La Femme Nikita – Ground-breaking assassin flick

I think I probably watched this film at the wrong time.  I first saw the American-language remake ‘Assassin’ back in the early nineties and have only just got round to watching the film it was based on, ‘Nikita’ (or ‘La Femme Nikita’ to be precise).  Therefore, it’s hard to accept that the French version is the original source material and not the remake.  Both stay pretty much on the same story-telling path, telling the tale of a down-and-out, drug-addled young woman, killing a police officer in a burglary gone wrong, but eluding the death penalty in favour of working for a secret government agency to ‘off’ those who need disappearing.  Yes, the plot is possibly a little far-fetched, but, if you can suspend your disbelief long enough, you’ll find that it’s well worth it.

What you get is the story of a tortured soul who’s trying to make a fresh start of her life and yet keeps finding herself dragged back into the covert ways of the spy agency to do their dirty work.  You will definitely feel for the lead and the writing is pretty solid for her and all those she encounters.  It’s one of those rare films where there isn’t a discernible ‘baddie’ to take on.  The ‘bad-guy’ (if it can be considered so) is the situation she’s found herself in and her attempts to – once again – change her life for the better and truly escape the shackles she’s found herself in – whether a slave to drug abuse or the government’s whims.

I think the best thing about Nikita is its realism (yes, I know I’ve already said you have to suspend your disbelief to appreciate it, but hear me out…) – in many modern films where the lead is a female action hero who spends her time beating up dozens of burly men who stand in her way, you feel that – although cool to look at – it may not happen that way in real life.  However, in Nikita she never uses her physical strength to overpower and take-down her targets.  Instead, she uses her wits and deadeye with a sniper’s rifle to get the dirty job done (and get home in time for tea with her new fella).

I’m glad I’ve watched the original.  It’s a decent film which blends action with genuine emotion for the characters, plus it’s worth noting that it was good enough to inspire whoever greenlit its American remake NOT to change it so much that it’s barely recognisable and remained true to what made it great in the first place.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Aquaman - The DC universe's (second?) best

Okay, so I'm guessing few people will have sat down to watch 'Aquaman' without knowing just a little bit about the 'DC Shared Universe' (RIP!).  Once upon a time, the comic giant, DC, had plans for all its most famous superheros to get together to form one giant evil-conquering team (think 'Avengers,' yeah?).  However, for one or twenty or so reasons, that never really worked out for them and 'Aquaman' was a kind of leftover superhero movie that the studio didn't really know what to do with.  It sort of had to be released simply because most of it had been made and the film-makers would lose more money by NOT releasing it.  I'm guessing that they never realised just how many people would actually like it!

Personally, I didn't think it was quite as good as the majority (but then I actually liked 'Man of Steel!'), but certainly not that bad, either.  Even its most negative of critics seems to reluctantly admit that it's like a 'Marvel Phase 1' film (think the first 'Iron Man, Thor' and 'Captain America' films).  I'm not sure whether it's deliberate or not, but there's nothing in 'Aquaman' that really links it into what nearly became DC's 'shared universe.' That works well on account of the universe now - effectively - being dead and also because any 'casual' superhero movie fan doesn't need to know anything from any other source material to enjoy this outing.

Believe it or not, Aquaman's real name is 'Arthur' and he's the rightful heir to the kingdom of Atlantis.  Only he's been hiding out on land for his entire life, so his (real) people aren't too pleased to see him return and potentially just walk into his destined path as ruler of their empire.  But, things aren't that easy, he has a younger brother, Orm (Patrick Wilson), who's currently King and isn't going to let go of the thrown quite so easily. 

If 'Aquaman' has one major thing going for it then it's its star, Jason Momoa.  He's certainly an action hero to watch out for and has the right mix of muscles and light-heartedness that works so well in this genre (think Arnold Schwarzenegger in his day and more recently Dwayne Johnson).  Momoa dispatches the bad-guys with a punch, a smirk and finally a witty put-down and he's very easy to watch and get behind.  He's definitely the high-point of the film.  There's plenty of other well recognised actors alongside him, but none really get enough screen time to be particularly memorable.  Patrick Wilson does his best, but Dolph Lundgren and Nicole Kidman are pretty damn forgettable and, personally, I didn't really feel much chemistry between Momoa and ('mandatory' love interest) Amber Heard.

I also found that the film was a bit 'all over the place.' By that I mean that it felt like it shifted genres a couple of times.  A bulk of the story takes place underwater in the futuristic (and computer generated) kingdom of Atlantis.  This, naturally, has its own look and feel, yet then the movies jumps off into the desert and suddenly it feels like you're watching an Indiana Jones movie or something.

Then you have the villain (or should that be villainS - plural).  Arthur has to - primarily - fight his younger brother for the throne, yet there's another villain also thrown into the mix ('Black Manta') who comes then goes, then comes back - briefly - before totally going all together).  Apparently, (and I found this out through the internet) he's quite a 'fan favourite' and many would have preferred him to be the primary antagonist.  But, seeing as that never happened, I'm guessing the film-makers are going to use him in a sequel.

But, my gripes aside, I still enjoyed the film.  It's the most profitable DC film in those - sort of - linked to its 'shared universe,' but - personally - I preferred 'Wonder Woman.' I'll definitely watch any sequel to this they decide to make, but then I'd also watch any sequel they made to 'Justice League!' So, if you're not totally fed up with superhero movies and can take another one with plenty of CGI action scenes, you should enjoy this, if just for the leading man's performance.

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

Dark City – The Thinking Man’s Matrix

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

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

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

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

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Jarhead - Excellent war movie - without much war! 

I can take or leave war films, however, I have to say this one is pretty good, especially as it contains a real lack of any actual fighting.

It centres on one man's - Anthony Swofford's - personal tale of life in the modern (well, early nineties) American army. He's not an officer, or in any particular position of authority - he's a grunt, a foot-soldier, or a `Jarhead.'

After Saddam Hussein first invades Kuwait, the US ship out their Jarheads to wait for the order to attack. This is the story of the wait.

Therefore, we never see our Jarheads charging heroically over the top or anything similar. It's just about the wait. Now, that may not sound like the most exciting premise for a movie, but I think that's the point. Jarhead isn't really meant to be exciting. It's more of a drama about men from lower class America, who don't really have many career options and enlist as a way of making a living.

I really enjoyed it. Jake Gyllenhaal gives a great performance as the put-upon Jarhead at the centre of the film and, overall, it's well worth a watch, even if you're not a fan of war movies in general.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Velvet Buzzsaw - Stuff sort of... happens

Do you ever sit down to watch a film and really, REALLY want to enjoy it?  Yet you come away just 'not getting' it in the slightest.  This was me with 'Velvet Buzzsaw.' I didn't even have go to the cinema to watch it as it's part of Netflix's output, so I could completely not get it in the comfort of my own home.

It stars one of my favourite actors, Jake Gyllenhaal, as the oddly-named, 'Morf Vandewalt,' who is an... er, yeah, that's where my mind started to wander.  I think he's some sort of bisexual art dealer, but I could have been wrong about both halves of that statement.  In short: the film just lost me very early on.  It just doesn't really have much of a - at least 'traditional' - narrative.

I know most films these days involve superheros flying round New York butting hammers with armies of computer-generated aliens, but - even though I can appreciate them - I do like films that make you think just a little more.  However, this one just made me think that it should have been so much better.

Stuff just happens.  It's got all the feel of some sort of weird, arty sketch show where one scene doesn't actually link in with whatever's gone before it, or follows it.  Although Gyllenhaal is undoubtedly the biggest name on the cast list, there are plenty of other well-known names in there, including Rene Russo, Toni Collette and relative newcomer Zawe Ashton (who always comes off as a little bit too 'smug' in my opinion).

However, none of these names could save it for me.  I just sat there with one giant question mark hovering above my head.  I guess it's hard to even nail down the genre.  I've heard some people describe it as a horror, yet there's nothing you'd really associate with the genre.  It's more of a character piece that follows people's perceptions and decent into a dark world.  Or, again, that's what I came away with.  When I can't even tell you what the film was about, I'd hardly take my word on its content.

Netflix can clearly attract big names for its original output (and the industry can only benefit from this), but this is one of their misfires.  Shame.

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

Upgrade - A fun new take on the 'revenge' tale

I know 'revenge' stories are as old as the hills ('Death Wish' kind of brought them into the mainstream in the seventies, but I believe there were others even before that).  The plot is pretty straight forward: protagonist gets someone close to him killed or brutally injured, so he takes revenge on those who wronged him.  Naturally, because of the horrors he's been through, we support the hero automatically and want justice against those scum-bags who clearly need punishment meeting out to them.

Here, we join our hero 'Grey Trace' (Logan Marshall-Green) - a mechanic in the near future, only to lose his wife to a gang of hoodlums in what seems like a random mugging (when are they ever really 'random?!').  Not just does this event rob him of his happy marriage, but also leaves him paralysed from the waist down.  But, before he can really settle in to his new wheelchair-bound life, a Mark Zuckerberg-type tech giant who he's worked for offers to implant a chip into him that will allow him to walk.  Naturally, he takes this opportunity to use his 'second chance' to get even with the gang of thugs.

However, what he doesn't count on is that this new chip in his head not just allows him to walk again, but also speaks to him (think 'Jarvis' is the 'Iron Man' films!), telling him what to do.  And, not only that, can even 'take over' Grey's actions when needed (like when he needs to exact some brutal revenge on someone!).

So, that's the gimmick and, if the film was handled differently, the film may just get completely forgotten, or chalked up to just another revenge B-movie.  Luckily, the script is so tight, the characters so perfect and the whole film just so damn enjoyable, it's destined to become a future cult classic.  There's something about it all that just works.  Maybe it's the fact that the protagonist isn't a fighter, therefore finds it so off-putting when he allows the chip to take control of his body and totally destroy one hoodlum after the next.

The fight scenes are really quiet special.  They have their own 'look and feel' about them that I've never seen before (and I've seen quite a few different types onscreen!).  They kind of remind me of the way fist fighting is handled in the 'Kingsmen' films, i.e. with its own unique style.  It is also pretty violent and the gore is delightfully over the top and comic book-like.  In fact, the whole film could well be some sort of comic book adaptation (or is it - I don't know - I should probably look that point up!).  The villains also have their own 'upgrades' and having firearms woven - literally - into their bodies is another nice touch.

I won't say much more about the story as there are some parts that you might not see coming (I guessed one 'surprise,' but never guessed another!).  If you like your modern action films a little self-knowing and deliciously blood-thirsty then you should definitely watch this - just don't dwell too much on how Logan Marshall-Green looks like Tom Hardy.

This is one film that's so good as a 'stand-alone' piece I really hope they don't try to drag it out with a sequel that just isn't needed.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Pact - Not exactly a thrill ride 

The Pact is a story about a woman who loses her mother and spends a large proportion of the film wandering round various apartments on her own. Sometimes spooky stuff happens, but sadly not much.

She just wanders around. Sometimes she talks to herself. Sometimes she phones a friend and leaves a voicemail message. Once she even spoke to her daughter via webcam. Every so often, something would go bump somewhere in her apartment. I think that was my cue to be scared. I wasn't.

Nice atmosphere and sense of foreboding dread - pity nothing much happened. It's like the first (duller) half of Paranormal Activity (1), only without the second exciting half added on to it.

Oh, and Starship Troopers' former poster boy Casper Van Dian is in it. And he looks waay too old to be in the mobile infantry and more.

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

Gangster Squad - It's a gangster movie

Yes, I know my title might be stating the obvious, but hear me out...

If you have either seen a gangster movie, or can possibly imagine what one is like then you have basically seen `Gangster Squad.' It has every aspect (or if I'm being harsh I could say `cliché') that a gangster movie could possible have. But does that make it bad?

Yes and no. It's not that bad. The acting calibre of Josh Brolin, Sean Penn and Ryan Gosling does elevate it over the average sort of crime caper, plus it's stylishly shot and the production values are high. However, for all its gloss and glamour, it's still just a gangster movie.

It tells the tale of a group of police men who are allowed by their boss to lay down their badges and take the law into their own hands (utilising bullets to the max). Naturally, the bad guys don't rake too kindly to this and fight back with everything they've got.

So, if you're in the mood for (yet another) gangster movie then you'll probably enjoy this. It has action, shoot-outs, car chases and uncompromising good guys. Just don't expect anything particularly original.

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

Vehicle 19 - Nice try, but not A-list enough

Paul Walker, unfortunately for him, is, at best, a `B-movie' actor. Being cast as the leading man seems to be quite a stretch for him, however, as we can see here, he does try his best.

In Vehicle 19, he plays a man, freshly released from jail, who picks up the `wrong' car in a foreign country. Unfortunately for him, a corrupt force of police want its contents and - guess what - our Paul isn't in the mood to give it to them.

The film's major plus point is that it's short. That may sound harsh, but the story - from what little there is of it - benefits from not being dragged out too much. Plus Mr Walker has less to do.
The film mainly involves Paul Walker driving - very fast - around foreign locations as he tries to evade one detachment of baddies after the next, until he finds himself up against the head honcho.

It's not bad, but then it's nothing special either. You've probably seen a thousand movies like it (and a thousand better ones and a thousand worse ones, too). If you fancy a `no-brainer' car chase-type film then give it a go, just don't expect too much from what Paul Walker does with his time in between Fast and Furious flicks.

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

Elektra (2005) - She’s aliiiiive!

Yes, despite *sort of* being bumped off in ‘Daredevil’ Elektra returns for her own self-titled ‘spin-off’ movie.  This, in itself, is odd.  For a start, Daredevil (featuring a ‘blind’ Ben Affleck clad in red rubber, also an image which caused many a trauma in cinema-goers since witnessing it) didn’t exactly set the box offices alight in the way its producers hoped it would.  So, one wonders why they decided to green-light a (semi) sequel.

I’ve never read any of the comic books this film is based on, so I can’t really say how faithful it remains.  But I do know that Jennifer Garner does look better in her costume that her off-screen hubby Ben did (male perspective only), but a costume alone does not really warrant an entire ninety minute movie.  Here we meet Elektra as she’s forced to confront her demons and also protect a single father and his teenage daughter (convenient ‘love interest’ if ever there was one). 

So, expect some martial arts fighting as she whacks one ninja on the head after the next, plus a kind of plot twist that doesn’t really affect the overall story in any way.  About halfway through the film, the fight scenes start using ‘special moves’ instead of just punches and kicks.  Yes, it adds a little something extra to the constant fight scenes, but the CGI effects aren’t that great as someone launches yet another computer-added smoking fireball to their punches and kicks.

Elektra was released just before Marvel basically cornered the market on superheroes movies with their ‘Avengers’ franchise and its predecessors.  Therefore, it’s not half as much fun as any of them.  Then again... it was also released before Christopher Nolan did his Batman trilogy, so it’s also not as dark and menacing as then.  It kind of sits somewhere in the middle in that big empty hole filled with superhero movies which, despite being okay, never really amounted to what they could have been.

You can basically have Elektra on in the background while you potter around your living room.  You’ll still be able to follow it and can just tune in for the good bits.

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

Hanna - It was better the first time around

Sometimes, I’ll watch a film and not really like it.  Then, over time, for one reason or another I’ll start thinking about it and decide to view it again.  Quite often, a second viewing can make all the difference and I’ll end up liking the film.  However, I kind of did the opposite with ‘Hanna.’ I’ve just watched it for a second time (having quite enjoyed it the first time round and therefore buying it on DVD) and it’s kind of left me a little hollow.

Yes, I know it was never meant to be a great Oscar-worthy work of art.  I’m quite happy to sit through ‘no-brainer’ action flicks which are there only to entertain.  And, although that does – kind of – apply to Hanna, I thought there was more to it originally.

The titular ‘Hanna’ is a genetically-engineered super-kid who’s been spirited away from her CIA creators and raised as ‘the perfect assassin’ by her – equally skilled – father.  Then, one day he decides they should go and kill the people responsible for creating her.  You don’t really find out why.  Maybe because she’s just turned 16?

So her dad (Eric Bana) just wanders off and agrees to meet her somewhere in Europe.  Hanna gets captured (or allows herself to get captured) so that she can escape.  Then the film is basically a sixteen-year-old girl killing one wave of CIA hitmen after the next.

Yes, it’s quite nicely shot, but there are times when you really have to suspend your disbelief to get anything out of it.  I can buy that – technically – this film is *almost* sci-fi, what with Hanna’s ‘genetically-engineered’ heritage, so you have to accept that she can do things that no real human ever could.  However, she’s still just a killer in a thin, sixteen year old girl’s body, which makes it a little unbelievable sometimes.

Plus she’s not that easy to root for.  She murders everything that moves and displays little emotion because of it (just like every other character in the film!).  Yes, there’s some character development as she tries to become friends and lead a ‘normal’ life over her ‘destiny,’ but she’s still a little robotic to truly be ‘liked.’

On my second viewing, I didn’t hate the film.  I may well watch it again in a few years time, but I just didn’t really feel as forgiving to its flaws as I obviously did the first time around.  If you want to totally suspend your disbelief and watch a pretty little ‘chase’ film set in Europe, you could give this a go.  The ‘Taken’ films aren’t as pretty, but even they’re more believable!

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

S.W.A.T. – Just big, dumb (action) fun

I’ve watched ‘S.W.A.T.’ so many times and enjoyed it every last one of them.  No, that’s not me saying that it’s a classic film and worthy of future study – it’s just fun (if you’re into action/co-related films).

Back when Colin Farrell was being touted as someone who could headline a big-budget Hollywood movie, he plays the (overly-macho named, in my opinion) Jim Street – a no nonsense S.W.A.T. team member in L.A. who steps over the line during a high-stakes hostage mission and gets chewed out by his superior (the way all on-screen cop-heroes seem to do at one stage or another!).  He’s sent to the ‘gun cage’ for his actions, i.e. taken off active duty while his former partner (played by Jeremy Renner) is just let go from the force.

However, Farrell is soon recruited by Nick Fury (or at least the L.A. S.W.A.T. team’s version of our favourite Marvel SHIELD leader), or at least he’s recruited by Samuel L Jackson, who has to come up with a ‘Dirty Dozen-like’ bunch of police misfits for... well, something.  It doesn’t matter.  What does matter is that Jackson assembles a bit of a early 2000s ensemble cast, including Michelle Rodriguez and LL Cool J in order to make sure the bad-guy Alex Montel (Olivier Martinez – an actor who I only knew because he was once dating Kylie Minogue!) stays in chains.  Little do they know how many people want to bust him out for a decent price!

One minor gripe is that because Alex Montel is behind bars throughout much of the movie, there’s never really much chance for him to interact with our heroes.  Instead, the bulk of the film is about the cops and their struggle to overcome their own demons and get along.  There may be another bad guy for them to deal with, but, on the off-chance you can’t guess who that might be when you sit down to watch, I won’t spoil it.  Anyway, that’s just a minor gripe.  Ultimately, what you have here is an action-packed cop-version of the ‘Dirty Dozen’ where the above bunch of misfits have to conquer their own differences for the greater good (and bust a fair few bad-guys while they’re at it).

So, if you’re looking for plenty of action and wise cracks, this should suitable quench your thirst of a style of action movie that would probably be more at home in the nineties rather than 2003.  It’s definitely a good time, but just don’t bother with its sequel, as it doesn’t carry on the cast’s stories and isn’t even nearly worthy of the ‘S.W.A.T.’ name.

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

The Nice Guys – Not ‘nice guys,’ but nice film anyway

‘The Nice Guys’ has always appealed to me, simply by its front cover.  I know you should never judge a book (or film!) on such superficial factors, but it just looked so damn cool.  And, I’m pleased to say that it is.  Maybe simply setting what it – technically – your pretty standard ‘who-dunnit’ crime caper in the seventies it hardly that new, but it just seems to work.  It’s about an ‘enforcer’ (Russell Crowe) and a private detective (Ryan Gosling) who have to team up in order to solve a crime.  So, it’s effectively your average mismatched ‘buddy cop’ movie, even though neither of the leads are police.

When you try and ‘sell’ a movie like this, it’s hard to really make it sound as good as it actually is.  As I’ve already mentioned, everything about the set-up is nothing new and it’s only real difference is that it’s set around forty years ago instead of in present day, you may wonder what makes it worth watching.  Well, I guess it’s the chemistry between the two leads that makes it work so well.  Crowe and Gosling really do play up the ‘mismatched’ element of the story to perfection.  However, just because they’re funny, doesn’t really mean that I’d call this film a ‘comedy.’ The humour is all very ‘black’ and even when you’re laughing out loud, it’s probably because someone has just been hurt!

I won’t go into the plot too much, as with most ‘who-dunnits’ if you give away what and why they’re investigating you run the risk of spoiling what’s in store.  I guess ‘The Nice Guys’ won’t be for everyone.  It’s not just the humour that’s dark.  I mentioned that people get hurt and there some fights and actions scenes that are up there with the best of serious cop dramas and action movies.  It’s one of those films that splits genres.  It’s never only a comedy, action film or drama, yet it definitely displays elements of all of them.  It’s also too violent and adult in nature to be watched by younger audiences, so it’s strictly for adults who enjoy their murder mysteries dark when a healthy dose of black humour.

It’s a great piece for both Crowe and Gosling who look like they’re really enjoying themselves.  And it shows.  As I said, ‘The Nice Guys’ probably isn’t for everyone, but hopefully it will at least gain a cult following that it deserves.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

13 Hours – yup, that’s about right

Sometimes a film’s title really does tip you off as to what it’s going to be about. ‘Snakes on a Plane’ is one such example.  What you see is what you get. ’13 Hours’ is another.  Having watched it, I can definitely confirm that it felt like I had wasted 13 hours of my life watching this.  And that’s a shame.  Despite Michael Bay’s notorious reputation since his stint at the helm of the infamous ‘Transformers’ franchise, I still think he’s a reasonably good director (I am just about the only person alive who enjoyed his ‘Pain and Gain’ film!) so, when I heard he was directing a film about hired security officers in the Middle East, I thought it would be worth a watch.

Now, you can probably tell I wasn’t impressed and I feel I should probably start listing the various reasons as to why I felt this way.  However, I can sum it up in one word: boring.  And I could probably leave the review there.  I didn’t think it was terrible, just boring. ‘The Office’s’ John Krasinski plays the lead security officer and, if you’ve seen him taking fire from Michael Scott, then you’ll probably know that he can hold his own in dangerous situations.  He’s – as predicted – a likeable character who you always feel like you could probably share a beer with.  But the film was still boring.  Yes, it does show us westerners a window into what life must be like in Middle Eastern countries and what Westerners have to go through when living/working there.  The scenery is certainly nice and interesting to look at – certainly a change from watching films set in New York or other recognisable locations.  And there is definitely a gritty undertone to the whole story.  You can feel the dirt and danger these people have to go through on a daily basis.  But I was still bored.  Yup, there are some – sort of – car chases and gunfights.  These are naturally well executed (in true Michael Bay style), but I’ve seen all these before and, yes, I was bored.

Overall, ’13 Hours’ is a nice (and dare I say ‘accurate?’) portrayal of what life must be like in that unstable region of the world, but, ultimately, despite its good points, it just didn’t grab me.  I was bored (although I’m guessing that this was still better than ‘Transformers 5: The Last Knight!’).

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

The Cabin In The Woods - Wow - something a bit different! 

Over the last ten years or so, so many horror movies have been labelled as `genre-changing.' And most of them have been utter tosh - simply regurgitating tried and tested formulas, filled with annoying horror clichés and even more annoying screaming teenagers.

Enter The Cabin in the Woods. I picked up on the hype before it was released and deliberately tried to avoid finding out too much about it as I wanted to be surprised.

I was surprised indeed. It was actually pretty good. Yes, it's horror. However, there's not an awful lot of gore or scares if that's what you're looking for. Instead, it pays homage to classic horror films like Evil Dead and rips them off in a good way, while at the same time introducing a slightly new spin on the genre.

It's about five teenagers who take a trip to a deserted cabin in the woods the come to a sticky end, one by one. Nothing particularly original there, but it's the overall package that makes it slightly different to the norm.

I won't say too much in case you don't know about there whys and hows of it all. Basically, if you like cheesy B-movie style horror films and you want one with a different plot which pokes fun at the many horror clichés you've become accustomed (and possibly desensitised to) over the years, then give this one a go. It may just surprise you.

I really liked this film, but, after reading various Internet reviews, I've found a fair few people didn't. Their criticism was that either it wasn't scary or horrific enough, or that they didn't understand it. A fair comment on the lack of gore and scares, but I think the point of the film isn't to make you throw your dinner up or have a heart attack out of fright - but more to try and make something new out of something old. As for not understanding it - yes, this one does take an ounce more understanding that just a maniac in an ice hockey mask cutting people up with a chainsaw. Pay careful attention to the scenes in the office style environment which are interspersed with the story of the teenagers in the cabin - it should answer all questions.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Swimming With Sharks - Textbook Spacey

With all the ups and downs of Kevin Spacey's career, 'Swimming With Sharks' kind of came along before he seemed destined to hit the dizzy heights or the crippling lows.  Before he hit the big time with 'American Beauty' he played what would eventually become his 'go to' character, i.e. a sleezebag.

Sadly, if the media are to be believed, life has imitated art, but I like to do my best and separate the art from the artist.  So, if you can bring yourself to actually watch a Kevin Spacey film these days, this one will certainly showcase much of the acting talent and stage presence that would cement his 'A-list' credentials.

Spacey plays 'Buddy Ackerman' - a 'Harvey Weinstein-esque' type film producer who is well-known in Hollywood circles (you can write your own comparison gag for that one!).  And he's a completely b******d (again, draw your own comparisons!).  He treats his staff - and in particular his personal assistants - like dirt.  Which is not good news for his latest victim/employee 'Guy' (played by Frank Whaley).  Although Spacey is the star that doesn't mean he's the main focus.  Whaley is the main character whose life we follow as he tries to juggle actually having a life while carrying out/serving his new 'master.'

The film was set in the mid nineties and it shows.  Everything from the haircuts to the suits seal it in its time period.  The film's look and feel hasn't aged that well, but at least the story seems pretty timeless of a put-upon employee being mercilessly exploited by his employer.  The direction is pretty standard for this type of drama/black comedy/satire and there's no memorable soundtrack to speak of.  It does tend to do that thing where it starts near the end, so you can see how the characters end up and the bulk of the film is - technically - long flashbacks for us to see how the characters end up the way they are.  Personally, I'd prefer to see the story told in a linear fashion as I thought it didn't really need to have time played about with.

I have to confess that I'd never heard of Frank Whaley before I watched this (and I've never seen himself in anything since!) and he does seem a little out of his league while playing up against Spacey's considerable charisma.  Whether you love or hate Spacey (on screen or in real life), this is his baby and it's worth a watch just to see his acerbic put-downs.

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

Back to the Future – As good as it ever was

There are some films that are just timeless and everyone should watch (especially in today’s climate of remakes, reboots and reimaginings).  Basically, see it before it gets horribly remade with overblown computer effects and wafer-thin characters that you simply just don’t care about.  By now, you can probably already tell that I love this film and I’m effectively going to ‘gush’ about it, so if you just want to accept now that it’s a definite 10/10 you might as well stop reading now.  However, if you’re vaguely interested as to why I think it’s so – technically – perfect, then feel free to read on.

In case you’re one of the few people that have been living in 1955 all your life and have only just arrived in our year courtesy of a time machine, you may need to know that ‘Back to the Future’ is about time travelling.  Marty McFly, played by the ever youthful Michael J Fox, gets caught up in eccentric inventor, Doc Brown’s, latest scheme to build a time machine out of a DeLorean car.  Naturally, things don’t go smoothly as he inadvertently ends up in 1955 and accidentally interferes with the very moment his parents got together, therefore possibly preventing him from every being conceived.  If this wasn’t bad enough, he’s only got a one-shot chance at returning to his own time thanks to a lightning bolt due to power his time machine for the return trip.

I think what makes this film stand the tests of time is the fact that it is a true ‘family’ film.  Whereas most films which can be watched by children are largely aimed ONLY at them and force the adults to sit through it until it’s over, I can’t imagine anyone – male/female, young/old – not actually finding enjoyment out of this adventure.  It’s funny without ever being childish or vulgar, exciting without ever being over the top or unrealistic (if you’re willing to suspend your disbelief enough to believe that time travel is actually possible) and, of course, it contains some of the most memorable characters ever committed to film.  Naturally, our dashing young hero, Marty, is very easy to root for, however it’s his cranky old sidekick ‘Doc’, played perfectly by Christopher Lloyd who steals every scene and is the true joy to watch all the way through.  It’s also worth mentioning that Marty’s on-screen family also can hold their own, played different versions of themselves throughout the time periods, but special mention should go a character who should – by rights – be little more than a stereotypical bully, yet ‘Biff’ somehow becomes the clichéd bully that all other on-screen thugs aspire to be ever after.

If this film has a downside – and I’m only mentioning this because I can see that some people may have a problem with it these days (I didn’t and still don’t!) it’s that there are a few topics of humour that some people may find a little ‘edgy’ in today’s PC culture.  For some reason I get the feeling that today any ‘family’ movie may shy away from a mother inadvertently falling in love with her son, but it was the eighties and things were different then!

There aren’t many movies that still can bring a family together around the TV in the living room on Christmas Day, but this is still one of them.  If you haven’t already brought the entire trilogy on DVD, then watch it now and show your children.  It deserves to entertain future generations.  Yes, the following two ‘Back to the Future’ movies weren’t quite so well-received by the critics, but I think they’re great, too. 

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

Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter - The `history' they won't teach you in school

Yes, as the title says, Abraham Lincoln is a `vampire hunter.' It's obvious when you think about it. And the civil war was fought against vampires. Again, how did you NOT know?

Okay, this film is silly. But then the title is unforgivably silly, so the film-makers assume that you know it's silly before you spend your money watching it. And they're right. It is silly. However, not THAT silly. For a start (believe it or not) the film follows Lincoln's life pretty closely (yes, apart from the inclusion of vampires... obviously), almost to the point that it's historically accurate! Then there are the action sequences. The undead hurl themselves in droves in Lincoln's direction, only to be sliced and diced in trendy slow motion effects with blood splattering everywhere - hardly traits of a comedy.

Despite the film's kind of cheeky title, there aren't that many laughs (or even tongue in cheek moments) along the way. That's possibly what made it feel a little odd for me. From the title I was expecting a much dafter movie. What I got was an oldie-worldy action film with some reasonably high production values and attempts at remaining true to the historical text (again, if you don't count the vampire inclusion).

If you like vampires and action, you'll probably like this. Think `Blade set in times past' and you probably get the idea. However, if you're expecting something quite cheesy and tongue in cheek, then this isn't really it.

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

The 51st State - A buddy-cop movie (but not with cops)

We’ve all seen the ‘buddy cop movies’ where two mismatched police officers are forced to work together in order to solve a case.  Well… this is like one of those.  Only the central protagonists aren’t cops – they’re criminals.  And, naturally, they’re not looking to solve a case, only to works a drugs sting which involves double-crossing about every drug dealer from Los Angeles to Liverpool.

It could have been nothing special and, although the plot is hardly legendary, the fact that the two main leads are Samuel L Jackson and Robert Carlyle go some way to raising it above average.  For a start they play off each other well.  It’s fair to say that the two actors are about as different physically as can be and that also goes some way to help their – fragile – relationship as they’re pursued through Liverpool by everyone from drug dealers to crooked cops and assassins.

The two leads are about the only ‘A-listers’ on the case, but the supporting cast has all sorts of familiar faces cropping up, all turning in pretty decent performances.

It may not have the general wit and style of other British gangster films (ala Lock Stock and Snatch), but it’s fast paced enough to keep most people’s interest if you’re generally a fan of gangster films and don’t mind watching too much violence and blood (and other bodily fluids) flying across the screen, then you might like to give this one a go.  Considering it’s never really mentioned when people talk about the ‘great’ British gangster films, it’s not as bad as it could be (and you get to watch Samuel L Jackson bust a few heads with a golf club – what more could you want?).

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

The Monster (2016) - Decent enough horror

'The Monster' is a pretty simple little film - a mother (and that term describes the woman in the loosest possible terms, as she can hardly be called 'doting!') takes her daughter for a late night drive across country, only for their car to break down and become victim to a - largely unseen - monster.

Having only the two primary characters does mean that you get a decent amount of time (approximately half the film) to get to know the pair of them before the beastie really starts trying to do its worst.  As I eluded to, the mother is pretty much a waste of space at the beginning of the film when we first meet her, so there's plenty of room for her character to grow, so to speak.  Plus the little girl who plays her daughter is certainly a talented young actress who isn't in any way as annoying as about 90% of kids who appear in films these days!

It really is as much of a character piece as it is about the creature.  Yes, the nasty ol' monster does show up during the second half of the film and it is pretty decent when it comes to special effects.  The film is hardly 'high budget' and they money must have been used for the creature, as it does look quite different to most recognisable on-screen beasties.

The human stars also behave in - I guess you'd call in - a 'sane' way.  By that I mean that you (hopefully!) won't be screaming too much at the on-screen characters due to them making all those ludicrously-bad decisions that people always seem to make in horror movies.

However, despite the lack of characters being a plus in that we can really get to know them, it is also a kind of drawback as we - the audience - know that neither of them are going to bite the bullet (or just disappear down the monster's throat) anywhere through the movie (and you'll have to wait until the end to see if they do make it out of this situation).

It's a tense little horror movie that does its best with a limited budget to build characters and not reveal too much of the creature until it ultimately has to.  It's possibly a little 'over-long' and could have done with having a few of the more 'filler' scenes left on the cutting room floor, but, overall, anyone who's interested in horror shouldn't feel like they've wasted their time sitting down to this.

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

Oldboy (2003) - Disturbingly dark

I recently saw another Korean film ‘I Saw the Devil’ and, in light of the fact that I’ve now watched a film made by the same people, ‘Oldboy’ I’m glad I did.  Because I think that many of us have been kind of lulled into believing that the only way to make a film is ‘the Hollywood way.’ I didn’t like ‘I Saw the Devil’ when I started watching it, but, after persevering, I was glad I did in the end.  Plus, now I feel I know Korean cinema a little better (or how it’s done) I was able to enjoy (if that’s the right word) ‘Oldboy’ from the off.

And it’s certainly a difficult film to describe, let alone say who’s its target audience is.  A man – and not a particularly nice one – doesn’t bother seeing his estranged wife and baby daughter in favour of generally going out and getting drunk.  However, things quickly catch up with him when he’s swiped off the streets and locked in a room for no less than fifteen years without explanation.  However, during this time he’s had more than a few changes of heart.  Now he’s not only ready to find out and punish whoever imprisoned him in the first place, but also make amends with his daughter, who is now basically grown up in his absence.

It would be easy to label Oldboy as a ‘revenge thriller.’ Yes, there are certainly aspects of hunting down those who wronged him.  But it’s the way it’s done that makes it so different.  I would go into specifics, but it’s one of those films where if you say too much about the plot you will give away vital points which will lead to you predicting what’s to come.  It’s fair to say that there are more than a few twists and turns to keep you interested (or disgusted?) and you will not only need to be ready for those, but also have a strong stomach in terms of content material.

Which brings me back to my thoughts on who it’s marketed at.  I don’t really know – people who like revenge movies, but can tolerate some pretty disturbing storylines mainly.  Oh, and subtitles.  It’s got subtitles – but then you probably guessed that.  However, even though you have to read the dialogue it’s still easy to tell that the cast are pretty impressive and there are performances that are going to stick with you – even if some of them are for the wrong reasons.

Basically, if you like your foreign revenge films dark then give this one a go.  Just don’t blame me for any therapy you may require after sitting through it.  A classic, but a dark one.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Hanna - It was better the first time around

Sometimes, I’ll watch a film and not really like it.  Then, over time, for one reason or another I’ll start thinking about it and decide to view it again.  Quite often, a second viewing can make all the difference and I’ll end up liking the film.  However, I kind of did the opposite with ‘Hanna.’ I’ve just watched it for a second time (having quite enjoyed it the first time round and therefore buying it on DVD) and it’s kind of left me a little hollow.

Yes, I know it was never meant to be a great Oscar-worthy work of art.  I’m quite happy to sit through ‘no-brainer’ action flicks which are there only to entertain.  And, although that does – kind of – apply to Hanna, I thought there was more to it originally.

The titular ‘Hanna’ is a genetically-engineered super-kid who’s been spirited away from her CIA creators and raised as ‘the perfect assassin’ by her – equally skilled – father.  Then, one day he decides they should go and kill the people responsible for creating her.  You don’t really find out why.  Maybe because she’s just turned 16?

So her dad (Eric Bana) just wanders off and agrees to meet her somewhere in Europe.  Hanna gets captured (or allows herself to get captured) so that she can escape.  Then the film is basically a sixteen-year-old girl killing one wave of CIA hitmen after the next.

Yes, it’s quite nicely shot, but there are times when you really have to suspend your disbelief to get anything out of it.  I can buy that – technically – this film is *almost* sci-fi, what with Hanna’s ‘genetically-engineered’ heritage, so you have to accept that she can do things that no real human ever could.  However, she’s still just a killer in a thin, sixteen year old girl’s body, which makes it a little unbelievable sometimes.

Plus she’s not that easy to root for.  She murders everything that moves and displays little emotion because of it (just like every other character in the film!).  Yes, there’s some character development as she tries to become friends and lead a ‘normal’ life over her ‘destiny,’ but she’s still a little robotic to truly be ‘liked.’

On my second viewing, I didn’t hate the film.  I may well watch it again in a few years time, but I just didn’t really feel as forgiving to its flaws as I obviously did the first time around.  If you want to totally suspend your disbelief and watch a pretty little ‘chase’ film set in Europe, you could give this a go.  The ‘Taken’ films aren’t as pretty, but even they’re more believable!

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

The Signal (2007) - Different enough to be decent

When I got round to writing this review for 2007's 'The Signal' I actually found that people seemed to either rate it with top marks, or bottom marks - I guess that means that the general consensus is that you either love it or hate it.  I wouldn't say that it's the greatest film ever made and the subject matter is hardly reinventing the wheel in terms of horror.  However, the way it's done makes it worth a watch if you're into your low-budget horror offerings/B-movies.

The titular 'Signal' is in fact a TV broadcast of weird, trippy colours on everyone's TV screen.  So, when the general population encounter such an inconvenience, instead of just putting on a DVD instead, or subscribing to Netflix, they generally go nuts... and generally slice people's throats open with pliers.

It's a film of three acts - even more literally than the general film-making story structure.  Although each part follows the same story about a pair of love rival men trying to track down the woman they are both in love with during this hellish apocalypse, each section is directed by a different director.  Naturally, this gives the film quite a unique feel, in as much as the style and tone do tend to shift with each segment.

It's important to remember that this is a 'B-movie,' therefore don't go expecting any A-list actors or major special effects here.  You probably won't have heard of any of the leads (or at least I hadn't!), but they all do a decent enough job and are quite competent for all their respective roles.  What 'budget' this film had attached to it obviously did its best to give us some major (and quite realistically disgusting!) gore splattered here and there, but luckily it never descends into an outright bloodbath.

Overall, if you're in the mood for a pretty dark little horror movie that tries to be as realistic as possible, give this one a go.  Although - and this is just my two cents - when I say it's 'dark' I'm mainly referring to the first and third act.  I actually found the middle part to be quite tongue-in-cheek with plenty of 'black' humour thrown in there.  So, sit back, enjoy the shifts in tone and the characters' perception of reality as this mysterious signal scrambles their brains and forces them to question reality with some pretty gruesome consequences.

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

Rampage - Kind of reminds me of that old question...

Why do people climb mountains? The answer: because they're there.

And that seems to sum up my feelings towards Uwe Boll's `Rampage.' Glossing over the fact that Uwe Boll (often regarded as being the worst director ever) has made a half-watchable, well-acted film, I was left wondering why I watched this film in the first place and, why I sat through it until the end. And, now it's over, I sort of wonder what the point of it was.

The only conclusion I can draw is that it doesn't have a point. The movie simply exists. It is what it is and you just have to take it as such.

It's about a man who goes on killing spree with a machine gun (hardly a light-hearted topic). It's actually pretty hard-hitting. It's not often you see innocent shoppers simply gunned down in the middle of the street by the central character (I certainly wouldn't refer to him as `hero').

It's certainly not a family movie. I don't know who its target audience is. Just because I've watched it, doesn't mean I'd sit through it again. But, at the same time, despite its distasteful subject matter, the acting was good, the direction competent and the film different enough for me to sit through it again. Which leads me back to my opening question of why I watched it in the first place? I guess because it was there.

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

Lord of War - Uber-restrained Cage

Nicolas Cage has had an up and down career over the ages - well, mainly 'down' these day, but, back when he could still headline a movie that wasn't released straight-to-DVD, he did 'Lord of War.' It's mainly a drama, but there are certainly elements of satire and almost black comedy sprinkled liberally here and there.  Cage plays your average lovable international arms dealer who's happily selling weapons of mass destruction around the world while enjoying the fruits of his efforts (much to the disapproval of a long-suffering Interpol agent, played by Ethan Hawke, who's constantly hot on his trail).

There's a reason Nicolas Cage won an Oscar and could prop up even the weakest of scripts with his acting ability and here it shines through.  It's definitely one of his last (best) films where the whole show lies upon his shoulders.  Granted, he's got a bit of a reputation of - how best to put this - going a little 'over the top' with his acting performances, however, here he's actually pretty restrained compared to some of he previous output.

Even though it's Nic's show through and through, there is a pretty decent cast around him.  Besides the already-mentioned Ethan Hawke (who's not in it as much as he probably should be), there's also Jared Leto and Ian Holm, both who put in good performances considered the amount of screen-time they're afforded.  Cage's on-screen wife is played by Bridget Moynahan who has little to do but look hard done by due to her husband's dodgy lifestyle choices.

It's full of social satire and statements about the way we (as Western nations, I guess) live and run our countries, plus the impact the arms trade (whether it be legal, or Nicolas Cage's way of doing it) has on the countries such weapons end up in the hands of.  It's also pretty dark in places and doesn't pull any punches.  Just because the majority of the violence caused by such weapons is cleverly edited out, we can get the full horror of the regimes who desire to buy illegal weapons such as machine guns and grenades.

It's hardly an uplifting film, but Cage does what he does best and makes it worth a re-watch or two with his charming portrayal of someone who deliberately blinds himself to the horrors of what he's doing, simply to further his own lavish lifestyle - hardly a heroic protagonist, but then I guess that's what the film's trying to say.

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

The Impossible - A drama over a thriller

If, like me, you've become accustomed to Hollywood's recent obsession with disaster movies, then you might have expected The Impossible to be more of a fast-paced, tension-driven thriller about people trying to survive against the elements. However, this is actually more of a thoughtful, uplifting piece. Yes, we have some special effects near the beginning where a huge tidal wave decimates a holiday resort in Thailand, leaving numerous dead or missing, but the rest of the film is about a family who have become separated with each other, undertaking the monumental task of trying to find each other again in the midst of the aftermath.

With Ewan McGreggor and Naomi Watts as leads, you can expect decent performances, but the stand-out character who steals many of the scenes is the young boy who plays their son and shows how he was forced to cope with growing up far sooner than he ever should have.

It's a good film, if you're looking for drama and a real story of survival against the odds. Just don't expect a rollercoaster of excitement with many thrills and spills along the way.

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

Snakes on a Plane - The greatest film ever made

Okay, so 'Snakes on a Plane' may not - sadly - be recognised as 'the greatest film ever made' - I may have slightly exaggerated that one.  However, it is a shining example of a film that tells you everything you need to know about it from four words alone.  You probably don't even need to watch any form of trailer to know whether you're going to enjoy it or not.  Therefore, if the prospect of a plane filled with poisonous snakes slithering after a load of hapless passengers then you really shouldn't even consider sitting down to watch it.

However, if - like me - you sometimes feel like putting your brain 'on hold' for an hour and a half and want to watch something completely silly and completely implausible then you should definitely give it a go.  If you need to know anything about 'the plot' then it centres around Samuel L Jackson playing an FBI agent (or basically playing Samuel L Jackson - he doesn't really put much extra effort into his performance, but - who cares - we all love him for what he does!) who has to transport a vital witness (via plane, of course) across America in order to get him to testify against some gangster or other.  However, said bad-man decides the best way to stop this witness from ever fingering him in court would be to 'take down' the whole plane with a whole crate of poisonous snakes who will bite every last passenger.

Now, if you're wondering how a film with such a simple premise can stretch itself out into over an hour and a half long, it can.  Believe it or not, it does have a little more (and only a little!) depth than you may think.  Yes, many of the snakes are CGI and yes, most of the victims' characters are hardly 'well-developed' during the story and it even succumbs to some typical horror cliches such as 'have sex and die,' but there's just something so damn enjoyable about this film that you can pretty much forgive every last minor gripe about it.

As I said, Samuel L Jackson doesn't have to reach far to play this FBI agent - he's basically playing a cross between himself and the same character he plays in almost every other film he's in.  But - most importantly - he seems to be having fun.  And that's what shines through - not just with him, but in the whole film.  It never tries to be anything other than a daft popcorn movie and it succeed completely.  It's Jackson's baby through and through, as you probably won't remember a single other person on the flight once the credits have rolled.  There is a woman from UK TV's 'Peep Show' and David Koechner is always worth a watch, but, apart from them, it's hardly an 'ensemble' cast.

As I said, the title tells you everything you should need to know about the film.  If you choose to watch it and you find you don't enjoy it, I'd be very surprised.  It's worth it alone from Jackson's delivery of the now famous line, 'I have had it with those xxxxx snakes on this xxxx plane!' Classic.

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

Safe - A safe bet for an action flick 

Being a self-confessed fan of Jason Statham (yes, I am seeking professional help for this affliction) I was looking forward to ‘Safe’ - a film where the cheeky half cockney/half New Yorker takes a young girl under his muscular wing in order to protect her from not just the Triads, but Russian mobsters and even a branch of dirty cops.  Obviously we know that `the Stath' will win though, kicking many heads along the way, but it's the ‘journey’ we're interested in (or rather the action!).

Many people will have seen him do something similar in the ‘Transporter’ (1 through however many have been made since I wrote this). And he did it well for that franchise, i.e. dispatching armies of incompetent bad guys without a bead of sweat trickling off his shiny dome. However, here, in ‘Safe,’ it all gets a little too serious.

Statham's previous efforts seem to have a degree of `knowingness' about them, as if they're just a little tongue-in-cheek (think Roger Moore's James Bond stint, but with less hair of course). In ‘Safe,’ the bad guys are indeed ten-a-penny and pretty generic. In fact, there's barely one that you'll remember - just see them as Russian Hood #12 and Dirty Cop #4 and that's about as much character development as you're going to get there.

Other people have drawn comparisons with the Bruce Willis film ‘Mercury Rising,’ where he has to protect a youngster from all sorts of gangs. I haven't seen that one, so I can't comment.  Although, at least it is different to have ‘The Stath’ have a child as a sidekick, rather than a ‘damsel in distress’ and (newcomer to the big screen) Catherine Chan does do a great job at portraying the young Chinese girl who has a gift for counting.  Sometimes when children are involved in more ‘adult’ films, they can come across as annoying.  Glad to say here that doesn’t happen.   In fact, it’s only really her and Jason Statham who saves this film rather from being just a bit generic, to WOEFULLY generic and totally forgettable.  At least it’s proof that he can helm a film and turn it into something more than it has any right to be.

Overall, ‘Safe’ isn't bad. There are shootouts. There are fist-fights and even a car chase or two. However, it all just seems a little run-of-the-mill. With the ‘Transporter’ franchise you had flashy sets and over-the-top action. Here, you have the grimy backdrop of New York at night and a feeling you've seen most of this before.

However, it does that job for us ‘Statham die-hards,’ so I can hardly complain.  It’s one of those films that I’m happy to watch on DVD or on some online streaming service, rather than having to pay full price in the cinema.

Not bad, just nothing that compares to the ‘Expendables’ series in terms of action and certainly nothing like the ‘Crank’ films in terms of realism (or lack thereof!).

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

Dark Angel - So bad (and yet so enjoyable)

I first watched Dark Angel in the eighties - which was impressive as it came out in 1990. However, the reason I keep telling myself I saw it about five years earlier was (a) because I was about twelve at the time and (b) because everything about Dark Angel says EIGHTIES.

It's about a nasty old alien who comes to Earth to steal people's endorphin straight from their brains. However, luckily we have tough, no-nonsense cop Dolph Lundgren to sort the rotter out.

It's no masterpiece by anyone's standards. When I first decided to watch it again after over twenty years, I worried that it might spoil the memories of my childhood favourite. I'm pleased to say that it didn't. Dark Angel is as ludicrously daftly enjoyable today as it was back in the eighties (sorry, nineties).

It treads a fine line between being really dark and serious, and slightly tongue-in-cheek and self-knowing. Not many films can get away with this, but somehow Dark Angel pulls it off.

The dialogue may be corny, the special effects aren't really that special, the acting is questionable (and the over-acting from the `mad scientist' is truly a joy to behold) and you could spend longer listing the plot holes than actually watching the films, but, at the end of the day, Dark Angel is enormously silly fun.

If you really don't want to think about plot, story or characterisation the why not immerse yourself in this `Terminator-esque' action flick from the eighties +1? I defy anyone not to cheer when Dolph finally delivers his cutting put-down to the bad alien near the end of the film!

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

Jack The Giant Slayer - Jack the... guy who kind of hangs out in the presence of giants

I will start by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Yes, it's mainly meant for kids, but, if you generally like fairytales, or can simply appreciate films where you have to suspend your disbelief to the maximum, then you'll probably be able to sit through this.

However, and this is my main (and minor) gripe with this film: Jack doesn't do much `giant slaying.' I was expecting to pick up some sort of `magic axe' at any moment and open up a can of whoop-ass of those big-footed bullies. As it happens, he's more just there when the action takes place, rather than actually `slaying' any giants.

But, ignoring my beef with the title, the rest of the film is fun. I've heard people criticise it for being `cliché-riddled.' And, yes, they're probably right. But then it's based on a children's fairytale, so...er... what are you expecting, Shakespeare? Other gripes include the giants themselves - they're all computer-generated and some people seem to want `real' giants (or at least real people playing the giants). Again, I didn't mind this - it was a fairytale, so it was supposed to look a little unreal in my opinion.

All the characters play their parts well. The baddies are bad and the goodies are good. The only person I really didn't think did that much was the princess, who's there simply because every fairytale needs one. I read online that the actress who played her `based her performance on Ripley from Aliens.' If she did... then that severely went over my head!

Yes, this film will always have one or two flaws and there will be those who take delight in picking it apart because of them. However, I think the good outweighs the bad. It's a 12 certificate in the UK and I can see why - despite much of the killing and `gore' taking place when the camera (conveniently) cuts away, the giants do a lot more `slaying' than Jack can ever get round to. Some younger viewers may not like that. But then I'm old and horrible, so I loved it.

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

Gangster - Not that original, but not that bad either

`Gangster' (or `Edwin Boyd' or even `Citizen Gangster' depending on which version you own) is nothing particularly new. It's - loosely - based on the true story of World War II veteran, Edwin Boyd, who returns home to America with dreams of being a film star, only to end up being a bank robber instead.

Naturally, this career choice doesn't go down too well with his wife and two small children, who are dragged along for the ride all the way. So the story is basically Edwin on the run vs his long-suffering wife and her pleas to go straight. This is nothing particularly out of the ordinary in terms of plotlines, yet it does its best to put on a good show.

This is partly to do with Kelly Reilly's performance as Edwin's wife. She really is the heart of the film and does well at playing the `emotional ying' to his `unruly yang.'

For a first time film-maker's debut, `Gangster' is certainly a good start. It doesn't bear any hallmarks of being a debut feature. All performances are good, the direction slick and the action dramatic. Plus it's technically a `period piece,' set just after World War II.

If you like gangster films then you should definitely check this one out.

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

Vantage Point - A thriller that ticks all the boxes

‘Vantage Point’ is basically a thriller about a terrorist bombing/plot to kill the President of America while he’s on an overseas trip. And, as you may probably be thinking, there’s not much original about that plot. However, the film’s major ‘selling point’ is that the story is told several times, through the use of different spectators/participants’ perspectives (in fact ‘Perspective’ might have been a more appropriate title!).

Therefore, the film-makers can claim it’s an original concept applied to a not particularly original idea. And it works... just.

For a thriller it ticks all the boxes you want. It has stars (many in fact) who all turn in an acceptable performance (and give them extra credit when none of them are in it ALL the way through, therefore hardly giving them a chance to ‘flesh out’ their character). It’s not that long and there are a good few shoot-outs/explosions/car chases.

And that’s it really. It could be described as ‘run of the mill’ if it wasn’t for it’s different approach to the norm, plus it has just about enough A-list stars in it to raise it above a B-movie. But, at the end of the day, that’s basically what it is – a glorified B-movie. But that’s no bad thing, as it’s highly watchable and should keep you entertained if you like thrillers for just under an hour and a half.

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

Escape From L.A. - Inferior, but enjoyable sequel

For some reason, despite being a fan of both (actor) Kurt Russell and (writer/director) John Carpenter, I never really went for their team-up movie 'Escape from New York' back in the seventies.  On paper it had everything I was looking for in a film, but it just left me cold.  However, I was in the minority there and plenty of people lord it as a 'classic' dystopian action/sci-fi film of the seventies.  Now we come to the sequel, 'Escape From L.A.' around twenty years later.  Sequels normally have trouble living up to the original, let alone if there's a huge gap between them ('Basic Instinct 2' I'm looking at you).

Unfortunately, 'Escape From L.A.' kind of came and went from the public's conscious and no one really noticed.  It never came close to generating such fondness with audiences and is generally considered a 'flop' in filmic terms.  Even though I'm no 'mega fan' of the original, I can see why people enjoyed it.  Maybe it's because I don't have as much love for Snake Plissken's original outing that I can appreciate the sequel and not expect so much from it.  And I do think that setting your expectations quite low is the key to enjoying it.  It's certainly no classic, but there are definitely worse out there.

The first time around Kurt Russell played snarling anti-hero 'Snake Plissken' as he was recruited against his will by the Government and forced to rescue the President from the - now sealed off - city of New York.  Guess what, this time round he has to rescue someone from L.A. (and defuse some sort of nuke-type device - it's not that relevant!).  So, expect more (one-eyed) snarling from our protagonist, plenty of gun-play and the odd one-liner thrown in to show that the film kind of knows that it doesn't take itself too seriously.

Along the way, Snake encounters plenty of colourful characters to aid and/or hamper his quest.  Steve Buscemi is right up there as the main one that you'll remember, playing his typical 'wise-guy' kind of wheeler-dealer who you never know which side he's really on (besides his own!).  However, my personal favourite was the group of humans who became addicted to plastic surgery in Hollywood and now are constantly hunting victims to steal their bodyparts.  This gang is headed by (the ever-awesome) Bruce Campbell.  Here, my only complaint is that this plotline isn't explored enough - seriously, I could have watched a whole film that revolved round this aspect!  In fact, most people Snake meets are enjoyable to watch and add to the story... possibly apart from the one person who matters, i.e. the villain.  He's about the most paper-thin character of them all and, when you have someone as iconic as Snake as the lead, you really need to look hard for that special kind of villain to match him.

'Escape From L.A.' does feel a little dated now, especially when it comes to special effects.  These basically aren't that special.  Most are blatantly shot up against a bluescreen and it does tend to drag you out of the action.  As do the numerous establishing shots of a post-apocalyptic L.A. which are obviously just drawings.

However, it is just a B-movie and, if you keep telling yourself that then there's definitely entertainment to be found here, even if this is probably the last time you'll see Snake Plissken in action on the big screen (Box Office returns, combined with Kurt Russel's age, seem to dictate that this will be the last!).

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