the film is aiming for, what Sciamma wants to achieve with the finished piece and the collaborative effort shines. Forming a stunning feature that captivates the viewer from the the very start to the very end. It would be very easy to spend many more hours with these two characters, in fact even just in the world of the film through the gaze that events are seen through.

Throughout there are many moments that feel reminiscent of Julian Schnabel’s At Eternity’s Gate (one of the best films of last year). However, instead of focusing on the harsh and angered breakdown, exclusion and isolation of the main character, Portrait Of A Lady On Fire focuses on the increasing adoration and revealing passion that the film displays. The moments of silence as sometimes all that can be heard are the natural surroundings, such as the crashing of waves, are some of the most effective moments of the film. The feeling that everything in the film is naturally happening and that what you’re watching is truly in the moment adds to the breathless suspense and hope that you feel all the way through the relationship. Everything comes together in the best possible way to create something authentic, genuine and heartfelt.

Never do any of the actions on-screen feel rushed or hesitant. Everything is perfectly timed and balanced so to emphasise the characters. The detail that they have, made stronger and more powerful by the fantastic performances, and their arcs make for a compelling study. Bold, passionate and caringly made by all involved. Portrait Of A Lady On fire is itself a genuine work of stunning art. 

Portrait Of A Lady On Fire is a work of art made with heaps of care and passion from all involved. Told from a unique and honest female perspective this is a stunning piece, the light of which will likely continue to burn brightly onto a number of best of the year lists.

Cert – U, Run-time – 2 hours 4 minutes, Director – Autumn de Wilde

Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) delights in her life of matchmaking friends and family, while dealing with her complex relationships with the men around her.

Director Autumn de Wilde’s previous experience mostly relates to music videos for rock artists. The likes of The Raconteurs, Florence + The Machine and Beck are prominent, and in some cases frequent, collaborators. So, making a feature debut with an adaptation of a Jane Austen romantic-comedy novel might seem to be something on almost the complete opposite end of the scale, but, with all this aside de Wilde’s feature is mostly a success.

The titular Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is described in the opening text, alongside almost all of the advertising, as “handsome, clever, rich”, and this is very much how those around her seem to view her. She’s the respectable, high-class figure in all social circles. Communicating more with those of lower classes she sees herself as something of a matchmaker for her friends and family, never having not had success when forming relationships for other people. Where her slightly testing relationships lie are with those of a similar status to her own. Especially with Johnny Flynn’s Mr. Knightley, who appears to disapprove of what seems to be Emma’s vanity and refusal to marry, despite seemingly always putting herself first, even when being a matchmaker for others.

From the off it’s made clear that this is a ‘quirky’ period comedy. The frequently appearing score made up of jaunty strings screams this, and from the start almost begins to set up the feeling of a long and forceful feature. The wit is quick, almost too quick. As Bill Nighy interacts with his daughter (Taylor-Joy) in the opening scenes, and questions the local vicar, Mr Elton’s (Josh O’Connor) pronunciation of innocence – “Inn-know-sense” – the fast nature of the humour, mixed with the fact that such moments are nothing more than brief flashes lead to the joke’s either being missed or just lacking a response. And for much of the first 20-30 minutes of the film the screenplay seems to aim for nothing more than humour, which never properly takes off. Leaving it all feeling rather flat and lacking, meaning the viewer can’t properly connect with it.

The narrative of the film is shown through the four seasons. And the way the film feels seems to follow the style of the seasons too. Starting in Autumn things are a bit damp and slightly trudge along, however as we get closer to summer you begin to warm to the film – no pun intended – and enjoy it that bit more. Overtime, as the elements of drama and romance come more into play there’s more to like and engage with. Emma’s relationships become slightly more layered than the simple points for humour they initially appear to be. Even her relationship with Miranda Hart’s loud Miss Bates – constantly talking about the smallest of details in the letters from her relation – becomes something slightly deeper and more thoughtful as the film progresses, in fact one picnic scene in particular where the two have a key interaction is a highlight of the film. Hart’s character becomes far more than a shouty hopeful socialite and the actor herself more than the almost typecast figure that people have come to associate her with.

Throughout the film, as she tries to form a relationship for her friend Harriet (Mia Goth), Emma comes across her own complications with men. There are conflictions as she tries to set Harriet up with Mr Elton, who appears to be infatuated with the school-girl, despite Harriet clearly having feelings for local farmer Mr. Martin (Connor Swindells). Meanwhile Emma’s own relationship with Mr. Knightley wavers and she herself appears to take a slight shine to the often underseen Frank Churchill (Callum Turner). This is a film made up of multiple not quite complete love triangles, mixed-messages, misunderstandings and general complications relating to the idea of love and relationships. Much of which forms the tone of the film and helps to eventually bring the audience into the film. In fact it’s as the film develops such a plot and the themes are pushed more that the humour dies down, although still present, and seems to balance out. The mild chuckles, while not exactly frequent, are present and help to make the piece that bit more pleasant and enjoyable. The quirks of the characters, shown by the performances, show a bit more than just a rough design and help to also progress the narrative and the viewer’s engagement in the piece.

By the end the characters and their relationships feel enough to form something satisfying by the end, even when responses and eccentricities do begin to branch into the absurd, something rather fitting for the film. Much like the relationships that are being formed the film realises that this isn’t a gradual process and everything can’t be quirky and joyful from the very start, it needs to take time and have some detail and development. Once that starts that’s when things truly begin to hit right. The pacing, humour and balance of themes begins to even out and the film becomes that bit more enjoyable and satisfying. While it starts off as a bit much eventually Emma. calms down and becomes something rather likeable.

Like the lead character Emma starts off as rushed, joyful with/at itself and hoping for the best from the start. But, as the film progresses it gradually becomes more detailed, thoughtful and engaging thanks to the hints of character and plot development and detail that it introduces.