MrHlad

It’s not “it”. Onward has the classic Pixar combination of humour, suspense, emotion and life truths delivered artfully and without pathos, but this time it's as if the studio didn't enjoy inventing the world. And yet, modern fantasy literally begged for someone to have a good go at it, like in Monsters Inc. We do get a few references to Dungeons and Dragons, but overall the new world is a lot less playful, witty and fun than what we're used to with Pixar. At the same time, it's just begging for the creators to have a go at it. If I'm going a little overboard, by the end of the film I had to make do with unicorns that act like rats. Everything else works as we're used to with Pixar, but that the studio would be lacking in audio-visual games and small jokes is something I didn't quite expect.

Leigh Whannell confirms in The Invisible Man that he is a director to be reckoned with as someone who knows the horror genre. But he's still a little short of the best. His new film should have been some twenty minutes shorter, but otherwise it's a not very original but excellently made thriller. Whannell spices up the tension, helped not a little by the excellent Elisabeth Moss, and in the more action-driven scenes he confirms the qualities already hinted at in Upgrade. He also plays fair with the viewer from the start and lays all his cards on the table surprisingly early, but that doesn't stop the rather uncomfortable atmosphere from working. Personally, The Invisible Man sat better with me in the moments where it took itself 100% seriously, because its reliance on atmosphere and a more mature approach to the material really makes it work in a way that most contemporary horror films dream of. But while the whole B-movie feel is perhaps a little too rushed and it reeks a bit of trying to spice things up at all costs, overall this is well above average stuff that shows horror fans that there are still talented directors out there who can tell even a hackneyed story in a way that doesn't bore you for two hours. Although, unfortunately, it probably won't be enough for a new genre classic.

This adventure classic starring a digital dog appeals with pretty pictures and a likeable animal hero. But unfortunately, the story runs forward unnecessarily fast and a lot of potentially interesting scenes don't work nearly as well as they should. A fine film. But it had the potential for more.

Sonic the Hedgehog, the fastest creature in the universe, is hiding on Earth. Or rather, he was hiding, because after one screw-up, he's on the radar and both the military and the mad inventor Robotnik are after him. So Sonic and his human buddy Tom have to figure a way out. Based on the famous computer game franchise, the feature-length adventure is inoffensive and relaxed family entertainment, but it tries too hard to stick to the beaten track, and is ultimately set apart from the rest by the hero himself, who is incredibly likeable.

The lovable beggar boy Espen and the brave princess Kristin embark on a long and dangerous journey to a mysterious castle to find the water of life they need to save Kristin's parents and Espen's brothers. It's going to be a long journey filled with danger, humour, monsters and villains with a human face. And it's so much fun to watch. The Ash Lad: In Search of the Golden Castle is closer to an adventure film than a classic fairy tale, and with its impressive production design, awfully cool characters and fast pace, it will keep audiences of all ages entertained.

Ten-year-old Jojo and his imaginary friend Adolf would do anything for Germany. But when the little hero discovers that his mother is hiding a Jewish girl at home, everything changes. Taika Waititi directs a visually very imaginative film that alternates poignant and harsh moments with humorous ones, and Scarlett Johansson and Sam Rockwell give some of the best performances of their careers.

1917 will be talked about as the war film that was shot in one take. Which it isn't, but we all know that, and I don't feel like anyone should mind. However, it would be a big mistake to just look at it as a technically perfect film where Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins fool around with the camera. The latter is, of course, amazing; 1917 looks like a computer game, with the camera managing to pan around the characters during dialogue, crawling along with them across the battlefield with cameraman looking for the craziest but still functional angles from which to capture everything. But the main star here is still Mendes as the narrator, who manages to get under the skin of both the characters and the audience in that "one shot". Initially, cold and distant, and like one of the soldiers, he treats the whole mission as just an order to be carried out, hoping to survive. Gradually, however, he begins to acknowledge the importance of the mission and very powerful and emotional scenes subtly, but eventually very intensely, surface. And for example the whole passage in the burning village or the very end are incredibly powerful moments. The film doesn't just look great. It's great throughout.

An incredibly stupid thing about an island that grants wishes but makes them into nightmares. Obviously, the people behind this film weren't even clear on how the whole thing was supposed to work, and given that director Jeff Wadlow can't come up with a single workable scare and is even worse at working with atmosphere, the result is utterly trivial and almost laughable. Avoid it.

Ignore it. Birds of Prey wants to be an edgy, perhaps even controversial film full of gritty and dark humour, bold directorial choices, strong characters and uncompromising atmosphere. But for that to work, the film would have to be made by someone more skilled than Cathy Yan, who gives it a pretty interesting visual look, but has absolutely no idea how to work with the characters and how to build relationships between them. And given that this is pretty much what Birds of Prey is supposed to be about, it's quite a problem. But she may also be a problem in that when Harley goes solo, she turns out not to be a very interesting character. This team-up wants to be something like Deadpool, but the the tough girls of Gotham can’t even hold a candle to the verbose mercenary. They're still good in the action scenes, but once they start talking and building relationships, it becomes apparent how boring these heroines are and how all that toughness and grit only works on paper. Behind the R-rating and the wild colours, there is a film can’t hide the fact that it has no ideas and is boring most of the time.

This story of four sisters coming of age in the mid-nineteenth century and figuring out what they want out of life is surprisingly relevant in the twenty-first century. In it, Greta Gerwig gives space to the actresses in particular, who certainly don't let her down, and she handles the touching and funny scenes with complete ease. An honest and entertaining modern adaptation of a literary classic. It's just a pity that it is perhaps unnecessarily cold and aloof in its first half.