Echelon Conspiracy - Eagle Eye meets the Bourne something-or-other

If you've seen either `Eagle Eye' or one of the `Bourne' films then you've basically seen a better version of `Echelon Conspiracy.' It's not a bad film, just not quite as good as the ones it was based on. It has a decent enough cast to elevate it above most of the B-movie thrillers, but it's nothing we haven't seen before, i.e. it's a `chase movie.'

Shane West plays... whoever is going to be chased by... whichever shady agency is after him. Therefore, he gets chased from one European city to the next, narrowly escaping each time. Until such time as he can bring the perpetrator to justice.

The first half doesn't contain an awful lot of chasing and, in my opinion, it's actually better for it. There's an air of mystery about it where you don't know what's going to happen and it is quite tense in places. However, the second half is where the action/chases take place and so it feels a bit like we've seen it all before.

If you're in the mood for a Boune clone of a movie then you could do worse than this.

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

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger - Not bad and not as ‘rom-com’ as you may may expect

I hate romantic comedies.  However, despite ‘You Will Meet a Tall, Dark Stranger’ looking and sounding like a romantic comedy, there isn’t that much romance in there.  Or at least what little romance there is comes a noticeable second place to the comedy element.  Especially as most of the couples who make up the 'ensemble cast' seem to be falling OUT of love, rather than falling IN love!

I haven’t seen as many Woody Allen films as I probably should have, so I can’t really compare how this one rates against the bulk of his others.  But I can tell you that it’s about a family in London and their various relationships, all of which are due to run into some major turbulence of one type or another.  I can also mention that the script is pretty sharp.  There is a lot of narration which I’m not sure how necessary it is.  The film does tend to tell you a lot of what’s going to happen before it happens.  This could be considered ‘lazy film-making’ as it ‘tells’ rather than ‘shows.’ However, it does speed a lot of things on.  The film isn’t overly-long and it does seem to be pretty well-trimmed, keeping all the best bits in, instead of dragging the run-time out with a load of unnecessary scenes.

The ‘ensemble’ cast all play their parts well.  Of course you could say that one drawback from having a lot of great characters in a short film means that none of them are really ‘fleshed-out’ enough.  But, they all turn in one excellent performance after the next.

I’m not sure whether this is a ‘spoiler’ or just common sense, but, if you’re expecting everything to turn out ‘happy ever after’ for absolutely everyone on screen, then you may be deluding yourself.  Because there’s so many characters, it would be madness to assume that everyone will be totally happy with the way things have turned out by the time the credits roll.  From my interpretation of the ending, only one couple truly gets an 'end.' The other stories are just kind of left as they are and it's up to you to decide how they will live, i.e. happily every after or otherwise..

So, enjoy the comedy, don’t expect too much romance, as the film centres on human nature rather than constantly showing us instances where couples fall in love, only to break up straight away, simply because the plot dictates that they must.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Hot Shots: Part Deux - So much silly fun

Aliens, Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, Terminator 2, Hot Shots: Part Deux.' Yes, that's a strange final entry into that list of recognised classic movies.  However, it deserves to be alongside the others for one reason - it's a sequel that's widely regarded as one that's actually better than the original (no offense to 'Alien!').

There's been a wave in recent years of movies that are simple parodies of one (or a mash-up of multiple similar stories) film.  Recently, you can tell the type as they traditionally end in '…Movie,' i.e. 'Date Movie, Scary Movie, Disaster Movie.' These basically take the plot to an original film and then add prat-falls and fart jokes to the script and pass it off as a comedy.  These can be hit or miss (and mainly miss lately!), but the humour and style of film can arguably be traced back to the 'Airplane' films of the eighties (when it was actually original and funny!).  Then came the two 'Hot Shots' films which were the brainchild behind the 'Airplane' franchise and could possibly be the last great spoof/parody films made.

The original 'Hot Shots' film was a blatantly spoof of 'Top Gun,' whereas the sequel is clearly based on a 'Rambo' movie (and similar 80s action blockbusters where one man takes on an entire army).  Here, Charlie Sheen reprises his role as Topper Harley to go to Iraq and save a load of American hostages from - then the go-to 'bad guy' - Saddam Hussain.

Everything here is 'played straight' and every actor has a 'deadpan expression' as the gags are delivered.  And the gags do come thick and fast.  It seemed that 'Hot Shots: Part Deux' actually had a go at parodying the genre, rather than relying on jokes based around bodily functions and people falling over.  Of course you don't have to have watched a load of action movies to appreciate the silliness of this film.  It's light-hearted and, although some of the more 'pop culture-related' jokes haven't aged well (I wonder what the youth of today will make of the 'Gladiator' visual gag near the end of the film?) most still land (including the much hyped 'chicken gag').

Sadly, these days most people can't think of Charlie Sheen without recalling his - rather public - meltdown, so the 'Hot Shots' films are a prime example of him in his heyday.  Not only was he absolutely beefed up to play this part physically, his comic timing was perfect and he totally carries this film, almost to the detriment of his co-stars.  Valeria Golino is the 'love interest' and also plays every joke in the same deadpan way and yet doesn't come off quite as comfortable in doing so as Sheen.  There are other characters in the film, but they're kind of wasted as they only get a few good lines here and there (Miguel Ferrer and Ryan Stiles).  The only other two actors who are really allowed to shine are Lloyd Bridges and Rowan Atkinson whose screen-time amounts to mere extended cameos.

Ultimately, if you like your spoof/parody movies then this is as good today as it ever was.  It's the perfect movie to relax your brain to and it's a shame that Sheen probably isn't in a good way to ever go about turning the two movies into a trilogy.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Machete Kills - Put your brain on hold and just enjoy

Okay, if you didn’t know... ‘Machete Kills’ is the sequel to a film that was born out of a spoof trailer for a deliberately awful action film (also known as ‘grindhouse’ to some). Therefore, this is supposed to be stupid, dumb, low-brow and deliberately cheesy.

And it does all of that and more.

You should probably track down the trailer for the original film and watch it. Then, if you decide it’s your cup of tea, then it probably is. It’s about the titular character ‘Machete’ who gets roped into another quest of bloodthirsty, violent revenge and retribution. Expect plenty of hacking up of hundreds of faceless minions at the hands of our Mexican anti-hero (not to mention some stunning women thrown into the mix).

If you like big, dumb action epics then you can’t go far wrong here. However, if you’re into deep and meaningful dialogue, mixed with intricate character arcs and clever plot twists then this is probably not for you.

The only criticism that certain fans of the original have been making have been that the Machete franchise seems to have strayed genres slightly. The original was a straight out action adventure, whereas this one seems to borrow heavily from the spy/Bond blueprint. Personally, I just enjoyed the ride, but some took it a bit too seriously.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Rabid - Not bad, but not all good

Being a David Cronenberg fan, I was really looking forward to seeing ‘Rabid.’ Granted I’ve left it a bit late, watching it after pretty much all his other films.  And perhaps that was the wrong way to do it.  Basically, I preferred his other stuff.  Although that’s not to say that Rabid isn’t without its shades of goodness.

It’s a zombie film.  Nothing new there these days, but, in the seventies, the undead were still a rarity.  Okay, so the purists will shout how these ‘zombies’ aren’t really zombies, but, like with films such as ’28 Days Later’ the principal is the same, i.e. you get bitten, you turn into one.  Here, a young woman suffers a horrific motorcycle accident and, during the experimental surgery to save her, she contracts a disease (much like rabies) which makes her hungry to bite people (albeit with a weird extra spike protruding from her – you’ll have to watch the film to see what I mean by that, as it’s a little hard to describe!).

Basically, it’s a slow burner.  Don’t expect any ‘Dawn of the Dead’ type action sequences to move it along.  The first half was actually a little too slow for my liking, but I am glad I stuck with it, as the true ‘horror’ of the situation is cranked up in the second act.  You actually get some pretty hard hitting scenes that are quite bleak and nasty if you’re prepared to wait for them, as the authorities find the disease pretty hard to contain.

All performances are functional.  None of the actors really stand out too much.  You’ll have to remember that it was the seventies when this was made, so ‘attractiveness’ wasn’t high up on the list of requisites for male acting leads.  The actress at the centre of it all – if you believe the trivia surrounding the film – was picked due to her good looks over other actresses deemed better at their trade, but lacking in the ‘bombshell’ qualities.

So, if you’re looking for a slow-burning blast-from-the-past with a decent amount of gore and creepiness in the latter stages, give this a go.  Personally, I preferred Cronenberg’s Shivers, Videodrome, Scanners and The Fly, but I didn’t regret at least seeing Rabid.

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

Dead Set - So good (on so many levels)

It’s amazing to think that there was ever a time where ‘zombie movies’ weren’t completely mainstream.  Nowadays you can find a dozen of films that all end ‘…of the living dead’ in ever bargain bin of DVDs (or if you scroll down the ‘horror’ section of various online streaming services).  Now the market has been totally oversaturated and we probably all know what to do in the event of an undead uprising.  However, all those years ago in 2008, even though zombies had started to make a comeback, there weren’t that many of their number out there (besides the classic Romero franchise, ‘Resident Evil’ lot and ’28 Days Later’).  Maybe that’s why the UK’s TV miniseries ‘Dead Set’ worked so well.

Maybe if you’re new to it a
nd watched it today, you may not see what all the fuss was about and consider it just another movie in the zombie genre.  However, if – like me – you watched reality TV take over our TVs in the early 2000s and wanted to make a protest about how every programme seemed to come complete with a ‘public phone vote’ then ‘Dead Set’ provided the ultimate (metaphorical) ‘two-fingered salute.’

If you love zombie movies then you should definitely watch this.  However, if you love zombie movies, hate reality TV and are from the UK with at least a basic knowledge of ‘Big Brother’ then you’re going to get so much more out of it.  First of all, if you’re lucky enough to still believe that ‘Big Brother’ is something to do with the excellent George Orwell book, then you’re in for a shock.  The term has now been forever associated with a reality TV show of the same name where a group of fame-hungry idiots sit in a specially-built studio/house and perform tasks for us – the viewers’ – entertainment.  Then we can phone in to say which one gets the boot from week to week.  Anyway, while such a group of wannabes are incarcerated for our enjoyment, the dead begin to rise.

The cast all do well.  Some are more developed than others, but at least it isn't too clear who's going to end up as 'zombie chow' and who's going to live happily ever after.  There aren't any big star-power names here and you'll probably be saying things like, 'Oh, I know him from that other show...' But, like I say, they all do well and you'll eventually root for - at least some of - them in their plight to defend their sanctuary from the undead hordes.

Now, many zombie movies never really go to great lengths to explain exactly why the dead are returning to life and attacking the living.  They just do. ‘Dead Set’ is no different, so don’t go expecting anything other than it happens and the world goes to hell.  However, our housemates are blissfully unaware of the apocalypse happening outside their walls – until it’s literally beating their doors down.
One of the main reasons George A Romero’s zombie films have help up over the years is because he often mixes social commentary with his horror.  Here, ‘Dead Set’ does that perfectly as its writer Charlie Brooker is a television pundit and has always been a fan of the zombie genre (even using ‘Dawn of the Dead’s ‘Gonk Song’) in many of his TV shows.  His scathing commentary on the state of reality TV and those who thirst for it is there for all to see.

But, you don’t have to simply hate reality TV (as much as I do!) to appreciate ‘Dead Set.’ It really does offer everything from social commentary, satire, gore and humour.  I wouldn’t claim it’s that scary, but it’s definitely a worthy addition to the genre.  It’s probably worth noting that some ‘zombie purists’ believe that zombies should never run under any circumstances.  Therefore, you should probably be warned that these creatures are the ‘running type’ made most popular in ’28 Days Later.’ In fact, ‘Dead Set’ is filmed in that same ‘gorilla-style’ way of filming that ’28 Days Later’ employed, making the whole thing feel like a spin-off that’s happening at the same time as the events in the film.  Anyway, that’s just a by-the-way point.  If you don’t mind running-zombies, you should love this.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

After the Sunset - Just pure entertainment

I've watched 'After the Sunset' about four times now, so I think it's fair to say that I enjoy it.  Does that make it the 'greatest film ever?' Certainly not.  I'm sure you can pick it apart and find a million flaws if you're really in the mood.  However, if you're just looking for something fun and that you just want to watch and enjoy then you really can't go wrong with this one.

A pair of 'criminals in love,' i.e. Pierce Brosnan and Salma Hayek, make their living stealing precious jewels, until they finally decide to retire after carrying out their 'final score.' However, despite getting away with the goods, their operation involves completely blindsiding (and therefore humiliating) FBI agent, Woody Harrelson.  Therefore, when our 'Bonnie and Clyde' of the 2000s think they've got away scot free to tropical pastures, they don't bank on their former FBI victim locating them and bearing one major grudge about proving their guilt. 

Some films bounce around from genre to genre and can often feel a bit messy, like it never really knows what it's trying to be.  You could probably accuse 'After the Sunset' of this, as it happily flips from being a light-hearted comedy, to a heist movie, some action, thrills and even some romance thrown in there for good measure.  But, for some reason, no sub-genre ever really feels out of place and it all works under the banner I keep using of 'entertainment.'

As I said, you could probably pick apart a lot of the movie's plot, or - like me - you could just sit back and enjoy the performances.  Whether you're here to see the romantic/s3xual chemistry between Pierce Brosnan and Salma Hayek, or the more comedic banter between Brosnan and Woody Harrelson, it all works and makes for a really fun time.  I feel it's also worth mentioning the two members of the cast who could be described as 'supporting,' namely Don Cheadle Naomie Harris - both of whom are great actors in their own right and you could say that they were underused and their characters don't get as much 'development' as they probably deserve, but they play their parts well with what they've been given.

I mentioned some of the various genres that 'After the Sunset' fits into (from time to time) and if you're a fan of any of them and are generally looking for a simple and fun movie to relax to after work then you can't go far wrong with this one.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation – Still as much fun

I remember renting ‘National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation’ from a video store back in the late eighties and again in the early nineties (until I figured it was simply more convenient and cost effective to buy a VHS copy and watch it whenever I want).  I was young at the time and clearly loved its slightly dumb, cheesy humour (plus I was a fan of the two previous ‘Vacation’ films, but you don’t actually have to have watched either of those to watch this one – you’ll just not be one of us who get confused at the repeated new casting of the kids, Audrey and Rusty).  However, for some reason, the film didn’t survive my eventual binning of my tapes and buying everything again on DVD.  Therefore, I was delighted when a popular online streaming service put it on their schedule in time for the festive season.

It was only now did I realise how much I must have watched it back when I was young, as I knew the script practically word for word.  So, in short, I still loved it and was in nostalgia heaven.  And I could almost leave the review there if it wasn’t for the fact that I was watching it now with my girlfriend who had never seen it before in her life.  She hated it.

Therefore, I was sort of forced to re-evaluate it and, although I maintain my love for it, try to see what some people may find wrong with it.  Yes, the jokes are dumb.  It’s sort of like the ‘American Pie’ of its generation.  It’s definitely not high-brown entertainment and you have to accept that you’re going to be watching a buffoon at work when it comes to the central character, played by Chevy Chase, Clark Griswold.  I guess it could be said that some people may simply find him too annoying and stupid to root for.

I suppose a few of the gags do fall a little flat and just as many are predictable, but then by now most adults will have seen so many comedy films by now that they can see ‘old humour’ coming a mile off.  There was actually more profanity in this than I remember, including one ‘F-bomb’ which does mean that the film may be more unsuitable for ‘all’ the family than I remember.

I suppose it’s quite tame and, because of its age, has a feeling of being done before.  However, I still maintain that, overall, it’s stood the test of time reasonably well and should still pick up a few new fans here and there (especially in terms of good/funny Christmas movies).  You’ll definitely get more out of it if, like me, you have nostalgia on your side, but even my girlfriend had to admit that Randy Quaid was a joy to watch.  Although, she still maintained that the (seldom-used) neighbours got all of the best gags!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Chicago - Quite good (for a musical)

First, let me say that I’m no fan of musicals and that they’re my least favourite form of film genre.  Therefore, me watching ‘Chicago’ was something I found myself being forced into doing.  I sat down expecting to totally despise it the way I did with others I had to endure such as the ‘Mamma Mia’ torturous offerings.  However, I was actually pleasantly surprised!

No, I’m not suddenly a convert to the genre, but I found enough to enjoy in the film not to want to blow my brains out before the title card had even been displayed.  My main reason for hating musicals is because I like the story and find it dull having to wait for the acting side of the movie to start up again while we watch the singing and dancing (no matter how skilled and talented the performers are).  And, yes, ‘Chicago’ also ‘slows down’ (in my opinion, obviously) while we’re treated to the (yes, excellent – I’m not beyond appreciating how much work goes into the singing/dancing) musical interludes.  But, no matter how much the songs dragged for me, I was pretty blown away by the sheer visual flair of how it was presented.

The singing and dancing could have been awful (it was good) and yet I would still enjoy watching the film’s direction.  The way they wove the songs into the narrative using clever editing techniques made the experience enjoyable – even for someone as bitter over the genre as I am.
Of course much has been made of the two main leads, i.e. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellwegger and, yes, again I have to concede that they are amazing in what they do.

If you like musicals then you will definitely love ‘Chicago.’ I probably will never watch it again, but the fact that I could bring myself to find even a little enjoyment out of it is testament to how good it is.  Although, story-wise, I did find myself questioning the whole ‘moral’ aspect of the story itself.  It’s about women who kill people and are sent to prison, only to spend their time trying to find the best way to get themselves out of trouble and even make something out of the whole mess.  I won’t go into ‘spoiler’ territory, but I was quite surprised by the ending.  Still – good and stylish direction won me over.

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

Death Wish (1978) - The original (and best!)

Okay, so there have probably been other 'revenge' films made before 1974's 'Death Wish,' but this is the film that really set the genre alight and possibly brought it more into the mainstream.  Maybe because the story is so simple?  A man loses his family to a gang of street thugs and decides to deal out his own brand of 'justice.' Also, Charles Bronson had been around for a while in Hollywood, normally playing a tough dependable character (soldier or cowboy I believe), but, again, this is the film that cemented him into true popular culture as the film's protagonist, the reluctant vigilante, Paul Kersey. 

Perhaps the best thing about 'Death Wish' is that it's a story where the main character has an 'arc' for his journey.  He doesn't start off an outright 'bada$$' and he's not a particularly physically intimidating specimen of a man (in the way the eighties action stars like Stallone and Schwarzenegger might be considered).  He's an easy-going guy who despises violence and is only pushed into his new role through a series of tragic circumstances.  It's certainly Charles Bronson's defining film and he carries it all the way.

Although many of us will shed no tears as the muggers and assorted criminals start dropping like flies, the film never really glamourises violence and does as good a job as possible to present the other side of the argument that two wrongs don't make a right and that we should be leaving the handling of criminals to the proper authorities, i.e. the police.

This whole 'revenge' formula has been used to varying degrees of success throughout the years, but 'Death Wish' will always stand the test of time as the original, most gritty (and realistic for the time - how Kersey would get on today with the culture of camera phones and CCTV is best left addressed by the - questionable - 2018 remake of the same name) and definitely best.  It's a slow burner and don't expect too much in the way of action scenes (it's not really an outright action movie - that honour would probably be bestowed on 'Part III'), but it definitely still holds up today in terms of cinema history.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

American Assassin – Bourne TNG

I have to confess to not knowing that much about ‘American Assassin’s’ roots, i.e. the series of books it was based on, and generally sat down to watch it due to it having Michael Keaton in it, following his cultural resurgence of late.  Without knowing any more than the title hinted at, I was pretty much shocked right off the bat.

It’s actually quite a lot more violent than I was anticipating.  There are some scenes that are scarily realistic and really do go a long way to convey the sense of terror the victims must be experiencing (and this is just in the opening ten minutes!).  A young man loses a loved one in a terrorist attack and sets about seeking revenge on the group responsible.  Only, somewhere along the way, the CIA decides to recruit him for a more ‘traditional’ method at dealing with the ‘bad guys.’

I found I had mixed feelings about the film.  The opening is certainly not for the faint-hearted and I thought I was in for one hell of an ‘adult ride.’ However, it kind of slows down after that and descends into one suspension of disbelief after the next.  I could sort of buy that the most organised espionage agency in the world would feel the need to recruit a completely ‘self-taught’ protégé, but the fact that he quickly becomes more trusted and powerful than the entire organisation put together seemed a little too much.  I felt you had to take so much of the story with a pinch of salt that only cinema-goers who weren’t really familiar with the genre could believe what they were seeing, i.e. teens.

However, just when I was settled into the mindset that I was destined to spend the next couple of hours watching ‘Jason Bourne for the next generation,’ that initial violence cropped up again and I was left wondering who this whole film was aimed at.

Overall, it’s not a bad film if you’re into yet another spy vs terrorist movie.  There’s action, the young star will probably go a long way and Michael Keaton was as good as I expected in the grizzled CIA trainer responsible for turning our young protagonist into the best killing machine in the West.  I think I need to watch it again and put my mind completely ‘on hold’ to begin with – that way I can completely overlook the fact that the head of the CIA keeps putting this untrained kid back on missions despite him ‘going rogue’ on almost every one.

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

The 15:17 to Paris – Know what you’re getting

I have to confess I didn’t research this film to any great extent before I sat down to watch it.  However, the two things I did know – mainly courtesy of all marketing – was that it was based on the true story of three men who foil a terrorist attack on a train and that it was directed by Clint Eastwood.  Both seemed like equally good reasons to watch the film.  And – technically – both of those statements are correct.  However, I guess because the promotional material seemed to focus so much on the ‘terrorist attack’ that I expected something more like ‘Under Siege 2’ or ‘The Commuter’ than what I got.

The film starts off with the three Americans as young boys and shows us how they meet.  First of all I wasn’t that impressed with the acting ability of the boys and was quite pleased when this segment ended.  Then we get our first glimpse of what’s to come, i.e. something bad happening on a busy commuter train in Europe.  And then we’re back to the boys again.  Only now they’re young men and we see what they’re doing once they’ve left education.  Only we mainly just focus on one of the three.  The other two seem to get relegated into secondary characters.  Cue another flash-forward to the terrifying events on the train and we get back to the men travelling round Europe.  Then the bit on the train happens.  Then the film ends.

Now, you may think I’m being quite cynical and scathing towards the film, but I did actually enjoy it.  I just thought it was going to be something it wasn’t.  Once the child-actors are out of the way the adults take over and they’re all decent enough heroes who you find yourself able to root for.  Clint Eastwood’s direction is nothing special, but it’s functional approach works well with the subject matter, i.e. overly-stylish camerawork and effects would seem well over the top and out of place in this film.

It’s not a bad film, but I think any audience needs to know that what they’re sitting down for is some sort of drama about regular guys (who then happen to get caught up in a terrorist attack).  If you go in expecting ‘Die Hard on a train’ then you’re going to leave thoroughly disappointed.  It’s a slow, character-driven piece that is deliberately underwhelming in order to show how real life terrorist attacks differ to the Hollywood representation.  If you’re in the mood for something slow, serious and with meaning then you should enjoy this.

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

Oblivion - When will aliens learn not to mess with `our Tom?'

A race of intergalactic nasties (who obviously didn't watch the War of the Worlds remake) has only gone and waged war on Earth. However, despite the fact they trashed our planet, our man Tom stands defiant against their hordes. C'mon, they don't stand a chance, do they?

I may be being flippant, but I actually really enjoyed this film. I won't go into details about the story, as there are a few cool twists and turns along the way. All you need to know is that aliens are trying to mix it with Tom Cruise. When will those xenomorphs learn?

You have cool space ships, decent CGI effects, mean-looking robots, space-age costumes and quite a novel spin on the (somewhat tired) alien invasion movie. All in all, the two hours goes by pretty quickly. I did get a bit confused around the midway mark, but I must have been being a bit dim, because, by then end of the film I knew the hows and whys of the movie (and enjoyed them).

My only major gripe was that (for the most part of the film) there are only two characters - Tom and his onscreen other half. Having such a small cast means you really do have to invest in both of them completely. Tom does tend to overact on occasion and his female partner is a little `too cold.' By that I mean Tom goes around thinking with his heart and she's all `head.' Therefore she's the polar opposite of him in every way. And, being Tom Cruise, he's always right.

However, that's a minor gripe. It's still a cool sci-fi film. If nothing else, it will act as yet another warning to other aliens not to mess with Earth while we still have Tom on our side.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

This is the End – Dumb, adult fun

Every once in a while a film comes along that seems to have been made for such a ‘niche’ audience that I’m amazed it ever found its way into the mainstream cinema. ‘This is the End’ is one such film.  The amount of areas of film and popular culture you have to be into to really appreciate this film knows no bounds.  Basically, it’s a group of comic actors who have appeared in a string of adult-natured comedies, playing – apparently exaggerated versions – of themselves during a party that happens to coincide with the end of the world.

To enjoy this film you’re going to have to be okay with adult humour, bodily-function gags, appreciative of the humour of Seth Rogen, graphic violence, celebrities sending themselves up, frequent drug references i.e. ‘stoner humour,’ have at least a reasonable knowledge of Rogen’s (and James Franco, Danny McBride, Jonah Hill to name but a few) filmic career, pop culture, comedy, sci-fi and general stupid movies that only exist to purely entertain and munch popcorn to.  If you’re into all those, give this one a watch.  Luckily for me, I’m – believe it or not – able to appreciate all that, so I thought ‘This is the End’ was great!

I don’t know why, but I’m a sucker for actors who play themselves in films and generally lampoon themselves.  Here, so many famous faces send themselves up (and in a biblically-apocalyptic setting!) that I was in heaven (assuming that ‘blue light’ chose me… which it probably wouldn’t).  There’s little to say about ‘This is the End’ apart from if you’re into most or all of the themes I’ve mentioned then you’re probably going to have a blast with this film.  I know a lot of people will not like it and consider it a little too ‘self-indulgent’ from the actors, but I didn’t care.  You don’t need much of a story when then (adult!) gags come thick and fast.  Just put your brain on hold and enjoy spotting one cameo after the next.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Hancock - Probably should have been a 'DC' superhero film

Will Smith made 'Hancock' in 2008, roughly at the same time when Disney's 'Marvel Shared Universe' began its unprecedented rise to global domination.  Superhero movies were still a bit hit and miss, especially ones aimed at adults.  Here, everyone's most charming actor plays - effectively - Superman (or at least a superhero of very similar powers), only darker (and drunk!).  Apparently, the script went through numerous re-writes to actually get it down to the PG13 rating as it was meant to be R rated.  And it shows.

It's definitely not a bad film.  In fact, it's pretty good.  However, not only was it made while superhero movies weren't as mega popular as they are today, but the prospect of a more 'adult-themed' superhero movie was just about as far off as possible (how that would one day change with 'Deadpool' and 'Logan!').  You don't have to be a fan of Will Smith to appreciate this 'darker' take on the genre.  It poses the question would the general populous really put up with someone so strong that they can basically do whatever they want without the consequences that the rest of us have to face?  Not only that, but someone who causes rampant destruction - even in the name of 'good.'

Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron are the main two other stars attached the project and I'm pleased to say that they're not just there to lend their names, but their characters do have significant parts to play in the overall story and make a distraction from this being a Will Smith stand-alone film only.
I guess one thing that hasn't held up so well over the years is the CGI used to show Hancock flying around the city (and trashing it!).  It all looks very much like it was rendered for a home console and then Will Smith superimposed over the top of it. 'The Avengers' and pretty much any other film that has used mass destruction of a city since 2008 has done these kind of effects better.

The other major problem with the film is that it doesn't really have an antagonist.  I guess Hancock wrestling the demons of being cursed with these sorts of powers seemed to be enough for the film-makers.  It's not a long film (a modest hour and a half) and it felt like the writers suddenly thought that these plot themes might actually not be enough and attempted to throw in a villain at about the hour mark.  This doesn't really add that much and probably could have been taken out all together if they didn't feel confident enough to expand this aspect to be an ongoing part of the story.

However, those are a couple of minor gripes.  Will Smith is as awesome as ever (as are Bateman and Theron - seems unfair to leave them out!) and if you like superhero movies then you should definitely watch this one.  It's not as dark and adult as 'Logan' or 'Deadpool,' yet it's certainly not as 'family friendly' as Disney's MCU, but it's still fun.  Enjoy.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Deadpool 2 - So much fun :)

I think most people who decide to watch 'Deadpool 2' have probably seen (and enjoyed!) the first outing (and, no, that statement doesn't included Deadpool's cameo in 'Wolverine: Origins!'), but, on the off-chance you haven't, Deadpool is a superhero who probably wouldn't easily fit in with the current direction Disney's Marvel Shared Universe is heading.  yes, he may share many of the usual superhero tropes, i.e. develops superpowers and fights crime etc, but, if you're used to the 'family friendly' atmosphere of Iron Man and Captain America, then you're going to be in for a shock as Deadpool delights in dropping the 'f-bomb' (for starters!) and indulging in severe graphic violence and bloodshed.

The first film had a much lower budget.  Basically, the studio wasn't sure that an 'R-rated' superhero movie would make any money with audiences used to Disney's 'family-friendly' outings.  However, it totally took the Box Office (and popular culture) by storm and became an overnight success, greenlighting a sequel almost immediately.  Now, not many sequels live up to the original, but most of the best sequels that even come close follow the simple rule of giving 'the same, yet more.' And, I'm pleased to say that 'Deadpool 2' does that just perfectly.

Ryan Reynolds is clearly loving his stint in red rubber and is back on form as the trash-talking anti-hero and this time he's got help.  Whereas before he was saving the day pretty much on his own, this time round he's joined by a whole gaggle of goofy 'heroes' who, although don't obviously get as much screen time as him, all play their part in at least the jokes, if not the storyline.  However, any die-hard Deadpool comic-lover will be delighted to see the inclusion of 'Cable.' Who's Cable you ask?  Well, I didn't know as I've never read any of the source material, but since the internet seemed to go crazy once Josh Brolin was confirmed as the time travelling (non Terminator) cyborg I checked him out and found that he was basically another anti-hero who works with our DP on occasion.  And, as many reviews have confirmed, 2018 really is Josh Brolin's summer, not only playing the awesome 'Thanos' is 'Avengers: Infinity War', but also adding his presence to the Deadpool franchise.

So, if you like adult comic book movies which take numerous swipes at the genre itself and pop culture in general (in fact, you'll probably need to be well up on your pop culture references to get every single joke contained here) then you should enjoy this sequel as much as the first. 

Personally, I actually liked it more, but - apparently - I'm the minority.  The original was tighter and, dare I say it more 'focused,' but this one really does expand on the world and take it more into 'blockbuster' territory.  I was quite surprised at the critics' general reaction when I heard that most people didn't rate it even nearly as highly as the first, but, since its DVD release it seems that the fans are ranking it as high as I found it.  Definitely fun and a great second part to the franchise.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Apostle - A witch is for life (not just for a pagan festival)

You know how it is… you buy a witch for your children when it's young.  Sure, it's cute with its little broomstick and pointed green nose, but soon the kids grow up and only want a cell phone and Snapchat account.  And you find you're the one left feeding and looking after the confused elderly woman who doesn't know whether to pet her black cat or boil her cauldron.  What do you do with her?  Flush her down the toilet and run the risk of her mutating in a sewer into a giant witch, or drive her out to the middle of nowhere and dump her, leaving yourself open to allegations of 'witch abuse.' No, the best thing to do is lock her up out of site and occasionally feed her then pretend like nothing ever happened.  Welcome to 'Apostle' - Netflix's latest original horror film.

Only it's not present day, it's roughly a hundred years ago and the whole thing feels like someone has watched 'The Wicker Man' (the original, not the one with 'The bees!  The bees'!  Not the bees in my eyes!') and kind of changed a few things around.  A man from mainland Britain (Dan Stevens) travels to a 'backward' island off the coast to find a missing girl.  There, he discovers the settlement isn't quite as perfect as people have led him to believe.

I know I'm being a bit flippant about the whole storyline, but it's actually pretty watchable, especially if you already have Netflix and are into horror - then it's a definite watch.  Dan Stevens does well to 'roughen' his natural good looks and make himself appear more dishevelled throughout the whole film and he's a good leading man.  The head villagers are suitably bonkers and when we see the more 'otherworldly' inhabitants, they're done with make-up rather than CGI, which is nice.

What's definitely worth a mention is the cinematography, which is pretty amazing.  I'm not sure where this was filmed, but it really does look an amazingly beautify location and the set is built to replicate the time period perfectly.  The scenery and establishing shots look so crisp the almost reminded me of some sort of Playatation 4 cut-scene which has been rendered to look that good.

The film's does suffer from being a little on the long side - two hours, rather than the more 'standard' ninety minutes and there's probably at least quarter of an hour that could have been cut to move things along a bit.  There are a few sub-plots which could  have been trimmed to accomplish this.  But, all in all, it's a good, atmospheric, slow-burner of a horror film which many should enjoy.

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

Galaxy of Terror - I think I saw this.  I think

Okay, I’m writing this review less than twenty-four hours since I watched this film.  Or at least I think I did.  I’ve had to look up the plot and the cast to remind myself whether this was the film I saw or not.  Apparently, I did.

I do like bad films, or rather I like ‘so-bad-they’re-good’ films.  This is definitely one of them.  For, as far as I can remember, I did actually enjoy it for the ninety minutes or so that I sat through it.  It’s just a pity it hasn’t left much of a lasting impression.  Then I read someone else’s review and it mentions ‘maggot rape.’ Then it all came flooding back to me.

After the colossal hit of ‘Alien’ it seems that ‘monster-in-space’ movies were all the rage, or at least they were in the bins of VHS stores you saw in your local rental shops.  ‘Galaxy of Terror’ – like so many others of its kind – never made it to the cinema and certainly never achieved as much praise as Sigourney Weaver’s epic outing.

If you don’t like Alien, you’ll hate this film.  If you like good films, you’ll hate this film.  In fact, most people will hate this film.  It is pretty easy to detest.  However, if you generally like bad films, there’s a small chance you’ll get something out of this.  However, if you like bad films and want to see just how much one film can rip off Alien without getting totally sued, then you do stand a chance of enjoying this (this was me, by the way).

Crew of spaceship, blah, blah, blah, lands on planet, blah, blah, blah, monster on the loose, blah, blah, blah.  Yeah, it’s pretty run-of-the-mill.  However, like I said, if you know that it’s a blatant Alien rip-off you’ll be okay with it.  Despite the awful blue-screen scenes where the spaceship flies through the galaxy (which are generally a measure of the film’s special effects budget), the sets and general atmosphere are actually quite good.  They’re dark, foreboding and generally claustrophobically mood-inducing, but that might have something to do with the man behind the sets being none other than James (Aliens/Terminator/Avatar) Cameron.

There are a few bits that are actually quite memorable (you recall my comment on the ‘maggot rape?’) and these may stick with you slightly longer than the twenty-four hours it’s taken me to forget everything apart from that bit and apparently the man with the glowing head.

Know what you’re in for.  It’s a classic, but only in the sense that it’s so bad that you’ll find yourself not being able to turn it off simply because you can’t believe just how bad it’s actually getting.

Oh, and Freddy Kruger’s in it too – or that guy who plays him, only not half as well as he did with Freddy.

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

Platoon - The Ultimate war movie

I know that 'war movies' are a bit of a 'niche' genre.  Not everyone is interested in seeing various real life conflicts depicted on the big screen.  However, 'Platoon' is just about the 'perfect' war movie and - hopefully - should be able to be appreciated by almost everyone.  Most people know that the 'Vietnam war' didn't go quite as well as the US were hoping.  Here we don't see a glorified historical retelling of the conflict, showing how the US were 'right' to get involved, or how they really did 'win' the war (honest!).  It's more of a character study of the 'average' troop on the ground who was forced to fight in the conflict.

Charlie Sheen (pre 'tiger blood' outcry!) is the young recruit who the story focuses on - a man from middle class America who enlists in the army because he didn't see why only the 'poor kids' should get killed in the line of fire.  However, as you can imagine, he quickly discovers the true horrors of war and regrets his decision to enlist.  There's plenty of other recognisable actors among the soldiers who you'll probably recognise (including a particularly young Johnny Depp), all of which play their parts well.  But 'Platoon' is not just about the grisly effects of battle, as a big part of the film is about 'ideologies,' namely between the two sergeants who wrestle (sometimes quite literally!) for control of the squad and the recruits it’s made up of.  Willem Dafoe and Tom Berenger play the two soldiers and both have a tendency to steal every scene.

Of course it wouldn't be an epic war film without plenty of action and the battle scenes certainly don't hold back in terms of practical effects and nasty death scenes.  You'll need a strong stomach in some places as the film never holds back when it comes to limbs being blown in all directions (and expect plenty of strong language to match).

Platoon' may have been made back in 1986, long before the massive influx of computer special effects that allow film-makers to create huge worlds and epic battles which we could only just dream of back in the eighties.  However, watching it today in 2018, I couldn't help but feel that it could have been made today and the effects couldn't be improved on.  It really is timeless, so, if you're looking for a character study that never holds back from showing the horrors of war, different ideologies and has action to boot, then 'Platoon' is as good as it ever was.

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

The more ‘commercial’ version of Clerks (1)

It’s safe to say that, back in 1994, the original ‘Clerks’ film was a classic.  It was shot by (first time) film-maker Kevin Smith in black and white and charted the amazingly simple tale of a day in the life of two guys who worked in a convenience store.

In fact, it was so successful that it’s amazing that it’s taken so long to produce a sequel.  And, as everyone knows, there’s always a distinct lack in quality when it comes to sequels.  Yes, ‘Clerks II’ isn’t quite as sharp or ‘cutting-edge’ is the original, but it’s still damn good fun.

The two guys have since left the grocery store and now work in a faceless burger joint (totally ripping of McDonalds!).  However, this is the last day one of them will be working, as he’s moving to Florida with his new fiancé and his best friend refuses to let him go without a ‘proper’ send-off.

It’s easy to say that what follows is just a re-run of Clerks (1).  But it isn’t.  It’s a whole new beast all together.  Yes, the humour is still as risky and ‘adult’ in nature (you can’t watch this and be easily offended!), but the situations are different and, what’s more, is that you actually can identify with the characters.  There are even a couple of quite touching moments between the two leads.

So, if you’re a fan of adult humour (or just enjoyed the original) then this is definitely one for you.  Of course, if, like me, you’re a die-hard fan of Kevin Smith’s films, you’ll get added enjoyment out of Clerks II as it’s part of his ‘Askewniverse’ where all his films are interlinked and there are plenty of references to past situations and charters.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Infestation - A B-movie gem

Yes, 'Infestation' is truly a classic film.  And, no, that doesn't mean that it's up there with the 'cinematic greats' such as 'The Godfather' and 'Empire Strikes Back.' 'Infestation' is a classic in a different sense.  To appreciate it you really need to be into B-movies where you're in a totally forgiving mood.  If you can do that, you'll have a lot of fun.

The first thing I noticed is that the story starts really quickly (a rarity these days, even in the horror movie genre) - the staff in an office building wake up in cocoons, only to find that giant bugs have pretty much taken over everywhere and are snacking on the helpless employees.  From there on, it's a case of fending for their lives.

Yes, you can probably tell which of the group are purely there to become chow for our new insect overlords, but even the lesser characters are actually reasonably memorable (even for the clichés that they inevitably are).  The obligatory hero and his love interest are pretty generic, but that's not really a criticism.  After all... this whole film is - kind of generic - but in a good way, of course!

But, you didn't really sit down to a film about giant, hungry bugs to see detailed character development and story arcs, did you?  You came here for the bugs!  And, yes, they do look a little computer-generated in places, but, like I say, the key to this movie is being forgiving!  However, and I don't know whether this was just me, but after the initial viewing of the bugs and how CGI they look, either the special effects got better, or I just got used to them, as the interaction between insect and victim looked a lot more 'real' as the film went along.

If the movie has a (human) 'high point' it's the inclusion of Ray Wise ('Twin Peaks' fans will know him straight away).  No, he's hardly 'A-list,' but he always puts in one hell of a performance and can elevate a pretty run-of-the-mill affair to something greater.  Yes, he does that here, but it's also the action and general fun this film generates that carries the whole thing along.  Yes, it does feel a bit like a 'made-for-TV' movie on the Sci-Fi channel at times, but, if you love good, fun, monster-munching B-movies then this one should definitely be added to your collection.  It really is a classic (for what it is, obviously).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer - Think Evil Dead 

Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer. Need I say more? Oh, okay then.

Really, if the title doesn't give you a clue to what sort of movie you're about to watch then I really can't add that much.

It's a cheesy, low budget B-movie (or maybe even C-movie) about a loser who had his family killed by a monster. Now, he's a plumber by day and a student at night. Plus he has anger issues. Guess what - he's destined to fight monsters. And that's about it.
But is it any good?

Well, Robert `original Freddy Kruger' Englund is in it, so that does mean it's not going to be completely awful and the former spiky-fingered one does overact nicely.

As for the rest of it, well, it's okay.

The first three quarters of the film don't contain many monsters. Which is a shame, based on its title.
However, if you enjoy where it's going, you'll be rewarded with a suitably decent pay-off. This comes in the form a nice slice `n dice battle in the college with monsters splattering all over the place.
Overall, it's fun - especially for the ending. I just wish they could have put the ending in the middle and then added more of the same.

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Crazy, Stupid, Love - A rom com worth watching

I'm not much of a fan of 'rom-coms' (maybe being a guy?!), but I am a big fan of Steve Carell, so I figured I'd give 'Crazy, Stupid, Love' a go and, I'm pleased to say, that I wasn't disappointed.  If you've ever watched one romantic comedy then you've pretty much seen the formula, i.e. boy meets girl, boy loses girl etc.  And, 'Crazy, Stupid, Love' doesn't really deviate from this (is that a 'spoiler?').  However, just because it doesn't reinvent the wheel in terms of story-telling, doesn't mean it isn't fun.

In this case, 'boy' has already met 'girl,' as the film opens with Julianne Moore telling Steve Carell that she wants a divorce.  From there on he goes off the rails, spending his nights in bars, drunkenly lamenting his failed family life, until he's taken under the wing of (near 'professional!') pick-up artist, played by Ryan Gosling, who then helps him learn the ways of the Force (in 'Star Wars' terms), or at least talk to women.

The distinctly A-list cast makes up for the tired format and the bottom line is that 'Crazy, Stupid, Love' is funny.  Yes, if I was going further I'd say it was 'uplifting' and has a 'positive emotional message.' However, ultimately I was looking to be entertained and this film did just that.  The characters are decent enough for you to care about them without ever becoming caricatures or cliches.  It mainly focuses in the three stars I've already mentioned, but you also have Emma Stone and Kevin Bacon in there as well (who aren't used possibly as much as they could have been). 

If I can one main criticism it's that the film is actually quite long for a romantic comedy (I even thought it was coming to a close around the hour mark!) and it does slow down in a couple of places (in fact, it was around the hour mark that Emma Stone's character - properly - comes into it).  The ending is what you'd expect, so if you can forgive the lulls in pace here and there, it is actually quite good fun - especially if you're happy with plenty of sexual gags and situations.

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

Inglourious Basterds - Weirdly epic

Even though I'm a massive fan of Quentin Tarantino's work, I have to admit that he's had a few 'misses' here and there.  However, I'm pleased to say that, despite possibly nothing ever reaching the dizzying heights on 'Pulp Fiction,' 'Inglourious Basterds' comes about as close as it can in terms of entertainment value.

Before I watched it, I have to confess not knowing an awful lot about it.  The fact that it was a 'Tarantino movie' was enough for me to know that I was going to watch it.  All I knew, from the posters mainly, was that it was a World War II film.  And, seeing as I do occasionally dip into that genre, I figured it would be Tarantino's take on that particular period in history and that, like most war movies, it would attempt to be 'historically accurate.' How wrong I was.

I'm sure most people know the 'basics' of history surrounding that dark period of 20th Century history and that's all this film relies on.  You have the setting, i.e. Nazi-occupied France where fearsome German SS officers ruthlessly hunt down Jews, up against the local resistance and an American platoon dropped behind enemy lines to generally disrupt the occupation.  However, don't expect much in the way of 'historical accuracy' after that.

You've probably seen Brad Pitt's face on much of the marketing material surrounding this film.  Yes, he's the biggest star so why not promote that fact?  And, yes, he gives good value as the leader of the American Nazi-hunting band of brothers.  However, what this film never anticipated was how well Christoph Waltz would play Pitt's opposite - the fiendish Colonel Hans Landa.  He steals every scene he's in and you'll be hard pressed to find a more terrifying movie villain in recent times.  He's right up there with Darth Vadar, Hannibal Lecter and Heath Ledger's Joker.  And, even if you don't enjoy anything else about this film, you should watch it just for him.

The 'structure' of 'Inglourious Basterds' is typical Tarantino.  It's split into about six (quite long) 'chapters' through the film's two and a half hour runtime.  Each of these could almost be a separate story on their own, if it wasn't for the fact that they all link up in the end perfectly.  This sort of story-telling may feel a little disjointed at first, but the way they're told makes them impossible to look away.  I may go as far as to say that this film could possibly be the 'tensest' ever made.  Because the stories all have their individual characters, you never know who may or may not make it out of the chapter alive.  The tension in every scene is cranked up to the max and you probably won't guess everything that's to come.

Whether you're a die-hard fan of Tarantino, Brad Pitt, or the genre in general, it doesn't really matter.  You only have to enjoy good story-telling, fantastic memorable characters and good films in general to appreciate this (just be warned about the no holes barred violence and bad language, ala every Tarantino movie ever made).

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

Valentine - Never leave power tools next to hot tubs

It’s fair to say that 1997’s ‘Scream’ reinvented the ‘slasher’ genre, breathing new life into something that was pretty formulaic and predictable.  Then, four years later we have ‘Valentine,’ – a slasher movie that feels as if it belongs somewhere in the eighties at best.  Either that or no one on the entire production staff ever watched Scream or knew about its existence.

The beauty of Scream was that it listed all the clichés associated with the horror genre and did its best to subvert them.  Valentine, on the other hand, seems to want to adhere to every cliché and be totally predictable.

At the start of the movie we see a flashback from yesteryear where a geeky looking boy was (slightly!) bullied at a school prom by a gang of girls and then beaten up by some boys.  Skip forward twenty or so years and he’s out for revenge on the girls he perceived as his tormentors.  Here’s the first thing I noticed... I know we’re hardly meant to feel empathy towards the (as yet unknown) killer, but these girls didn’t really do enough to warrant their grisly executions.  Perhaps that’s meant to make us hate him more, I don’t know.  I’d have thought he’d need more of a reason towards his hated.  I know there are some brief explanations regarding how he was sent away to an institution after the ‘attack’ but it’s all pretty glossed over.

So, the film is basically the adult girls being stalked and eliminated one by one.  Naturally, they all hang out with a multitude of unsavoury men, designed to make us wonder which one is really the killer in ‘disguise.’

Another thing you may notice is the heavy marketing towards Denise Richards.  I know nowadays it’s a bit fashionable to hate her, but, back at the end of the nineties, she was pretty hot (commercial) property.  Unfortunately, she’s not really the star.  This is a shame because she’s actually quite fun and is by far the most memorable character on screen.

The death scenes (bar one regarding the hot tub) are nothing special and certainly not imaginative and you’ll probably guess who the killer is simply because you will.  It’s just obvious somehow, despite attempts at misdirection.

You’re really going to have to enjoy slasher films to really like this.  Either that or just want to see Denise Richards in her prime!  Otherwise, stick to Scream, its sequels and any vaguely better slasher flick.

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

Skyscraper - Yeah, could have been better

I'm a big fan of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, so when I saw the trailer for 'Skyscraper' I - like sooo many others - figured they were effectively remaking 'Die Hard' for the modern age, i.e. terrorists seize control of a high rise building and only one man stands in the way of their diabolical plans.  I'm no fan of remakes, seeing they're everywhere these days, but I figured having The Rock in the 'John McClane' role would make the film at least a good, fun, popcorn type film.  Then I started reading the reviews when the film came out.

To be blunt, most critics (and even the fans) weren't that impressed, saying it was an average affair at best.  Many times a film has received mainly negative criticism I've had my expectations suitably lowered enough to find it actually wasn't as bad as I'd been led to believe and found myself having a good time watching it.  However, here the general consensus is kind of bang on the money.

Dwayne Johnson plays an FBI agent who's wounded in the line of duty and loses a leg, forcing him into the civilian life of selling high-tech security systems.  Therefore, it's quite a big gig for him when he's chosen to test the security of the world's most state of the art building in China.  However, as I've already mentioned, terrorists seize control of it, just when his family (Neve Campbell  - who it is genuinely nice to see back on the big screen again in something other than a ‘Scream’ movie! - and their two children) are visiting, forcing him to save the day.

Now, from that brief plot synopsis, you could be mistaken for thinking, 'Yup, that sounds just like 'Die Hard.' In fact, if they had simply remade 'Die Hard' with The Rock in it, it would probably have been better than what we actually got.  In 'Die Hard' John McClane was alone and constantly under threat from the terrorists infesting the building.  Here, the terrorists are only half of the problem.  It's not 'The Rock vs Baddies' - it's actually The Rock vs the building and occasionally a henchman with a gun.  Many scenes feel like you're watching a computer game where Johnson has to jump from moving platform and avoiding obstacles while swinging on ropes to avoid fires.  I know no hero ever really dies or is in any real danger until the final act (maybe), but there really isn't much in the way of feeling any real sense of danger from anything that happens.

Plus you have Johnson's family to deal with.  As I say, if it was him vs the terrorists then it might be a faster-paced affair, but the film keeps dwelling on his family, whether they're in danger inside the building, or attempting to prove his innocence from the side-lines.  The terrorists are faceless baddies at best.  There's no 'Hans Gruber' character who provides a true nemesis to our hero and you won't even remember any antagonist's name, let alone why he's doing what he is.

Overall, 'Skyscraper' tries to make too much out of a simple premise.  The reason 'Die Hard' worked so well was because it was a simple action story.  Here, you have too many plot elements all competing for screen time in a film that isn't overly-long to begin with.  I still love all Dwayne Johnson's films and will continue to watch everything he's in, however this really is a dip in the quality of his action catalogue.  Pity - could have been much better if it stuck to action through and through.

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

Shoot 'em Up - Too much fun for words

I'm lobbying for a new film genre to sit alongside the existing ones such as drama, science-fiction, horror and comedy.  The new category I'm proposing would be 'Snakes on a Plane.' Besides the obvious Samuel L Jackson film, this genre should be populated with films that tell you everything you need to know about them from the title, thus giving you everything you need to know about whether or not you will enjoy them without sitting down to watch. 'Shoot 'em Up' falls into the 'Snakes on a Plane' category perfectly.

The film 'Shoot 'em Up' is about shooting and killing things.  With guns.  And carrots (you'll have to watch the film to see whether I'm being serious about the 'carrots' comment).  A man, Clive Owen eating a carrot incidentally, witnesses some thugs hunting down a clearly distressed pregnant woman.  He just so happens to be possibly the most highly-trained man with a gun in the world - and the perfect person to protect an infant in danger.  From then on he takes on every dispensable thug and paid lackey in the entire city, much to the dismay of head bad-guy, Hertz (Paul Giamatti).

Besides the obvious clue in the title as to what the film is about, the only other thing you really need to know is that it NEVER takes itself seriously. 'Shoot 'em Up' knows that it's ludicrously daft and brilliantly over-the-top and it just gets better and better.  The action/shooting scenes are clearly the high-points and each one attempts to outdo the last, creating battles in places you probably never thought you'd see and ways of using a gun/bullets that will delight anyone with an appreciation for overblown action scenes.

There's a loose plot, but I won't go into it.  It's totally secondary to the gunfights.  However, the film is more than just action - largely thanks to its two main stars.  There's more than a few references to 'Looney Tunes' and Paul Giamatti stands in for the long-suffering Elmer Fudd as he attempts to track down his Bugs Bunny, the mysteriously-titles 'Mr Smith' (Clive Owen).  The two play off each other perfectly and you won't just laugh at how over-the-top the gun scenes are, but also with their constant banter.  There are few bad guys you'll love as much as Paul Giamatti!

If you like your films serious and realistic then steer well clear.  However, if you like tongue-in-cheek and want something to lose yourself in while you leave your brain at the door, then you'll have everything you want here.  If you've also seen either of Jason Statham's 'Crank' films then you'll know roughly the sort of film you're getting here.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Navy Seals - Top Gun (but without the planes)

Ahh, the eighties – big hair and even bigger action movies.  Weren’t they great?  Well, ‘Navy Seals’ may feel like an eighties action movies, but it was technically released in 1990 (I figure it was in production in the latter stages of the eighties, so I reckon it’s an eighties movie at heart!). 

Basically, Charlie Sheen and Michael Biehn have to lead their platoon on a fight against a load of those dastardly communists before they blow up something they shouldn’t.  It’s hard to believe that Charlie Sheen was ever once considered an ‘action star.’ He does his best to lead the way here, exhibiting a few manic onscreen qualities that, at the time, looked like he was trying to give his character some sort of ‘maverick’ feel (think Mel Gibson in the ‘Lethal Weapon’ series).  However, seeing as what he turned into, I wonder whether this side of him was always there?
It’s a simple movie for a simpler time.  It’ll never be remembered alongside the truly great (and explosive) action movies of the eighties, mainly fronted by the ‘big’ action stars like Arnie, Sly, Bruce and possibly Van Damme.  But, despite its averageness, it’s still an enjoyable watch if you’re looking for goodies vs baddies.

I guess that the fact that the two main stars weren’t ‘A-list’ went some way to defining ‘Navy Seals’ as a B-movie through and through.  You certainly won’t remember any of the other seals besides the two leads.  Despite one being played by Bill Paxton, none of them are afforded half as much screen-time as the two leads.  It feels only slightly more expensive than a ‘made for TV’ film.  We see the team of seals on their days off and watch them messing around (bonding?) before being sent on various missions.  Naturally, the suits in charge of their unit want to play politics and create some extra friction, but our rebellious heroes will win the day nonetheless.

I read online that Michael Biehn (he was in ‘Terminator’ and ‘Aliens’ in case you don’t know him – I assume most people know Charlie Sheen from his weird meltdown antics later on in life!) described the film as one of the worst he had ever worked on.  Assuming that Charlie Sheen was actually sane back then and Biehn wasn’t referring to working with him, I assume he means that it was simply a ‘paycheque’ film.  It does feel like it from time to time, but, despite its many clichés, it’s not a bad film if you’re just looking for a cheesy action shooty type affair.  You’ll probably find it on TV sooner or later, or an online streaming service.  Definitely one to have on in the background.  Plus it’s a reminder of what Charlie Sheen could do when he was at his prime.

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

Hallam Foe - An odd, quirky, unique underdog of a film 

'Hallam Foe' could only be made in Britain. I could hardly see Hollywood film producers green-lighting a film that is about a reclusive, obsessive peeping tom who crossdresses and breaks and enters other people's property. And yet, he - Hallam Foe (aka Jamie Bell from 'Billy Elliot' fame) - is our hero and, stranger still, we root for him.

He gets in all sorts of trouble when he leaves his father and stepmother to go and live and work in Edinburgh, where he meets someone who looks like his late mother and wants to start a relationship with her.  Unfortunately, he's not that good with women at the best of times and so he decides to obsessively stalk her until she gives in.  Again, hardly the actions of a noble and yet we still feel for his plight.

The soundtrack is great and goes well with the beautiful shots of Edinburgh city from on high. There's not much of a story and normally that sounds like a negative.  It's mainly us following his life as he learns a few hard facts about the world and has to stand on his own two feet.  If you ask me what it was about, I can't really say - other than I loved it. It's touching without ever being sentimental and you actually care about the damaged characters you're watching.

Plus there's a great scene that lists all the names you'll ever need to know concerning - well - certain male/female body parts (if you know what I mean). 

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

MacGruber - You may never eat celery again

Okay, I hate to start by blatantly stealing someone else's quote, but, when reading other reviews of MacGruber, someone else described it as `Team America, but without the puppets.' Yes, I'd say that's a fair definition - only Team America was very funny and clever. MacGruber has a lot to live up to.

When I started watching MacGruber, I hated it. I was totally with those many 1/5 star reviews I'd seen describing it. My main gripes were that it simply wasn't funny and that the main character (MacGruber, believe it or not) was completely annoying. I was practically on the brink of turning it off after about half an hour, when, to my amazement, I actually laughed.

It's possible that by watching half an hour of this film lowered by IQ enough to watch - and enjoy - the rest of it. Okay, so the second half wasn't comedy gold, but I seemed to have a better idea as to what this film was trying to be and I laughed enough not to qualify this as a complete flop. However, it's worth noting that this film bombed at the box office, so perhaps I'm in a minority here.

It's a (loose) satire on action films where the `burned out hero' is plucked from retirement for `one last mission.' It has been done a fair few times before - Hotshots Part Deux was done nearly twenty years ago (and it's probably consistently funnier), but it has enough moments (in the second half) to make it just about worth watching.

And - seriously - don't eat the celery.

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Fury - Pretty impressive war movie

Okay, so I’m not the biggest fan of war films – my main motivation for watching ‘Fury’ was that it was filmed in my home town and I wanted to see which bits of my village I recognised!  However, I was actually pretty glad I did.  I’d heard mixed reviews on 'Fury' – much of the negativity based around how ‘unlikeable’ the characters are.  Well, that may be true, but it was sort of refreshing in a way.

‘Fury’ itself is the name of our heroes’ tank – part of a battle-worn American division deep inside Germany in the dying months of World War II.  Basically, this tank crew (led by Brad Pit) have seen it all (and killed much of it) and, due to their seemingly never-ending battle, this has made them not particularly nice people.  I'm sure they once were, but the constant slaughter has taken its toll on their mindset and now all they know is war.  However, before we join them, they lose one of their crew, meaning a youngster is added to the mix, who doesn’t share their particular attitude to the war.

I suppose you could say that there’s not much story here.  It’s pretty much one (rather impressive) tank battle after the next.  Fury’s crew were pretty grim, but seeing as all of them have been fighting it out for years and could be killed any day, I felt that that was kind of understandable under the circumstances.  Whatever ‘character development’ comes from Brad and the ‘newbie’s’ characters.  One must learn to ‘toughen up’ and the other must relearn his humanity.

It’s probably a guy’s film, as it does rely on the action scenes to ‘wow’ audiences.  Although, maybe it was just me, but when the machine guns were firing, they kind of looked like either red or green lasers (definitely something out of 'Star Wars'), but that could just be me.

About the only time I felt it slowed down was during a scene in the middle of the film.  I’m guessing it was meant to emphasis the two main characters and the change in their attitudes, but I felt it did just drag a little longer than it should.  Plus it shows how they're 'growing' away from other members of their crew, but, even though I could - sort of - see where the script writers were going by adding this, it just slowed things down.  It felt like it wanted to be something out of a Quentin Tarantino movie, only it didn't have the snappy dialogue or real feeling of tension.

Overall, ‘Fury’ is a good watch, but you’ll probably need to be into some pretty dark and bleak war films in order to truly appreciate this.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------