There’s a potent nostalgia that permeates through many a horror director’s work. Depending on what they grew up with, genre directors like Rob Zombie and Ti West pay homage to their era of choice, hoping to replicate those warm and fuzzy feelings of gritty 70s exploitation (Zombie’s The Devil’s Rejects) or golden age VHS (West’s The House of the Devil).

Steven C. Miller is definitely a guy from an Amblin age when kids battled with aliens and monsters in a largely parentless world. Like the much grander Super 8, Miller’s Under The Bed creates and harks back to a world before mobile phones and the Internet; it’s a world where kids live in big suburban houses, where boys ride their BMX’s to the local diner, and where action figures line the walls of their bedrooms. Indeed, it’s the Spielbergian touches that give Under The Bed its heart and an endearing quality.

Neal Hausman (Weston) has returned home after spending two years with his aunt in Florida, following the tragic death of his mother. However, something’s not quite right in the Hausman home. A strange evil lurks under the bed in Neal’s old room, which tormented him for years, and now it wants a shot at Paulie. With nobody believing their far-fetched story, the brothers try to survive and attempt to figure out a way to destroy the demon once and for all.

Certainly, it’s during the slow, puzzling build up where the movie works best, when the film taps into those childhood fears and teases with the prospect that something – like many of us as kids assumed all along – might well be under the bed, just waiting for us to fall asleep.

It’s a creepy prospect that Miller deals with in an intimate and restrained way. The film is ambiguous at first (we don’t know if the horror aspects of the story are all in Neal’s head, with his fears projected onto his kid brother) and treads safely on PG-13 ground. Then a contrasting final act undoes all of the hard work, turning into a bloody monster movie complete with decapitations and face melting.

Less is more is the key here, but Under the Bed is still a memorable experience and establishes Miller as a name to look out for. In fact, his remake of Silent Night, Deadly Night is already on its way.

Overall Verdict: An uneven mix of Amblin-esque horror and bloody monster movie.

Reviewer: Lee Griffiths

Many have said that you should go into The Imposter not knowing anything, but the fact is not that many people about are going to pick a film at the cinema they literally know nothing about. So if you do fancy watching it completely cold, I’ll say you’re in for a fascinating ride but stop reading now, although if you do want to know a little more, then read on. However I’m not about to be a complete spoiler asshole, as I won’t tell you much more than you’ll discover in the first five minutes of the movie.

In 1994 in San Pedro, Texas, 14-year-old Nicholas Barclay went off to play basketball with his friends, but somewhere on his way home he went missing. Three and a half years later his mother receives a phone-call telling her that beyond all expectations, Nicholas has been found terrified and disoriented in a phone box in Spain, apparently after escaping from a child sex ring. However this is not really Nicholas, he as, as the title suggests, an imposter. While you might expect this ruse to be quickly uncovered, it isn’t, although I won’t say too much more, as the story of what happens is pretty incredible, unexpected and surprising.

The story is told through a mix of well-shot dramatic recreations, along with interviews with all the major participants, including Nicholas’ mother and sister, as well as the imposter himself, Frederic Bourdin. While you could argue that the film gives a platform for an inveterate liar who did a truly terrible thing, the way it’s made it essentially allows the viewer to make up their own mind about Frederic, so that you can decide how much of what he says is true and how much he’s massaging things to make himself look better.

While much of the film is almost a negotiation about the difficulty of finding the truth, especially when everyone’s view on it is different, just the verifiable facts of this case are astonishing. The way the documentary is put together turns the whole thing into a bit of a thriller, with all sorts of unexpected twists and turns. Although it’s a cliché to say something wouldn’t be believable as fiction, in this case it’s true, right down to a twist at the end that suddenly sheds a whole new light on what may have really been going on. Even the characters involved seem straight out of a movie, particularly private eye Charlie Parker, who’s the sort of Texan good ol’ boy I didn’t think actually existed.

Although this isn’t the sort of documentary that normally gets a cinema release, you can see why this one has, as the way it’s structured and the tale it tells really does feel like a movie. You’d also be advised to take a few people along to watch it with you, as you’re almost guaranteed to want to talk about it afterwards, arguing about what happened to Nicholas, why the family might have accepted Bourdin as their missing relative and whether the imposter is mad (literally, he sometimes seems on the verge of being a psychopath/sociopath), bad or slightly to be pitied.

Overall Verdict: A truly fascinating documentary that’s definitely worth going to see at the cinema. It’s well made with an astonishing story to tell which will keep you thinking for days afterwards.

Reviewer: Tim Isaac

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had better now watch Circumstance, as he’s apparently convinced there are no gay people in Iran (although the fact his regime has arrested and even executed quite a few would rather undermine that position). Although he does watch the film, he can probably unfairly claim it’s all down Western influence and young people wanting that pesky thing called freedom.

Atafeh and Shireen are two teenage Iranian girls whose friendship extends into a romance and sexual relationship. They secretly frequent underground parties, flirt, drink and dream about being able to go somewhere they can do all these things openly and without censure. The first half of the film delves into this side of Iranian culture and young people straining against the confines of a system that wants to supress them, particularly if you’re a woman and/or gay.

The second half moves into slightly different territory as Atafeh’s ex-drug addict brother Mehran begin to become more central to proceedings. Since his wild days he’s dedicated himself to Islam and become increasingly extreme and supportive of the controlling aspects of the Iranian regime, even going as far as installing cameras to spy on his family. As Mehran makes moves to wed Shireen – whose family is keen to marry her off – the shackles of life in an oppressive, authoritarian system begin to close in on the girls. It’s not all misery though, as there are some nice moments of humour, including the girls and their gay friends deciding to try and make a statement about human rights by translating Gus Van Sant’s Milk into Persian for an Iranian audience.

Circumstance is a brave and complex film from first-time writer/director Maryam Keshavarz, who was born in NYC but raised in both the US and Iran. It’s a film that’s full of nice touches and has a bold often involving story to tell. It does have a few problems though. Keshavarz wants to cover a lot of thematic ground, such as the place of women in Iran, homosexuality, the clash between freedom and religion, the oppression felt from the sense of being watched and various other things.

However the script sometimes has difficulty wrangling all these things and particularly in the second half, things get a bit messy as it stretches in directions that don’t feel quite in keeping with what’s gone before. You can tell why Keshavarz wanted to keep these things, as individually they are quite interesting and reflect aspects of the involved and fairly deep things she wants to say, but it does mean the movie is occasionally unwieldy and feels closer to melodrama than perhaps it should.

Some have also criticised the movie for perpetuating stereotypes about Iran and the oppression of women and gay people in the country. To be honest I can’t tell you whether Circumstance is true to what it’s like to grow up in Iran, but it doesn’t feel like it’s selling you something completely fake. Indeed, there’s a strong sense of people being the same wherever they come from, with the difference largely down to the society they have to exist within.

Overall Verdict: An interesting debut from writer/director Maryam Keshavarz exploring all sorts of ideas about life in Iran, and trying to find a sense of freedom and individuality in a controlling society.

Reviewer: Tim Isaac

In the world of constantly evolving trends there’s a very fine line between retro and sad. Tweed jackets? Retro. Leather trousers? Sad. Old episodes of Quantum Leap? Retro. Old episodes of Blockbusters? Sad. It’s worth mentioning because this is a line that The Expendables 2 walks with reckless abandon both to its credit and detriment.

Sylvester Stallone once again leads his motley crew of mercenaries into the fray, this time with revenge on their mind. See, ridiculously named former Eastern Bloc arms dealer/warlord Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme) was cheeky enough to bump off one of the team and is trying to use an old Soviet plutonium stash to upset the balance of global power. True to form, Sly and the lads (accompanied by token ass-kicking lady Nan Yu) use this as an excuse to kill enough nameless henchman to populate a fairly large town.

Surprisingly enough, despite the paper thin story and stock characters, there’s plenty to like about this second instalment of the franchise. Indeed, The Expendables 2 hits a lot of the targets that the first one missed. Director Simon West (the hand behind action classic Con-Air) is wise enough to steer the film away from any modicum of the serious introspection that derailed the first film and has created an out-and-out switch-your-brain-off explosion-fest. There’s not a hint of pretentiousness about The Expendables 2, the film simply puts its arm around the viewer and says “Hey friend, I’m basically 100 minutes of guns and bombs, so let’s just kick back and relax, right?”. And the result is strangely satisfying.

Everyone, of course, will be talking about the new additions. Van Damme is a good choice for antagonist, his chilly Coors-fuelled emotionlessness perfect for the amoral character be portrays. Schwarzenegger is his amiable self, the mighty Arnholt being one of a very few select group of performers for whom acting talent, or lack thereof, holds no worries. The real scene stealer though is Sir Chuck of Norris, a man already brought to almost Godlike status by Internet “facts”, the bearded wonder is used perfectly as a mysterious lone wolf, able to take out a street full of baddies without batting an eyelid, or possibly BY batting an eyelid.

Despite all these cute bits of kitsch however, at some poin, I must put my cynic hat on and judge The Expendables 2 on its filmmaking merits and it is, unfortunately, found wanting. The script is clunky and though the actions sequences are worthy of merit, there’s not much there that veterans of the genre won’t have seen before. The performances, whilst likeable enough, lack any emotional resonance, particularly Stallone who has developed a syndrome where every time he attempts something serious and heartfelt, he instantly becomes hilarious.

In one particularly cringe-worthy moment, an attempted sensitive rationalising of the pointlessness of war had the audience rolling in the aisles. Finally, the film takes the “wink wink, nudge nudge” element a little too far, the number of Terminator references surrounding Schwarzenegger from the outset stretches the gag to breaking point.

In an odd way, the Expendables 2 acquits itself through its own low standards. There’s almost nothing to recommend here other than trashy joie d’vivre, but that’s very nearly enough on its own.

Overall Verdict: A so-bad-it’s-good tribute to the so-bad-its-good action films of yesteryear. Check your cynicism at the door and you’ll end up having a jolly, if not particularly sophisticated time.

Reviewer: Alex Hall

I still can’t quite believe the little girl from 1980s Canadian TV import Ramona is now all grown up and an accomplished actor, director and writer. Take This Waltz is Sarah Polley’s third movie as a director, following All I Want For Christmas and the excellent Away From Her. In some respects it’s a rather standard story – someone is tempted to cheat on their spouse when something seemingly more exciting than the dullness of everyday marriage comes along – but what make it slightly unusual is that in this one it’s the woman who’s thinking of playing away.

Michelle Williams – who’s fast become one of the most fascinating and accomplished actresses of her generation, and also oddly interested with starring in movie about the breakdown of relationships – plays Margot, who meets the dashing and rather good-looking Daniel (Luke Kirby) while on a research trip to a living-history colonial fort. Their flirtation continues of the plane home, with Margot thinking it’s safe as she’ll never see him again once they land. However in one of those only-in-the-movies situations, it turns out he literally lives across the street from her but they’ve never met before.

At home Margot is married to Lou (Seth Rogen), a loving but slightly schlubby man who’s constantly cooking chicken while he writes a cook-book. Although the couple care about one another, their communication isn’t always the greatest, especially when it comes to their emotions. Margot begins seeing more of Daniel, with the harmless flirtation soon growing into an emotional affair. While she strongly resists going over the boundary into something physical, things eventually reach a point of no return that could completely upend her life.

The script for Take This Waltz landed on the black list of the best unproduced screenplays, and that’s probably because – as with many black listed scripts – it must have come across as quirky and oddly whimsical on the page. However to Polley’s immense credit, rather than using its quirks to merely make it seems suitably indie, they become the things that make these people feel real. From Lou’s constant cooking of chicken to the couple’s game where they say how much they love one another by describing the gruesome things they’d do to show it, the movie has a great feel for the idiosyncrasies of real-life. Every relationship is individual even if the problems they face are often more universal.

The movie plays a complex moral game, ensuring that no one is completely demonised even while the issues being explored are clear and ethically troubled. It would have been easy to make Lou a thoughtless layabout who puts absolutely no effort into the marriage in order to ensure we immediately side with Margot. However he clearly loves Margot, and you can understand why he thinks they’re living in some sort of cosy idyll and they’re both happy. Even moments when there’s obviously been a communication breakdown, you can understand why he’s completely perplexed about what she’s talking about, as the film has a sometimes keen understanding of the different ways men and women often think.

Equally though, Margot’s seven-year-itch (or in her case five-year-itch) is understandable too, even if her actions often stretch far beyond what most would say was morally acceptable. She knows that in many ways she’s lucky to have Lou – indeed I can imagine many viewers wishing they had a hubby like him – but she’s unsettled by the ennui that’s settled both into the marriage and into her, so when something new, exciting and potentially better comes along, she gravitates towards it. The film certainly isn’t an apologia for what she does, but it does a very good job of showing where she’s coming from.

Take This Waltz does come slightly unstuck towards the end, as while it’s keen not to minimise the results of what Margot has done, the upshot of showing that outcome is a movie that keeps feeling like it’s reached the end, only for it to continue on. Indeed there are at least three occasions that feel like a final scene before we get to the real end. It’s a difficult one, as the extra endings are necessary if the movie isn’t going to cop out, and they help fully show both the positives and negatives of Margot’s actions. They manags to do this without great melodrama and endless shouting (which is what a lot of movies would have done), but it is problematic.

Oh, and it should also be noted that if you saw Seth Rogen and Sarah Silverman in the credits and were expecting a laugh riot, that’s not what you get. Although there’s some comedy, both actors show there’s more to them than clowning-around. Indeed it’s smart casting on Polley’s part, using the skills Rogen and Silverman normally apply to making people laugh for more dramatic ends, and ensuring that their potentially difficult characters are fully rounded.

Overall Verdict: A complex film that’s not for those who like a simple morality with clearly defined heroes and villains. However if you’re willing to engage, there’s plenty of food for thought, with very real characters making understandable if not always sound choices.

Reviewer: Tim Isaac 

Let’s just ignore the fact that I Against I is a truly horrible (and vaguely nonsensical) title, as plenty of decent films have been burdened by rubbish names. Sadly though in this case, the title isn’t any better than the film.

Ian Drake (Kenny Doughty) finds himself massively in over his head when he’s accused by hardnut Joseph Carmichael (Mark Womack) of killing his criminal underworld kingpin father, Tommy. Joseph offers Ian a possible way out, giving him 12 hours to kill a man called Issac (Sigurosson). Unbeknownst to Ian, Issac could also be the murderer, and he’s out to kill Ian. As the two men try to track each other and get their respective jobs done, the situation becomes ever more complex and they begin to suspect they may have been double-crossed, but why?

There’s a lot of potential in I Against I and the makers have obviously been studying their gritty thrillers (the press release for the film says it ‘takes its influence from the 80’s and 90’s films of Ridley Scott and Michael Mann’), but they’re rather let down by the script. The hope seems to be that you’ll just be carry along by the plot twists, double-crossing and grim action, ignoring the fact that it’s all actually pretty silly. The characters are constantly doing things that allow the plot to move forward but are actually pretty dumb and not very well thought out.

Part of the problem is the blankness of the characters. There’s very little to the main people in the movie, which makes it extra difficult to believe in what they’re doing. Ian Drake is presented as a bit of an everyman character, presumably so he’s easy to empathise with, but the actual result is that his actions seems fairly arbitrary and plot-driven, rather than doing what would make sense. Isaac is a more intriguing character, but again there’s not really a lot to him.

The lack of characterisation isn’t helped by some cringe-inducing dialogue. Some of the exchanges would seem weak if offered in a Screenwriting basics class. By the point a character accidentally mentions a character’s surname, revealing they know more than they’re talking, we’re in the territory of clichés so old they’d have seemed hackneyed when the Lumiere Brothers set up their first movie cameras.

In many ways it’s a shame, because as mentioned there is potential. The cast is pretty good and Kenny Doughty is an effective choice for the lead. It all looks pretty good and there are some real moments of tension in amongst its gritty, underworld shenanigans. Unfortunately it’s all undermined by the assumption audiences will ignore just how nonsensical, overly complicated and ultimately purposeless the main plot is.

Overall Verdict: Some good direction and decent acting can’t hide the fact I Against I is pretty silly and with its characterless characters, doesn’t really make much sense.

Reviewer: Tim Isaac