Innerspace - Watch it before it gets remade

Everyone remembers that eighties sci-fi classic 'Back to the Future,' because - let's face it - it's awesome.  It deserves it's spot in pop culture.  Yet many people don't seem to hold that other eighties sci-fi popcorn flick 'Innerspace' in such quite high regards.  And that's a shame... in my humble opinion, because it really is quite good fun.

In these days of 'shared universes' (thanks, Marvel!) I find myself seeing films that look like they could belong in the same 'universe' as others (like 'Universal Soldier' and 'Terminator 2' - again, just my opinion).  And, after my most recent re-watch of 'Innerspace' I couldn't help but thinking how much it would fit alongside that time-travelling DeLorean and uber-cool hoverboard. 

It's about a test piolt (Dennis Quaid) who gets miniaturised inside a pod during a lab experiment and then (inadvertantly) injected into some random guy's backside (Martin Short).  The two of them form an unlikely bond as they try to reverse the effects before Quaid runs out of oxygen (or the baddies get hold of them!).

Now, it's fair to say that 'Innerspace' didn't set the Box Office as on fire as its producers would have liked.  I don't think it bombed, but the film-makers were hoping for something akin to 'Back to the Future' in terms of success-levels.  However, there's just something so fun about it that it deserves to be remembered, especially during this period of eighties nostalgia.

It's first strength is that it never slows down.  It's perfectly edited so that you get almost straight into the action and learn to love the characters without any need for lengthy exposition or backstory.  And the action flows thick and fast.  There's one chase scene that reminded me of 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.' In 'Indy 4' they had to rely on awful computer graphics whereas 'Innerspace' managed it with stunts.

Another thing that's worth mentioning is how when there's no action, there's humour.  And this is down to the rapport between the actors.  Everyone plays their part well.  And, possibly the most important thing about 'Innerspace' is that it's a film that the whole family can enjoy.  There's no need for violence or bad language.  It acomplishes everything it needs to without any over-the-topness.

If you saw this back in the day, give it another go.  Or if you're just looking for something to entertain the kids on a wet weekend, this should be enjoyed by all (even if you're not part of this current eighties revival!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Waiting - My name is Deadpool and I will be your waiter this evening

Like many, I only really became - properly - aware of Ryan Reynolds after he finally got the chance to play 'Deadpool.' Since then, I've been through some of his previous work and I can't help but feel that he plays pretty much the same character (dare I say he simply plays Ryan Reynolds?!) in everything he's ever been in.  I know that may sound a little dismissive of his acting ability, but all I can think of is that old phrase 'if it ain't broke... don't fix it!' And Ryan Reynolds' act is very watchable and keeps bringing in the money at the Box Office.

Here, he plays - arguably - another version of himself (or Deadpool, depending on how you want to look at it) who's the oldest waiter in a restaurant filled with younger staff.  The film follows a day in the life of the team as they do their best to deal with their own personal problems and - more importantly - the dreaded customers.

If you're thinking 'this sounds a little bit like Kevin Smith's Clerks' then you're probably right.  There are some definite similarities.  It's very low budget and has a real 'raw' feel about it, plus the jokes are generally generated through how staff deal with awful customers in restaurants (but most gags work if you've worked in any job that's 'customer-facing').  Despite definitely being classed as a 'comedy' I wouldn't say there are that many 'side-splitting' moments, however I found I sat tight with a decent-size smile on my face throughout the ninety minute run-time.  The humour is also quite 'adult' so expect 'American Pie' levels of humour.

It's definitely a 'Ryan Reynolds' film and its success relies heavily on his sheer natural charm and likability.  Anna Farris is about the other main name you'll recognise, but she does seem a little underused for what she's capable of bringing to a comedy film.

Overall, if you've ever worked in a job that involves dealing with the public, you'll sympathise with the waiters/waitresses you meet here.  It's a decent enough comedy that definitely has more 'hit' jokes than misses.

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

Wildling - Not Gingersnaps (unfortunately)

Wildling was never destined to be a 'classic.' Which film about werewolves are ('American Werewolf in London' not included)?  However, just because it's never going to win Oscars, doesn't mean that it can't be fun.  Canadian werewolf movie 'Gingersnaps' proved that you can make a movie about monsters with teenagers and heart (something that the 'Twilight' franchise never achieved in its entire saga!).  It's pretty impossible to mention 'Wildling' without talking about the - far superior - 'Gingersnaps' as they do hit quite a few of the same beats.  I'll do my best not to dwell on the similarities further, apart from saying that 'Gingersnaps' is infinitely better (the original 'Gingersnaps' that is - nuff said about the sequels!).

The film begins with a little girl who 'lives' with her 'Daddy' (Brad Dourif).  I use the quotation marks because her 'Daddy' keeps her locked up 'for her own protection' and tells her that she can never leave because the wildlings will get her and only Daddy is strong enough to survive out there.  This section lasts for about the first quarter of an hour and is actually probably the best part of the movie (mainly because it's the part where Dourif has the most screen time).  It's truly chilling because we don't really know what's going on in the world and the air of confusion adds to the truly chilling atmosphere.

However, it's kind of downhill from then on.  It descends into a - sort of - teen drama with a few kills and monsters, plus the obligatory romance.  You also have Liv Tyler in there (who I haven't seen on screen for quite some time).  I've always thought she was a pretty competent actress, but she really does seem to be phoning it in for this one as she attempts to shield/shepherd the - now teenage - girl.

If you really like horror films, or werewolves in general and you stumble on this film on some sort of free streaming online platform, then why not have it on in the background.  There's not much gore and not much point to it either.

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

Orphan - Proof that not ALL child actors are bad!

I've just watched 'Orphan' for the fourth time and, as usual, I'm left pretty speechless at the performance the titular 'orphan' Esther (played by the extraordinarily-capable Isabelle Fuhrman).  It's one thing to cast kids in a movie FOR kids.  Children don't really pay much attention to 'acting ability' and it's up to the adults in the cinema audience to cringe and roll their eyes at what they're forced to watch.  However, so many times when child actors are used in a film for an older audience, they can quite often bring down an otherwise good film.  I'm so glad to say that the reverse happened here.

A brief summary of the plot would be that a family (mother and father played respectively by Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard) adopt a child to add to their existing two children.  The girl in question is - you guessed it - Esther and, it's fair to say that they get more than they bargained for.

I didn't know anything about this film before I sat down to watch and I definitely recommend you know as little as possible before seeing it.  The marketing surrounding it kind of makes it look like a horror film, but, trust me, it's nothing like your standard 'hack 'n slash' affair (it's much better than that!).

Maybe it was destined to be average, but Isabelle Fuhrman just elevates it to exceptional levels.  I almost found it quite difficult to believe that a child could pull off such a part.  It's worth watching for her alone.

If you like horror/thriller films in general, you should definitely check this out.  Just don't find out too much before hand.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2 - All good fun

Even though I really enjoyed the first 'Guardians of the Galaxy' movie, for some reason it didn't leave me wanting to watch the next instalment straight away.  I sort of got the feeling that it would be more of the same.  And it was.  And I tried really hard not to like it.  And I failed.  Yes, it's effectively not that different to the first instalment and yes there's a lot of CGI, making it look like an extended cut-scene from a computer game, but it's just too much fun to really hate.

The story carries on a little while after the first ended and our team of 'Guardians' are in the middle of some computer-generated space combat, generally saving the galaxy from one beastie or another.  However, the main story is kicked off by a plot thread that was left hanging from the original, namely regarding 'Starlord's' father.

People often use the term 'Avengers in space' to describe the 'Guardians' films and I can see why.  It's technically (another) superhero team-up movie.  Starlord is 'the star,' but the rest of the screen time is shared between the five or so other main cast members, giving each just about enough room for a little character development.  And it's because it's an ensemble that it words so well.  I guess for all its obvious flaws that I tried to dwell on, it's the sheer 'interaction' between the characters that makes it so enjoyable.  Yes, the action is - by today's standard - pretty generic in that you'll probably have seen stuff like it before in any other modern sci-fi movie, but the way the characters bicker is a joy to watch. 'Mantis' is a welcome addition to the team, as she's a 'superhero' that doesn't really have (what you could call) 'offensive' powers, i.e. she's not running around with guns shooting people.  Her skills are more 'passive' and the character's 'innocence' plays off Dave Bautista's 'Drax' perfectly. 

It's also nice to see Michael Rooker's character getting extra screen time, along with fellow 'blue' alien Nebula (a practically unrecognisable Karen Gillan), but the big surprises were the 'big names' of 'Tango & Cash' getting back together for their respective roles (or should I say Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell if you're not familiar with that *ahem* 'classic' buddy-cop movie from yesteryear).  There's even a bit of genuine emotion thrown in there at the end which I won't go into for fear of running into 'spoiler' territory.

Because I didn't watch this film straight away, I did read a lot of online reviews saying how it didn't really live up to the original (ala so many sequels!).  However, I've now watched 'Part 2' twice now and I reckon that it actually - in my opinion - is better than the original. 

Ultimately, if you're familiar with the current 'Marvel Shared Universe' then 'Guardians of the Galaxy 2' isn't anything you haven't seen before, even coming across like other similar modern space epics (like 'Valarien' only people actually went to see this film!), but if you're looking for something which is pure 'fun' then you'll definitely find it here.  It's not really that necessary to know what went on before and I was pleased to see that this film wasn't one long lead-in to the upcoming 'Avengers: Infinity War' movie.

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

The Hitman's Bodyguard - Good, but could have been better

There are some films that shouldn't work and yet do.  And there are those films that have everything going for them and yet don't work.  I wouldn't say that 'The Hitman's Bodyguard' falls into the latter, but it certainly should have been better than it was.  First of all, I love both Samuel L Jackson and Ryan Reynolds (who doesn't these days?) and, based on my equal love of Marvel movies, couldn't wait to see 'Deadpool' interact with 'Nick Fury.' And interact they do.  In fact, the film basically splits between the two of them bickering (yes, in quite a humorous manner) to one chase/action sequence and then 'rinse and repeat.'

I just felt that Samuel L Jackson was effectively playing Samuel L Jackson and Ryan Reynolds was effectively playing Ryan Reynolds.  Now, I didn't mind that.  The action was well done and the jokes land, so you could say' 'What more do you want?' Well, not much I guess - I just felt that if the film had been given something (no, I don't actually know what) extra then it would have raised it from a reasonable action flick so something truly great.

Ryan Reynolds plays the 'disgraced' bodyguard who has to look after Samuel L Jackson's hitman and escort him to a trial in order to give evidence on a notorious war criminal (Gary Oldman).  Now, if you're thinking back to Gary Oldman's numerous excellent performances and how he can totally hold his own as a villain, don't hold your breath.  He's hardly in it.  The fact that he's in prison means he doesn't really have the opportunity to interact with our heroes.  The other - vaguely notable - characters are the two stars' women, Samuel L Jackson's being Salma Hayek and Ryan Reynolds' being Elodie Yung and - again - they're barely in it.  Both parts could have probably been cut from the film and you wouldn't really have noticed.  It's also not short.  The action scenes come every few minutes and it's one of those films where it probably could have ended a few times before it actually does. 

Like I say, the action was fun and the dialogue snappy, so if - like me - you're a fan of one or both of the actors you'll definitely get something out of the film.  However, as much as I didn't hate it, I couldn't help be leave with the feeling that something was missing and it should/could have been even better than it was.
7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Rampage - A Sega Master system game never looked so good

I know that movies based on computer games have a bad reputation (and deservedly so!), so I'm guessing that not many of today's youth have ever participated in the joys of controlling George (a giant monkey), Lizzie (and giant lizard) and Ralph (my personal favourite character in the game - a giant wolf) as the trio inflict major damage on every American city back in the arcades in the eighties (and on the Master System in my bedroom during my teenage years!).

Maybe movies based on computer games don't do well because they try too hard to concentrate on the story which they never seem to be able to, while appealing to the game's 'core audience' who undoubtedly all have their own ideas regarding what a big-screen adaptation should be like.  As I mentioned, 'Rampage' (the game) had a simple premise - choose one of three giant monsters and unleash hell on the human population of major cities.  It was dumb, entertaining fun.  And, perhaps  most importantly, it doesn't have a story - allowing the film-makers the creative freedom to adapt the best bits and add whatever they like without fear of annoying old gamers, such as myself.

Did I mention the game was dumb entertaining fun?  Well... that basically sums up the movie, too.  Dwayne Johnson stars as, er, the same Dwayne Johnson we've seen in almost all his action movies, as he cares for a giant ape in an animal preserve.  Three mutating canisters falling from space later and he finds that his pet ape, George, is now not just a giant ape, but a GIANT ape!  And then all hell breaks loose.

That's about it in terms of plot.  You're not watching this for its deep emotional states, character arcs and hidden social and political meaning.  You just want to see big monsters slug it out (and Dwayne Johnson, no doubt).  And, if that's all you're looking for, you'll leave the cinema totally satisfied. 'Rampage' doesn't try to be clever - it just has fun being what it is - a cheesy, popcorn movie that you can just enjoy.

There are a couple of minor gripes I could mention.  For people like me who knew the game well, I could lament on how certain elements of the creatures are 'technically incorrect,' but that would just be me nit-picking.  About my only major problem was with a scene where a character is - in my opinion - critically-wounded and yet gets up seconds later and carries on as if nothing has happened!  It just made me think of that Arnie gag in 'The Last Action Hero' where a gunshot is merely a 'flesh wound' in a film.

So, if that's what you like then you won't be disappointed.  Plus it even has 'Neegan' from 'The Walking Dead' (okay, so not technically Neegan, but Jeffrey Dean Morgan doesn't stray much from the man responsible for making a zombie apocalypse even more unbearable for Rick and his cronies.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Timecop - Jean Claude's finest (but that's not saying much!)

The rumourmill has it that Jean Claude Van-Damme was looking for 'that film' - the one like 'Terminator' was for Schwarzenegger and 'Rambo' was for Stallone.  JCVD saw 'Timecop' as the 'vehicle' that would propel him out of 'B-movie-action-star' to legitimate A-list action megastar.  I think it's not really a 'spoiler' to say that it didn't really work out that way for him.

However, just because 'Timecop' never really set the Box Office alight and made the 'Muscles From Brussels' the household name he was hoping for, doesn't mean it was that bad.  In fact, it's probably his best work up until that time!  Previously, he'd really been utilised as a leading man who could just about speak English, but was damn filmable when it came to kicking bad-guys.  Here, he wanted to add a bit of 'depth' to his range and try to 'act' as well as just kick people in the face.  And, like I said, it sort of worked.

He plays the titular 'Timecop' - part of an elite division who patrols time to prevent criminals from exploiting time travel for financial gain.  Of course, there's corruption, double-crossing and murders that can now be averted thanks to a trip to yesteryear (and it still leaves time for him to do the splits!).  The special effects are good (for their time), but apart from the action sequences (which are nothing that out of the ordinary) are limited to just the screen stretching whenever someone goes through time.  And, despite the premise desperately trying to be A-list, the scrip probably could have been done with a little extra work and most dialogue is a little stilted and predictable.  Therefore, it does still feel like just another Van-Damme B-movie, only with a few nice special effects and a sci-fi spin.

But, if you're a fan of Van-Damme and his punchy-kicky B-movies of the eighties and nineties (and, seeing as he did become quite famous doing this, there's plenty of us out there who appreciate his 'art') then 'Timecop' should tick all the boxes you're looking for.  It's not 'high art;' it's not even an A-list film, but it is a fun enough little romp if you're in the mood for some mindless action and a few cheesy puns whenever a bad-guy is despatched.

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

Death Wish (2018) - Not bad, actually (based on 'remake standards')

I know what everyone is thinking... 'Oh, no, not ANOTHER remake.' Yes, I was thinking that, too. 'Death Wish' is another film in the loooong line of classic Hollywood movies which producers think they can squeeze out a few more dollars at the Box Office by 'remaking/re-imagining/re-whatevering.' However, bearing in mind my cynical nature, no one was more amazed than me when I left the cinema quite impressed.

No, this new Bruce Willis incarnation of 'Death Wish' is no classic.  It won't be remembered in the same way its controversial original was, but, if you're into the whole 'revenge genre' (which Charles Bronson's 70s 'Death Wish' basically started!) then this should fit the bill.

Maybe because the original was made so long ago, you can actually re-tell the story in a modern setting and insert enough freshness into an old tale to make it work.  When Charles Bronson's 'Paul Kersey' found his family killed by muggers, he went out for revenge and never had to face the prospect of being filmed by Joe Public on their cameraphones, or requiring YouTube to learn how to maintain a firearm!

I think if the film has one flaw it's Bruce Willis himself.  I like him in his 'classic' films where he plays a hardman who goes around cracking villains' skulls, however, here he's supposed to be an 'everyman' who you wouldn't expect to go on a rampage of revenge.  I guess it was just a case of typecasting that made it difficult for me to see him so 'ordinary.' If I was casting 'Death Wish' I'd have cast someone like Bryan Cranston, as he's more of a nerdy nobody and therefore would be less physically intimidating than Willis.  And, while we're on 'Breaking Bad' references, it looks like 'Hank's' twin brother also shows up here as a Chicago cop.  Not much new acting required from Dean Norris, but, if you liked Hank, then you'll like him here, too.

Like I say, nothing too new, but nothing that makes a mockery of the original.  If you don't mind the violence that comes with a film like this, then don't lump it with the rest of the tiresome remakes.

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

Back to the Future Part II – Ignore the plot holes (and enjoy!)

I know that the original ‘Back to the Future’ film was ‘lightning in a bottle’ (or should that be a ‘Flex Capacitor in a bottle?’) and its sheer charm and mass appeal could never truly be recaptured.  Therefore ‘Part II’ was always going to have a hard job when it came to competing.  I was only twelve when it was released and, in short, I loved it.  However, even back then long before the days of internet message boards and Twitter, I remember picking up on the mutterings from film critics about how it wasn’t a patch on the original.  Now, I’m not about to commit blasphemy and tell you that it is.  I’m just saying that it’s a great, fun film and it continues the story just perfectly.

Sequels that outdo their original are few and far between, but this one does have enough memorable moments to really hold their own over time and remain in the public's consciousness, even today (Marty's 'self-lacing' Nike trainers and - of course - the 'hover board,' anyone?).  If ever a story picked off where the last one left off, it was 'Back to the Future Part II.' Who among us wasn't dying to know where Marty and Doc were going to next and the sight of our favourite time-travelling car flying off into our faces only filled us with intrigue.  And, when they arrive in the 'future,' or at least 2015 as was depicted back in the 80s, it's filled with weird and wonderful gadgets (which - naturally - are still waaay off where we are today, technologically).  Marty has to prevent an incident in his son's future that will bring down his family-life to come.  Naturally, not everything goes to plan and he and Doc are forced to zip back and forth through time in order to correct things.  And, like I say, I loved it then and I still do.

However, that's just my opinion and I think it's fair to address some of the criticisms it picked up then and now.  Some people resent a few casting changes that occurred between films, others say that the future is too over-the-top, plus it retreads old ground (sometimes remaking scenes deliberately in homage to its own predecessor), but without any of the charm.  While others resent the way it ends (I should warn you that it's designed to be a 'middle film,' therefore I'm guessing the film-makers had no plans to end the story with 'Part II.'

Personally, I didn't mind any of that.  If I could nit-pick one single thing it would be something I note now about the story-telling 'suspension of disbelief' which seems to go hand in hand with all time travel movies.  Namely something happens which causes 'time' to spew off in a different direction, but, due to the paradox this would actually cause, the plot falls apart on a plot hole.  However, I didn't notice that when I was younger and I'm sure not going to let it ruin my enjoyment of the film now.

There are few movies nowadays that the whole family can sit down and enjoy (okay, maybe 'Ready Player One' will be one day), but, right now, all three 'Back to the Future' movies deserve their place in cinematic history.  Watch it now before it gets remade!

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

True Lies – Arnie does ‘Bond’

After ‘Terminator 2’ in 1991, it was thought that Arnold Schwarzenegger could do no wrong at the Box Office.  Then came 1993’s ‘Last Action Hero’ which, despite me appreciating it, went some way to prove that he couldn’t turn any concept into gold.  So, it looked like he returned to Terminator collaborator James Cameron to get him back (as he always states he will be!).  And back he came in the form of 'True Lies' which is effectively a 'spy movie,' but don't go thinking there's too many similarities to our every own Bond, James Bond.  This is Arnie's take on the genre.  And it works.

Instead of a lone spy effectively saving the world from a nut-case in a volcano single-handedly, Arnie is actually a family man.  It's just his family don't know that he regularly saves the world from nut-cases (just not nut-cases who live in volcanos).  What you get is a two-plot story.  Naturally, Arnie has to uncover a plot with some terrorists who are threatening to blow up one major city unless he gets a new battery for his camcorder (you'll have to watch the film to get that one!).  On the other hand, you have Arnie juggling his chosen profession with his wife (expertly portrayed by Jamie Lee Curtis) and his daughter (a young Eliza Duskhu) who is beginning to grow up, almost without him.

In fact, either story could almost exist as its own film and, whereas the beginning of the film starts off more 'spy orientated' the middle veers dramatically off into 'family drama' territory, before finally coming full circle and giving us some classic Arnie action set-pieces towards the end.  It's a fun ride all in all.  It never takes itself seriously (like today's spy thrillers, i.e. Bond/Bourne) and there are plenty of genuinely funny moments from all the cast (especially in the middle part courtesy of Bill Paxton's character).  Then you have the action for us Arnie fans and overall a decent story which still holds up today.  It's worth noting that when the 'true' action comes in the final act, it's on a pretty spectacular level - I'm thinking of the chase across the bridges in the Florida Quays and the subsequent fight on top of a moving harrier jumpjet which had to have a new form of bllue-screen special effects room created for the task.  However, I guess looking at it some twenty-four years later, I can see how some may feel like the representation of women has come a long way.  Depending on your political viewpoint you could say that Jamie Lee Curtis does get a little 'exploited' here and there and, for a director who has become well-known for his portrayal of strong women (Ripley/Sarah Connor) this could be seen as a step backwards.

But, if you can bring yourself to forgive this little social blooper then you should be in for a fun ride.  It's not 'family friendly' enough to be enjoyed by the whole family (due to its bad language and violence), but if you like comedies, spy movies, or just Arnie-style action then you should get your fill here.  Just one thing... why no 'I'll be back' here?  Surely it could have been worked in somewhere?!
9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Triangle – Takes a few watches

Okay, this is my third viewing of ‘Triangle’ (so at least you know I must like it, at least a little!).  However, there’s a reason it’s not up there with my ‘most watched’ movies of all times.  And that’s because, despite me enjoying it, I really do have to be in the right sort of mood for a film like this.  In short… it’s a hard watch.  It’s a horror film starring Melissa George as a troubled woman who decides to have a – brief – break from her day-to-day life in order to join a few friends on a luxury yacht for a couple of days.  Unfortunately, this proves even more dramatic than her home life when the boat capsizes and the party end up managing to just about make it to a cruise liner that – almost literally – appears out of nowhere in order for them to board.  If that wasn’t creepy enough, their new ship is deserted, or is it?

Now, apart from Melissa George (who you may or may not have heard of), there’s no real stars to speak of, plus no real budget (the ship and anything largely connected to the ocean around it does look a little ‘cheap’ in terms of computer-effects, plus gore is hardly a major factor.  So, the film can’t really sell itself on any of those points.  It makes up for its lack of ‘obvious’ selling points by trying to create a confusing and fearful atmosphere.  It’s impossible to make any sort of film which ‘re-uses’ chronologically-filmed scenes without mentioning ‘Groundhog Day.’ I guess there’s a very – loose – element of that with ‘Triangle’ based on how certain parts of the film deliberately repeat themselves, each time revealing a little more of what’s happening.

I mention the ‘confusing’ atmosphere that’s created.  Well… it’s not just the characters on screen who are in the dark regarding what’s happening to them, but also us, the viewers.  Because of the way the ‘supernatural ‘element of the story is presented, it’s not always clear as to what the threat is (or at least what’s causing the threat).  This film isn’t a simple horror film with a monster running around eating people.  It uses various other sources of terror.  And it’s because of this that many people may find the plot a little confusing.  I have to confess that I did on my first viewing and even resorted to posting theories on internet message boards in order to check that I knew what was going on.  It’s one of those situations that once it’s been explained to you it’s kind of obvious and you kick yourself for not getting it first time round.

However, like I say, there are times when you don’t want the film’s narrative ‘spoon fed’ to you and ‘Triangle’ will  give you the opportunity to have think about what’s happening, why and if there’s a way out of what – I guess – is technically the (Bermuda?) ‘Triangle.’
7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Love, Simon – It wasn’t like this in my day (sadly)

There have been plenty of teen romantic comedies over the years and, being a cynical man in his forties, I have long since outgrown them and do my best to steer clear, knowing that I am definitely NOT the target audience for this type of film, therefore I shouldn’t really be commenting on it.  Nowadays, films are doing their best to be ‘inclusive’ and ‘diverse’ in their casting/storylines.  Many times this feels forced and comes across as simply a gimmick to drum up a little extra word-of-mouth to help promote the film. ‘Love, Simon’ so could have been one of those, but I’m glad to say that it’s not.

A teenage boy (Simon, believe it or not!) is coming to the end of his senior school and leads a pretty normal life, apart from the fact that he’s secretly gay.  However, his plans of ‘coming out’ in his own time (possibly at college) are thrown upside down when he starts engaging in online correspondence with another – apparently gay – student.  This leads to him rethinking his plans, so to speak.

It’s nice to see this kind of story given some sort of big-screen treatment.  If you went to school back in my day (80s/90s) then everyone was heterosexual and no one was gay.  Statistics prove again and again that that is impossible and ‘no one’ is gay simply because no one is going to commit what (again, back in my day) was ‘social suicide’ by ‘coming out.’ Now – thankfully – I understand that school-age children/young adults are much more at ease which letting people know who they really are without fear of negative reprisal (although ‘Love, Simon’ does show that side of people’s reaction to such news from a fellow student). 

It’s a bit of a ‘who-done-it’ really.  I know I shouldn’t, but I couldn’t help but think of ‘Scream’ while I watched it.  Although, technically, the films are nothing alike, ‘Scream’ makes you guess who the killer is from a cast full of potential young suspects, whereas ‘Love, Simon’ sees if you can figure out who the other student Simon is speaking to all the way through (for the record, I got the answer wrong in both films!).

The young cast are all believable as friends and their banter is the type you’d expect among youngsters, plus there are plenty of swipes at the ‘youth of today’ that us ‘oldies’ will enjoy.  The only real ‘weak link’ in terms of the casting was the one main representative of the teachers at the school, the vice principal.  He was just way too wacky to be believable.  The way he behaved just wasn’t how a teacher would (or at least, once again, I’m going off my own experience back in the day – feel free to correct me if this is ‘normal’ for a teacher!).  In my opinion he was more like Krusty the Clown from ‘The Simpsons’ than someone who was supposed to educate.  Plus I’d have probably ended the film about ten minutes earlier than it did – you’ll probably see where I mean if you watch it.

But, those were just minor gripes, the film is excellent and uplifting, even for an old cynic like myself.  School life wasn’t like this in my day and, if this is the way it’s going, it’s definitely a step in the right direction.

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

Ghost Stories – My worst film of 2018 (so far)

I was really hopeful for ‘Ghost Stories.’ For some reason, it seemed to have a lot of publicity here in the UK for a ‘home grown’ spooky tale, plus it had Martin Freeman in, fresh off the back of his turn in ‘Black Panther.’ It opens well, with a kind of ‘found footage’ approach to it, by interviewing our protagonist (Andy Nyman) as he’s a ‘professional debunker’ who goes around Britain ‘exposing’ supernatural tales for something mundane and ordinary.  However, this style of film-making is quickly dropped in terms of a more ‘conventional’ form of story-telling and that’s a shame because – for once – the ‘found footage’ element appears to be the best bit!

I haven’t really seen our protagonist, Nyman, in much else (or rather noticed him in anything I have seen!) and I got the feeling from the beginning that he just didn’t really have the screen presence to carry a full-length feature film on his own, even one with a low budget and non-mainstream appeal.  He just didn’t look comfortable in the role.  Once the ‘found footage’ segment ends, Nyman receives a message from the paranormal investigator who inspired him.  Now retired, this old Scottish man hands him three case studies that he was never able to disprove during his active work-life.  Therefore, the movie is basically an anthology of three different ghost stories, told by three different characters (Freeman is last, so you’re going to have to wait for him to show up!).

The next problem I had with the story is that all the actors seemed to be putting on (forced) regional accents for their characters.  Plus a couple of the characters looked like they were wearing prosthetic make-up to alter their appearance.  The fake make-up, combined with an over-the-top accent, made the film appear like an episode of ‘Little Britain,’ only without the laughs.

Any tension from the three main stories is taken right out of the equation as, because the stories are being told by the person in them, we – the audience – know full well that they are going to survive their ghostly encounter!  However, perhaps the worst part of it all, was the ‘rise and repeat’ factor regarding the ‘jump scares.’ What happens is that, in every ‘scary’ scene you get about 10-20 seconds of silence while the character creeps through a dark and deserted place, followed by a screeching noise accompanying something on-screen that moves suddenly.  This happens again and again, until you can almost count to thirty and then get what you’re waiting for.

I always try to stay positive when it comes to British (and foreign) films which can’t compete with the Hollywood budgets, but I couldn’t get behind this one as it was just badly acted, predicable and even laughable in some places (for all the wrong reasons).
2/10 Scuzzier than the leftover goo from a Queen alien's egg sack

Enemy Mine - Don't let this be forgotten

I always forget that Dennis Quaid was in this.  Possibly because he seems to have been born to play gruff, middle-aged characters and I sometimes forget he was ever young!  Just like a lot of people seemed to have forgotten about 'Enemy Mine.' I know that a sci-fi film without wall-to-wall light-sabre action doesn't always appeal to the masses, but I'm hoping there are enough people out there who still appreciate this - quite uplifting - character-driven piece.

In the far future us humans are having one hell of a war with an alien species about who owns what in the cosmos.  Casualties run deep on both sides and our plucky young space pilot, played by Quaid, ends up shooting down a rival alien on an uninhabited planet, only to find himself stranded there, too.

What follows is effectively a two-man show, Quaid portraying the 'good guy' and Louis Gossett Jr heavily made-up in full reptilian garb as the alien.  However, seeing as there's no way off this rock, the two of them are going to have to do their best to work together in order to survive.  Both actors play their part in elevating this film from just a run-of-the-mill sci-fi B-movie into something much deeper.  You'll get to know the two people and learn that our enemies aren't always the bad guys.

Besides the delight in seeing great (alien) make-up and practical effects, there's a decent enough amount of humour which comes in the form of 'banter' between our two culturally-opposed leads.  This humour never feels forced and comes from the natural misunderstandings that arise between them and lightens the tone enough for you to enjoy the film without feeling it's making light of their situation.

There are a few plot points I won't go into in case you haven't seen this, but if you don't mind a less action-packed film which relies on character over set-pieces, definitely don't let this one pass you by.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

A Quiet Place - It's the quiet ones you have to watch

It's fair to say that the horror genre has the most forms of clones and clichés about it, meaning every 'new' version that comes out feels less and less new than the last.  However, I'm delighted to say (as a long-standing fan of the genre) that 'A Quiet Place' actually finds a new way to package an old story.  The tale about monsters hunting humans is nothing new, but the way lead actor/director John Krasinski tells it is definitely worth a watch if you're into this kind of film.

Like I say, we join the proceedings a few months after monsters (aliens, maybe - it's never really dwelled upon) have completely taken over the Earth.  Only they haven't got the 'tech' you may expect from 'superior' beings.  They're more like your run-of-the-mill 'chase-you-and-eat-you' monsters who rely on their physical strength and speed, rather than their brains.  And, it looks like us poor ol' earthlings only figured out that their one - sort of - weakness was that they are blind, hunting by sound alone.  But, if you think that gives us much of an edge, let me inform you they have REALLY GOOD ears.

Now, real life husband and wife John Krasinski and Emily Blunt play an on-screen couple who are desperately trying to survive and keep their children safe on a farm as they adapt to this new way of existing.

First of all, I like the fact that our human heroes - technically - can't 'win.' The Earth is lost.  The five humans are never going to 'take down' a planet-load of monsters singlehandedly.  All they can do is survive as best they can.  The first thing you need to know is that you could almost call 'A Quiet Place' a 'silent' film.  Yes, there are plenty of music and natural sound effects, but dialogue is at an absolute minimal.  This is down to the simple fact that if you talk - even on a farm in the middle of nowhere - chances are a monster will hear you from across the town and have you for lunch. 

This means that a lot of the 'interactions' between characters are by way of either facial expressions and body language, or sign language (yeah, one of the children is deaf, so the family already knew how to communicate this way).  This gives the actors quite a challenge to portray enough emotions via these means.  You may expect the adult actors to be up to this, but it's rare to see the kids pull it off with such apparent ease.

What I really enjoyed about the film was the way that all characters behave in a way that seems real.  Another cliché of horror films is that people act so dumb in whatever horrific situation they find themselves in we end up shouting at them on screen and lose patience with them.  I'm pleased to say that all characters here don't make dumb decisions (oh, unless you count getting pregnant in a world that's gone to hell!).

All in all, 'A Quiet Place' was a joy to watch for a horror fan like me.  Whatever flaws it may contain are barely worth noting as it's a complete breath of fresh air for the genre.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Never Let Me Go - A hard watch, but worth it

I've just watched 'Never Let Me Go' for the second time and it's been a good few years since viewings.  The reason being was because I was never sure whether I enjoyed the film on my original watch.  I have to say that it left quite a mark on me and made me ask questions and picture what the world would be like for the characters in the story's situation.  So, I guess it's certainly memorable, however to say it's 'enjoyable' implies that it's an uplifting and easy-going piece of popcorn-fluff.  It's not.

It begins in a 'fictional' 1960s where the opening text informs us that the society of the time has evolved enough to make certain leaps in technology, namely cloning.  Then we join the students of a private school in Britain as they attend their classes.  However, these children are all deliberately engineered for one thing: they're, one day, going to be used as 'spare parts' for those in need of organ transplants.  Nice.

Skip forward a few years when the kids are now late teen-ish and we see how they deal with their lot in life and how they go about their lives knowing what is to become of them.  The first time I watched this I got quite frustrated with the characters.  I felt they accepted their fate a little too lightly.  If someone was going to chop me up for my eyeballs on my 21st birthday, I'd be taking the first flight to the location farthest away from the surgeon's scalpel.  These kids just trot around the place, awaiting their fate with a slightly furrowed brow.  I ever posted a few of these views on various Internet message boards and was given a fair few reasons for this which I won't go into.  But, I think it's fair to say that I probably 'lost' that argument!

It's set primarily in the 60s-70s and therefore the period detail of the time is excellent (if you can forgive the overall sci-fi premise, technically, not fitting in with the era).  Plus you have good performances from the central trio of Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and, of course, Keira Knightley.  You will certainly want what's best for them and their - seemingly - hopeless situation against fulfilling their 'purpose' in life.

Like I say, it's not a 'feel-good' film and you need to be in the mood for something dark, deep and heavy.  Tissues on standby and... enjoy (if possible).

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

Hot Fuzz - Action has never been so much fun

'Hot Fuzz' is one of those - rarest of - films which not only spans numerous genres, but is also enjoyable to many different demographics.  It's easy to say that 'action' films are a 'male dominated' niche and 'Hot Fuzz' certainly has plenty of action contained within.  In fact... it may ever have more shoot-outs and set-pieces than your average straight-to-DVD B-movie with an once well-known muscled leading man at the helm.  However, why 'Hot Fuzz' succeeds on so many levels is because you don't have to be a fan of action movies to appreciate it, largely because of its humour.  Yes, it's also a comedy.  And a 'buddy-cop' film.  And has large moments of character development and, dare I say drama as well. 

Because of this, I can see it almost appealing to any adult of any age.  I won't say 'fun for all the family' as, because of its 'adult language' it probably wouldn't be suitable for youngsters.  However, if you don't mind the odd swear word, then join London's best police officer (Simon Pegg) who is, in fact, so good at his job that his superiors decide to transfer him to a sleepy little country town because he's making all the other officers look bad by catching too many criminals.

Naturally, the move makes him a little uncomfortable, being used to dealing with drug dealers and murderers and now forced to - effectively - rescue cats from tall trees.  However, the local 'bobby' (Nick Frost) is on hand to 'acclimatise' him to his new life.  But, as fate would have it, this idyllic little town soon shows it's hiding some dark secrets which need the pair to investigate.

I'm not going to go into the plot any further as it's a film that you really do need to see to enjoy.  The village is also home to plenty of colourful characters, all of which add to the story and bring their best performances to the table.  You may have also seen the Pegg/Frost collaborations 'Shaun of the Dead, The World's End' and 'Paul,' so you'll probably know the type of film you're going to get here - a genuinely funny film which lovingly pokes fun at a genre the film-makers clearly hold in high regard.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Suburbicon - Who knows what this was meant to be

First of all, let me say that I really enjoyed George Clooney's style of directing in 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind' and who doesn't enjoy the writing of the Coen brothers?  Then combine these elements with A-listers like Matt Damon, Oscar Isaacs and Julianne Moore and how can this possibly fail?  It did.  Spectacularly.

Perhaps the reason it bombed was that it had too many good elements (if that's even possible).  For a start it has no idea what it wants to be.  In the first act it introduces plot threads that really don't relate to the central theme of a couple getting mixed up with some shady characters and a plot involving murder and misinformation.  Plus there's the fact that it's set in the 1950s (I think - could be 60s!), but, either way, there's not an awful lot of point in setting it here.  It could be set today not really effect the main storyline at all.  Nice sets though.  Just not really necessary.

In the film Matt Damon is married to Julianne Moore.  Or should I say he's married to ONE Julianne Moore.  The other is her sister - which took me a little while to actually figure out if they were the same person or not!  However, no matter how many Julianne Moores you have on display, the fact remains that there's no likable character.  A child is - technically - the person you should root for and you will do.  However, he can't really carry the film in terms of good vs bad.  Oscar Isaacs isn't in it enough and, when he does make an appearance he does steal every moment he's on screen.

'Suburbicon' is billed as a 'black comedy.' I don't recall laughing once.  I couldn't 'get' the humour (if there is any to begin with!) and I do enjoy a slice of darker humour.  It's a murder drama/thriller that tries to be too many things at once.  You could take out so much of this and leave - probably - quite a tight little story that would have been enjoyable to watch.  Does the phrase 'Too many cooks...' apply here?

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

Millennium - Good premise.  So-so execution

I'd never heard of 'Millennium' and have only just got round to watching it.  That's probably because it seems to have been a bit forgotten in terms of classic/cult eighties sci-fi films.  And that's a shame, because it has many good moments that deserve a little more love.

It's about an air-crash investigator (Kris Kristofferson) who discovers that there's more than meets the eye going on when he finds what could well be an 'alien' device among the ruins of a downed plane.  He looks into this and we find that it wasn't in fact extraterrestrials who are meddling in our aviation, but people from the future.

Now, I'd got about a quarter of the way into this film and I was really enjoying it, wondering why it wasn't more popular than it was.  It's well shot, well acted, the premise is interesting and, best of all, when we do see the 'future-world' it's pretty cool.  However, just as I was really getting into it, the story slowed to practically as stand-still and (thanks to its time travel narrative) - literally - went over old ground and spent a fair portion of the film telling us something that we already had seen, only in a longer, more pointless version.

Granted, it picks up again towards the end and, talking of the final act, the ending does leave a little bit up to your own interpretation, so if you like your stories totally cleared-up then you could be a bit disappointed.

This was a shame, as if this middle segment could have been reworked, then the whole film would have benefited (and possibly found its way to a wider, more appreciative/mainstream audience).  I'd probably recommend it now to people who like cheesy, eighties 'Dr Who-esque' sci-fi, as I have a strange feeling that our favourite Time Lord may even have copied a few elements displayed here.

Special mention to the android who was almost as sarcastic as 'K-2SO' from 'Rogue One.'

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

Ready Player One - A future family favourite

Growing up in the eighties, there were plenty of movies which I watched with my friends and an assortment of parents.  These began at the cinema and gradually found their way to the small screen where we continued to enjoy them on those lazy Sunday afternoons we all had during our childhoods.  Now, several years later we look back on those films with a sense of nostalgia.  Now we can see they're not perfect, but we love them anyway.

'Ready Player One' is like that and, perhaps more importantly, will be like that.  As an adult, I can say that it's far from a perfect film, but there are undoubtedly millions of youngsters all over the world who would disagree with me and tell you that it's the best film ever made.  And it probably is to them.  To me, it's a fun little outing that I enjoyed, despite its flaws.

Stephen Spielberg is possibly also enjoying this resurgence of nostalgia, as he seems to have gone back to his hey-day and given us a family-friendly adventure-romp with a more modern day spin.  It's set in a broken world where the population practically lives in a virtual reality-style world called 'The Oasis.' It's basically like the internet meets VR.  However, one large corporation wants total dominance over this cyber world and will stop at nothing to achieve this.  Lucky we have some plucky youngsters on hand to thwart these terrible 'suits.'

The VR world naturally lends itself to some fantastic visuals and, for once, it's impossible to complain about the overuse of computer-effects because 75% of the movie is set inside a computer simulation.  The youth of today will enjoy watching their peers 'stick it to the man,' but there's also plenty of things to enjoy for us 'oldies.' This film possibly contains the most 'pop culture' references from yesteryear since that episode of South Park called 'Imaginationland.' You can't go more than thirty seconds without spotting a reference to things you loved from the seventies, eighties and nineties. 

The young cast do well.  Sometimes, when a film rests heavily on inexperienced actors' shoulders, it can sometimes fail, but I didn't find any of them annoying.  The only flaw I really saw was that it's a bit drawn out in some places.  I would have cut about ten minutes out of the middle section and then massively edited the ending by about fifteen minutes (it's one of those films that has - what you think is - an ending, only for it to start up again.  And again).

But that's a minor gripe.  I will be buying it on DVD and doing my best to spot yet even more references to my childhood (watch various YouTube videos to find out the full list of everything in there), but I may skip the odd chapter here and there - especially towards the end!)

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Colossal – Strangely addictive

The term ‘car-crash’ normally means something that’s really bad and yet you can’t bring yourself to look away.  I think it would be a little unfair to refer to ‘Colossal’ as a ‘car-crash’ of a film, because it’s not bad at all, in fact, it’s rather touching and uplifting, but I certainly couldn’t stop myself from watching, even though I have to confess I’m not entirely sure of the point.

Thinking about it, I do wonder how commercially successful it was because I can’t really think of the target audience it was supposed to be aimed at.  If you’ve seen any of the marketing material surrounding it, you may well have spotted the prominent monsters crashing through major world cities.  In the light of the ‘Pacific Rim’ movies you may well be expecting an action blockbuster, but you would be well off the mark with that one.  Also, prominently featured in the film’s posters is its star Anne Hathaway smiling and looking a little bit kookie.  This almost makes the film come across as a happy-go-lucky comedy, maybe with a romantic element contained within?  Again, well wrong.

In fact, it’s almost hard to explain about the film’s plot without giving too much away.  Anne Hathaway plays a struggling alcoholic who gets caught up in a much larger matter (pun intended) regarding giant monsters crashing through a city on the other side of the world.  How are these two situations connected?  Well, you’ll have to watch the film to find out.

I will say that the film doesn’t give a clear and cut explanation to everything it’s presented the audience with, but it gives you enough to allow you to fill in the blanks yourself with (film) logic.  What you get is actually a drama about an alcoholic struggling with her demons and those around her that wish to either help or hinder her.  Yes, there are also giant monsters in there, too.

As long as you expect drama first and sci-fi second, you should enjoy it.  There’s not much here in the way of humour or action, so certainly don’t hold out for anything that remotely resembles ‘Pacific Rim.’ As I said, I don’t know who the target audience for this is, only that I enjoyed it and found that I was definitely rooting for Anne Hathaway’s character and found her a flawed, yet endearing hero.

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

Pacific Rim: Uprising – Junior mechs

I was a massive fan of the first ‘Pacific Rim’ film.  It was loud, dumb and yet strangely well-shot for an out and out B-movie (something to do with its very-talented director, Guillermo Del Toro).  It had its flaws, but it was still enormous fun.  So my hopes were high for ‘part II.’ However, the reviews came in and they weren’t overly-positive.  And yet, my hopes remained high.  I shouldn’t have got excited.

The original told the tale of a breach in the ocean floor which allowed giant monsters to enter our world.  The humans’ response was to – believe it or not – create giant robots to beat them into submission (please ignore the fact that our military apparently couldn’t defeat the monsters on their own, but never mind).  Part II starts showing the devastation caused by the battles along coastal cities.  A young girl (no more than 13?) has lived all her life among the ruins and has – somehow – managed to scavenge enough parts to build herself a fully-functional giant robot.  She can pilot this on her own and out manoeuvre full-trained soldiers in their own mechs.

This all occurs within about the first ten minutes and I found this whole situation just a little hard to suspend my disbelief for.  Unfortunately, this small nugget of the plot basically sums up the entire film.  I could spend quite a long time listing one totally unbelievable plot point after the next.  I know the whole story is over-the-top, but the fact that it turns out that soldiers are no longer used to pilot the robots; instead a bunch of kids are trained up.  Why?  Who knows.  You just have a teen-kid movie where they fight in robots and has one unbelievable story element after the next.

It’s not all bad.  John Boyega is very watchable as the lead.  It’s just who’s around him that brings the whole thing down.  The film does its best to expand on the original idea and, for that, it succeeds.  Plus the battles are as fun (and the final fight is truly awesome!).  However, my main gripe is that just this film is probably going to be appreciated more by youngsters than hardened cynical cinema veterans such as myself.  I’m sure I’d have loved this if I was a twelve-year-old boy and then gone out and bought the toy.  Oh, yeah, that girl’s ‘build-your-own-robot’ is annoyingly cute and looks a bit like ‘Bumblebee’ from the ‘Transformers’ franchise.  I think they want you to not just watch the film, but also buy the toys.  I won’t be doing that.  And, if Part III does get made (maybe) I’ll wait for this one to appear on Netflix.

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

Twins – It shouldn’t work (but it totally does!)

‘Twins’ is probably the film that first proved that ‘Hollywood action hardmen’ COULD do comedy.  Before this it was unheard of that someone as well-known for ‘action’ could ever try and be funny.  However, ‘Twins’ proves that the right actors, meeting with the right script, can produce something that stands the test of time.

The premise is simple (if only a little far-fetched) that a *ahem* ‘perfect’ man (Arnold Schwarzenegger) grows up on a tropical island, to discover that he actually has a long-lost twin brother back in mainland USA (Danny DeVito).  Therefore, our – unusually naive – Arnie heads to LA to find him.

I first saw this film when I was a kid and loved it then, simply because I was a massive fan of Schwarzenegger and this was the first of his films I was legally allowed to see in the cinema.  However, now I’m older (and I can almost quote the film word for word), I can appreciate it on a new level.  It really is ‘perfectly written.’

There’s never a moment of the script that feels dragged out, or could be left on the cutting room floor.  Every second either moves the plot on, establishes character, or is simply very funny.  Arnie proves that he can do more than just beat people up (although he still cracks the odd skull or two here) and plays ‘the straight man’ brilliantly to DeVito’s zany comic character.

‘Twins’ stands up today as it did back then.  You don’t need to be a huge fan of Arnie’s to  appreciate this.  You only need a sense of humour.  It’s a comedy that doesn’t rely on gross or crude humour and it’s not topical, which helps it stay as enjoyable today as it was back then.  Maybe it was ‘lightning in a bottle’ as many other ‘action heroes’ have tried their hand at comedy since (including Schwarzenegger/DeVito again in the ill-fated ‘Junior’) and it was never half as good as this.

There are few films today that can be described so genuinely as ‘fun for all the family.’ But, while we still have all these ‘blasts from the past,’ who cares?

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