With the way the world has been politically lately – what with the controversial President Donald Trump and the even more controversial post-Brexit Britain – it makes sense that we now get a political parody film. Luckily, Armando Iannucci, the creator of Alan Partridge and The Thick of It, and director of In the Loop, has been more than happy to oblige. Iannucci’s films always being simulations grittily realistic and as hilarious as a Monty Python feature – this is clearly a man of unique story-telling talent. It is refreshing to see such talent back in the fray – and after seeing The Death of Stalin, it’s hard to imagine a better fitting director for such a feature.

The Death of Stalin is based off the graphic novel of the same name – which I hadn’t heard of to be honest. It depicts the events set in motion after the death of the Soviet Union’s dictator, Joseph Stalin. All of the political manoeuvring and backstabbing; the diabolical acts of the secret police and armed forces; the weakness of some politicians and the craftiness of others. Above all, it’s a film that depicts the fear and uncertainty of a country that had no idea of what came next. And it is told with depth and respect, and with the same cheeky humour that made audiences everywhere fall in love with Monty Python’s the Life of Brian.

You can’t watch this film without recognising the fact that it and In the Loop – a parody of the politics behind the Afghanistan wars – share the same writer/director. I watch The Thick of It fairly often and I am certain that it is not dissimilar from what parliament is actually like. I feel the same way here. As overplayed as it is, the subject is also given a dark edge that makes me believe that this is very much how events might have played out. I can’t really remember the last time I saw a black comedy blend belly-aching laughter with genuine, edge-of-the-seat tension so well. The almost documentary style filmmaking gives The Death of Stalin just the right amount of surreal believability.

The script for The Death of Stalin is one of the best the year has given us. Everything was so natural that it all felt real. To call it smart would be a colossal understatement. You will laugh. You will laugh a lot. But at the same time, you will understand what the characters are going through completely. More likely than not because you have felt the same way with certain events over the past few years. I have to give credit to the script and especially the actors for the work they did for these characters. Every single character depicted is a despicable human-being. They were monsters working for a tyrant. But, despite that, they just ooze charisma and somehow get you rooting for each and every one of them.

It does help that the cast includes Steve Buscemi, Jeffrey Tambor, Paddy Considine, Simon Russell Beale, Jason Isaacs and Monty Python’s own Michael Palin. These are not only actors who know the importance of comedic timing and dramatic depth, they are also among the greatest character actors in the business today. The limelight ultimately falls onto Buscemi and Beale as Nikita Khrushchev and Laventiy Beria. These are two opposing forces who both have the same ultimate goal and aim to achieve it the same way as the other – by trying to bring the other crashing down as they raise up. It’s as intricate as early seasons of Game of Thrones and is just as, if not more enjoyable. I did, however, find Isaacs to be the films highlight. His role is of a disgruntled general, with a weird Yorkshire accent considering that this is Russia. I loved every second of his screen time as he never failed to make me laugh.

I am not an expert in Soviet Russian history – in fact I’m barely a novice – so I cannot say for certain if you would learn something from this film or not. But from where I do stand, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the film is educational. The humour would certainly help the lessons of the past stick in your mind. Iannucci’s directing certainly gives such an effect to the film. Funny and smart are the two words I can give to this film above all others. It’s not a film for its story, outside of Stalin’s death and the aftermath there’s practically no story. It’s a film for it’s characters. Horrible as they are, you latch onto them from interest alone. Solid performances definitely helping out.

I feel that this is a film that will be seen as a comedy cult classic, just as In the Loop is. And rightfully so I think. A perfect marriage of thrilling drama and satirical comedy, The Death of Stalin is a comedy I would recommend to anybody. There really isn’t anything wrong with it outside of nit-picking. It sets out to do something and it does it superbly. I might have come off a bit vague here, but that’s only because I do not wish to spoil much of a great film. Find some time and get it watched, there’s no quicker cure for stress and boredom.

Who doesn’t love a good mystery? There has always been enjoyment in the old “who-dun-it” story. It’s so satisfying looking at all the clues yourself and discovering which of the characters presented is the villain. Sadly, this only really works when the story is, well, good. I don’t think anyone can deny that the grand-masters of this type of story were Arthur Conan Doyle – with his Sherlock Holmes stories – and Agatha Christie. Christie has written plenty of books – none of which I have read. But, what many consider to be her magnum-opus is Murder on the Orient Express.

The story is simple yet complex and as classic as they come. Hercule Poirot is the world’s greatest detective. The Belgian has just solved a case and is now on his way to a well-earned holiday. Taking the Orient Express, Poirot comes across colourful characters with their own stories to tell. Along the way, however, an avalanche halts the train and one of the passengers, the sinister Mr Ratchett, has been brutally murdered. Taking it upon himself to work out who the killer is, Poirot soon discovers that this case is linked to another murder years ago. The case takes one dark turn after another, until Poirot realises that this may be the greatest case of his career.

This has got to be the latest in about half a dozen adaptations of the popular novel. To be fair, if there was ever a man to bring this story to life then my money would be on Kenneth Branagh. Branagh directs and stars in the lead role here, and to his credit does very well in both roles. The directing of this film is nearly impeccable. The colours alone in this film draw you into the atmosphere of the story. Atmosphere being what this film does exceedingly well. You feel like you are on this train with these people. It’s nice and posh, delivering a nice bit of wow-factor – yet, tension never leaves you because you know that someone you are enclosed with is a murderer. Honestly, not really knowing the whole story before seeing this film, I was very surprised with how dark this film was at points.

Along with Branagh and his charismatic and enigmatic performance, we have an all-star cast of would-be killers. Daisy Ridley, Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Willem Dafoe and Judi Dench are included in the line-up, with Johnny Depp as the unfortunate victim of the crime. All of them play their parts perfectly. They all have charisma and always feel like they have more to say than what they do. This often throws you off the scent of the killer, but also keeps you suspecting every single one of them. The identity of the killer being a well-hidden secret until the shocking reveal. But sadly, this is also a major part of the films problem.

With such an ensemble of characters, everyone is limited in screen time. Add to that the fact that everyone is guarded and refuses to tell all and you have characters who are well performed yet you really do not care for. It actually got so bad that there were points in the film where they were talking about a character and I honestly could not work out who they were on about. Because of this, the film does have its dragging moments. It’s never boring, I’ll make that clear. But there were scenes I felt could have been cut down. Another issue is the jarring tone of the film. It starts off rather light-hearted and even jokingly, a tone which does run throughout the film, to be fair. The problem is that it is partnered with the tone of a dark and twisted thriller, with themes of homicide, suicide and infanticide. This makes the light tone seem false, or the dark tone appear far darker than intended.

As an adaptation of the work, Murder on the Orient Express appears to do the job. It’s atmospheric, interesting and Poirot is a great and fun character to follow. Towards the end we even get a tease for Death on the Nile, which I would not be against with this team again. It’s beautifully shot and every actor does a great job with what they are given. It is just the lack of attachment to the characters that brings the film down from potential greatness. As a who-dun-it, it’s fun. I liked picking apart the mystery, even though the ending is rather well-known at this point. In the month of November, I’d say you could do a lot worse than watch this film. Give it a go and see if you can find out who the killer is.

Another year, another fourth superhero film. And people wonder why there’s superhero fatigue going around, I know I have that. But, best to keep an open mind on these things – you may be surprised one day. I certainly was with the first Thor. Fun fact, I had actually skipped on seeing the MCU films released before it. So, what had initially got me into the MCU was Thor. By no means a great film and not that memorable looking back on it, Thor was good. It was fun, a nice Shakespearian-inspired story, well directed by Kenneth Branagh and Asgard still looks amazing. But I do understand why people don’t enjoy the fish-out-of-water Earth side of the story and the non-existent chemistry between Hemsworth and Portman, so I get why things were changed for the sequel. Thor: The Dark World is easily the worst MCU film I have ever seen. I don’t exaggerate when I say that I thought that film was pointless, ugly and just all around awful. I liked Loki, and there’s a fun portal-based action scene at the end – I just hated everything else about it.

Lucky for me that Thor Ragnarok appears to be an apology for The Dark World – they even have a whole scene taking the mic out of it. What’s the story?

Loki has unwittingly released his and Thor’s older sibling Hela, the goddess of death, from her imprisonment. Thor quickly finds himself lost on a junk planet where he is forced into fights to the death in a gladiatorial arena. There he meet’s the Hulk, and together they forge a team to take back Asgard from the evils of Hela. There’s death, destruction and action in this fast-paced, high octane, visually striking…wait! This is a comedy?

Yes, Thor Ragnarok is directed by Taika Waititi – who gave us The Hunt for the Wilder People and What WE Do in the Shadows – and is therefore a comedy. Not only is it that, it’s easily the funniest thing that Marvel has ever produced. I couldn’t stop laughing. I don’t think I could if was actively trying. There’s something very different about Ragnarok. It feels like they hired Waititi and just let him do his thing. Making this film very Australian and New Zealandia in nature, and I don’t just mean the cast. I have seen a lot of films from that part of the world – not only do I tend to love them but I find that they tend to have a very witty, juxtaposing and often dry and satirical sense of humour. Ragnarok is almost entirely made of this humour, playing with bending the rules of tone and audience expectance to deliver its laughs. It very rarely fails to deliver on that front. I think only one ‘big’ joke failed on me, and it was in a beginning scene with Doctor Strange. It feels just like a big budget film from Waititi, and after The Dark World, and this years earlier Spider-man Homecoming it was a more than welcome change.

Before I go further, I must say that Thor Ragnarok is not perfect.

After a pretty entertaining opening scene, where Thor must fight a demon voiced by Clancy Brown, and a hilarious parody scene of The Dark World with some hilarious big-star cameo’s, the film becomes very rapid and disjointed for about ten or so minutes. It’s like they are trying to get the MCU stuff out of the way very quickly so that the story can just begin. It’s a shame when the fact that a film is in a franchise actively hurts the overall film for a time. I also thought that, while the effects are great throughout the rest of it, this ten-minute block had some very poor green-screen effects and some dodgy CGI.

The only other issues I have heard of are the tone and certain character deaths. The characters do die rather unceremoniously, but they weren’t characters I had any emotional connection with so I didn’t mind this. And the only character who I did care for that died was done in a respectful way. As for the tone, the film has two tones. Dark, where people are dying and destruction is imminent, and an over-the-top, colourful comedy. Jarring at times, but these tones were locked to Thor and Hela and changed only when perspectives of the film did. So, again, it didn’t bother me as much as I feared it would. And, as mentioned above, juxtaposition is one of the themes this film works with when it comes to humour and drama.

This is a great looking film. Branagh’s version may be grander, but this was just amazing to look at. The colours. The designs. The effects. It was all a treat for the eyes. Just as much was the action. Thor fighting Hulk was the highlight, but every single action scene was pretty awesome. It honestly feels like a love letter to John Carpenter, from direction, to action, to tone, right down to the music. I could see Carpenter directing this back in the ‘80’s. It certainly feels like Escape From New York, They Live and, of course, Big Trouble in Little China. It was very refreshing, even if it did have a pang of Guardians of the Galaxy to it. It quickly makes you forgive what shortcomings it has. Nobody can see this and not think ‘That was fun’. It’s not possible.

All that’s really left is the cast. Returning to us is Chris Hemsworth as Thor. A man who should do more comedy because his comedic timing was perfect. He improved in his dramatic moments because of this too. Sure, the strong script helps too, but credit where it’s due – I don’t think I have seen a better performance from the guy. With him come back Tom Hiddleston as Loki, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba and Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk. All great, all fun, all giving their all. In particular, I loved the Hulk. What they did with him was different from anything I have ever seen from the Hulk before. Newcomers include Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Waititi himself and Jeff Goldblum. I don’t know how they did it, but I couldn’t be happier with this cast. I loved all of them. Goldblum has not been this good since Jurassic Park and I loved every minute of his scene chewing.

Then we have Cate Blanchett as Hela. Marvel has outdone themselves on villains this year. Ego was fun, Vulture was good, Hela is a great villain. She’s cold, calculating and loves every minute of torment she causes. She is not without her humour, which is as sick and twisted as herself. She’s not particularly deep, but she proves a more than worthy adversary for the God of Thunder and provides us with some interesting and dark history to Thor’s world. Of course, it helps that she is played by Cate Blanchett. She’s one of those actresses who couldn’t do a bad performance if she tried. Every line oozes malice. Every move feels calculated. She’s pure evil and she is loving it, having fun and looking good while doing it. I don’t know why Thor gets the best villains of the MCU, but I am not complaining.

You can forgive a film a lot if it’s fun. A slightly jarred tone and a dodgy ten minutes at the start do not hurt Thor Ragnarok enough to remove the fun.

Truth be told it has been years since I last saw a MCU film and loved it. Last time it was called Guardians of the Galaxy- and before that it was Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Iron Man. I would have to see Ragnarok again to be sure – and I plan to very soon – but it’s definitely a strong contender for being the best film of the MCU so far. Waititi appears to be thinking about making a Thor 4 (and should just call it that for fun) and I honestly hope he does. If more films like this were made, different and fun, then people would stop complaining about the MCU once and for all.

Ah, Blade Runner.

So much has been said about you already; most of it good, some of it not so much. When I first saw Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner I was not impressed; I was about fourteen years old and was expecting an action film with robots and Harrison Ford and all that comes with it. What I got was a lot of things, but that was not one of them. But, there is only so many times you can hear that a film is a classic before you decide to give it another go. I was twenty when I finally did, and I have not regretted it since. I own Blade Runner on Blu-Ray now and will happily call it one of my favourite films. Is it perfect? No, they wouldn’t re-edit it four more times if it was. It’s slow at times, with many shots of the cities great scale (which is still beyond impressive, by the way) taking probably a bit too long now-days. I’m not a fan of the Sabastian character and there’s a very awkward scene where Ford forces himself onto Rachel. But otherwise, I love it to bits. It’s not a film I would have pegged for a sequel though.

How long has this been in the works for? There have been whispers and rumours for over a decade now; then out of nowhere, here we are. Blade Runner 2049!

So, what’s the story? I’m not going to tell you! I honestly don’t want to say. I like to avoid spoilers, and I think that if I give a summary then I’ll spoil a part of the film for you. There are so many twists and turns that the story takes from the get-go, yet none feel out of place at all. I thought I had it pegged for a long time, but then the carpet was pulled out from under me. That’s how well plotted it is, and I don’t feel like robbing you of that. So, instead I’ll just discuss what I liked about Blade Runner 2049 – which is almost everything about it.

I’m not going to dance around the point – I really, really liked Blade Runner 2049. I think I loved it, but I’d have to see it again to be sure. The plot was fantastic – it never came close to retelling the first film. In-fact, they are both very different beasts. Ridley Scott did not return for this one, opting instead to give us Alien Covenant (which, given that films quality, was probably for the best) – so in his place we have Denis Villeneuve. The only over film of his I have seen was Arrival, which I really didn’t like. Thankfully, he has improved here in every aspect. The command Villeneuve had over this film was beyond great. He never over-played his hand, like I thought he had with Arrival. Every shot feels perfect. Every sound feels necessary. Every line of dialogue intrigued me. Everything this director could bring to the table worked perfectly.

It’s Blade Runner in the end, so we expect it to look like one of the best thing’s we have ever seen.

I’m happy to say that 2049 doesn’t let us down. Thankfully they didn’t even try to recreate that amazing shot at the start of the first film – flying over that city remains a special experience that can’t be topped – instead they show a different side to the same city, now upgraded. This is one of the best-looking films I have seen since, well ever. Mixing sets, models and CGI to perfect degrees. This is helped by the camera work, which always gives the best of everything on display.

Let’s not forget the acting either. This, Logan and War for the Planet of the Apes know what comes of pitch perfect casting. Nobody let me down. Nobody was just good. Everybody was perfect for their roles. Ryan Gosling as K, a Blade Runner hunting for the truth behind a conspiracy, give us his best. It’s such a subtle, naturalistic performance that I couldn’t even tell that it was acting. He was K, just as much as Jackman was Logan and Serkis was Caesar. Harrison Ford, who is not in this film very long at all, slips back into the role of Deckard like he never left it. Easily the best performance Ford has given us in years. Robin Wright, Dave Bautista, Mackenzie Davis, Ana De Armas, Sylvia Hoeks and Jared Leto all worked just as perfectly with what they had. And considering how challenging some of these scenes were, they all deserve what praise they get.

But, just like Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049 is not a perfect film.

And, I won’t lie, I can see some people not liking this film – or even hating it. First thing’s first, like the first one, don’t go in expecting an action film where Ryan Gosling and old-man Ford have to take out Jared Leto and his robot army, because that is so not what you get. What you do get is a colossally long sci-fi epic – clocking in at nearly three-hours. While I was never bored, it’s a slow-burn to be sure. Other issues I personally had were with the music and villains. The first films soundtrack is easily among my favourite – look it up. This film feels a little off to me. Most of the time, it works well, but then… Looking at the credits I saw two composers for the film and boy did my eyes role when I saw the name Hans Zimmer as one of them. Zimmer has done great scores before; but now, save for the odd exception, his scores all sound the same to me. Here in Blade Runner 2049, he committed the cardinal sin – his score for the film actually took me out of the scenes it was so distracting. As for the villains, they’re fine. Perfectly performed and carrying a little charisma with them. But it’s the case of one is a little one dimensional and another’s motives don’t match the character. Not much more than a nitpick, but it was an issue.

With scenes like Ford’s introduction, the final moment, a giant advertisement, and an incredible scene involving a robot and a hologram (you’ll know it when you see it), more than save a great film from minor shortcomings. Despite being a sequel it’s just as original as the first film – I don’t think I’ve been able to say that since Aliens. I’d love to say that it’s the best film I’ve seen since Logan, but I’d have to see it again to be sure – not that it’d take a lot of persuasion. Go and see it. If you like or love the first one then you will this one. If you didn’t, then still give it a go as they are very different films. A beautiful film that is all heart through the grit of reality, that is what we have been given. Will it be regarded as a sci-fi classic to stand the tests of time, like the first film, or will it be lost in time, like tears in rain? Only time will tell.

Blade Runner 2049 is out now.

Whoever holds the rights to John Denver’s work must be rolling in it this year. I’ve heard his song Take Me Home, Country Roads three times this year. Although, seeing as the other two uses of it were in sci-fi films of all things, at least Logan Lucky makes sense. What with it being set in West Virginia and all. Anyway, less on that, let’s talk about Logan Lucky.

Channing Tatum is down on his luck. His brother, one armed Adam Driver isn’t fairing much better and his sister, Riley Keough, is doing just as well. This, if we are to believe Driver’s ramblings, is because of the Logan family curse. They are a family plagued with bad luck and financial debt. Together, they plan to rectify that. A big sports event is coming up at a local racing track, with a lot of money being dumped into an almost entirely unmanned safe. Together, and with help from a former bank-robber, played by Daniel Craig, they aim to steal a lot of cash from right under a stadiums nose.

If this is sounding a little bit like Oceans 11, as well as most heist films out there, it’s probably because Oceans and Logan Lucky share the same director. Steven Soderbergh has always been an interesting customer on the directing front. Like Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeneuve, Soderbergh has a talent for making art-house films disguised as blockbusters – whether it be famous films like Oceans 11 or Contagion, or the more obscure ones like The Girlfriend Experiment (also known as that film that starred porn-star Sasha Grey). I’ve always liked Soderbergh’s work, finding his films easy to get into and having a great sense of drama and humour – not to mention just being altogether well made. That being said though I only like his works, I don’t love them. And that’s pretty much the same with Logan Lucky.

Once again, Soberbergh has made a very well-crafted and intelligent heist film. There were twists and turns that I did not see coming, but never did they feel like cop-outs. Everything is played with a surreal sense of realism, despite how preposterous it can feel at times. What I mean is, the plan is far-fetched, but it’s handled or just explained in such a way that you believe that this would work in real life. The directing is pretentious, but not noticeably so – which is expected given his previous work. The writing was mostly solid too. Although, there were a number of scenes that either lead nowhere or came out of nowhere. Most character introductions are done without ceremony, mostly with them just appearing in a random scene. I can see people seeing this as a unique way of introducing characters, but I found it a little jarring. Maybe it’s just not what I’m used to, but I can’t help but feel distracted by it.

In term of acting, there wasn’t a bad performance to be found. Tatum, Driver and Keough worked brilliantly as a trio, each easily bouncing off of the others. We also have some small roles from Hillary Swank and Seth MacFarlane, of all people here, once again good jobs for minor roles. It was, however, Daniel Craig who stole the show for me. His accent was pretty distracting, I won’t lie, but he easily played the most memorable character in the whole film. He got the best lines, the best jokes and contributed a lot to the plot. He was also very complex in his role and at a point you do find yourself wondering if he is really on their side.

Other than random scenes and character introductions, I do feel that Logan Lucky could have been around ten minutes shorter. Not that it dragged really, but there was a bit of trimming that could have been done to tighten the story. I also found it hard to get invested in the heist itself. This mostly comes down to some weak reasonings as to why they are robbing the vault in the first place. There’s a throwaway line about Tatum needing cash to pay for a custody lawyer, but that is literally one line in one scene. Also, while they aren’t well off, I’m not too certain why they – Driver in particular – would go to the lengths they do to rob a place. With Craig it makes sense, he is a bank robber. But for the Logan family, not so much.

There really is much more that can be said without major spoilers now. Logan Lucky is definitely not the best film to feature Logan in the title this year, but it’s still good. Like many of Soderbergh’s films, I recommend it, even if it’ll be a while before I see it again. Good direction, acting and a fairly good script hold this film higher than most this year – and if you’re sick of heroes and blockbusters where things go boom every five minutes, then here is the film you were probably waiting for. Give it a go, you might feel lucky come the end too.