Christine – Don’t call the Automobile Association 

A new book by horror writer Stephen King is normally met with ‘Oohs’ of anticipation.  A new film based on one of his books is met with much ‘eye-rolling.’ For some reason the translations of his work from text to screen have been very hit and miss (and when I say ‘hit and miss’ I mean more ‘miss’ than ‘hit.’ However, back in 1983 when Stephen King films were a rarity and John Carpenter was still a highly-thought of director, it was a combination that couldn’t fail (despite the slightly shaky premise!).  ‘Christine’ is about a ‘killer car’ of the same name.  How does a car kill people without a driver?  Well, it’s sentient for a start.  How did it become sentient?  Well, it just did, okay?  Deal with it and enjoy the daft ride.

A slightly geeky youngster acquires Christine as his pride and joy and maybe gets a little too close to it for comfort.  In other words, he soon becomes besotted with it and dare I say the attraction is reciprocated, even to the point where Christine gets quite jealous of the boy’s new (human!) love.  What follows is a tale of…well, like I’ve already said – a sentient killer car.  That’s it in a nutshell and, if you’re able to suspend your disbelief long enough to buy that, you’ll have a lot of fun.

It’s not particularly gory for a horror film, but what it lacks in the red stuff flying everywhere, it more than makes up for in mood and ambience.  I haven’t read the book, so can’t really comment on the source material is based on, but I’m guessing it’s a lot better than the film’s actual script (which is pretty clunky and generic at the best of times).  The actors can hardly be judged on their performances as they probably do the best they can with what they’re given, but it’s fair to say that you won’t be recognising many faces you see here.  What truly elevates this film from being a completely forgettable and laughable attempt at horror is John Carpenter’s direction.  If you’ve seen any of his other seventies/eighties classics (i.e. ‘Halloween, The Thing’ and a few more) then you’ll know all about the slow camera shots and droning one-note musical scores which accompany the film and build up a nice sense of dread an anticipation.

I’d like to say that ‘Christine’ stands up today like it did when it was released and, to a certain audience that’s true.  Apart from those of us who saw the film at the time and watch it with a heavy dose of nostalgia, I can see those who can appreciate how horror films were made nearly forty years ago will enjoy looking back at the gem from the past.  However, for those who are just craving masses of blood and decapitations this will seem like a long-drawn out and dull affair.

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

The Interview – So wrong, yet so right

‘The Interview’ was never destined to be a mainstream success.  This happens to some films because they’re released before their time, have the wrong star, or try and be too clever for their own good.  However, in the minority of these cases, the reason the film doesn’t succeed is because of pressure from an entire country that doesn’t like the way it’s being portrayed on screen.  At the time of release, the company that made ‘The Interview’ was under cyber hacking attack by North Korea, forcing them to seriously rethink whether or not to release this film in the cinema.  In fact… will I get in trouble from people on the other side of the world just for writing that I enjoyed it?!

It’s about a mainstream TV chat-show host (James Franco) who finds out that his US low-brow entertainment show is – believe it or not – actually quite liked by the leader of communist state North Korea.  He’s then offered the once-in-a-lifetime chance to fly to North Korea and do what no journalist has done before, interview its ‘glorious’ leader, Kim Jong-un.  This, he readily accepts because he thinks that once he’s interviewed President Kim it will cement his name in journalistic history.  However, when the CIA hear of this, they decide that it would be far more beneficial for the rest of the world if James Franco (and his producer, played by Seth Rogen) simply assassinate the ‘madman’ instead.

Now, if you’re not too familiar with the Franco/Rogen combo then you might not know that they’ve starred in numerous films together and are generally pretty good buds in real life.  Therefore, once again, they allow their natural chemistry to carry out the dialogue of this movie.  However, said ‘dialogue’ is pretty ‘adult’ in nature, so expect much of their interactions to be s3x-based or peppered with drug references.  The two of them may be good (if you’re generally into their particular brand of humour), but I thought that it was Randall Park who stole every scene he was in.  For he had the unenviable task of portraying the Leader himself and, in my opinion, did a great job (I’m not saying that Kim Jong-un would act like this in real life, but, for the purposes of a comedy film, I think it’s fair to say that this was a good way of showing the man who – currently – could be the biggest threat to the West on the planet).

As I said, the humour is adult and quite ‘bawdy’ at times, but if you can forgive that (and are generally a fan of the two leads and their recent collaborations) then you should enjoy this.  They even put in a couple of quite fun action set-pieces in the final act and, although the CGI is a little ropey here and there, I think for a comedy that isn’t really an ‘action blockbuster’ you can forgive this.  I definitely think that ‘The Interview’ could well be the funniest film that uses North Korea as the bad-guys (oh, apart from ‘Team America’ – in which case ‘The Interview’ is the funniest ‘live action’ film about North Korea – and it has a cute puppy.  What more could you want?).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Spawn – Is it that bad?  Yeah, sort of

Nowadays you can’t move at the cinema for someone dressing up in a cape and silly costume and fighting the forces of darkness while flying around a major US city.  However, back in 1997 superhero films weren’t – believe it or not – guaranteed Box Office gold like they are today.  I’d never read any of the ‘Spawn’ comics, so I went into the movie kind of blind.  And I enjoyed it.  It was only a few years later during the birth of the internet did I realise how much everyone seemed to hate this film.  I’ve watched it again (a few times, believe it or not) and I can see where the masses are coming from.  It’s hardly ‘high art’ (but I enjoyed it anyway!).

It’s about a Government hitman who gets double-crossed by his shady employer (when will these hitmen ever learn?) and ends up getting killed.  If that wasn’t bad enough he wakes up after his ‘death’ to find he’s spent the last five years in hell and the devil has asked him (or rather blackmailed him) into leading his dark army on a siege of Earth.  Luckily, our hitman decides that’s probably not a great career option and with the help of a ‘knight’ (or rather modern day homeless mentor Obi-wan Kenobi figure who once was a knight) chooses to fight the forces of darkness instead.

When I first watched it I guess I hadn’t seen that many superhero films (Tim Burton’s Batman duo excluded), so I enjoyed the dark tone, the cool suit our anti-hero wore and the action in general.  Michael Jai White gives a good performance as the grizzled ‘Spawn’ and the real stand-out performance is the (totally unrecognisable, thanks to excellent make-up) John Leguizamo as the most memorable bad-guy ‘The Violator.’

However, I guess nowadays it’s fair to say that it hasn’t aged well.  Any criticism you may hear regarding how the special effects look like they’ve been rendered for a Playstation 2 are pretty on the nose (and even at the time I wondered why the beast-like Devil’s lips never moved when he spoke), but, looking at it afresh, I can’t help but notice how bad Martin Sheen’s dialogue is.  He’s supposed to be the main villain and yet he’s even more cliché than any Bond super-villain you’ve ever seen. 

The whole film basically ‘tell’ not ‘show.’ Every piece of dialogue is some sort of 'set-up' to give the viewer information and let them know what's happening, solely designed to move the plot forward and avoid confusion.  ‘Spawn’ is never really going to be remembered as much more than a missed opportunity.  It’s certainly not up to the coherent standards of today’s superhero movies.  I still watch it, because – for some reason – I feel quite a twang of nostalgia for it (despite its numerous flaws!).  But even people who saw it back in the late nineties don’t hold it in the same – reasonably – high regard as me.  I hear there’s a ‘reboot’ on the way, so maybe that will bring Spawn to the audience he probably deserves to be show to.  But John Leguizamo is definitely awesome in this – if you hate absolutely everything else about this film, you should appreciate his performance as sheer evil foulness.

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

Hellboy – They don’t make ‘em like they used to

If ever there was a film that probably shouldn't work, it was one about a reformed demon, born during World War II and designed to help the Nazis take over the world, but now spends his time slaying monsters and saving the world instead.  'Hellboy' was a film made in 2004 and came just before the massive resurgence in comic book adaptations which, to this day, still dominates the Box Office with superhero movies.  It’s a strange kind of film that, although popular enough to generate (and equally good, in my opinion) sequel, it never got the third part to send off the character and give him the trilogy of films that us die-hard fans felt that he deserved.  The reason I say it’s ‘strange’ is because (like many, I guess) I never knew much about the film before watching it at the cinema.  I didn’t know it was based on a comic and merely saw the posters advertising the movie prior to its release.  I knew that (the ever brilliant) Ron Perlman was in it and that was enough for me.  The fact that much marketing material centred on a giant demon silhouette sporting a huge firearm was merely a bonus for an action/horror fan like myself. 

I watched it, really enjoyed it, and didn’t think that much more of it.  However, now I can see in these days of ‘mega-franchises’ why it didn’t quite set the Box Office alight like it should.  By its initial marketing, it looks like an outright horror film.  However, it’s actually a superhero film that borrows horror tropes, plus it was made before the superhero/MCU really took off.  Nowadays, we’re well used to rooting for our heroes after they’ve been granted some sort of special power enabling them to fight the forces of darkness, but most of them look like Chris Evans or Chris Hemsworth, rather than a giant, ugly, red, semi-horned monster.  I guess what I’m saying is that ‘Hellboy’ was destined to have a real ‘niche audience.’

However, if what I’ve already said intrigues you, I do recommend giving it a watch.  First of all, it stars Ron Perlman as the titular anti-hero.  Now, he’s normally good in whatever he’s in, but it’s fair to say that he carries this film completely on his broad (red) shoulders.  The other cast members, including John Hurt and Selma Blair, are good too, but it’s Ron’s show (although I should probably give a nod to Jeffrey Tambor as the long-suffering head of Hellboy’s secret Government unit).

There's not an awful lot to say about the plot.  If you've seen one superhero movie (regardless of when it was released) then you can probably predict what will happen - evil megalomaniac wants to take over the world, hero has to put the brakes on that one.  However, Hellboy does it slightly differently simply because of its general 'horror' look and feel.  But - don't worry - it's not all Gothic darkness - there's plenty of top-notch action scenes, cheeky one-liners from our cigar-chomping, cat-petting red hero and special effects that look more on the 'practical' side, rather than an excessive use of CGI.  It’s worth mentioning the effects because Hellboy’s make-up is particularly simple, yet flawless in bringing the character to life.  He’s pretty scary at the best of times and the only things more ugly are the beasties he’s sent to despatch before they destroy the world (that clockwork assassin-Nazi still gives me the creeps!).

Even though I stand by my belief that ‘Hellboy’ stands up today as it did when it was released, I know there’s a reboot in the pipeline.  I’ll watch that too, simply because I like the way the film is done.  However, I have my doubts that anyone can fill Ron’s big red boots and whatever we’ll get next (instead of the much desired third part in this franchise) will be nothing more than a studio trying to cash in on the superhero craze and going for an easy cash-grab.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Mute – There’s a good film here (somewhere)

Alas, poor Duncan Jones, I knew him well.  I didn’t.  But I did really enjoy his first two sci-fi films ‘Moon’ and ‘Source Code.’ These were followed by the – sadly forgettable – big-budget ‘Warcraft’ movie and hopes were high when he returned to his (more low budget/high concept?) sci-fi roots.  However, it’s fair to say that this ‘straight-to-Netflix’ release has been met with ‘divisive’ responses – and by ‘divisive’ I mainly mean negative.  I really wanted to like this, so I did my best to force the nay-sayers from my mind and enjoy the film.  I wish I did enjoy the film.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s not ‘bad-bad,’ it’s just not that good either.

It’s set in the near future where technology is, er, slightly better than it is now.  Actually, for its futuristic setting technology isn’t really a big part of the story.  An Amish man who doesn’t speak due to a childhood accident travels from America to Berlin to meet up with his girlfriend, only for her to go missing in mysterious circumstances, setting him on a quest to find out what’s happened to her.

First of all the film does look great.  I reckon it’s pretty difficult to talk about this film without mentioning ‘Bladerunner’ as Ridley Scott’s epic really did set the benchmark when it came to portraying dystopian, tech-driven cities of the future and ‘Mute’ seems to pay homage to this look and feel.  I’m not sure of other people’s complaints when it came to this movie, but my main issue was the fact that our hero never spoke.  Yes, he’s a good actor who does his best to express as many emotions as he can through his body language and facial expressions and for that he should definitely be applauded.  I could have lived with that, if it wasn’t for Paul Rudd’s character.  He plays a particularly sleazy villain who no one would ever really root for, if it wasn’t for the face that he played his part so well and the hero never said a word.  Therefore, having watched the film, I find myself finding the bad-guy far more memorable than the hero we were supposed to identify with and support.

I guess there’s a reason why ‘Mute’ was released ‘straight-to-DVD’ (or ‘Netflix’ in this day and age).  The studio was obviously worried that it wouldn’t make anywhere near the money back it needed to if given a theatrical release at the Box Office and I can understand why.  It’s hard to see ‘Mute’ getting enough attention in the cinema to make it a financial success.  It’s not a bad film and I guess you get what you pay for.  I reckon the reviews would be even more harsh if the viewers had to pay ‘full price’ at the cinema in order to watch this.  If you feel like investing two hours into a slow moving sci-fi film where the hero doesn’t speak, leaving him wide open to being eclipsed by the man we’re supposed to hate, then you’re probably a minority.  I didn’t hate it, I’m just certain that Duncan Jones can do much better.

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

Tomb Raider (2018) – A computer game movie that works? (almost)

I couldn’t get past the second level of ‘Tomb Raider’ on the Playstaion (1) back in the mid-nineties, so I found the whole ‘Lara Croft thing’ a little frustrating.  I know I watch the two Angelina Jolie movies that were based on the computer game and have long since forgotten everything about them (apart from Chris Barrie from ‘Red Dwarf’ being underused in my opinion!) so my hopes weren’t exactly sky-high for this ‘reboot.’ However, having watched it I was actually pleasantly surprised.

Let’s get this out the way, ‘Tomb Raider’ was nothing absolutely out of the ordinary and so original that it will change cinema forever.  But then were you really expecting that?  I was hoping for an enjoyable little action romp to entertain me for a couple of hours.  And I got just that.  Being part of the *ahem* ‘older generation’ who has spent a lifetime watching films, I can totally say that there is nothing in ‘Tomb Raider’ that hasn’t been done before – sometimes better, sometimes worse.  I can’t think of a single negative thing to say about it (with the possibility of a few strained British accents being attempted here and there).  However, just because I can’t think of anything bad to say, doesn’t mean it’s perfect.  It simply just is what it is – an action film.

In case you don’t know, a young British aristocrat (Lara Croft) finds clues to show that her father isn’t dead and actually went on a secret expedition to, er, save the world I suppose.  Therefore, she follows in his footsteps.  And, luckily enough, she has spent her entire lifetime conveniently honing skills that will aid her in her quest.  Alicia Vikander plays possibly a younger, less ‘cartoony’ version of Lara, as opposed to Angelina Jolie’s more ‘comic book’ interpretation.  The Tomb Raider games have – apparently – evolved from that same cartoony look and feel to a more gritty, darker take and I guess the film has followed closely in its footsteps.  It’s certainly more ‘realistic’ and less reliant on amazing stunts that would make James Bond blush.  I preferred this approach as Lara handles herself more with her wits and only relies on her brawn when she absolutely has to, plus it would be totally unbelievable to see her beat up hordes of burly henchmen!

I’m not sure which part of the film I preferred more – the first two thirds are pretty good, slowly building up to a climactic third act.  However, when said climax arrives, it felt like the ending to another popular on-screen archaeologist’s third outing (‘Last Crusade’ anyone?).  I don’t know whether this was a deliberate homage, but it did make me wonder why they’d gone with such (what I considered to be) a blatant rip-off.

Anyway, I get the feeling I’m not this film’s ‘target audience.’ I enjoyed it enough for being what it was – an enjoyable little action film that offered nothing I hadn’t seen already and was designed to reboot the franchise and take it in a new direction.  However, my thirteen year old daughter absolutely loved it and will be buying it on Blu-ray the moment it comes out!

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

Annihilation – Interesting, high-concept sci-fi

‘Annihilation’ is certainly an interesting film.  Not just because it’s a sci-fi flick that does more than just pit humans against monsters (or some other tired and unoriginal premise), but because it also takes a snapshot of the film industry today.  Apparently, the film was released in America and didn’t do too well at the Box Office.  Therefore, it’s now been released on Netflix and suddenly it’s a hit.  This is great news for Netflix (and I guess the film company who made it?) that their film is gathering such unexpected momentum, but it does ask the question whether many companies will bother releasing films to the cinema when they do so well on the (new) small screen?

Anyway, another reason why the Netflix audience got so excited at ‘Annihilation’s arrival on their platform was that it stars Hollywood heavyweights Natalie Portman and Oscar Isaacs (and, no offense to Will Smith, but I’m guessing you could say that they’re the – current – ‘biggest’ names to ever go (almost) straight to that platform).  So why did the film end up there?

As I said, it’s science-fiction, so that already makes it a ‘niche’ genre which doesn’t always guarantee that the film will be bankable (‘Star Wars’ franchise excluded!) and it’s not all out action.  A large bubble of weirdness (known in the film as ‘the shimmer’) appears in America, swallowing up the land mass it’s landed on.  No one knows what it is, where it’s come from and every attempt to send a team in has produced no returns.  Therefore, when biologist Natalie Portman’s soldier husband (Oscar Isaacs) becomes the first and only man to return from this place, only as a shadow of his former self, she decides to become part of an all-woman team to find out what happened in there.

Now, don’t get me wrong, just because this has a few more ‘higher sci-fi concepts’ than your average action flick, doesn’t mean there aren’t the odd shoot-out or monster, so don’t worry, it’s not constant talking all the way through.  The five ladies have to use their machine guns as well as their minds in order to navigate what waits for them inside the shimmer.  That’s all I’ll say about the plot, as there are plenty of interesting moments that you may not see coming.  I’ve seen some criticism online about how it’s ‘too hard to understand.’ It’s not.  It’s actually pretty straightforward, however the ending is a little ‘interpretational’ and I couldn’t help but think of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ when looking for a comparison.

It’s written by Alex garland, who’s most famous for his other ‘thinking’ sci-fi film ‘Ex Machina.’ I think if you enjoyed that you should appreciate this (even if they’re not much alike!).  The special effects are reasonable.  Obviously with sci-fi if you’re looking to create a world truly unlike our own, you’re going to have to employ the use of CGI.  Mostly it worked, some times it looked a little too ‘Phantom Menace’ if you know what I mean.  If you’ve seen either Natalie Portman or Oscar Isaacs in anything latterly, you’ll know their acting is top notch, so it’s always worth watching for them.  Don’t expect an action epic, but, if you’re a fan of slightly slower, more deeper science fiction then you should definitely give this one a watch – especially as now you don’t even have to queue at the multiplex to see it!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Mom and Dad – So nearly there

I have to confess not knowing too much about ‘Mom and Dad’ when I went to see it.  I’ve always been a big fan of Nicholas Cage (even despite his recent run of terrible straight-to-DVD films) so I was delighted to see his (to my knowledge) first film to be actually released in the cinema for many years (was ‘Kick A$$’ the last?). 

He and Selma Blair play a pair of suburban parents to your typical rebellious teenage girl and young son.  To begin with, the film seems to be quite a quirky social satire (even comedic at times), however in a moment the tone suddenly goes much darker when a set of creepy events takes place.  Then, from ‘mildly unsettling’ it changes again to all out murderous panic when every parent in the world (I’m guessing) decides to murder their own children in as grisly manner possible.

And, if you’re now asking ‘Why would they do that?’ then you’d be in the same boat as me.  Hopefully I won’t be spoiling the movie too much if I say now that the film asks a lot of questions and then delivers very little in the way of actual answers (this severely links into my feelings towards the ending, but, as I say, I won’t spoil it for you).

What follows is basically the two children doing their best to survive their parents’ attacks (just their parents I’ll clarify – parents only want to kill their own children and no one else – please don’t ask why – it’s just how it is!).  This led me to my first personal complaint is that there’s a distinct lack of Nicholas Cage in the first third, as the film concentrates on the youngsters more than their parents.

However, when Cage is finally given the freedom to do what he does best (go crazy and totally overact) he doesn’t disappoint.  However, as much as I’d like to see this as a ‘vehicle’ to get him back into mainstream cinema, it probably won’t be.  For a start it won’t be seen by that many people due so some truly horrific moments.  I’m a die-hard horror fan and, on the one hand I grumble about the lack of ‘real scares’ in horror films these days, seeing some of the boundaries this film tries to push (when it effectively comes to infanticide) it left me feeling more than a little uneasy.

It’s not just the content that doesn’t sit well, the random shifts in character for almost everyone feels a little odd at times.  Throughout the film, one character shows no aptitude for a specific skill she suddenly acquires just to move the plot forward, leaving the film feeling like ‘Home Alone’ for a moment.  Then, whenever the film starts to truly pick up pace, the film-maker tries to make up for a lack of character motivation by throwing in – seemingly random – flashbacks which merely extend the runtime and slow everything down by being a bit pointless.

The soundtrack may be good and Cage is enjoyable to watch, sadly the film is a hard one to sit through.  As I mentioned, it’s very nasty in places (especially if you’re a parent) and its constant shifts in tone leave it a bit of a jarring mess.  This is particularly disappointing because I have this weird feeling that there’s a good film in their somewhere and with a few more re-writes in pre-production could have made it into a decent little horror flick.

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

The Nines – Ryan Reynolds flexes more than his pecs

‘The Nines’ may not be everyone’s cup of tea in terms of films, but I can certainly see it acquiring a ‘cult following’ in time.  About the one and only ‘mainstream factor’ of the film is its star, (a pre-Deadpool) Ryan Reynolds (it also has Melissa McCarthy, but this was long before she hit the big time).  Apart from him, it’s definitely a ‘niche audience’ film.  For a start it’s actually three different stories, all loosely strung together (or so it seems – I won’t go into too much detail regarding the plot as there’s more to what’s going on than meets the eye) by an uneasy sprinkling of science-fiction. 

Secondly, when you realise what’s going on, you’ll find that it’s one of those ‘high concept’ science-fiction films which forces you to ask questions, as it doesn’t explain every last detail in the movie.  However, if you’re okay with all that, you’ll probably find an undiscovered little gem hiding here.

I can definitely understand why Reynolds took the part.  He gets the opportunity to spread his natural cheeky charm across three – vastly different – roles, allowing him to show that he’s more than just a pretty face (and body in red and black body stocking these days).  He definitely carries the film, but it’s worth giving Melissa McCarthy a nod, due to the great (and dare I say surprising?) chemistry between the two of them which really makes the film fly by.  Hope Davies is also good, but can’t compete with the other two leads.

‘The Nines’ is one of those films where you can’t say too much more about it for fear of spoiling it, as you’ll only be able to watch it and try to figure out what’s going on the once.  Basically, if you like science-fiction, like Ryan Reynolds, aren’t bothered about films with low budgets and no actions and – maybe most importantly – don’t mind slightly ‘out there’ sci-fi concepts then give this one a go.  Dare I say it deserves a 9?

Who’s have thought all koalas are 8s though?

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Hatchet III – Just watch Hatchet

Have you ever watched a ‘slasher’ film and really enjoyed it?  Have you then gone on to watch the THIRD instalment of the same franchise?  Yes, I know – quite a drop in quality.  I remember the first ‘Hatchet’ film.  It was hardly ‘high art’ – it was about a killer who killed people with – guess what – a hatchet!  It could have effectively been a script in the early days of the ‘Friday 13th’ franchise – it was that original.  However, it was actually quite witty and self-knowing – something they seem to have forgotten how to do between parts I and III.

I have to confess that I never watched part II, therefore I’m not entirely sure how xxx Crowley suddenly upgraded himself from psycho-killer, to supernatural, indestructible psycho-killer.  Anyway, he’s unstoppable now… and he kills people.  If you’ve ever watched a ‘Friday 13th’ film or any type of ‘slasher’ film like that then you’ll know what to expect.  One death after the next until the cast of Z-list actors are gradually chopped down to just a couple.

There’s little else to say about this film, as I’ve seen it so many times before.  About the only name on the cast I recognised was Kane Hodder (who plays Crowley), simply because he’s played Jason Voorhees a couple of time.  But he’s silent all the way through as he butchers his cast-mates, so he could hardly ‘save’ the film.

The one thing I have to say was that the gore/kills were good.  They were at least imaginative with what little budget they had at their disposal.  If you like this sort of film then you’ll already have a dozen similar (and better, obviously!) films in your collection.  Just watch one of the ‘Scream’ films (even part IV is better than ‘Hatchet III’) or even the first ‘Hatchet’ film.  And, was it just me, or did a killer known as ‘Hatchet’ fail to use his chopper as much as his name suggests he should?  Oh well, that’s the least of this film’s sins!

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

Game Night – Like rolling a ‘double six’

The main reservations I had when I sat down to watch ‘Game Night’ was that I’d seen all the jokes during the trailer!  I’d probably advise most people NOT to watch the clip, as it does give away some (but thankfully not all) of the funniest moments.  It’s about three couples who regularly get together every so often and play a variety of games (the type that doesn’t involve a Playstation or Xbox controller – if you can believe that!).  However, one night they get more than they bargain for when one of them decides to ‘up’ the game to the next level by incorporating one of those games which employ the services of actors to stage a murder mystery for you to solve.  Now, this would be fair enough if it wasn’t for the unfortunate coincidence that this night happens to also be the one where a real kidnapping takes place, leaving our middle-class couples unsure of what’s real and what’s just part of the game.

Despite there being three couples, it’s mainly Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams who have the most screen time, therefore allowing themselves the most time for gags and character development (which I’m pleased to say there are plenty of both).  The other two couples are fun and have their moments, but, in some ways, both couples are technically superfluous to the main plot and couple almost have been removed completely!  But they’re all good and the gags come thick and fast, many of which reference popular culture (good now, but I do wonder how many will still be relevant in 10-20 years’ time.  However, if you’re looking for the real ‘scene stealer’ it has to go to Jesse Plemons who plays the creepy neighbour down to perfection (even if it does look like he’s getting a little typecast after ‘Breaking Bad’).

In a film like this you do have to suspend your disbelief a little bit to keep enjoying the story.  However, the bottom line is that it is funny and, for that, it should be allowed a little slack when it comes to picking too many holes in the plot.  Ultimately, it’s a great movie to watch if you just want something simple, funny and good to sit through with your mates.  It may not be remembered in 20-20 years’ time as one of the all-time comedy greats, but it should deserve more than a little love and laughs right now.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Attack the Block – Not bad, if you can get over one factor…

I know that British science fiction films are always a bit hit and miss, due to the lack of budget for special effects and actors. ‘Attack the Block’ is no different in as much as you probably won’t recognise anyone in the cast (besides Simon Pegg’s best mate, Nick Frost – and he’s not in it much).  However, this film knows that and plays to its strength enough to actually make it worth watching.  It’s set in (what I always called) a ‘council estate’ in London, but the locals tend to just call it ‘the block.’ It’s a maze of run-down high rise, low income flats where you probably wouldn’t want to walk alone at night.  And that’s pretty much where the story begins – a woman walks home from work, only to find herself fall victim to muggers.  However, before she has time to call the police, a new threat arrives – aliens.

So, it becomes one of those ‘team-up’ movies where two sets of people with vastly contrasting backgrounds/values etc, have to pull together in order to defat a greater foe.  Now there’s nothing wrong with that, but if one section of your ‘heroes’ (note the quote marks?) are the muggers who stole from a helpless nurse one night, it’s a little hard to see them in much more of a better light than the monsters who are now ripping them to pieces.  And they do get munched on quite soon.  The aliens deserve a mention because – and maybe due to a lack of budget – they quite simple, but, at the same time, also quite well done.  They have a different look and feel to any other monsters you’ve seen on screen and, for that, it actually works.

Plus the film has John Boyega in his only real ‘pre Star Wars’ role.  It’s interesting to think how he went from low budget sci-fi to possibly the biggest budget sci-fi franchise ever known.  Now, as anyone who’s watched the new Star Wars films will know, he’s very good at what he does and highly watchable.  However, as I’ve mentioned, he’s playing one of the muggers.  Granted you could argue he goes through major ‘character development’ and in the course of the story mends his ways, but – again – a lot of the likeability of this film relies on the audience being able to root for these hoods over the monsters.

So, if you can get over that ‘minor’ gripe then there’s actually quite a bit here to entertain you if you’re looking for a cheeky little sci-fi/horror number that is self-knowing enough not to take itself seriously.  Plus I still think the aliens are cool.

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

The Ritual – Netflix filler-horror

Do you like horror films?  Have you seen loads of them?  If the answer to BOTH of those questions is ‘Yes’ then you’re probably going to find ‘The Ritual’ a little hard going.  Don’t get me wrong… there’s nothing particularly bad about the film, but there’s not enough that’s new to make it really stand out among the countless other horror films that have come, gone and subsequently been forgotten.

Four friends get lost in the woods.  You’re probably already thinking of a dozen other similar horror films.  Okay, so this time it’s some woods in Sweden, but a tree’s a tree, right?  Anyway, I won’t dwell on why they find themselves there as it’s all just exposition to get them to a remote, out-of-the-way location to end up at the wrong end of something nasty.  The first couple of thirds of the movie (and it’s actually a little bit longer than your average ninety minute horror flick) have a real ‘Blair Witch’ feel about them.  Okay, so there’s no handheld shaky-cam ‘found footage’ aspect to the story, but it still hits all the same beats as our hapless heroes slowly find themselves being first messed with by whatever is out there, before finally being picked off one by one.

The final third tries to offer something different, but only really succeeds in feeling like a different film to what’s gone before it.  There are a few horror clichés here and you finally get a reasonable view of what’s been hunting them all this time (something the ‘Blair Witch Project’ deliberately left out).  And then it’s over.  And then, unless you’re really new to the genre, you instantly begin to forget everything you’ve spent the last couple of hours watching.

I know I’m sounding overly-negative about ‘The Ritual’ and I probably shouldn’t.  Despite my bored tone, it’s not that bad; it’s just nothing I haven’t seen before.  If you really want to watch – yet another – horror film and you have Netflix, you might as well put this on – you might like it.

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

The Infiltrator – Not ‘vintage’ Cranston, but not bad either

Post ‘Breaking Bad’ I confess that I’ll watch anything with Bryan Cranston in it.  A few of his efforts since giving up the meth trade have been a little disappointing, but I was pleased to see that he was pretty much on form here in ‘The Infiltrator.’ Granted it’s still not up to the dramatic standards of ‘Breaking Bad,’ but don’t let that fool you into thinking it’s not worth a watch.

It’s a true life tale (or as true as any Hollywood adaptation is these days) set in the early eighties where a drugs officer (Cranston) goes undercover in order to infiltrate the organised drugs trade of the day.  Like I say, I don’t know how many liberties have taken with the story, but it does seem to try and remain grounded in realism, not bothering with any major shoot-outs, punch-ups or car chases.  So, if you’re looking for some ‘Bad Boys’ style action epic, you’re be sorely disappointed here.

As Cranston slowly progresses deeper and deeper into the trade, don’t expect the speed of the film to pick up much.  As I mentioned, it’s definitely not about action and focuses on how far he has to go and what he has to sacrifice in order to remain undercover (and therefore remain alive!).  In short: it’s a slow-burner.

The supporting cast tends to be a load of people who you say, ‘Oh, I’ve seen him in that film – you know the one I mean’ and ‘It’s her out of that other TV show.’ They’re all functional enough, but Cranston has to carry it and without him it probably would never have been given a theatrical release in the first place.  Even with my love of Cranston’s work, I have to say I found the first half almost a little too slow and was debating whether I’d like it in the end.  However, it does still pick up enough to all come together in the end and, if you’re into a more ‘thoughtful/realistic’ take on a tale that most of us seasoned cinema-goers will have seen countless times, it’s certainly worth a watch.

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

Black Mass - Wigs won’t cut it

I know there’s a fair school of through that says Johnny Depp’s star has waned over recent years, but I was surprised that I’d never heard of ‘Black Mass’ until it was on sale on DVD.  It sounded pretty good – a true life tale of how a gangster turned Government informer, plus it had a stellar cast including Benedict Cumberbatch, Kevin Bacon and that creepy guy out of ‘Breaking Bad’ who looks a bit like Matt Damon.  However, when I started watching it, I soon realised why it never really set the Box Office alight.

It’s dull.  That’s it.  This is going to be a pretty short review.  There’s really not that much I can say about it.  It’s just boring.  I suppose I’ve watched a lot of these gritty true-life gangster/snitch films in my time, therefore I couldn’t see anything new here.  However, I really do think that anyone fresh to the genre would find this a little slow and hard going.  It may have a decent cast, but that almost becomes a problem.  The film bounces around from actor to actor and from present to past and feels completely disjointed, like each scene doesn’t really relate to the one that’s gone before.  Then, because every scene doesn’t feel like it should follow the one before, the whole film comes across like one big series of mini stories where the actors are never allowed to show their considerable talents because none of them are ever allowed the time to do so.

Whatever the public mood is towards Johnny Depp right now, he’s always been one of my favourite actors and I’m certain he has plenty of good roles ahead of him.  Just like I know he loves to immerse himself into whatever part he’s playing and is more than happy to do whatever it takes to ‘look the part.’ As with ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas’ he’s almost unrecognisable as the main character, sporting a balding hair piece and more than a few added wrinkles.  However, it takes more than a good set of prosthetics to make a movie and, unfortunately, his passion for his craft doesn’t save the film.

It’s not terrible, but for the cast that’s been assembled for this production you’d be expecting something along the lines of ‘Goodfellas.’ Sadly, the only two words that come to mind here are ‘boring’ and ‘forgettable’ (sorry, Johnny).

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

Red Sparrow – La Femme Nikita (in Russia)

I guess there comes a time in everyone’s life (or at least the life of an avid film fan!) where you begin to judge films based on whether they’re even slightly original or not. ‘Red Sparrow’ is a prime example of – technically – quite a good film and worth a watch.  However, from the point of view where I’ve seen many various versions of the tale regarding someone who gets forcibly recruited by a secret Government organisation and then made to do X, Y or Z until they can finally break free, there’s nothing new here.

Jennifer Lawrence does a convincing Russian accent as the lead character, but I felt she was kind of unlikeable and her sick mother was just thrown into the story as a way of trying to show her character’s ‘softer side.’ So, in between killing men who seem to want to attack her on site, she also strikes up a relationship with Joel Edgerton’s character.  Only they don’t really meet on screen until about a third of the way through, so there’s little time for them to establish chemistry before they’re thrown together as lovers.  Then, seemingly by way of counterbalance, some of the other characters we meet early on are basically cast aside and left under-developed.

Somewhere in here is a good film, but it feels a bit all over the place in terms of story and pacing.  It tries to be dark and gritty during the opening third, then abandons that feel and flits from being ‘La Femme Nikita’ to something more like ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ in other places.  I know it goes for the ‘dark and gritty’ tone, but it ends up taking itself way too seriously.  The film is littered with long, lingering shots of J-Law walking slowly towards camera at the beginning of every scene while she stares off into the middle distance beyond the camera.  It might have helped the film’s overall feel if it was a little lighter here and there with some more ‘fun’ elements thrown in, making it more of an action movie.  Just my take.

Maybe if you haven’t seen a film like this before you’ll like it more than I did.  I just got a real sense of de ja vu in terms of cinema where it wasn’t bad, just wasn’t original enough to be any good and having Jennifer Lawrence as the lead and a few naughty scenes weren’t enough to elevate a stale storyline to anything more than an average film.

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

Dark City – The Thinking Man’s Matrix

It’s hard to imagine the classic 1999 film ‘The Matrix’ starring Rufus Sewell in the lead, fighting an evil Agent played by a pasty bald Richard O’Brian.  Yet, believe it or not, there is an ‘early version’ of the film that’s just like that. ‘Dark City’ was released only one year earlier and it’s basically the same premise, only it never achieved such greatness or Box Office success.  But don’t let that put you off.

I love ‘The Matrix.’ It’s very cool and you can’t help but be wowed by the cyber-tech and, back then, the ‘bullet-time’ special effects were revolutionary for their day.  Plus you had the highly-bankable Keanu Reeves in the lead and, no matter how wooden his performance, we all love to watch him.  Therefore, ‘The Matrix’ just seemed to hit all the right notes at the right time (don’t get me started on the sequels – that’s a whole other story!).  ‘Dark City’ didn’t really have any of that.  Rufus Sewell is a competent leading man, but you get the feeling that his part could have been played by any good looking guy, the same goes for his love interest Jennifer Connolly.  It also doesn’t have special effects that will make you think that you’ve never seen anything like that before.  It’s leads are competent, as are what effects the film utilises (nowadays I see a precursor to ‘Inception’ in there, too).  It’s dark (as the title suggests) and Gothic, portraying the film as a sombre and depressing affair, as opposed to ‘The Matrix’s’ high-tech and uber-coolness.  Therefore, ‘Dark City’ doesn’t look or sound like anything that original.  However, if you don’t dwell on any of that (or just haven’t seen ‘The Matrix’ – there must be a couple of you out there!) then this is really something pretty special.

Yes, the film is quite (and I hate to keep using this word, but there really isn’t any other that sums it up) ‘dark.’ It is certainly not a ‘feel-good’ film, but where it really succeeds is its sheer concept.  Rufus Sewell wakes up in a flat with no memory of who he is.  The only thing he knows is that there’s a dead body in the apartment and it looks very much like he’s the killer.  Therefore, he sets out to find out who he is and whether he did it.  Now, along the way he discovers that it’s not just him who has a dark (there’s that word again) past, but also his whole world.  And that brings me nicely on to the baddies of the film – the ‘Strangers.’ Instead of ‘The Matrix’s’ ‘agents’ you have a horde of black-trenchcoat-clad bald men with pasty faces hell-bent on thwarting our hero’s efforts at every turn.  And they really are great.  Whether it’s the fact that they refer to each other by weird noun-like names, i.e. ‘Mr Hand’ and ‘Mr Foot,’ or its’ because they have one little boy-version of themselves who is just downright creepy (and don’t get me started on their ‘powers’).  All in all, they’re some of the best movie-villains ever created.

If you like your sci-fi ‘action-packed’ and full of explosions and battles then you probably won’t really enjoy this.  I love it, but I don’t watch it often – that’s because you really need to be in the mood to sit down and watch quite a thoughtful film that really gets under your skin.  There are some small fist-fights and superpowered skirmishes just in case you’re wondering and I’m glad it seems that this film has found its own place in the world with a dedicated cult following.  However, it will always be overshadowed by ‘The Matrix,’ but I believe that ‘Dark City’ is different and special enough to warrant its own place in your collection alongside Keanu trilogy.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather