It may have been touted as a film sixty-five million years in the making but a further twenty-five have passed since we were first introduced to Steven Spielberg’s dino-shaped landmark Jurassic Park. Its arrival in ‘93 marked more than just another popcorn blockbuster. This adaption of Michael Crichton’s high-concept novel signalled the birth of a CGI filmmaking era that’s arguably just as important as sound or colour. With this in mind, here’s 25 reasons (one for every year of Jurassic Park’s existence) as to why you’re probably long overdue a trip to Isla Nublar...

Jurassic Park will forever be known for introducing audiences to picture perfect CG but it also remains a prime example of the seamless coexistence of animation and practical puppetry. Thanks to the incredible handy-work of artist Stan Winston, the park’s threats felt tangible and we all emphasised with a sick triceratops. Talk about suspension of disbelief. 

“We’re out of a job,” mumbles Alan Grant after seeing the wonders of Jurassic Park. Ian Malcolm quickly interjects: “Don’t you mean extinct?” This exchange was reportedly taken straight from stop-motion master Phil Tippett after he saw the film’s groundbreaking visual effects and animation for the first time, knowing immediately that his hand-animated profession may be under threat.

It’s not until the island’s power goes down that we get our first full glimpse at Jurassic Park’s primary villain, unlikely hero and biggest star - and with it, our first look at the raw potential of CGI. As the Rex breaks free from its paddock never to return, so does a filmmaking game-changer. Both cinema - and Isla Nublar - will never be the same again.

Warning: scenes in this film may be more memorable than they first appear - Like the super-tense T-Rex chase that tail-ends the film’s initial bout with chaos. Toy Story 2 successfully spoofed the moment where Hammond’s star attraction gets a little too cosy in the wing-mirror of Muldoon’s Land Rover. Surely that’s when you know you’ve made it into the pop-culture zeitgeist. 

As things heat up and the threat level rises, the deaths come thick and fast as Elle, Grant and the kids try to escape the island with their lives intact. There’s plenty of splatter moments to be found but none so sinister than Muldoon’s grim realisation that he’s been outsmarted by a creature from another age. Clever girl indeed. 

It sounds funny relating a feeling of nostalgia to a film that was only released in the early nineties but for a certain generation Jurassic Park will forever be associated with a key moment in their childhoods, perhaps in some case signifying their route into the wider world of cinema. 

Jurassic Park may not feel twenty-five years old but it certainly doesn’t look it. Revisit it on its 25th birthday and you may pleased to discover its storytelling and visual effects not only hold up but rival those in movies released in recent years. Impressive stuff. 

​Remember when Alan Grant viscerally described disemboweling a chubby child who questioned his dino-logic? How could you forget! Dr Alan Grant is so stuck in the prehistoric past that he has absolutely zero time for the future - and that’s no bad thing. To him, teeth and claws weren’t the only thing worth avoiding in Jurassic Park - Lex and Tim can do-one too. 

Jurassic Park has a rare power: No matter how far fetched new instalment storylines are, die-hard fans will go see them regardless, such is their love of part-one. Spielberg stuck around for Ian Malcolm's '97 sequel The Lost World but he was right to duck out before talking dream raptors appeared in Joe Johnston’s third instalment.

“That doesn’t look very scary…” “Spared no expense!” “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if the SHOULD” “Dino, ah, dro-droppings?” “Life finds a way…” “Mr Hammond, the phones are working” “Ian, FREEZE!” “Clever girl…” “You have a T Rex?!” “Dodgson, we got Dodgson here!” “Hold onto your butts!”  “Welcome, to Jurassic Park!”  - You get the point.

While subsequent Jurassic Park sequels never quite manage to recapture the magic of 1993’s original, that hasn’t stopped Universal from developing a franchise around Spielberg’s film. It’s no surprise, though. One look at Crichton’s original text reveals a wealth of rich story ideas that - if nothing else - provide a lucrative jumping off point for future feature ideas. Get comfortable, Jurassic Park shows no signs of closing its doors...

​To single out just one of John Williams’ tracks seems silly. After all, the 86-year-old composer and regular Spielberg collaborator has single-handedly scored the childhoods of an entire generation. That said, the elegantly animalistic theme he dreamed up for Jurassic Park emerges as a gem in his illustrious back catalogue. Who else could have summed up the film’s themes of big ideas and good intentions turned rabid with such hum-ability? Spotify, anyone?

Spielberg’s mate George Lucas cites Jurassic Park as the film that convinced him cinema had finally reached a place where it could accommodate the high-concept aesthetics of the Star Wars saga. The result was 1999’s The Phantom Menace, a film that took Jurassic Park’s burgeoning computer animation and used it to bring an entire leading character to life. It was an experiment that paid off (sort of) and by the end of the 90s, these two features had bridged the gap for blockbuster movies to enter a whole new world of possibilities. 

Is Die Hard really a Christmas film? I guess we’ll never know for sure. Jurassic Park on the other hand sure as heck isn’t - and yet it’s hard not to get a festive feeling when watching it. Maybe it’s the constant Christmas Day reruns that’re to blame. After all, John Hammond’s big idea gone bad has been helping us digest Christmas dinner for almost three decades and as a result, it’s hard not to think of Jurassic Park as an unlikely Christmas film staple. 

Thanos may have wiped out most of cinema's heroes in part one of Infinity War (spoilers) but odds are they won’t be gone for long. With this in mind, it’s refreshing to reflect on a time where super-suits and double-identities weren’t such a common sight in multiplexes. Sure, the Jurassic Park series shows no sign of slowing but it adds a welcome variation to a popcorn cinema landscape that can so often be dominated by comic book adaptations.

Samuel L. Jackson appeared in Jurassic Park in 1993. A year later his starred in Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction and cemented his place as a cinematic treasure with mainstream audiences. These days you’re just as likely to find Jackson in bargain bin fodder as you are in prestige Oscar contenders - making his early turn as Jurassic Park’s I.T. guy John Arnold a rare example of the actor at his understated best.

​Few filmmakers deal in such high-impact nostalgia than Steven Spielberg. While he’s tried hard over the years to distance himself from the saccharine sweet world of wholesome storytelling, it still remains his greatest trademark - and for good reason. The guy’s unbelievably good at hitting us right in the feels with films, stories and characters that arrive at just the right point of our collective development and Jurassic Park is no exception to the rule.

It wasn’t until half way through shooting that Spielberg realised that Jurassic Park’s T-Rex wasn’t the villain of the piece and was instead its hero. After a quick switch around, the filmmaker ultimately decided to end his story of the chaotic unpredictability of life and nature with another random moment - the T Rex saving the day. 

It wasn’t until 2016’s Jurassic World that we got a proper look at the park in full working order - and even that didn’t last long. Ever since Grant’s chopper skipped off into the sunset at the end of part one, all we’ve glimpsed is shards of a shattered dream - with The Lost World skipping the original location entirely and setting up shop on Isla Sorna’s Site B. 

Maybe it’s the computer animation, maybe it’s the performances - but Jurassic Park is one of the few films of the 90s that doesn’t seem to age. Seriously. It doesn’t take long after hitting play for you to be whisked away into a prehistoric world of peril that’s hard to resist - even on your ump-teenth viewing. It’s a task that most modern day movies struggle to replicate. 

​“How do you know they’re all female - Does somebody go into the park and uh, pull up the dinosaur’s skirts?” Jeff Goldblum’s perpetually smirking Chaos theorist Dr Ian Malcolm not only comes away from Jurassic Park with his life intact (just), he also gets to deliver some of the movie’s most memorable lines. Cut to 2018 and it’s no wonder his character has um-ed and ah-ed his way into meme pop-culture.

The truth is: You don’t need any reason to revisit Jurassic Park - the film’s good enough to reward repeat viewings all on its own merit. So go on, you know what to do.

Did I miss any? Why do you think it's always a good idea to revisit Jurassic Park? Let me know in the comments section below!

Grab your fedora and dust off that bullwhip, it’ll soon be time to rejoin everyone’s favorite archaeologist Indiana Jones in another adventure. Well, sort of. We may have to wait a bit longer than anticipated to see Harrison Ford ride back onto our screens (Part 5’s debut recently shuffled from July 2020 to July 2021) but with both star and Director Steven Spielberg committed to the character, one thing’s for sure: Indiana Jones 5 is definitely on its way. Whether or not Dr Henry Jones Jr will still be in search of fortune and glory remains to be seen but in the meantime, here’s a handful of things we’d love to see in Indy’s new outing...

​As with all Indiana Jones stories, securing a believable Mcguffin (a plot-triggering item, person or device that all characters want) is the first port of call for Spielberg and his screenwriters. That said, information on just what mythical artefact Indy will be in search of this time around is currently unknown. Before the delay, long-time Spielberg-scribe David Koepp was on writing duty but unable to return for a redraft (he’s busy writing/directing You Should Have Left for Blumhouse), Solo screenwriter Jonathan Kasdan has stepped in to rework the story. With everything from Atlantis to The Bermuda Triangle rumoured, it’s probably too early to tell what the crux of Indy’s new adventure might be. Our hopes? Something not too out-there with minimal sci-fi-ties would be nice. We all remember what happened with those crystal skulls... 

​In a recent interview, Spielberg revealed that Indiana Jones 5 will take place in the sixties, inviting speculation for a potential space-race backdrop. However this was before Koepp’s departure and with Kasdan on rewrite duty, Indy’s whereabouts could be open game. While chronologically continuing his adventures is the obvious choice, it’s worth remembering the franchise has been known to tamper with timelines before. 1984’s Temple of Doom was set two years prior to the events of Raiders of the Lost Ark and with The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull featuring a very finate closing sequence, perhaps setting Indy 5 before the events of part 4 could be worth exploring. Rewind the clock by just a handful of years and Dr Jones would be free from a son, marriage and any number of character ties, leaving him open to any kind of adventure. Want to ditch Mutt Williams? Here’s your chance. 

Speaking of Indiana Jones Jr - while there are some characters we could do without seeing any more of there are others who we’d love to see in 2021’s instalment. It’s no secret that Spielberg tried in vain to lure screen veteran Sean Connery out of retirement to reprise his Last Crusade role of Henry Jones Sr for The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. While it’s probably even less likely Connery will return for this new one (especially having been killed off in Part 4), this could be a great opportunity to reintroduce John Rhys Davies’ larger-than-life Sallah into the fold. Better yet - perhaps Indy’s adventures in the sixties or seventies could see him cross paths with his Temple of Doom co-stars Short Round (Ke Huy Quan) or have another charged run-in with Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw)? Either way, the opportunities are there. Your move, Spielberg.

​Over the years, fans-turned-industry-professionals have tried their hand at continuing the life and exploits of Indiana Jones in a wealth of graphic novels and literature. While Disney did-away with all extended universe Star Wars stories after their Lucasfilm merger a few years back, as of yet the same can’t be said for Dr Jones’ off-screen travels. So far, a total of thirteen original Indiana Jones novels have been published, chronicling adventures as varied as Indiana Jones and The Sky Pirates to Indiana Jones and the Dinosaur Eggs. While some of these stories may prove too ‘out-there’ for a suitable big-screen adaptation (Indiana Jones and the Unicorn’s Legacy, we’re looking at you), it’d be a nice nod to long-term fans for Spielberg, Lucas and Kashdan to include a little inside lore into their new story. Fingers crossed.

Right now, Harrison Ford is 76 years old. That means when Indiana Jones 5 finally hits screens in 2021, the star will be the grand old age of 79 - so it’s more than likely that this last quest will be Ford’s final stint as the fedora-donned explorer. We can hardly blame him, though. Sneaking through crypts can hardly be easy when you’re pushing 80. That said, if this is Ford’s last crack at Jones’s whip, then it better be a fitting send off. It’s a tricky task, especially considering both Last Crusade and Crystal Skull had chapter-closing climaxes. So far, Spielberg has assured us Indy won’t be killed off however the Director hasn’t ruled out a passing of the torch. Chris Pratt would likely be the Bookies’ choice for a suitable protege but wouldn’t it be fun to see a female Jones (or ‘Joan’ as Spielberg has previously suggested) lead the franchise forward? As long as Ford gets a suitable swan-song, anything goes.

What would you like to see in Indiana Jones 5? Let me know in the comments section below!

In just a few weeks time we’ll be returning to Jurassic World where in all likelihood, all hell will break loose. We know this because we’ve seen the chaos teased in trailers - alongside the reveal that at least half of this planned calamity will take place off Isla Nublar in a new, previously-unseen mainland environment. Spoilers? Well, sort of - but apparently not spoilerific enough to make Universal Studios decide not to use this info as part of their pre-release marketing campaign. All those waiting for the lights to dim before discovering all of Fallen Kingdom’s secrets... well they might want to give social media, cinema trailers, telly - hell, even web adverts - a miss for the time being, as tricky as that may seem. 

And yet revealing (or heavily alluding to) major plot points in movie trailers appears to be becoming more and more commonplace, especially when major tentpole releases are concerned. It’s kind of ironic, especially when you consider these big-budget, CGI-heavy films are often the ones the majority of audiences will mindlessly flock to regardless. Usually sequels, prequels, series installments or spin offs; these franchises with built-in viewers are surely among the easiest sells in any film PR team’s release slate?

Adding to the problem is the fact that these same movies happen to be the ones that come with the highest risk of spoilers. If you’re a fan of this specific brand of spectacle cinema, you’ll likely want to go in blind to ensure maximum enjoyment. Sure, Infinity War requested viewers’ remain tight lipped about its key plot punches but not before dishing out a healthy chunk of marketing material beforehand. Anything eyebrow raising in the Avengers’ recent outing may have technically been new to viewers but it was hardly surprising. With this in mind, maybe it’s time to do away with trailers altogether? After all, it’ll hardly stop the likes of die-hard Star Wars fans from handing over their cash and it could even boost Box Office returns. Not feeling Fallen Kingdom’s military-bred dinos? No trailers leaves you none the wiser until your money’s left your account!

It almost makes you nostalgic for a time before YouTube, smart phones and 24 hour content accessibility. Back when movie news was a lot harder to come by. Imagine the thrill and excitement of seeing that mystery cliffhanger ending in Back To The Future Part II, fresh and for the first time - or unexpectedly experiencing the uncanny worlds of Blade Runner without a heads up. Sadly, these experiences could be a thing of the past - or in the words of Ian Malcome: ‘Don’t you mean extinct?’

Do you think we still need movie trailers? Let me know in the comments section below!

Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino, the sixth studio album from Sheffield quartet Arctic Monkeys hit listeners' ears and immediately split them down the middle. Some were left grinning and chin stroking, admiring yet another deft surprise from the band’s smirking frontman Alex Turner. Others meanwhile were left wondering when the stadium-sized indie anthems the band have become known for were going to kick in. That latter group had a long and ultimately fruitless wait. Whatever you thought Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino was going to to be, this certainly wasn’t that. 

Although surely that’s to be expected, right? Look at Arctic Monkeys today and they’re almost unrecognisable compared to the scruffy indie-lads that burst onto the scene in 2006 with an endless supply of earworm hooks and mile-a-minute lyrics delivered in an overtly Northern twang. That record alone got so much airplay at the time that it quickly cemented itself as a definitive new wave Brit-rock classic, paving the way for similar acts whilst simultaneously birthing a brand new music scene. Fans ate it up and came to expect more of the same from these four lads from Sheffield. The band? They had other ideas. 

Each album release has been a gamble for Arctic Monkey fans - and with each the band has tried their hardest to change identity. From Turner’s greaser look for the 2013 unveiling of AM; complete with shades, leather jacket and slicked back quiff, to the mod-look of Suck It And See and their new long-haired European film star guise donned for this recent release - each collection of new tracks has come from, arguably, a completely new band. However isn’t that what all bands who withstand the test of time do? The Beatles, Radiohead, Blur - All three have transcended to legendary status and all three have universally dividing back catalogues of work and starkly changing personas. 

Those original indie fans stuck around for the ride though, patiently awaiting the return of the band that gave them ‘I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor’ while selectively filtering out the records that might not have provided the same rush (Humbug, we’re looking at you). Meanwhile other indie acts filled the gap, crafting a hit-formula with songs that can often be distilled into easily yelled sounds or football-adopted chants. The Sheffield lot returned to reclaim their crown five years ago with AM and its radio-friendly feel but now they seem to be at it again, itchy to throw their fans off the scent. Imagine the scene: crowds of eager Arctic Monkey fans at midnight Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino listening parties, patiently waiting for the band’s next indie ‘banger’ to drop. Hopefully, someone brought a pillow.

That said, it’s hard not to enjoy the whole thing. With wild new track titles like “The Ultracheese” and “The World’s First Ever Monster Truck Front Flip”, you can almost hear the grin on Turner’s face. Clearly, they’re in on the joke - and we should be too. After all, it’s no coincidence that the record that defined Arctic Monkeys with fans was literally titled Whatever People Say I Am, That’s What I’m Not. Good bands don't have time to get comfortable and the clues have been there all along. 

Did you enjoy Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino? Let me know in the comments section below!

Watch Out: This post contains *SPOILERS* regarding Avengers: Infinity War - If you haven't seen it, stop reading now… or don’t. I’m not the eye-police.

Having looked at the superhero movies that slipped through the cracks en-route to Avengers: Infinity War last week, perhaps it’s time to focus our attention on the main event and a slight issue that threatens to render all its years of planning and mystique a little flat. If you’re one of the few who’s yet to see it, here’s a quick catch up: spoiler alert - Thanos wins. After gathering all five Infinity Stones (a collection of non-edible, incredibly powerful jelly tots), the purple headed monster heads to Earth and with the combined power of the universe on his fist, clicks his fingers and instantly deletes half the population of the universe. Bad times. 

While us normies made up the majority of Thanos’s body count, a handful of Supers were also reduced to dust. Black Panther, Doctor Strange, the Guardians - even new recruit Peter Parker - are all lost to the ether as Infinity War closes on a particularly precarious note, forcing audiences to speculate on the fate of the Marvel Universe from now until the still-untitled part two arrives next May. What a cliffhanger, right? Well sort off. With fans’ feverish appetite for movie news - and with Studios overly keen to plan our their franchises years in advance - it’s sort of hard to get too caught up with the potential finality of Infinity War’s deadly closing twist. 

Let’s not forget - Marvel’s already fleshed out its slate until at least 2020, with Guardians of the Galaxy confirmed for a third volume and Tom Holland’s recently deceased Peter Parker confirmed to return as early as July 2019.  Combined this with the raw popularity of these heroes and rogues amongst fans and it’s hard to imagine Marvel following through with their threat of killing off half of the cast they’ve worked so tirelessly to assemble. It’s not just release dates that squash any sense of peril either. Sometimes, a quick look on IMDB can often confirm or deny the inclusion of potentially spoilerific cameos and plot-curves, erasing the surprise element that audiences often say they want yet seemingly love denying themselves of. 

That said, a handful of directors still seem intent on keeping the unpredictability of pre-Internet cinema alive. JJ Abrams’ had the Ewok chops to off Han Solo in The Force Awakens - and more importantly keep him dead - and his Star Wars successor Rian Johnson did a fine job of keeping Yoda’s return underwraps in The Last Jedi. With this in mind it’s worth remembering that Marvel has displayed similar gusto in the past, with Joss Whedon stopping Quicksilver in his path with a death scene in Age of Ultron. 

Throw in the fact that a handful of Marvel’s heroes are nearing the end of their contracts and perhaps Disney’s caped-cash cow is avoiding the curse of franchise TMI by pulling a fast one on us. Interestingly, its the Avengers’ most seasoned heroes like Tony Stark and Steve Rogers and not its cinematically deceased stars of tomorrow that seem destined for pastures new. Should we be more concerned for those who survived Thanos’ wrath than those who actually died? That’d certainly be one way to keep audiences on their toes.

Like me, would you watch a TV show called The Eye Police? Let me know in the comments section below!

​Infinity War has finally arrived, marking the culmination of ten years of planning (and 18 cinematic releases) from Marvel Studios. It’s an undeniably impressive feat and one that’s not been achieved by any other studio to date, no matter how many Dark Knights or Kryptonians they have helping them. While the superhero genre currently reigns supreme, it’s not entirely been smooth sailing with some titles slipping through the cracks, doomed to an eternity in a HMV bargain bin. They may not have set the Box Office alight - and they’re certainly not without their flaws - but each has its own strengths that perhaps proved too divisive for mainstream audiences. 

Take Ang Lee’s 2003 Hulk, a movie that by today’s standards seems miles away from the light-hearted-yet-epic tone perfected by Marvel Studios. Instead, Lee made a movie that was pensive, dark and took its own time to tell its story. Undoubtedly it was the type of Bruce Banner tale Lee wanted to tell, even if audiences disagreed - and yet choosing Directors with differing and distinct styles seems to be the Studio’s winning recipe. Louis Leterrier’s 2008 reboot The Incredible Hulk upped the ante as Marvel’s second feature; ultimately a monster movie with considerably more action than Lee’s take but one that failed to match the financial return set by Iron Man. Throw in a fumbled relationship with its lead star and the future of this Hulk iteration was smashed in no time.  

Rival DC Studios has had worse luck. Their attempts to fast-track their own super group with 2011’s The Green Lantern fell flat thanks to an inconsistent script and some dodgy CGI but their ambition was clearly there. However, the silver lining of their attempt at lighting the Lantern was some impressive dedication to world building and the injection of some much needed humour to a comic universe that has a tendency to be bleaker than Batman's Pinterest boards. Sadly it wasn’t enough - proof that even though these franchises have unrivalled audiences on paper, they’re no guaranteed hit when it comes to bringing them to the screen. 

Then there’s the curse of forward planning. Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man double-hitter showed what a loved-up Peter Parker might look like while still at high school - a lighter touch that was counterbalanced with some nifty bad guys with vicious streaks. Unfortunately Andrew Garfield’s take on Spidey was cut short due to circumstance but the strain of an over-packed story lacking a clear direction was already starting to show at Sony. The race the compete with Marvel’s slow-and-steady trail of success has spelt doom for many who have attempted to go up against them. While these titles all fell through the cracks, it’s interesting to see what worked, what didn’t and to remember what stand-alone superhero movies looked like before interconnected universes were the go-to. Love them or hate them, it’s unlikely we’ll see their type again.

Do you miss stand-alone superhero movies? Let me know in the comments section below!

​Remember when Bruce Wayne was debating packing in the whole Batman thing in The Dark Knight and Harvey Dent suggested he might actually be on to something? “You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain,” he said, shortly before becoming a villain himself. While it’s usually not advised to take the advice of supervillains, The Simpsons might be able to learn something from this Rogue Gallery baddie. Especially following their recent fumbled response to accusations of cultural appropriation regarding Springfield regular and Kwik-E-Mart clerk Apu. 

Miss this? Here’s a quick recap: In late 2017 TruTV aired stand-up comic Hari Kondabolu’s documentary The Problem With Apu, a film that explored exactly what its title might suggest by inviting a handful of recognized names to discuss the subliminal negative impact Springfield’s solo Indian American character has had on modern popular culture. Reaction online was swift and soon enough the question was raised as to how The Simpsons’ creative team might counter these accusations. It was a tricky situation made trickier when you consider that Apu has been around for the long haul and that he’s voiced by caucasian actor and voice artist Hank Azaria. If this was an episode of the show, they’d probably throw an awkward collar tug in right about now. 

As America’s longest running sitcom - one that’s deftly handled its fair share of hot topics with a combination of comedy and wit in the past - expectation was high. However instead of serving up a smart, considered response, sensitive to the social expectations of the day, the show’s eyebrow-raising retort fell spectacularly flat, not only shying away from addressing the issue head on but sweeping the whole conversation under the rug altogether. To borrow a phrase of another Springfield resident, it was probably the worst handling of a topical issue, ever. 

Maybe the show’s writers were banking on using the speed at which social issues like these come and go, hoping to offer a brief note, wait out the storm and carry on as usual. However instead of just being a rubbish response, this comes across more like the final nail in the coffin for a show that’s been in a steady decline for almost as long as its Golden Age lasted. When The Simpsons arrived in 1989, it had the gift of being fresh and undoubtedly paved new ground. If it wasn’t for Matt Groening and The Simpson family, it’s unlikely that we’d now have South Park or Family Guy - shows that have arguably taken Springfield’s format and improved upon it for a new generation. 

With this in mind - and with new shows, for new demographics, tackling new, topical issues in new ways - it makes you wonder whether we really need to see the slow demise of a once-pioneering show that’s now old and struggling to keep up. The legacy of The Simpsons at its peak is too sharp and revered to be handled this carelessly by a revolving door troupe of new writers. Suddenly, Harvey Dent’s advice sounds all too apt. Maybe The Simpsons has survived long enough to see itself do more harm than good. Maybe audiences need a little vacation from Springfield. 

Do you think we've seen enough of The Simpsons? Let me know in the comments section below!

Modern horror has been killing it recently. From 2016 frighteners Raw, The Ghoul and knocked-up knock out Prevenge to last year’s tension builder It Comes At Night and throwback mega-hit It, the horror genre has been riding a wave of smart, challenging and most importantly - really good - films that cater to both mainstream and die-hard indie audiences alike. What’s more, this wave of goodness shows no sign of slowing. Just this week we’ve been treated to Andy Nyman and Jeremy Dyson’s cryptic chiller Ghost Stories and John Krasinski’s critically praised terror A Quiet Place and we’re barely four months into 2018. 

Could this resurgence result in the horror genre being taken a bit more seriously? It’s a thought so appealing you almost don’t dare utter it out loud. If the release of Jordan Peele’s surprise hit Get Out last year is anything to go by, then perhaps this new wave of horror means a little more than just a few decent movies. It’s safe to say that not even Peele himself ever envisioned his twisted take on racism in popular culture would have taken him all the way to the Academy Awards. However the fact that he ultimately found himself taking home an Oscar for the movie says tonnes about the way audiences are beginning to change their perceptions of the genre. If a smart horror like Get Out can be deemed award worthy in the eyes of the Academy, then surely we can expect more filmmakers follow suit. 

Krasinski’s A Quiet Place may well be the first drip of the flood. His sophomore feature couldn’t be more mainstream - it’s a monster movie directed by none other than Jim from The Office - and yet critics from all outlets are already singing its praises as a film with both scares and substance. Clearly filmmakers are already starting to tiptoe down the route that Peele paved with Get Out and with Toni Collette’s horror mystery Hereditary due out in just a few months, it’s a safe bet that this path is about to get much more crowded. 

Or maybe not. If Hollywood’s known for anything, it’s cashing in on crazes and bleeding them dry. Maybe Get Out’s success will signal nothing more than a flash in the pan, leaving the horror genre lurking in the bottom shelves of DVD stores and deep-scrolled pages of Netflix sub-genres - and that’s fine too. After all, the unique selling point of this cult corner of filmmaking has always been its underdog appeal - films so nasty, mainstream viewers just can’t handle them quite yet. The horror genre will continue to kill it - whether or not mainstream viewers want in on the action sooner rather than later is up to them. 

Do you think horror movies are about to have their day in the sun? Let me know in the comments section below!

What does it take to ensure a film’s success? These days, you’d be forgiven for thinking that having a big name star to focus all your movie-marketing around is a no-brainer when it comes to box office gold. After all, the majority of today’s film media spends so much time talking to (and about) famous faces that audiences may even feel as though they know them well enough to consider them friends. When it comes to spearheading a new feature (an original feature, that is - not an adaptation or a reboot), slapping their face onto an unknown story surely greatly increases their chances of success, right?

Not always. Especially if the underwhelming release of Jennifer Lawrence-shaped spy thriller Red Sparrow is anything to go by. This in itself raises an interesting problem. If a star as ubiquitous as Lawrence can’t guarantee a hit film in 2018, then just who can? Could it be that star over-exposure has reached its peak? Unlike audiences before us, the cinema-goers of today find themselves in the unique position of being able to (in some cases) pick up their phone and literally speak directly to actors. Barriers have clearly been broken down but has it had an impact on the ways in which viewers digest new stories featuring their favourite famous faces?

It’s not just social media, either. A quick Google search of some of the top names of today reveal the varied ins-and-outs of their private lives and hot topic opinions before serving us examples of their on-screen work. Perhaps this transparency - or awareness of every single nook and cranny of an actor’s private life - has actually made it harder for us to suspend our disbelief and invest in a performance of a character that’s not already familiar to us. That’s certainly what the facts and figures show in the case of Red Sparrow. Present us Lawrence as Hunger Games heroine Katniss Everdeen and we’ll bite your hand off. Give us the exact same star in an unfamiliar hard sell? No, thanks. 

Compare the same circumstance to those who lead more private lives and the reverse appears to be true. Other than his humanitarian and environmental efforts, little seems to be known about the everyday life of Leo DiCaprio. As far as audiences are concerned he’s pretty much a blank canvas. Could this be why we buy him as a wheeling-dealing wall street hot shot just as easily as we buy him as a revenge-ridden revenant? It’s an interesting thought. For many seeking a career in the industry, fame and fortune are unwanted guests that hitch a ride along with your emerging success. However if this idea proves anything, it’s that they’re worth keeping an eye on. Sometimes being too famous can do more harm than good. 

Is being too famous a bad thing? Let me know your thoughts in the comments section below!

​The geek world felt a disturbance in the force earlier this week as filmmaker and pop-culture icon Kevin Smith suffered a heart attack following the recording of his debut stand-up special. Luckily, the Director and Comic Book Man came through the experience relatively unscathed, allowing fans to breathe a sigh of relief that Jay wasn’t prematurely torn away from his hetero life mate Silent Bob. It also inspired a great opportunity of reflection on Smith’s lengthy, varied career and the unrivalled influence he’s had on the movie world. A lot is written about Smith and his work but people often forget that…

​It feels like anyone with an iPhone can make a movie today, mainly because, well, they can. However back in the early 90s, making a fully fledged feature film was a bit harder than whipping out your smartphone and hitting record. In 1993, Smith had to take out (and max out) eight to ten credit cards and sell his extensive comic book collection just to scrape together the modest $28,000 needed to bankroll his debut film Clerks. Shooting nights in the convenience store that he actually worked in certainly helped keep costs down however the whole experience wasn’t cheap or any guarantee of success. Without a back-up plan in place, Smith took a huge financial - and personal - risk bringing Clerks to the screen but if he hadn’t have done, that 90’s new wave indie-scene may never have happened at all. 

Style over substance may have first been introduced by 60s French New Wave films but it didn’t really hit mainstream American audiences until the mid 90s. Quentin Tarantino often receives the lion’s share of praise for revolutionising the ways in which dialogue can be bent, twisted and colloquialized in order to shift a narrative forward but Smith was doing this too in his own equally foul-mouthed way. For every award-winning 'walk through the shadow of darkness’ speech and shoegazey ‘I don’t believe in tipping’ chatter ala Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, you’ll find just as many (if not more) meta-speeches in Smith’s work. From pondering the manual labour-casualties involved in blowing up the Death Star, to the heartbreaking reality that Jay and Bob won’t get to live like fat cats selling dope in the fictional Shermer, Illinois - Smith may not have won a Palme d'Or for his ability to capture the lexicon of everyday speech but it certainly paved the way for others to follow in his footsteps.

It’s hard to imagine a time where a Marvel or DC superhero wasn’t dominating every multiplex, toy store and cereal box and yet back when Smith was starting out, comic book movies were in short supply. Still, that didn’t stop the writer/director and View Askewniverse mastermind from nurturing his passion. In fact, you only have to look as far as his sophomore feature Mallrats - the self-referential celebration of the ink and paper fantasy world we now consider mainstream - to see just how dedicated he was (and still is) to shining a light on the worlds, universes and characters he holds so dear. Critically panned on its release, Mallrats almost derailed Smith’s fledgling career before it had even properly began but cut to 2018 and it feels more relevant than ever. He was even sowing the seeds of a shared-universe long before Marvel Studios suited up. These days Kevin Smith may have the official title of Comic Book Man thanks to the AMC TV show that boasts his name but make no mistake - he earned it. ​

Perhaps the key to Smith’s longevity as a popular presence among film fans is his transparency. Unlike your Steven Spielbergs, JJ Abrams and even his own contemporaries like Richard Linklater, Smith and his work felt more tangible than anything that came before it. From his first Clerks post-screening discussions to his debut (and now legendary) Evening With DVD recordings, Smith not only spoke to his fans through his work on screen but if you were lucky enough, he’d actually show up in your town and chat to you in person. Maybe the most refreshing thing about this process is the fact that he doesn’t just talk but listens too. It’s why Twitter feels like such a natural fit for the Director and his chatty character. Kevin Smith just isn’t content with creating his own brand of popular culture, he wants to join the conversation about the wider picture that’s influenced us all and unlike other filmmakers working today, he wants to know what you thought of it as well.

It’s been a difficult week for Kevin Smith but these are just a few (of many) reasons why we should all be thankful he’s still around. Get well soon, Kev!

What's your favourite Kevin Smith moment? Let me know in the comments section below!