So, Christmas is over and you're desperately in need of something funny to deter those post-Christmas blues. Why Him? can offer you something more than just 'funny'. It's downright blinkin' hilarious. It's Bryan Cranston vs James Franco in this new bizarre take on the 'Meet the Parents' tale. Nothing spectacularly extraordinary, but this relationship definitely isn't ordinary. 

Whether you've had to meet the parents, or the new partner of someone, or you are simply a person involved in this weird but inevitable relationship triangle, you might be able to relate to the premise of Why Him? Over the holidays (so it is a Christmas movie - kinda), Father Ned (Bryan Cranston) and fam go and visit Daughter Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) at college...and Boyfriend Laird (James Franco). One is overprotective but loving, one's not as innocent as she looks, one's well-meaning but these meanings manifest themselves in peculiar ways. For example, he wants to get a Christmas tree so he cuts one down...from someone else's front yard. And he heard Ned liked to bowl so he built a bowling alley complete with cheesy mural. You get the gist. This is basically the film - event by event, Laird tries to win the approval of Ned, doing something nonsensical and getting a priceless reaction from Cranston. Both have no 'chill' level.

This is a modern comedy, with modern Japanese toilet jokes, Siri on steroids (voiced by Kaley Cuoco), explanations as to why "totally" should be abbreviated to "totes", Facetime mishaps, and cameos from Steve Aoki (electro house DJ dude with long hair). That said, it uses the same old, crude gags time and time again. If you're ok with that then it's a pretty fine, funny film. If you need something to push your laughter to new levels then this is not it. The whole 'meet the parents' thing is hardly an original concept, but I think Franco's character of Laird is different. I imagine might be how James Franco is In Real Life (ok, maybe a tad exaggerated..) but we have a strangely likeable character even if he is "literally has no filter".

The film seems to have come about from one simple story ('Father meets daughter's crazy boyfriend'), then everything else - all the details and frills - are like a story-writer just thought "Oh, how about we add this too?" One of the standout (and most bizarre) additions is Butler/Best Pal/Self-defence Coach Gustav bringing an extra level of woah just when you thought it couldn't get more woaaah. If I told you it's a comedy but contains martial arts, you'd understand. Slightly. It's not really necessary, but none of this is. It doesn't really bother building much of a backstory; they just jump straight into it. Yet somehow it's about 2 hours long! If the film is in stages, Stage 1 is already in full gear, but the last stage lets it down a bit, and any resolutions are reached in a surprisingly simple way.

Each character of the film is given a very straight-forward and clear dynamic, personality and path. After the first 10 minutes, it's even clearer what their paths throughout the film will be. And of course, in Laird and Ned, what we have is two polar opposites...the free-spirited nature of Laird vs the strict Ned, out-there and foul-mouthed vs collected and reserved, an Internet entrepreneur vs someone whose company is based in print. (FYI I don't think print is actually dying, but whatever.) And the film tries to convince us they're actually pretty similar. I'm not too sure about that but I do have to commend Bryan Cranston because I'm sure parents from all over will be able to relate to him, plus he slips so effortlessly into his comedy boots. He's the typical dad who can't bear to see his little girl all grown up and his facial expressions (aka 100 ways to show "what on earth!?" on your face) are in fine form...all 100 of them.

Although I suffered from belly laughs and laughing so hard at each antic it hurt, the antic-and-response format may drive you insane. I'm also not exactly sure how the romantic pairing between Deutch and Franco works, but I guess the stark contrast of character is needed more than the romantic chemistry. Before I decided I was way too old to watch it, I used to watch a Disney Channel show called Suite Life on Deck which featured an actress called Zoey Deutch. Fast forward a few years and she's playing the voice of reason (somewhat) between the two most important men in her life, yet I am still more convinced on her chemistry with Zack (of Zack and Cody fame, ya'know). And it's this bit that causes me to struggle, like Ned, with "Why Him?" There are answers though, plus anything to get Ned riled up a little bit more.

Sure, there are cliches littered about, but I doubt you would have predicted Franco having a family Christmas card tattooed on his back, am I right?  It utilises fantastic leads and a fantastic cast (also with Megan Mullally, Adam DeVine and others), all very capable of making us laugh. Comedic timing shouldn't be taken for granted either. When I accept the film for what it is, just like Ned hopefully accepting Laird as who he is, I get a good fun, pleasantly unpleasant film.

Get the lowdown of Why Him? here:

It's a Star Wars movie but it's not a Star Wars movie. You know the opening scrolling text, the "...in a galaxy far, far away..." bit? The rolling titles of A New Hope are now otherwise known as Rogue One. It's gone rogue in some senses, but the heart of the Star Wars story remains. There are stunning space scenes, expanding galaxies, kick-ass action heroes, and oh - Vader's back. It's an inter-galactic feast and Christmas present come early. 

Dun, dun, duun, dunnn, dun, dunn, dunnn, dun, dunnnn. Whilst it may not be an exact copy of the iconic music, it honours the original score and puts a new edgier spin on it. Just like the soundtrack, Rogue One brings us back into familiar ground after 2015's The Force Awakens except this time it's the prequel not the sequel. In case you ever thought George Lucas's first trilogy and second trilogy were a mis-match of sorts, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story should hopefully bridge the murky gap whilst providing an entertaining story for old and new fans alike. In a Jedi-free time, the Rebel Alliance are battling the evil Empire who have an evil planet-destroying masterplan: the Death Star. But wait, there may be a way to save the day!

A few years ago, Disney bought the rights to Star Wars and we all went ballistic. "Six films weren't enough!?" "What about Georgey Lucas?" "What a cash cow...now they want standalone films too?" "Boo Star Wars, you're dead to me." These are all things I imagine we/The Internet said or thought at one point. Having grown up with I definitely wasn't convinced. However, The Force Awakens was pretty cool and now we can fawn over Rogue One whilst looking forward to the next film and the Han Solo prequel. It is far more original, though still carries over-familiar plot points like an all-important hologram, searching for a missing character, family issues and separation, a lonely childhood and vengeance.


Jyn Erso (played by a brill Felicity Jones and yes it is pronounced 'gin') is the token leader and a natural hero despite her ex-con background; she's thrust into the limelight without more than a second glance and you know she's capable of holding her own. Jyn and Jones, that is. I had reservations about her being a bit too similar to Rey (Daisy Ridley) but that thought never cropped up during the film. The nearly-English accent was slightly off-putting, however - yep I'm just being picky now. Joining Jyn is Diego Luna's Cassian Andor who is quite a prominent rebel with a less obvious agenda. It's a straight-forward partnership, but the only emotional weight is that towards Jyn's character and her father (Mads Mikkelsen) so everyone else is cool but you may have forgotten their names by the end of it. However, you do get memorable one-liners and humour from deadpan droid K-2SO (Alan Tudyk), and the show is practically stolen by Donnie Yen's character. Chirrut Îmwe is one who is one with the force; he may be blind but that doesn't stop him from kicking ass and being the bravest character on-screen. Thanks to the Force, obvs...a definite welcome surprise. 



Baddie-wise, it's not like there is one big villain focus who everyone should fight against, and this is where it diverges from the Star Wars diagram. Instead, the opportunity is taken to highlight the continued rise of the Empire, and some slimy Imperial guys like Grand Moff Tarkin, plus there is some Darth Vader for good measure. He isn't as scary as I remembered as a kid, but the menace is there, and he even gets to deliver a cracking pun. Finally, there are triumphant digital resurrections which celebrate the kind of technology we get in 2016. Lucky us!

2016 also brings about near-flawless special effects and complete transportation to whichever galaxy we're in at the time. Star Wars was always ahead of its time, CGI-wise, and the beauty of Rogue One's visuals is that we never question or doubt where we are. I love any films with space because we get utter spectacles that just get better with time.Composer Michael Giacchino also does a stellar job with the music. Director Gareth Edwards was at the helm of 2014's Godzilla reboot so he isn't afraid to cause large scale chaos and destruction to the planets featured.

Going back to how Rogue One is essentially a few paragraphs of text in A New Hope, it's fair to say we most likely know what will happen. However, the way the cast and crew bring that to life must be admired, and I don't feel like we're ever struggling for a story or for script. It's risky but in safe hands at the same time. The 'rebel' theme could be seen as quite political, but in the grand scheme of things it makes total sense amongst the Star Wars saga. You can still rebel against rebels, as it turns out. Lots of people have also been buzzing about the film's final act, which, with its last battle on the beach, could be mistaken for a regular non-spacey war film. Ignoring the silly "BIG RED BUTTON, PRESS HERE" (or thereabouts), it has lots to get you talking about.

Before Rogue One was released, we were promised a "grittier" Star Wars, and with some conscious risks, it delivers. This time it is a firm standalone episode, but it has enough familiarity to feel like a part of the SW family and journey. I think the fact that it had much less hype than the Star Wars release last year means it gets to slide under the radar as a surprise triumph, and will carry on building momentum. I'm not going to say it's the best one, or is namedrop which films it's better/worse than, but it is up there as a very entertaining film. Actually, that's a lie. It's much better than 1, 2 and 3.



Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is in cinemas now.

There are many reasons why La La Land has been met with unanimous acclaim. Here, I use 1037 words to try and echo why I completely agree and why this makes it into my ALL TIME FAVOURITES list! 

I'm so excited to write about this film. I first watched it at the London Film Festival over 2 months ago (!) and the excitement is still just as extreme as when I walked out of that cinema. That La La Land hype has been brewing ever since audiences first caught a glimpse of it, and rightly so. Heck, I even walked through those doors slightly skeptical and expecting a cheesy half-arsed musical but I couldn't have been more wrong. Since then, I've been treated to a surprise visit from Ryan Gosling himself, I've watched it again (thanks to the FDA) and am 1000% going to watch it for a 3rd, 4th and 5th time when it finally la-la-lands in UK cinemas in January. These are the easiest 5 stars I've given out in a while. I'm just as starry-eyed as they are.

Where to begin? The synopsis can be condensed into one sentence: A jazz pianist falls for an aspiring actress in Los Angeles. Enter Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone as the mesmerising leads Seb and Mia, in a film that wows more than a musical, and has far more oomph than a romantic-comedy-slash-drama. And in some scenes, it's downright unapologetically bonkers. It's about following your dreams, and yes there may be musical numbers that may seem horrendous on paper, but give it a try because it's better than you could dream it (unless you are director Damien Chazelle, that is). As soon as boy meets girl, you get the warm fuzzy feeling of an old romantic movie. It's a simple plot, and arguably predictable in places, but it is encapsulated and portrayed in such an ambitious and dynamic manner that you'll want to give it a standing ovation. The story plays out like a fantastic musical number, with all the highs and lows you look for in a film.

A lot of this is down to Gosling and Stone, who are reunited on-screen again (following 2011's Crazy, Stupid, Love and 2013's Gangster Squad). It's clear that they have chemistry (it's the best it has ever been here), and the casting is perfect, but who would have thought singing and dancing would be in their lists of skills too? Supporting cast are really just supporting - even John Legend, and this is a film for the two leads who sing and dance their way through their love story. They shine just like the stars in their surreal planetarium dance routine (one to note), and as brightly as they do in real life Hollywood. As Stone was probably once a struggling actress too, you begin to wonder how much art is imitating reality, but it's reflected in such a powerful and wide-eyed relatable performance (Oscar-nom alarm bells #1). Then you have Gosling, whose smirks and quips are hella entertaining, and that's before he even begins playing the piano - something he learnt especially for La La Land (Oscar-nom alarm bells #2). These are both world-class entertainers with a 'best in class' performance for us all.

The actual characters are vulnerable and relatable and extremely well written. Sure, I'm not an actor or musician but it strikes chords in the least expected places and I'd expect it'll do the same for you. After all, everybody has a dream and this is a film for dreamers. With characters seemingly stuck in the past - in two time periods in fact - it's a clash of culture when you see mustang upon mustang...followed by an iPhone. Times and timing is everything, as you will soon discover.

One of the other 'wow-factor' elements is the way everything is portrayed - it's one big, fat, giant showcase of "wow". There are some astonishing pieces of imagination where every inch of the screen comes to life, plus some really intricate attention to detail. I'm talking production value and a show-stopping opening scene, stunning purple sunsets, cinematography (Oscar-nom alarm bells #3), freeze-frame moments that put all your Mannequin Challenges to shame, glorious light and shade, and some fantastic set design. Yet sometimes it's the intimate performances that can have the most impact, thanks to Stone and Gosling conveying the pages and pages of script in a single facial expression. They're the only people in the room, and the cinematic version of the stage spotlight works so well.

And of course, we have to talk about the music. With six original songs, all worthy of Broadway and West End recognition, they deserve to be talked about. The songs are powerful and catchy (I can probably sing most of them back without prompting), and poetic, adding that extra layer of drama whilst somehow managing not to be cheesy. Musical motifs are used as a strong mechanic, and the power of silence is goosebump-inducing. There's this one line that goes "here's to the ones who dream", and a combination of everything plus Emma Stone's soft but emotional voice, can make a grown man cry. Probably. As someone with a musical background myself, playing piano for nearly two decades, I also have to applaud Gosling 'cos he makes me and my piano pieces look really bad.

I did say this film is a basic boy-meets-girl scenario, but it's the diving into dreams theme that was my immediate talking point as I walked down the streets of Leicester Square, sobbing away and analysing every aspect of my life so far. How's that for a post-cinema response? La La Land flickers from dream to reality to dream until you're dizzy just deciding which one is which. It's about pipeline dreams and growing up, the sacrifices, trying and failing, the foolish dreams, the hearts that ache and the mess we make...

I could add a whole bunch of Oscar nomination alarm bells as I try to wrap up my thoughts on a magical 2 hours and 8 minute masterpiece. Old Hollywood meets a modern age. Two actors totally steal the show - and all the other shows around. It's a film with more la-la-layers than a la-la-lasagne, ready to tell a story in an unforgettable way. I'm ready for this to la-la-land a whole load of awards next year and for the whole world to be able to watch it and talk about it with me. But for now, I just cannot wait to watch it again.


La La Land is in US cinemas from 9th and 16th December. Other audiences have to wait a little longer, awww.

A United Kingdom is a biographical romantic drama re-telling the tale of real life couple Sir Seretse Khama and his wife Ruth Williams Khama. It's a love story defying opposition with triumphant moments within history you probably weren't aware of previously. 

Unity is a common topic to talk about these days, it seems...and A United Kingdom is a film about politics, albeit a biographical one set decades ago. Primarily, however, it's a real life love story about love overcoming great odds. The unity in question concerns Seretse Khama and Ruth Williams, and his native Bechuanaland (nowadays Botswana). When an ordinary woman from Londoner falls in love with a man who turns out to be the Chief of one of the biggest tribes in Bechuanaland (basically a prince), all hell breaks loose for the star-crossed lovers. It's an inter-racial relationship in a time where it was not warmly received, for one.  Secondly, it opens a whole can of political tension worms, involving family tribal feuds, the British empire and the South African Apartheid. A whole load of events take place, lots of "we will get through this together", wrapped up in a film that is overall just quite sweet.

While you have to admire the straightforward love, there's less emphasis on the build-up. There's some meaningful eye contact, a dance, a couple of dates and then BAAM it's like death us do part in 5 minutes. There is some sincerity and sweetness between the two, but I wasn't totally convinced on the "I love you so much I'd do anything for you" part and I think it's simply down to rushing the courtship front a bit too quickly at the start of the film. That said, you do have to admire how loyal they were to each other. Ruth, with being able to pack up everything and move to Bechuanaland for the man she loves without batting an eyelid. The opposition from locals with having a white foreign woman being their queen was harsh but very believable on screen and Rosamund Pike's demonstration of inner strength is admirable. There's also the pressure from their families, colonial authorities, the British government, general rude people on the street, and the fact that it raises such a stance against neighbouring South Africa - whether unwittingly or not. If your love can withstand all of that, people would say "make that into a film" and that's exactly what has happened. It's not just a love story, but a journey - and that's what makes it so charming.

Once the film moves from London to Bechuanaland, it comes to life. The animals, the stunning views, the villages and villagers... I love the natural setting and that they spent a lot of time filming in Botswana - I really felt transported there. The gorgeous plains and simple village life are a stark contrast from the grey and dreary London.

The other contrast between the hopeful newlyweds and the British Empire baddies is somewhat exaggerated - Tom Felton and Jack Davenport play hard-nosed and slimy characters that are written to instantly dislike and mistrust. Poor Felton can't get through a sentence without wrinkling his nose in disgust. Davenport's character Alistair Canning also manages to be constantly travelling the world constantly despite it being the late 40s.


It has a strong message, but the film kinda just stays on one level. Don't get me wrong, it's a consistent level, but it just kinda strolls along, turning pages but this is a book you could easily put down at any given moment. The messages are delivered powerfully, however, and the film's big speeches were the moments that gave me goosebumps. What really works is the way it makes you root so hard for the couple. There's definitely things we can learn here about loyalty, love and defiance.

Ignoring the cheesy poster that's plastered on public transport everywhere (and the acting which borders on cheesy), this is a remarkable story that can inspire you. I never really doubted they would be kept apart, but it's a story of hope and overcoming obstacles and maybe we could use a little more of that in our lives.

A United Kingdom is in cinemas now.


A big thanks to the FDA for the advanced screening!

When I attended this year's London Film Festival, Snowden was quite high up on my 'ones to watch' list. Oliver Stone's latest film casts Joseph Gordon-Levitt as one of the world's most well-known whistleblowers. It casts light on events that happened as recently as 2013 and revisits the real world issue of mass surveillance and 'too much information'. The end result is a solid film that tells the story but unlike Snowden himself, doesn't break too many boundaries.

It's important to note that this is, indeed, a true story. Edward Snowden is a name you'll remember from recent headlines of this past decade, even if you don't remember/know too much about the events that put his name there. Director Oliver Stone has done a great job of putting the whole thing together simply but effectively, mixing up the timeline a little to re-break the news story. It begins with Snowden's first serving of the USA in 2004 - and the film does deliver in servings in a different sense, chapter by chapter building up the bigger picture that leads to the outcome we're well aware of the entire time: Snowden leaking thousands of documents of national security into the public domain. Stone and Gordon-Levitt actually met with Snowden several times, and consulted writers on the topic, so it definitely lends to its authenticity and knowing you'll get more than just a Wikipedia search result.

The film also puts a spotlight on the relationship between Snowden and his girlfriend Lindsay Mills (played by Shailene Woodley). In fact, the two plots become pretty much intertwined and you begin to wonder how much of this has been played up for the Hollywood romance card. For me, the spotlight was shone a tad too brightly. It does, however, bring a healthy political debate into the domain early on in the 134 minutes. It also adds the much-needed human element to the whole thing, and makes "Ed" a guy you want to back - both in his career and love life. It's all very sweet really, especially when you see the sacrifices Lindsay's made for her man including moving to live with him in Russia now.

The supporting characters are more polarising - there's Rhys Ifans as Corbin (not Conan) O'Brian, a CIA senior who oversees new recruits and seems to be a BNIC (big name in CIA). Or in the film version, anyway. He's an exaggerated character there to give you the flip side. He's the mentor figure...he believes in Snowden, takes him out for country walks and shooting and stuff... Then there's Nicholas Cage who plays professor Hank Forrester, and stops you right there to say, "Blimey, there's Nicholas Cage." His role also extends to voicing another opinion and speaking the harsh truth. A very accomplished cast listing extends to include names such as Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto and Timothy Olyphant, all given quite minor roles.

As mentioned, 134 minutes is unnecessarily heavy; the revelations are gradual but the sense of urgency is almost lost in most places even though it's supposed to be a blatant race against time. It's a solid portrayal but I can't help thinking it could make much bigger waves of impact than simply retelling the story. It feels dramatic yet restrained, though I couldn't pinpoint where and how I'd make it go bigger and better (like this year's Spotlight, on a similar current affairs vein).

On the other hand, one really strong highlight is undeniably Joseph Gordon-Levitt's portrayal of Edward Snowden. It's not just the uncanny voice and the hair and makeup, it's his commitment to the role and ability to command attention as a softly spoken computer genius. I also feel as though I know much more about who he is as a person now, even if it is through somebody else. Obviously casting is an important choice, and they've done very well at it here. Whilst there are many Hollywood stars raising eyebrows through their portrayals of well-known people, JGL is not one of them.

From the get-go, Snowden's painted as a patriot. And the film rests on his disappointment with the government's dealing with spying, essentially. Spying on everyone, that is. You'll be making the decision of whether he still is a patriot, or whether he is a traitor, or simply someone with such a big moral conscience that he simply can't conform any longer. Whether you agree with his actions or not, it does open up a big conversation - one that definitely isn't had frequently enough even now three years after the story first broke. I remember having high school class debates many years ago over whether too much CCTV is a good thing or not, but now imagine that surveillance is everywhere...through your phones, the webcam you've forgotten about sitting on your laptop...  It's a big deal! It's also easy to personify agencies like the NSA, CIA or whoever, but it's clear what sort of personalities they are given in this film, and it's even clearer which side of the fence Stone sits on. Snowden is hailed a hero, but it's almost too much.

One flaw I'd point out is that it seems dreadfully easy for all these files to be obtained. Maybe the filmmakers simplified the process, but it is essentially a flash drive and a clever getaway car*. (*Not actually a car.) In the same way, I think Snowden is actually a bit easy in the sense that it doesn't feel nearly as groundbreaking as it ought to be - and is in reality. Still, it's well worth a watch and you'll walk away from the cinema knowing more than when you went in, reigniting the information debate. And that's not a bad thing at all.

Snowden is in UK cinemas on 9th December.

J.K. Rowling invites you to experience a brand new chapter, full of life, magic and a charming host named Newt Scamander. If you think about it, the plot is really simple: Brit abroad loses his suitcase and a bunch of crazy stuff happens. But it's the fantastic beasts that bring it to life and live up to their name, added to the effortless weaving of all these elements of the wider spell-binding wizarding world. It's no longer just the wizarding world of Harry Potter - the universe just got a whole lot bigger in more ways than one.

It's 1926 and a young fumbling British chap named Newt has just stepped off a ferry and into New York. He's clutching a mysterious brown briefcase and he's here on his own, with not much indication as to why he's here. After a classic sitcom-worthy mishap, the briefcase (which holds numerous fantastic beasts and really doesn't have a very good lock) unleashes a few of these mythical creatures into the Big Apple and before you know it, the game of hide and seek begins.

Needless to say, I grew up with the Harry Potter generation and the cultural shaping of childhoods. Whilst I enjoyed the books and films, I couldn't class myself as a super-fan but I was definitely excited to see what Rowling, Director David Yates and co. could do to stretch their imagination - and ours. This part of the franchise has been growing up with its original younger audience, and now it's no longer about making friends on the first day of high school and encountering bullies, but the big city life - bank loans, demotions and all. Don't expect it to be 'another Harry Potter film' cos it ain't. The feel of it is completely different, but give it a chance to impress you because it surely will. Plus, all the familiar magical tie-ins will be an added bonus. I treated it as a standalone film and was amazed as I half-expected it to fall flat. Turns out you don't have to have a whole series of critically-acclaimed novels when you have the author at the helm of the captivating story and script. And with 4 further installments, she's not going anywhere.

Newt may not be a special kid with a scar, but he carries the film's weight on his shoulders especially well, and he too makes friends in a new place. It wouldn't be a not-Potter-Harry-Potter film without the importance of friendship, and this is where the new characters of Porpentina 'Tina' (Katherine Waterston) her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol), and factory worker Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) come in. Whereas Potter et al. had 8 films to develop characters, Fantastic Beasts manages to do it successfully (to a lesser extent of course) within the smaller time-frame. Granted, there's only 4 or 5 characters you actually care about, but there's time to grow the wizarding family. Kowalski doubles up as the sometimes-slapstick comic relief, especially since he - like us - is new to all this. You're never short of a laugh when he's on screen. Then there's Tina, a straight-faced demoted investigator who is trying to bring Newt in to the Ministry of the MACUSA (Magical Congress of the USA) and does get less annoying throughout the film as she and Newt grow closer. I remembered her well from the trailers, but it was actually Queenie and Jacob who were the surprise highlights. The more fantastic of the fantastic beasts have heaps of personality and sidekick moments with Newt too.


It also wouldn't be a Potter-ish film if there weren't dark forces and magic lurking about. There's some sort of evil destructive wind sweeping across NYC, a spectre that reminds me of Ghostbusters. Yep. But what is the cause?? Additionally, 'Obscurials' are formally introduced - dark forces created by young wizards who suppress their power, becoming like a parasite in a host body. Unstable and dangerous, it's likely the cause is being abused for being magical. With this, the film actually has a surprisingly dark undertone, and it's all very mysterious although there are answered questions by the end of it. (It almost feels like there are two contrasting films running in parallel for much of it, and it only comes together in the third and final act.) There are also darker characters, with witch-hunting foster mothers, creepy little girls chanting, a brilliant Ezra Miller who plays a troubled and brilliant Credence, and Colin Farrell who plays a manipulative Percival Graves who likes to corner people on dark alleys.

As for Newt himself, he's not claiming to be an all-powerful wizard who can do spectacular things and battle the bad guys; his charm lies in his love for these magical creatures which Redmayne puts across oh-so-sweetly. I really believe his protective love and fascination for these animals (can I even call them that?) and he constantly has this wonderful gleam in his eye. Does anyone really know that much about Newt Scamander's actual character and personality? Redmayne is nearly as adorable as his little CGI creature friends, playing the role in a very Redmayne manner and making him extremely likeable.

On top of all the magic, which is showcased in every shape or form and will be a delight for original viewers and newbies alike (though I doubt there'll be many in the latter group), there's also a bit of everything. From 1920s glamour to superb New York period sets to runaway zoo animals in Central Park. It is over two hours, which is an awful lot of running time given that I can sum up most of the plot in ten seconds. However, there literally is a whole world to explore - and that's only in Newt's suitcase. It starts slow, but doesn't lose momentum at any stage either. The plot is simple but the paradox is that there's so much going on. Although much of the plot is a series of mini adventure after adventure and can be criticised for lacking the depth and complexity of Harry Potter, the heartwarming CGI makes up for it in spades. The 'Briefcase Tour' will be one of my favourite scenes in cinema this year, plus little magical touches (like a wand umbrella in the rain) never get old. The big magical gestures remind us how massive the original scale was, and how it can absolutely still live on in the franchise that redefined magic. Aaaand, the beasts are simply amazing. Did I say that already?


Fantastic Beasts hails the self-confessed "outsiders" in that it's ok - and empowering - to be different. Newt was also a Hogwarts drop-out/expelled student so there's hope for us all who are still waiting for our acceptance letters. There's also more that can be said and delved deeper into about the story and social commentary reflecting the state of our own world.

It truly is a new era - but it's technically an old era so you know what it all leads to so that's comforting isn't it? It was announced that Fantastic Beasts will be part of a 5 film series, and when watching and reading about it, it's hard to think how they could stretch (/read milk) the franchise. I mean, how many fantastic beasts can you keep losing and finding again?! Luckily, the underlying theme rests a lot on the Wizard/No-Maj dynamic (/read tension) with signs of grander things to come. Originating from a charity spin-off fictional textbook, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is essentially a starting point and the front door from which we can now enter. The world of Hogwarts is starting to feel like a bubble - and there's a bigger world out there we're about to see much more of.

Here's a fantastic film and you can find it in cinemas now.

Marvel keep telling - showing - us that they're not one dimensional and they can offer us a bit of everything. The origin story may not be original anymore, but it sure never gets boring. We've had comedy, super-squads, squad break-ups, parodies, TV, big, small, intergalactic and now...Strange. Very strange. With mind-blowing sequences that go bigger and bolder than Inception on steroids, Doctor Strange delivers an other-worldly, satisfying fascination.

In a world far, far away - New York City - there lives a very rich, egotistical and extremely clever man. Nope, not Tony Stark, but a surgeon who will definitely not let you forget there's a "Doctor" in his name. "Doctor Who?" you ask.  (I could make this joke and then after the film explain the Benedict Cumberbatch -> Steven Moffat -> Doctor Who / Timey wimey stuff connections but that'd be revealing my inner geekiness too much so let's not go there at all..) Introducing Doctor Stephen Strange.

After an accident leaves Strange badly injured, and doesn't this sound all too familiar, he seeks recovery in an unexpected, spiritual form that defies physical logic. I'm not even going to delve too much into the astral plane or other dimensions, but let's just say it's sorcery, magic portals, magic sparky hand gestures that become weapons, and flying capes - but the power comes from within. This is what every self-help book should begin with really. Long story short, Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is trained by The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) in the kinda-hidden Kamar-Taj sorcerer academy in Nepal. He conveniently stumbles across this solution that can save his hands and is almost immediately exposed to this strange new world...I'm amazed at how this isn't common knowledge in their universe - The Avengers would have doubled in size by now. The journey takes us from Nepal to New York to London to Hong Kong, in no particular order because you can simply create a portal and jump straight to it. How easy would holidays be?! These sorcerers are in the wrong business.

Of course, like most Marvel plots, there's a big bad wolf. Here, he's Kaecilius played by Mads Mikkelsen who you'll recognise as a James Bond villain. With an evil gleam in his eye, he was once trained by The Ancient One (who really doesn't have a name but I imagine it used to be something like Sally), but he betrays her in a quest for immortality and power. A little like the first Kung Fu Panda film but this traitor has sparkly eye paint or something like that, plus it involves even bigger badder wolves. Rounding up the diverse pack of leading characters are Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams), Wong (Benedict Wong) and Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor). [Side note: so many Oscar nominees in this cast, am I right!?] Wong gets a relatively low-key but crucial role, injecting humour without being the token funny guy. Mordo is one to watch, as the moral compass and a solid sidekick. The complexity within his character is an intriguing one to unwrap.

And of course we have Tilda Swinton and Benedict Cumberbatch, both sought after by the Marvel bosses even though one had an insanely packed schedule leading to the entire project adapting, and one is supposed to be male and Asian...according to the comics. I have to say Marvel were right to stand by these choices, though it has to be said that Hollywood does currently have a huge issue with Asian stereotypes and casting - and this barrier needs to be broken. But given the Swinton situation, it somehow works. Her character comes across wise, ninja-esque, but also surprisingly nice. Also, their compromise between Asian man and Ancient One 2.0 is to make her bald. And then there's Benedict. Sometimes not cocky enough to pull off Tony Stark one liners, but brings the Sherlock arrogance and genius to the table with a just-about-forgiveable American accent. You can tell he really cares about doing this role justice, and he shines in so many ways that his Cumberhuman fans will be beaming from ear to ear throughout. When he finally steps into the super-sorcerer shoes, his screen presence is a sheer magical moment to behold.

The stellar actors still aren't the highlight though. A further dimension - and world - allows for some very creative effects and for the creators to run wild. The visual effects are outstanding, taking the dreamworlds from Inception but amping it up quite a bit. It's beyond trippy and kaleidoscopic, with more moving stairs than Harry Potter and a world where you can drive someone up the wall. You know what it is, it's a cinematic experience. I'd really recommend seeing it in IMAX if you can to bring it to life even more.


There's a lot to get your head around. With the more straightforward plot devices and characters, however, this is where Marvel falls short. Take the love interest, for example. Christine Palmer is a smart fellow surgeon and we know Rachel McAdams is a fantastic actress with superb Oscar-nominated skills. Unfortunately, we don't get to see much of this at all. Instead of the typical damsel in distress role, we don't get distress - or anything - at all, which is a shame. The one moving moment she's involved in doesn't even feature her on camera. More McAdams please! Similarly, Kaecilius is bad, but his evil potential is far greater than what we see.

Whereas we've accepted everyday superpowers in the "real world" Avengers universe, it's slightly harder to comprehend here when you have things like the mirror dimension within shards of glass, spirits coming out of bodies like Just Like Heaven, time tricks a la Edge of Tomorrow and an upgraded Bernard's Watch. But stick with it - and it will reward you in return. Little rewards like quips and Beyonce shout-outs, and big rewards like big budget sequences, mystical martial arts and things you'd probably hate on paper but will fall in love with on-screen.

The plot itself is hardly mind-bending but the full scale of everything will blow you away. There's some cheating involved - but isn't using magic cheating anyway? It's intriguing and makes you long for a bit more...which *spoiler alert* we definitely get in the post-credits scene. You know the drill by now, watch the (supremely hilarious and surprising) mid-credits scene but don't forget to wait some more. Doctor Strange lives up to his name in a film that is fantastically nuts and sufficiently strange with an added splash of wisdom and enough turning points to form a maze. And you'll be amazed too.

Doctor Strange is in cinemas now.