Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) Review

"The greatest gladiator match in the history of the world"- Lex Luthor.

After a long absence, I'm back writing reviews again. What better way to return than by looking at one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) blockbusters of the year. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is the latest instalment in the DC Extended Universe, and marks the first ever live-action encounter between two of the most iconic comic book characters ever created. Naturally, the film has been released on the back of an enormous amount of hype, so how does it fair as not only a follow up to 2013's Man of Steel, but as the catalyst for further encounters between other DC characters?

The film opens with the climatic battle from Man of Steel, where we meet Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) as he witnesses Superman (Henry Cavill) inadvertently causing city-wide destruction. With many casualties as a result of this carnage, Bruce grows a strong hatred for Superman. Superman's actions have also caused controversy with the public, with some viewing him as a hero and others a threat to humanity's existence. The events of Man of Steel have also caught the attention of businessman Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), who seeks to create his own weapons from recently discovered kryptonite. Bruce comes into contact with Luthor and the mysterious Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) and plans to use Luthor's kryptonite to destroy Superman. Through coaxing by Luthor, Batman and Superman finally meet in a battle for the ages. 

Story-wise, the film is a mess. For something which is selling itself on the grounds of two superheroes fighting, it tries to establish too much before hand. There are too many scenes that eat up screen time and don't really go anywhere, such as a dream-like sequence where Bruce imagines being in conflict with Superman's henchmen, only to be woken up by another vision warning him of future events. Whilst director Zack Snyder is obviously trying to set up future films with scenes like this, they hinder the film's pacing badly. In trying to set up so much, the film achieves very little and so the central conflict between Batman and Superman meanders through all the other sub-plots, diminishing the epic tone the film is trying to achieve. 

In terms of the characters, the film gets things right on Batman's side of things. Much was made of the casting of Ben Affleck as the Dark Knight, especially after a less than well received portrayal of Marvel superhero Daredevil back in 2003. Affleck, like Michael Keaton before him, has proved doubters wrong with his portrayal. More aggressive than previous depictions of the character, this is a Batman consumed with rage, and his hatred for Superman is what drives the conflict. Superman, however, has little to no development from Man of Steel. In Man of Steel there was an obvious progression of his character, but any development in this film comes from the public's opinion of him. There isn't a personal connection established between him and Batman, and so he only fights him after Lex Luthor threatens to kill his foster mother, Martha (Diane Lane). Martha has less of a part to play here, only being used as a way for Lex to control Superman and to contribute to perhaps the dumbest reason Batman and Superman stop fighting. I won't spoil exactly what happens, but trust me, it's a cheap way to for Batman to forgive and team up with Superman. Jesse Eisenberg's performance as Lex Luthor has been branded irritating by some critics, with him being hard to take seriously and therefore not much of a threat. While I didn't think much of his portrayal, I thought it at least provided some light relief in a film that takes itself so seriously. With Batman being a tormented soul and Superman a figure of controversy, having a more zany character didn't do much harm for me.

As far as the action goes, Batman v Superman does what it says on the tin. However, the conclusion drags on into a showdown with a huge creature (one of the many sub-plots squeezed into the film), in which Batman and Superman team-up with Wonder Woman. I felt the film should have stuck with having more confrontations between Batman and Superman throughout the film, rather than one fight at the end that leads to them teaming up. The creature they fight, Doomsday, is very un-spectacular, as he is an exact copy of Abomination from 2008's The Incredible Hulk. Wonder Woman only seems to show up purely for fan satisfaction, and really should have had her own film before this one so that she doesn't feel so tacked on. While the fight between Batman and Superman may greatly satisfy some, the longevity of the climatic fight involving Doomsday makes for a draining conclusion. 

Despite a talented cast and some good ideas for Batman, the positives are squashed by a confused plot that tries to establish too much. The idea of Batman and Superman in conflict is enough to hold a film together, so the addition of introducing Wonder Woman and focusing too much on setting up sequels makes the film a drag. This is a two and a half hour film that could easily have been condensed into and two hours at most. I should have left the cinema having been wowed by a film that includes Batman and Superman together, but instead I felt exhausted by the plot, long conclusion, and perhaps the most predictable ending shot ever. After enjoying Man of Steel for the most part, this is a clear step backwards for DC. Here's hoping Marvel can get the superhero vs. superhero concept right in Captain America: Civil War.

Freddy vs. Jason (2003) Review

"The only thing to fear, is fear himself" - Freddy.

I've now done two comparison articles on Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street, so what better way to tie them together by reviewing the film that pitted the horror icons against one another? Freddy vs. Jason does exactly what you expect. It's an ultimately silly romp that's both entertaining and obviously flawed at the same time. Despite divided opinions on who should be victorious in the end, the film at least has some plus points and could be seen as the instigator for Hollywood to produce more crossover films, such as the following year's Alien vs. Predator.

The plot is bizarre, but it must have been difficult thinking up a plausible way to bring Freddy and Jason together in the same film. What we have here is Freddy using Jason to spread fear amongst the teens of Elm Street. Through that fear and remembering the terror Freddy caused, he will be able to return to stalk the teens once more. However, Jason refuses to cease his bloody rampage, killing many of the people Freddy wants for himself. This brings the two of them together in conflict, with the other characters caught in the middle, unsafe from Freddy in their dreams and equally at risk awake with Jason on the loose. 

As you've probably guessed by now, any other characters besides Freddy and Jason become secondary to the enormous body count and fighting. The film introduces all new characters, and even try and give lead girl Lori (Monica Keena) a connection to Freddy. But before any semblance of depth can be created or any interesting interactions between the teens can take place, Jason shows up to hack his way through them all and then fight Freddy for the second half of the film. Part of the problem is the amount of characters introduced, as the film is already trying to balance having the two most iconic slasher villains together. So many characters quickly appear and then are killed off, which means they aren't memorable and only hinder the pacing of the film. The tone of the films is also a mess, with some appropriately dark material exploring Jason's mind and the opening showing a pre-demonic Freddy, which serves as a reminder as to just how twisted he is. However, the insanely over-the-top kills and strange dialogue (Freddy's appearance mockingly referred to as a "Christmas sweater" and his glove having "butter knives") destroys any seriousness. I don't mind the film having a sense of humour so that there isn't too much doom and gloom, but the attempts to be a bit less serious here are a major distraction, to the point where you can't even laugh at it in a "so bad it's good" kind of way.

Despite this, you get plenty of moments where Freddy and Jason share the screen. They don't just meet up at the end to battle, there are numerous instances of confrontation throughout. Robert Englund makes his final appearance to date as Freddy and is by far the standout performer. His usual enthusiasm for the role is a huge asset for the film, as he is the only character with dialogue to have any charisma. Then there's Jason, played by Ken Kirzinger, slightly redesigned after his "futuristic" look in 2002's Jason X. Kirzinger was a stunt double for Kane Hodder, who played Jason in Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan. I really enjoy his performance as Jason, as he makes every move count. From the way he walks to how he fights, Kirzinger is a worthy successor to Hodder. Both he and Englund are fantastic in the film's gory showdowns, especially considering the obvious height difference between the two and the extensive makeup required for the characters. The fights are by far the best scenes in the film, featuring lots of blood and some pretty nifty choreography. For a film labelled as a horror, it is actually superior in the action department more than the scares. The ending leaves the winner open for debate, which I think is a smart move as the film clearly doesn't want to divide fans by having one of the characters clearly triumph over the other. If only the rest of the film could have the same level of positives as how the two villains are portrayed, I would care more than a little as to who wins (for the record, I prefer Freddy).

Freddy vs. Jason is an overall strange experience. The cool factor is raised to maximum when Freddy and Jason are together, but everything else is pretty stale. Without the two villains, the confused tone and disposable characters would not only plummet the film, but also prevent it from having anything unique whatsoever. But in the end, if you're really curious as to who wins or how a crossover between two popular slasher franchises could potentially work, then there are certainly worse examples out there than Freddy vs. Jason. Just don't expect the creativity of the original Nightmare on Elm Street or the atmosphere of the original Friday the 13th and you should get a kick out of it.

Original vs. Remake: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984 and 2010)

After comparing the original and remake of Friday the 13th last year, I felt it would be appropriate to finally due another Original vs. Remake, and to have it be on another genre classic: A Nightmare on Elm Street. Like the Friday the 13th post, I'll take a look at the antagonist, lead character, supporting characters, kills and story in order to determine which is the better film. Lets start by focusing on one of the most iconic villains in cinema history, Freddy Krueger, and compare both the 1984 and 2010 versions.

Best Villain: Wicked, frightening and unforgettable, Robert Englund's portrayal of the Elm Street killer turned Freddy into an instant horror icon. Featuring a dusty fedora hat, an old striped jumper and a glove fashioned with steak knives, Freddy haunts the dreams of Elm Street's teenagers. Out for revenge against the parents who burned him for his crimes, Freddy stalks the teens one by one, until only the brave Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) remains. The film does a great job of keeping Freddy's appearance a mystery, as we never get a clear look at his horribly disfigured face until the end. He says very little, but his creepy voice and unpredictability ensures Freddy remains scary throughout the film. His backstory is told be Nancy's mother, where she reveals Freddy was a child murderer, but got away on a technicality in court. By only telling and not showing us this, it leaves it up to the viewer to imagine just how horrible Freddy was before becoming the monster we see, which is makes for an even more unsettling atmosphere whenever he appears.

The remakes chooses a different angle, and one which feels far less effective in comparison. Freddy (now played by Jackie Earle Haley) is shown to have been a grounds-keeper at a school the teens attended as children. The film implies that Freddy wasn't a child killer, but instead a paedophile. A scary enough idea, but the rest of the film's approach to Freddy isn't up to the standards of the original. Freddy is shown in full detail mere minutes into the film, immediately removing all intrigued as to how he has been re-imagined for the new film. He also talks far too much (as was the case in the sequels to the original), and has a voice that sounds similar to Christian Bale's as Batman. He also repeats some of the wisecracks from the sequels, which is one of the things that transformed Freddy's character from an intimating figure to a joker. With the remake trying to go for a more serious approach akin to the original, including these lines feels out of place, and therefore lessens the effect of Freddy being scary. 

Winner: Original.

Best Lead: Nancy is our protagonist in both the original and remake. In the original, Nancy is a comforting friend to Tina (Amanda Wyss), who is suffering from nightmares. After Tina's death, Nancy becomes Freddy's next target, and she rises to the challenge and ultimately no longer fears him. There is a clear evolution of her character throughout the film, as she tries her best to tell her parents, but eventually realises she'll have to be brave and try and defeat Freddy herself. Heather Langenkamp is very charismatic and likeable in this role. She does a good job in playing both the innocent teen at the beginning of the film and the tough survivalist at the end. 

In the remake, Nancy is portrayed by Rooney Mara and, like Freddy, is vastly different to her 1984 counterpart. More socially awkward and lonely, Nancy has very little connection to the other characters. That is until she meets Quentin (Kyle Gallner), a boy also suffering from nightmares, and she forms a bond with him. Nancy is given more of a connection to Freddy in this film, having been abused by him as a child. This makes the confrontations between her and Freddy more personal, but there is little impact as the character is very downplayed. Nancy isn't very charismatic, so when she finally takes revenge on Freddy there is not a great deal of satisfaction. Seeing how she is the film's lead, this idea to have Nancy be a bit of a bore doesn't make for all that great a character, especially compared to the original.

Winner: Original.

Supporting Characters: Like the original Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street's supporting cast had a future star amongst them. Here, it is Johnny Depp in one of his earliest roles playing Nancy's boyfriend Glen. Glen, whilst rather clumsy, helps Nancy in her struggle against Freddy even though he doesn't seem entirely sure about the whole thing. We also have the previously mentioned Tina, Freddy's first victim in the film, along with her boyfriend Rod (Nick Corri). All of these characters spend time with one another, and so their friendship plays a key role when Freddy begins his murder spree. After Tina's death, Rod is immediately suspected as the murderer, and their friendship is greatly tested. The performances are strong, and there is enough focus on their relationships to create an attachment to them. Nancy's parents Lt. Don Thompson (John Saxon) and Marge Thompson (Ronee Blakley) are also given plenty of interaction with Nancy. Though they have their flaws, they are good natured people, and so aid Nancy in whatever way they can.

The remake's supporting characters are all somewhat based or direct copies of the original's. Names are changed (Tina is now called Kris and Quentin is the male companion for Nancy instead of boyfriend Glen) and they don't share the close friendship bond. Instead, Jesse (Thomas Dekker, the remakes equivalent to Rod) uses the death of Kris' boyfriend in order to get back together with her. The makes him a very unsympathetic character, and so I didn't care when he was killed off. The fates of the original's characters are too heavily copied here, which makes the film very predictable. It was a surprise that Tina was killed off so early in the original as she looked like she was going to be the film's lead character. Here, Kris is the focus early on, and so we know that she won't last long, which makes the supporting characters in the remake overall less engaging.

Winner: Original.

Best Kills: After establishing characters, the logical next move for a slasher film is to start killing them off in various gruesome ways. The original Nightmare on Elm Street was one of the first slasher films to feature surreal and imaginative death scenes, with Freddy able to manipulate the teens' dreams to form horrific images. Tina's death is the most disturbing, with her being thrown against the walls and being slashed by Freddy, but with the audience never seeing Freddy himself. Then there's the famous scene when Glen falls asleep, and is killed by Freddy by being dragged through the bed. The next thing we see is a cascade of blood firing out of the bed, much to the shock of Glen's parents. Visually disturbing and endlessly surprising, the kills in the original film broke new ground for slasher films, and are still some of the best moments in the entire Nightmare on Elm Street franchise.

Like with the supporting characters, the kills in the remake are direct copies of the original, with a few exceptions. Kris' death is exactly the same as Tina's, though less horrific due to its predictability. The other deaths are surprisingly dull, with Freddy appearing just to quickly slash his way through his victims. There is little atmosphere when this happens, and so the kills cease to be frightening. Only one of the deaths is notably violent, but it happens right at the end and again follows the character formula from the original. With a lack of new ideas and not putting a unique enough twist on the copied kills, this is one of the easiest categories to decide a winner for.

Winner: Original.

Best Story: Whilst having a fairly simple story, the original Nightmare on Elm Street has a good amount of depth to it. Freddy's motive for killing the teenagers is to get revenge on the parents that killed him. Freddy's murder is kept a secret by the parents, which causes friction when Nancy learns the truth. For a film where gruesome murders are at the forefront of the story, its good to have believable drama between the human characters as we can then sympathise with them and hope they survive by the end of the film. Keeping Freddy's appearance a mystery until later on is a smart move, as he appears more frightening when we can't see clearly what he looks like. There are also strong creative choices on how the dreams are depicted, with it never being clear if the teens are awake or asleep, and with them able to bring things from their dreams into the real world. The film devotes much of its time to the characters, which means that Freddy remains mysterious and allows plenty of build up to his appearances throughout the film.


Though echoing  the original in most aspects, the remake tells the story of A Nightmare on Elm Street very differently. Much of the film deals with the origins of Freddy and his link to the Elm Street teenagers, something that was explored in part six of the original series. This, combined with not developing the teen characters, makes the drama very unbalanced. We know more about Freddy than we do any other character, and so can't connect to the others in a way that makes us feel anything when they are killed off. I appreciated the direction of changing the backstory slightly, as it suggests a fresh approach to the series, but the overall pacing of the film is a mess. There is also a very anti-climatic showdown with Freddy, especially compared to how the original handled the climax. Here, instead of Nancy learning to no longer be afraid of Freddy (thus taking away his powers), Nancy brings Freddy into to the real world and sets him on fire after slashing his throat. A far less interesting and meaningful resolve, and one which only cements which film not only tells the story better, but which is the superior film in every aspect.

Winner: Original.

Overall Winner: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

The Sketch Show Series 2: Top 10 Sketches

After winning a BAFTA for the fantastic first series, The Sketch Show returned for a final season consisting of eight episodes. Kitty Flanagan joined the cast, replacing Ronni Ancona, with the other four cast members remaining. Though not as strong as series one, there are a number of stand-out sketches from the show's final series that deserve recognition, and here they are:

10. Military Wife

Military Officer Lee visits Kitty to inform her of her husband's death during the war. Lee continuously appears to have finished telling her how her husband died, only to reveal that he constantly survived the many accidents and attempts on his life. Both shocked and relived at the same time, Kitty eventually learns that her husband left her for another woman. Lee comforts her by explaining that her husband has now been shot for desertion. This sketch, like Film Noir in series one, perfectly creates the look of the period of which it is set, and Kitty's deliberately overplayed widow makes for a great satire.

9. Busker

A very short sketch, involving Tim busking near the sea. As he sings, people walk past and generously place money in his guitar case. With Tim stopping to say "thanks" every time someone pays, he becomes more and more frustrated with their generosity, leading him to hilariously shout at them: "will you just let me sing?!". Though a more simple sketch, Tim's delivery of the final line makes this a personal favourite of mine.

8. Partner Names

Kitty is unimpressed with Lee's various "romantic names" for her. Trying several in one go, Kitty grows more impatient with his efforts. Eventually, she simply demands Lee call her by her proper name, only for Lee to reveal he refuses to do so being that her proper name is "Minge". What I love is that Lee's suggested names are all perfectly innocent (if a bit ridiculous), making for an unexpected reveal of Kitty's real name. 

7. Bill Paying

After a meal, Jim and Tim ask for the bill, with both more than happy to pay it themselves. A small argument soon takes an unexpected turn, as the two draw guns on one another, creating a stand-off. The sketch parodies classic tropes of film stand-offs, such as Jim telling Tim that he's captured his wife, and Tim trying to negotiate a deal. As well as this, the backdrop of having this take place over something as innocent as paying a bill offers up some great comedy, with Jim finally paying the bill and the waitress (Kitty) drawing a gun on him after he tips her.

6. Ben Ign

Perhaps the darkest sketch in the series, due to the subject matter. Tim is told by his doctor (Lee) that his condition is benign. Lee then refers to him as Mr. Ignant, to which Tim corrects him. Upon learning that his patient's name is Mr. Ben Ign, Lee looks at his documents and asks: "then who's this 'Mal Ignant'?". The calmness of both Tim and Lee's performances is key to this sketch working, as overplaying it could be seen as a more insensitive use of the subject matter. As it stands, this is a clever use of dark humour and is a stand-out in the series as a result.

5. Pickpocket
Kitty teaches Lee how to be a successful pickpocket, with her demonstrating on a passer-by. Inspired by this, Lee attempts the same. However, his distraction of starting a conversation with his target quickly backfires, as the target (Tim) engages enthusiastically with the conversation, asking: "how are those two kids of yours?" etc. Lee becomes startled and believes Tim is trying to pickpocket him, so he goes back to Kitty for advice and asks: "does this work better if this person isn't my brother?". Tim's overly enthusiastic portaryal of the brother is my favourite part of this sketch, as it is enough to not only confuse Lee, but briefly make him paranoid about being robbed. 

4. Tim's Accident
Lee asks Tim about an accident he had, and how badly it effected him. Upon Tim telling him that he has lost a testicle as a result of the accident, Lee can't help but notice everything he says sounds like a double entendre. I love how many jokes are present during such a small space of time, with everything Lee does to not make references to the accident making things worse and worse. A brilliant sketch providing non-stop laughs.

3. Kitty's Guitar
Arriving back at Kitty's house after a date, Lee notices she has a guitar. He soon wishes he didn't notice it, as Kitty begins playing songs that she wrote. These supposedly romantic songs are the same tune with sightly different lyrics, and are about everyone besides Lee. The interaction between Lee and Kitty is brilliant, with Lee's increasing disinterest working perfectly off Kitty's growing enthusiasm for playing and singing her own songs.

2. Tennis
Karen and Kitty's tennis match is interrupted by Lee, who is making load grunting noises everytime he hits the ball on his court. Frustrated, Kitty sternly tells Lee to keep the noise down, only for Lee to continue at the time where its most inconvenient for her. The sketch is a great satire of not only those who take sport too seriously, but of the unnecessary and over-the-top shouting of tennis players. The final moments of the sketch are a fantastic resolution of the built up tension between the two characters, with Kitty silencing Lee by whacking the tennis ball at him as hard as she can.

1. Police Visit
Not just my favourite sketch of series two, but better than some of series one's finest. Another great example of the show's use of dark humour, as Tim receives a visit from two police officers (Lee and Kitty). Despite their insistence of Tim coming with them to the police station, Tim explains that his wife will be home any moment to celebrate his birthday. The officers then break out into song, and Tim feels relieved that they aren't here on an urgent matter. He then gets a bit of a shock when the officers sing about how Tim's wife has crashed her car, and that they do in fact need him to come to the station. Tim Vine's performance is hilarious, as he manages to sell the innocence of his character so that the dark humour has maximum effect. As series two turned out to be the show's final series, at least it contained this incredible sketch as a reminder of how funny the show could be.

The Sketch Show Series 1: Top 10 Sketches

Last year, I listed my ten favourite episodes of the BBC comedy Not Going Out. After it became one of my favourite shows, I wanted to see what other series Lee Mack and Tim Vine had worked on, and came across The Sketch Show, which featured Mack and Vine along with comic talents Jim Tavare, Karen Taylor and Ronni Ancona. Here are my ten favourite episodes from the first series:

10. Urinal

Perhaps the most famous sketch from the show, involving all three male members of the cast. Filmed in one shot, Tim, Lee and Jim make things complicated for one another when Lee wants to borrow a light for his cigarette from Jim. Already with a drink in his other hand, Tim has to "help" Lee so that both hands can be free to light his cigarette. It's the deadpan manner, particularly that of Jim, that makes this sketch a classic. It would have been so easy to over-act this strange situation, but the three men's comedic timing and naturalism makes this an ever popular sketch.

9. Prostitute 

In this sketch, Lee proves to be a naive customer for a prostitute played by Ronni. His lack of understanding of phrases such as "are you looking for some company" means Ronni has to constantly change her way of speaking. When it looks like she might finally be getting through to Lee, he proves even more naive by finally asking outright: "how much would it be for sex". I love Ronni's portrayal of the increasingly annoyed prostitute because it clashes wonderfully with Lee's overly naive customer, which makes for great comic interaction.

8. Film Noir

Karen plays a mostly silent "femme fatale", as a detective (Lee) tries to admit his feelings whilst confessing he isn't the most romantic guy. Taylor continues to include more reasons as to why he's no good for her, which leads Lee to try harder being more romantic. After her final insult of "you're crap at sex", Mack breaks character, drops his New York accent, and tells her to "get stuffed". The sketch recreates the visuals of a film noir perfectly, with the blinds, office décor and black and white filter creating an authentic look. This why the final line always makes me laugh, as it completely shatters the atmosphere and is a great climax to Lee's continued romantic attempts.

7. Tim's Confession 
Tim wishes to confess something to Lee, who has gathered his colleagues to listen to what he has to say. Believing Lee to be the only one listening, Tim confesses that he likes to wear women's underwear. Driven to the point of madness keeping this a secret, he tells Lee that he regards him as a friend and needs to tell him this "in confidence". Lee admits to mishearing him and tells Tim: "I thought you said in conference". The played down reactions of the colleagues ensures the punchline has great impact, and Lee's sincere admittance to mishearing Tim adds to this sketch's brilliance.

6. Extra

Jim attempts to direct a dinner scene with Ronni and Tim as the lead actors. However, Lee overplays his role of "background scenery", causing Jim to continually re-shoot the sequence. After finally settling on a silent role, Lee promises not to say a word for the final take, only to trip and ruin the set, and thus ruin the entire scene. Lee's obliviousness to making too much noise makes for great comedy, especially when he starts repeating the lines of the lead actors to create "background noise". I believe this was the final sketch of series one, and it certainly is a great finale to the series if so.

5. Imaginary Friends
During a therapy session, Ronnie counsels Lee, Karen and Tim about their imaginary friends. This proves increasingly difficult, with Tim going as far to claim he himself is an imaginary friend of someone else! Lee claims to be accompanying his "friend" to the session for his alcoholism, and Karen claims that her "friend" is her actual boyfriend. At the end of the sketch, it is revealed that Ronni is alone in the room, and that she was imagining the whole scenario. There are many subtle jokes throughout the sketch, particularly from Tim, making this one of the most memorable and hilarious sketches of the series.

4. California Dreaming 
Arguably the next most popular sketch behind Urinal, this closing sketch to the show's first episode features all five members of the cast. Ronni is recording a cover version of "California Dreaming" by The Mamas and The Papas. The only problem, however, is that her backing singers (Lee, Tim, Karen and Jim) are unable to say the correct lyrics. What seems like a simple repetition of Ronni's vocals quickly spirals into absurdity. This sketch ensures that you will forever sing the wrong lyrics whenever you hear the song, which is testament to its genius. Other versions of the show would feature this sketch, but the original cannot be outdone due to its fantastic comic timing and interaction between the cast.

3. Dinner Date
Lee demonstrates every way in which a date can be ruined. His lack of understanding of how to act on a date contrasts with Ronni's calmness and manners. Starting out with only pouring wine for himself, things become more awkward when the waiter (Tim) appears to flirt with Ronni. This leads Lee to taunt Ronni further, until the waiter leaves. Finally, he manages to make her laugh, only to quickly revert back to his usual rude self. Lee completely steals this sketch, with each awkward moment being even more hilarious than the last. The final line that makes Ronni walk out is so unexpected, and is perhaps one of the funniest lines in the show's history.

2. Phobias Workshop
Lee conducts a workshop for the other cast members to get over their phobias, which include awkward silences, repetition, apologies and barking at other people's phobias. To make matters worse, Lee has a phobia of someone shouting "aagh!". When each of these phobias become known, it doesn't take long for a hilarious circle of each phobia being caused by the other. This must have been one of the most complex sketches to act out, as the timing has to be spot on in order for the circle of phobias to work. Perhaps the most inventive sketch in the series, and one which remains funny despite repeated viewings.

1. Gangsters
Jim and Tim have trouble interrogating Lee due to their use of gangster related slang. Not even the threat of being shot makes Lee comply with answering their questions, as he genuinely has no idea what they are saying. The phrases Lee fails to understand become funnier and funnier throughout. At one point, Lee misinterprets Jim's threat of "we don't want to unload in your face" as a sexual comment, and further lands himself in rouble by misunderstanding Jim's meaning of "if you start singing, we're out of here, its Kool and the Gang". Thinking Jim wants him to actually sing, Lee's last attempt to not be shot by the gangsters is to sing "Cherish" in a scared tone. Jim and Tim's over-the-top gangster voices add to the brilliance of sketch, and Lee's deadpan manner is the perfect clash between the characters. 

The Hateful Eight (2016) Review

"When I elbow you real hard in the face, that means: shut up" - John 'The Hangman' Ruth

After having to wait until January for it to be released in the UK and an extra week to write a review of it on this blog, here are my thoughts on Quentin Tarantino's newest film: The Hateful Eight. Following on from the success of Django Unchained, Tarantino has remained in the Western genre for his newest feature, which is told in six chapters. The film has not been without a troubled release in the US, something which has carried over to the UK with a number of cinema chains having pulled out from exhibiting the film. But is the film itself any good, and can it measure up to Tarantino's other features?

On his way to delivering murderer Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to Red Rock, Wyoming, John 'The Hangman' Ruth (Kurt Russell) encounters bounty hunter Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson). Also on his way to delivering bounties to Red Rock, Warren joins Ruth in his stagecoach. Along the way they pick up Red Rock's supposed new sheriff, Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), and are forced to take shelter from a powerful blizzard. Arriving at Minnie's Haberdashery, they meet lodgers Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth), Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), Bob (Demian Bichir) and General Sanford Smithers (Bruce Dern). Ruth becomes instantly suspicious of one of the lodgers wanting to free Domergue, and so he and Warren agree to project each other's bounties whilst keeping a lookout for any suspicious activity. Cue the combination of long dialogue scenes and bloody violence in the manner that only Quentin Tarantino knows how to do best, and you have a film that is undeniably his own.

Sadly, my first thought on the film after seeing it was that it is unnecessarily long. At nearly three hours, it is over-stuffed with Tarantino's longest dialogue sequences. This means that there is a big wait before anything of note happens (the end of the third chapter). Normally, I enjoy build up towards the more exciting moments, but the film really loses pace by having the story get really interesting so long into its run-time. The entire second chapter focuses on Mannix's talks with Warren and Ruth, creating a tension between himself and Warren due to their military history. This is further explored in the third chapter, as Mannix bonds with General Sanford. With the third chapter establishing a clear divide between the three characters and having to introduce the other members of The Hateful Eight, the second chapter has the effect of taking up too much of the run-time. The tension between Mannix, Warren and Sanford plays a big part in setting the best parts of the film into motion, and so the second chapter doesn't feel necessary when the third chapter does a good job of portraying this divide. Another problem is the characters themselves, while having good interactions, aren't as charismatic compared to Tarantino's other western, Django Unchained. Granted, The Hateful Eight has a more stage-play style compared to Django, but some of the charm and comedy moments from Django are sorely missing here. There's the occasional laugh, but they are mainly from Samuel L. Jackson towards the end, and the film feels rather empty without this coming from some of the other characters. 

On the other hand, there are some enjoyable things about The Hateful Eight as well. Though the characters aren't Tarantino's best, the performances are at least up to his films' usual high standard. Jennifer Jason Leigh has received the most praise of any cast member for her role as Domergue, having been nominated for a Golden Globe and Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. You can tell she thoroughly enjoyed playing this character, as she makes every effort to stand-out from such as talented cast at every turn. Whether it be her crazed facial expressions or unsettling calmness, she certainly achieves this. I also really enjoyed Tim Roth's performance, despite his over-the-top British accent. He was the most fun next to Jennifer Jason Leigh, and the film felt like it was always more interesting when he was on screen. Samuel L. Jackson was his usual cool self, which worked well alongside Kurt Russell's more paranoid performance as Ruth. There is also a fantastic musical score by veteran Western composer Ennio Morricone, which is a more than welcome addition to the film. The opening track is particularly powerful as it creates a foreboding atmosphere and works beautifully with the excellent cinematography. Tarantino has stated the importance of filming The Hateful Eight on 70mm (Ultra Panavision), and I think this worked really well. Even with most of the film set indoors, using this format allows the audience to see what every character is doing and helps to show off the scenery better than standard film formats. 

Of course, I haven't been able to experience the film exactly as Quentin Tarantino envisioned. Much has been made of the film's "roadshow release", in which there is an intermission at the half way point. I feel this version of the film would make more sense of some of the creative choices such as the narration at the start of chapter four. Quentin Tarantino himself provides this narration, in which he explains what the audience didn't notice at the end of chapter three. After the intermission, this seems like a good way to get the audience re-involved with the mystery right away, but doesn't make much sense when watching the film straight through chapters one to six. Not a lot of UK venues where showing this particular version of the film, which I definitely would have chosen had I known more about it at the time of going to see it.

While its by no means his weakest film, The Hateful Eight is too long and less interesting than Quentin Tarantino's other works for it to be considered anything more than just about "good". There are some fun performances, a great musical score and sublime cinematography, but the characters and pacing weren't up to the high expectations I had. Some might say I expected too much, but I think after the brilliance of Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained, and for such a talented writer/director, I don't think my expectations were unfair. Perhaps my opinion will change after the next viewing, but for now, The Hateful Eight is at the lower end of the impressive pile of work from one of cinema's greatest auteurs. 

Reservoir Dogs (1992) Review

"You ever listen to K-Billy's 'Super Sounds of the Seventies' weekend?" - Mr. Blonde.

With my review of Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight being pushed back to next week, what better way to fill the gap than with one of his finest works? Reservoir Dogs introduced the world to Tarantino's filmmaking skill, and contains all the aspects we now associate (and love) with his films. Making black suits even cooler and ensuring you never listen to "Stuck in the Middle with You" in the same way ever again, Reservoir Dogs is an outstanding début, and one which remains as iconic today as it ever was.

What seems like a simple heist of a jewellery store turns out to be something far more complicated for a gang of criminals. Suspecting one of them to be working with the police after the heist goes awry, the group becomes paranoid and unsure of whom exactly they can trust. With the egos of Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) and Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen) clashing, Mr. Pink's (Steve Buscemi) paranoia getting the better of him and Mr. Orange (Tim Roth) slowly dying from a gunshot wound, the pressure is on for the gang to clean the situation up with the help of their employees Joe (Lawrence Tierney) and Eddie (Chris Penn). Along the way, we are shown how each member of the gang came to be involving in the heist, and it all builds to an exciting final confrontation where no-one is certain to escape with their lives.

Like all of Tarantino's work, it's the characters of Reservoir Dogs that are the most enjoyable part. All of them play off each other so well, and each is totally unique. Their different approaches on how to handle the situation and the conflicts this leads to are the stand out scenes. Soon after the heist goes wrong, Mr. White and Mr. Pink end up drawing their guns, and Mr. Blonde soon enters the picture to makes matters worse. The performances in this sequence are fantastic, especially Madsen as the psychotic Mr Blonde. He has a way of appearing to be the calmest man in the room, but creating a more disturbing atmosphere amongst the gang at the same time. Tim Roth is terrific as always, with his scenes with Mr. White providing a more emotional edge to the story. Although he spends most of the film bleeding to death, he is still able to have a commanding presence, and Roth does brilliantly portrayed the different sides to this character.The opening scene with the gang sitting in a cafe also aids in giving them depth, as they appear to be just regular guys having a discussion as opposed to the extreme emotions they display later on. It means that the audience is able to have some sort of connection to such as violent group, which makes them all the more unsettling and memorable.

To go alongside such memorable characters are iconic moments which utilise the most common trait of all Tarantino films: violence. In the most famous scene in the film, Mr. Blonde proves just how unhinged he is when he is left alone with a cop being held by the gang. He revels that he amused by the idea of torturing a cop, and proceeds to slash the man's face and cut one of his ears off. All the while, the rock classic "Stuck in the Middle with You" is being played on the radio, which creates a totally unique juxtaposition of film violence. All at once, you are horrified by the actions of Mr. Blonde brutalising a defenceless man, intrigued by the use of the song and finally feeling guilty for laughing when Mr. Blonde talks to the severed ear and asks "can you hear that?". In a more light hearted moment, Tarantino demonstrates a knack for writing and directing a more amusing moment between the gang, when Joe assigns the names for each gang member. With Mr. Pink arguing over the triviality of having a more feminine name than the others, there is a well needed break from the intensity of the heist aftermath and the unsettling violence. And that's where the brilliance of Reservoir Dogs lies. It has everything you could want not just from a good crime film, but from a great film in general. It isn't often that a film has iconic scenes that are both horrifying and funny, and I can't imagine any other filmmaker making them work better than Quentin Tarantino.

My only negative, and it's a very minor one, is the flashback involving Mr. Orange. There's a moment where he is explaining to Joe and Eddie a lie about an event that happened to him. Though amusing, I personally felt the scene dragged, and so my initial interest was lost as the scene went on. It's one of the more surreal moments in the film, with an extensive use of slow-motion and wide angles shots, but the scene doesn't culminate interestingly enough for it to take up this much time.

That being said, Reservoir Dogs remains an incredible directorial debut for Tarantino. In its hour-and-a-half runtime, Tarantino presents his trademark filmmaking style effortlessly. Reservoir Dogs is now considered a classic in the crime genre, and remains a unique film in that field thanks to its well-written characters, interesting use of music and dark humour. Announcing himself as a household name straight away, Quentin Tarantino has gone on to achieve greater popularity through films like Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds, and Reservoir Dogs is always a fun film to look back on and see where all that talent and style developed from.