The Hills Have Eyes 2 - You’ve seen one set of mutated cannibal hillbillies then you’ve seen them all

Yes, I hate lazy horror remakes as much as the next fan of the genre.  However, when it came to the (‘original’) remake of the Hills Have Eyes, I was actually pretty impressed.  I guess I wasn’t the only one as it seems to have spawned a sequel… which I also watched.

I guess you could compare part 2 to ‘Aliens’ and part 1 to ‘Alien.’ Of course the major difference was that BOTH ‘Alien’ films were awesome whereas here, just adding soldiers and guns doesn’t automatically make it better.  The first film showed us what happened to a family when their camper van broke down in the middle of a desert and ended up at odds with the psychotic locals.  Now, some time later in the same desert, a team of young – and not that particularly experienced – soldiers are on a training exercise.  Guess what happens to them?!

So our young recruits start getting attacked and picked off one by one in classic slasher style.  You may think the fact that they’re armed with guns and the locals have melee weapons gives them an advantage.  It doesn’t.  Like I say they’re VERY inexperienced, almost to the point of it being a little unrealistic how quickly they go down.  However, part of the story is that they’re not that good at what they do, so I guess I can let that one slide.  Unfortunately, part of the problem with having all the characters dressed the same in their army gear makes them very difficult to tell who’s who – especially when one dies and then you realise it was a different soldier.  Not only this, they’re all rather forgettable and you can hazard a guess which handful will make it all the way to the final reel as they’re the only ones with vaguely identifiable character traits.

Sadly, it’s not just the people we’re supposed to root for who have problems (dare I call them ‘heroes?’).  The mutated rednecks are just as bland.  They’re not that scary and the make-up and gore isn’t up to the standards it would need to be to really stand out.  There’s a bit of gore and some nastiness here and there, but – again – nothing that you haven’t seen before (and better!) if you’ve seen much of the horror genre.

I may sound like I hated it, but I didn’t.  The problem is that it’s just the very definition of ‘average.’ It’s not bad, just completely forgettable.  There are too many horror clichés in here to really make it work well and it’s not a patch on either of the originals.  Plus, if I have to hear someone say either ‘We’re going to get through this’ (or a variation thereof) I may just hurl the remote at the TV screen.

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

The Lost Boys – One of the seminal films of the eighties

If you only see one eighties movie about vampires… then watch (the original) ‘Fright Night.’ However, if you’re well into either or both movie history, or our blood-sucking fiends of the night, then you should probably watch the original ‘Fright Night’ AND ‘The Lost Boys.’ There are some films you just have to see and The Lost Boys is one.  Maybe I was being too flippant when I said that you should watch it after ‘Fright Night?’ Let’s face it… Fright Night got an updated remake whereas The Lost Boys is yet to be redone by modern (CGI) hands.

There’s nothing amazing about The Lost Boys’ plot, i.e. a family relocate to a new town where they discover it has a dark secret.  Even in the eighties this was getting a little stale.  However, it’s the film’s blend of horror and a real self of ‘self-knowing’ without ever descending into straight up comedy.  The two central characters/brothers play off each other well, giving a natural feel of sibling rivalry while at the same time having each other’s back when push comes to shove.  Of course, this relationship is really put to the test when the elder brother only goes and gets mixed up in the wrong crowd – a crowd of vampires to be precise!  And, to prove the old warning true about never accepting drinks from strangers, he only goes and has a swig from a bottle of blood turning him into one of their reflection-less ranks.
As good as the brothers are, a
really great film also has a wide variety of supporting characters for them to interact with.  The Lost Boys doesn’t depart in that department.  For a start we have the pair lads who seem to live in the local comic shop and ‘swot up’ on how best to defeat the local undead via the pages of graphic novels.  If there is a real ‘comic element’ to the film it lies with them, but, seeing as they’re never used in excess, they never become annoying.  Of course special mention must be given to Kiefer Sutherland.  Before Jack Bauer was saving the world, Kiefer was ripping people’s throats out with his evil yellow eyes and 18 certificate Buffy the Vampire make-up.  He’s by far the stand out performance.  You may not want to root for him, but you sure won’t sleep easy after watching his sheer glee at terrorising any of us mere mortals.

Yes, as with any horror film you have to suspend your disbelief at times.  Sometimes plot points are a little hard to swallow, but this film is just too much fun to really care and the massive amounts of good so outweigh the negative moments it’s just not worth mentioning. 

You should definitely watch ‘The Lost Boys.’ Whether you’re a fan of great characters, horror, vampire, teen movies and general fun flicks from the eighties, it basically has it all.  And that’s before I mentioned the musical score.  Seriously… that chant is damn haunting and will stick in your head long after the cool (and completely out of the blue!) last line of the film!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

A Christmas Horror Story – this could have been done better

Being a ‘Trekkie’ I do have the tendency to watch almost anything the great ‘Bill’ Shatner is in, so, coupled with my love of horror, I thought this one would be right up my street.  It wasn’t.  A kind of knew that ‘Captain Kirk’ would only have a small amount of screen time, so it wasn’t that I felt short-changed due to him only holding the intertwining stories together through use of his scenes as a radio DJ (which were arguably the best bits!).  My problem was with the story/s themselves.  Basically, the film is split into four different (Christmas-related) horror tales.  This wouldn’t bother me if it wasn’t for the fact that two of them aren’t really that good.

Perhaps it might have been better if the stories were told one after the other.  I watched this on DVD therefore this would have enabled me to simply skip to the next story if I was getting bored.  However, the narrative jumps back and forth between them all.  This means that, during the stories that you like, you’re just happily getting into when suddenly you’re wrenched back to one of the lesser interesting ones.

I would say that the highlight of the film (or rather story which appealed to me the most) involves the elves in Father Christmas’ North Pole toy factory developing a plague which turns them into flesh-eating zombie elves.  Therefore, Santa has to ‘kick a$$’ and take them down in a way that Rick and Darryl from The Walking Dead would be proud.  I quite liked the ‘changling’ story too, but mainly because I’ve always been fascinated by this – disturbing – type of fairy tale.  However, even that sort of lost its appeal once the lesser interesting stories have been interwoven within its framework.

Yes, William Shatner is the best part, but even his rambling brand of comedy wasn’t really enough to make me want to sit through an hour and a half of sub-standard Christmas stories.  I’d rather just see a twenty minute short of Santa bludgeoning elves to death in front of his mutilated reindeers and be done with it.  Pity.  Could and should have been much more fun.

4/10 You can watch this film while you're doing the ironing (you'll still get the general gist of it)

The People vs Larry Flynt - Interesting ‘opinion piece’

It’s a bit of a cliché to say that you’ll either ‘love or hate’ the film ‘The People vs Larry Flynt,’ but the reason I open with such a phrase is largely down to the source material, i.e. real life.  It’s a semi-biopic picture which tells the story of self-titled ‘King of p0rn’ Larry Flynt and his rise to power, largely with the (in)famous adult publication ‘Hustler.’ I suppose how much you enjoy the film comes down to how much you see things from his point of view.  It does portray him in quite a sympathetic light (largely for the first half!) so, if you’re very ‘anti-adult publications’ then you’ll probably see him as an modern day devil in human form, hell bent on corrupting the morals of the nation.  However, if you’re more liberal in your reading material then you’ll probably tolerate Woody Harrelson’s performance for longer.

I mentioned that he’s effectively the ‘hero’ (although I should probably call him an ‘anti-hero!’) for the first half of the film.  I suppose it’s because he gets slowly more hardened and cynical before finally developing an attitude which generally feels like he’s at war with the world and simply wants to annoy everyone he comes into contact with (mainly judges!).  This is the point in the story where even his most die-hard supporters start to lose patience with him, for he becomes a little unlikeable, which can go some way to impact on your enjoyment of the film.

As if the characters weren’t controversial enough, the film-makers even chose one of the most controversial figures of the modern age to co-star, i.e. Courtney Love.  She plays Larry Flynt’s ‘love interest’ and opinion – naturally, it seems – is divided on how successful her (arguably) biggest on-screen role turned out.  One school of through is that she was amazing as the drug-fuelled woman in Larry Flynt’s life, others simply say that she was merely playing an extension of her true self.  Special mention to Edward Norton who – amazingly – gets overshadowed by the more ‘larger than life’ performances in the film.  He’s probably the most ‘sympathetic’ character among the batch as he plays Larry Flint’s long-suffering lawyer who is left practically tearing his hair out in frustration when it comes to his client’s antics.

As far as I can tell, ‘The People Vs Larry Flynt’ is a pretty accurate depiction of the events in the p0rn baron’s life, so if you think you need to know about the way the law attempted to ‘protect’ the public against the world’s seedy underbelly then give this one a go.  The performances are all spot on and whether you like the film will go hand in hand with how much you’re interested in the history of the subject matter and how much you can tolerate slightly infuriating on-screen characters. 

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Swamp Thing (1982) - An era DC would probably like to forget

If you’re keeping up to date with the now rampant battle between comic powerhouses Marvel and DC then you’ll probably know that Marvel are waaaaay ahead with their ‘shared universe’ and DC are, despite Batman, Superman and Margot Robbie in hotpants, lagging behind significantly.  Back before such an epic cinematic conflict took place, DC had a fair few minor ‘superheroes’ on the silver screen, yet little way made of it. ‘Swamp Thing’ is one such example.  And for good reason.  It’s pretty awful.

Many people have slated DC’s recent offerings such as ‘Batman vs Superman’ and ‘Suicide Squad.’ Personally, I quite enjoyed them, but if people had to sit through ‘Swamp Thing’ they’d really have something to gripe about!  I watched it for three reasons: (1) It had Ray Wise in it.  He’s hardly a ‘big name’ in cinema, but, if you’ve seen him in ‘Twin Peaks’ (and pretty much anything else), you’ll know he’s a damn fine actor and always gives an intense performance.  (2) It was directed by Wes Craven and (3) It’s DC – and therefore may one day be dragged kicking and screaming into their floundering shared universe.

I was basically short-changed on all my three reasons.  For a start – the great – Ray Wise was hardly in it (sorry if that’s a minor ‘spoiler’ but there’s little anyone can say that will spoil this film any more than it already is.  Yes, the equally great horror maestro Wes Craven did direct it, but it was one of his early films that I think he probably never put on his C.V.  Surely he must have only done this one for the paycheque!  And finally, if this is an example of what happens in the ‘Swamp Thing’ then I hope he stays well clear of Batman and Superman!

It’s just awful (I think I already said that).  Sorry, I can’t think of any other way to describe it.  No, I’m not a ‘film snob’ who only wants to watch ‘high art’ with deep and meaningful character development (hell, one of my favourite films is ‘Flash Gordon’ so I’m well up for a good ‘good-bad’ film any day!).

There are old horror/sci-fi films which, despite their age, still stand up today.  ‘Swamp Thing’ will never be one of them.  I even spoke to someone who had read some of the comics it was based on and she confirmed that the film was completely different (and not in a good way!).  The ‘climactic’ end battle between hero and villain is truly laughable and like something out of a parody using men in rubber suits to slug it out (think that scene in ‘Crank 2’ that just sort of came out of nowhere!).

Just don’t bother with this at all and pray that DC have upped their game to produce the output they do today.  You may hate ‘Dawn of Justice’ and ‘Suicide Squad’ but, compared to ‘Swamp Thing’ they are truly cinematic greats!

3/10 Jabba the Hutt wipes himself down with this film

Absolutely Anything – Pegg and the Pythons

It’s hard not to like ‘Absolutely Anything’ – Simon Pegg, best known for his role as ‘Shaun’ in ‘Shaun of the Dead, Spaced’ and almost every other film where he’s played a slight variation of his usual loveable slacker alter-ego – plays, well, her a variation of his usual loveable slacker alter-ego.  However, when he’s wandering around in London one day pining over his neighbour, Kate Beckinsale, he’s given the power to have anything and everything he wants by the cast of Monty Python (albeit computer-generated alien monstrous versions of themselves who live in a space ship and decide to test humanity in this way to see what happens – and whether to blow the entire planet up while they’re at it!).  All Pegg has to do is wave his hand and his innermost desires come to fruition.

He therefore fixes the entire world’s problems and everyone lives happily ever after. 


Okay, so that would make a pretty dull film.  Everything goes about as swimmingly as you’d expect given a man who talks to his dog unlimited superpowers.  You’ll notice I opened this review with the line ‘it’s hard not to LIKE Absolutely Anything.’ I didn’t use the word ‘LOVE.’ And the reason being that this is basically one of those films that you can have on in the background and do other things and not really miss that much.

It’s definitely not bad.  It’s just not a ‘classic’ comedy.  Yes, the appearance of the (remaining) Monty Python boys is always welcome.  Even their beautifully-weird alien incarnations are as madcap as their geriatric human selves.  And it’s great to see them all together on screen again.  In some ways... the film could just be about them and would be even better!

Pegg plays Pegg.  Kate Beckinsale plays ‘generic love interest #56’ and there’s an array of characters who you’ll sort of recognise from other things, but not really know where.  The only real stand-out character (besides the CGI pythons) is the dog.  The reason being because one of Pegg’s wishes is that his pet can talk.  And talk her does.  For he’s voiced by none other than the (sadly) late, great Robin Williams and, yes, he’s definitely on a par with the Pythons when it comes to enjoyable screen time.

If you’re looking for a fun little comedy to pass the time then this would fit the bill.  It’s a nice enough film which doesn’t really try to be anything too amazing and should appeal to pretty much everyone.  Once you know the premise then you’ll probably predict every last plot point that’s to come.  However, I certainly couldn’t bring myself to hate it and will definitely re-watch it again in a couple of years.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Ex Machina – It gets better

‘Ex Machina’ is one of those films where, upon watching the whole thing, I’m glad I stuck with it.  It tells the – slightly slow-moving – tale of a young computer programmer who works for a huge, multinational tech company and is then apparently picked at random by his reclusive billionaire boss and asked to join him in his mountain retreat for ‘special duties.’ Of course that slightly sounds like he’s got a case to sue for sexual harassment, but it’s not like that.  His Bill Gate-likes founder has only gone and created the first ever artificially intelligent robot/android/cyborg (call it what you will) and wants an independent source to witness this feat.

Luckily, for our hero – Caleb – this artificial life form isn’t the kind of muscle-bound cyborg who typically comes back in time to kill your mother.  Instead, she – or ‘Ava’ – is more designed around the ‘female form’ (well… most of her, anyway – there are still parts of her on show that are blatantly wires and circuit boards).  Anyway, this makes their interaction a little more ‘complicated’ – if that’s the right word to describe getting a crush on what is technically an iphone with eyes.  So, will our hero fall head over heels for her, or declare her simply just a toaster who looks good in a mini-dress?

The majority of the film is basically conversations between either Caleb and Ava or Caleb and his boss, Nathan (Oscar Isaac).  Now, there’s nothing wrong with a film based mainly around dialogue.  It does bring the characters and their motivations out and you really feel like you’re getting to know them.  However, I just found the first half of the movie a little slow.  I ‘got’ the characters pretty early and it was clear to see that there was more going on here than meets the eye.  Perhaps the film did too good a job in setting up the unsettling feeling as to what was going to come?  I was basically dying for something to happen – or someone to die – whatever.  But, like I said, when it all goes down it’s worth the wait.  The second half of the film changes from simply ‘unsettling’ to downright dark!
Despite the film having little action, it does maintain a real ’28 Days Later’ feel.  And probably for the reason that it was written by the same writer.  The lingering shots and music make it possible that it’s set somewhere in the same universe (assuming there’s still some of the world left after the ‘infected’ had their way with it!

Normally, like to mention one of the actors who stood out.  I feel that I should say that Oscar Isaac gave a great performance, but I’m not entirely sure he does.  One of my annoyances with the first half of the film came from him.  I just felt he was so fundamentally unlikeable.  Maybe that was supposed to be how he was, but when a character makes up basically one third of the cast and is so downright awful, it left it a bit hard to take.

Still, despite all my minor gripes, I did enjoy the film (as I say, mainly the second half where I felt it sped up a bit!) and so if you’re in the mood for something with no car chases or giant robots stomping through New York then give this one a go.  It’s got good performances and is more of a subtle thriller than Hollywood’s average crop.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Moonstruck - I probably shouldn’t review this film

How much hate would I get if I said that ‘Moonstruck’ was a ‘chick flick’ or one that would most likely only be enjoyed by women?  Probably quite a lot.  I’m sure there are plenty of guys out there who also liked it.  Trouble is… I’m just not one of them.

I’ll start by saying that, if I had my way, I’d probably rate this the lowest score possible.  However, that’s probably a little unfair of me based on how many people regard this as a classic – like my girlfriend – who made me sit through it with her and would undoubtedly rate it the highest score possible.  Let me explain – we’re both massive fans of Nicholas Cage (even going so far as to watch his more recent output which does tend to leave a lot to be desired).  Therefore, I succumbed to sitting through this romantic comedy where Cher agrees to marry one brother, only to fall in love with the other one.  I think it’s safe to say that I prefer Nicholas Cage’s films where he’s either got his head on fire or stabbing himself in the heart with a needle while waving flares off the coast of San Francisco.

They call this a ‘romantic comedy.’ Yes, I could see the romance in there.  Even though it was painfully obvious to me what the outcome of the film would be.  However, I didn’t really see any comedy in there.  I seem to recall laughing out loud about once at about three quarters of the way through the film.  I would say that meant the story was completely unfunny if it wasn’t for the fact that my girlfriend was cracking up next to me pretty much the whole way through it.

She also enjoyed the way – her words – they ‘play on the Italian-American stereotype.’ If that means that the characters are complete clichés then I suppose that’s true.  Everyone (or rather mainly Nicholas Cage) turned their performance up to eleven and was so-over-the-top it was laughable (and that’s laughable in not a good way).  Everyone just spends the whole movie shouting noisily and making a drama over nothing.

Like I said, if you’ve seen one romantic comedy then you’ve probably seen this one.  There’s nothing new here, just louder.  However, just because I hated it, doesn’t mean that it’s not good.  I believe there were even Oscars thrown at the film for Cher’s (I think!) performance.  If you’re into this type of film then you’ll probably love it.  However, if you prefer your leading man running in slow motion away from exploding barrels then as opposed to dressing up in a suit and asking a woman to the opera, then you should probably stick to ‘Face Off’ (at least now it’s my turn to pick the film we watch (most likely something with a title that ends ‘…of the Living Dead’).

I’ll give ‘Moonstruck’ a ‘mid-range’ final score, simply because I should never have watched it to begin with and feel bad for rating something that so clearly has an audience so low (plus my girlfriend will not approve!).

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back (especially for a guy!)

Con Air - This and ‘The Rock’ – hell yeah!

There are great films that will stand the test of time and then there are great – FUN – films. ‘Con Air’ is the latter.  It may never be committed to the world’s film archive as an example of classic Hollywood storytelling, but it deserves its place the annals of nineties action movies.  For, if you’re looking for one great action film that summed up the decade, then it’s ‘The Rock’ (or possibly ‘Speed’).  But if you’re looking for two or three, then Con Air should definitely be in there.

Where do I start?  Oh, yes, the star of the show.  And, when I say ‘star’ I don’t mean Nicholas Cage, but the explosions!  Everything (and very nearly everyone!) explodes around here.  Years before Michael Bay bored us to death with those pretty explosions Con Air did it first (and better!).  However, apart from the fireworks, it does boast a really impressive cast to blow things up.  Yes, Nick Cage is at the forefront of the carnage and he plays what is actually a bit of a tongue in cheek role straight as they come.  He’s ably assisted by John Cusack and – perhaps more importantly – John Malkovich, as he’s almost as important as the explosions.  The fact is, he’s possibly one of the greatest (and possibly under-rated) villains ever to grace the silver screen.  He’s absolutely fantastically bad, only slightly over the top, but never playing it so much that he becomes unbelievable or a cartoon of himself.  Now, it’s easy to give all the acting credit to Malkovich, but this ‘rogues gallery’ of an aeroplane is also packed full of colourful (and completely evil) other prisoners and a special mention to Steve Buscemi who isn’t in it for as long as some might wish, but is also fun to watch as a – not particularly subtle – Hannibal Lecter clone.

Anyway, the plot… our Nicholas Cage plays a U.S. ranger who returns from active duty to his pregnant wife, only to immediately he embroiled in a bar fight where he ends up killing his assailant.  Now mercy is spared here and he ends up being sent to prison for years.  Then, and all this is hardly a spoiler as it all happens in practically the first five minutes, when he does get released he only ends up on a prison plane flying across America that gets hijacked by the convicts.  Some guys just don’t get a break.

I think the reason I find Con Air so watchable is because it’s serious, but not dark – if that makes sense.  It kind of knows that it’s being a bit overblown and has some nice moments of humour thrown in there, but it’s part of that generation of action film that came because ‘uber-serious’ action films were forced upon us (‘Bourne’ franchise and Daniel Craig’s Bond – I’m looking at you).
I find it hard to believe that there are people out there who won’t find some enjoyment from this film.  Even if you’re not a massive fan of any of the stars or action movies in general, this is just such a daft, silly ride then surely you can’t help yourself from climbing aboard the plane and going along for a – very explosive – ride.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Dr Strange - The Marvel formula lives on

Once upon a time there was a conceited rich man who frequently cracked jokes at other people’s expense.  However, he only got away with it because of his status and that he happened to be brilliantly good at what he did.  However, his charmed existence all came to an end when a tragic accident happened to him which forced him to re-evaluate the way he’d been living his life and, in turn, made him into the superhero he is today.  His name… was Tony ‘Iron Man’ Stark.  Or do I mean Dr Strange?  Actually, it doesn’t matter – it’s basically the same film.  I may be being a bit flippant, but, when you’re basically copying the original ‘Iron Man’ film, it can’t be that bad.  And it isn’t. 

‘Dr Strange’ is yet another superhero movie in Marvel’s – seemingly – never ending connected cinematic universe.  Here we have Benedict Cumberbatch taking on the titular role as an arrogant (but brilliant!) surgeon who gets his career (and life) dashed when he’s involved in a horrific car accident and therefore loses the use of his hands… and therefore livelihood.  However, all is not lost – a trip to a spiritual guru on the other side of the world turns the arrogant Dr Stephen Strange into the ‘Sorcerer Supreme,’ ready and willing to protect Earth from all those dark dimensions out there (and Mads Mikkelsen!).

As I mentioned, the story is pretty much what you’d expect from any of Marvel’s recent offerings.  However, this one is the first one that really centres on actual ‘magic’ with its plentiful psychedelic effects which are used for both the battles and trips into other dimensions.  A lot of people have commented on how much they look similar to the way the worlds ‘fold’ in the film ‘Inception’ and I have to say that it was instantly recognisable.  Whether you consider that a drawback or not is up to you.  Either way, they are pretty impressive (as you’d probably expect from a big budget Marvel movie) and make a change from the usual beating up of endless CGI robots in New York!

If there’s one constant criticism that’s always levelled at Marvel movies, it’s that they have a distinct lack of decent villains.  We’ve had Tom Higgleston’s ‘Loki’ and that’s about it.  Perhaps that’s why they went an employed the extremely talented Mads Mikkelsen as the antagonist here.  He, as you’d expect if you’ve seen him in anything before, he’s as good as he can be with what he’s given.  However, in the grand scheme of things, he’s just the guy Dr Strange has to defeat at the end, leaving most of us lamenting the fact that Loki wasn’t included (again!).

When the casting was announced for Dr Strange, there was some minor controversy regarding using white actors for Asian roles.  I guess this is only a problem if you know the source material.  I wasn’t sure who they were referring to as I hadn’t read the comic; instead I just enjoyed the romp and the pretty colours used in the magic scenes!  Benedict was good and a welcome addition to the Marvel shared universe.  Apparently, his accent was a little off here and there (as my girlfriend said he sounded ‘Scottish’ at one point!).  Overall, Dr Strange isn’t anything new, but it is good fun and plenty to build on in the expanded universe.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Time Crimes - Arguably my favourite foreign language film!

You’ll have to excuse the overall ‘gushing’ nature of this review.  In short, I LOVE ‘Time Crimes’ (although I must admit that the title – once translated to English – does sound a little naff!).  So, if you’re not in the mood for a Spanish film with subtitles then you probably won’t like the film or my take on it either!

Not only does the (English) title not do the film’s content justice, but it’s one of those films where you really have to pay attention to every little detail because something that doesn’t seem particularly noteworthy now may have greater significance later on.  I would say what ‘Time Crimes’ is about, but I don’t want to spoil anything, as you’ll only get the one chance to watch it without knowing where it’s going.  Obviously, time travel plays a major factor and expect a crime or two thrown in there.  But the film’s strength lies with its ‘realism’ (if you can suspend your disbelief long enough to accept that we can leap about through time without the aid of a DeLorean).  The ‘hero’ Hector (and you’ll notice the quote marks I used to describe him thus) is a slightly overweight middle-aged man who spends his time with a pair of binoculars staring into bushes while his wife works at getting their new country home up and running – hardly your average Hollywood leading man!  Then his quiet little life gets thrown into turmoil when he spots an attractive woman in the bushes, seemingly taking her clothes off for no good reason.  This is a warning to us all not to investigate such a phenomenon.  However, if he didn’t, there wouldn’t be such a great story to follow.  Like I said, I won’t spoil anything, but expect a secret facility, a secret machine and a lot of confusion involving hurtling through time and space.

It’s definitely not your average Hollywood flick.  From the portly hero to the decisions he makes – everything flies in the face of what we might expect from the ‘classic Hollywood narrative.’ As much as I may love this film, I’ve only watched it the three times since its release in 2006.  This is because it’s a story that you really need to watch closely in case you miss something.  There are plenty of films out there where you can pop out to make a cup of tea or idly play with your phone, then come back to the plot and find you haven’t missed anything.  This isn’t one.  Just expect one hell of a mind-bending experience with plenty of temporal twists and turns.  Watch it quick as I’m constantly amazed that it hasn’t been remade with someone like Matt Damon in the lead!

10/10 The Monty Python Knights of Camelot are currently looking for this

The Hateful Eight - Almost more of a film of ‘two halves’ than Kill Bill

Film-lore goes that Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Kill Bill’ was running so long that the studio took it upon itself to split it in two, hence giving us parts 1 and 2.  That was probably true, but I get the feeling that the same could have been applied to Tarantino’s latest offering The Hateful Eight.’ However, perhaps one reason this never happened was because no one ever bother watching the first half!

As much as I do love Tarantino’s work, I do sometimes think that portions of his various epics can be a little ‘overblown’ and wordy for the sake of it.  I know that good dialogue establishes character motivation and development.  But then if it’s done too much then I start fiddling with my phone until it’s over.  I felt that this was the case for the first half.  We’re treated to one long dialogue-heavy scene after the next.  Yes, they’re well-acted and everything, but I have to confess that my attention started to wander.  We’re introduced to the eight (all-star!) cast members who are all assorted Wild West types destined to get trapped together in an out-of-the-way wooden house by a blizzard.  And, once they’re stuck with each other’s company, they don’t just rely on their sharp tongues to spar with each other – they have guns, too.

Samuel L Jackson’s (arguably) breakout role came in Tarantino’s ‘Pulp Fiction’ and, although he’s never had a quiet day since, he has occasionally struggled to be quite as formidable his former hitman.  Not here.  The coolest dude in Hollywood is back with a vengeance.  Despite great performances from Tarantino ‘stalwarts’ Michael Madson, Kurt Russel, Janet Jason Leigh, the wonderful Tim Roth (and even Channing Tatum!), it’s Jackson who steals every scene.  Although Walton Goggins does deserve a mention – I just can't remember him in anything else.

I did enjoy The Hateful Eight, just more the second half.  It’s where everything comes together.  I won’t go into the hows and whys of everything and who’s going to double-cross who as that will run into ‘spoiler territory’ but when the bullets do start flying it is a welcome relief from the constant dialogue.  

Overall, I’d describe The Hateful Eight as a longer version of Reservoir Dogs set in the Wild West.  It’s basically a violent, claustrophobic little number with much dialogue and plenty of characters stabbing each other (or rather shooting to be precise) in the back for reasons that only eventually become apparent.  Just don’t zone out too much in the first half – the second act more than makes up for the talking (although Reservoir Dogs did have a better soundtrack in my opinion!).  Just get ready for yet more bad language and blood splattering across your screen!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Eye in the Sky - A ‘war movie’ for modern times

Not so long ago, all ‘war movies’ consisted of armies of infantry storming one beach/desert/jungle (delete as applicable).  And, to be fair, there was little else that happened in a war.  However, in today’s high-tech times, ‘war’ can be fought from the ‘comfort’ of our own homes (okay, military bases, but how long before our soldiers are allowed to work from home?!).  The story here goes that Britain has finally got the intel on a handful of its most wanted terrorists who are amassing in a house in a suburban African district.  Should they just use an American-based ‘drone’ to wipe them out, or is the civilian casualty rate going to be too high?  Helen Mirren thinks the former.

The cast boasts Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul on the cast list (and, of course the last performance of Alan Rickman), but it’s Mirren who steals the show.  She seems to revel in playing the British colonel who is willing to ‘take out’ the extremists at all costs.  Aaron Paul isn’t in it as much as some people may hope, but does well with what he’s given (which is basically spending the whole film sitting in a chair!).  Alan Rickman is as awesome as ever and it’s a shame we’ve lost him too early.  Plus we do see what’s happening ‘on the ground’ as it were and the film’s unsung hero is a Somalian operative who seems to give a performance filled with more heart and feeling without uttering a word of English than most English-speaking actors. 

If you’re hoping for an action-packed blast-a-thon of a movie then you’ll be very disappointed here.  Like I say, it’s a war movie of our time.  Some people may say that this is a fault, but basically the whole movie is people sitting around in offices debating the ethics of using technology in this way.  The film is basically an ‘ethics piece’ which debates both sides of the argument.  I have no problem with films like this, as long as they remain – reasonably – neutral and do their best to put both sides of the argument across.  This one does this pretty well, however it does tend to lean towards ‘nuking the site from obit’ (ala Ellen Ripley) simply because its bigger stars seems to share the same opinion.  However, there are plenty of moments where both sides of the argument make good points to support their opposing views.

This film won’t be for everyone.  Like I say, you have to be in the mood for something which is slow (but without being boring) and filled with messages (without being preachy).  It does show how ‘war’ has evolved to a PR machine as much as something that is simply fought using a bigger army than your opponent.  If you’re up for something a little more thought-provoking then definitely give this one a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one