For Your Eyes Only – Bond Cruising

I don’t know why, but Roger Moore’s ‘For Your Eyes Only’ never really gets mentioned in ‘Bond circles.’ It’s as if it never really happened and was just some sort of way of killing time in between his (usually agreed as the best) ‘Spy Who Loved Me’ and his slightly less serious and slightly less capable ‘Octopussy/View to a Kill.’ Perhaps it was because it never seemed to be on TV during the time when people actually watched terrestrial TV in the eighties and nineties.  However, just because it’s not up there with the best (or down there with Bond swinging through the jungle making Tarzan noises!), doesn’t mean that it’s not pretty good fun.

Maybe this is Roger Moore’s ‘comfort period’ where he was certain that he’d laid Connery’s ghost to rest and made the role his own enough to just simply cruise.  The story is nothing new (certainly not be today’s standards, but perhaps it was slightly more original at the time); it revolves around the Russians trying to get their hands on an important piece of British tech and Bond having to get there first before an unscrupulous third party sells it to our Soviet foes.  And, as is customary, there are plenty of beautiful women along the way, wonderfully-exotic scenery courtesy of the Greek islands and underwater diving moments and all manner of car chases and punch-ups (plus a chase scene on skis which – although well-choreographed – does come across as a little over-the-top and cartoony!).

It’s a pretty standard affair, but good with it.  Special mention to some moments like Roger Moore’s Bond exhibiting possibly his ‘darkest’ moment when he kills a henchman out of revenge.  But then that sort of this is counter-balanced by the humourous moments when a young (and by ‘young’ I’m guessing she’s roughly eighteen years old) constantly comes on to Bond, scaring him more than Jaws and Oddjob ever could!  Plus the Bond girl Melina Havelock, played by Carole Bouquet, does possibly save Bond’s backside more than any other girl before him, showing how far the representation of women in Bond films has come since Ursula Andress came out of the water in ‘Dr No.’ No one has used a crossbow more fiercely until ‘The Walking Dead’s’ Daryl Dixon!

Overall, if you’re in any way a fan of Moore’s  why interpretation of the superspy, you really should settle down for this one.  It may not be the best, but it certainly isn’t the worst and the rock-climbing scene/fight near the end really is pretty tense.  I just wonder what the (then) Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher thought about her ‘cameo’ in the film?

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Spy Who Loved Me – Roger Moore’s Bond at his best

If the Roger Moore era had a peak, it was definitely ‘The Spy Who Loved Me.’ It seemed to be the perfect combination of everything Bond.  It has everything from – arguably – the most beautiful Bond girl in the (perfect!) form of Barbara Bach, a nice overtone of Cold War paranoia (that was prevalent at the time of filming in the late seventies) and naturally the stunts, car chases and Q’s gadgets (the pinnacle of which being that awesome car which doubles as a submarine!).  The plot follows Bond on a routine (or that’s ‘routine’ for him!) mission where he retrieves a delicate microchip while being pursued by those faceless enemy agents who can’t shoot straight on a ski slope.  Naturally he offs a couple with considerable ease, only to find that one of his targets wasn’t quite as faceless as they normally are.  It was a case of a henchman with a backstory (think those cutaway scenes in the first Austin Powers movie) where he was dating another female spy.  And, when she gets assigned the same mission as Bond, there’s more than a little s3xual tension between the two.

Yes, there may be a supervillain in there who lives in an underwater lair (some people seem to object whenever a supervillain comes into play, as it does always lean the story to the far-fetched), however the film gets so much right that even the most die-hard supervillain haters can’t help but give this one a pass.  Perhaps another reason people lay off ‘Stromberg’ is because he’s not in it that much (which is a good thing, because, if this film does have a weak link, it’s him – he is pretty wooden – almost worse than ‘Drax’ from ‘Moonraker’).  The real villain is Jaws – possibly the most famous and beloved of all the foes Bond has ever gone up against.  Yes, Jaws never sets out for world domination,  however he’s simply far more dangerous and enjoyable to watch than any cat-stroking megalomaniac.

It’s also worth noting that the largest ever set was built (at the time of filming) to accommodate an action set-piece that would be impressive even by today’s standards.  An entire studio was repurposed as a submarine pen in order to accommodate a massive battle which definitely stands up to today’s standards.  In short: best story, best sets, best gadgets, best girl, best villain (Jaws not Stromberg!) and best Bond (my opinion only on that last one!).   Apart from the main villain himself, there’s almost nothing negative to say about this film.  In fact… I guess the theme song sums this film up when it sings, ‘Nobody does it better…’ Okay, you could argue that Connery did it better, but the simple fact is that no Roger Moore Bond outing is better than this.  If you only watch one Moore film, watch this one.

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

The Man With the Golden Gun – A good blend of Bond

The Roger Moore Bond era came in for a fair bit of criticism; not only did he have to compete with Sean Connery’s interpretation of the superspy, but, by adding more wry humour to the franchise, people saw his films as too comic to be believable. ‘The Man With the Golden Gun’ is Moore’s second outing and I think it’s possibly the film that bridges the gap between dark and comic, incorporating elements of both, but never leaning directly towards either.

For a start we have no hollowed-out lair for a Persian cat-stroking super villain to reside in.  Instead, we simply have a rival hitman who has his sights set on being the best in the world.  Of course that means removing one 007 in the process.  So it’s far more of a simple premise when compared to the typical plans for world domination that Bond has to thwart on a day to day basis.  Christopher Lee plays the rival hitman, Scaramanga, with typical charm and menace, making him almost appear as Bond’s ‘dark side.’ There’s plenty of near misses between the two in what could be described as a ‘cat and mouse’ type affair until the inevitable climax.

So, the plot is simple and deadly in nature, but it wouldn’t be a Roger Moore Bond film without humour.  As I mentioned, the jokes never really detract from the obvious danger Bond is in at all times.  Scaramanga’s primary henchman ‘Knick-knack’ may be small in stature, but more than makes up for his lack of size in terms of brutality and mischief (sometimes so much so you could be mistaken for watching a David Lynch film as the ‘arena’ set during the duel is pretty psychedelic – and, when you mix it with a cheeky but mysterious dwarf, you have a precursor to Twin Peaks if ever I saw one!).  The jokes hit the mark and about the ‘silliest’ the film gets is the return of Sherriff JW Pepper who some people will most likely find irritating and detracting from the overall story (however, I really enjoyed his over-the-topness!).

So, combine the darkness of the Connery era with some Moore humour and you have a winning combination.  Naturally, you also have the beautiful locations, exciting chase scenes and Britt Ekland as the obligatory Bond girl.  But if you don’t want to get quite as silly as Bond making Tarzan noises while swinging through a jungle (Octopussy), yet don’t want quit the levels of brutality displayed by Connery when he strangles a woman with her own bikini (Diamonds Are Forever) then this is a perfect in between Bond film that should entertain all.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service – Carry on Bond

Oh, dear, the ‘Bond franchise’ really was in a bit of a dilemma after the departure of – arguably the best Bond – Sean Connery.  On the plus side, they seemed to have a decent replacement in the form of George Lazenby, better known as ‘Who?’ to most of us, but there was still the little matter of how to bring him out from behind Connery’s massive shadow and make the role his own.  What followed was a mish-mash of everything we know as ‘Bond,’ combined with some things we’d never expect from the world’s most famous secret agent. ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’ is often (unfairly!) labelled as ‘the worst of all the Bond films.’ It’s not.  Quite often those who finally sit down to watch it come round and see that it’s not all bad, it’s just different.  And it knows it.

Right off the bat it pokes fun at itself for the change in leading man (a running joke if you look closely to certain lines of dialogue) and the does its best to carry on the story.  However, George Lazenby, albeit a capable actor, is just too wacky to be taken seriously.  I know Connery’s Bond was quite dark and the producers obviously felt that a ‘lighter’ touch would help go some way to distinguish the two Bonds.  However, as my title suggests, it feels like more of a parody of a Bond film that ‘official’ spy movie spoofs like the original ‘Casino Royale.’ We see this new Bond playing a new role, i.e. he’s in disguise, but the disguise is so geeky that he could have been played by Kenneth Williams and no one would have noticed.  Now, you may say that Sean Connery went undercover as a Japanese man and Roger Moore as a clown.  However, these were for mere minutes of their respective films.  Lazenby’s performance lasts a fair portion of the second act.  Plus he wears a kilt and no Bond should wear a kilt!

However, like I said, it’s not all bad.  The action and the women are both there (even if there does seem to be an abundance of ‘jump cuts’ in every fight scene which are more noticeable than ever when watching on your typical large flatscreen TV).  And, most importantly of all, this film really does try something new.  It tries its hand at romance.  Now, most of us would hardly consider Mr Bond, James Bond, to be the most romantic of characters.  Yes, he gets the girl, but – technically – ‘romance’ is the last thing on his mind.  However, here we actually see Bond fall in love.  Now, I know that the modern audience may collectively cry ‘so what!’ as we’ve seen this more recently from Daniel Craig.  However, back then (and after Connery’s ‘love ‘em and leave ‘em’ attitude’) it really was quite shocking.  I read one review online which described the feeling pretty well.  It said something about how previous Bond outings were spy/action movies, whereas this was a romance film, sprinkled with elements of action and spying.  I think that’s a reasonable appraisal of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Unfortunately, for all its new and daring moments, it just never worked.  It felt everywhere and all over the place, constantly trying to give the audiences something they’d recognise while trying to establish a new face for the super-spy.  Plus, if you look deeper into the trivia surrounding the making of the film, you’ll see that George Lazenby made himself notoriously unpopular with the producers and critics before he was even unleashed on the audiences.  Ultimately, it seemed that the world just wasn’t ready for a new Bond.  George Lazenby isn’t as dark and doesn’t have as much screen presence as Connery and couldn’t carry the wry humour that Roger Moore found so easy. 

Once again, the lead villain is Blofeld and, once again, he’s being played by a new actor.  Telly Savalas does his best with what’s given and is a far more physical mastermind than Bond is used to, plus the sets really do show off that funky late sixties feel, but, just because ‘Never Say Never Again’ is – technically – the Bond film that should be overlooked due to it not being part of the official franchise, this one will always remain the film most casual fans choose to skip. 

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

The Neon Demon – I obviously didn’t get it

Sometimes when I watch a film and totally dislike it, I feel really bad. ‘The Neon Demon’ is one such example.  I’ve checked out other people’s reviews and there are those out there who clearly loved it.  And I can see why.  It’s visually amazingly and disturbingly creepy.  And yet I still found it a chore to sit through.  In short… I found it dull.

It’s about a young girl getting into the seedy underbelly of the modelling industry and encountering the sleazy men who dominate it and the catty women who already exist in it.  I know a deliberately slow pace can be used to great effect in order to create tension, mood and atmosphere.  However, as I said above, I just wanted something to come along and ‘properly’ move the story along.

So, I sat through it and berated myself for not liking it more.  It’s very tempting to have a go at modern cinema audiences for only wanting ‘simple’ films with plots that involve car chases, punch-ups and a damsel in distress.  I like to think my taste does incorporate a little more than the next Michael Bay disaster film.  However, there are times when a more ‘linier’ story is needed.  I felt that this is one of those times.  And, it’s a shame.  I’ll say again how much I enjoyed watching the shots.  They truly are well crafted to perfection and intensely creepy.  It’s just not much happens quickly enough.

There are nice moments of satire in the dialogue between the models, but it wasn’t enough for me. Basically, if you’re thinking of watching this, you need to be aware that it’s very ‘feel’ over story.  It’s like an ‘art movie’ where it leaves you to fill in a lot of the action yourself and interpret characters’ actions as you will.  It does look great though and should be shown to anyone looking to get into film and create artistically-awesome shots which create mood and atmosphere.

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

Wonder Woman – DC finally finds its feet

In case you’re not aware of the ‘shared cinematic universe’ wars that are going on in the cinemas, I’ll try and put it simply.  One studio makes superhero films that everyone seems to love.  Another studio makes superhero films that you’d think the same audience would loves, but everyone seems to hate.  And there you have my brief history of ‘Marvel’ and ‘DC.’ Wonder Woman falls into the ‘DC bracket’ and fans have already expressed their disapproval with DC’s previous attempts at getting all their most famous heroes together on the big screen with the various Superman and Suicide Squad films, some even saying that DC’s ‘shared cinematic universe’ is already dead in the water.  However, just when it looked like this franchise was as dead as the new General Zod, along comes Gal Gadot as the titular Wonder Woman.  And, just as most people agreed that the other DC films don’t work, now most people seem to agree that Wonder Woman is awesome!  I have to say that I agree, but then maybe I’m easily pleased as I also really liked Batman versus Superman and Suicide Squad!

I’ve never read the comics, but I believe the film is a little different here and there.  Apparently, they’ve changed her origins and set the story in World War I as opposed to WWII.  Apparently, that did irk some people, but my lack of backstory knowledge of the source material meant that I never noticed!  Anyway, we meet Diana (aka Wonder Woman) on her Amazonian island as a child.  We see her obsess over becoming like the warrior women she idolises and yearns to join them in their eternal fight against the forces of darkness.  Don’t worry.  This doesn’t last for long.  It’s pretty tedious and definitely the low-point of the whole film.  In fact, it could quite easily have been cut and no one would have really noticed.  All it feels like is pointless exposition.  However, like I say, it doesn’t last long and Diana quickly grows up in time to rescue crashed Allied fighter pilot Captain Kirk from his stricken plane as it nose dives in the sea (or rather Chris Pine, anyway). 

And from then on it’s pretty non-stop.  You have everything you can want from a superhero movie.  Despite Gal Gadot’s inexperience with acting (I believe she’s primarily a model), she plays the character perfectly.  She’s one part fish out of water as she arrives in the ‘real’ world and interacts with people who weren’t raised without war on a paradise island.  But she’s never totally naïve.  You cannot help but root for her as she’s just so damn likeable without ever been a goody-two-shoes.  Then there’s the chemistry with Kirk – sorry, Pine – they bounce off each other brilliantly.  And the characters are seamlessly woven into expert direction when it comes to the fight scenes – after all, Wonder Woman is literally going to war and the scene where she charges an entire German trench sends goosebumps down your arms – it’s that good.

If there is a negative it’s the beginning, plus an annoying comedy relief character (you’ll spot her straight away), but thankfully both bad elements are brief.  This is normally the point where I say that fans of superhero movies will love this.  And, although I believe that to be true, I reckon that Wonder Woman is the kind of film where pretty much anyone who enjoys good cinema should enjoy it, plus – special shout-out to the weird grinding soundtrack that seems to come on every time Diana fights (it’s weird and definitely as memorable to the action as other classic tunes such as the Bond and Indiana Jones themes).

After a shaky start DC are finally off and running.  And this can only be good to give Marvel a bit of competition at the Box Office.  Bring on Wonder Woman 2 (or was that technically Batman versus Superman?!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Live and Let Die – A Whole New Bond Era

As any – true – Bond fan knows, Sean Connery is the best James Bond.  I guess that means I’m not a ‘true’ fan, as Roger Moore was always my favourite agent with a Walter PPK.  But, before you hate me for that, I did grow up in the seventies and eighties with fond memories of watching Moore in the cinema and on TV on Sunday afternoons.  To me he was Bond and no one else was.  It was only later in life when I properly watched Sean Connery’s Bond and realised just how different Moore’s take on the superspy really was.

Now, both are great, but ‘Live and Let Die’ is Moore’s first outing and it was immediately a lighter affair.  There is violence here and there, but it almost always comes from the baddies.  Connery was not beyond giving a woman a punch in the face here and there if he thought the situation warranted it, whereas Moore is a more gentle and dignified Government killer.

The plot centres on more of a ‘simple’ Bond villain, i.e. Yaphet Kotto’s 'Kananga' and his attempts at bringing in drugs to the USA.  This feels almost believable when compared to Spectre’s previous exploits involving world domination and secret volcano bases.  However, what the plot makes up for in believability, it soon goes into typical Bond ‘over-the-topness’ – we have plenty of crazy attempts on Bond’s life, plus killer scarecrows, human sacrifices and a villain who just won’t die – no, seriously.  But, it could be cynically said that if you’ve seen one Bond film then you’ve seen them all – generally expect the chases, the ‘muted’ fist fights of yesterday (before slow-mo and bullet time became the norm!) and of course beautiful girls falling at our hero’s feet.  It’s all there.  It’s just now wrapped up in a decidedly campy package that never really would have worked with Connery’s wry smile.

Moore had a lot to live up to by stepping into a role made so famous by another actor and he did that by completely changing how he played the role.  Here, self-knowing humour is used almost as much as his PPK.  There’s often a division between Connery and Moore fans.  Many prefer the darker, more serious tone of Connery, however, if you’re looking for a decent little cheeky romp and a beautifully over the top performance by comedy relief Clifton James as Sheriff Pepper then this will certainly entertain.  And it has added marks for utilising about the most – memorable – henchmen in one film – you have Whisper (and man who only speaks in whispers), a guy with a claw for a hand, a man who can’t be killed, a man who sacrifices people with snakes and, as mentioned, a guy you can shoot in the head and he just comes back at the end.  Sorry, maybe I should have put a ‘spoiler’ warning there.  Anyway, it’s great fun for a new Bond era.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Captain Fantastic – Not to be confused with Steve Rogers

‘Captain Fantastic’ is a film that I’ve had on my radar for quite some time.  I’d heard all good things about it before I sat down to watch it, so this normally meant that I find myself totally let down with what I got.  And, what I got was not what I expected.  I’ll admit to enjoying it and being glad that I have seen it, however, despite my good feelings towards it, I’m not sure it’s the sort of film that would inspire a repeat viewing any time soon. 

Viggo Mortensen (always worth a watch) plays a single father who looks after his children ‘on the land’ as you could call it.  They live together deep in a forest and have little to know contact with what we would describe as ‘civilisation.’ Here, Viggo teaches his brood how to survive using only nature and basic survival techniques that you wouldn’t get in your average comprehensive.  And they’re thriving – sort of.  They all agree with this way of life, but largely because it’s all they’ve ever known.  And, no matter how cool, Viggo is, he didn’t raise them on his own.  Early on we find that the children’s mother is in hospital and, sadly, she doesn’t come out again.  This is the catalyst which launches the family on a road trip to her home town (and awaiting parents who really don’t agree with their daughter’s lifestyle) for her funeral.  So, what you end up with is a real clash of cultures.  Obviously the father once lived among us ‘norms’ and most likely owned a mobile phone, mortgage and worked 9-5.  However, his children haven’t and we see how they react to this alien world.

I wonder whether people see this film differently if they have or haven’t got children.  Personally, as a parent, I understood the father’s desire to want to shelter his children from all the ‘horrors’ of the modern world.  No one wants to see their children exposed to dull, soulless 9-5 jobs, rubbish girlfriend/boyfriends and generally people who want to do them down at every turn.  However, as much as we want to wrap our children up and shield them from everything negative, we have to allow them the freedom to make their own mistakes.  This is the lesson of the film.  Not to mention how different people react to different ideals.  It’s fair to say that Viggo’s father-ion-law is not particularly happy with his son-in-law showing up and insisting that the funeral is held according to wishes of a dead person who can no longer confirm how she wanted to be mourned.

It’s all quite deep and high drama and I can see why such praise was heaped on it.  It asks questions about the way we live and the pros and cons of various lifestyles.  However, as I said at the beginning, despite liking it, I just found it’s not something I could watch again anytime soon.  In a few years time if I see that it’s on the telly and nothing else is on, I’ll definitely watch it again.  Just not worth buying on Blu-ray at full price.

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

Eraserhead – horror unlike nothing you’ve seen before

Horror movies have become pretty formulaic these days.  They consist of either zombies, a masked killer, or a spooky entity terrorising a family.  Even the better ones that subverted those sub-genres were still instantly recognisable as what they were and any that were hailed as ‘original’ were most likely remakes from Japanese films.  However, back before CGI blood had become the norm and a group of five American teens could go on a road trip to the middle of nowhere without being picked off by pitchfork-wielding locals, came David Lynch’s horror masterpiece, ‘Eraserhead.’

I guess it could be described as a bit of a ‘passion project’ as it took him years to make, due to him filming it while he studied/worked other jobs and generally did his best to get this movie financed.  Now, you can probably tell that I’m a fan, however I will admit that no matter how much it appeals to me, it’s definitely not for everyone.  You could almost call it an ‘art film’ as it’s filmed entirely in black and white and has little to no dialogue.  The story – or at least what we can tell is a story – centres around a young, downtrodden man called Henry (played by long term friend and actor of David Lynch, Jack Nance) as he shuffles back and forth to and from his job to his flat in what looks like some sort of post apocalyptic industrial landscape.  It’s a bleak and meaningless existence for a man in a bleak and meaningless environment.  I think the black and white adds to the overall mood of the tale.  Whatever is really happening in Henry’s world, he is merely a small cog in a much larger machine.  However, just because his life is bleak doesn’t seem to make it dull.  He does seem to have a girlfriend.  I use the word ‘seem’ as their relationship is never made truly clear.  And, upon meeting her parents for the first time, discovers that there’s a baby at the hospital and he’s going to have to help look after it.

Now, this may not sound like the most sinister and horrific story ever told.  However, I may have slightly overlooked some of the other things that occur.  For example… the ‘mini chickens’ Henry eats at his potential inlaws’ house appears to be alive.  The baby is a deformed freakish-looking thing that may or may not even be human.  It whines continuously and there’s a lady living in his radiator with bizarre cheeks who crushes slithering worm-like creatures underfoot.  Yes, it’s weird.  But then this comes from the mind of David Lynch – the man who eventually went on to give us Twin Peaks, Lost Highway, Mullholland Drive and almost every other twisted, surreal modern nightmare ever put down on film.

Now, as I say, it’s not for everyone.  It’s hardly a ‘date movie’ and most people will probably be either bored or confused (or both).  It’s very slow.  It doesn’t make as much sense as most films with their classic Hollywood narratives and overall many will find it just too damn weird to be watchable.  However, if you’re in the mood for something a little different (and when I say ‘different’ I mean horrifically different!) then ‘Eraserhead’ is certainly a film that has to be watched to be experienced.  Whether you end up loving it or hating it, it will definitely stick in your mind for many years to come.

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

Time Bandits – Please never let this film be remade

Sometimes a film comes along that is so damn perfect that we can only pray to the Gods who rule over greedy Hollywood producers that they never sully the good name of ‘Time Bandits.’ In case you haven’t guessed – I’m a fan.  It’s a story about a child that isn’t necessarily FOR children.  A young lad named Kevin wakes up one night to find, er, a knight, rampaging through his bedroom.  And, to the film’s extra credit, only a few scenes later the adventure is underway proper when the very next evening, the armoured medieval warrior on horseback is replaced by a gang of foul-mouthed and foul-tempered dwarves who have stolen the Supreme Being’s map of the universe and are now in the process of exploiting the various ‘holes’ in time for financial gain.

Yeah, it’s a bit weird.  And a bit ‘out there,’ but then it’s directed by no less than Terry Gilliam. ‘Who’s that?’ you ask.  Okay, so you’re probably under thirty and aren’t that aware of that oh so influential comedy troupe Monty Python’s Flying Circus.  Gilliam was basically the sixth Python who mainly stayed behind the camera drawing crazy cartoons of giant feet and killer prams.  In other words, he’s well used to weirdness and it shows in every frame.  Now, despite also featuring fellow Pythons John Cleese and Michael Palin, don’t get fooled into thinking that this is just a ‘Monty Python the Movie’ (like their other big screen epics ‘Life of Brian’ and ‘The Holy Grail’).  Although it does have many weird and surreal qualities as Kevin and the seven dwarves (I’m not sure there are exactly seven, but near enough) skip through time, doing their best to steal everything that isn’t nailed down, while, at the same time, avoiding the wrath of our Creator.  However, it never feels like it’s set in the same ‘Python’ universe (sorry if I make it sound like Marvel’s shared cinematic universe!).

As I mentioned at the beginning, ‘Time Bandits’ is much darker in tone and, despite Kevin being young and innocent, he’s often placed in real danger and faced with many disturbing images and situations that may well upset a younger audience.  However, regardless of his young age, the actor himself plays it well and is never less than enjoyable to watch, evoking a real sense of sympathy in him due to his homelife and desire to better himself.  This is placed in direct contrast to the dwarves who are little more than common criminals and yet we still find ourselves rooting for them because they are literally the underdogs and humorous to boot.  In every time period they seem to end up in brings the opportunity for one celebrity cameo after the next.  As I’ve already said a couple of familiar Pythons pop up, but expect appearances from Ian Holm and even Sean Connery (who maintains his trademark Scottish drawl despite being a Greek king!).

With great characters, great actors, a weird and wonderful story filled with practical effects that would make Michael Bay weep and an end battle scene that is different enough to put any recent Hollywood fist fight or superhero movie to shame, it’s hard to say anything negative about ‘Time Bandits.’ It’s a true cult classic that is as delightful (in a dark kind of way) today as it ever was.  If I had to dwell on anything minor it might be how this sort of film just isn’t appreciated any more by (the majority of) the youth.  I can see it forever maintaining a special place in many of my generation’s hearts, but, as the years go by, less and less people will be interested in a quirky little tale involving spaceships and Minotaurs and, instead, prefer men in iron suits flying round cities swatting an army of computer-generated aliens.  Nothing wrong with that, but I think there should always be room for different types of films.  And they don’t come much different than ‘Time Bandits.’ If you love quirky.  If you love Python and if you love practical effects then you have to have to watch this before it gets remade and computer generated to extinction.

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

Moonraker – my favourite Bond (sorry!)

It’s probably a bit controversial to claim that Roger Moore is the best Bond.  It’s probably even more controversial to say that ‘Moonraker’ is the best Bond film ever.  I know.  I’ve read other reviews.  I know it had its faults. I guess, for me and my love of Star Wars, there was just something uber cool about seeing James Bond in space fighting with laser guns (and, yes, I know that they only made a ‘James-Bond-in-space’ film to cash in on George Lucas’ game-changing masterpiece, but I didn’t care about that, either!).

This time round, the UK government is charged with the task of transporting (and therefore safe-guarding) a couple of American-built space shuttles.  However, things do not go according to plan for her majesty’s minions when both shuttles disappear in mysterious circumstances.  Enter one 007 to get to the bottom of this. 

Now, as I’ve mentioned, I do love this film.  Maybe because I grew up with it and it’s totally tainted with nostalgic memories of watching it round friends’ houses on Sunday afternoons.  So, rather than saying what’s so great about it, I will acknowledge other people’s criticisms of what I consider ‘Bond’s finest hour.’ Firstly, people (even more cynical than I am) were taken up with the Star Wars cash-in I’ve already mentioned.  Secondly, there was too much humour.  Gone are the days of Sean Connery’s dry wit and darker take on Bond and they’re all replaced with a lot of tongue-in-cheek silliness involving pet dogs doing comedy double-takes when Bond drives a boat through a crowded market square.  The last two major complaints about the film revolve around the casting of the villain ‘Drax’ and the latest Bond girl – Dr Goodhead (seriously – that’s her name!).  Now, due to my love of this film as a child, I was more interested in armies of laser-wielding astronauts spinning off into the blackness of space than acting abilities.  However, over thirty years later, I do tend to cringe a little when either character opens their mouth.  Yes, they really are a little bit wooden.  Perhaps I’m being unfair as I guess they do their best with the lines that are given to them.  But, for every cloud there’s a silver lining – and that silver lining comes in the form of a giant with metal teeth.  Yes, ‘Jaws’ is another baddie hell bent on creasing Bond’s tuxedo – and he is as awesome as ever.

I know I’m not alone in my appreciation for Moonraker, but I think most people who enjoy it as much as me are my age.  I guess it might not hold up too well with the modern audience – it’s not the special effects which are the problem (correct me if I’m wrong, but a laser battle in zero-gravity space has never been attempted before on screen!).  It’s the tone that may not sit well with today’s Bond fans.  Currently, we have a much darker Daniel Craig Bond who rarely smiles or makes a witty (borderline innuendo) quip.  However, if you can appreciate a Bond with a much lighter feel to it (and I know there are people out there who do – otherwise ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’ wouldn’t be so successful!) then you could do worse than relaxing your brain for a couple of hours and letting it drift into deep space.  If nothing else, the final line about ‘attempting re-entry’ is worth watching the whole film for.  RIP Roger – you were always the best Bond (my opinion only!).

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

High Rise – high concept, low returns

Ever since Tom Hiddleston became an evil Norse god he can do no wrong in many people’s eyes (that’s a nod to ‘Thor’ in case you have no idea what I mean by that).  In any case, besides – allegedly – dating Taylor Swift for about five minutes, he’s pretty popular right about now.  Therefore, a high concept arty piece, brimming with social commentary and with him taking centre stage must be worth a watch, right?  Sorry Tom.

Now, I like to think that I’m no stranger to the slightly more ‘abstract’ films.  I don’t just want to see endless car chases or Transformers movies.  I loved ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and David Lynch’s work.  However, I just couldn’t really get into this.  It’s based on a book of the same name that’s apparently had a script associated with it that’s been kicking around various productions companies for years.  Now, it’s only just been made, despite everything about it screaming that it’s set in the seventies.

As the title suggests, it’s all based in and around a high rise block of flats.  The opening scene shows that some sort of catastrophe has befallen the building and those left are living almost in feral conditions.  Then we’re flung a little further back in time and the film begins proper with us seeing the events which lead up to this social decay.

And, Tom Hiddleston shows that he’s not just a meanie with a horned helmet, he can also hold his own as a leading man.  He does carry the film as the well-to-do tenant of one of the apartments.  He’s slightly aloof and disdainful of much of what goes on around him – almost carrying himself a little like Patrick Bateman from ‘American Psycho,’ but never without sinking into quite such a chainsaw-wielding maniac. However, just because he’s not trying to feed stray cats to cash machines, doesn’t mean there isn’t a healthy (or rather Unhealthy!) helping of s3x and violence.  In fact… that’s really all the film is.

It’s clear that the film has something to say about society and the way we lived.  But it seems to get stuck in a bit of a senseless loop where gratuitous violence is all that’s on offer.  And, once you’ve seen one stylised fist fight (or worse!) then you probably don’t want to see one in the very next scene as well.  Perhaps if this film had been released in the seventies when such sights were a novelty in cinema and would therefore generate enough ‘shock’ with the public to make it stand out then it might have got a greater following.  However, despite the decadent setting and the stylish way it’s all filmed, there’s not really an awful lot here to see.  Yes, fans of Tom himself should enjoy it more than most, but it still feels like an empty Clockwork Orange clone that’s been lost in time all these years and has missed its window where it would have been popular.

I really wanted to like this and stuck with it hoping that it would finally change pace and pick itself up.  However, it just repeats the same cycle over and over again and whatever message it thought it was trying to say gets lost along the way.  Probably would have worked better as an art house piece that ran for between 20-30 minutes.  It looks nice, but feels hollow.  Wait… is that what it’s trying to say about life?

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

Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – Not perfect, but fun

In case you don’t know, ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ was a science-fiction book by Douglas Adams which developed a major cult following.  This was then immortalised during the eighties in the British six-part TV series of the same name which, despite its low budget, (seriously – the man with ‘two heads’ has to be seen to be believed, trust me, it’s no ‘Avatar!’) was regarded very highly as a faithful adaptation and added to the following.

Since then, the author, Douglas Adams, had tried numerous times to get a big screen version made, but, despite the fans supporting this, it took until 2005 for this to happen.  And, despite the film also being written by Adams, for various reasons it received only mixed reactions.

It follows the original book/TV show’s format of a man about to have his house bulldozed to the ground to make way for a motorway, only to discover that aliens are literally about to bulldoze the entire planet Earth for similar reasons.  While the entire planet are mercilessly blown up, our everyman – Arthur Dent – is rescued by his best friend (who conveniently turns out to be an alien on a research mission to our planet and in possession with the titular Guide to the Galaxy) and they end up on the run in a spaceship, piloted by various freaks of the universe.

Now, first of all let me say the cast in – on the whole – fantastic.  Martin Freeman (from the UK’s ‘Office,’ but more recently ‘Bilbo’ from ‘The Hobbit’ is great as the long suffering last surviving earthling and Alan Rickman voices the ‘paranoid android’ Marvin to perfection.  And, while we have plenty of good cameos such as John Malkovich and Bill Nighy, the overall cast are let down by Mos Def’s ‘Ford Prefect’ and Zooey Deschanel’s Trillion (aka the obligatory love interest for Arthur).  These two seem to have little made of them apart from making up the numbers and drag the cast down.

However, the overall feel lifts the film back up again.  Of course most of the special effects are CGI, but there’s a great feel for many of the monsters who are all there courtesy of Jim Henson’s creature effects workshop.  The sets are also amazing and the universe really does feel alive with weird and wonderful creations.  Overall, I enjoyed it.  However, I do wonder whether a lot of the dislike came from those who, like me, know the WHOLE story.

You see, unless I’m really missing something, the film doesn’t have an end.  Or at least not a proper one.  If you’ve read the book or seen the TV show, you know the answer to various major questions (and I’m not just talking about the number 42!).  However, the film doesn’t address many critical plot elements that are set up.  Perhaps this is meant to be the first half and, because of its limited success, we never got to see the sequel/second half which would have answered the questions we die-hard fans were expecting.  Therefore, it did leave me wanting more than the film offered.

For all its plus points I wanted to see the end, which I only got a sort of ending that serves only as a midway gap that could be considered an ending if you haven’t read the book/seen the TV show.  However, I do own the film on DVD and watch it from time to time.  Like I say, it does have enough going for it to make it nice and light-heartedly watchable.  Although, I do wonder whether the ‘big budget treatment’ that’s been afforded to this film wouldn’t have been better spent on a new TV adaptation that could have fleshed out all the characters who seem a little one dimensional and also given us the ending that was a lot better than the film.

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

Mad Max: Fury Road – Practical Magic

“Mad Max?’ who’s he?” cry the younger generation.  Well, I guess he’s Tom Hardy these days.  However, to anyone born back in the seventies and eighties, he the titular character was synonymous with a different actor who has since majorly fallen from grace.  So, in short – it’s a remake.  But, in that most rarest of remake traditions, it seems that the general consensus is that it’s actually pretty good!  Now, I was never that into the original films (I can’t even remember whether there’s two or three of them!) so perhaps I’m more forgiving and not exactly a ‘Mad Max’ purist, however, perhaps one of the reasons this new version is so well received is that it’s written and directed by the original’s director, George Miller.

It follows the same premise, i.e. in a post apocalyptic world (or ‘Australia’ as it’s also known – boom boom!) gangs rule the deserts and fuel and water are the most rare – and therefore valuable – commodities that people will literally kill for.  Enter one gruff loner (or ‘Max’ as we later find out) who’s been surviving on the road all this time on his lonesome.  However, his (sort of) carefree days of eating lizards and driving a cool car quickly come to an end when he’s captured by a gang of those nasties who seem to come to be in every post apocalyptic world we’ve ever seen on screen.  So he’s tortured and killed and no one lives happily ever after.  Just kidding.  With the help of a load of other prisoners, he escapes and they all go on the run, hotly pursued by their psychotic former captors.  However, just because you’re on the run from people who want to strap you to the front of a high-powered vehicle and wear your skins for sun block, doesn’t mean it’s all bad.  There are worse people to be on the lamb with than Charlize Theron (unless she’s playing Aileen Phillips from ‘Monster’ I suppose!), so the pair of them do their best to fend off the constant attacks from the gangs, while protecting those who are escaping alongside them.

I guess if you were to sum up the film and try to pigeonhole it into a genre, you could say it’s an ‘action’ movie, but I think the sub-genre of a ‘chase’ movie is more in order.  It never really stands still for long and the film is ultimately one long chase across a desert, only stopping occasionally to gather a breath or two before everyone’s off blowing moving vehicles up again.  And, if that’s your thing, then you’re in for a real treat.  Part of the enjoyment of this (very simple) film is that many of the special effects are real life stunts, as opposed to CGI or blue-screen work (yes, I think there may have been a little bit of the afore-mentioned effects, but it’s pretty minimal) so you really get a feel of the danger the actors (or probably stunt people!) are going through.

Not only are the explosions all convincing, but the make-up is also really cool.  And, by ‘cool’ I mean absolutely revolting!  Although, it seems that in this dystopian future, only bad people are hideously mutated individuals and anyone who needs saving looks like a supermodel from a Victoria’s Secret catalogue.  Although, to be fair, it seems that once a woman stops looking like Cindy Crawford with slightly less make-up, if they still wish to stay on the good guys’ side, they automatically become a hard-as-nails old crone who’s got a heart of gold and a forehead that time forgot.  Anyway, that’s just me being picky, this film is fast-paced fun.  If you like numerous explosions, car chases and general mayhem then go on a road trip with these people and you’ll see how bad car travel can be – I promise you after seeing what these people have to endure you’ll never moan again when all you have to do is drive a car with your kids in the back while they constantly ask, “Are we there yet?”

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

Hell or High Water – Talk about de ja vu!

I don’t know why, but sometimes when I watch a film it reminds me of another film and I just can’t shake that feeling for its entire runtime.  In this case, ‘Hell and High Water’ just made me think of ‘No Country For Old Men’ all the way through.  They are both set in the deserts of Texas and are about an outlaw on the run from the law.  Okay, so that smallest of synopsis doesn’t quite fit if you’ve seen both films, but it’s as near as I can get in such few words.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that, in this age of ‘shared cinematic universes,’ it wouldn’t surprise me to see both films somehow existing side by side. 

Whereas ‘No Country For Old Men’ had a man on the run with an ill-gotten bag of loot from a hired killer while the law was – kind of – hot on both their trails, ‘Hell or High Water’ as a pair of brothers robbing banks while Josh Brolin is a sheriff on the brink of retirement and his long-suffering partner looking into the trail of empty cash drawers they’ve been leaving in their wake.  Both films show the contrast between the two sets of characters’ journey and from now on I’ll do my best to concentrate on ‘Hell or High Water’ rather than constantly dwelling on how similar it was to ‘No Country For Old Men.’ The two robbers here are played by Chris ‘new Kirk’ Pine and Ben Foster (who looks fatter than the last time I saw him on screen!).  I guess this casting was deliberate, but Pine is definitely the more sympathetic of the two and we get the feeling he’s being led astray by his older, more violent and law-breaking brother.  Plus Pine is also afforded the backstory of an ex-wife and child who he owes money to.  Then we have the long arms of the law, mainly Brolin, who shines as the gruff and not always politically correct sheriff who is hot on their heels.  I would say that him and his partner are probably more enjoyable to watch than the bank robbers as the banter between them and general long suffering vibe is truly a joy to watch.

So, it’s ultimately a cat and mouse game where you probably can guess that the two couples are going to meet up during the final act and it’s all going to end badly for someone.  Despite enjoying the film with its lush desert setting and realistic banter between the pairs, I’d say that its predictability would be the one area where it falls down a bit.  I was only about a quarter of the way through when I made my prediction as to how it will play out for the four main characters.  I won’t mention it here as it turned out to be 100% correct, therefore would be giving away one hell of a major spoiler. 

Despite the bank robbery scenes naturally involving high-tension and speedy getaways, I did feel that the overall pacing of the film was quite slow.  To some, that may sound like a negative point, but it’s not the kind of story that needs fast-paced shootouts and high-budget actions scenes.  It’s a character piece as much as it is a cops and robbers film.  I did my best to stop mentioning ‘No Country For Old Men,’ but I have to say that if you enjoyed that, i.e. characters, settings and mood, then you should like this one too.  At least no one gets killed by a weird, portably hydraulic air-type pump thing.  Weird.

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

John Wick – mindless action fun

I think I’m a little late to the party on this one and I guess it must have cost me.  I’m an action-movie fan.  I grew up in the Arnie/Sly era of the eighties and I have plenty of mindless action flicks in my DVD collection – everything from ‘Commando’ to the mode recent ‘Shoot ‘em Up’ pleases me to a degree and Keanu Reeves pops up a fair times in my watchlist.  However, somehow his film where he plays the titular ‘John Wick’ slipped past me.  I’ve only just seen it after its sequel was released and, during that time, I’ve seen many a positive review saying how great it was.  Therefore, by the time I got round to watching it, my hopes were high.

I guess what happened is the reverse of when I watched ‘Sex Tape’ and the big screen adaptation of ‘The Dukes of Hazzard.’ Both had been absolutely slated by the critics so my expectations were suitably lowered by the time I saw them.  And, weirdly enough, I actually took some small amount of entertainment in both!  I’m not saying either were particularly good, but enjoyable enough if you were in the right mood.  This time, my hopes were so high, I found that what I got didn’t really live up to what I was expecting.  I was waiting for something truly revolutionary and different from anything I’d seen before.  What I got felt like just another action movie.

Don’t get me wrong – it’s not bad.  It was enjoyable enough, but it wasn’t anything I hadn’t seen before.  John Wick is a retired hitman who’s forced out of retirement when a baddie (played by 'Game of Throne's' Alfie Allen) kills his dog.  Yes, that’s basically the catalyst and motivation for the entire film.  What follows is your average (and I deliberately use the word ‘average’) rollercoaster of violence and revenge.  Everything you’d expect is there: gunfights are plentiful, there’s at least one car chase, a betrayal and eventually Wick comes face to face with the evil head honcho.  So it’s all there.  And it’s well done.  The violence (and there is violence – no PG13 here!) is believable and gritty and Keanu Reeves is always fun to watch (even when he’s trying to be moody and miserable he’s still that long-haired ‘bogus’ surfer-dude we all fell in love with back in the early nineties).  So, I can see how there’s much going for it.  I was just expecting more.  And that’s a shame really because my hopes were so high that, even though everything I like was – technically – there, I still came away with the feeling like it wasn’t that much of a big deal.  But, like I said earlier, a sequel has been made and I will definitely watch that, too.

At the end of the day, this film may not have entirely clicked with me, but I’m glad that Keanu Reeves is back in a decent franchise and it puts him back in the spotlight – maybe John Wick can team up with Liam Neeson in a Wick/Taken crossover? ;o)

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

Point Break – ‘Point-less’

I’m sorry, there must be tonnes of reviews out there that have used the ‘pointless’ pun.  I couldn’t help it.  It’s just too obvious.  In case you didn’t know, ‘Point Break’ is a classic action/cop movie of the nineties.  Therefore, because of its ‘classic’ status, it was deemed 'remakeable' by our good friends - those wonderful Hollywood executives.  Now, I like to think I’m not a ‘remake snob’ – there are arguments for remaking a film, normally if you have a fresh take on something, or if the film was made so long ago that people have practically forgotten the original.  However, ‘Point Break’ was only made in the nineties and is still pretty dear to many people – namely me.  I may be able to forgive this new version for anything other than a cynical cash-grab if the original source material was particularly outdated, but unfortunately the sad fact is that the (dare I say ‘proper?’) ‘Point Break’ still looks as good today as it ever did.

In case you don't know, both 'Point Breaks' are about a young FBI agent (Johnny Utah) who has to infiltrate a gang of bank robbers led by ‘Bodhi’ who indulge in extreme sports, in order to gain their trust and catch them, obviously.  Whereas the original had Keanu Reeves playing our FBI hero and Patrick Swayze as the lead robber, the new one has… er, actually I don’t know either of them.  I like to think I’m reasonably good with actors, but I’ve never seen either of these two in anything!  But, I won’t hold that against them.  I’ll save my disdain for the chemistry between pretty much everyone on screen.  Everyone just seemed to be trying too hard to steer away from what we already know about the film, but never really achieving it.  This new ‘Point Break’ incarnation is like a meteorite that’s got hopelessly trapped in a planet’s gravitational pull and is fighting against the odds in a losing battle to escape. 

The new ‘Point Break’ does its best to try and create something new.  The bank robbers don’t just surf like they do in the original and it’s set across multiple locations around the world, rather than just a single beach in America, but it’s simply not enough.  I’ve briefly touched upon the lack of chemistry between the lead characters, but this really becomes obvious when they try and throw in the obligatory ‘love interest’ in there for Johnny Utah the 2nd.  It’s truly painful.  Almost as bad as watching (the usually awesome) Ray Winstone as Johnny’s partner Angelo Pappas.  It’s just weird hearing these names again, only seeing different faces associated with them.

Believe it or not, I didn’t hate the remake.  It’s a decent enough film and, if you’re into anything from extreme sports to cops and robbers films, you’d probably get some entertainment out of it.  But there’s a MAJOR but.  This only applies if you’ve never seen the original.  If you’ve watched that you’ll be crying out for a slice of Reeves and Swayze.  So, if you haven’t already seen the original, go and watch that – it’s a true classic of its time which still holds up today.  Let the remake be a message to Hollywood that we’re not interested in seeing all our favourite movies redone just to make a quick buck.

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