Labor Day - A Labour of Love

From the front cover and other visual promotional material, you could be forgiven for thinking that this is some sort of romantic drama.  And you’d probably be right.  Sort of.  It’s a romantic drama that is masquerading as a crime film.

Josh Brolin plays an escaped convict who holds Kate Winslet (and her son) hostage while his wounds heal. It sounds like the plot of a thriller, but it isn’t.  There’s never really enough tension to make it particularly thrilling.  Amazingly, the two leads fall in love and this is the story of their coming together.

And that’s about it.  There really isn’t that much else to it.  There are a few minor sub-plots surrounding the other people in the town and whether they’ll discover they have an escaped prisoner in their midst.  Again, this area is never truly explored and doesn’t add much to the story.
Therefore, it’s pretty much a straight love story about how two mismatched people find each other in odd circumstances.

I read online that this is a ‘women’s film’ (primarily).  Possibly, but it’s well-acted enough to be engaging to both sexes.  It’s certainly not fast-paced, so it’s probably best you prepare yourself for a slow burner with a pretty straight-forward plot.  It’s nearly two hours, too, so it never feels like it’s flying by.

I enjoyed it, however, despite the excellent performances and beautiful scenery, I’m not sure I could be bothered to sit through it again.  It’s such a simply story that I feel I’ll probably remember everything about it for a long time to come (largely because there isn’t too much to it!).

Nice, but slow.  You have been warned.

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

Ed Wood - The Depp and Burton we all know and love

Back before the public seemed to generally go off the once-bankable combination of director Tim Burton and leading man Johnny Depp, they made ‘Ed Wood,’ the biographical drama of the now ‘infamous’ Hollywood auteur of the same name.  If you know your film history, you may have heard of ‘Plan 9 From Outer Space,’ largely because it has often been heralded as the ‘worst film ever made.’ Personally, I think that’s a little unfair as Michael Bay is still alive, but it’s hardly a masterpiece.

It was Ed Wood himself who wrote and directed this *ahem* ‘epic’ which he basically blagged his way to get funded.  Burton tells this story using Depp as the titular character.  Who is also a cross-dresser.  Did I mention that?  Yes, not only does Ed Wood truly believe that he is destined to become the next Orson Wells, but he also likes wearing women’s clothes.  Cue Depp turning his quirky on-screen charm up to eleven.

For some reason, Burton chooses to shoot the whole film in black and white.  At first some may find this a little weird and jarring, yet, before long, you probably won’t notice that colour has been drained, especially when the ‘films within the film’ start rolling and you see Wood’s sci-fi flick in all its colourless glory.

Yes, it’s based on the real Ed Wood, but does that mean it’s a true story?  Well, it’s as true as the next Hollywood ‘true’ story.  A few liberties here and there have obviously been taken to further the plot, but, on the whole, it’s reasonably accurate.  You don’t have to know much about Ed Wood or his work to enjoy this, you just have to appreciate a role that seems to have been written for Johnny Depp, who plays the man with so much wide-eyed wonder that you can’t help but root for him, even if he probably hasn’t got the talent to back up his ambition (but then that can be said for pretty much ever reality TV show participant ever).

Depp carries the film on his own, but, besides Burton’s behind-the-scenes presence shining through, it’s worth mentioning the bunch of misfits Ed Wood brings along with him, all of which are allowed to have more than one moment where they shine.

The real Plan 9 From Outer Space was a flop.  However, it has since found an audience with the ‘so-bad-it’s-good’ audiences, plus Burton/Depp’s take on Ed Wood have furthered its reputation.  You may not want to see the source material after watching this (although I did and I enjoyed – or appreciated at least – it for what it was), but the time spent with Depp and his band of freaks and desperates should keep you comically entertained with its mix of pathos and fluffy pink sweaters.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

The Accountant – A new breed of hero (that isn’t a duck)

As much a Ben Affleck has come in for criticism over the years, it’s fair to say that, given the right script (and/or the right part or director), he is actually capable of being more than just a passable leading man (even despite what that song said about him in ‘Team America: World Police!’).  Therefore, it’s no surprise that he’d want to keep the momentum of his acting ability rolling by taking roles that may require a little more than just showing up and looking good.

We’ve seen plenty of films about hitmen and plenty of those involve a – practically indestructible – leading man taking on scores of faceless bad guys with precision accuracy and never so much as getting a scratch. ‘The Accountant’ could quite easily slip into this kind of genre.  However, what sets it apart is that our protagonist (Affleck) is both a hitman, due to his overbearing father taking extreme measures at getting him to ‘toughen up’ and ensure he doesn’t spend the rest of his life getting picked on or taken advantage and also an accountant.  If you’re wondering why those two professions somehow work so well, it’s because Affleck plays an autistic hitman/accountant who’s therefore not just a bit socially awkward, but also amazing with figures on balance sheets and killing people with sniper rifles.

And, our heroic pen-pusher gets tangled up in a job that involves both his professions when he audits some shady company’s books and gets more than he bargained for when the company’s director (played by the seemingly ever-evil John Lithgow) decides to ‘fire’ their new accountant (in more ways than one!).

There’s definitely plenty of like about ‘The Accountant.’ It’s not just the run-of-the-mill action/hitman story that it could have been, as the whole ‘autism’ element does add an extra layer as to why Affleck’s character is like he is.  However, an accountant-hitman’s life is never easy and a fellow hitman (Jon Bernthal) is hot on his case.  I’ve been a big fan of Jon Bernthal since ‘The Walking Dead’ and he really does seem to be having a lot of fun in this role and it’s a pity he’s not in it more than he is.  Instead, much of the plot isn’t taken up with the Affleck vs Bernthal, but with the ‘love interest’ for Affleck played by Anna Kendrick.  I have nothing against her as she’s a perfectly capable actress, however it just seemed that this element of the film really was crowbarred in, just to add a love story into something that didn’t really need it.

Overall, ‘The Accountant’ is certainly different enough to be worth a watch if you’re a fan of Affleck or the genre itself.  However, whereas the premise is slightly original, the execution does contain the usual clichés you’d expect with a film like this.

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

51 - It's a 'no go' area

I first found out about Area 51 in the mid nineties as the height of the X-Files' fame. Area 51 is the codename given to a section of land in the Nevada desert in America. Allegedly, it contains the remains of crashed UFOs etc. I always thought it would make a good movie. I still think it would - the emphasis being that it would make a GOOD movie. Sadly, this is no good.

Er, where do I begin? The cheap special effects? The shoddy acting? The wafer-thin characters? The ludicrous plot holes? It's all there - unfortunately.

Basically, what you have here, is a made-for-TV movie, i.e. wobbly sets, unknown actors and not much more.

Bottom line - it's just short of okay. Some people may like it, but not many. There are so many better alien films out there - like `Alien' for example.

Plus side - the leading lady is cute (that's probably more a plus point for the guys - I can see too many women swooning over sci-fi stalwart Bruce Boxleighter).

Oh, well, never mind. I may have wasted an hour and a half of my life, but it was still more entertaining than a Transformers movie.

(and, who gave this film 5/5 on Amazon? they serious must be taking the pi...)

3/10 Jabba the Hutt wipes himself down with this film

Ordinary Decent Criminal – You have two ways of looking at this film

I’ve only just got round to watching ‘Ordinary Decent Criminal.’ I know I’m a little late to the party, but, for some reason, I’ve only just heard about it.  However, whereas most older films would probably be judged at how well they’ve held up over time, this one seems to be entirely judged on whether you (now) like Kevin Spacey or not.

Yes, he’s the lead and, as usual, he turns in a fine performance (this time doing a near flawless Irish accent).  But times have not been kind to this once great actor’s reputation and it seems that quite a few people have ‘review-bombed’ this (and maybe others?) of his simply based on his personal life alone.  Whatever he may or may not have done in his private life, he’s still a great actor and, if you can get past that, you should enjoy this film.

Spacey plays ‘Michael Lynch’ – a career criminal who, despite being only too happy to steal from the rich, is actually a nice, family man who dotes on his wife and kids.  Naturally, for someone who’s spent their life on the wrong side of the law, the police are well on to him and will go to any lengths to (finally) bring him to justice.  Therefore, him and his gang (including a young and not that well-used Colin Farrell) hatch a masterplan to steal some priceless paintings which will set them up for life.

It’s a decent enough crime caper with some touching moments and a few laughs along the way – most derived from Spacey’s performance as a loveable rogue.  He, as so often, is the complete star of the show and carries the film single-handedly.  This would probably be a straight-to-DVD affair if it wasn’t for his name and presence attached.

About my only real gripe with the film came near the end when the ‘plan’ was all coming together.  A few times it felt like coincidence played a bigger part in its success/failure than actually planning and a lot of things would have had to have gone conveniently right for it to work.

However, if you can suspend your disbelief enough to ignore that, plus try to remind yourself that you’re judging the film on the characters and story, rather than who’s portraying them, then this is a nice enough little film to pass the time.

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

The Hangover Part III - Probably should have left it at number two

It goes without saying that ‘The Hangover’ (part I) was a great film. Its sequel (part II) was met with a mixed reception (personally, I quite liked it, while thinking it wasn’t quite as good as the first one). However, now with Part III, they really seem to be dragging something out simply to make money.

The sad fact: Part III just isn’t that funny. There simply aren’t enough jokes in there to warrant calling it a ‘comedy.’

Other people have noted how they’ve ‘changed the formula’ with this one, i.e. there’s no actual hangover in this one where the cast wake up, not knowing what they did the night before and having to piece together the clues. Of course if Part III HAD followed this rule, everyone would be saying that it was just a second copy of the original, so the film-makers probably couldn’t win either way.

Also, coupled with Part III being a little low on jokes, Zach Galifianakis’ character ‘Alan’ has completed changed since the last two movies. Before, he used to be a loveable, but dumb sort. Now he’s a complete idiot (and not a very nice one at that), leaving us finding it much harder to root for him during this third outing.

However, whether you notice, or are that bothered by, the change in his character, it doesn’t make much difference to the script, i.e. it’s still short on jokes. Yes, the movie is watchable and short enough not to make me think I’d wasted an hour and a half of my life, but, when you compare it to Part I, it’s noticeable how far it’s fallen.

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

Mad Max: Fury Road – Practical Magic

“Mad Max?’ who’s he?” cry the younger generation.  Well, I guess he’s Tom Hardy these days.  However, to anyone born back in the seventies and eighties, he the titular character was synonymous with a different actor who has since majorly fallen from grace.  So, in short – it’s a remake.  But, in that most rarest of remake traditions, it seems that the general consensus is that it’s actually pretty good!  Now, I was never that into the original films (I can’t even remember whether there’s two or three of them!) so perhaps I’m more forgiving and not exactly a ‘Mad Max’ purist, however, perhaps one of the reasons this new version is so well received is that it’s written and directed by the original’s director, George Miller.

It follows the same premise, i.e. in a post apocalyptic world (or ‘Australia’ as it’s also known – boom boom!) gangs rule the deserts and fuel and water are the most rare – and therefore valuable – commodities that people will literally kill for.  Enter one gruff loner (or ‘Max’ as we later find out) who’s been surviving on the road all this time on his lonesome.  However, his (sort of) carefree days of eating lizards and driving a cool car quickly come to an end when he’s captured by a gang of those nasties who seem to come to be in every post apocalyptic world we’ve ever seen on screen.  So he’s tortured and killed and no one lives happily ever after.  Just kidding.  With the help of a load of other prisoners, he escapes and they all go on the run, hotly pursued by their psychotic former captors.  However, just because you’re on the run from people who want to strap you to the front of a high-powered vehicle and wear your skins for sun block, doesn’t mean it’s all bad.  There are worse people to be on the lamb with than Charlize Theron (unless she’s playing Aileen Phillips from ‘Monster’ I suppose!), so the pair of them do their best to fend off the constant attacks from the gangs, while protecting those who are escaping alongside them.

I guess if you were to sum up the film and try to pigeonhole it into a genre, you could say it’s an ‘action’ movie, but I think the sub-genre of a ‘chase’ movie is more in order.  It never really stands still for long and the film is ultimately one long chase across a desert, only stopping occasionally to gather a breath or two before everyone’s off blowing moving vehicles up again.  And, if that’s your thing, then you’re in for a real treat.  Part of the enjoyment of this (very simple) film is that many of the special effects are real life stunts, as opposed to CGI or blue-screen work (yes, I think there may have been a little bit of the afore-mentioned effects, but it’s pretty minimal) so you really get a feel of the danger the actors (or probably stunt people!) are going through.

Not only are the explosions all convincing, but the make-up is also really cool.  And, by ‘cool’ I mean absolutely revolting!  Although, it seems that in this dystopian future, only bad people are hideously mutated individuals and anyone who needs saving looks like a supermodel from a Victoria’s Secret catalogue.  Although, to be fair, it seems that once a woman stops looking like Cindy Crawford with slightly less make-up, if they still wish to stay on the good guys’ side, they automatically become a hard-as-nails old crone who’s got a heart of gold and a forehead that time forgot.  Anyway, that’s just me being picky, this film is fast-paced fun.  If you like numerous explosions, car chases and general mayhem then go on a road trip with these people and you’ll see how bad car travel can be – I promise you after seeing what these people have to endure you’ll never moan again when all you have to do is drive a car with your kids in the back while they constantly ask, “Are we there yet?”

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

The Raid 2 - Bring on ‘Raid 3’

In a cinematic world filled with action films that are all cloned from ‘Bourne’ movies, i.e. where our hero is mercilessly pursued across one city after the next by relentless government agents, it’s actually quite nice to see a change of style (and in a sequel, no less!).

The original ‘Raid’ film was quite a condensed little piece, set in Indonesia it was about a police raid that went bad, leaving only a handful of survivors left alive.  Part II starts only a matter of hours after the first one ends and the only honest cop left alive finds he’s still in hot water when a secret team of police officers recruit him to go undercover and infiltrate what’s left of the gangs who run the city’s crime.

Now the ‘raid’ is really a raid in name only.  There’s no raid in the sequel, just a story which revolves around our downtrodden police hero and his attempts to infiltrate those he has sworn to destroy.  It does – naturally – have subtitles, so you’ll need to be okay with reading them while you’re watching. 

Strangely enough, for an action film, there’s quite a bit to it.  It’s quite a long film – over two hours – and some might say that that is too long to just watch multiple martial arts scenes (did I mention you really need to be a fan of martial arts movies to appreciate this?).  However, it never really outstays its welcome and actually moves pretty quickly.

In fact… our hero almost becomes forgotten as a fair amount of the story is dedicated to the gang members and how they’re attempting to doublecross each other.  Some of the enemies almost become even more memorable than our hero, who almost starts to seem bland in comparison.

Perhaps one of the Raid 2’s strengths is the way it’s filmed.  If ever a film has a ‘look and feel’ then it does here.  Every visual is striking and, even if you’re not reading the subtitles, each shot is pretty breath-taking.

Okay, so you need to truly be into action and/or martial arts movies to fully get the most out of the Raid 2, but anyone who loves film and doesn’t mind the subtitles should appreciate the arty overall feel of watching grown men throw each other over toilet cubicles.  Oh, yeah… and it’s a little bit violent here and there – expect the red stuff to flow.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

I Give It a Year - Like a jigsaw that's been put together in the wrong order

I always feel bad about being negative towards the British film industry. We don't have Hollywood's budget so I always try to support the national film industry. And, `I Give it a Year' certainly boasts an impressive cast of fine British (and even American) actors.

It's about a couple who have only known each other for seven months before they decide to get married. This film charts the first year of their subsequent life together. The characters are all beautiful, rich, thin people who work in trendy London offices, live in stylish Victorian apartments and can afford lavish, high-society weddings. The male characters are either or both selfish or stupid (Rafe Spall attempting to `out-annoy' Jar Jar Binks at some stages). And the American characters are seemingly parachuted into the story to save the lovelorn Brits.

I found the film a bit of an enigma. I stuck with it to the end and enjoyed some of it. Every scene felt like a sketch that would fit right in during an (adult) sketch show (think `That Mitchell and Webb Look' or `Armstrong and Miller'), however, using it in the context of an ongoing narrative, it just didn't work. The parts were funny; it's just they didn't seem to go with each other.

With the calibre of acting talent amassed here, it should have been brilliant, yet, despite being funny, it somehow left me cold. A weird contradiction in film-making.

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

Daybreakers – B-movie fun

First there was Bram Stoker.  Then, out of his legend, came the ‘Twilight’ franchise.  Since then we’ve had good vampires, bad vampires, modern vampires, vampires in space, zombie-vampires and pretty much every other version of the monster you could care to imagine.  With a genre where we’ve basically seen it all, ‘Daybreakers’ does try to do something a bit different with such a tried and tested formula.

Basically, vampires rule the world now (and, no, that’s not another reference to the ‘Twilight’ franchise!).  The ‘virus’ which turns a human into a bloodthirsty creature of the night has spread to almost everyone and now the vamps are almost to the point of extinction due to their ever dwindling (human) food source getting smaller by the day.

Ethan Hawke plays our lead vamp, Edward Dalton, someone who works for one of the many companies that are trying to produce a synthetic substitute to blood, while at the same time rationing out the remaining ‘livestock’ (if you know what I mean).  Luckily for humanity, Dalton is a vampire with a conscious.  He feels sorry for those reduced to mere two-legged cattle and gets involved with a resistant movement who even boast of finding a ‘cure’ to the plague.

It’s a neat premise and it does the best it can.  I’ve seen it a few times now and enjoyed it every time.  However, despite treating it like a bit of a ‘guilty pleasure-type’ film, I always think there’s something missing.  Maybe the script needs a little polishing?  Maybe the idea is just too big to be contained in one simple hour and a half B-movie film.  Perhaps it would have made a better TV show where the characters and world they inhabit can be fleshed out a bit more?

As will as Hawkes, the film also has Willam Defoe as the (not particularly fleshed-out) leader of the resistance and Sam Neill as cliched evil villain in a suit #836.  Both do the best with what they’re give, but, as you can probably guess with my tone, they’re hardly given much to work with.  The special effects can’t be faulted.  There aren’t too many visual effects which will wow you and it’s just a case of adapting the world around us to reflect how it would look if vampires were in charge.

Overall, it’s fun if you’re a fan of vampires and want something a little different.  But, just don’t forget that it is just a glorified B-movie, so don’t go expecting too much.

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

The Package - Average action flick

The Package has come in for more than its fair share of criticism, some calling it `terrible,' others calling it simply dull. I disagree. It isn't either of those, but it's no masterpiece either.

It's simply average - the type of film you can have on in the background while you're doing something else and still understand everything that's going on.

Steve Austin has to transport a `package' across America. People are trying to kill him. That's about it. It has fights, it has shoot-outs and it even has Dolph Lundgren to throw a few punches.

There's really very little you can say about the film. It's not even a classic action movie that will be remembered alongside Rambo, Commando and Die Hard. It's just yet another punchy/shooty film. So, if you're in the mood for something like that, you'll probably enjoy it.

Don't expect too much. It's not overly long and you won't need to divert much of your brainpower to understand it.

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

Dirty Grandpa - I couldn't actually finis...

I don't normally do this, i.e. write reviews on films that I can barely say that I've seen.  Therefore, I'm guessing that this will be one of the shortest I've ever written.  Basically, I couldn't get much further than about ten minutes into the film before I turned it off.

I probably should have known what I was in for.  I'd heard it was absolutely awful, but - probably like so many - I thought to myself, how could Robert DeNiro be in a film that's THAT bad?  For me, this was like 'Jack and Jill' was to Al Pacino.  It's that bad.  In fact, although I also turned off 'Jack and Jill,' I actually think I got further into it than 'Dirty Grandpa!'

I can't really say much about the film, only how the first ten minutes left me.  It opens with a funeral (of the titular Grandpa's recently deceased wife) where a moron generally acts, well... like a moron to Zac Efron.  I know some people can be considered morons, but this guy is such a moron it's completely unbelievable and I wanted him to be the one in the coffin, not his grandmother.

The next scene involves Zac Efron and Robert DeNiro having a conversation in a restaurant.  To be fair, they didn't annoy me that much.  It was what was happening outside the restaurant that got to me.  A trio of - you guessed it - morons was waiting to join the two main stars.  For me, that was about three morons too many and I hit the 'off' button and removed the film from my 'watchlist.'

We all know Robert DeNiro is one of the greatest actors ever.  And Zac Efron has shown that he's more than just a pretty face.  But this is one of the worst films to come out of Hollywood recently.  One word: avoid.

1/10 This might as well have been written, directed and produced by Uwe Boll

The Great Wall – Its middle name is ‘action’

I’m writing a review of ‘The Great Wall’ a day after I’ve watched it.  I fear that if I leave it much longer I probably won’t remember much about it.  Apart from the action.  There’s a lot of action.  I’ll probably be mentioning action quite a lot over the following paragraphs.  Sorry.

I’m guessing ‘The Great Wall’ is hardly what you’d call ‘historically accurate’ as – apparently – that big ol’ wall in ancient China was actually built to keep out the monsters.  Which monsters?  Well, a whole army of green scaly computer-generated ones which charge obediently into human fire.

And, these mean old beasties are doing pretty well for themselves, despite the fact that a beautifully-dressed army of Chinese warriors have pledged their lives to defending the wall and the nation it protects.  Luckily for all us two-legged types, Matt Damon (and another bloke) arrive one day to sort this mess out.

The whole film is ‘by the numbers.’ And, before you think I’m totally slating it for being so generic, wait – because it’s actually quite fun.  Yes, its plot is wafer-thin and if you ever seen any film ever then you’ll know every plot point that comes, i.e. one of the Chinese warriors is a beautiful woman who is ripe to fall for Damon’s western charm.  There’s the protective father figure who… okay, just on the off-chance you can’t guess what happens to him, I won’t spoil it for you.

I mentioned the uniforms the human wear because I was particularly impressed with them.  I doubt this film would ever receive an Oscar is a million years, but I reckon whoever designed the costumes should at least get a nod here and there.  However, what the film has in costumes it lacks in computer effects.  Yes, it’s clearly got a budget and that’s gone on creating vast backdrops and waves upon waves of mindless baddies.  However, it’s pretty obvious and, unless you’re not that bothered about iffy effects, you’ll definitely know when the actors are in front (and probably fighting) in front of a green-screen.

Basically, if you’re looking for a film that has loads of battles where armies of humans fight hordes of monsters then you’ll get that right here.  Just don’t expect anything in the way of originality of deep and meaningful story-telling here.  Action and costumes all the way.

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

Vanishing on 7th Street - Average apocalyptic horror thriller 

Um, don't really know how I can expand on the title. Four strangers wake up to find the world's population has disappeared and only their clothes remain. If that wasn't spooky enough, those `bad ghosts' from the Patrick Swayze film of the same name have finally got themselves another gig and keep coming out of the dark to make a grab for our dumbfounded heroes. Only staying in the ever diminishing light can save them.

It's a good premise and the cast do well enough with the dialogue that's given to them. Plus there are some moments of genuine creepiness.

It's quite an open-ended story. If you don't mind your films not giving too much away (yes, even after the credits roll) then you won't be too disappointed.

I've read what other people have said on this film and some have read biblical elements into the story. I'm no Christian, so I didn't see that, but, I'm told the signs smack you in the face (I just must have ducked).

It is what it is. There are better films out there, but there are worse too. If you're not expecting too much, this one might be pleasing enough.

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

Network – Still relevant today (almost)

I know it’s very controversial to actually want a classic film to be remade and, although 1976’s ‘Network’ still holds up in today’s world, the problem with social commentary is that it only applies to the time period it was written about.  Now, it does feel a little dated and you could almost see the same film being rewritten with social media (for example) being the central theme, rather than a big cable news network.

In ‘Network’ a news anchorman Howard Beale (Peter Finch) has, what could be described as a ‘nervous breakdown’ live on air and he ends up spouting off ‘anti-establishment’ rhetoric which went against the powers in control of the organisation.  Instead of firing him (which they nearly did!) they decide to ‘use’ him and give him his own on-air ‘soapbox’ in an attempt to keep their enemies closer and, if possible, control him.

The other two central characters are played by Faye Dunaway as heartless corporate executive Diana Christensen and a slightly more torn corporate executive played by William Holden, as Max Schumacher.  Dunaway is possibly far more memorable as the ‘evil’ one of the pair, but each have a role to play as they offer both sides of the moral aspect of their actions concerning what to do with their ‘pawn’ Howard Beale.

The film is pretty standard when it comes to direction.  There’s no real neat camera tricks used that make the film stand out and possibly the editing is the only thing that bothered me.  The film is quite long and it does tend to drag in places here and there.  It’s a bit up and down as you get one classic scene which will stay with you forever, followed by one that doesn’t really go anywhere.

If you’re at all interested in the media and its recent (well, 1970s) history then you’ll definitely enjoy this.  There is definitely relevance here as to how one person can start trends in order to ‘fight back against the powers that be’ only to be corrupted completely by the very people he’s trying to make a stand against.  I definitely think that a modern remake may be interesting (if it was handled right) and social media would be the subject of how the masses are influenced.  However, if the subject doesn’t interest you then the performances should make it essential viewing for fans of good cinema.

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

10 Cloverfield Lane – I’m now a ‘Cloverfield Convert!’

A few years ago, ‘Cloverfield’ was released.  If you missed it, it was one of those ‘found footage’ films where everything is shot by the point of view of one really annoying character who won’t put the camera down no matter how much danger comes their way.  Sorry, I digress.  I really don’t like the ‘found footage’ genre.  I find it cheap, annoying and just downright implausible.  It was because of this that – despite ‘Cloverfield’ being a massive hit, I hated it.  A giant Godzilla-like alien monster started rampaging through a major U.S. city and the story was about a small band of survivors fleeing the area.  One of them had to film the hold experience because… I don’t know.  I just remember getting really frustrated with the film because he wouldn’t stop filming even when his leg was being eaten by little monsters.  Anyway, it was because of that which meant I wasn’t that bothered about seeing this sequel.  Only it’s not a sequel.  Or is it?

For a start it’s not ‘found footage’ any more (hooray!) and we meet a girl who gets into a bad car accident on the way home.  She’s dragged from the wreckage by good ol’ John Goodman who takes her home and they live happily ever after.  Only joking.  He’s actually a paranoid nut-job who built a ‘perfect’ survival bunker just in case the world should happen to end and he wanted to go on living.  So, our heroine wakes up there, injured and a little frightened.  Especially as Mr Goodman won’t let her leave.  The closest she gets is the reinforced steel door where she can look out over the stricken world.  Only it’s not that stricken.  It looks quite normal, but Goodman swears that there’s enough fallout out there to nuke a cockroach from the inside out.  So, she’s trapped, with no idea what’s happened.  Can she get out?  Should she, even if she could?

Anyway, because most people have either seen, or are aware of, the first movie with the giant monster etc, we assume something bad has indeed happened to the rest of the world.  Only this film doesn’t really follow on from the original ‘Cloverfield.’ So, the longer it goes on, you wonder whether you’re actually watching a sequel at all, or another film that has sort of piggybacked off its name/fame and has created something different all together. ‘Cloverfield’ was a big budget monster/horror movie whereas ’10 Cloverfield Lane’ is small, low budget and confined to the bunker for the whole time.

And, in my opinion, it’s the superior movie by far.  John Goodman is excellent as the paranoid nutter who is probably the last person you want to be stuck on Earth with and you’re rooting for our heroine to escape (assuming there’s a world left to escape to!).  It’s more psychological horror than giant-monsters-crushing-New-York-horror and it’s all the better for it.  I hear that some people weren’t too keen on the ending, but, even if you hate it, you should hopefully enjoy the preceding 90% enough to just ignore the very last few scenes.  I wouldn’t watch Cloverfield again, but I’d definitely watch this in a few years time.

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

Cabin Fever (2016) – Just… why?

‘Cabin Fever’ was released back in 2002.  And again in 2016.  However, about the only thing about the 2016 version is that it forces us to ask that most existential question: how can something be exactly the same yet completely different?  The 2002 film has gone down as a cult classic.  And for good reason – it’s awesome!  Okay, if you’re into cheesy horror films with teens dying in various gruesome ways then it’s awesome.  It takes the – oh so familiar – premise of a group of annoyingly beautiful teenagers going on vacation to a remote cabin in the woods and then meeting a sticky end.  Nothing new there, but it’s just the way it’s done.  It knows it’s not original and often plays on the clichés you’d normally find with the genre, plus it throws in some truly random and surreal moments just to keep the audience on their toes.

And not they’ve gone and remade it.  And a remake it literally is.  They’ve used the same script as the original, sticking to the same running order of scenes and same dialogue (or at least 90% of each).  Therefore, it just feels weird watching a film you know really well, only with new actors speaking all the lines.  Just pick your favourite film then imagine watching it with new actors reading the same words just slightly differently.  It would probably be a bit disorientating and off-putting and you’d probably just end up thinking, why am I watching this?  Well, that’s how this remake comes across.

It’s not even like the actors are that good.  They all look as uncomfortable as we – the audience – probably feel watching them.  They have no chemistry and come across like they’re all starring in a different film to each other.  Plus the gore looks cheaper than the original – seriously, there’s an animal in the opening scene that looks like a blood-soaked children’s puppet you’d see on kids’ TV.  I loved the original and regularly watch it.  This version brings nothing new to the genre.  If you’re a horror film, just watch the original.  This one is possibly the most pointless remake ever (with the possible exception of that ‘Psycho’ remake in the late nineties).

2/10 Scuzzier than the leftover goo from a Queen alien's egg sack

Split – Contains the most well-known ‘twist’ ever

Once upon a time, film-maker M. Night Shyamalan could do no wrong.  Then, almost as abruptly, he could do no right.  He made ‘The Visit’ which some claimed went some way to regain his previously excellent reputation, but it wasn’t until ‘Split’ which really reinforced that he was back in business.

His early films became synonymous with having a ‘twist’ at the end – one that you never saw coming.  However, once audiences got wise to this trait, he stopped trying – especially when the twists became a little too over the top to be believable. ‘Split’ has, what you might call, a ‘twist.’ And, once this became common knowledge, it seemed to help the film snowball and become much bigger than its initial predictions.  Whereas most people respected others enough not to let slip the ending to Shyamalan’s earlier films such as ‘The 6th Sense’ and ‘Unbreakable,’ reviews seemed to be only too happy to give the ending away in order to help promote it.  So, with that view mind, I too will let everyone know that the ending implies that ‘Split’ is actually (a kind of indirect) sequel to ‘Unbreakable.’

However, it’s definitely not a requisite to have watched Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson’s 2001 outing in order to understand ‘Split.’ Here, James McAvoy plays a man who suffers from ‘multiple personality disorders.’ To be precise he has 23 personalities, most completely bonkers, but even his worst doesn’t compare to the 24th personality which is on its way.  He then kidnaps three teenage girls and they have to work out how to escape before this psychotic 24th personality comes into play.

And that’s about it.  You can kind of guess how everything plays out (especially now I’ve given away the ending – sorry!).  There’s actually not that much there in terms of story-telling.  However, it’s not all bad – mainly due to McAvoy’s performance.  I know that some people have called his switching from one personality to the other ‘Oscar worthy.’ I’m not sure how much he should have at least been nominated, but I did enjoy his performance and he puts his all into the role.

This contrasts to the three girls who are pretty forgettable.  One gets more screentime and backstory than the other two – guess why that is?  But, anyway, seeing as the film can’t just be the girls failed escape attempts piled on top of each other, until one or more ultimately either gets away or dies trying, it gets padded out by plenty of flashbacks of McVoy’s character visiting his psychiatrist for various exposition segments.

I know a lot of people have loved this film and heaped praise on it.  Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed it and would probably watch it again some time.  However, I wouldn’t say it’s as revolutionary as some are making out.  It’s long and a little drawn out at time.  But, McVoy is clearly able to carry the film and the fact that it’s linked to ‘Unbreakable’ add extra points, so to speak.  It also sets up the final part of what is going to be a trilogy and will certainly get me ready to watched the upcoming concluding part, ‘Glass.’

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

Game Night – Like rolling a ‘double six’

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

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

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

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Damned United - Great football film that doesn't involve football! 

I don't mind football, but I doubt I could watch a movie containing lot of it, which is probably why I enjoyed The Damned United. It charts Brian Clough's ill-fated move from Derby to Leeds where he comes uncharacteristically unstuck in his managerial attempts.

Martin Sheen is (as always) brilliant at playing the self appointed `greatest manager in England' and he's backed up by the equally excellent Timothy Spall and Jim Broadbent.

You don't have to love, or even know much about, football to like this film. It's about someone who isn't quite as clever as he thinks he is. Therefore you can't help but take a little bit of evil delight in his fall from grace. However, although Clough isn't always the genius he believes himself to be, he's never far from it. So, even when he's down, you know he won't be there for long.

Good British drama - very entertaining.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Hangover Part II (2011) - A review of The Hangover Part 1...oh, wait, it's Part 2 actually 

If you haven't seen the Hangover (Part 1) then Part 2 follows the same characters as they, again, wake up after a heavy night with no memory of what happened and plenty of new problems to deal with as a result of it. If you HAVE seen the Hangover (Part 1) then you've basically seen the second one too.

A lot of review of Part 2 use phrases like, `The Hangover Part 2 uses the same jokes, just cranked up to 11.' I sort of agree. Part 2 isn't a bad film; it's quite funny actually, its main problem is just that it doesn't offer anything new.

The writers (if you can call them that) have basically taken the script to Part 1, photocopied it, changed the locations and (very) slightly adjusted the jokes and sold it to the studios as a sequel. If fact, it's probably not best described as a `sequel,' a `remake' might be a better label. I wonder if the writers did it on purpose, i.e. keep the situations identical in a hope that lightning would strike twice. For me, as every new crazy moment passed, I just couldn't believe how similar it was. It became almost weird just how copied it was. In the end it kind of detracted from the story as all I had to do was think back to what happened next in Part 1 to know what was coming in Part 2.

That said, Part 2 is okay if you liked the first and basically want more of the same silliness. It's just a shame the makers didn't wait a little longer and come up with something just a little bit fresher.
The monkey is cool though. Just don't let him near your water bottle. 

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

Babysitter Wanted - Adventures in (horrific) babysitting

`Babysitter Wanted' is pretty much `horror by the numbers.' It offers little that you haven't already seen before, i.e. pretty girl being stalked by... whatever madman/beastie the filmmakers desire.

However, just because it's formulaic, doesn't mean it's that bad. Don't get me wrong, it's no classic. It won't be remembered alongside 'Halloween' and 'Scream,' but, if you're into horror/teen slashers then this could give you an hour and a half's general amusement (or just under ninety minutes actually, as it's quite a short film).

A girl takes a job as a babysitter and... well, let's just say things don't turn out as planned. It's a film of two halves. It does its best to lead you in one direction, only to then pull away in another (hoping you haven't already guessed what's coming - no 'spoilers' here!).

It's far from perfect. The director seems to want to use brief bursts of incidental music at every given opportunity (which reminded me of the 'strings' of noise whenever a xenomorph jumped out in James Cameron's 'Aliens'). It kind of works the first couple of times, but it's used too much and it just gets annoying after the times it happens enters double-digits. Plus, when the babysitter is alone in the house, obviously she has no one to talk to. Therefore she basically gives us viewers a running commentary of her thoughts, taking the phrase `thinking out loud' to its literalness.

If you're into horror and are easily pleased (or just very forgiving of B-movies in general) then give this one a go. All the performances are perfectly adequate and therefore it slightly raises its head above the pool of terribly generic horror offerings currently on DVD and you might not see what transpires in the second half coming.

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

The Sacrament - A ‘found footage’ film that is just about... Watchable

I hate ‘found footage’ films.  There’s simply too many of them these days and they’re all basically the same.  Just because ‘The Blair Witch Project’ revitalised the genre, it seems that every wannabe film-maker is trying his hand at one.  Let’s face it... they’re cheap and easy to produce, not really relying on fancy special effects for scare tactics.

Personally, I think all ‘found footage’ horror films should come with a warning on them, letting us – the viewing public – know that we’re in for ninety minutes of shaky camera footage with actors whispering directly into the camera from right up close during alleged times of tension.  In fact, if ‘The Sacrament’ did have a label on it saying that it was ‘found footage’ I wouldn’t have watched it in the first place.

However, I did.  I mainly watched it because it had Eli Roth’s name attached to it and I still think he has some good stories left in him (even though I haven’t really enjoyed much he’s done since Cabin Fever).  And, amazingly it’s watchable.  That would be how I describe it – watchable.  Not good, just watchable.  And, based on how much I hate ‘found footage’ films, ‘watchable’ is a reasonable compliment.

We get the same old documentary film-makers travelling to some cult’s commune in the middle of nowhere to track down one of their lost relatives.  Guess what... all is not what it seems.  I won’t go into detail, as you can probably already guess what sorts of perils they run into.  You get the same shaky camera-work, chases through woods, characters sticking their faces right up close to the camera and filming themselves.

Nothing new, but, when compared to all the truly horrendous ‘found footage’ rubbish infesting DVD bargain bins, at least I managed to sit through this one without turning it off halfway!

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

Edge of Tomorrow - Bill Murray never had to go through this

Okay, let’s get the ‘Groundhog Day’ comparisons out the way straight away.  Ever since Groundhog Day was released, any other film that has based its premise around a single day repeating itself has been compared to it (i.e. Repeaters, Source Code, that episode from the X-files and so on).

This time we have aliens invading the Earth in the near future, but, just like that load of extraterrestrial nasties in Oblivion and War of the Worlds, they didn’t figure on us humble earthlings having Tom Cruise on our side.  And he’s on cracking alien-slaughtering form.  He may start out like a bit of a wimp – merely a disgraced army media spokesperson, forced to fight the xenomorphs on the frontlines.  However, a freak accident means he acquires the power to restart the day every time he dies, meaning he gets one hell of a ‘heads-up’ on our invading monsters.

Naturally, Tom doesn’t have to go it alone and soon recruits the highest-decorated soldier to help him out.  And, just as naturally, the highest-decorated soldier just so happens to be a super-fit baddass  chick, played by Emily Blunt.  So, the two of them have to replay the day until they finally come up with a way of saving the Earth (and most likely getting together for good measure).

And it’s a pretty good ride.  I guess the main audience for it will be sci-fi films (dare I say men?).  It’s actually more intelligent that it sounds and there are a number of different aspects to the story that make it more than just an ‘action version of Groundhog Day.’ Also, it does play out a bit like a sci-fi version of a war film (think Saving Private Ryan, but with monsters), so you may have to appreciate war films, too.

Tom and Emily undoubtedly carry the film.  It’s their chemistry that makes it.  It’s good to see Tom gradually get to know her day by day, only for her to completely forget who he is when the day resets.

If I had to pick one flaw in the film it’s the aliens themselves.  You never really get much of a look at them.  Yes, they’re pretty horrid – fast moving squid-like things, but, because they’re computer-generated and so damn speedy, they move in a blur and you never really get much of a look at them as they tend to kill the cast before we can take stock of their real form.

However, that’s a minor point.  Basically, if you either like Tom Cruise, sci-fi in general, or just a big-budget summer blockbuster that actually makes you think, then give it a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Oculus - Competent little horror

‘Oculus’ is actually pretty entertaining as far as horror movies go... for the most part.  But then if a modern horror movie can maintain its status as ‘pretty entertaining’ even for just half the film then it’s probably a cut above most of today’s horror offerings.

The story centres on the same family, but bounces back and forth between two timelines – one when the central brother and sister characters were young and living with their parents and the ‘modern day’ period where they’re now grown up and recounting what they remembered.  Basically, when they were young, their family came into possession of a creepy old antique mirror.  Once the artefact was in their house, their lives promptly fell apart.  Now, the two kids have grown up, they are determined to rid the world of this mirror once and for all.

So why don’t they just smash it?  I hear you say.  Well, they can’t.  It’s apparently beyond just taking a hammer to.  However, the brother and sister spend much of their time debating whether the mirror was truly responsible for all the bad things in their life, or whether they just imagined it through childhood high spirits and an overactive imagination.

And, while that’s happening, everything is pretty good.  It’s not terrifying or bloodthirsty, but then it’s not supposed to be.  It’s designed to make you wonder whether there is a rational explanation for everything that transpired all those years ago, rather than a supernatural one.  And this is where the film’s strength lies.  It’s pretty good at making you doubt the obvious explanation (whether your ‘obvious’ explanation is supernatural or natural – it gives both sides equal credence), plus the characters behave in ways you’d expect, i.e. setting up plenty of cameras to gather evidence of any supernatural doings/threats.

However, it does fall down a bit in the last act, relying on cheap scares and obvious shocks, plus the constant swapping of timelines gets a little hard to follow at times.  But that’s not so bad – there’s still enough here that’s entertaining and there’s some pretty creepy and unsettling imagery to turn your stomach.

In a vast sea of forgettable horror movies, this one may stay with you a little longer than most.

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

Never Say Never Again - A Bond too far

Yes, we all love Sean Connery's Bond. However, age gets to us all and we really should know when to call it a day. Shame on you Mr Connery. Yes, you're still a cool old guy, but you should have known better. Connery hadn't been in the Bond character for some years and was lured back for this one which, due to technical and legal reasons, isn't considered part of the `official' Bond saga.

It's not even an original story, being a remake of the not-so-spectacular `Thunderball.' But, worst of all, is that Connery is starting to show his age. He's looking less like the dashing rogue we saw in Dr No and more like your uncle at a wedding.

Yes, there's some action, some fights and car chases, but it just doesn't feel like a proper Bond film. All the cast have been replaced as the producers weren't allowed to use the `proper' M, Q and Miss Moneypenny. Plus - and unforgive able in my opinion - is the lack of the `Bond theme' every time the action gets going.

The whole thing has a `Bond-made-for-TV' feel to it. If you're a die hard fan of Bond and are craving one last Connery outing then you'll probably get something out of it. However, if you're casual fan of the franchise then you can probably afford to give this one a miss.

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

Abduction - The Bourne Identity (for early teens) 

I don't know whether I should be ashamed for liking this film or not. There's absolutely nothing new here that you haven't already seen (assuming you've been consuming a basic diet of Hollywood mainstream movies for the last two decades like I have).

Abduction is about a boy Taylor Lautner (from Twilight fame) who discovers he is suddenly on the run from a group of baddies (you know the type - foreign accents, plenty of disposable henchmen and can only shoot bottles when firing machine guns at a teenager). Um, that's about it really. Taylor gets chased here, Taylor gets chased there, hooks up with a pretty young girl with big eyebrows along the way - that sort of thing.

However, Abduction's big difference is that, instead of an adult being hunted by baddies who can't shoot straight (or overpower a fifteen year old), it's the afore-mentioned fifteen year old. And, baring in mind that there's minimal violence (defined by a lack of the red stuff when people get shot), this film is largely aimed at mid teens. It has plenty of pop culture references to Lady Gaga and Facebook that will amuse their generation.

I couldn't really think of anything wrong with it. Okay, I've seen it all before and it ticks all boxes. It's not a classic, but it's entertaining enough.

If you haven't seen this type of sinister-conspiracy-CIA-chase-type-film before, you'll probably love it and give it 5/5 (or just someone from `Team Jacob').

If however, you grew up collecting the original Star Wars toys and can remember when Transformers had nothing to do with Michael Bay, you may feel like it's Beverly Hills 90210 mixed with Jason Bourne and your score will be more around the 3/5 mark.

Maybe I'm just a child at heart. I actually appreciated it for a piece of silly, chase-orientated action entertainment. Plus it had Sigourney Weaver in it - and Ripley rocks.

Give it a go. There's worse out there (Michael Bay, are you reading this?)

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

Freeway (1996) – He’ll huff and he’ll puff

‘Freeway’ came out in 1996 and somehow I completely missed it.  Either it never got a particularly promoted theatrical or VHS release, or it just wasn’t very popular in the UK.  So, when I sat down to watch a film that was basically twenty years old, I wondered how it would hold up after all that time.  I was pleased to say that I was actually quite impressed.

‘Freeway’ (believe it or not) is actually based on the fairytale ‘Little Red Riding Hood.’ Now, that’s not just what the critics said about it when they were trying to fish for ‘deeper meaning’ in what is technically a drama/thriller-type film which spans numerous genres.  It’s actually highly prominent that this film is based on the fable right from the start when we see a character watching a retelling of the story on TV.  For the first twenty minutes or so, the two stories almost align completely (albeit in a much more ‘adult’ nature)... We have Reese Witherspoon in a red leather jacket as ‘Vanessa Lutz,’ a teenager who comes from a broken home with a drug addict for a mother and a step-father who’s intentions towards his adopted daughter are hardly benign.  When the pair of them are arrested, she has no one to look after her apart from her grandmother.  Therefore she sets off on a road trip across the state in order to see her relative.

Of course no ‘Red Riding Hood’ tale would be complete without the ‘Big Bad Wolf.’ Here, he’s perfectly played by Kiefer Sutherland as ‘Bob Wolverton’ (do you see the pun there in his name?).  He offers her a ride when her car breaks down and we find that she’s been picked up by the only man who has lower morals than her step-dad.

Like I say, that’s basically the first half.  The second part does tend to start moving away from the source material.  I’m guessing there’s hardly enough to be drawn out into an hour and a half, so the film-makers certainly take even more creative liberties with what they’ve got to work with (the ‘Red Riding Hood’ aspect comes back again towards the end of the film).

‘Freeway’ still stands up today, simply because of the gusto both leads put into their performances.  It’s clear that they’re both enjoying what they’ve got to work with and are giving it their all.  Personally, I found some of the plot (in the latter half) a little bit far-fetched, but when the inspiration is a fairytale, I guess you can hardly expect 100% total realism.  But that’s just a minor grip. ‘Freeway’ spans multiple genres, but if you’re into suspending your disbelief to enjoy a thriller which realise does utilise its stars to the max, give this one a go.

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

The Hole (2001) – Hole in the plot?

‘The Hole’ is one of those films that is good to watch, if you don’t think too deeply about it.  Ironically, this could be considered slightly contradictory to the film’s nature, as it does actually try and be smarter than the average horror.  But, then again, it’s not really horror, just like it’s not really a teen drama, or slasher film, but something that’s a bit of a hybrid of all those genres.

It’s set in a well-to-do English boarding school where four pupils decide not to go home for half term, but instead to party on down in an abandoned, er, hole – w ell, it’s some sort of underground bunker-type-thing where they can lock themselves away from the rest of the world and do all those naughty things that teenagers do.

All of this is orchestrated by Liz (Thora Birch, sporting a just about passable English accent).  She wants her mates Geoff and Frankie (Laurence Fox and a then pretty unknown Keira Knightley) to help her get it on with the most popular guy in their year, American hunk Mike (Desmond Harrington).  Unfortunately, he’s not just her ‘crush,’ but her whole reason for living.  And she’ll do almost anything to get him.  And that means anything, even if it’s to the detriment of everyone around her.

I won’t go into the details of the plot and what happens down there, as there are plenty of twists and turns – some of which that you might not see coming.  I mentioned earlier that ‘The Hole’ tries to be clever.  The police get involved in what went on down there and the kids are questioned and the film then tells the same story more than once, only from different perspectives. 

I also mentioned in the title that there may be the odd (pun intended) plothole in ‘The Hole.’ This comes in terms of the official investigation and things do tend to need an air of coincidence to make all plans succeed.  Plus some of the police do seem a little conveniently inept at times.

However, I watched ‘The Hole’ in the cinema back when it was released and I was certainly entertained.  Since then I watch it again every few years and there’s definitely rewatch value in it.  Especially now you can most likely find it on various online streaming services.  Give it a go – it may not be quite a clever as it wants to be, but it is certainly an entertaining adult drama/thriller.

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

The Hangover Part II (2011) - A review of The Hangover Part 1...oh, wait, it's Part 2 actually 

If you haven't seen the Hangover (Part 1) then Part 2 follows the same characters as they, again, wake up after a heavy night with no memory of what happened and plenty of new problems to deal with as a result of it. If you HAVE seen the Hangover (Part 1) then you've basically seen the second one too.

A lot of review of Part 2 use phrases like, `The Hangover Part 2 uses the same jokes, just cranked up to 11.' I sort of agree. Part 2 isn't a bad film; it's quite funny actually, its main problem is just that it doesn't offer anything new.

The writers (if you can call them that) have basically taken the script to Part 1, photocopied it, changed the locations and (very) slightly adjusted the jokes and sold it to the studios as a sequel. If fact, it's probably not best described as a `sequel,' a `remake' might be a better label. I wonder if the writers did it on purpose, i.e. keep the situations identical in a hope that lightning would strike twice. For me, as every new crazy moment passed, I just couldn't believe how similar it was. It became almost weird just how copied it was. In the end it kind of detracted from the story as all I had to do was think back to what happened next in Part 1 to know what was coming in Part 2.

That said, Part 2 is okay if you liked the first and basically want more of the same silliness. It's just a shame the makers didn't wait a little longer and come up with something just a little bit fresher.
The monkey is cool though. Just don't let him near your water bottle. 

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

The Man – Nothing special, but definitely watchable

'Buddy cop' films have been around for as long as I have. Sometimes, they work, other times they don't. In short... simply having two people forced to work together who are basically complete opposites is not a recipe for success. Whether the film succeeds or sinks normally depends on the actors involved. And, I'm pleased to say that with the (perhaps unlikely?) pairing of Samuel L Jackson and Eugene Levy, it really does hit the spot.

Samuel L Jackson plays, well… Samuel L Jackson, while Eugene Levy plays – you guessed it – Eugene Levy.  Neither really stray far from performances you’ve already seen them give numerous times, but – again – it works.  Levy is a salesman who gets mixed up with an arms deal while having dinner in a café.  Luckily, Jackson is on hand to step in and not just save him, but also sets him up as a supposed ‘kingpin’ that he can use to bring down one half of eighties supergroup Bros (or Luke Goss to be precise – a bad guys so generic, he’d fit right in to the Marvel Cinematic Universe!).

You may have guessed that a chatty and middleclass salesman is not the ideal person to play a dangerous criminal, but – yet again – it works.  Or at least it works in terms of comedy.  Yes, in real life Levy may have been gunned down within ten seconds into walking into a room with a load of criminals, but, here, they take him at his word.

There are some other minor subplots running alongside the main story, i.e. a branch of Internal Affairs are looking into Samuel L Jackson and he’s also in the process of trying to patch things up with his ex wife and daughter.  However, it’s the two leads’ show all the way.  Their chemistry and banter elevates the film and makes it totally enjoyable.  The bickering between the two is truly a sheer joy to watch as Levy’s dry comebacks slowly wind Jackson up more and more.  There’s also plenty of swearing and some, moderate violence to go with the laughs, so it’s more for an adult audience.

Samuel L Jackson has a wide range of movies under his belt, some big budget, others that feel almost ‘straight-to-DVD.’ This one sits somewhere between the two and is definitely worth a watch if you’re a fan, or just like those kind of crime/comedies with a strong sense of mismatched central characters who have to overcome their personalities in order to reach a greater goal.  A tale as old as time, but, if done right – and it is here – it’s definitely worth an hour and a half of your time.

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

Road Kill (Joyride) – Simple and effective

The simple films are sometimes the best. ‘Roadkill’ (or ‘Joyride’ as it’s apparently known in the US) is about two brothers who travel across America to pick up one of their girlfriends, but fall foul of a particularly nasty truck driver (in fact, I always think that ‘Roadrage’ would be a more apt title for the movie!).  What follows is a cat and mouse tale as the juggernaut chases their car across one freeway after the next.

Back when this was released (2001), I think it’s safe to say that there are no real stars in the film (Paul Walker had yet to rise to fame).  Just like there are very little special effects needed for one vehicle driving after another throughout the movie.  Therefore, it’s technically quite low budget and yet I remember distinctly watching it in the cinema, meaning I wasn’t the only one who thought it deserved its ‘theatrical’ release. 

What works so well is the dynamic and chemistry between the two leads.  The dialogue is all very believable and you could just see the two of them being brothers in real life.  I’ve mentioned Paul Walker who plays the straight-laced ‘Lewis,’ while Steve Zahn plays his older, more roguish brother, ‘Fuller.’ Leelee Sobieski makes the third passenger in the car.  She’s Lewis’ girlfriend and there’s a vague hint of a love triangle between her and the two boys, however that’s all part of the sub-plot when it came to the ‘meat’ of the story.

They decide to use the old CB and ‘prank call’ (using telephone terminology) a random trucker.  Naturally, the driver in question (going by the handle ‘Rusty Nail’) doesn’t have much in the way of a sense of humour and decides to persecute them beyond anything they could have anticipated.

‘Roadkill’ falls somewhere between a horror and a thriller.  It’s almost like a ‘slasher’ flick, in terms of one man trying to kill a bunch of youngsters.  However, another aspect that works well is that you don’t really see Mr Nail that much, leaving us – the audience – to speculate on what he really looks like behind the wheel of his ride.

Some people have likened ‘Roadkill’ to Stephen Spielberg’s classic early road movie, ‘Duel.’ There are definitely some similarities regarding the psychotic trucker and the simple plot, but this film is far more up to date and brings the story to life in a new way.  Yes, if you watch it now you’d probably be asking why they didn’t just ‘tweet’ the police from their cell phones – it’s hard to believe that no one had social media at their fingertips back then. 

Anyway, if you like horror or thriller films, do give this one a go – it’s simple, but very effective at just being what it is.  It never tries to be anything it isn’t.  Just enjoy it.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Identity Thief - A good effort, but flawed

`Identity Thief' is about a woman - Melissa McCarthy - who steals hard-up, hard-working, everyman, Jason Bateman's identity over the phone and then goes on to run up debts that he can't afford to pay for. He, in turn, seeks her out on the other side of the country and tries to bring her to justice in order to clear his name (and debts!).

It's a decent enough premise, but with one problem: Melissa McCarthy is one of the most despicable characters in movie history and the whole point of the film is to try and make us like her (and even root for her). It's easy to root for Jason Bateman - he's struggling to make ends meet and support his family and doesn't deserve to be stolen from and have his life potentially ruined. However, Melissa McCarthy steals from people without a thought for her actions. Yes, we find out that she has led a hard life, but still... she steals from families who - most likely - can't afford it. It's like making a mugger your central character and wondering why audiences don't take to them.

This is a shame, because Identity Thief has a lot of comedic acting talent on display, plus it's actually quite funny. I found myself laughing out loud on more than one occasion. However, the bottom line is that - despite watching McCarthy for ninety minutes - I still wanted to see her brought to justice. It's not the actress' fault - it's not an easy part to play. She was great in The Heat and Bridesmaids). The film would be much better without her character, but then, her character is kind of integral to the whole point of the movie.

Yes, it's funny in places, but you need a strong stomach to put up with McCarthy's character, plus you may need to suspend your disbelief in places, as there is a certain lack of logic if you look too closely.

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