Central Intelligence - Not even nearly as bad as I feared

Despite being a die-hard fan of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, I didn't bother watching 'Central Intelligence' in the cinema.  I just didn't like the look of it.  It just came across as yet another tired spin on the 'mismatched buddy-cop' genre and probably all the best jokes were the ones featured in the trailer.  However, after watching it, I'm actually quite surprised at how good it was.  Actually, it is just another example of a 'mismatched buddy-cop' film, but, seeing as it had laughs and a high-entertainment factor, who cares?  It was fun!

The film opens twenty years ago during a High School finishing event where star quarterback (Kevin Hart) helps fat loser (Dwayne Johnson - courtesy of either one hell of a 'fat suit' or CGI effects) during some extreme public humiliation.  Skip forward to present day and The Rock is now a super CIA agent and Kevin Hart works with spreadsheets.  However, the pair meet up and inadvertently have to stop a major conspiracy from doing those dastardly things which will probably topple governments... or something.  Do you care?  Like I say... it's just fun.

So, take one generic genre, add one generic plot and you may not be left with much.  However, the charisma of the two leads elevates it to a great time if you're into some light-hearted entertainment and you're not expecting much.  The jokes land and you won't care about the story much, as there's plenty of over-the-top action to allow Johnson to do what he does best.

A couple of unexpected faces show up (unless they're featured in the trailer, or marketing in general - however, if you're like me and didn't know too much about the film - their inclusion was unexpected).  And, as a massive fan of 'Breaking Bad' I would have liked their representative to have been in it for little more than just his extended cameo.

There's not that much more to say about 'Central Intelligence.' If you're looking for something funny, easy-going and you're a fan of either/both Dwayne Johnson or Kevin Hart then you're going to have a good time here.  On the other hand, if you're in the mood for something deep, meaningful and will blow your mind for its originality then you won't find any of that here.

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

Highlander - A bit dated now, but still fun

I haven't watched 'Highlander' since it was on TV in the eighties.  I loved it as a kid and was a little apprehensive regarding how well it would stand around thirty years later.  And, despite being quite surprised at how much I didn't really appreciate back then, I'm pleased to say that it's worth a watch before the inevitable remake that will doubtless come soon.

It's (mainly) set in what was 'modern day,' but now is way back in the eighties, where Christopher Lambert plays one of the few last immortals left alive.  He's been around since, er, whenever Scotland was filled with bagpiping, claymore-wielding warriors (about 400 years I think he says at one point) and he's lived his long life never being able to love properly due to the obvious complications involving watching all his loved ones age naturally and die.  And, if that wasn't bad enough, we - the audience - are repeatedly reminded that 'There can be only one.' That basically means that all remaining immortals must fight each other to the death (apparently you can actually kill an immortal with a well-placed decapitation) in order to win whatever prize awaits them.

I say 'mainly' set in the eighties, because there's a fair amount of screen-time dedicated to flashbacks of when Lambert was the titular 'Highlander' in his native time.  There he's guided as to what he really is by one Obi-wan Kenobi mentor-like figure, played (as effortlessly as you'd expect) by Sean Connery.  Here we learn about everyone's backstory and the villain who's been stalking the immortals throughout the ages.  The main surprise I found while re-watching 'Highlander' after all this time is that I didn't remember so much of the film being set in the past (it's almost 50/50 between past and present.  I remember Connery being in it (he was Bond, after all!), but that's about all I could recall of the flashback scenes.

I would say that there's plenty of action, watching one immortal take swing after swing of their sword at another immortal's neck.  However, by today's standards, the action is probably a little tame.  There's hardly much exciting camerawork or major special effects (again, by today's scale), so you get the odd swordfight every so often.  It was great for the time and the sound effects used when the swords clash is really cool.  Plus you have Queen's epic and totally overblown soundtrack to accompany the film (written specifically for the film, I believe).

Highlander' is all good fun, but then I'm biased as I'm viewing it through nostalgic eyes (and I'm a fan of Queen).  It's definitely worth a watch, but it may seem a little dull and old-fashioned to the cinema-goers of today who expect epic battles where entire cities are destroyed by intergalactic CGI armies.  Oh and in keeping with the 'There can be only one' theme, if you do decide to watch 'Highlander' - stick to the original.  I tried the sequels and realised that that tagline was more true than it ever intended!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Dead Ringers - So normal for Cronenberg (for the first half!)

David Cronenberg found fame making pretty 'out there' films which, due to their content, never really received much mainstream attention, destined to become 'cult classics.' His most successful outing was the remake of 'The Fly,' but that was what most people would agree on was an outright 'horror.' Next he made 'Dead Ringers.' It's a story about a pair of identical twins (both played by Jeremy Irons thanks to some clever editing and camera tricks - no CGI here!) who are both brilliant surgeons and yet succumb to some pretty distasteful vices.

It looked like Cronenberg had finally left his 'body horror' roots behind, moved through an outright horror film and was now making high-quality dramas with an A-list cast.  And, for the first half of the film, you'd be right.

If you've never seen any of Cronenberg's previous films, you may not get that weird feeling of 'normality' at just how ordinary the first half of this film is.  We meet the twins.  As I mentioned, they're both played excellently by Irons - making each of his characters instantly distinguish by their contrasting personalities.  They go about their business of being a little too clever for their own good and it does have a 'regular' feeling about it all that would put it in with most other mainstream dramas.

Then comes the second half.  I know this is kind of a spoiler, but if you're really not into your 'gross-out' moments which involve some pretty disturbing 'body horror' moments then you're going to have to have a sick bag on standby for the second half of this film.  It was like Cronenberg was just lulling us into a false sense of security and teasing us with the opening.

Maybe this film is more of a horror than Cronenberg's previous efforts because there are no monsters here and nothing hideous that comes from a drug-fuelled nightmare.  Everything nasty here comes from real people and Irons makes you believe that the two brothers are quite capable of acting out their crimes.

It's certainly not an easy (or light) watch.  It's almost two hours long and you really need to give it the respect it deserves by paying attention all the way through.  So, if you're in the mood for something that doesn't involve superheroes flying around New York fighting aliens, then give this one a go (if you can stomach the second half!).

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

The Black Cauldron - A mixed bag

Despite growing up in the eighties, I seemed to completely miss Disney's 'The Black Cauldron' at the cinema and, during my numerous trips to Orlando's Disney World, I never really saw much (if any!) evidence that it even existed!  I mention this because I watched it with an adult who DID see it when she was little, therefore she loved it, partly because she saw it through nostalgic eyes, whereas I merely observed it through an adult's cynical viewpoint.

It's set in that well-known Disney cartoon world of magic and princesses and, in this case, apparently the story is based on an old Welsh tale (hence the vague accents which some characters attempt).  A young boy is the custodian of a magic pig (yes, seriously - a swine even more powerful than Wilbur and Charlotte put together!), but this pig is wanted by an evil wizard who wants to use the pig to rule the world (and unleash an army of the undead, but I guess those two things are linked).  So, when 'Babe' is kidnapped by the evil King's dragons and taken to his castle, it's up to our hero (and a couple of random others he picks up along the way) to rescue him.

So, if you're thinking something along the lines of 'that's a lot of detail dedicated to the pig' then you're probably not the only one.  It is a hard rasher to fry (so to speak), but, if you can get over that, it's actually a pretty good little fairytale.  Yes, this means that it does suffer from all the typical fairy-tale tropes, i.e. the hero automatically bumps into a princess in need of a helping hand, a 'comic' sidekick and knowledgeable elderly helper.

The characters are pretty generic, but their voice actors are decent enough to get by the - occasionally - by-the-numbers script and bring it to life enough to overlook any minor lapses.  Nigel Hawthorne and John Hurt are some gravitas to the cast.

I had nothing against any of the characters and was happy to enjoy them all… apart from Gurgi.  There's a reason I placed the word 'comic' in quotes in my previous paragraph when referring to the 'comic' relief.  Gurgi is, er, a thing - a cross between a dog, an Ewok and a Wookie and he is possibly the most annoying animated character ever committed to paint.  When watching him I couldn't get Andy Serkis' CGI interpretation of Gollum in the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy out of my head.  Only Gollum was much darker and you could genuinely feel sorry for him, while at the same time being afraid enough of him because you knew he could turn on you at any moment.  Gurgi is just annoying.  Really annoying.  I could say that the story's downfall is it's pacing - it is a bit hit and miss/stop and start, not quite knowing what it wants to be.  However, for me, it's main flaw was simply this annoying little fur-ball.  Yes, he's worse than Snarf from 'Thundercats!'

It's hard to say whether I'd recommend 'The Black Cauldron' for kids.  Yes, of course it's a classic Disney cartoon, however it is rather dark and there are some moments in there that may actually creep out really young children in a way that other similar films like Snow White and Cinderella don't.

However, if you're looking for purely great animation and a decent enough little fairy-tale then this is definitely worth a watch.  Oh, and I should probably mention that this is one of the few Disney cartoons that doesn't feature any music or songs throughout.

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

From Dusk Till Dawn - So wrong (and yet so right!)

There are some films that, in principal, shouldn't work and yet everything comes together in a 'perfect storm' of memorable film-making. 'From Dusk Till Dawn' is one such example.  Okay, so back in 1996 Quentin Tarantino was well within his rise to fame and everything he seemed to touch was well-received, so perhaps it's no surprise at how well this film did.  Or rather this FILMS (plural!) did.  Basically, it started off as two of his scripts that got fused together to become one, making it - almost literally - a film of two halves.

I would say that there are 'spoilers' ahead, but, if you've watched the trailer, the big 'reveal' was shown for all to see.  Basically, you have one half of the film is about bank robbers, the Gecko brothers, played by George Clooney and Tarantino himself.  They're on the run and take a family hostage (Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis and a boy you've probably never heard of!) in order to get across the border to Mexico.  What you have here is a crime/road movie... until they get across the border and are awaiting in a bar to meet their criminal contacts in their new home country.  Here, things get a little crazy and the genre totally changes when they find themselves under siege from a seemingly never-ending army of vampires.

There's much to love about this film, whether you enjoy one excellent performance after the next (who says Tarantino can't act?!  Although it is worth noting that he only writes and stars in this - he hands over the directorial work to Robert Rodrigez), the crazy and deliciously over-the-top gory effects of the vampires being despatched in one creative way after the next, or the banter and classic Tarantino dialogue (and for the real fan-boys - such as myself - there are plenty of in-jokes, nods to other works and reoccurring actors playing different characters). 

In fact, 'From Dusk Till Dawn' is so enjoyable it's quite hard to find a flaw in it… assuming you like your films cheesy with a healthy dose of self-knowing and black humour.  Don't take it seriously.  It makes sure it never does.  Oh, and probably best to warn people not to bother with the sequels and the belated TV show is just an extended remake.  Stick to the original (and best, obviously).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Reign of Fire - Actually quite good fun

There are some films which don't really make it big at the Box Office, but then go on to find a cult following on DVD.  As far as I'm aware, 'Reign of Fire' hasn’t done either - which is a shame in my opinion, as it's pretty good fun - for what it is.  Maybe it's because it's got dragons in it and I always found them pretty cool, especially as villains.  Basically, while digging deep under London, a team of engineers accidentally awakens a dragon, who then goes on to re-populate the world with thousands others like him.  And our new winged companions don't seem to like sharing the planet with us!

All that happens in about the opening ten minutes (including convenient exposition monologue during the opening titles) and we soon find ourselves in a stricken, apocalyptic world where humans are forced to hide for fear of being burned to a cinder.  One such settlement is led by a (pre-Batman) Christian Bale and a (pre-anything of note) Gerard Butler).  They're just about managing to keep their colony happy and hidden, doing their best to 'outlast' the winged beasties who now rule the world, when a bunch of Americans (led by a practically-unrecognisable Matthew McConaughey) descends on them, claiming to have the answer to the dragon invasion.

As I say, it's enjoyable - for what it is.  It's one of those films where if you go into it expecting something amazing, you'll leave disappointed.  Whereas if you know what you're getting (and the film's flaws) then you should be forgiving enough to just go with it and actually have quite a good time.  First of all the actors all play their parts well - possibly Mathew McConaughey’s crazy marine being the most notable of the leads.  And the special effects are also pretty up to scratch.  You're never going to realistically portray a world ravaged by dragons without using major CGI and it all looks good.

But on to, what I consider, to possibly be why 'Reign of Fire' isn't remembered by the majority.  It's probably down to the story, or rather 'story structure.' Basically, it's a bit all over the place.  It speeds up, slows down and never really knows whether it wants to be a gritty and realistic take on an apocalyptic future, or an all-out action epic.  Then there's the ending.  It's the one things that always stuck with me about the film - right from when I first watched it in the cinema, to every time I re-watch it on DVD.  It just sort of ends.  I always wondered whether the film-makers ran out of money and therefore had to scale down the ending for budgetary reasons.  I would say that a film like this deserves a big pay-off at the end, but it doesn't really happen.  You get the pay-off, but just not as 'epic' as the preceding hour and a half has promised.

So, if you're prepared for the negative as well as the excellent special effects (for the time and budget) it's a harmless enough little fantasy-action film which may well have been passed over by the masses, but definitely deserves a little more love that it got at the time.

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

Lake Placid - The script saves the day

Monster movies come and go and most are totally generic and even more forgettable.  They're all: big monster eats cast.  Roll credits.  And yet 'Lake Placid' is as much fun to watch today as it was back in 2000 when it was first released.  And, that is simply down to one thing: the script.  Oh, and the cast is actually pretty good, too - maybe I should have said its success is down to TWO things.

Again, monster-munching movies are well-known for having absolutely no recognisable actors, therefore leaving us viewers with no real connection with those we see disappearing down a mutated woodlouse's throat.  I won't call 'Lake Placid's' cast 'A-list,' but they're actually pretty recognisable.  We have Bill Pullman in the lead - he's been in loads of stuff (feel free to Google for exact examples), Bridget Fonda, who's quite famous and has been in a couple of successful films back in the nineties, Brendan Gleeson who you remember from... oh, that film where he pops up.  And Oliver Platt, who you also know from somewhere.  So, they're hardly The Avengers in terms of an ensemble cast, but, again I stress this is just a B-movie, so it's a reasonably respectable gathering.

Although, even if you haven't got a clue who any of those actors are, you should appreciate the script.  Again, it's hardly anything new in terms of monster movies.  You have an oversize crocodile who's found its way to Maine in the US and is now chomping its way through the local wildlife (including background extras and peripheral characters).

The script oozes self-knowingness and satarises itself. 'Lake Placid' knows it's a cheesy B-movie and never tries to be anything else.  It's packed with tonnes of 'jokes' which will make you laugh, most of which come from the banter and bickering between the main leads.  They may not be The Avengers in terms of 'star power,' but they have the bond which makes their combined interactions work perfectly.

There are a few deaths in the film and, yes, they are quite grisly, but at no time would I ever call this movie a 'horror.' It's too self-knowing and funny to be horror - more a 'black comedy' than anything else.  And, it's worth mentioning that the special effects are actually pretty good.  Yes, the croc isn't real and therefore is probably a mixture of practical effects and CGI, but it does work and you'll probably be having enough fun with the film not to care if occasionally the cow looks a little 'super-imposed' (you'll have to watch the film to see what I mean with that one!).

Like I say, if you're looking for a simple and fun monster film then this is the template others should use when considering the genre.  It's held up perfectly today in terms of entertainment factor and deserves its place as a 'cult classic' (just don't get me started on the numerous sequels that it spawned and I'm guessing some may take issue with how Bridget Fonda's female character is hardly as 'empowered' as we may be used to today).

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Army of Darkness - Bruce is back!

'Evil Dead.' The original 'video nasty.' 'Evil Dead II.' The half sequel, half remake, three quarters reboot of the original 'video nasty.' 'Army of Darkness.' The sequel to one ending of the remake of 'Evil Dead' which sort of follows on, but also kind of creates a new continuity which then gets erased depending on which version you watch and then how you interpret what follows in 'Ash vs The Evil Dead.' Confused yet?  It doesn't matter.  Basically, if you're a fan of cheesy horror-comedies (or just love Bruce Campbell as much as I do) then you'll have a blast with 'Army of Darkness.' Despite 'The Evil Dead' franchise's 'liberal' attitude to continuity, no one seems to care.  That's probably because its fan-base is just so damn loyal that they forgive these frequent lapses in story-telling and simply enjoy the films (and now TV show) for what they are - dumb, silly - and very, very gory - fun.

'Army of Darkness' carries on this tradition.  Yes, you probably should have watched at least 'Evil Dead II,' but this (sort of) third instalment will hardly punish you for not knowing its entire back story.  Basically, a man gets trapped in medieval times and has to fight his way back to the present.  However, it just so happens that the man in question has just so happened to have a lot of experience in slaying disgusting monsters and manages to do it without the use of a hand and an array of dry quips (and a shotgun - that comes in pretty handy, too).  Yes, it's none other than 'Ash,' played effortlessly by Bruce Campbell.

If you've never heard of Ash/Bruce Campbell, it's actually quite hard to tell where one ends and the other begins (assuming they're different people to begin with).  He's certainly not your average hero.  He's definitely not politically correct and fits perfectly with the whole 'Evil Dead' feel of gore and gags.  It never takes itself seriously and delights in spraying more unnecessary pints of blood all over the screen for as long as possible (most of which ends up on Bruce one way or another!).

I suppose if you're completely used to 'modern horror' and like your films 'dark, gritty and realistic' then you may hate 'Army of Darkness' (and the whole 'Evil Dead' vibe).  The special effects are pretty cheap-looking (not much computer-generated effects here, mainly blue screen and practical effects).  It's hardly scary, choosing self-knowingness over true horror.  But it certainly is disgusting.  And great fun.  There's a reason why the 'Evil Dead' films have stood the test of time (and why its dark and gritty remake of 2013 is barely worth talking about). 'Army of Darkness' is a shining example of a great film that can be made without the need for a massive budget (although, compared to the original 'Evil Dead's' budget, I guess 'Army of Darkness' was 'expensive!'

Hail to the king of B-movies and the whole 'Evil Dead' franchise.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

The Circle - A star-studded 'Black Mirror'

The darkly sci-fi TV show 'Black Mirror' is well known for its weekly plots showing us various 'What if?' scenarios regarding the use (or rather MIS-use!) of modern technology in the near future. 'The Circle' feels like it kind of belongs in the 'Black Mirror' universe, although possibly the main 'What if?' question I asked was, 'What if Black Mirror could afford A-list actors for an episode?'

In 'The Circle' a young woman (Emily Watson) joins a tech company which is pretty much a hybrid of Google, Facebook and Apple.  Everyone who works there is ultra dedicated to the corporate mantra and barely leave the 'campus' as everything they could ever want is at their fingertips.  It's headed up by the Steve Jobs-esque mogul, played effortlessly by Tom Hanks.  He charming, enigmatic and a natural leader who you can get behind due to his ultra-inspiring rhetoric.  But is he a good guy?  Our young and naïve intern (or 'guppy' as new employees are 'lovingly' referred to as!) soon realises that there's more going on than she had first thought.

The reason I'm dwelling on how much I felt like this was like part of the 'Black Mirror' series, is that some episodes of the show I liked and some I didn't.  It seemed my personal preference towards the TV show was based on how quickly I 'got' what they were trying to say.  If they managed to keep the show's true meaning a secret until the end, therefore giving some - even small - 'twist element' to the story then I found it left more of a lasting impact on me.  However, there were some episodes where it was painfully obvious what they were saying right from the start and, once you knew where it was going, you could almost write the rest of the tale yourself.  Unfortunately, despite 'The Circle's' great cast and fine performances (although if you thought that John Boyega was criminally-underused in 'The Last Jedi' then you won't appreciate the minimal screen time he's given here) you kind of can see what they're trying to say here and therefore where the film will go.

I certainly didn't hate 'The Circle.' The calibre of actors on show, plus the stylish was it was shot and the attempt to actually say something relevant about society and the effects modern technology is having on us and where we may go with it, made it worth a watch.  However, with all that it had going for it, I would have liked to see it going a little further and being a little less predictable with its story.

I haven't read the book it was based on, so I can't compare the two.  However, I understand that it wasn't as well-received during its US theatrical release as the producers would have liked.  I guess one indication of what you should expect from this film is the fact that the film-makers then chose not to give it a UK cinema release, instead opting for a 'straight-to-Netflix' launch.  of course if you have the popular streaming service then you're technically getting it as part of your subscription, in which case, you should probably add it to your ‘watch-list.’

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

Bubba Ho-Tep - Hail to the King, Elvis

In case you weren't already aware, but Elvis 'The King' Presley lives.  In fact, he's an elderly gentleman spending his twilight years in an old people's home.  And John F Kennedy is also a resident there, too.  And JFK is black.  And they're about to get their souls sucked out of them by an undead runaway mummy from Egypt if they're not careful.  No, seriously.  Or at least in (the bizarrely-titled) 'Bubba Ho-Tep' they are anyway.

Yes, the film's premise is just about as 'out there' as it's title is hard to decipher (I'm not even going to try - there's some text at the beginning of the film that does a better job).  So, if that brief plot summary appeals to you then you should have absolutely love this film.  I did.

I guess I was always predisposed to loving 'Bubba Ho-Tep' as Elvis is played (to perfection, I might add) by legendary B-movie star Bruce Campbell.  However, instead of fighting the undead with a chainsaw and 'boom-stick,' here he's a little more handicapped with only a zimmer-frame and faulty plumbing keeping his soul from being lost forever. 

If you think that Bruce Campbell 'carries' the 'Evil Dead' franchise (then you're probably right), but the point I'm making is that this film would probably be nothing without him and his portrayal of Elvis.  He plays 'the King' as a retrospective character, now in the twilight of his years and looking back over the mistakes he made and wishing there was a way of atoning for all the years he'd wasted on chasing fame when there were more important things to concentrate on - like family.

Elvis' partner in crime (and only other person who actually believes he's really the king of rock and roll) is former president, John F Kennedy, played by Ossie Davis.  If you're wondering why a black man is playing JFK then you'll have to watch the film to find out!.  Either way, Davis does very well, but his character isn't given quite as much screen time as Campbell's, meaning he's always going to be second best to 'the chin.'

Bubba Ho-Tep' was always destined to be a 'cult' film.  It's title is obscure and was never likely to interest the masses.  Just like the subject matter is hardly going to get the public flocking to the cinema (was it ever even released in the cinema?  I certainly don't remember hearing about it here in the UK!).  But, whether you're a die-hard fan of Bruce (like myself), or just fancy a film that doesn't contain superheroes flying around New York, then you should give this one a go.  It's got horror.  It's got comedy.  It's got originality.  And, best of all, it has Bruce.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

The Death of Stalin - So many British Russians

I've been a fan of Armando Iannucci ever since his early satirical 'Friday Night Armistice' shows making fun of political events.  He's always displayed a wry take on modern life which has showed through in his own shows and, of course 'The Thick of It.' Therefore, I watched 'The Death of Stalin' simply to continue watching his output.  Now, having seen it, I am left feeling a little disappointed, but I can't help but think that's it's my fault.

I studied post Second World War history, but only the WESTERN aspects to it, i.e. European and American.  I knew little of what was going on in the Soviet Union, only that the 'Cold War' kicked off and the Russians were always the baddies in the Bond films.  As the title suggests the story charts the last days (or even hours!) of Soviet dictator's Stalin's life and then the subsequent power struggle which ensued from all his deputies and surrounding high-ranking staff.

There's quite a large cast and, impressively, they're all played by excellent actors (mainly recognisable faces from British film and TV output, but you also have Steve Buscemi and Jeffrey Tambor in there somewhere).  Each of these plays the part of a real-life person from Stalin's inner circle.  And, just to help out those of us (like me!) who know nothing about this aspect of history, they all get their own caption reminding us who they are and what they do in Stalin's dictatorship.  However, despite these clues, they didn't go far to help me understanding who they are, what they do, or what their political motivations are.

I get the feeling that if I knew about the real events which inspired this film, I'd be able to watch it and therefore point knowingly at the screen from time to time and say 'Ah, Michael Palin is playing so-and-so.  He was responsible for this, that or the other in Stalin's regime.' However, seeing as I know nothing about anything relating to this time period, all I could say was, 'Oh, that's Michael Palin.  He was good in Monty Python.'

Then there were the accents.  Yes, I know this is possibly the most 'pickiest' of flaws that anyone can find in a movie.  But, because 90% of the cast were British (and therefore come from all over the country) they all speak with various (British!) accents.  I know that not every actor is gifted with the ability of putting on a convincing Russian accent, but it just felt really weird to me watching someone with a northern accent pretending to be a Russian cabinet minister.  For example, because Steve Buscemi doesn't try to disguise his natural US accent, I thought he was some sort of American ambassador to the government, until I realised he was part of it.

The cast is excellent.  They're clearly all having fun and you can see they're all having a good time working on this story.  And, if you know even a tiny bit about the historical events behind it, you should love it as much as I wished I did.  However, for me, personally, I just couldn't seem to get behind it, no matter how good the cast is.  Just check out the general ratings for the film - they're pretty high.  If you're wondering whether to watch the film or not, I think you should definitely go with their views over mine.  Sorry, Armando - but, don't worry, I'll still watch everything you go on to write.

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

Leatherface - Unnecessary remake #608

Many of us horror-lovers took a sick enjoyment out of the homicidal antics of a certain faceless, chainsaw-wielding Redneck serial killer from 'middle America' back in the seventies when we first met him in 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.' Naturally, our - the public's - weird fascination with him meant that he was featured prominently in one sub-standard sequel after the next.  Despite the character still 'selling' the franchise, less and less people got excited by what followed the original 'shocker/slasher.' The 2003 Michael Bay remake wasn't bad, but divided long-term fans.  However, no matter how much people enjoy seeing 'Leatherface' slice and dice his way through hordes of screaming teens, I never actually heard anyone asking the question: 'What was he like as a child?' (think about what the public reaction was to the 'Halloween' remake which delved into Michael Myers' adolescent backstory!).

Here, surprise surprise, we meet our future nut-job as a wee young child and get a brief inclination of how, growing up in a family who eat people and actively promote cutting up dinner guests with a chainsaw, may end up damaging young minds.  The film is effectively a whistle-stop tour of the boy's life, from how he gets taken away from his family to a - supposedly - 'safer' establishment, only for it to yet warp his mind further.

Yes, this story is not only not what anyone was asking for and merely - yet another - cheap cash-in on an established brand, but it's also pretty dull.  There's little you need to know or see here if you're a fan of the franchise and, if you're looking for gore, scares and/or creative death scenes - then you won't find any of that here.  Instead you simply get 'horror 101' displaying every tried and tested technique to get even a slight scare out of its audience.

I didn't enjoy it.  And I know it may sound like a stupid thing to say, based on the fact that the film is named after one of the most evil and therefore unlikable characters in screen history, but there is a total lack of sympathetic characters to root for.  I know there are a couple of 'heroes' who we're supposed to feel for their plight, but they're just too damn generic and uninteresting to care for.

If you're a fan of the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' then just watch that.  If you think it looks a little old and outdated then watch the 2003 remake (it's actually not as bad as some people made out!).  This is simply a horror film that doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as a film which - kind of - started the 'slasher' genre which still goes strong today.

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

Moulin Rouge - Spectacular!  Spectacular!

I know it's a terribly stereotypical thing to say, but many guys prefer cyborgs smashing into each other and car chases through Tokyo over a musical about the 'merits of love.' I am definitely the former.  In fact, most of the titles in my DVD collection ends with the phrase '...of the Living Dead.' However - and it's a BIG 'however' - I will make a massive exception for 'Moulin Rouge.'

I'm certainly not a fan of musicals in general (and I'm sure 'South Park: The Movie' doesn't count as one, despite having plenty of songs contained within), so I'm not sure why I love 'Moulin Rouge' so much.  It's set a hundred years or so ago in Paris when a penniless writer (Ewan McGregor) falls in love with a beautiful courtesan (Nicole Kidman) in the - kind of infamous - nightclub, the Moulin Rouge.  Naturally, true love never runs smooth and the pair have plenty of highs and lows along the way.

I suppose it helps that I'm a fan of Ewan McGregor (who can sing probably better than you imagine!) and, possibly what aided this musicals place in my heart was the fact that all the songs they sing are actually 'modern day' songs which work surprisingly well for what is - effectively - a 'period piece.' Nicole Kidman also deserves a nod for her singing voice, although I'm not a massive fan, but she did everything she had to well enough.  Although, the two definitely do have chemistry, even leading to rumours of being ‘more than just friends’ off-screen, too!

Although however much you like or dislike the film's leads, what often gets talked about more than who's in the production is the way it's directed.  It truly is a film student's dream to watch.  Baz Luhrmann does a fantastic (and most of all creative!) job at bringing this old tale to life and injecting more energy than Renton every experienced from 'jabbing a vein' in 'Trainspotting.' The songs/dances are the true definition of 'high energy' and the whole film is awash with vibrant colours and glamour.

The supporting cast are also good: John Leguizamo does well for a 'normal-size' man playing a dwarf and therefore acting (and dancing!) on his knees.  Jim Broadbent always stood out for me and definitely deserves a nod.  The film's primary antagonist is Richard Roxburgh, who, in my opinion, is delightfully campy as the villain.  However, I did hear that he took a lot of criticism for his performance and some saw him as the film's 'weakest point.' I guess he does chew up the scenery in some places, but in a film so over-the-top as this, I couldn't really tell the difference.

Overall, there's nothing really new here in terms of storytelling.  After all… the 'boy meets girl' story is a tale as old as time.  However, it's not the story that stands out, but HOW it's told.  You definitely don't have to be a fan of musicals to appreciate the volume of energy and love that's gone into making this.  It really is a spectacle to observe.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather