Contemporary American horror films have a tendency to follow a certain set of narrative conventions and tendencies. Repetitive and one dimensional stock characters are the norm. Lauded as a breath of fresh air for the beleaguered and much maligned genre as so many horror movies have been over the last ten years. The real question is: Can The Cabin in the Woods really bring anything new to the table?

The answer is a resounding yes. Unusually though it is not through reinventing the genre and taking horror in a new direction that makes the film work so well. It is actually the exact opposite. The Cabin in the Woods revels in the conventions and tendencies of the Horror genre in order to take the genre to a new place. The story is so inventive and clever that you as the viewer cant help but wish that you had though of it yourself. Joss Whedon’s script is packed full of respect and knowledge of American horror and also preoccupied with putting a new twist on the old tried and tested clichés by actively making them a mechanical part of a bigger narrative rather than treading old ground.

The Cabin in the Woods also features a final third which is so unbelievably fantastical that it is very hard for even the most ardent critic of Horror films not to have a huge amount of fun. The film also features a superb cameo from a true icon of contemporary American Horror movie history. Although The Cabin in the Woods is for the most part excellent. It is not perfect. Unfortunately some of the performances, particularly that of Kristen Connolly as Dana, the eponymous final girl of the piece, who unfortunately seems to have not fully understood the mechanics of the narrative and seems to be sleepwalking through the film as a result.

This issue aside, The Cabin in the Woods is a devastatingly effective and unapologetically tongue in cheek love letter to the modern American horror movie. Packed with in jokes and references, the film plays like a hugely entertaining lesson in the tendencies and ‘rules’ of the Horror film and how the predictability of Horror films can be used to play with the audience and take the genre to a new and exciting place.

21 Jump Street is the latest in a seemingly never ending slew of remakes to be produced by the Hollywood studio system. This time the classic late 80’s TV series which starred a young Johnny Depp as Officer Tom Hanson is in the firing line. However with the modern audience becoming more and more frustrated with the lack of originality being produced by the big American studios can a 21 Jump Street remake really produce anything fresh to engage with a 2012 audience?In a strange sort of way the answer is yes. Although 21 Jump Street is in many ways derivative of its original and simply covers old, well worn ground and does not bring anything new at all to the table. The film does do one thing which many of its contemporaries don’t; It knows what it is as a film and even plays up to it. Particularly in one scene when Captain Dixon (Ice Cube), head of the Jump Street division essentially tells the audience that the film is ‘A rehash of shit from the 80’s that the department thinks nobody will notice has been done before’ a very self knowing and humorous nod to the films position in 2012 cinema. As well as the film’s attitude of not taking itself too seriously, 21 Jump Street is also, in parts, a lot of fun. Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill work well enough together as Jenko and Schmidt respectively and Ice Cube gets all the best lines as the deliberately cliché and over the top Captain.

Although Jump Street is a lot of fun, it is let down in parts by a so, so script and some truly terrible performances from some of the films chief antagonists. Primarily Dave Franco (brother of James) as cowardly drug dealer Eric Molson and Rob Riggle as the drug supplier Mr Walters. It seems that both Franco and Riggle are thinking only of their pay checks from start to finish. Another issue with the film is its cliché nature; despite its best efforts to play up to its lack of originality, Jump Street is still ultimately a film you could predict from start to finish, including the obligatory original cast cameos, before you enter the cinema which will always leave the audience feeling flat. In this case flat but quite entertained, but flat all the same.

Hammer Films are associated with one of the most successful periods of British Cinema history. The Hammer Horror films of the 1960’s and 70’s were truly revolutionary. Dripping with glorious, bright red blood and anchored by genuine star names such as Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, Hammer Films were untouchable for the best part of 20 years. But unfortunately the quality of the films Hammer was producing was steeply declining. As were the box office returns. This ultimately reduced the house of Hammer, seemingly unstoppable for so long, to rubble. But now, in 2012, Hammer is back with The Woman in Black. The question is, some 30 years after its demise, does Hammer still know what audiences want?

Judging by the quality of The Woman in Black, the answer top that question is a resounding yes. An old fashioned ghost story steeped in the Hammer tradition, the film is one of the most terrifying and psychologically intense Horror movies of this decade so far. The Woman in Black holds the audience in a state of perpetual unease from start to finish. Achieving this with no reliance on convoluted and effects heavy scenes of gratuitous gore; in fact so little is the gore in the film that the BBFC released it with a 12a certificate. This reliance on atmosphere and character development as opposed to gore places great responsibility on the shoulders of the film’s leading man Daniel Radcliffe, playing Arthur Kipps in his first major role post Harry Potter. It is a responsibility which Radcliffe handles brilliantly, aside from a couple of shaky scenes at the start of the film, he is magnificent, his emotionally intense portrayal of a man haunted buy the death of his wife and struggling to provide for his young son has all the nuances required for the audience to make a strong emotional connection with his situation and genuinely care about his fate. However, the strength of the films performances are not restricted to Radcliffe’s turn as he is superbly supported by the always excellent Ciaran Hinds as Daily, a wealthy local who’s only child was taken by the Woman in Black and who assists Kipps in his quest to bring the Woman’s reign of terror to an end.

As well at the superb central performances The Woman in Black also boasts a superbly taught plot and an excellent script written by Jane Goldman and it is this script which director James Watkins (Eden Lake) superbly brings together all of the elements at his disposal to create a truly haunting horror film which stays on the viewers mind well after the closing credits roll. Overall it is very hard to criticise The Woman in Black but the opening, establishing scenes with Kipps and his young son feels somewhat forced and isn’t acted with quite the same urgency as intensity as the rest of the movie. That being said, you will be extremely hard pressed to find a more intense and genuinely frightening horror film. Hammer’s founding fathers would be proud.

Guy Richie’s 2009 reboot of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s most famous creation heralded a long overdue return to form for the English director. But perhaps more importantly, the film was a huge commercial success; taking a massive $524,028,679 box office return from a budget of $90 million. With figures like these a sequel was inevitable; and true to Hollywoodform Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows has followed hot on the heels of its predecessor. Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law return in their roles of Holmes and Watson respectively and Jared Harris joins the cast as Holmes’ ultimate advisory Professor Moriarty.A Game of Shadows is a film that is, in many ways, very difficult to review as it is, both in terms of theme and performance, very similar to its predecessor. Downey Jr and Law still share a strong on screen chemistry and this combination still has the power to captivate and entertain an audience. The two leads are well supported by Kelly Reilly (as the long suffering Mrs Holmes), the underused Jared Harris as Moriarty and the spectacular Stephen Fry who produces a show stealing performance as Mycroft Holmes. Visually, A Game of Shadows is very much consistent with its predecessor with Guy Ritchie continuing to utilise his ultra slick visual style in the period setting of the narrative.

The film does have its problems however. Most notably the use of the character of Moriarty; As Sherlock Holmes’ greatest nemesis, Moriarty’s character was scandalously under utilised in Game of Shadows. This under use of one of the most important characters in the Sherlock Holmes story is extremely disappointing and something of an insult to both Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legacy and the not inconsiderable acting talents of Jared Harris. The film’s plot also feels like a rehash of the first film just with a slightly different supporting cast.

Overall, Game of Shadows is a solid enough sequel which compliments the first film well enough. The film fulfils the audience’s expectations but makes very little effort to expand on the visual and thematic tone established by the first film. Everybody involved in the film gives a functional performance here but nobody involved makes any effort to escape their comfort zone whatsoever. Game of Shadows is, in many ways the very definition of cinematic popcorn fodder.

Martin Scorsese is one of the most well respected American filmmakers of his generation. His work has enthralled and inspired legions of film fans and filmmakers alike for over thirty years. In this long and decorated career however, Scorsese has never before filmed a 3D movie. So, in a way Hugo is something a landmark moment for his career. The main question is; could a filmmaker of Scorsese’s phenomenal talent utilise the technology in a way that breaks new cinematic ground or will he find himself falling into the same old visual and thematic traps as so many of those who have ventured into the third dimension before him.

The answer to this question, I am delighted to say, in an emphatic no; Scorsese manages to craft a film which is a truly immersive 3D experience, the technology compliments the narrative to the movie perfectly (particularly when you consider that one of the major aspects of the plot concerns a man who was one of cinema’s great technological innovators). Scorsese uses the 3D technology to bring the cogs and workings of Hugo’s beloved Automaton to live. He also makes great use of the film’s 3D to really heighten the actor’s emotions. Every subtle facial change is painstakingly captured by Scorsese’s meticulous interpretation of 3D cinema.

Although the film’s 3D is a major talking point, Hugo has far more than that to offer the viewer. The film is at once both a hart rendering tale of a lost child and a broken old man finding a new hope for life and an accurate analysis of the genesis of what many cinephiles identify as the birth of cinema as we know it. As well as its deeply emotive and fascinating narrative, Hugo also boasts some terrific individual performances, most notably from the superb Ben Kingsley as Papa Georges, a toy shop owner with a secret past; and also from young Asa Butterfield as Hugo Cabaret, the young boy who’s story the film tells. The supporting cast also play a crucial role as various outlandish and unusual characters which frequent the train station which has become Hugo’s home. Richard Griffiths, Frances De La Tour, Emily Mortimer, Christopher Lee and Sacha Baron Cohen deserve particular mention.

There can be little doubt that Hugo is comfortably one of the best 3D films to be released since the formats rebirth began in 2008 but that is not to say that it is perfect. Although never boring, the film does feel a little bit on the baggy side coming in at a running time of two hours eight minutes and some characters are not really developed enough; the talents of Jude Law and Ray Winstone are particularly underused as Hugo’s doting father and drunken uncle respectively. Hugo is already being talked about as the first 3D film to win the Best Picture Oscar, perhaps that is a little wide of the mark but if Scorsese is as good as his word and continues to work in 3D, there is little to suggest that he cannot develop his auteuristic style within the technology enough to collect that accolade in the future.

John Carpenter is widely considered to be a “Master of Horror”, which in many ways is accurate as the vast majority of his most critically and commercial films come from that particular genre. However, to write Carpenter off as some kind of one trick pony would be short sighted in the extreme. Carpenter’s genre movies are characterized by his mastery of the art of cinematography, and by the showcasing of engaging narratives that present the viewer with a profound commentary on the many social, racial, gender and sexual anxieties of our modern world. Sometimes misunderstood by critics, Carpenter has made some of the most intense and influential horror films ever made, most notably Halloween (1978), one of the most copied and influential horror films of all time. Carpenters classic spawned seven sequels, a remake and a sequel to the remake with another in the pipeline. Not to mention the slew of copycat slasher movies which dominated American horror in the early to mid 1980’s.

John Carpenter’s debut feature, Dark Star (1974) was produced as part of the directors masters thesis project, under the aegis of the University of Southern California (USC). Dark Star is most notable for being one of the first Sci-Fi films to portray a postmodernist future, years before the likes of Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) and Blade Runner (1981). Another of the films strengths is its unique and imaginative plot. The films arguable highlight being the scene in which the astronauts have a philosophical discussion with a malfunctioning nuclear warhead, trying to talk it down from detonating on board the ship. Despite it being essentially a student film, Dark Star received a limited theatrical release and became an instant cult hit, garnering positive reviews from critics and establishing Carpenter as a smart and inventive filmmaker.

After the success of Dark Star, Carpenter was able to secure funding from an English investor named Michael Myers to make his first ‘professional’ feature film. Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). Effectively an urbanised remake of Howard Hawks’ classic 1959 western Rio Bravo, the film follows the story of a police station under siege by a ruthless and violent gang. A rookie cop, an enigmatic convict on his way to death row, a catatonic man and a determined woman are among the characters that must endure a terrifying, all night, onslaught at the hands of the faceless gang. With this project, Carpenter enjoyed a great deal of creative control, which gave him the opportunity to crave a stylish, ultra violent (The film is one of the very few to show graphically the murder of a child) movie which, assisted by its unrelenting score, grabs the viewer by the collar immediately and does not let go until the end credits. Even as an early entry into the directors oeuvre the film superbly showcases Carpenter’s unique widescreen style. Also, Assault on Precinct 13 clearly shows Carpenters ongoing fixation with Hawksian themes permeates the narrative of Assault, and many of the rest of his films. Heroes that are honest and trustworthy everymen and women faced with impossible odds against an evil villain, the strong bond between characters that seem to have little in common, the never ending battle of the sexes and the collapse of authority institutions.

The success of Assault on Precinct 13 (particularly in Europe) attracted the interest of Syrian investor Moustapha Akkad, who was looking for a director/screenwriter for an idea he had developed. Tentatively titled The Babysitter Murders. The result of this collaboration is one of the most financially successful and imitated independent films ever made. Halloween (1978) is quite simply a masterpiece of suspense. The unrelenting score and the slow build nature of the film’s scares frightened the life out of audiences in 1978 and have been doing the same ever since. Halloween is arguably Carpenter’s masterwork. The story of the young, virginal babysitter played brilliantly by Jamie Lee Curtis, who is stalked by the faceless evil of Michael Myers strikes a chord with audiences to this day. Another aspect of the film which particulally frightened audiences was the fact that the horror was not taking place in some far flung castle or fantastical setting but in suburbia, such an unremarkable setting that it could be anywhere, it could be taking place on your street. This sense of reality was nothing short of revolutionary in the 1970’s.

After the runaway success of Halloween, John Carpenter became one of the most sought after talents in Hollywood. As a result of this, Carpenter managed to retain a high level of creative control with a much increased budget for his next film: The Fog (1980). An eerie, atmospheric and beautifully shot ghost story, The Fog boasts one of the most beautifully crafted opening sequences of Carpenter’s entire career. The Fog was another critical and financial success for Carpenter. As a result of the success of The Fog, Carpenter finally had the level of trust with a large budget and ability to maintain creative control over such a big production to finally get his long gestating dream project off the ground. Escape From New York (1981) is a futuristic action film in which Carpenter depicts a bleak, nihilistic, brutal and fascistic America. Presided over by a totalitarian president (portrayed with gusto by Donald Pleasence) who has to be rescued from Manhattan Island which has become a maximum security prison. The man sent in to save the leader of the ‘free’ world is Snake Plissken, the very image of the outsider, played brilliantly by Kurt Russell in the role of a lifetime. In a way, Escape From New York presents a cynical view of the crime, corruption, greed, and selfishness inherent in contemporaryAmerica. The film was another huge critical and commercial success for Carpenter and is also hugely important in terms of his oeuvre as it marks the last independent film directed by him until 1987 as his next four features were all produced under the aegis of the studio system.

Carpenter’s first film in the studio system was a remake of a classic Science Fiction movie for Universal. The Thing (1982) is nothing short of inspired. One of the greatest Horror films of the 80’s, Carpenter’s remake is a work of paranoid, grotesque brilliance. Carpenter’s visual style is perfectly suited to the rolling hallways and dark corners of the US Antarctic research base. The anonymous nature of the thing creates a great sense of tension amongst the film’s audience, this tension is played brilliantly by the films all male ensemble cast, headed by Kurt Russell as the charismatic MacReady. The Thing also boasts a superbly tense score by legendary composer Ennio Morricone, best known for his work on Sergio Leone’s ‘Spaghetti Westerns’. Unfortunately, The Thing received a very poor critical and financial reception at the time of its release, but in the years since then the film has been critically reassessed and is now considered to be a masterpiece and proof of John Carpenter as a visionary director, ahead of his time. His next film under the studio system was for Columbia Pictures and was an adaptation of the Stephen King novel of the same name. Christine (1983) tells the story of a teenager named Arnie Cunningham’s love for his first car, a 1958 Plymouth Fury named Christine, which turns into a violent and supernatural obsession which ultimately consumes Arnie. The film was a moderate box office success and received mixed reviews from the critics. After Christine, Carpenter directed Starman (1984) again for Columbia. The film tells the story of a young widow who falls in love with an alien who assumes the form of her late husband. It is a sweet and well directed romance movie for which Jeff Bridges was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Academy award. Carpenter then crossed to Twentieth Century Fox to make one of the most interesting films of his career. Big Trouble in Little China (1986). The film’s plot centres around a charismatic trucker named Jack Burton (Kurt Russell) who stumbles into a centuries old mystical battle inChinatown. Russell’s character is in many ways the antithesis of the traditional American action hero, he is a clumsy, ignorant fool and in no way the invincible, iconic hero that American audiences in the 80’s were used to. As a result of this the film wasn’t particularly successful commercially or critically but has since been positively reassessed. Further proof that Carpenter’s work is often ahead of the time in which it was made.

After directing four films in the Hollywood studio system, Carpenter became disillusioned with the constant interference from executives and a lack of support for his visions. Carpenter’s ambition was to return to his roots in independent filmmaking. This frustration meant that Carpenter’s next two films were made in the independent arena. The move proved to be an inspired one as the two films turned out to be two of his most imaginative and provocative works. The first of these films, Prince of Darkness (1987) marks not only Carpenter’s return to independent Horror cinema but also his third collaboration with Donald Pleasence. The film is a Lovecraftian tale touching on varied subjects such as the occult, demonology and theoretical physics. Whilst Carpenter also finds room within the films plot to offer an incisive commentary on the structure of faith and religion. Prince of Darkness is one of Carpenter’s most underrated films. From a technical point of view the film is almost flawless and the unremitting intensity of the closing fifteen minutes is a superb example of the perfect use of pace and rhythm. In his next film, Carpenter had the opportunity to explore important issues of consumerism, poverty and class segregation in modern day Los Angeles. They Live (1988) is in many ways Carpenter’s most ambitious film to date. They Live depicts a world where specially designed sunglasses allow the wearer to see the world as it really is: All of those in positions of power and authority are actually aliens who are secretly exploiting the Earth’s resources and repressing the people of the planet. This film was way ahead of its time and in some ways predates and predicts The Matrix (1999).

After They Live, Carpenter took a four year hiatus from filmmaking, returning to the big screen in 1992 with Memoirs of an Invisible Man, which is easily his least interesting film. However, three years later in 1995, Carpenter returned with a fantastic movie which must go down as one of the very best of his career: In the Mouth of Madness is quite simply a staggering and visionary work. Similarly to Prince of Darkness, In the Mouth of Madness explores Lovecraftian themes of cosmic horror. This apocalyptic movie explores the provocative idea of horror novels causing schizophrenia in their readership whilst opening doors to unfathomable worlds beyond the mortal realm. The narrative style of the film is completely non-linear and Carpenter uses space and time dislocation and viewer disorientation to create a nightmarish world. Most importantly, In the Mouth of Madness is a self-aware movie which invites the viewer to think about the paradoxical nature of cinema.

After the disappointing remake of Village of the Damned (1995), Carpenter made three films which explored and deconstructed the themes of his beloved western: Escape From LA (1996), Vampires (1998) and Ghosts of Mars (2001) are, on the face of it Sci Fi/Horror movies but their narrative construction and mythological structure have more in common with the classic Westerns of John Ford and Sergio Leone and his filmmaking hero Howard Hawks. These films showcase tough and on the face of it unemotional professionals with mercenary spirits, who battle a powerful evil in the middle of a desolate landscape. By the end of their adventure, their triumph is to rediscover their human nature. All of these movies most certainly have their flaws but they do accurately represent the visual and thematic consistencies of Carpenter’s body of work.

After the financial and critical massacre of Ghosts of Mars had such a profound effect on Carpenter that he didn’t make another film for ten years. But in 2011, Carpenter finally made his return to the big screen with The Ward, a Horror/Thriller centred on the story of an institutionalised young woman (Amber Heard) who is terrified by a ghost. Although by no means his best film, The Ward comes as a very timely reminder to modern audiences what it feels like to be taken on a scare ride by a true master of Horror.

The career of John Carpenter has spanned 35 years and has had many ups and downs but what cannot be denied is the importance and influence of his work. Carpenter has directed some of the most successful, imaginative, provocative, intense and frightening films in all of cinema history. In addition to this, a number of his films were clearly ahead of their time, and have been reassessed by critics in recent years. Films such as The Thing, They Live and In the Mouth of Madness have established carpenter as a visionary of fantastical cinema.

Once again we find ourselves at that time of year where the films contending for honours at the Academy Awards begin to be released. One of the first to be released this year is Drive. The film revolves around the Driver, played brilliantly by Ryan Gosling, a Hollywood stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver who discovers a bounty has been placed on his head after a heist goes wrong.Directed masterfully by the talented Nicolas Winding Refn (Bronson), Drive is a truly masterful exercise in suspense and action. One of the many great features of the film is its action sequences. Which are inventively directed and uniquely shot. The film is also superbly edited; this strong edit means that the film is very lean and taught, without any scenes that feel baggy or unnecessary. As well as Gosling’s excellent performance, Drive also features a superb turn from Carey Mulligan as the Driver’s on/off love interest Irene. In addition to the superb work by the two leads, the film also boasts some impressive supporting performances; most notably by Ron Perlman as Nino and Albert Brooks as Bernie Rose. The latter of which must be a contender for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar.

One aspect of the film that I was worried about before it came out was its 80’s centric soundtrack and promotion as it would be very easy to overdo it and for the 80’s theme to come across as cliché. However, Winding Refn handles it perfectly and it compliments the theme and look of the film brilliantly. The soundtrack is actually one of THE stand out elements of the film alongside the superb performances and unique direction.

Drive is a truly superb, artistic and intelligent movie which riffs on the classic car movies of the 70’s and 80’s. Ryan Gosling is outstanding in the lead role and is brilliantly supported by Carey Mulligan, Ron Perlman and Albert Brooks. Also, all of these elements are superbly brought together by the visionary direction of Nicolas Winding Refn, one of the most talented upcoming directors in the world today.

Once in a while a film comes around which boasts such an incredible cast that it becomes a must see film event. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is one such film. Boasting a remarkable cast including: Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, John Hurt, Benedict Cumberbatch, Colin Firth, Toby Jones, Mark Strong and Ciaran Hinds. In addition to this remarkable cast the film is helmed by Tomas Alfredson, the acclaimed director of Let the Right One In (2008). The film is a remake of the classic 1979 TV series starring Alec Guinness and based on John Le Carre’s 1974 novel. The film’s plot revolves around intelligence veteran George Smiley (Oldman) and his mission to find a Soviet agent buried at the very top of MI6.The first thing to say about the film is that, as the cast list may give away, the standard of performance from all of the actors in the film is simply extraordinary, to the extent that it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint any actor for praise above the others. However, Gary Oldman’s performance as Smiley and Tom Hardy’s turn as Ricki Tarr, an MI5 field agent who assists Smiley in uncovering the mole, steal the show in my opinion.

In addition to the terrific ensemble cast’s performances, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is absolutely beautifully shot. The film is an absolute delight to look at and it’s twisting and turning narrative only enhances the beauty and importance of every shot of the movie. The plot is also vital in the phenomenal quality of the film, it twists and turns and weaves an intricate web of intrigue which does not fully unwind until the very end of the movie. Because of this slowly unwinding nature of the narrative the audience does not know the identity of the mole until the films close. The key reason that the unfolding of the narrative is so effective is the superbly intelligent and incisive direction of Tomas Alfredson, whose vision and execution is so impressive that it simply has to be admired for what it is. Direction of the very highest standard.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy has been lauded by many critics as an early Academy Award contender. This could not be truer. In fact if Gary Oldman isn’t nominated for Best Actor along with Tom Hardy in the Best Supporting Actor category I, for one will be amazed, the film itself and its Director must both be nominated for the top awards as well. It is just unfortunate that great films such as Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy do not grace our screens more often.

The Inbetweeners is one of the most successful British series of the last ten years. Its simple plot and characters that the vast majority of males of a certain age can identify strongly with was the recipe which brought the series massive popular and critical acclaim. After three series however the formula began to become a little stagnant. With this in mind, producers Bwark decided not to complete the story with a fourth series instead opting for the format of a feature film.This idea works very well indeed. The framework of the feature film is the perfect vehicle for The Inbetweeners story at this stage. At a lean 97 minutes in length the film speeds along nicely and the running time is packed with the laugh out loud and cringe worthy moments that fans of The Inbetweeners have come to love over the last 3 years. The performances are all solid enough and all of the cast seem to be genuinely having a ball making the movie. As I have already mentioned, a movie like The Inbetweeners is purely and simply judged on the quality of the laughs in the film. Thankfully the gags are terrific; the film is so packed with brilliant, and gross, laugh out loud moments that it is almost impossible to pick a highlight or favourite moment.

Although The Inbetweeners is a terrifically funny film it is by no means a perfect one. It is slightly hamstrung by two issues; firstly, the direction: Ben Palmer’s direction of the movie is a little lacklustre and does not make best advantage of the cinematic medium, this is perhaps because Palmer has only ever directed for Television previously, the decision to select a Director with no previous film experience whatsoever is undoubtedly a questionable one. My second issue with the film is its ending. Although the fluffy wish fulfilling ending of the film no doubt allows the vast majority of the audience to leave happy it is totally predictable, from the point that the group of girls are first introduced to the audience, that the events which take place at the end of the film are going to happen, this predictability does hamper the viewers enjoyment slightly and causes viewer interest in the love story of the film to dip in favour of the gross out gags.

Overall, The Inbetweeners Movie delivers exactly what its target audience expects and demands. It is not the most mentally taxing watch but it absolutely shouldn’t be. The film is pure, unadulterated fun. Nothing more, nothing less; and frankly the film industry needs films like The Inbetweeners. So go into the cinema with an open mind, don’t try to critically assess every frame and just sit back and enjoy the fun. Do this and you will be rewarded with a hugely entertaining cinematic experience.

JJ Abrams is a director who most certainly knows how to utilise the hype machine to its fullest to promote one of his movies and it has been no different in the lead up to the highly anticipated release of Super 8. The film tells the story of a group of young friends who witness a catastrophic train crash whilst making a zombie movie. During which something mysterious and quite possibly extra terrestrial escapes from the wreckage. The finished result is undoubtedly a slick, cool sci-fi action film, but is also by no means perfect.Super 8 does showcase a superb eye for framing and composition by its director and the film also has a lot more soul than other blockbusters of its type such as the Transformers films. Another of Super 8’s greatest strengths is the train crash sequence, which is a simply breathtaking scene showcasing some truly great moments of action and tension. Another aspect of the film which was enjoyable was some of the exchanges between the young stars of the film. Particularly between Joe (Joel Courtney) and Charles (Riley Griffiths).

For all its strengths however, Super 8 has some real issues as well. In particular its narrative structure, the film is basically a remake of E.T (1982) which somewhat compromises the reputation that the films makes have encouraged for it that Super 8 is a throwback to a time when science fiction cinema was more original and not one remake and reboot after another. Given the films close similarities to E.T  this suggestion seems to be at least a little disingenuous. Another thing that struck me when I went to see the film with friends who are not particularly academic was the title of the film itself. I had to explain to my friends after the film what Super 8 relates to in the film as it is never really addressed by Abrams and the more I thought about it the more that the title struck me as strange and a little bit of film geekery for geekerys sake. Another aspect of the film which frustrated me particularly was the use of the well warn cliché of the child from a broken home which was extremely vigorously shoehorned into the plot despite it being of no real consequence to the plot and structure of the film whatsoever.

Overall, the film is a solid sci-fi action movie, but is certainly not some kind of revisionist science fiction modern classic which has shone a light on the anaemic, repetitive garbage which has been passed off as sci-fi for the last ten years, Super 8 is in fact a part of that problem to a degree. However, the film is an improvement on many of the recent sci-fi offerings of the last few years.