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!

Well, it happened again. Last week saw the release of Sony’s fast-tracked Venom movie and the immediate overall consensus was well, a bit soggy. The Guardian labelled it ‘poisonously dull’, Rolling Stone referred to it as a ‘mess’ and Variety went the whole hog by rounding-up the most biting hot-takes on Director Ruben Fleischer’s hot-mess in a specifically dedicated blog post. Needless to say people weren’t too fond of Tom Hardy’s slimey alter-ego. Unsurprisingly though this reaction wasn’t entirely unexpected. When details of Sony’s first media screening was revealed to be taking place just one day before the film’s official release (complete with an embargo that lifted in the wee hours) - it wasn’t the most promising of signs that the studio had high hopes for its latest cinematic universe catalyst.

It wasn’t all bad news though. Almost all write-ups cited Tom Hardy’s delightfully weird turn as investigative journalist-turned snarlying symbiote-powered antihero Eddie Brock as one of the film’s few positives. That said, these were quickly overshadowed by an inconsistent tone and frequent odd (and unintentionally humorous) moments. Clearly it seems like there are more than a few reasons why Venom hasn’t sat well with audiences. However, it’s hard not to think the root of its flaws could be boiled down to a single major issue that appears to be becoming more and more common with non-Marvel superhero stories: an obsession with preemptive world building. 

Venom’s far from the first film to be guilty of this. Marvel has achieved lots in its impressive first decade and its success has given other rights-holders a serious case of FOMO when it comes to cashing-in on their assets. Probably the most notable culprit of this effect is rival company DC Studios who have tried and failed (and then tried and failed again and again) to find a short-cut to the type of character-rich expanded universe its main comics competitor has all-but perfected. Sony has also been guilty of coveting a quick-win. Remember Marc Webb’s short lived The Amazing Spider-Man double-punch and its even shorter-lived plans for a Sinister Six spin-off? If you do, you surely won’t remember them fondly. As these two examples have shown, when studios try to rush their shared universes to life at best they can be flawed misfires and at worst, downright confusing in their poorly thought out allusions. Either way, they’re cryptonite for both studios and audiences alike.

If there’s a lesson to be learned from their efforts its that there’s no reward in trying to run before you can walk. There’s no point raising your audiences' expectations with a Justice League film when only one of your heroes has had a properly thought out big-screen adventure. Marvel’s system worked so well because they gave their characters and storylines the breathing room needed to succeed and in turn, audiences willingly went along for the ride. Try and plan four or five movies ahead of yourself and you may encounter a case of too many cooks spoiling the symbiote. Patience is a virtue and while it may not be the hero comic book franchises want right now,  it’s definitely the one they’re in dire need of. 

Why do you think Venom got shabby reviews? Let me know in the comments section below!

Having debuted at Venice Film Festival just over a month ago, Bradley Cooper’s A Star Is Born has been fast-tracked to cinemas with its star-turned-director poised for Academy gold. Such a quick turn around is usually a big giveaway that the powers-that-be are pretty confident about their film’s chances come awards season - and in this case, they’re probably right on the money. This rags-to-riches tale of a up-and-coming songstress hitting the big time while her once-great mentor exits the spotlight has all the qualities Hollywood likes in an award winner - success, redemption and the mastabutory back-slapping of an industry celebrating its own successes.

The title itself has a history of Hollywood love. William Wellman’s 1937 original gathered seven Academy Award nominations while 1954’s Judy Garland-fronted remake clocked up a further six. Cut to 1976 and A Star Was Born was at it again, with Barbra Streisand’s revisit grabbing four more nods and once again taking centre stage during awards season. With such a strong legacy of industry recognition, it probably wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to imagine 2018’s edition working out pretty nicely for actor/director Cooper and star Lady Ga Ga. That said, it does bring to the forefront a trend that’s keeps reappearing: Why does Hollywood seem to be overly impressed by its own reflection?

Is it because this very industry-specific sub-genre is as engaging and worthy of adulation as Hollywood would have us believe or are those who make these stories (and more importantly, vote on their worth) as vain as bored budgies in a cage? You only have to look back as far as Damien Chazelle’s ode to the musicals of old La La Land in 2017 to see Hollywood once again celebrating its all-singing, all-dancing industry bread and butter. Before that, there was Michel Hazanavicius’s highly lauded flash-in-the-pan feature The Artist getting Movie Land’s tastemakers all hot and bothered with a nostalgia hit. Both were critically praised upon release and both went on to secure not just the approval of their peers but also of audiences and the academy. 

However is all this self congratulatory back-slapping healthy for a sustainable industry? Features like La La Land, The Artist and A Star Is Born undoubtedly serve a purpose to some - reinstating those core values that we as audiences inherently seek out from big screen stories. Underdog endurance, hard work rewarded, challenges giving way to glory - they’re all present - however their continued success (actual or implied by critics) surely stifles the types of stories that get produced and ultimately digested by the very people the industry aims to serve. Is the message of A Star Is Born so compelling that we really need to be served it three separate times? Why be like yesterday when you can be like today? Or better yet - tomorrow.

Do you think Hollywood needs to celebrate something other than itself? 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!

Oh, what’s become of us? Just a few years back all we needed for entertainment were a few chirpy sitcoms and campy comedies but now, everything’s different. Only a fortnight ago we were wondering whether terrible times are making us more sympathetic to terrible movies and while the jury’s still out on that, one thing we know for sure is that these days it takes a full-on bloodbath to keep us truly hooked. It’s true. At the time of writing, five of the top 20 most popular podcasts in the US feature murder or crime, while This American Life’s 2017 viral hit S-Town shattered records by earning 10 million downloads in its first four days of release. Clearly, our hunger for the macabre is strong. 

There’s a clear market for it too. Whether it’s before-it-was cool mainstays Sword and Scale, Criminal or Generation Why or relative newcomers My Favourite Murder, the aptly titled Serial Killer or UK’s own All Killa No Filla, audiences don’t have to look far to satisfy their feverish need for gore. Meanwhile Netflix has carved out its own share of the killing frenzy, starting with 2015’s watercooler megahit Making A Murderer and culminating (so far) with a rehash of Jean-Xavier de Lestrade’s The Staircase earlier this year. Realising our need for another murder fix, the network tried its best to find more bloody hits in the meantime but ultimately shows like The Keepers or Evil Genius never quite managed to achieve the same success. Poor Netflix, it must be desperate for someone to get brutally-yet-mysteriously murdered right about now. 

So what happened? Workspaces once dissected the exploits of fictional baddies like Walter White or Tony Soprano, now they’re debating the innocence or guilt of real life would-be killers. Who knew we had so many armchair defence attorneys amongst us, eh? Meanwhile, the shows' unjustly murdered (and usually female) victims are reduced to nothing more than TV show MacGuffins, here to help us kill a lazy afternoon in front of the telly. When you put our current content trends on trial (because courtrooms seem to be all the rage at the moment), it paints a pretty bleak state of affairs and one that undoubtedly says a lot about how we like to spend our downtime in 2018. 

Maybe it comes back to the age in which we live and the constant barrage of shocking events we're faced with every day, every time we open our phones. The world is a pretty chaotic place and finding a way to rationalise or compartmentalise the craziness can be overwhelming and all-but impossible but neatly contained podcasts or nicely rounded episode arcs on Netflix don't have that problem. By investing our spare time in them could we in fact be finding a way to take control of the uncontrollable and get some much needed solace from the outside world? The fact that the vast majority of these cases are unsolved even gives us an opportunity to force our opinions and unique takes down everyone's necks which - as Twitter has proven - is something we just can't get enough of. Maybe when the world calms down a bit we'll return to Friends, Scrubs and reruns of tame comedies from times gone by. In the meantime though, we need the harder stuff to survive.  

Why do you think we're obsessed with murder? Sound off in the comments section below!

This blog was written for the print brochure of The Dark Page, HOME Manchester's film season celebrating Noir adaptations from a variety of authors. Find out more here.

On the surface, Jackie Brown sure looks like a Blaxploitation movie. It features Pam Grier for starters, the subgenre-icon who famously embodied the entire movement in films like Coffy, Bucktown and of course, Foxy Brown. Expletive-spitting arms dealer Ordell Robbie (played by Director Quentin Tarantino’s good luck charm Samuel L. Jackson) provides the lowlife crime element that featured heavily in similar films of the 70s. Even the sound of it screams Blaxploitation with its street-smart mixtape of transportational funk, R&B and soul pulsing throughout. However despite all this Tarantino has assured us that Jackie Brown doesn’t belong in this genre - and on closer inspection it’s clear that he’s right. 

Hot off the success of his first two movies, 1997’s Pulp Fiction follow-up saw Tarantino remain in the world of pulp to helm his first - and so far, only - adaptation. Taking Elmore Leonard’s crime novel Rum Punch as his inspiration, the Director quickly injected his own personality into the story of a drug smuggling airline stewardess drawn back into business for one last job. His translation process turned the film’s titular heroine from white to black and her surname from Burke to Brown - however almost all other aspects of Leonard’s crime thriller remained intact. 

The most notable of which is surely Max Cherry (Robert Forster), the LA bail bondsman with a heart of gold who’s seen it all. Through Cherry, Tarantino is gifted the opportunity to subtly indulge in some classic noir tropes and mash together two cinematic worlds which rarely - if ever - collide. Cherry feels out of step with the movie he’s in, sat in a shabby, run down office that screams 1940’s gumshoe far more than his contemporary LA surroundings. He’s a nice guy in a bad line of work and it’s during a key conversation with Jackie (who’s fast becoming his femme fatale) where he comes to a key realisation. “Why am I doing this?” he asks, “19 years of this shit?” 

Max is tired, world weary and surprised by nothing, like many noir PI’s that have came before him. The way he sees it, his future involves either dying LA’s last remaining good guy or living long enough to break bad himself and it’s here where Jackie tests his will with an alluring proposition. “If you could walk away with half a million dollars,” she asks, “would you take it?” It’s an offer that would drastically change his world, removing him from his pokey office and LA’s petty crime scene and introducing this nice guy to a potentially nice future - if he’s ready to grab it.

As the jangly chords of Bobby Womack’s “Across 110th Street” starts to play, signifying both Cherry’s decision and the film’s climax, we come to the stark realisation that his world hasn’t changed at all. Tarantino’s return to the same track that opened Jackie Brown is a harsh reminder of things coming full circle, with that noir motif stepping fully into the spotlight. Here, the good aren’t always rewarded and sometimes, crime does pay. Max Cherry may not belong in Jackie Brown’s empowered Blaxploitation world but make no mistake: he’s right at home in The Dark Page.

The Dark Page runs at HOME Manchester from Sun 5 Aug - Wed 5 Sep. Find out more here.

We live in troubling times. These days, a quick glance at the news or that spiraling argument void of social media is all you need to send you plummeting into a pit of existential despair and yet on the big screen, things seem different. While the usual realist fare is still present (all too ready to bring us face to face with our dodgy problems), a new and potentially more troubling trend is emerging. One that sees us heaping critical praise on films that perhaps only a decade ago would have been written off as lazy, twee or well, just a bit shit. 

Take the events of this week for example. We saw the release of irritatingly chirpy Abba-shaped sequel Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again, a film that manages to raise the bar for cliche subtitles whilst simultaneously following-up a story no one really seemed that bothered about in the first place. A decade ago, critics and fans alike frowned upon Pierce Brosnan’s flat, weird speak-singing so much they awarded it just 54% on Rotten Tomatoes. Cut to 2018 and at the time of writing Here We Go Again somehow finds itself certified 79% fresh, with audiences and unlikely critics singing its praises despite themselves. 

So what happened? Well, the fact that the world today is going to shit almost certainly plays a part. The first Mamma Mia arrived nestled in a year where Barack Obama had won an liberated election and one of the biggest media scandals involved Jonathan Ross, Russell Brand and Manuel from Fawlty Towers. 2018 on the other hand is a much darker place, a bit like an episode of Black Mirror minus all the humour, smarts or twist endings. Each day that passes reveals another revelation shocking enough to make you question what’s fiction and what’s reality. In short: Maybe audiences are in need of a bit of escapism. 

The signs started to reveal themselves a few years ago. Remember when news broke about the Paddington movie and it seemed like the worst idea ever? Colin Firth’s exit did little to reassure audiences that this was something worth their time and money and yet the film - and most notably its 2017 follow-up - emerged as two of the most fondly reviewed family films of recent years. The trend continued with 2017’s saccharine singalong The Greatest Showman which polarised audiences on Rotten Tomatoes with a 54% critic rating Vs a 87% audience score. Clearly, levity is in great demand at the moment. It’s no wonder there’s currently six (yes, six) features currently in the works surrounding the uplifting real-life rescue of the school kids from the caves of Thailand. No word yet on who might play Elon Musk.

It’s a stark change in a relatively short space of time. Back in 2008, our collective favourite film seemed to be Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight - a gritty terrorist tale disguised as a superhero epic. Who’d have thought that a decade later it’d be Cher, bad singing and Abba that’d be topping our critics list and pleasing audiences worldwide? Mamma Mia, indeed. 

Do you think we need more levity in our movies? Let me know in the comments section below!

Audiences had to wait six years for Director Joe Dante to follow up 1984’s Christmas critter classic Gremlins and what they got wasn’t exactly what they were expecting. This manic metropolitan movie ditched the traditional sequel formula in favor of a buck-trending, anti-movie that relished in sticking two slimy green fingers up at not just movie fans and pop culture trends - but the people that make those movies and trends too. Spielbergian family frightener, this was not. Dante and co left the quaintness of part one in Kingston Falls - this was New York and 1990’s Gremlins 2: The New Batch was a different beast entirely, bolder and better than its predecessor. 

Where to start? The bigger, crazier and more chaotic philosophy of sequels is sent into overdrive with Dante and writer Charles S. Haas throwing anything and everything at the wall to see what sticks. However it’s likely the film’s ‘self aware’ qualities are what first signified that this was something perhaps a little too ahead of its time for the audience that received it. Meta references may be ten-a-penny in 2018 but 28 years ago they were hardly common place. The Gremlins’ mid-movie multiplex takeover - complete with Hulk Hogan cameo (or a John Wayne re-edit if you’re watching at home) - is an early warning sign but by the time Dante gets to shutting down Kate’s (Phoebe Cates) stock sob story before the film’s shocking climax, the writing’s on the wall. This is far from business as usual. 

Let’s be honest, Gremlins 2: The New Batch is hardly going to get the mainstream recognition it deserves - ‘schlocky, monster movie sequel’ doesn’t exactly scream critical acclaim. Yet stick the movie on 28 years later and it’s hard not to get sucked right in. Lots of great movies were released in 1990 so the fact that we’re still talking about this film at all is in itself a triumph. This could be down to a lot of things: a nostalgia factor, for sure but the film’s dry humour, eye-popping practical effects and complete smirking disregard for everything that lured fans in in the first place makes it less of a straight follow-up and more of a mutated relative. The ambition of Dante and his crew was high, perhaps higher than it even needed to be for a film like this (Key and Peele’s brilliant Gremlins 2 sketch sums this up perfectly) but it’s because of this that the film has endured and proven itself as a truly superior sequel.

Can you think of any other superior sequels? 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!