Home Sweet Hell - Who Do I Root For?

'Home Sweet Hell' is the epitome of a film that will never be watched by the mainstream.  In fact, I'm surprised in these days of the dollar, this film ever got made in the first place.  That's not because it's bad, it's just because it's so 'non mainstream' that I'm surprised anyone ever thought it would make a profit.  However, I'm glad it was made regardless of how much it earned when it (no doubt!) went straight to DVD (or Netflix - wherever!). 

The reason I feel that it would never be considered 'mainstream' is that the central characters are fundamentally unlikable.  We're introduced to a professional couple (Patrick Wilson and Katherine Heigl) - he is a weak-willed, spineless excuse of a man who is desperate to have an affair with anything in a skirt.  She is a controlling, cold-hearted harpy of a woman.  And, as I mentioned, when he finally gets 'lucky' enough to have an affair with an attractive employee, you know it's never going to end well.  Let's just say that what follows is a twisted tale of blackmail, murder and double-crossing. 

Now, those are traits you may expect from the film's villains (of which there are also the 'traditional' type who come in the form of a pair of meth-heads).  However, the fact that those we're supposed to root for, i.e. Wilson and Heigl, also display those - ahem - 'admirable little traits, mean these are hardly your regular 'heroes.' Some may claim that they could be called 'anti-heroes,' however they do little to earn this label, as they're hardly fighting the forces of darkness for the good of mankind, merely to save their own skins (and reputations!).  I know Wilson comes across as slightly more sympathetic, as he really does find himself victimised by everyone and you can sort of see why he had an affair when you catch a glimpse of his homelife.  James Belushi is a nice guy in the story, but he’s just an additional character who we never really get to know.

Now, please don't think I'm coming across as 'harsh' on this film - I actually quite liked it!  In these days of selfless heroes (many of which in costumes swinging through cities and fighting hordes of alien bad-guys!) I quite enjoyed watching a pair of real nasty people being pitted against those equally distasteful - it made a pleasant change not to care who wins, only enjoying seeing as many people fail as possible.  Yes, they say that you need to 'relate' to characters in order to understand their plight and therefore invest in their journey.  I'm pleased to say I don't really relate to any of them and I still enjoyed the - darkly disturbing and sometimes comic- ride.  If you're in the mood for something distinctly UNheroic and dark, then this one should kill an hour and a half of your time.

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

Tomorrow Never Dies – Brosnan is on a roll

It was pretty much the general consensus that Pierce Brosnan’s first outing as Bond (‘Goldeneye’) was actually a vast improvement on the brief ‘Dalton era’ (sorry Tim!).  So, there was some speculation as to whether ‘Goldeneye’ was a fluke or not when it came to the next film in the franchise ‘Tomorrow Never Dies.’ I think I was as pleased as any Bond fan when I say that I was pleasantly surprised.  I could almost say that – overall – ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ is actually the highlight of the Brosnan reign.

The film does its best to steer clear of the slightly more fanciful notion of a supervillain trying to take over the world, instead choosing for almost satirising one of today’s real life media moguls (Rupert Murdoch anyone?) in their attempts to gain global positioning as the one and only source of news for the entire planet.  And, in typical Bond style, this  isn’t done in the boardroom, but by starting a war between the UK and China, then filming the carnage that ensues.  But, whatever carnage the villain can create, Bond does his best to match.  And he does it very well.  If you’ve seen one Bond film (especially one of the more modern ones with the higher budget) you should know what to expect.  You get the fights, the chases and the exotic locations.  It’s all here for your enjoyment.  I’m not dwelling on the details because it’s all pretty standard when it comes to Bond films (please don’t take that as a put-down of the film – it’s actually the opposite!).  This could almost be the ‘perfect’ Bond.  That doesn’t mean that it’s the best of all that have ever been made.   It has a formula like the rest and crosses all boxes, it just does it really well and, despite not giving anything that original, still is totally enjoyable – maybe even for people who aren’t fans of the series.

There are a few things that are ‘extra’ good about the film, such as the satirical take on the media (obviously filmed before the internet took off and you could probably take over the world or start a war via Twitter).  Bond’s boss, ‘M,’ gets more screen time (and with Judi Dench playing the role, then that’s no bad thing), plus Michelle Yeoh is possibly the most capable and coolest Bond girl so far.  The gadgets and Q are back, even if Desmond Llewelyn is looking more and more frail by now. 
I didn’t see much in the way of negative points, however, if I’m going by other people’s opinions of the film, I would mention that some felt than Jonathan Pryce was a little ‘weak’ as the villain/media mogul ‘Elliot Carver.’ Personally, I thought he was great, but many disagreed.  I always thought that if you wanted to see a truly wooden Bond villain then try ‘Moonraker’ or ‘The Spy Who Loved Me!’

Overall, ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ is a very solid Bond movie with a breath-taking chase through the streets of China between a motorbike and a helicopter.  Brosnan has really hit his stride with this one – just do try not to be too upset by Bond driving a BMW!

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

San Andreas – Sorry Dwayne!

I have to start by saying that I do ten to watch anything that Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson is in.  For someone primarily known as an action star (and former wrestler to boot!) he does tend to offer *slightly* more range in the acting stakes than some of his contemporaries.  Here, in ‘San Andreas,’ he doesn’t have to utilise an awful lot of acting ability to portray a tough-as-nails helicopter pilot who must utilise his aerial skills to save his family when a freak earthquake hits the city.  Yes, that’s about the size of the plot.  Anyway, I knew what I was getting.  I’ve seen enough disaster movies to know the score – the actors normally come secondary to the special effects.  And this film was no different.

I began by actually quite enjoying the film.  It doesn’t take long before buildings start crumbling on a large scale and, when this happens, the special effects are indeed well done enough to at least make the devastation appear believable.  Plus you have the ever-great Dwayne Johnson at the helm, who, as I’ve said, is always fun.  However, it was about there that the fun started to come to an end.

There’s little even Johnson and the special effects department could do to prevent not only the city of San Andreas, but also the entire film, from slipping into oblivion.  It was about a quarter into the film when I started asking the question: Is this film trying to be serious, or not?  You see… these kind of disaster movies do follow patterns, or to put it a little harsher, have their own clichés.  And ‘San Andreas’ starts to conform to so many of these that I was left wondering if they were checking every box on purpose in some sort of ‘self knowing’ kind of way.  Sadly, by the end of the film I can confirm that they never had their tongue anywhere near their cheek.

Once the disaster is underway, we’re also treated to the couple who have split up getting back together, their subsequent inability to die while all around them drop like flies and the search for the child in danger.  Now, I could almost forgive all of those if it wasn’t for the fact that some actors appeared to be doing possibly the worst British actors since Dick Van Dyke!  (Feel free to correct me and look them up online and inform me that they really WERE true Brits – but I’d be shocked!)

So, a film that could have been really good fun was only reasonably due to Johnson and the effects.  It’s a shame that they couldn’t have at least tried to make the sub-plots a little more original, as it makes the film pretty forgettable if you’ve seen as many disaster movies as I have.  Plus Paul Giamatti was wasted and only there to try and give the film more of an air of gravitas.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Goldeneye – Bond: the Next Generation

For whatever reason, and despite Ian Flemming himself stating that Timothy Dalton was the closest interpretation to Bond that he’d seen, Dalton left the iconic role after only two films (which weren’t as bad as some people like to make out!).  And, the role of the super-spy went to the man producers had been trying to attract for some time – Pierce Brosnan.  And, although it’s probably fair to say that when people look back on the history of Bond, he too wouldn’t be described as many people’s ‘favourite’ Bond, he did make advances in bringing the franchise right up to date.

Right from the beginning we meet our new Bond bungee jumping into a Russian base.  Now, I know these days most people know what bungee jumping looks like, but, back in 1995, it was actually quite an event seeing it done on the big screen.  Yes, the plot isn’t anything we haven’t seen before, i.e. a Russian presence trying to exact revenge on the West, but it’s just so new seeing such a ‘modern’ Bond.  Gone are the days of blatantly ‘blue-screening’ the action behind the actors and now Bond can happily sky-dive into a falling plane and make it look real (well, as real as jumping into a falling plane and piloting it to safety can look!).  I feel like I have to dwell on this ‘modern feel’ because it is this film’s major change from previous incarnations.  The action looks better, the chases are more fantastical (the ‘tank chase’ being the highlight!) – it’s just totally Bond for the new nineties generation.

The ever-wonderful ‘Q’ is on hand to smooth over the transition of old to new Bond, but the modern feel is not just helped by (another) new Moneypenny, but also having a female M, brilliantly played by Judi Dench, who states much of the criticism that’s been levelled at Bond throughout the franchise, i.e. he’s a misogynistic relic of a bygone age!  Add great supporting performances from Sean Bean, Robbie Coltrane and Famke Jannsen (a henchwoman who likes to crush her victims between her thighs in the heat of – er – ‘passion’ and you have an action-spy movie that really roles along nice.  As I mentioned, the plot isn’t anything spectacular, but the overall look, feel, cast and a wonderfully-snarling rendition of the title song ‘Goldeneye’ by a Tina Turner at her best, really elevates what – by rights – is nothing more than an average movie to one that really feels like the Bond franchise has been given a shot in the arm.

‘Goldeneye’ may not be technically the greatest of the long-running saga, but it certainly cements its place in the franchise by being the most different from what came before it.  It’s definitely worth a watch if you’re a fan and should even entertain casual fans of the action genre.  Oh, and did I mention that Pierce Brosnan is also pretty damn good as the lead?  He keeps the wry charm of Roger Moore and the ability to add just the right amount of humour to the role without it becoming a parody of itself.  Plus he’s believable enough as an action hero when he’s gunning down hordes of faceless Russian hoods.  Overall, a damn fine ride.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Spy – Couldn’t hold it together

I know that the ‘spy genre’ is as old as the hills thanks to the everlasting Bond franchise, so much so that even spy movie parodies have become commonplace.  Therefore, my hopes were only relatively high that Melissa McCarthy could pull one off with little more than having a female as the lead spy being the main noticeable difference.  She plays a CIA agent who spends her career sitting behind a desk, providing intel for the ‘real’ spy, played by Jude Law.  However, in a turn of events that is there to simply move the plot forwards, she ends up being sent out on a mission.  And, for once, the ‘hilarious consequences’ promised in the trailer actually prove to look true.

Once she’s unleashed on the world (armed naturally with all the latest ‘Q-style’ gadgets every spy must have in their handbag) it’s pretty funny.  I was really enjoying the film, especially her interactions with Jason Statham.  Now, whereas McCarthy is well used to comedy, Statham is hardly known for his sense of on-screen humour.  However, he stole every scene for me and, even though he’s in it a fair bit, he wasn’t in it enough for my liking!  However, as Statham’s involvement was decreased, so did my enjoyment of the film.

I’ve seen a fair few films which I would describe as ‘films of two halves.’ Normally, they’re a bit slow to start, but, once they get going, really do pick up and entertain.  Sadly, in my opinion, ‘Spy’ was the opposite.  I was really enjoying McCarthy’s trademark foul-mouthed banter and, despite the plot hardly being anything original (i.e. spy parody), I felt the jokes hit almost every time.
However, the longer the film went on, the less jokes there seemed to be.  Or, if there were jokes, they didn’t seem half as funny as the first half’s offerings.  The film kind of moved away from comedy and went more for straight spy movie.  By that I mean the plot took over which was just about as generic as they come.  You have the baddie with the nuke and the doublecross and everything you’d see in either a Bond film, or any other spy parody.

Overall, it’s not bad, it’s just one of those films that I feel would have worked better as a stand-alone TV show where the jokes could have remained tighter throughout the whole runtime instead of seemingly running out of steam midway through.  Die-hard fans of McCarthy should probably enjoy this more than most and it was fun to see Jason Statham making fun of himself for a change, but apart from that, it’s a film that I’d rather watch on TV than actually pay full price for.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

A View to a Kill - Not bad Bond

‘A View to a Kill’ has an odd reputation.  It was the last in Roger Moore’s Bond films and it seemed that most people couldn’t get past the fact that he had one too many wrinkles and therefore was probably due a Dr Who-like regeneration.  Now, they may have a point.  He was looking a little too ‘lived in’ even by Bond’s mature standards, but, if you can get over the fact that he obviously wasn’t as sprightly as he once was, it’s still a fun enough romp.  It involves a genetically-enhanced leftover from Nazi Germany who plans to hold the world to ransom by destroying everyone else’s supply of microchips and therefore cornering the market on their distribution.  Now, if you think that you’ve heard something like that before, then you may be right – Goldfinger used basically the same premise, only with gold instead of microchips.  But that was in the past.  And it’s not like any Bond fan will remember, right?  Okay, so the plot may have actually managed to simply be an upgrade of an earlier story, but this was released in the eighties when microchips were really starting to take off.  So, if you can forgive that, you  should be able to get some fun out of it.

Moore’s previous film was ‘Octopussy.’ Now, I didn’t hate it as much as most, but even I had to admit that it was probably the most campy Bond film made to date.  I’m pleased to say that @A View to a Kill’ tones down the silliness in order for a more serious affair.  Of course you still get Moore’s trademark ‘dry wit’ along the way, but at least he’s stopped making noises like Tarzan when he swings through the jungle! 

It’s actually pretty good, you obviously get everything you expect from a Bond film, i.e. the exotic locations, chase scenes and beautiful women.  However, special mention to a pretty awesome rescue/chase section during the middle of the film where Bond has to not only escape from a burning building, but also drive a fire engineer (recklessly) through the streets of San Francisco (kind of like you see later in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines!).  But no Bond films would be anything without a decent villain for our man to go up against.  Rumour has it producers wanted Mr David Bowie to take that place, but the Starman appeared uninterested and the role when to the (equally-talented) Christopher Walken.  Now, he’s pretty awesome in everything he does and in ‘A View to a Kill’ he’s no exception, clearly enjoying playing a complete psychopath.  However, I can’t help but wonder if the producers wanted Bowie so much that they decided to dress Walken up like him in his ‘Let’s Dance’ video (seriously, once you see it you can UNsee it!).

We also have Tanya Roberts as the ‘Bond girl’ of the film.  She does her best with what she’s got to do – appropriately getting captured when required and throwing the odd punch here and there.  However, if ‘A View to a Kill’ has a memorable Bond girl then it’s Grace Jones!  Granted, she may not be everyone’s idea of a Bond girl, but she’s pretty impressive in her role and cuts a far more memorable figure with everything she has to go through, making her possibly the best ‘henchman’ since Jaws.

As I said, ‘A View to a Kill’ may not be everyone’s vodka martini.  Moore is looking a little tired, but it’s still an enjoyable enough Bond romp to please most casual fans.  Besides, even if you don’t like the film, you can’t deny that it has the greatest Bond theme ever recorded, courtesy of Duran Duran (if you watch ‘A View to a Kill’ then I defy you not to be singing it by the end credits!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Octopussy - Moore of the same

Growing up in the late seventies and early eighties, it’s fair to say that (despite the numerous amounts of evidence to the contrary supporting Connery) Roger Moore is my favourite Bond.  I watched (the absurdly-titled) ‘Octopussy’ when it came out in 1983.  I was six at the time and I loved it.  However, now many decades later I can saw that there are Bond films that stand the test of time and will be enjoyed by future generations just as much and there ae Bond films that only appeal to you as a child.  Now, I can see that Octopussy is probably the latter.  Even as a cynical adult I still watch it and enjoy it for what it is (plus the nostalgia it induces in me), however, it’s probably the (first) best example that those who like to criticise Moore’s interpretation of Bond use when they say how much better Connery was as the superspy.

Many liked Connery because of his darker take on Bond.  People felt that Moore was often too silly and self-knowing to be taken seriously.  As I said, I personally liked Moore best and he probably peaked during ‘The Spy Who Loved Me,’ after that it was a slow descent into a little too much reliance on glib one-liners and parodies that would make Austin Powers blush.  It focuses on a Soviet General who is trying to finance a new European war via purchasing rare jewellery.  Naturally, Bond must stop a few bombs going off along the way. 

Along with the obligatory car chases and punch-ups we see the first ever instance of a Bond girl returning for a new film. Maud Adams plays a different role than the one in ‘The Man With the Golden Gun,’ but I’m not really sure why she was chosen as she’s hardly the most memorable Bond girl of the franchise.  Plus the villain is kind of weak, too.  Gone are the days of ‘Jaws’ or ‘Blofeld’ and in their place are a forgettable Indian bad guy and the generic Russian general who’s always out to crush the decadent West.

Overall, I enjoy the film because I pretty much will watch anything Bond-related and I have a soft spot for the campiness of the Roger Moore era (even when it does come across more like a Flash Gordon movie during some of the climactic fight scenes!).  However, I do appreciate that ‘Octopussy’ will not be for everyone.  If you lean towards liking ‘dark and gritty’ Bond then you’re really going to have a hard time taking Bond seriously when he’s swinging through the jungle while they overlay a ‘Tarzan-like’ noise over him.

Perhaps the most pertinent thing to point out is that Bond has to infiltrate a circus and, in doing so, decides to (perfectly) disguise himself as a clown.  He then flaps and waddles in his oversize shoes past all manner of guards in order to stop mass genocide.  It’s a daft sight, but then it’s a pretty daft film.  If you’re okay with that, then you’ll hopefully get some enjoyment in this over-the-top spy film (and not think that it’s a complete horse’s a$$ - as depicted in the opening stunt!)

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