I'll admit, I was quite sceptical about the idea of  a solo Joker film. Part of what makes the base character so effective is his relationship with Batman and the dichotomy between the two. Of course, the character himself is interesting in his own right, but it really is how he and Batman need each other in a twisted way that elevates the character beyond your regular comic-book baddie. However, as trailers and promotional materials for the film released, I found myself getting gradually more excited and intrigued with where they were going to take this version of the character. Still, I went in with an open mind and relatively low-to-medium expectations. I came out stunned into silence.

Joker, directed by Todd Phillips, follows Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a lonely man outcast by society, desperately chasing his pipe dream of becoming a stand-up comedian. He spends his days dressed up in clown attire entertaining children at hospitals or holding up  signs on street corners. After he is pushed too far, he begins his maddening descent into the clown prince of crime. I'll just get this out of the way and say Phoenix is pitch-perfect casting. Chances are you've already heard how mesmerising his performance is by now, but it's for very good reason. Phoenix is wholly unpredictable in the role. He is both meek and terrifying, charming and horrific, elegant and hateful, usually a mix of all those things at the same time. You dread his inevitable transformation but at the same time look forward to it. Phoenix covers it all. The rest of the cast are great too (particularly Robert DeNiro) but this is 100% Phoenix's film and he absolutely shines in the role. Is his performance Oscar-worthy? I'd say so. Is his performance as good as Heath Ledger's in The Dark Knight? I'd also say so but for drastically different reasons; Ledger's Joker worked so well because he was a mystery. Phoenix's Joker works so well because you see his entire backstory and every little detail that makes him tick and eventually pushed him over the edge.

This is not a pleasant film to watch, and I mean that in the best possible way. I lost count of how many times my jaw dropped to the floor. It's been a very long time since a film has done that to me. I was appalled by what was happening on-screen, disgusted even. But the film handles its many disturbing moments with such elegance and delivers them at just the right moments that I was loving every minute of it. The media at the moment seem to think this film romanticises Fleck's descent into madness, possibly encouraging viewers to reenact the Joker's horrific crimes. I'd like to say that at no point does the film romanticise Fleck's actions nor encourages viewers to think said actions are okay. Yes, you do feel bad for Fleck and you see every little detail that pushes him to his breaking point, but it's an ugly descent. It is not made out to seem cool or admirable. Feeling for a character and agreeing with their actions do not always go hand-in-hand, and that is especially prevalent in this film. As for those saying this film is too violent or basks too much in its disturbing moments, I'm afraid that's what the character of the Joker is all about, and presenting any less than that is doing a disservice to the character.

I really only have one weakness with the film, and it's not even really a major one. There are many moments where the film feels a little too self-indulgent. There are many quieter, slow-motion segments, almost as if the film is pausing to say to the viewer, "Look at how cool we're being. Look at how smart we are." And, yes, those moments do work and are smart but some of them basked in their own glory a little too long and became more distracting than intended.

Don't be fooled by the title; this is not a comic-book movie. Sure, it may be based on a comic-book character, but this film is about as far as you can get from the comic-book movies of today; there are no big action set pieces or light-hearted humorous moments. This is essentially a character-study fanboy's dream, and it definitely works in the film's favour. 

Overall, Joker is a chilling yet remarkable experience. I don't think I've ever seen a film quite like it. Part of me wants to see this cinematic universe continued so we can get more films like this, however part of me doesn't. Part of me wants this film to stay as it's own little self-contained thing: a thrillingly disturbing insight into a man's descent into crime and madness. With a magnetic lead performance, several shocking moments, and frighteningly relevant social commentary, Joker will stay with you long after you've left the cinema, whether you like it or not.

STRENGTHS

• ​​Oscar-worthy lead performance by Phoenix.
• Stunning cinematography and fantastic score.
• Thrilling yet believable backstory for the Joker.
• Frighteningly relevant social commentary.

WEAKNESSES

• Often gets lost in itself at times.

SCORE: 9.5/10

 Quentin Tarantino is an interesting director. For a director that borrows a lot from and pays tribute to countless films, he has his own unmistakable style that one can pick up on within just a few lines of dialogue or a single shot. It's his unrestrained and unapologetic boldness in his film-making that has drawn me back to his films time and time again. He makes the mundane exciting (or at least interesting) in a way only Tarantino can do. His ninth film Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood continues this trend but in a way quite unlike his previous films.

Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood follows actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) as they try to sustain fame and success in late-1960s Hollywood. Dalton feels like his best years are behind him, and relies heavily on Booth for moral support. DiCaprio and Pitt, unsurprisingly, stand out in their roles. They have a great chemistry that even comes off as quite charming. Dalton is a very self-absorbed character, yet DiCaprio plays the role with such charisma and enthusiasm that he perfectly contrasts Pitt's more reserved, suave performance as Booth. In terms of other performances in the film, though, nothing really stands out as much. There aren't any bad performances but likewise none really come off as memorable as DiCaprio's and Pitt's. Margot Robbie felt particularly underutilised as iconic symbol, of 1960's Hollywood Sharon Tate. She fits the role very well but in terms of roles that showcase her diverse acting talent well, this one isn't high on the list. Then again, the film uses Tate to represent the purified innocence of the rising stars of the 1960s, so Robbie pulls that off very well.

Stylistically, this is one of Tarantino's best films. The film is a bonafide love letter to the films and lifestyles of the 1960s, and Tarantino has no shame in expressing his love for both. Shots linger on bright neon signs whilst musical hits from the decade blare out of car radios. If you grew up during the 1960s, this film is probably going to feel quite nostalgic, whilst coming off as endearing and charming for the rest of us.Tarantino makes sure to convey 1960s Hollywood as a place of pure optimism and cheerfulness, with, in typical Tarantino fashion, a hint of something darker going on behind-the-scenes. In terms of plot, however, I feel this to be one of Tarantino's weakest. Unlike previous films by him which have a solid driving force behind the plot, this film takes a much more relaxed approach in its storytelling, with events happening around the characters rather than said characters being the aforementioned driving force. I hate defining a film as "slow" because this type of film isn't meant to be fast-paced, but I do feel some scenes could have been left on the cutting-room floor for a tighter cinematic experience. It's a shame because Tarantino can usually make scenes that contain nothing but minutes-upon-minutes of dialogue interesting thanks to clever dialogue. This film does contain good dialogue, but without that solid driving force and hook to keep the audience fully invested, one can't help but feel unfulfilled when the film reaches its climax (again, one of Tarantino's weakest by far).

Overall, Tarantino's ninth flick is a smart, stylish one that revels in the glory of 1960s Hollywood. It is definitely his most relaxed and self-absorbed film, taking its time to showcase every little detail that made 1960s Hollywood the Golden Age that it is. Therefore, despite it being one of his weaker flicks, I can forgive its shortcomings and see it as it is: a tribute to an era of Hollywood film-making he cares for very deeply. And that care is clearly and carefully conveyed in Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood.

STRENGTHS

• DiCaprio and Pitt are mesmerising.
• Tarantino's best-looking film.
• A nostalgic and surprisingly endearing presentation of the 1960s.

WEAKNESSES

• Robbie is underutilised, even if she does fulfil her character's purpose.
• Plot isn't as tight as previous Tarantino films, meaning some scenes can drag and feel pointless.
• Weak climax.

SCORE: ​7/10

Coming in after Avengers: Endgame, one of the biggest and most successful films ever made, Spider-Man: Far from Home has a lot riding on it. It has to serve as an appropriate closing chapter for Marvel's Phase Three and opening one for Phase Four. It has to effectively present the world post the traumatic events of Endgame whilst being a good Spider-Man film in its own right. Does it succeed or fail to stick the landing? This review will be spoiler-free, which will be difficult as a lot of what I did and didn't enjoy feature major spoilers, but I'll do my best. I'm also going to start bullet-pointing the main points at the end of each review in case you just want the main details.

The film follows Peter Parker (Tom Holland) on a school trip to Europe. However, he can't enjoy his vacation for long as Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) pairs him up with the enigmatic Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal) to take down a bunch of elemental threats. Immediately, this film's basic concept is both a blessing and a curse. Taking Spidey out of New York City and placing him in various locations around the world is an inspired touch and one I'm surprised the films previous haven't done until now. It's great seeing Spidey engage in an environment that is much different to the concrete caverns of New York. However, one of Spider-Man: Homecoming's biggest strengths was it's smaller scale. It was a simple yet effective story that fit the character of Peter perfectly. That scale is amplified ten-fold in Far from Home, therefore losing some of the charm the previous film had going for it. However, the larger scale does allow for some great action setpieces; the action in this film is much better than in Homecoming. I never felt the action in the first film was all that memorable, creative, or immersive, but in Far from Home, there is a lot more to work with and the action is utilized much more creatively. When Spidey is swinging or gets hit, you really do feel it, thanks to the tighter cinematography and Spidey's physical potential being presented much better.

The cast are of course fantastic. Holland has really settled into the role nicely and there is definite growth in his performance and character. I even enjoyed the romance subplot with MJ (Zendaya) a lot more than I thought I would. It was sweet, yet not overly-sentimentalized and felt very much like a real romance between  two teenagers, unfiltered and not glamorised. MJ has become an interesting character in her own right, and not just someone for Peter to kiss at the end of the film. Gyllenhaal is also great as Quentin Beck/Mysterio. Mysterio is a character I've wanted to see on the big-screen for as long as I can remember due to his cinematic potential, and that potential is mostly realized here. You'd think the idea of Mysterio, a guy dressed in green who wears a fishbowl on his head, would be silly, but the film actually pulls it off and utilizes the character very well. Being an illusionist, some truly unique and interesting visuals come from his character and his powers, and are an absolute joy to watch. However, I'd be lying if I said that Mysterio as a character hasn't been done a thousand times in other films, and done better. There was one element of his backstory in particular that really frustrated me as it felt very predictable, rushed, and cliche. However, as I've said, this is a spoiler-free review, so all I can say is that he's a good character with some questionable motives that stop him from being a truly great character. I did enjoy the general themes his character brought to the film though, and he serves as a sly commentary on our pop culture and news culture.

Something the MCU gets criticized a lot for is its comedy. It can be very hit and miss for some people, and that comedy is very present in Far from Home. Most of it lands fine and I did chuckle a few times, but there was indeed the occasional dud that came off as more grating than funny. However, I've kinda come to expect this now from MCU films, so the comedy wasn't a huge issue for me. In terms of how accurate this film is to the comics and in capturing the general essence of the wallcrawler, this is probably the most un-Spidey Spidey film yet, and that can be a positive or a negative based on your viewpoint and opinion. Things are done and steps are taken with the character in this film that will either excite or enrage fans. Tony Stark's passing casts a heavy shadow over the events of this film, and it seems like they're building up Spidey to be the next equivalent to Iron Man, or at least the next flagship character of the MCU. This will definitely enrage some fans. I personally am glad that they're taking the character in a newer direction, but even I must admit that they do make some questionable, even downright outrageous, decisions. However, I have faith in Marvel to do right by the character so we'll just have to wait and see.

Overall, Spider-Man: Far from Home is a fun, bold adventure that goes where no Spidey film has gone before, both literally and figuratively. I still think I prefer Homecoming for it's refreshingly smaller-scale and charm (there's also no equal scene to the Vulture twist which means Far from Home really lacks that extra push in its storytelling and wow-factor). However, this is still a fun, thought-provoking film that is definitely in the upper-end of Spidey's best cinematic adventures. It's flawed and cliche at times, but is oozing with heart despite its heightened scale, making this a worthy entry to the beginning of the new phase of the MCU.

STRENGTHS

• The cast are great, particularly Holland, Zendaya, and Gyllenhaal.
• Solid action setpieces and improved action overall.
• Romance sub-plot done well.
• Ambitious and not afraid to take chances with the character of Spidey.
• Contains thought-provoking commentary.

WEAKNESSES

• Weak Mysterio backstory.
• Comedy falls flat at times.

SCORE: 7/10

Of all his work on the small-screen, Ricky Gervais' After Life is the first that feels first-and-foremost like a drama. Sure, he's dabbled into serious and emotional topics on classics like The Office (2001 - 2003) , Extras (2005 - 2007), and Derek (2012 - 2014), but comedy always felt like it was at the forefront of those shows, whereas with his latest outing, comedy takes a backseat to raw emotion and drama. It's just a shame that Gervais doesn't pull off either particularly well this time around.

After Life follows small-town journalist Tony (Gervais), who, after his wife Lisa (Kerry Godliman) dies of cancer, is fed up with life and starts living it the way he wants to. He's brutally honest (in that typical Gervais wit) to his workmates, rude to children, and refuses any opportunity to regain happiness. However, along the way he learns that life and happiness spread way beyond his own feelings. The show deals with some pretty serious topics such as mental health and suicide, but doesn't do so in a very seamless way. Tonally, the show is pretty much all over the place, with serious scenes immediately jumping to light-hearted comedic scenes, as well was moments that aren't certain whether they want to come off as funny or serious. There are funny moments on this show and, indeed, there are also deeply moving moments too. The show just never seems to balance the two seamlessly enough to feel natural.

Another major problem this show has is it's use of dialogue telling the audience developments instead of actually showing them. Every episode is pretty much exposition central, especially the last one, which is basically every main character reciting a monologue on how important it is to make others happy. A potentially moving message but 1.) If it's constantly rammed down our throats throughout a single episode, it's becomes monotonous, and 2.) Telling us is nowhere near as powerful as showing us. It's a shame because there are moments when certain developments are shown to the audience beautifully; there's a lovely moment in one episode where Tony is on a beach alone with his dog, and he reminisces about being on the same beach with Lisa; in his memory, she is running around in the sea water telling him to join her. This leads seamlessly into the present day; he wades into the ocean in an apparent suicide attempt, before swimming back to shore after not wanting to abandon his dog. It's a achingly poignant moment that shows not only how devastated Lisa's death has left Tony, but also conveys how Tony still has responsibilities in life. He can't leave his dog behind, just like, as he later finds out, he can't abandon those who care for him because he has so much to give them in return. A compelling message that is unfortunately not as well conveyed in the rest of the series.

This is still an entertaining show. It's got great performances all round, is very watchable, and has a beautiful melancholic soundtrack. It's just not very memorable, some characters feel pointless and their personalities aren't really developed enough to go anywhere, and it does too much telling and not enough showing. Still, it's a worthy watch for its touching moments, and has a decent uplifting message connected to topics that are difficult to make light of, even if it isn't executed in the most astounding way.

SCORE: 6/10

Period dramas are a genre of film I'm starting to appreciate more and more; Last year's Phantom Thread (dir. Paul Thomas Anderson) was a smart study of the twisted bond between two very different people and what it is that keeps them together. Yorgos Lanthimos' The Favourite covers similar grounds but, I'd argue, in a more slick and polished manner that made it viciously entertaining to watch.

The Favourite follows the frail Queen Anne (Olivia Colman) and her love affair between the devious Lady Sarah (Rachel Weisz) and the former servant Abigail (Emma Stone). Their performance, particularly those of Colman and Stone, are the main driving force that makes this film so entertaining. Colman manages to portray Queen Anne as simultaneously child-like and commanding. Watching her flip from softly-spoken one moment to blinding rage the next was fascinating to watch yet also made sense in relation to her illness. Rarely does she come off as melodramatic and, if she does, it feels intentional, and so only strengthens her overall performance. By far the best performance of the film, though Stone manages to leave an impression too. I oddly found myself very impressed with how well she was able to imitate a British accent, destroying the stereotype that American actors can't impersonate said accent well. She portrays moments of love, breakdown, and anger so genuinely and with the utmost sincerity. 

​I feel that even the film's weaker aspects result in a positive outcome; I didn't find myself fully invested in the relationships within the love-triangle mainly because I don't feel there was enough time spent developing, for instance, Abigail's feelings towards Queen Anne. But I think that's the point of the film. This isn't some sentimental romance focusing on the blossoming love these characters feel for the Queen, but rather, this is a film about being the Queen's "favourite", AKA, her past-time or her hobby. It's twisted, in a way, how the film conveys Abigail trying to impress the Queen just so she can rise through the ranks and not put up with the horrors of lower-class life at the time. It's almost darkly comic, and gives the film that extra kick that kept me so invested and wanting more. However, it was that want for more that ultimately meant the ending of the film was slightly disappointing. I won't spoil it, but the film stops rather abruptly. It ties up threads well enough but, in comparison with the film's unique tone and dazzling presentation, this ending is kind of a dud.

Speaking of dazzling presentation, this film is gorgeous to look at. The Queen's Palace  and its halls feel large and dominating in every scene thanks to the low-angles and wide lenses, allowing the viewer to be transported into this world easily as well as amplifying Coleman's already terrific performance. There is a noticeable fish-eye effect used in many scenes, and whilst this did seem a bit distracting at first, it surprised me how well this worked in amplifying the size and scope of this palace. Though the film is mostly set within this one location, it rarely feels claustrophobic, and I can't help but admire this. The movements of the camera also impressed me, whipping back and forth between characters in a slightly Kubrick-esque way that helped to communicate seamlessness and how the palace seems to transcend space in its dizzying size.

This film's main strength is perhaps simultaneously it's biggest weakness; it left me wanting more. I was fascinated by how this world was conveyed visually and the terrific performances were icing on the cake, but its dull, abrupt ending, while satisfying enough, paled in comparison with the film's razor-sharp wit and darkly-comedic satirical presentation. 

SCORE: 7.5/10 

I don't want to talk about this show anymore. From a practical viewpoint, I've reviewed Doctor Who related material on here many times, so I feel like I need to leave it alone for a bit in order to branch out and review other stuff. From my own personal viewpoint, tonight's episode proved to me that, maybe, this show isn't for me anymore, or at least, Chris Chibnall's version isn't.

Series 11 of the popular sci-fi show has been an abysmal experience in my eyes. I didn't bother to review the series in full as it just didn't motivate me enough too, but in short, it has been dull, predictable, and most-of-all frustrating. Jodie and her companions are painfully bland, the monsters are forgettable, and the stories overall feel rushed and repetitive (save for a few episodes like "Rosa" and "Kerblam!") Yet, I held out hope for tonight's New Year's Day special seeing as the Daleks were returning. Series 11 featured no classic villains, and suffered greatly because of it, so maybe the inclusion of the Daleks would provide the kick Chibnall's run has desperately been missing. After all, the Daleks, though somewhat of a punchline in popular culture, can still be written well. Their appearance in Capaldi's second series was well-received because it captured the Dalek's and their iconic ruthlessness so well, plus the Twelfth Doctor's dynamic with Davros was fascinating to watch. So was tonight's episode any good? Well, like Series 11 before it, this special was full of disappointment after disappointment.

First, though, let's cover the few good things in this episode. The inclusion of Ryan's dad was a welcome one though it didn't really go anywhere interesting. The scene in the cafe between Ryan and his father was powerfully acted and well-executed, especially since the series before had slowly been building towards this moment. The performances in this episode in general were pretty good compared to some pretty dodgy guest performances in series 11.

And that about covers it for the good things in this episode! Pretty short list, right? The list of negatives is significantly longer. The episode, like the series before it, suffered from far too many characters being introduced in too short a time. We have Ryan's dad and the two archaeologist characters introduced, both of which have about a little personality as you can imagine. Then you have the Doctor, Ryan, Graham, and Yaz along for the ride too. That's SEVEN characters we follow, most of which aren't developed enough for us to actually care about. There was an unintentionally comical moment near the end of the episode when all seven characters step out of the TARDIS to face the lone Dalek. Just seeing character after character pour out of the small box was enough to make me laugh, and served as a tragic reminder to how poorly developed each and every one were.

But wait! The Daleks are back! Surely Chibnall won't botch the Daleks as well? Well, like clockwork, he does exactly that. This is another episode with just a lone Dalek to serve as the antagonist, and is by far the worst. There is absolutely no attempt made to make this Dalek even remotely unique or interesting outside of its visual appearance; it wants to take over Earth. Okay. Brilliant. Except that's been done before. Many, MANY times. You don't feel like the threat is real because it's been done better so many times before. In the end, they defeat the Dalek with a microwave. A MICROWAVE. Way to make the Daleks scary again, right, Chibnall? In keeping with Chibnall's promise to make his run of the show more "educational", the Doctor haphazardly explains how the microwave can destroy the primitively-built Dalek before doing exactly that. Now it may be educational for the viewer, but it's not fun. It's not interesting or engaging, it's essentially just a glorified science lesson, and this show should be so much more than that. They then throw the Dalek mutant into a supernova and the day is saved again! Nothing gained, nothing lost. Just nothing. An absolute mess of an episode.

"Resolution" left me feeling angry. This episode and the series in general, lacked the emotional depth and inner conflicts that made the series' before it interesting. It just felt like another forgettable episode with no real stakes, no depth, and filled with faux optimism for the future. I will still continue to watch the show in the future in the hope that it gets better, but until that day, I'm done reviewing it, or at least Chibnall's version of it.

Rating: 4/10

It's hard to believe that it's been over a decade since one of the most iconic villains in comic book history made his cinematic debut, though it certainly wasn't a successful one; 2007's Spider-Man 3 saw the lethal protector Venom make his first appearance on the big screen, and what a mess it was. I liked Spider-Man 3, but the character of Venom was pretty much shoehorned into the last 10 minutes of the film, lacking any of the conflict in the comics that made the character interesting. Now, after years of speculation and production issues, Venom's first solo outing released this year, directed by Ruben Flesicher and starring Tom Hardy as the titular character. Surely this film's portrayal of the character couldn't be much worse than Spider-Man 3's, right? There will be spoilers in this review.

I'm not going to pretend like I know the comics in extreme detail, because I don't, but I do know that once the Venom symbiote takes over Eddie Brock, it tears him apart. It's like a drug, an addiction. This split personality and the moral grounds of the character laying between good and evil make him a very complex and intriguing character. Aside from a few short scenes, 2018's Venom doesn't delve into this at all. Instead, it focuses on the relationship between Brock and Venom in a more comedic light. They bicker and argue throughout the film, but it never feels like it's done to develop the characters or their relationships. Ironically, I never felt like Brock or Venom bonded emotionally. So when it comes to the big emotional climax of Venom saving Brock, I feel nothing at all. Hardy does his best with what he's given (and what he's given is some very awkward dialogue) and, to be fair, he is very entertaining to watch, but this film doesn't have many positives beyond that. The pacing is horrible; scenes and plot points fly by and are given little thought or attention. There is absolutely no chemistry between Hardy's Brock or Michelle Williams' Anne Weying, and the villain is a straight-up generic evil business tycoon. It's a shame because Riz Ahmed, who plays the film's villain, does seem like he's having fun with the role, at least in some scenes. In others, he's completely deadpan and uninteresting.

The CGI itself is also quite poor. I never truly felt like what I was looking at was actually there. This was especially the case in one scene where Ahmed's Carlton Drake is talking to the Riot symbiote which he has bonded with. You could tell Ahmed was just looking into a dead space and not at an actual physical being. The final battle is also a CGI-ridden mess. It's extremely difficult to tell what's going on as Venom and Riot pull each other apart. I honestly think some of the CGI in Spider-Man 3 was better, and that was eleven years ago! 

If there's one word that sums this film up for me, it's "predictable." Loser gets powers, is granted extreme strength. Villain he has a grudge with ALSO is granted extreme strength. They fight, hero wins. The end. Now obviously, this is a formula a lot of superhero films stick to, and it CAN work. I'm not saying that superhero films SHOULDN'T stick to this formula, but at least do something interesting with it. Venom does not do this. It goes exactly the way you think it'll go from start to finish. It even goes down the route of pretending a character is dead (in this case, the Venom symbiote), only for that character to somehow illogically reappear alive and well at the end of the film. This is such a tired and overused trope and Venom uses it in the most unimaginative way possible. Even the after-credits scene is typical for a modern superhero film; a character visits some character in prison who is being set up as the sequel's villain. However, the film even does THIS awkwardly. Brock visits serial killer Cletus Kasady, played by Woody Harrelson in a hilariously bad wig, in prison. In the comics, Kasady bonds with the symbiote known as Carnage and becomes one of Spider-Man's most dangerous and psychotic foes. I'm pretty certain that this is where this franchise is going with the character, seeing as they literally have to tell it to us during the scene; the final lines of the film are spoken by Kasady, where he says something along the lines of, "When I get out of here, there's going to be CARNAGE." Everyone in the cinema at this point either laughed or groaned, as did I. Not a good sign for a scene intended to be serious and to set up future films.

Notice how I've only just mentioned Spider-Man? That's right, Venom is a Spider-Man villain! Easy to forget since this film strays from the comic books in that Brock is the first person the Venom symbiote matches with, instead of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, who I assume doesn't exist in this universe. I'm not against straying from the source material, but what made Venom interesting in the first place was his relationship with Spider-Man. If you get rid of that then you have what only feels like a half-baked attempt at a sinister character. Nothing about this film's Venom is interesting or engaging. How did they manage to make a giant, slimy monster who loves biting people's heads off uninteresting?!

Overall, this film is so predictable, so average, and so unengaging that it's actually kind of impressive. A mess, but still impressive. It feels like a film that was made during the early to mid 2000's when most superhero films didn't do much interesting with their portrayals of the characters. If you were expecting a well-written, fleshed-out portrayal of the character from the comics like we've been promised for so many years, you're not gonna get it here. There are positives; Hardy is entertaining, the action is passable, and the score by Ludwig Goransson is actually quite sinister and fits the slimy nature of the symbiotes very well. However, that's not enough to forego the abysmal pacing, awkward dialogue, and misguided tone that turns the lethal protector into somewhat of a punchline. "A loser", as the Venom symbiote describes itself at one point.

SCORE: 5.5/10

At the time that I'm writing this, it's coming up to 11 months since the frontman of the American genre-bending band Linkin Park, Chester Bennington, tragically took his own life. Shock and disbelief were cast the world over, with millions of fans and even casual listeners having lost a part of their life that they grew up listening to. But no one, arguably besides Bennington's family, felt that shockwave more brutally than co-frontman of the band, Mike Shinoda. Words cannot describe how much pain and heartbreak the man must have gone through after hearing the news that his bandmate and close friend with whom he had been creating music and touring with for 17 years had died. Many wondered, and still wonder, if the future of the band is certain, but one thing that is certain is that Shinoda himself is still continuing to create music. In order to find a way to channel his pain and grief into something, Shinoda made three songs and released them on his Post Traumatic EP back in January. These three songs saw Shinoda at his rawest and most emotional. Inevitably, Shinoda's passion for music continued to bond with his grief, leading to his first completely solo album Post Traumatic, released on the 15th June 2018. As usual, I shall be reviewing the album in a track-by-track fashion.


01. PLACE TO START - the album kicks off with this subtle yet emotional piece. The song slowly builds on itself as a grief-stricken Shinoda contemplates how to continue life without Chester. This beautiful, melancholic song is made even better by Shinoda's singing. I find Shinoda's singing voice in general to be very warm and his delivery genuine. This song proves that but in a rather unconventional way; as Shinoda sings, "I don't want to know the end, all I want is a place to start", he doesn't sustain the note and his voice cracks. This works in the song's favour as it truly conveys the feeling of being broken after a tragic loss. The song ends with some voicemails of Mike's friends sending him their condolences. It's a shame the song is rather short, but it manages to pack a strong emotional punch nonetheless.

02. OVER AGAIN - this is a fan-favourite track and for good reason. Possibly the rawest song on the album, Shinoda discusses Chester's passing and the effect it left on his family and friends in painstaking detail. He discusses the fears running through his mind about playing another show, that show being the wonderful Celebrate Life tribute concert which was held in October 2017. The song closes out with Shinoda wondering what will come of his career as he constantly reminds the listener that saying goodbye to a loved one is does not happen at one moment in time, but happens over and over again. Whilst one cannot deny the weight that the lyrics in the song hold, I don't find the instrumental and hook to be anything that special, so sonically alone, I don't find this song to be one of the more memorable ones on the album.

03. WATCHING AS I FALL - a punch bass synth and extreme energy makes this song stand out from the other so far. Shinoda seamlessly transitions between rapping and singing. The chorus is like a battle cry, as Shinoda declares how this tragedy has forced him to fall to a place where he can't rise. The song ends with a fantastic guitar solo and truly encapsulates the sense of emotional chaos that comes with grief.

04. NOTHING MAKES SENSE ANYMORE - the muffled keys and piano make this song almost sound like something out of a Wild West film. It feels ominous and looming, like a slow build-up to a battle. The scratchy effect on Shinoda's voice is a little grating to the ears on first listen, but it becomes more bearable as the song continues. The song overall would have really benefited from some percussion. Nothing heavy or fancy, but a simple beat would have really made it stand out. As it is, though, the song does feel slightly unfinished because of this.

05. ABOUT YOU (feat. BLACKBEAR) - we arrive at the first track to contain a featured artist, though Shinoda still gets most of the limelight. A siren-like sound backs up Shinoda's visceral lyrics on how even when he tries to write something unrelated to Chester, it still ends up sounding like a song dedicated to Chester. Blackbear's feature, while certainly not bad, doesn't really stand out as anything special and sounds rather lacklustre and simple. The final breakdown is where the song really goes downhill. The hook is repeated again and again with a distorted vocal effect that is very jarring to the ears and brings a song with great potential down to a rather sour experience

06. BROODING - the only instrumental/ interlude track on the album is a haunting one. It starts out with the howl of a scratchy synth and some peaceful guitar strings before an explosive beat and bass enter the frame. The track ends with some ghost-like vocals, truly marking this song as a haunting yet strangely calming one.

07. PROMISES I CAN'T KEEP - Mike sings again on this one, and though the versed and chorus are nothing special, the breakdown is tremendous. Scratching is heard beneath a beautiful piano hook as Shinoda discusses how he can't see some of the promises he made to his friends and his family through. I feel like this song could have benefited from a more varied array of instruments used, but the wonderful breakdown more than makes up for this.

08. CROSSING A LINE - another punchy song, but this one is perhaps the most uplifting of the entire record. Shinoda's singing is probably at its best on this track as a synth-pop beat guides the song to a spectacular, dramatic finish. The message is potent as Shinoda discusses how even though he will move on from the tragedy, he still cares and will not forget it or those who helped him along the way.

09. HOLD IT TOGETHER - A quirky hook featuring a vocoder and a catchy chorus quickly put this song near the top of my list. Shinoda sings about how partaking in everyday situations can be a struggle when grieving, and the upbeat tone really helps the song achieve that bizarre tone its going for. I love it when seemingly upbeat songs have a dark subject matter in their lyrics, and this song is no exception.

10. GHOSTS - the autotune on Mike's voice isn't very well-concealed on this track, meaning it's one of the more forgettable and bland songs on the album. The breakdown after the chorus is fairly generic and  filled with pop leads and synths. It gets pretty tiresome after the first few listens. The beat itself isn't too bad though and it's a rather catchy tune, but not one to return to that often.

11. MAKE IT UP AS I GO (feat. K FLAY) - though I've never listened to K. Flay before, her presence is a welcome one on this track. She sings the chorus and part of the bridge and she does a great job, though I would have liked to have heard Mike's vocals more prominently on the chorus too. The instrumental is great, with loud, tuned drum beats giving the song a much-needed kick. Some of the samples implemented are little too generic for my liking though, mostly featuring "woah"s and distorted vocals.

12. LIFT OFF (feat. CHINO MORENO and Machine Gun Kelly) - this dreamy track sounds like something from Mike's earlier work as Fort Minor, with lyrics reminiscent of his early work in Linkin Park ("Satellite tracking can't map up my tactics, I spit the same shit they split an atom in half with.") The pads during the chorus are a little too loud for my liking which means Machine Gun Kelly's vocals sound rather muted. He still sounds great though, as does Chino Moreno during his verse. Ironically, the song doesn't really lift off though, instead focusing too much on the dreamy aspect and not allowing many other elements of the song to shine.

13. I.O.U. - similar to the previous song, this track sounds a lot like Mike's earlier work. A machine-gun beat is heard underneath a cocky Shinoda in his element.  I didn't think a song like this would be on the album, which is why I think it's probably the weakest song on the album. Shinoda's rapping is great but the song itself feels by-the-books with its simple rap beat.

14. RUNNING FROM MY SHADOW (feat. GRANDSON) - the album suddenly picks up again with this aggressive song. It builds upon itself wonderfully as Shinoda transitions between rapping and singing about constantly being reminded of the dark events that occurred. Grandson has a great voice too, and I would have like to have heard a greater presence by him in the song. Still, the final guitar breakdown is a highlight of the album that is certainly on par with Watching As I Fall and even slightly reminiscent of some of Linkin Park's music.

15. WORLD'S ON FIRE -  Shinoda's vocal talents are ever so clear in this track, in which he sings and harmonizes beautifully about finding solace in loved ones when the world feel like it's on fire. An instantly potent and relatable message that is executed brilliantly. The song is very synth-heavy and there are some vocal manipulations which may not be to everyone's fancy, but I think it's a breath of fresh air in the context of the album and showcases Shinoda's vocal and musical talents at their best.

16. CAN'T HEAR YOU NOW - the album ends with this triumphant tune where Shinoda confirms that he is indeed moving beyond the tragedy and is attempting to find his stride again. Lyrically, the song makes for the perfect conclusion to the album, but sonically, it does feel slightly anti-climactic as it just stops rather suddenly. It doesn't SOUND like a closing track. With that being said, there are positives. There's a synth throughout that sounds a lot like the synth-pop sounding one in the pre-chorus of Crossing A Line. Whether or not this was intentional, I don't know, but it works to make the whole album feel connected and allows these songs to intertwine with each other even more with its related themes.

This album isn't perfect. Some songs do feel like filler and some of the featured artists aren't that impressive, however I cannot say that there are any songs that completely ruin the experience either. Mike is an extremely talented singer/songwriter. How he is able to channel his pain into the art of music is inspiring and I think his strengths are very clearly on show on this album. He conveys the plethora of emotions felt whilst grieving very well, and I've no doubt his music will give fans comfort and something to channel their own grief into.

BEST SONGS: "Place To Start", "Watching As I Fall", "Crossing A Line", "Hold It Together", "Running From My Shadow", "World's On Fire"

WORST SONGS: "About You", "Ghosts", "I.O.U." 

SCORE: 7/10

I may love the art of film, but one genre that I haven't expressed much passion for in recent years is the genre of horror. Recently, I feel the genre as a whole has grown tired and stagnant through a barrage of boring cliches, over-reliance on jump-scares, and lack of any memorable substance worth returning to. There have, of course, been a few exceptions in recent years; 2014's It Follows was a fun little flick that breathed some life into the horror genre. However, today, I'm going to talk about a film arguably more obscure than that: 2008's Canadian horror film Pontypool, directed by Bruce McDonald.

Technically, this film isn't that recent in terms of release (I had to remind myself that 2008 was ten years ago at the time of writing this review) but I still feel like it is recent enough to be a part of the newer end of horror flicks. And what a flick it is. I like to be flexible in terms of my expectations for a film. I went into this film not expecting anything that intricate or mind-blowing other than a good time. Whilst this film certainly is a good time, I was taken aback by how impressed I was with the film's general aesthetic and storytelling techniques. Taking place in the small town of Pontypool, Ontario, the film follows a local radio station's perception of a virus turning the normal people of Pontypool into cannibalistic, zombie-like creatures. Only there's a twist. The infection is spread through language. The English language to be precise. The virus infects occupants by latching onto a certain word spoken and understood by them. Once infected, the occupants look to kill themselves by killing others. This is an incredibly refreshing and unique concept and one that the film pulls off masterfully and with extreme elegance. The first half of the film contains many of the best moments and scenes, in my opinion. We stick with the three employees of the radio station as they are fed information from the outside world about riots breaking out. Only this information starts to sound more twisted and deranged as we hear the horrific events unfold over low-quality phone speakers. We are left with only our imaginations and the reactions of the employees at the station, and it is an incredible piece of cinema. One of the best scenes in the film occurs when a field reporter for the station feeds back audio of an adult infected person ("Conversationalists", as they're referred to in the film's credits.) helplessly speaking the word that infected them, except this adult male has the voice of a baby crying for its mother. The only visual cues available are the reactions of the film's main character, Grant Mazzy, played by Stephen McHattie. He listens to the audio, eyes wide in confusion, bewilderment, and fear, the camera catching every bit of sweat rolling down his forehead. It's a magnificently executed scene that had me holding my breath and eyes wide just like Grant himself. The film sometimes resorts to jump-scares to scare the viewer (though not as poorly executed as some other films), however this scene just lets the fear and dread instilled by this unsettling audio settle in, a fine example of more lacking approach to heighten the fear and anxiety levels of the viewer.

I must also praise the visual style of this film. Shots are slow and linger on each character and their reactions. The camera pans across steadily in some scenes when no one is even moving to keep adrenaline-levels high but in a very subtle approach. The muted colour palette really works in the film's favour too. Characters are bathed in pale lighting against darkened backgrounds, making even the uninfected characters look ill or sickly. When one employee gets infected and starts bleeding from the mouth, the crimson red blood dripping down her chin against her grey face makes for an extremely haunting image, one that utilises the mixing of colours to create a jarring visual moment.

Unfortunately, the second half of the film is noticeably worse than the first. Though the conversationalists spouting random words and sentences whilst trying desperately to kill the employees never fails to be creepy, the film cannot be saved by an ending that doesn't really lead anywhere. After saving fellow employee Sydney Briar, played by Lisa Houle, from infection by changing her understanding of her infected word (a solution that doesn't make much sense), Grant believes he can save the rest of infected Pontypool by broadcasting random words and changing their meanings over radio broadcast. Then, the film just ends as the station is presumably bombed by the military. It is an unsatisfactory ending that doesn't make much sense, and the parts that do make sense aren't enough to wrap the film up with a satisfactory conclusion.

Overall, Pontypool is a fantastic watch. Whilst undeniably a horror film, the way it utilises its conventions in a refreshing way with a unique concept is admirable. There are plenty of tense scenes where the viewer will certainly be on the edge of their seat, and for good reason. This film is a masterclass in suspenseful and dread-filled film-making, though the second half cannot make up for the first half, finishing the film off with a lacklustre ending that leaves a lot to be desired.

​SCORE: 7 out of 10.