Serial Mom – It is what it is

‘Serial Mom’ and ‘Snakes on a Plane.’ Two films that – technically – shouldn’t really ever be compared to each other because they’re so radically-different.  However, maybe the one thing they do have in common (besides sharing space in my DVD collection) is that they basically tell you all you need to know about the film in the title, therefore you should know what you’re in for before you sit down to watch.

Kathleen Turner plays the titular ‘Serial Mom’ – a wife and mother to a typical American suburban family who, on the outside, are perfect in every way.  But, the family’s ‘dark secret’ is clearly apparent in the title.  She takes pleasure in messing with some people and even killing others.

And, like ‘Snakes on a Plane,’ once you’ve given what little elaboration of the title is needed, there’s not an awful lot left to say.  If you’re looking for an – extremely – black comedy then you’ll definitely find one here.  Kathleen Turner is brilliantly evil, but don’t expect too much in the way of backstory as to why she’s like the way she is.  This film was made in the early nineties and I reckon that if something similar was produced today then we’d get a detailed backstory as to why she does what she does.

Either way, the film is – as I said – darkly comic and kind of pokes fun of the media reaction of the day (again, if this film was remade then expect all sorts of internet-related jibes involving the social media reaction to such events becoming public).

Oh, and if you ever watched Ricky Lake’s talk show then you’ll be surprised at what she used to look like before she had a studio audience standing behind her!

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

Downsizing – Big concept, downsized execution

‘Downsizing’ looked really good from the trailer.  Yes, don’t all films?  It’s about – believe it or not – a world where, if you want to decrease your carbon footprint and get more for your money, you can be shrunk to a mere five inches tall and (effectively) live in a doll’s house-like world with your friends and loved ones.  I know the premise is a little ‘out there,’ but Matt Damon is the lead and it looked really funny.  And it nearly was. 

The film had two major stumbling points for me.  I was quite happy to suspend my disbelief in order to accept the plot.  However, the first fault came because I’d seen the trailer.  The film almost feels like two stories rolled into one.  The first half is basically the trailer, only full-length.  Therefore, if, like me, you’ve seen the trailer, then you’ve basically seen the entire first half of the movie – i.e. no shocks, surprises or new gags to come.

Then, at roughly the halfway mark, it feels like a completely different writer took over control.  The film ditches ninety per cent of its established characters and brings in a load of new ones.  Not only this, but the whole film feels weirdly-different from everything that’s set it up beforehand.  The first half is like a quirky romantic comedy and the second turns into a deep drama with heady political messages about the environment.

Matt Damon is likeable enough in the lead and if you’re a huge fan of his then you’ll enjoy it.  The supporting cast all do their best, but it’s the writing of the secondary characters that lets them down – they individual character arcs all seem totally unbelievable.  It’s like Darth Vader suddenly turning good halfway through the first ‘Star Wars’ film.

Also, was it just me or did the special effects seem a little on the cheap-looking?  With a story involving tiny people interacting with normal-sized people you’d expect them to blend the two seamlessly.  However, much of it looked very ‘blue-screen’ esque.

I know I’m sounding quite negative about it all, but, believe it or not, it is quite fun.  There are definitely good jokes that land in there (well, mainly the first half) so it’s not all bad.  I just wished that it had chosen one particular genre and stuck with it, rather than trying to be everything all at once.

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

Underworld: Blood Wars – The franchise has jumped the lycan

I’ve always been a fan of the ‘Underworld’ franchise.  The first film totally blew me away and – amazingly – the sequel (in my opinion, anyway) was that rarest of beasts of a sequel that was actually better than the original.  Yes, a few people said the prequel that came next was a missed opportunity, as it didn’t address a lot of the mythology that people were hoping for.  And, despite many film critics absolutely despising the fourth instalment, I took some dumb enjoyment out of the affair.  Therefore, I couldn’t really see how ‘part 5’ would be anything other than more of the same silly, action-packed entertainment.  I was wrong.  Sadly.

I just couldn’t believe how much the quality has fallen with this one.  It just felt like one of the most generic, by-the-numbers films ever made.  Yes, it had some of the same characters in it.  Yes, Kate Beckinsale looked good in her catsuit.  And, yes, there are still plenty of action scenes.  Yet, this time round, it just didn’t feel like anything other than an extended trailer for a film.

Although Kate Beckinsale does her best in the lead, this time round she seems almost bored to be here – like other roles have dried up and she needs this one to pay the bills.  The other characters are equally forgettable; there’s a new vampire who basically looks like the ‘Mother of Dragons’ from ‘Game of Thrones’ and (yet another) new leader of the werewolves (sorry, ‘lycans’) who just snarls in a menacing manner and even the – normally great – Charles Dance can’t really add any old-school charm to the proceeding. 

However, when I sat down to watch this, I was hardly expecting major character development and meaningful story arcs – I would have settled for some decent vampire versus werewolves action.  I didn’t even get that!  The action scenes are possibly some of the worst ever in modern movies.  Twenty years ago they might have been considered something special, but times have changed and people are expecting something a little different.  But, again, I could have taken dull action – what I really got was ‘stupid’ action!  If you think about any of the major fight scenes they make no sense whatsoever.  The characters do things that are so ridiculous that it makes all those old horror films where the blonde leading lady doesn’t bother killing the killer when she has the upper hand absolutely believable and inspired.  I’ve never seen a more poorly-trained army of vampires who gets wiped out like they’re ‘normal’ humans.  I suppose at least they don’t ‘sparkle’ in sunlight.

On the plus side, it does shed some light on some questions raised in previous instalments regarding characters who just – sort of – disappeared from the franchise, but apart from that, there’s really not much here that you haven’t seen before.  I hear there’s an ‘Underworld 6’ in the pipeline – I’ll probably watch it, but this instalment has severely lowered my expectations towards the franchise.

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

A Beautiful Mind – Much better than I expected

I never watched ‘A Beautiful Mind’ at its time of release as I wasn’t a massive fan of Russell Crowe and I didn’t know what the film was about.  For me, this was the ultimate example of never judging a book by its cover.  I still proclaim that the cover of the DVD looks pretty dull and gives no real hint as to what the film was about.  Yes, I knew that Crowe won an Oscar for his performance and that it was a story about a guy who did stuff, but nothing about (the little) I heard about it really grabbed me.  However, now nearly twenty years later, I finally got round to seeing what all the fuss was about.  And I’m actually quite glad I did.

I guess my overriding predictions of ‘A Beautiful Mind’ was that it was a love story and nothing else.  However, the film is actually based on the real life story of John Nash (Crowe), an American code-breaker who helped the US Government decipher Russian messages during the Cold War, making the whole thing more akin to a spy thriller than a romantic drama.  I’m not saying that just because it’s about spies you’re going to get a load of high-octane James Bond car chases and gadgets.  What you have here is a far more realistic take on the profession.  We see how Nash is ‘recruited’ by the Government and the way he uses his gifts with patterns and numbers in order to help them out.  Of course there’s always going to be a reasonable helping of romantic sub-plot and here it comes in the form of Jennifer Connolly who becomes his wife throughout the course of the story.  But, in my opinion (now!), it’s primarily a spy story.

I won’t go into too much detail regarding the rest of the plot as there are most likely some things that you won’t see coming.  Or, at least from my perspective as someone who knew nothing about the film before watching, I certainly didn’t predict what would happen.  But, I do recommend watching it, even if you’re not a fan of spy-stuff.  If nothing else then Crowe’s performance is definitely worth a look.  You can see why he got his Oscar as he does put everything he has into the portrayal of a man who, by his own admission, isn’t that likeable and yet you want to see what happens to him.  Ed Harris and Christopher Plummer should also get mentions as they both provide integral parts of the story.  I know Jennifer Connolly was good too, but I felt she had little to do other than be Nash’s long-suffering partner throughout the story.  It is a kind of long film and I think perhaps around fifteen to twenty minutes of the final act could probably have been trimmed to make it a tighter film.  It may take me another twenty years to watch ‘A Beautiful Mind’ again, but I’m pretty sure one day I will.

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

The Commuter – Liam Neeson hits people on a train

I know that ‘shared universes’ are very popular these days with film franchises, so I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that, along with the ‘Marvel Cinematic Universe,’ there’s also a ‘Liam Neeson Shared Universe.’ In this dimension Liam Neeson just wanders from one situation where he has to fight people to rescue his family.  If you’re familiar with the film ‘Taken’ (which kind of reignited Neeson’s career as an elder action hero) you’ll know he’s more than competent at saving the day in middle age.  In that he had to rescue his daughter (and beat many people up along the way).  This was followed by the inevitable sequels and some other films that were basically ‘Taken,’ but with a different title. ‘The Commuter’ is one of these.  However, just because it’s effectively the same movie with a different coat of paint doesn’t make it bad.

There’s not an awful lot I can say about this film that I haven’t summed up in the title – Liam Neeson hits people on a train.  It’s pretty much your standard action movie and by no means perfect.  Whenever he’s on the train (which is most of the time!) the outside world speeding by looks severely computer-generated.  He gets into fights and takes punishment that would put down a Terminator, there’s an attempt at adding moments that you won’t see coming (and you’ll definitely see them coming) and parts of the plot that just probably wouldn’t happen in real life.

Yes, for all its numerous faults, it actually kept me very entertained.  It’s not overly-long and if you’re either a fan of Liam Neeson’s ‘Taken-type’ movies, or just modern action films in general, then this is something to eat popcorn to.  Seeing that Liam Neeson has now beat people up on planes and now trains, I’m guessing the logical progression for his career will be for him to find himself trapped in the back of an Uber with a terrorist at the wheel and he must fight for his survival (and most likely his family’s, too).  And, I’m guessing I’ll probably find some enjoyment in that, too (I have low standards!).

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

Vanilla Sky – More ‘Lynchian’ than love

It’s hard to imagine that in 2001 a love story starring Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz and Penelope Cruz was actually considered a Box Office failure.  But then that’s because it wasn’t a love story.  However, much of the marketing that surrounded it concentrated on the ‘relationship aspect’ of the film, lulling people into thinking this was what they would be getting.  Therefore, by the time they had left the cinema and their heads had stopped spinning, they possibly were among the many who simply described ‘Vanilla Sky’ as a ‘mess.’ Yes, the story is centres around a print billionaire (Tom Cruise’s) slowly falling in love with a struggling artist (Penelope Cruz) while at the same time trying to fend off his existing lover (Cameron Diaz).  So far, nothing particularly out of the ordinary.  However, once the film gets going (and I say this referring to much that comes in the second half, as the first half sets everything up without giving too much away as to what’s about to come) things start taking a turn for the weird.

Dreams are mentioned more than once and that’s a good analogy as to how the film progresses.  Things happens that appear a little random, leaving the audience to wonder whether there may ever be some form of supernatural influence involved.  The story chops and changes and deliberately leaves the viewer feeling pretty disorientated, much like you’d feel upon waking up from a particularly vivid dream.  Naturally, this form of story-telling doesn’t make for an easy ride when it comes to understanding the narrative.  I can see it leaving some people a little confused (it took me a couple of watches to actually ‘get’ the film entirely!).

I mentioned ‘Lynchian’ in my title.  This refers to film-maker David Lynch, who’s famous for his weird, surreal, completely NON classic Hollywood narrative way of telling a story.  He, like ‘Vanilla Sky,’ likes to leave a fair element of the story up to the viewers’ interpretation, rather than spoon-feeding them every plot point.  Therefore, this is most likely a film that you’re going to find yourself discussing with friends after a viewing (although, in my opinion, ‘Vanilla Sky’ actually gives you a lot more answers than the average David Lynch film!).

If you know what you’re in for I think people who are in the mood for a particularly weird and slightly disturbing type of film will quite enjoy this.  You definitely have to be in the mood.  I’ve seen it a fair few times, but, if I’m simply craving car chases and shoot-outs, then this isn’t the film I put on.  I think if anything sums it up best it’s Cameron Diaz’s performance in ‘Vanilla Sky’ – on the surface, sweet and frothy.  However, dig deep and you’ll find dark and creepy (and that’s not an insult – she’s really good in this!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Romancing the Stone – Big hair and bigger snakes

Someone told me that ‘Romancing the Stone’ was actually a romantic comedy, rather than an action movie.  Yeah, I guess there’s an element of ‘romance’ in as much as the two lead characters are male and female, therefore if you even know what a ‘film’ is you’ll realise there’s going to be an element of two people getting together in the midst of an outlandish adventure.  However, I still always see this film as an ‘action’ movie, rather than luvvy-duvvy stuff!

A writer (Kathleen Turner) finds her sister has been kidnapped in a South American country and sets off to rescue her (or rather just pay the desired ransom).  Once in the jungle territory she finds herself woefully out of her depth, but luckily she seems to bump into the only other American in the continent (Michael Douglas) who is skilled in the ways of jungle survival.  I can’t quite recall which came first – this, or ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.  Either way, they seem to co-exist in the same universe when it comes to tones (although Temple of Doom strays into the supernatural, as opposed to a drugs cartel, but for the early part of the film they’re near identical in terms of tone). 

Not just do our bickering heroes have each other and the terrain they’re stranded in, they also have Danny DeVito’s slimy little character hot on their heels, not to mention a tonne of drug lords and, of course, the kidnappers.  So there’s plenty of time for conflict to come into play here.  Personally, I think the film has stood up to the tests of time in terms of action and entertainment.  There’s clearly plenty of chemistry between the two leads and the film’s a lot of fun.  However, you can tell it was filmed in the eighties (not just by Douglas’ ‘mullet’) due to how the woman is basically portrayed as a ‘damsel in distress’ type character and the man is clearly in charge at all times.  Then you also have the stereotypical South American characters who are all shady (at best!) or simply drug dealers.  If you can get over the fact that this was just how films were made thirty years ago then you should find this a fun film to watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon (and make sure you see the ‘full’ version rather than the one that’s been ‘cut for TV’ as it contains a lot more ‘croc action!’).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Insidious: The Last Key – Hopefully the last

We all know that, in horror movie terms, whenever a film has the word ‘last’ in the title it basically means ‘last-if-the-franchise-fails-to-turn-a-profit.’ To me, this ‘last’ instalment is long overdue.  I really enjoyed the first one, finding it really creepy (even though the plot was hardly anything new).  However, I seem to recall struggling to make it through the second outing and, I’m sorry to say, that this third one is more akin to the second than the first.

There’s nothing particularly ‘wrong’ with ‘Part 3,’ it’s more a case that anyone who’s ever seen a horror film will probably have seen everything here before, meaning you might as well just save yourself an hour and a half and watch a horror film you already own and know you’ll definitely enjoy.  However, I have to give the film credit for focusing on Lin Shaye’s characters.  Not only is she a more than capable actress and can easily shoulder a film, she’s also very easy to root for as a hero, plus it’s nice to see a horror film concentrate on an older actress, rather than the clichéd blonde teenage cheerleader types that are normally associated with starring in the genre.  It’s mainly about what happened to her character as a child and how her past is – literally – coming back to haunt her.

Of course there does need to be some teenagers thrown into the mix to satisfy the ‘youth’ audience and they’re about as generic as you can get.  Comic relief comes in the form of Shaye’s two helpers who constantly make wisecracks throughout the whole film.  However, the film really falls short when it comes to scares.  You get about five minutes of a character walking around a darkened room, followed by a ‘jump scare.’ This film-making technique is then repeated pretty much all the way through until the end.  And – apparently – that’s what passes as modern horror.

I’ll keep this review short as there’s little more I can say on it.  If you’re a mega-fan of the franchise I guess you have to watch this part just to see it off (if, of course, this truly is the end!).  Otherwise you’ve probably already seen better in the genre.

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

Darkest House – Oldman’s finest hour

I’ve just come back from a screening of the new Winston Churchill film, ‘Darkest Hour,’ and I have to say I’m pretty blown away.  It might as well have been a one man show, as Gary Oldman appeared better than ever as the man himself.  It says it’s ‘based on true events’ which is pretty accurate.  Oldman seemed so lifelike and believable as the wartime leader of Britain that sometimes it almost felt like it was a documentary.

It begins a year or so into the Second World War where Britain is already at war with Germany.  Current Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, has lost the confidence of Parliament and the King is forced to allow Churchill to take over the war effort.  I didn’t know much about the film before I watched it (apart from the obvious, i.e. that it was about Churchill) and did assume that it would chart his time in office throughout the entire conflict.  However, it only really focuses on about a month or so of time – I guess the part of the war which could indeed be described as Britain’s ‘darkest hour’ when the British army looked lost, no one was coming to help (the army or the country!) and a deal with Hitler looked like the only way out.

I’d like to think that cinema goers all over the world will appreciate this piece of (dramatic!) history not only for Gary Oldman’s Oscar-worthy performance.  Being British it did stir up just a smattering of national pride, but I’m guessing that won’t be the case for other nationalities.

It’s worth noting that a film so ‘character-based’ (as opposed to simply having superheroes destroying a major city) doesn’t have many special effects or amazing ‘set-pieces,’ however, what sets it up isn’t just Gary Oldman’s acting, but also the make-up team who turned him into the hunched, balding old man he was portraying.

The only thing that irked me about the whole film was one scene near the end.  It felt totally unbelievable and scripted.  It was more like a scene from a romantic comedy where the lead character learns a valuable, life-changing lesson.  I have since Googled it to see other people’s opinions on it and, as I thought, it was a moment of total fiction that was put in to ‘represent’ this defining moment in Churchill’s life.

The film is a couple of hours long, but it certainly sped past for me.  It’s rare that a modern film can capture a person so greatly and it’s all down to Gary Oldman (and also the team of make-up artists!).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

All the Money in the World – Worth the watch

If you can get past the controversy of recasting Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer and having all relevant scenes reshot in about a week, you’ll actually find there’s quite an interesting film here.  It’s based on a true story about the (at the time this film was set) richest man in the world, oil billionaire Paul Getty, and his reaction to the kidnapping of his grandchild back in 1973.  Now, most of us would instantly say ‘Just pay the ransom!’ if a family member was in mortal danger (and you had millions in your back account!).  However, he responded by saying something like, ‘I have fourteen grandchildren.  If I pay the ransom for one I’ll have thirteen more kidnapped grandchildren.’ Weirdly, and against all natural parental reactions, I can kind of see where he’s coming from.

‘All the Money in the World’ is directed by veteran, Ridley Scott, so, if you’ve ever seen any of his other work, you’ll know you’re in for a visual treat.  Now, on to the casting… Despite a strong cast, all talk about who was in it surrounds Kevin Spacey, who was recast after all his scenes were shot and edited into the movie, due to his off-screen life at the time.  Therefore, Christopher Plummer stepped in at the last minute and went on to win awards.  Before I saw the film I did wonder whether these awards were given simply to try and justify the blatant recasting, however, now I’ve watched it, I can see that he did turn in an amazing performance at what must have been extremely short notice.  But, while we’re on the subject of the stars, I think Mark Walberg deserves a mention for his part as Getty’s ‘facilitator.’

I guess if the film does have a ‘drawback’ is that some may feel that it goes on for quite a long time.  It feels like it’s drawing to a conclusion at just over the halfway mark, before you realise that it’s all starting off again.  This is certainly not a thrill-ride, so you’ll need to know that you’re not going to get Bruce Willis storming into an enemy lair to rescue the teenage Getty.  Instead, you get the story as it plays out – and all the laborious and depressing loopholes that have to be jumped through in order to get your loved one returned to you safely.

So, if you’re in the mood for something well-acted, well-directed, interesting, yet kind of long and drawn out, then you should definitely give this one a watch.

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

The World is Not Enough – Never quite got all the hate

There’s been good Bond films and bad Bond films, but, in the long run, they’re all pretty similar and you should – by now – know what you’re getting with Bond, whether you’re watching the new ‘grizzled’ Daniel Craig era, or anything before that which is distinctly ‘lighter’ in tone.  I’m not going to say that ‘The World is Not Enough’ is ‘classic’ and will be remembered for being one of the seminal films of the franchise, but I was always surprised about the amount of hate it generated. 

Most people agree that the previous film ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ was Pierce Brosnan’s highpoint as the super-spy and the following two films were a slow decent into the reboot which came afterwards.  I always thought that Brosnan had really settled into the role by now and was clearly having fun with it.  As usual, he’s got to save the world again and, besides the excellent action (highlight being the boat chase down the Thames) and naturally exotic locations, this one gave us quite a few new elements to the traditional mix. 

First of all we see more of MI6.  I know it’s a small thing, but I felt we got to see a lot more of what goes on behind the scenes of Bond’s world.  Plus Judi Dench was given a bigger role than any previous ‘M’ has ever been afforded.  The villains (and, yes, there are two – just in case you don’t know I won’t spoil one of them).  However, Robert Carlyle seems to be enjoying playing the bad guy who’s impervious to pain due to a bullet being lodged in his brain, slowly cutting of the sensations one by one.  Robbie Coltrane returns as his Russian gangster, which is a nice touch as it brings the ‘Brosnan era’ films together as one and – as a fan of John Cleese – was delighted to see that he was being lined up as Q’s replacement (sadly the last time we got to see Desmond Llewelyn on screen).

So, all in all, I thought it was a good time if you’re looking for a decent enough Bond film that will kill a couple of hours.  I guess most people’s criticisms were levelled at Bond-girl, Dr Christmas Jones (played by Denise Richards at the height of her fame).  Yes, I know it’s a stretch to see her as a ‘nuclear scientist’ but – hey – this is James Bond, after all!  Okay, so she’s hardly going to win any Oscars for dressing like Lara Croft, but – again – she’s hardly a reason to completely hate this film.

If you’re a fan of Bond then you should know what you’re getting and this one should tick all the boxes you require to sit back with a vodka martini or two and have a good time.

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

Hostiles – No need to hold on to your hats

If the film title ‘Snakes on a Plane’ told the audience everything they needed to know about the story, ‘Hostiles’ goes the other way entirely.  Is it set in space?  Or the Second World War?  Or is it about hostile bacteria invading the human body?  Well, despite its pretty much nondescript title, it’s actually set in the blood-thirsty days of 1892 and a battle-hardened soldier (Christian Bale) is reluctantly charged with the task of escorting some newly-released Native American prisoners across the country where the sickly eldest of which now wishes to die in his homeland.  Therefore the cast is divided into the group of soldiers and the group of Native Americans, who naturally butt heads more than once along the way.  This is largely because Bale’s elderly ‘prisoner’ was responsible for many of Bale’s former friends in the force.

This certainly sets up the story nicely for plenty of tension between the two groups, but – and I hope I’m not spoiling this too much – you can kind of see where the plot is going to go from the opening scene.  And, while we’re on the subject of the opening five minutes, I have to point out that it’s one of the most grisly and disturbing scenes I’ve seen in mainstream cinema in a long time.  For there’s another bunch of Comanche Native Americans on the prowl who are more than happy to scalp anyone – and that includes fellow Native Americans – who they come across.  They wipe out a local farming community leaving only Rosamund Pike’s character alive until the main cast stumble across what remains of her home.  So, you can probably guess that Bale’s team will have to bury his differences with his captives in order to survive the journey.

Now, Bale is no stranger to ‘carrying’ a film on his own and, I’m pleased to say after the ‘blip’ that was ‘Terminator: Salvation,’ he looks like he’s confident to do it once more.  This really is his film and I found him the most interesting of all the cast.  He’s a battle-hardened soldier who’s no stranger from murdering those Native Americans he’s now forced to protect.  However, as brutal as he is to those he deems ‘savage,’ he shows nothing but total respect and compassion to the ‘victim’ Rosamund Pike and he seems to anticipate her feelings with a degree of empathy that isn’t often seen when the character is supposed to be some sort of ‘grunt’ in the military.

The film looks great and the director has clearly taken a lot of care and attention to crafting each shot.  However, don’t expect the film to be that fast-paced.  Just because there are some moments of action and gore, the setting doesn’t lend itself to anything really ‘high-octane’ that’s on a par with other action scenes in today’s cinema.  Plus the film is long and, as much as I enjoyed it, the length may well put me off from watching it again any time soon.  I reckon if you cut about fifteen minutes out of the story (mainly in the final act) you’d have a much tighter piece that would still have focused on the characters’ journey as they are forced to grow together.

Don’t expect an ‘action/adventure,’ but do expect a slow-moving character piece in a ‘Wild West’ kind of backdrop.  Another good one for Christian Bale’s CV.

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

Burn After Reading – It’s a little bit funny

I think I've watched the Cohen Brothers' 'Burn After Reading' about four times now and, although I find it a weirdly enjoyable film, I still can't get my head round the beginning.  I guess you'd call it a black comedy/drama, filled with mix-ups and adulterous relationships, yet the catalyst for how it all begins seems to be one of those 'blink-and-you-miss-it' kind of moments.  A CIA analyst (John Malkovich) gets fired and ends up being blackmailed by a pair of gym employees (Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt), one of which is sleeping with a married man, George Clooney (who is also sleeping with John Malkovich's wife, Tilda Swinton).  Confused?  You may well be.

It’s a pretty confusing plot, not because anything’s that difficult to understand – it just has a real air of confusion about it all.  And, I think that’s deliberate.  For we, the audience, are treated like the CIA agents in the film, left to look in on this series of odd developments and wonder what the hell is going on here.

Of course the film’s storytelling style may not be to everyone’s liking, however you have to admit that it has a stellar cast.  With those names in the lead you’ll be hard pushed to not enjoy their performances.  Although, I have to say that (no-so-famous) Richard Jenkins stole every scene he was in and brought a real air of tragic pathos to the cast.  In fact, he may well be the film’s ‘heart,’ as, despite the other lead actors being big names, you may find it difficult to empathise with anyone besides Jenkins.

Although everything ties up with these characters lives, like I said, it does it in a deliberately vague way which leaves you with question marks over your head (making you see the events through the bewildered eyes of those men supposed to know everything that’s going on ever).  Oh, and don’t read too many spoilers – as there are definitely some moments that you won’t see coming!

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

Molly’s Game – Game on!

‘Molly’s Game’ is one of those ‘based on a true story’ films where you never really know quite how much has been based on true events and what’s been added to make it a better story.  However, whatever the split, I quickly found I was able to suspend my scepticism and just enjoy the film for its entertainment value.

Jessica Chastain plays the titular ‘Molly’ – a professional skier involved in a freak accident on the slopes at a young age.  Then, and this is one of those moments where something is so unbelievable it is probably totally true, she changes her career and becomes host to exclusive high-stakes poker games for the rich and famous.  Yes, there is a bit of a leap there, but, don’t worry, it’s not quite so glossed over in the film.

The story itself is one of those than bounces around through time.  One moment you’re with the adult Molly who’s standing trial for taking back-handers at the table, the next you’re with her teenage incarnation who’s in the middle of a row with her – slightly overbearing – father, played by Kevin Costner.  However, that’s not as jarring as it sounds and you shouldn’t be confused as to what time period you’re in.  However, because of this way of telling the story, you’re – sort of – told how it ends near the beginning, but, again, there’s enough intrigue to make you keep watching.

Plus, of course, Molly’s lawyer is played by Idris Elba, who, of late, I felt hasn’t been getting the ‘meaty’ roles he deserves.  Well, he’s not in it as much as fans may like (being that he’s only in the ‘present’ and never in her past), but when he is there he does what he does best and steals the spotlight.

Then you have the direction – it’s possibly more stylish than your average biographic drama is used to.  It comes across as something between a Guy Ritchie film and ‘Ocean’s Eleven.’ But then it is – technically – a crime caper, albeit a ‘real life’ one, so perhaps the style of direction is fitting.  It works either way.  It’s over two hours long, but never really feels as long as it could do.  You’ll find yourself rooting for the characters and maybe even trying to Google who the mysterious ‘Player X’ really is.  I have my ideas.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Midnight Run – Old school entertainment at its best

If ever the phrase ‘They don’t make ‘em like they used to’ applied to something, it was the 1988 Robert DeNiro film ‘Midnight Run.’ There’s something about it that just works.  Maybe it’s the simplicity of the plot, i.e. Robert DeNiro’s bounty hunter, Jack Walsh, has to escort his – unwilling – prisoner, ‘The Duke,’ played by Charles Grodin, from one side of America to the other.  Even the supporting characters claim that’s a task so easy that it could be done backwards.  However, Jack finds this simple accountant more of a handful that he bargained for.  It’s not just the Duke’s repeated escape attempts and constant chatter about Walsh’s unhealthy lifestyle that cause the problems (apart from bringing on Jack’s ‘sleeping’ ulcer!), it’s the fact the Duke is also wanted by the FBI, another bounty hunter and the Las Vegas mob.

As I say, this film is a product of times past.  It doesn’t rely on extensive computer effects or high octane action, it simply has excellent chemistry between its two leads.  If you read the trivia online surrounding this film, you’ll see that a lot of the dialogue was adlibbed between DeNiro and Grodin which normally means that the actors clearly took great pleasure in interacting with each other and got a feel for the relationship and how it progresses.  There’s also a decent amount of character development, especially with DeNiro, as the two of them – naturally – start off hating each other, due to the fact that DeNiro is basically taking his prisoner to long-term incarceration (and possibly death at the hands of organised crime lords!), but they gradually warm to each other and end up as different people than where they began from.

It’s a bit of a mish-mash of genres really, bouncing effortlessly between action, crime, chase, road movie and, perhaps most notably, ‘buddy-cop’ movie (despite the fact that neither of the two leads are currently police officers).  There’s not too much here that you won’t expect, so it’s not like the story is going to revolutionise Hollywood script-writing.  However, it’s simply a good, fun, entertaining film.  I would almost go as far as to say that it could be ‘enjoyed by the whole family,’ but it does contain an excessive amount of swearing (perhaps somewhere out there is a nice, police ‘clean’ version that kids could enjoy?!).  If you like you’re entertainment fun-filled and well-written, you can do much worse than spending a couple of hours in the company of a grumpy bounty hunter and his unwitting captive (oh, and it is a couple of hours long, but don’t worry – it never drags!).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle – You don’t have to be a gamer to enjoy this film…

…but it probably helps!  Direct sequels to films that are released a loooong time after the original don’t have a tendency to do that well at the Box Office (‘Basic Instinct 2’ – anyone remember that?).  Most times it appears that the original fan-base isn’t in the cinema-going demographic and the film doesn’t click with today’s audience.  However, ‘Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle’ not only does well to differentiate itself from the original, but also succeeds without the inclusion of the man who (arguably) helped make the first instalment so special – the ever excellent Robin Williams.

‘Jumanji’ was about a magic board game that sucked players in and made them play the game ‘for real’ in order to survive.  Well, in this day and age, the producers of the film obviously realise that no self-respecting kid would ever play a board game any more (sadly, in my opinion – I love a bit of Monopoly!) so they’ve brought it right up to date and turned the board game into a computer game.  So, when four high school students find themselves in detention cleaning out the school’s dusty basement, they stumble across the ‘antique’ console and decide to kill some time playing a quick game (this never happened to the ‘Breakfast Club’ did it?!).

Now, this is where the film gets a bit different.  The first ten to fifteen minutes are spent introducing us – the audience – to our young heroes.  However, as soon as they enter the computer game, all of them acquire ‘avatars’ i.e. in-game characters who are all older, hunkier and possessing skills required for completing the game.  Therefore, pretty much the entire film is spent with the kids’ ‘adult’ incarnations, but seeing as one such incarnation is Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, that’s not so bad. 

So, our young heroes quickly become ‘old’ heroes and have to save a fictional jungle-land from a tyrannical regime.  I guess that’s a pretty standard plot for either a modern action film or a computer game.  I suppose that’s what this film is – a standard action film and it’s enjoyable enough if that’s all you’re looking for or expecting.  However, if you’re a fan of computer games and the clichés that come with the medium, you’ll get a lot more out of it than just a few action set pieces.  It does brilliantly at poking fun of all the silly things you can expect from video games – everything from entering the game with three ‘lives’ to owning a backpack which can seemingly fit numerous ridiculously-large items in and never slow its owner down.

But, however many ‘in-jokes’ are included for us gamers and no matter how impressive the action scenes are, the film would be nothing without the stars and I have to hand it to the four (adult) actors who take the reigns for the majority of the film.  It’s because of them that this film succeeds, for they don’t just have to play ‘their’ characters – they have to play their teenage incarnations playing adult characters who are, in turn, playing clichéd computer game characters.  And, as much as I love Dwayne Johnson in everything he does, I have to say that the star of the show is Jack Black.  This is because he’s – technically – playing a spoilt teenage girl.  No, seriously.  And he does it perfectly, stealing every scene as he goes.  Also, you may not expect much ‘character development’ in a film about kids being drawn into a computer game, but I thought there was actually a decent enough ‘journey’ for the youngsters (albeit in their adult bodies!) to go on and they ended their story as different people to how they began it.

So, if you’re only looking for a run-of-the-mill action film to put your brain on hold to, then you’ll certainly find it here.  However, if, like me, you’re a gamer and want to see a film that lovingly pokes fun at everything we hold dear, you’ll definitely find that here to.  Special mention to something that happens at the end.  I expected something to happen between a pair of characters and it didn’t.  Something more ‘realistic’ happened instead and I found myself awarding ‘kudos points’ to the film’s writers for not taking the predictable route at the end.

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