On Her Majesty’s Secret Service – Carry on Bond

Oh, dear, the ‘Bond franchise’ really was in a bit of a dilemma after the departure of – arguably the best Bond – Sean Connery.  On the plus side, they seemed to have a decent replacement in the form of George Lazenby, better known as ‘Who?’ to most of us, but there was still the little matter of how to bring him out from behind Connery’s massive shadow and make the role his own.  What followed was a mish-mash of everything we know as ‘Bond,’ combined with some things we’d never expect from the world’s most famous secret agent. ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’ is often (unfairly!) labelled as ‘the worst of all the Bond films.’ It’s not.  Quite often those who finally sit down to watch it come round and see that it’s not all bad, it’s just different.  And it knows it.

Right off the bat it pokes fun at itself for the change in leading man (a running joke if you look closely to certain lines of dialogue) and the does its best to carry on the story.  However, George Lazenby, albeit a capable actor, is just too wacky to be taken seriously.  I know Connery’s Bond was quite dark and the producers obviously felt that a ‘lighter’ touch would help go some way to distinguish the two Bonds.  However, as my title suggests, it feels like more of a parody of a Bond film that ‘official’ spy movie spoofs like the original ‘Casino Royale.’ We see this new Bond playing a new role, i.e. he’s in disguise, but the disguise is so geeky that he could have been played by Kenneth Williams and no one would have noticed.  Now, you may say that Sean Connery went undercover as a Japanese man and Roger Moore as a clown.  However, these were for mere minutes of their respective films.  Lazenby’s performance lasts a fair portion of the second act.  Plus he wears a kilt and no Bond should wear a kilt!

However, like I said, it’s not all bad.  The action and the women are both there (even if there does seem to be an abundance of ‘jump cuts’ in every fight scene which are more noticeable than ever when watching on your typical large flatscreen TV).  And, most importantly of all, this film really does try something new.  It tries its hand at romance.  Now, most of us would hardly consider Mr Bond, James Bond, to be the most romantic of characters.  Yes, he gets the girl, but – technically – ‘romance’ is the last thing on his mind.  However, here we actually see Bond fall in love.  Now, I know that the modern audience may collectively cry ‘so what!’ as we’ve seen this more recently from Daniel Craig.  However, back then (and after Connery’s ‘love ‘em and leave ‘em’ attitude’) it really was quite shocking.  I read one review online which described the feeling pretty well.  It said something about how previous Bond outings were spy/action movies, whereas this was a romance film, sprinkled with elements of action and spying.  I think that’s a reasonable appraisal of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Unfortunately, for all its new and daring moments, it just never worked.  It felt everywhere and all over the place, constantly trying to give the audiences something they’d recognise while trying to establish a new face for the super-spy.  Plus, if you look deeper into the trivia surrounding the making of the film, you’ll see that George Lazenby made himself notoriously unpopular with the producers and critics before he was even unleashed on the audiences.  Ultimately, it seemed that the world just wasn’t ready for a new Bond.  George Lazenby isn’t as dark and doesn’t have as much screen presence as Connery and couldn’t carry the wry humour that Roger Moore found so easy. 

Once again, the lead villain is Blofeld and, once again, he’s being played by a new actor.  Telly Savalas does his best with what’s given and is a far more physical mastermind than Bond is used to, plus the sets really do show off that funky late sixties feel, but, just because ‘Never Say Never Again’ is – technically – the Bond film that should be overlooked due to it not being part of the official franchise, this one will always remain the film most casual fans choose to skip. 

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

Rat Race - Very silly, but highly watchable

There are some movies that are too dumb to watch and there are those that are fun to watch because they’re so dumb. ‘Rat Race’ definitely falls into the latter.  The plot – or what little there is of one – centres around an eccentric billionaire from Las Vegas (played to perfection by the legendary John Cleese) offering eight strangers the chance to win two million dollars, if they can be the first to reach the briefcase full of loot some five hundred miles away.  What follows is your average ‘road movie.’ Therefore, in the grand tradition of such greats as ‘The Cannonball Run’ it’s basically a series of sketches depicting the exploits of the eight sets of chancers as they lie, cheat and manipulate their way across the American desert in order to claim the money.

It could be just average, but what definitely makes it worth watching is its stellar cast.  I’ve already mentioned John Cleese (who isn’t in it enough for my liking!), but you also have such greats as Rowen Atikinson, Whoopie Goldberg, Cuba Gooding Jr and John Lovitz.  With a cast containing that lot it was always going to be better than your average adult comedy.  And, yes, it probably is more geared towards adults.  Although most of it could actually be suitable for children as well, there are a few scenes here and there that you wouldn’t really want to explain to someone younger than a teenager!

Some may criticise it for having little ‘character development,’ but it is a film loaded with different characters and it’s not overly long, so it was always going to be geared towards laughs over depth and substance.

Ultimately, Rat Race is the kind of film you can have on in the background while you do some colouring or play with your phone – it won’t matter too much that you’ve missed a bit here and there – you’ll still pick up the plot pretty quickly and raise a smile at whatever ludicrous antic is going on.  It’s certainly good fun if you’re not expecting too much and just want a silly giggle.  The cast appear to be having fun while they make it and there’s no reason you shouldn’t either.

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

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters - Seriously... what are you expecting?

I'll be straight with you... if you don't like this movie then it's YOUR fault! What are you expecting from a supernatural monster-hunting film, roughly based on a children's fairytale? It's not Shakespeare. It will never be remembered as a classic. There's no real character development or radical revelations about the deeper meaning of humanity.

What there is, is plenty of hideous witches getting blasted off their broomsticks by annoyingly attractive people with weapons that probably didn't exist when this film was probably set.
That's it. Shooting. Action. Witches screeching and the two leads posturing as they show how much sexier they are compared to us. Are you into that? Can you handle that? If so, give it a go - it's a daft, silly, splat-fest of a blast.

Remove your brain (you don't need it to appreciate this) and just back and enjoy it for all its silliness.

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

Absentia - Slow, but very atmospheric


‘Absentia’ is low budget. That's the first thing you should know about this little horror yarn. It has no big name actors in it and was financed by an online campaign. This could have been a recipe for disaster, but, I'm glad to say the writer/director pulled it off.

The film is about two sisters who investigate the disappearance of one of their husbands and find it may be connected to a mysterious (and sinister) tunnel nearby.


In some ways the film plays out pretty conventionally, ala ‘The Ring, The Grudge’ and all those other horror films where a woman investigates something creepy, only to discover some dark supernatural force at work. However, what makes ‘Absentia’ different is just how creepy the whole atmosphere is. I couldn't really put my finger on it, but it's something to do with the direction which is - deliberately - slow and focuses on strange, seemingly mundane items which helps to crank up the tension.


One thing I really liked was the actors chosen for the main characters.  Not only did they perform well and I couldn’t fault any of their performances, but – and this could just be me – but they all looked ‘normal.’ They just looked like everyday folk (not a male or female supermodel in sight!) and somehow this went a long way to show how these were just your average people getting caught up in something that turns out to be anything but average.


I focused on how ‘Absentia’ is slow. I've read other reviews where people claim this as a flaw. I can see how some may view it that way. It's definitely not a gore fest, filled with wall to wall monsters and chainsaw wielding psychopaths.  It's more psychological with a healthy dose of supernatural.


Its pace (or lack of, as some might say) may be its drawback. I don't know if this film will ever achieve much mainstream success. I'm a big fan of David Lynch's work and this film seemed to totally remind me of his work (although it is more linier and doesn't jump around so much).


If you're not looking for a rollercoaster ride of a movie and are prepared to sit back and watch much more of a `slow burner' then this one could be for you.

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

Ghost in the Shell (2017) - I should like this more

I love science-fiction.  I love cyber-punk.  I love action.  And I'm at least tolerant of excessive use of computer-generated effects in cinema in general.  Oh, and I guess I might as well confess that my DVD collection contains many films containing women in skin-tight attire wiping out hordes of muscular henchmen (think 'Resident Evil' meets the 'Underworld' saga).  Anyway, seeing as I like all those (plus I'm a fan of Marvel's Cinematic Universe which contains Scarlett Johansson doing all of the above) then you'd think that the film 'Ghost in the Shell' was absolutely made for me 100%.

I've finished watching it at last (it was on an online streaming service, allowing me to watch the whole film in three segments - I guess that some people may say that the 'stop/start' approach to watching a film may ruin the enjoyment of it, however I beg to differ in this case).  And, although I may be sounding a little cynical about the whole experience, I definitely didn't hate it.  In fact, there's very little negative I can say about it.  However, the problem is that there's very little positive about it, too.

It's the very definition of 'average.' If you've seen one film where someone has superpowers and has to kill a load of people (combine it with memory loss for added cliches) then you've basically seen this one.  Scarlett Johansson plays 'Major' - a cyborg assassin in the near future who hunts down and kills... blah, blah, blah.  She then gets double-crossed... blah, blah, blag and you're left with her running around killing every human baddie and spider-tank that stands in her way.

I guess I better write this review quickly as I'm already starting to forget what it was all about.  I know it was based on an anime series/film (er, I think!), but I know for a fact that I've never seen the source material so I can't claim to know how two two mediums compare.

There's plenty to say that's good about it - cool city-background (CGI, obviously), neat and original gadgets and tech (I think I mentioned the 'spider-tank!') and Scarlett Johansson is pretty damn easy on the eye (for us guys, anyway) and basically plays the MCU's 'Black Widow,' albeit in cyborg form (and looking more 'CGI' when she runs up walls!).  If you're not familiar with the genre and generally haven't seen many similar movies then I'm guessing you'll absolutely love this film and I apologise for my (distinctly average) final score.  However, I've seen so many of these sorts of films that they really need to pull off something really special in order for it to rise above all the others I've seen.

I would imagine that, judging by the ending, the producers of this film really were hoping that this will be the start of some sort of major (no pun intended!) franchise.  However, I just can't see that happening.  Although, if it does get a sequel, I'll happily sit down and watch that, too.  Again, I didn't hate this film - far from it - it just didn't really leave much of a lasting impression with me.  Sorry, Scarlett.

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

Jason And The Argonauts - Dated... but in a good way

The real tragedy about `Jason and the Argonauts' is that it'll probably never pick up any `new' fans. It was made in 1963 and is a product of times past. It was created without the use of computers and relied on the magic of `stop motion' camerawork to create some fantastic monsters which are truly unforgettable. I would imagine much of today's youth may not `get' this film's classic charm.

It's about the Greek warrior, Jason, who gathers a mighty crew in search of the legendary Golden Fleece which will give him the power to reclaim the throne that was his by right. If you want, you can laugh at slightly overweight men in `nappies' with dubbed voices, waving swords at monsters that are clearly only added in post production. Or, you can suspend your disbelief and give the film its deserved credit for really making a memorable experience out of a fraction of what today's average Hollywood blockbuster would have at its disposal.

Films like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings (saga) are, of course, better made, better acted and with better special effects. Yet, as brilliant as they are, I doubt there have been many instances where the whole family has gathered together round the TV on a Saturday afternoon to cheer the heroes on.
Jason and the Argonauts is not as serious as Lord of the Rings. To enjoy it you need to suspend your disbelief and simply go along for the ride. It's a product of its age and, although it may be showing just how old it is right now, it's still worth a watch if you enjoy pure fun movies (and that end scene with the skeletons has to be worth an hour and a half of your time!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

War - What is it good for?  Well... a reasonable time

Jason Statham hadn't quite hit the big time when he starred opposite Jet Li in (the imaginatively titled!) 'War,' therefore he only gets second billing to the martial arts superstar.  What the title refers to is more of a 'personal feud' between FBI agent 'Crawford' (Statham) and the man 'Rogue' (Li) who murdered his partner.  Crawford is going to hunt down Rogue no matter what.

What follows is a sort of hybrid between an action/thriller film, with all the usual tropes of chases and punch-ups and a cop/gangster film.  It's not overly long either and there's not an awful lot to say about it in general.  Do you like action?  Well... you should like this.  Do you like either or both of the stars?  Well... guess what - you should enjoy this. 

There's one plot element I'm deliberately not going to address for fear of heading into 'spoiler' territory.  Yes, I know what you're thinking... in a film this 'by-the-numbers' is there really anything that's going to shock or surprise you?  The answer is probably 'no' (especially for anyone who's been a fan of any of the genres for any real period of time).  However, there is one aspect you might not see coming (although the film is so old by now this element of the plot has been discussed so many times you've probably accidentally heard about it and are just simply not bothered).

About the only complaint I really have for the film is that the two stars don't really 'square off' in the way you might expect them to.  Now, Statham may have beat the living hell out of armies of faceless henchmen in his time, but - technically - he's not really a 'martial arts' star (especially when compared to Lee).  However, you'd think that their varying methods of fighting may work well when pitched up against one another (especially for a fight scene choreographer to go to town on!), but it never really happens.

If I'm in the mood for a healthy dose of action and 'the Stath' (I'm more of a Statham fan than a Jet Li fan, by the way) then this is certainly one of those films you can sit down to at the end of a long day and rest your brain while occasionally checking your phone without fear of really missing anything. 

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

A View to a Kill - Not bad Bond

‘A View to a Kill’ has an odd reputation.  It was the last in Roger Moore’s Bond films and it seemed that most people couldn’t get past the fact that he had one too many wrinkles and therefore was probably due a Dr Who-like regeneration.  Now, they may have a point.  He was looking a little too ‘lived in’ even by Bond’s mature standards, but, if you can get over the fact that he obviously wasn’t as sprightly as he once was, it’s still a fun enough romp.  It involves a genetically-enhanced leftover from Nazi Germany who plans to hold the world to ransom by destroying everyone else’s supply of microchips and therefore cornering the market on their distribution.  Now, if you think that you’ve heard something like that before, then you may be right – Goldfinger used basically the same premise, only with gold instead of microchips.  But that was in the past.  And it’s not like any Bond fan will remember, right?  Okay, so the plot may have actually managed to simply be an upgrade of an earlier story, but this was released in the eighties when microchips were really starting to take off.  So, if you can forgive that, you  should be able to get some fun out of it.

Moore’s previous film was ‘Octopussy.’ Now, I didn’t hate it as much as most, but even I had to admit that it was probably the most campy Bond film made to date.  I’m pleased to say that 'A View to a Kill’ tones down the silliness in order for a more serious affair.  Of course you still get Moore’s trademark ‘dry wit’ along the way, but at least he’s stopped making noises like Tarzan when he swings through the jungle! 

It’s actually pretty good, you obviously get everything you expect from a Bond film, i.e. the exotic locations, chase scenes and beautiful women.  However, special mention to a pretty awesome rescue/chase section during the middle of the film where Bond has to not only escape from a burning building, but also drive a fire engineer (recklessly) through the streets of San Francisco (kind of like you see later in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines!).  But no Bond films would be anything without a decent villain for our man to go up against.  Rumour has it producers wanted Mr David Bowie to take that place, but the Starman appeared uninterested and the role when to the (equally-talented) Christopher Walken.  Now, he’s pretty awesome in everything he does and in ‘A View to a Kill’ he’s no exception, clearly enjoying playing a complete psychopath.  However, I can’t help but wonder if the producers wanted Bowie so much that they decided to dress Walken up like him in his ‘Let’s Dance’ video (seriously, once you see it you can UNsee it!).

We also have Tanya Roberts as the ‘Bond girl’ of the film.  She does her best with what she’s got to do – appropriately getting captured when required and throwing the odd punch here and there.  However, if ‘A View to a Kill’ has a memorable Bond girl then it’s Grace Jones!  Granted, she may not be everyone’s idea of a Bond girl, but she’s pretty impressive in her role and cuts a far more memorable figure with everything she has to go through, making her possibly the best ‘henchman’ since Jaws.

As I said, ‘A View to a Kill’ may not be everyone’s vodka martini.  Moore is looking a little tired, but it’s still an enjoyable enough Bond romp to please most casual fans.  Besides, even if you don’t like the film, you can’t deny that it has the greatest Bond theme ever recorded, courtesy of Duran Duran (if you watch ‘A View to a Kill’ then I defy you not to be singing it by the end credits!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Extract - Underrated little comedy gem

Back in the nineties, 'King of the Kill' creator Mike Judge released what would become a cult comedy hit, 'Office Space.' It charged the perils and pitfalls of working in a modern day office. 'Extract' isn't a sequel, but more of a 'compendium piece' which - in terms of today - exists in a 'shared universe'. Instead of an office environment, it's set in a factory which makes flavouring extracts, primarily for ice cream.

Jason Bateman plays the main character, 'Joel,' but really he basically plays the same character he does in every other comedy he's in.  Now, that does sound like a bit of a criticism, but - when he plays that sort of 'everyman' character so well, it's no bad thing.  He's contemplating selling his business, but, when a freak workplace accident coincides with the arrival of a young lady with a dodgy, money-grabbing agenda 'Cindy' (Mila Kunis) joining the workplace, not to mention that Joel's finding marriage life with his wife Suzie (Kristen Wiig) a little - what's the work - 'unfruitful' and you have a recipe for a reasonably enjoyable comedy with plenty of adult themes.  Throw David Kochner, J.K. Simmons and even some well-placed cameos by Ben Affleck and you have quite a star-studded cast, all of whom play their parts well.

'Extract' doesn't really offer much new - it's a workplace comedy with a relationship at stakes as the central theme.  However, the bottom line is that I found myself laughing quite a lot.  That may sound a bit of an obvious thing to say about a film that's supposed to do just that.  And yet I find myself barely raising a smile at many (supposed) 'funny' films.

It may be a simple film, but maybe that's it's main strength.  The characters, even those who are slightly so stereotypical to be truly believable, are quite easy to relate to.  It never tries to be anything other than a good, funny little film that tries to raise a smile in its audience.  It's certainly not one for the kids, but I can't see many adults not finding something to share in the enjoyment here of general situations we grown-ups find ourselves in.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Pain & Gain - Truth is more entertaining than fiction

Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne `The Rock' Johnson - two actors who both have kind of hit and miss reputations regarding their film careers. However, despite being directed by Michael Bay (seriously... don't let that put you off) `Pain and Gain' is most definitely a hit.

And it's based on real life. I know what you're thinking... that the film has taken one or two facts and built a whole movie around it. However, if you do your research, you'll find that - amazingly - most of what you see actually happened. Three bodybuilders in Miami decide to steal a rich man's life, money and every asset he owns.

It sounds hard to pull off, but they did. However, despite achieving initial success, things don't always go according to plan.

This is where the film could divide audiences, as it kind of slips from one genre to another. There are plenty of `inner monologues' which feel very `Goodfellas-esque,' which makes you feel like you're watching a gangster movie. However, the three central protagonists are complete idiots sometimes, adding a black comedy (and even slapstick) element to the proceedings. Throw in Ed Harris' investigator and you have your pretty average `cops and robbers' movie and you have an end product that sort of bounces around between genres. That does seem to have bugged some people, but, baring in mind the audacity of the crime and the bumbling nature of the three robbers, making it anything other than a little light-hearted (even though there are various gory scenes) may seem impossible.

Ultimately, it's a crime/heist movie with a few nice lighter moments thrown in. So, if you like your crime with icing on it, give it a go. Also... special mention to Dwayne Johnson, who steals almost every scene.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Transporter - 90s style action in the 00s

'The Transporter' may not be Jason Statham's introduction into the world of on-screen action heroes, but it was certainly the film that cemented his potential as more of an 'old school' tough guy.  Since the early 2000s, action films developed a severe case of over-seriousness.  Gone were the days of witty quips and wry smiles of the Arnie and Stallone era, replaced with grim protagonists and gritty surroundings.

That's why 'The Transporter' is so great.  It totally knows what it is, i.e. big, dumb fun that's only trying to entertain, rather than deliver any sort of 'message.' Jason Statham plays 'Frank' an ex American marine with possibly the most 'questionable' American accent ever (seriously, it flits between London and New York approximately ever other word!).  He specialises in driving for a living, or rather driving anything illegal from point A to point B in a severe hurry.

However, his professional attitude to his work is severely tested when he begrudgingly opens the boot of his car during a job, only to find a young Chinese girl tied up in there.  Naturally, his conscious is tested and it's up to him whether to deliver this girl to her - obvious - fate, or help her out.  Luckily for her, she's quite pretty and therefore makes up the perfect love interest to our bald, rugged anti-hero.

I would probably say that there's zero original content in this film.  If you've watched enough action films then you've pretty much seen everything here and possibly done better.  However, that isn't really too much of a criticism as 'The Transporter' is just such damn good fun.  It has good looking heroes, evil dastardly villains, beautiful locations, great action and punch-ups.  But, most of all, it never takes itself seriously in the same way as the 'pre-Craig' Bond movies did.

And, if all that isn't enough to get you sit down and watch it - for the ladies - you get one hell of a look at a totally oiled-up Jason Statham, beating one goon after the other while he slips, slides and slaps his way through the bad guys - all gooey and topless.  Obviously, I was just there for the action.  Obviously.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Lake Placid vs Anaconda - There are few words to describe this film (but I’ll try)

Years ago, I watched both ‘Lake Placid’ and ‘Anaconda’ in the cinemas and, for all my sins, loved them both.  Yes, I know a ‘good’ film when I see one and I knew both of these were definitely not good.  They were cheesy B-movies that could only be considered ‘good’ in a ‘so-bad-they’re-good’ kind of way.  But, sometimes I’m in the mood for that sort of film, so that’s okay.

I seem to remember seeing a sequel to Anaconda (another snake/another jungle) and I’m pretty sure I at least heard that Lake Placid (another crocodile/another lake) had another film out of video (didn’t even have DVDs in that day from what I recall!).  Now, from what I read online, ‘Lake Placid vs Anaconda’ is the fifth film in both franchises.  I guess some may think that it might be difficult to pick up the story missing 3/5 of the story.  Don’t worry.  I don’t think I missed much in the way of story.

Scientists (the movie kind, therefore they’re evil) are trying to do experiments on the giant anaconda snake and it gets away – right into Lake Placid.  And it just so happens that there’s a whole group of scantily-clad teenage girls in bikinis running around on that day.  And, if you’ve ever seen a film before, you’ll probably fill in enough of the blanks to work out what happens for the next ninety minutes.

Lake Placid vs Anaconda is basically a slasher film with monsters who occasionally fight each other in between gobbling up the next cheerleader.  The acting is dire (and even the presence of Robert Englund can’t elevate it that much), the special effects are about the least special as they could be (seriously, I’ve seen Playstation 2 cut-scenes that are better than the CGI snake and crocs) and the plot is nothing you haven’t seen before.  The characters are pretty unlikeable – the ‘nice’ ones are two dimensional and underdeveloped and the ‘bad’ ones are even more clichéd (although the token ‘mean girl’ of the story was actually quite funny!).

Therefore, the film is pretty forgettable.  I’m writing this review trying to remember as much of it as I can before all traces of it slips from my mind completely.  However, as dumb as it is, I didn’t hate it.  I was actually quite entertained while I saw it.  I doubt I’ll ever see it again.  There are plenty of other monster movies out there that are better and new ones being filmed every day.

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

Get Lucky - Shockingly bad

From the opening scene you know you're in for a rough ride. It's the acting. I could deal with the tired and worn plot, or the multitude of London gangster clichés, but having every line delivered like the actor or actress is hyper aware of the camera is just too much to watch.

I can only assume the multitude of 5 star reviews on Amazon have been written by people connected to the film (either that or very easily pleased!). 5 star reviews should be reserved for films which are going to stand the test of time. This doesn't even come close to a film that will last. If you can make it through the first fifteen minutes then you're doing well!

For a London film, don't expect too many Londoners - the main character is a posh boy who looks about fifteen years old, but just happens to be a criminal mastermind when he gathers a gang of out of work actors (or London wideboys - one of the two) to pull off a heist to pay off someone for something. It really doesn't matter. You won't care.

This is the definition of `low budget.' There's nothing here you haven't seen before, the only problem is you've seen it all soooo much better. Save yourself an hour and a half and just put Lock Stock on again. Even if you spot this in the `bargain basket' DVD section in some motorway service station and it's going cheap, don't bother. Buy a packet of Fruit Pastels instead - they're more enjoyable.

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

Nightcrawler - Nothing to do with X-men

Okay, so please don’t tell me that I’m the only person who, every time he sees the word ‘Nightcrawler,’ thinks about the blue, vampire-like teleporter from X-men?  All right, just me then.  Anyway, this film – also entitled ‘Nightcrawler’ has absolutely nothing to do with superpowered mutants and more to do with the dark, seedy behind-the-scenes world of modern newsrooms.  I do like X-men, but I like this more.

Jake Gyllenhaal – once again – plays a brooding and possibly damaged character.  We’re never really given much backstory regarding how or why he’s like he is.  He just is.  And he’s just dark – possibly a modern day sociopath.  While I was watching this film, all I could think of was ‘American Psycho.’ Not that Jake spends his evenings slicing up ladies of the night.  He’s far more subtle than that.  He doesn’t set out to cause misfortune, he simply realises that there’s money to be made from other people’s suffering and therefore decides to exploit this situation by becoming an independent cameraman on the streets of L.A.

It’s fair to say that this is hardly a ‘noble profession’ and he quickly discovers that he has to cut the metaphorical throat of anyone who stands in his way.  Watch out rival cameraman played by Bill Paxton – it’s not just aliens, Terminators and Predators who are out to get you!  Gyllenhaal’s character adapts with ease to this lifestyle, happy to step on anyone who gets in his way in pursuit of the next big scoop.  In many films they say you have to ‘relate’ to the central character in order to enjoy the story.  I doubt many of us will ‘relate’ to a man who is quite happy to trample anyone who gets in his way in order to further his own ambition, but then I doubt many people felt like they identified with Patrick Bateman and ‘American Psycho’ was a pretty big hit!

If you watch ‘Nightcrawler’ you need to be prepared for a pretty bleak and dark insight into the way the world (or rather modern day news) works.  It’s hardly a ‘feel-good’ film and the whole show rests on Gyllenhaal’s shoulders, but, as with many of his films before, he carries it all the way.  It’s weirdly hypnotic and you’ll want to see just how far he’ll go to achieve his self-serving ends.

Ultimately, it’s another notch on Gyllenhaal’s impressive range of deeply disturbed characters.  Don’t expect a laugh a minute, side-splitting two hours, just get ready to descend into the underbelly of society and what it takes to get those ‘exclusive’ pictures on CNN or Sky News.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Sherlock Holmes (2009) - Chemistry, my dear Watson

There are many good things I can say about 2009's 'Sherlock Holmes' - I thought it was great and definitely a film that can be enjoyed again and again.  However, what could have either just been a forgettable little period action film for a niche audience who was into old heroes from literary fiction, went totally mainstream for one reason: the chemistry between the two leads.

Here, the famous titular detective from the nineteenth century is played by 'Iron Man' himself, Robert Downey Jr (sporting a damn fine English accent!), while his long-suffering sidekick 'Dr John Watson' is played by (natural Englishman) Jude Law.  And, in short, everything rests on them.  I would imagine that most people wouldn't be too surprised to hear that Robert Downey Jr can hold his own in a franchise, seeing as he is practically the face of Marvel's 'Cinematic Universe.' However, Jude Law can be a bit 'hit and miss' with her performances (I'm not much of a fan of his, but I have to admit he's perfect for the role here).  And, best of all, the two acting heavyweights work perfectly side by side, whether they're actually working together on a case, or generally rubbing each other up the wrong way.  They always come across as a pair of people who know each other so well that they can happily bicker and argue without ever truly falling out (like many of the best relationships!).

For me, the story almost comes secondary to the simple joy of watching Holmes and Watson interact.  Die hard fans of the source material were (apparently) a little annoyed that Holmes' most famous nemesis 'Moriarty' didn't show, but, instead, we have (another excellent actor) Mark Strong as 'Lord Henry Blackwood' - a politician with more than a few tricks up his sleeve and designs on 'retaking' us Brits' former 'colony,' which is none other than a little place called 'America!'

Rachel McAdams is the (obligatory) love interest for Holmes (Watson is actually already in a relationship, so didn't need a 'will they/won't they' story arc) and Eddie Marsan is the chief of police.  Both are fine additions to the cast, but still can't live up to the main two (or three - Mark Strong is pretty menacing, as bad-guys go).

The other notable 'character' I should mention is not really a character, but the director, Guy Ritchie - a man most famous for being the creative force behind plenty of memorable British gangster films (and one trainwreck of a marriage!).  He's truly one of the directors who, assuming you've seen some of his previous films, if you turned on 'Sherlock Holmes' halfway through you'd stand a good chance of actually guessing that he was the man behind the camera.  He has a certain visual flair that few other film-makers possess and it really helps in turning a sharp script into a stylish story.

There really isn't much wrong with this film.  I guess some of the computer effects and scenery (used to turn sets and locations into London of a hundred or so years ago) are a little blurry and you can probably tell when and where the green-screen is.  However, that's a minor gripe.  Don't think that just because there aren't any car chases and big budget action set-pieces that this isn't an exciting film that isn't worth your time.

And the sequel's pretty good, too!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Ides of March - A glimpse behind politicians' smiles  

Politicians are getting a hard time these days. Good. They deserve it. And if you watch 'The Ides of March,' you'll only agree yet further.

Some stories have distinctive plots, others have great character arcs. 'The Ides of March' doesn't really do much of this. It simply is what it is. And what it is is an insight into what goes on behind the slogans, the smiles and the carefully choreographed rallies we're getting so used to seeing in times of elections. Of course this film is based on the American system of government, but do we really think our politicians are any the less noble? We wish.

It's kind of like 'The Thick of It' and its filmic cousin 'In the Loop,' only without the humour and constant shouting of Malcolm Tucker.

'The Ides of March' is slimy, despicable, depressing and, worst of all, probably completely true.  Gorge Clooney directs (and stars) what is actually quite an ensemble cast including Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Rachel Evan Wood.  The film isn't that long, so you could probably argue that not all of these great actors are allowed full time in front of the camera to develop and grow.  However, all give off excellent performances as their slimy on-screen personas.

If you have finally accepted that we're ruled by a bunch of lying, cheating, back-stabbing, two-faced men and women with nicer teeth than us, then you'll probably appreciate what 'The Ides of March' is trying to say.

It leaves me with a strong urge to buy a Guy Fawks mask and some Catherine Wheels and head over to Westminster with a naked flame.

(MI5, if you're reading that last paragraph - it was a joke)

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Face/Off - One of the most over-the-top films ever made (and great fun too)

‘Face/Off’ is a kind of simple film for simple people (and I’m including myself in that demographic).  Take one bad guy (Nicholas Cage – cranked up to 11) and then, through a series of bizarre and totally implausible events, he finds himself with his face – literally – swapped with the good guy/cop (John Travolta –also doing his best to crank his performance up to 11) who’s out to catch him.  Now, no one believes which one is which and the two of them start trying to take over each other’s lives (while trying to murder each other, obviously).

If that brief plot summary hasn’t made you ask more than a few questions regarding the hows and whys of it all, then you really are an expert at suspending your disbelief.  Most people would already be picking holes in the story.  So, if you’re looking for a watertight plot with no holes in it, you probably should really skip this one.

Luckily, Face/Off his just so much fun that you’ll find it easy to gloss over the general absurdities of it all, sit back, break open the popcorn and just roll with it.  It is one of the most obviously over-the-top films ever made and, if the plot wasn’t over-the-top enough, then the two leads – Cage and Travolta – spend the film constantly trying to outdo each other as to how extreme they can make their performances.  So, take the over-the-top film, add the completely over-the-top performances then, just to finish it off, add the completely unrealistic gunfights and those weird ‘Hollywood-type’ explosions where fireworks seem to shoot out of the flames.

What you effectively have here is a B-movie with a decent cast and budget.  It carries the film through and will always elevate it over the general mediocre action flicks that go straight to DVD.  Basically, it’s a classic – not in the same way as the ‘Godfather’ or ‘Empire Strikes Back,’ but it is a classic for what it is – and what it is is big, dumb, stupid fun.  So, if you can appreciate that sort of film, you should definitely get something out of this.

Best bit: Nicholas Cage dressed as a priest ‘headbanging’ in a chorus.  I will remember that until the day I die.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Transformers: The Animated Movie - Pretty dark, as far as kids' cartoons go

The feature length version of the long-running TV cartoon came to the big screen in 1986 and, in short, caused quite a stir.  I would imagine there were plenty of adults who saw it at the time and didn't get what all the fuss was about.  However, if (like me!) you were a child of the eighties and watched the two TV series leading up to the film (spanning around eighty episodes!) then you probably left the cinema in near tears (yes, I did - and I refused to watch series 3 and 4 of the TV show which followed on from the film!).

The TV show was about an ongoing war between two rival armies of robots who had found their way to Earth - the heroic Autobots were out saviours and the evil Decepticons were the suitably inept bad-guys always trying to take over the universe.  So, if you've seen one kids' cartoon then you've probably seen them all - the courageous Autobots and their leader, Optimus Prime, always triumphed over the dastardly Megatron and his minions.  Then came the film.  And Megatron pretty much wiped out all the heroes we'd spent the last two seasons rooting for (and bought their toy-incarnations, obviously).

I would imagine anyone who didn't follow the franchise as a child would be none the wiser about this fact.  It was deliberately stipulated by the toy-manufacturers as a way of 'killing off' the toys that children already owned, in favour of bringing in a 'new line' and thus make them more money.  I guess they totally underestimated the attachment we - the kids of the day - had for our robot buddies.

So, whether you curse or cry for the fall of those we'd supported for so long, the film itself is actually pretty good.  Because of the first time we see (robot) deaths on screen, it has a much darker tone than the TV series and the action/animation is top notch.  The story introduces new elements of the mythology seamlessly and it is definitely the logical progression for the story (if only they'd kept a few of our faves alive just a little longer!).

A couple of the new characters are - unfortunately - pretty grating.  Long before Jar Jar Binks wound every cinema-goer up the wrong way, you had a little robot called 'Wheelie' who is truly the worst!  Plus there's the soundtrack.  It's awful.  For some reason the producers felt that eighties cheesy rock should be the soundtrack with which these metal behemoths slug it out to.  It's so bad it's just terrible and belongs in some episode of 'South Park' where they're taking the mickey out of the genre.

But, that's just a minor gripe.  Once you get used to the music you can actually find it pretty funny.  I will always remember this film as one that totally depressed me due to who died and therefore got replaced with (in my opinion) 'substandard' characters.  However, as an adult, I can now enjoy it for what it is - which is quite an adult take on the cartoon (just to terrible music!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters - Seriously... what are you expecting?

I'll be straight with you... if you don't like this movie then it's YOUR fault! What are you expecting from a supernatural monster-hunting film, roughly based on a children's fairytale? It's not Shakespeare. It will never be remembered as a classic. There's no real character development or radical revelations about the deeper meaning of humanity.

What there is, is plenty of hideous witches getting blasted off their broomsticks by annoyingly attractive people with weapons that probably didn't exist when this film was probably set.

That's it. Shooting. Action. Witches screeching and the two leads posturing as they show how much sexier they are compared to us. Are you into that? Can you handle that? If so, give it a go - it's a daft, silly, splat-fest of a blast.

Remove your brain (you don't need it to appreciate this) and just back and enjoy it for all its silliness.

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

Transsiberian - Mostly 'hit' (with a little bit of 'miss')

'Transsiberian' is one of those odd sorts of films that tries to be a little too much and never succeeds at any - one - thing.  Now, that's normally enough for me to not really enjoy a film and never really want to see it again. 'Transsiberian' is certainly not perfect and it is - in my opinion - a bit all over the place.  However, there's just enough that it does right to deserve more than just the one watch (currently, I've seen it twice, but that figure will rise over the years).

A young couple (Woody Harrelson and Emily Mortimer) finish doing their bit for their church in a foreign country and decide to take more of a 'romantic/scenic' route across Russia to Europe, with a view to returning to America after that.  However, during their train ride they come up against more than one shady character and a certain amount of drugs and ill-gotten money may be involved.

There's nothing too inspiring about the plot, but what keeps the film afloat is the cast.  For a start, you could probably - just about - argue that Harrelson is the star and you may expect him to play some sort of hard case, borderline psycho.  However, he's possibly one of the biggest wimps ever on screen - if you're familiar with his other roles then this in itself is worth a watch!  Emily Mortimer, despite playing his 'church wife' is just a little bit more of a 'bad girl' than your average leading lady.  Her - slightly - 'dark' past is often referenced and allows her character to be just that little bit more relatable to us 'normies!'

But, if you've seen any of the marketing material surrounding 'Transsiberian' then you'll know that none other than the - always excellent - Sir Ben Kingsley is on the cast list.  He plays the tough, no nonsense Russian cop (with a near flawless accent).  However, if you're expecting him to be in it all the way through, don't get your hopes up.  This is one of the reasons I find the film a little uneven.  The first half is mainly taken up with our protagonists meeting another young couple on the trains, whereas the second half allows Sir Ben to shine and the other couple kind of take a major backseat.

But, Kingsley is - as usual - a joy to watch and makes up for his first half absence with every scene he's in.  Earlier, I referred to Harrelson as the 'star' and yet he's notable not in the film for a large chunk of screen times, meaning the story chops and changes between who it focuses on.

Although, those are just minor gripes when you have a decent portion of the film that allows Ben Kingsley to savour his role as the Russian inquisitor.  If you're a fan of his then you'll definitely enjoy it all the more.  But, if you're generally looking for a thriller with enough twists and turns that you might not see coming, this should do the trick.

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

Elephant White - Seen it all before... and better

There's not an awful lot to say about `Elephant White' (apart from observations regarding Kevin Bacon's accent, but we'll get to that later). It's about an assassin, hired to destroy gangs in Thailand in revenge for what they did to his daughter.

So he goes and kills them.

It's a revenge movie. Yes, the bad guys get punished - as you would expect - and yes, the hero does at least run into some trouble along the way. And, our hero is aided by none other than a BRITISH Kevin Bacon. For some reason, he has been told to adopt a borderline cockney/southern accent. When I first heard it, I thought the film had been dubbed. At least he's consistent throughout the film, but his voice is rather off-putting. However, he's not in it as much as the film's advertising poster may hope to imply. Fans of Kevin be warned: he's not in it that much.

Yes, there's action. And there's some nice `sniper fights' which make a change from simply blasting the bad guys up close and personal. However, it's all been done before. It's an okay movie, but there's nothing original enough to make it into a really great movie (apart from Bacon's weird accent - that's worth hearing in itself).

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

Centurion - Romans go home!

I know I shouldn't, but I'm incapable of watching any form of media surrounding the Roman Empire without my mind recalling every quote from the classic Monty Python film, 'The Life of Brian.' There, they were depicted as buffoons and lampooned mercilessly.  I guess the people of the numerous lands they conquered in real life wouldn't have agreed too much with the escapades of Biggus Diccus and his cohorts.

'Centurion' is about the leader (Michael Fassbender) of a legion of doomed Roman troops, sent in to deal with the uprising locals in the north of England and, in particular, Scotland.  Apparently, those Scots (or 'Picts' as they were really, back then) were dealing heavy losses to Roman battalions and something has to be done about it.  Sadly, for most of Fassbender's party (and I'll keep calling him by the actor's name, seeing as every time I see a - supposedly - authentic Roman name of the period, I keep thinking it looks something like 'Naughtness Maximus!') they get completely wiped out, leaving just him and a handful of others on the run from a band of bloodthirsty locals.

And there is plenty of blood.  It's not for the faint-hearted and there are plenty of limbs being hacked off left, right and centre.  It's primarily one long chase film with action set-pieces thrown in.  And it's all good if that's what you're looking for.  I'm no historian, so I can't tell you if every Roman infantry man's costume is 100% accurate, or whether this was what it was like back then.  But it is a fairly decent action film.

It's also well-directed, but then you'd expect that from Neil Marshall (the creative force behind such great little gems as 'Dog Soldiers, The Decent and Doomsday').  I would say that it's worth pausing while you're watching the film and ask yourself the question, 'Who are the 'real' good guys?' In 'Dog Soldiers' the werewolves were clearly the bad guys, then you had the monsters in 'The Decent' and the cannibal gangs in 'Doomsday.' Here, the Romans are clearly the underdogs, but, if you think about it, they are - technically - an invading and most unwelcome force in an occupied land, so are the Picts well within their rights to hack their heads off for fun?

I read somewhere that it's based on a true story.  And when I say 'true' I mean in 'Hollywood terms,' i.e. there was a sort of account of something that happened that might be a bit like this and this film is one way that events COULD have unfolded.  Anyway, it's still good fun.  Although there are a few other actors in the film you may recognise from this or that, Fassbender is the only one that you'll remember (unless you count the mute psychotic lady Pict with her blue war-paint sent to dispatch him - I certainly wouldn't mess with her!).

There's a - pretty superfluous - love interest thrown in there, but it doesn't impact too much on the action and the gore.  It's a fun little period action film that is definitely entertaining.  Just try not to think of 'The Life of Brian' too much and shouting 'Bl**dy Romans!' too much at the screen while you watch it!

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

Bad Boys - Bad boys. Fun film

Back in the nineties there was one name that was becoming synonymous with big, loud action movies. And that name was Michael Bay. How times change!

However, don’t be put off by seeing the man responsible for Megan Fox and Transformers’ name in the credits. ‘Bad Boys’ is actually quite a fun film.

It’s nothing new, i.e. two bickering cops do their best to protect a material witness while fending off various attempts on everyone’s lives courtesy of ‘the mob.’ But it’s fun and its two stars (Martin Lawrence and Will Smith – believe it or not, back then Martin Lawrence was the ‘star’ and Will Smith just the supporting cast member. Again, how times change!) play off each other nicely. They shoot, they playfully berate each other, while watching each other’s backs at all times. There are car chases and shoot-outs, plus a load of wise-cracks to keep you entertained.

I would almost say this is the perfect loud, dumb action movie. However, the only downside (in my opinion) is the film’s length. It doesn’t really need to be nearly two hours. The ‘extra’ plotlines revolve around the witness to the murder believing that Martin Lawrence’s character is really Will Smith and vice versa. A lot goes into this plotline and I couldn’t see the need for any of it (it almost degenerates into ‘farce’ at some stages). I’d rather the writers had played the film – a little – straighter and had more serious stuff with just the odd one-liner to keep things a little happy.

But that’s a minor gripe. The film is still fun and should be enjoyed with a big (bad) bag of popcorn.

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

The One - One for the boys?

The One is about the `multiverse.' For anyone not up on modern sci-fi, that's the premise that there are countless different universes, all running parallel to our own. Here we see Jet Li, travelling from one universe to the next, killing the other versions of himself until there is only one left. The One, to be precise.

However, he comes up against some resistance in the form of his `last self' (also played by Jet Li), plus the ever reliable hardman, Jason Statham, as a multiverse FBI agent.

The One came out between the Matrix 1 and 2 and many people said, why wait for the Matrix's sequel, just watch The One. I can see where they're coming from. The two films are certainly in the same genre, mixing science-fiction with slow-motion martial arts fight scenes.

Personally, I don't think it's as good as the (first) Matrix and it may not have quite the budget of the sequels, but it's definitely worth a look for those sci-fi/martial arts fans.

I'm not sure whether women would be The One's target audience, it may be more for the boys to cheer on as hapless extras are punched and kicked in all manner of unrealistic directions to the sound of pumping rock anthems.

Don't let Statham's questionable American accent put you off. Give it a go. I give The One The Seven.

Rare Exports - A mixed bag of goodies 

I didn't know what to expect from this - it had a reasonable bit of exposure for a foreign film (yes, it has subtitles), but I couldn't quite figure out what it was about.

It's basically a horror film from Finland. However, horror films generally yield to certain clichés allowing you to guess what's going to happen from the start. Here's the newsflash - this one will keep you guessing as to where the story's heading.

It's got a bit of black humour, but it's basically the alternative to all those cutesie Disney movies where children sit on a smiling Santa's knee.

Russian businessmen have dug up `the real' Santa Claus. Guess what, soon they wish they hadn't.

Overall, it's a great little gem, however the first half is pretty slow. The second half picks up a lot and is worth the wait. If you fancy something a little different that's very dark and can put up with the subtitles, give this one a try (just don't show it to your small child - it'll scar them for life).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Dark Crystal - A forgotten classic

The Dark Crystal is the brainchild of Muppets-creator Jim Henson. Yes, he's best known for creating Kermit and Miss Piggy, but, judging by his impressive body of other work, there's more to him than just chasing chickens with meat cleavers.

The Dark Crystal is an amazing film that's never really achieved mainstream status. It wasn't helped when it was released in the cinema up against ET, so it could never compete with such hype. It's set on a far away planet where a pair of `gelflings' (think innocent fairy-type creatures) must repair the titular Dark Crystal and send an evil race of creatures to their doom.

The Dark Crystal is often compared to Labyrinth (and you can also buy the pair on a double-disc set), but, apart from both of them being fantasy films starring Jim Henson's puppets, I really think they're very different films. Labyrinth is more cheesy, with its dance numbers and comic relief. The Dark Crystal has none of that. It's played straight all the way. Don't expect any laughs here. In fact, there are some downright disturbing and creepy moments (drinking people's `essence' comes to mind).

I would say that the film is perfect in every way, but, despite its brilliant (and incredibly lifelike) puppets and sets, in my opinion it has one major drawback - the two central characters - the gelflings themselves. Every secondary creature is brilliantly created and comes across as real beings. We either love or hate them accordingly, able to forget that they aren't real. But not the gelflings. Not only do they look and move like Thunderbirds without any knee or elbow joints, but the vocal artists don't seem to be able to inject much life into them.

However, that's just my personal small gripe. I still think it's a classic. It's possibly best viewed by those who saw and loved it during its release in the eighties. I expect there are a fair amount of children who only want to watch CGI films and may see this as outdated. But, as a parent, I'd still put it on for them anyway - show them how `proper' films were made in our day!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Jarhead 2: Field of Fire - ‘Part 2’ in name only

I enjoyed the first ‘Jarhead’ film and was curious as to what any ‘sequel’ would be like.  However, at least I kept my expectations low as I knew this was not produced by the same cast or crew as the first, plus part II was released straight-to-DVD, so, how good could it be?

The answer... quite good actually, but only as a generic war film, rather than a sequel.

Okay, so occasionally the film mimics the original in style (think captions, mainly near the beginning) and it uses the term ‘jarhead’ a couple of times, but that’s about it.  In fact... I’m running out of other things that link the two films.

So, the best thing to do is basically just ignore everything you know about the first movie and go with what’s on offer.  And, what’s on offer is a war movie set in modern Afghanistan.  A small team of marines (or ‘jarheads’ to be precise) are on a routine mission, only to find themselves forced to protect an important female local as she travels across arguably one of the most dangerous regions in the world.

Bottom line: if you like war films, you’ll probably enjoy this.  It’s actually got a half reasonable budget and doesn’t feel too much like a straight-to-DVD movie.

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

Vendetta - If Charles Bronson was a cockney...

Bless Danny Dyer – he tries his best.  After a string of box office flops which make his good films like ‘The Football Factory’ and ‘The Business’ seem like they were set in some weird, parallel reality, he’s going for a tried and tested formula – namely the ‘revenge’ film.
Danny’s his usual cockney self.  Only this time he’s an ex marine returning home from jail (I did briefly recall why he was locked up, but it doesn’t really matter) to find a gang of local hooligans have only gone and roasted his mum and dad alive.  And, to make matters worse, the police seem powerless to arrest anyone.  Therefore, Danny must take matters into his own hands (or ‘ands as he would call them) and deliver his own unique brand of justice.
Unfortunately, watching unlikeable characters getting brutally murdered may be mildly entertaining (as we’ve all see some little thugs defacing a bus stop and wished extreme punishment upon them), but it’s hardly unique any more.  Ever since Charles Bronson took the law into his own hands there have been countless imitations.  Some work okay, others don’t.  But they all have the same message – namely about how the law doesn’t always work and sometimes you have to root for the ‘antihero’ to get the job done himself.  Recently, Michael Caine released ‘Harry Brown’ and Jodie Foster did ‘The Brave One’ a few years before that.  Both were equally unoriginal, but at least they had more of a budget than Vendetta.
It’s an okay enough film, but it just doesn’t really have anything new contained within.  Danny Dyer does his best (as he normally does) to portray a tortured soul, living on the outskirts of society, but, unfortunately, he doesn’t quite pull it off.  There’s a sub-plot about the various police officers assigned to the case (and the area in general), but many of them come across as too uncaring and inept to be believable.
If you’re a die-hard Dyer fan, you’ll probably enjoy this more.  However, if you’re just a casual fan of revenge movies, you’ll have probably seen better than this.  It may not be Dyer’s finest work, or up to The Football Factory or The Business, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

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

Page Eight - A slow burner 

Page Eight is about an MI5 analyst who's boss dies and leaves him a rather sensitive file that some in the British hierarchy would rather never sees the light of day.

If you've seen Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy then it's basically the same thing - a spy thriller that tries to portray the more `realistic' side of espionage. By this I mean the side of spying that isn't shown in James Bond. Don't expect any beautiful bikini-clad babes in Page Eight, or even a car chase with a car than can turn into a boat. What you have here is a political thriller where `battles' are carried out with words and briefcases, rather than Walter PPKs.

Page Eight has a great cast - anything with Bill Nighy, Ralph Fiennes and Michael Gambon are always going to carry a certain level of kudos with them.

Is it any good? Yes, it does the job. It's probably worth a watch if you're happy with slower-paced thrillers. Gary Oldman's Tinker, Tailor is probably a superior vessel and Page Eight does come across like a film which was written by a Guardian reader, i.e. very left wing, but it's still not a bad watch.

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

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane – When Clarice was more like Hannibal?

I know I’m a little late to the party in terms of watching ‘The Little Girl Who Lived Down the Lane,’ as it was made back in the seventies and I’ve only just discovered it.  Despite my love of films I’d never even heard of it and came across it quite by accident on an online streaming service.  I didn’t know what to expect, other than it had the (always great) Jodie Foster in it, plus a practically-unrecognisable (due to his youth) Martin Sheen (I guess he had to be young once, I’ve just never seen him looking like that!).

Foster plays Rynn Jacobs – a 13-14 year old girl (age deliberately unclear for reasons you’ll have to find out by watching the film!) who is wise beyond her years and yet never really comes across as smug or forced.  In fact, despite her undisclosed wisdom, she actually comes across as quite vulnerable.  She lives with her father, who is a workaholic poet and the pair of them have recently moved to a small town in America to escape city life.  Some of the locals do wonder about the couple and subtly (and sometimes completely UNsubtly try to stick their noses into the pair’s affairs.  And, from this, we start to see more than we expect to.

If ever a film cemented an actor’s credentials that she was more than capable of carrying a film, even at a young age, then it was this one.  This is Jodie Foster’s film through and through.  Martin Sheen is good (and creepier than I’ve ever seen him), but it’s Foster who shines out.  I would imagine that anyone who watched this film back when it was released must have realised that she was destined for mega-stardom.

It’s also a film where I can’t really say too much about the plot for fear of giving away spoilers.  You’ll only get the one chance to watch it and not know how things are going to unfold.  It’s quite a ‘straightforward’ story, mainly taking place inside the family home – so much so in fact that I couldn’t help but imagine how this could easily have been a stage play.  There aren’t that many characters to follow, but the story is simple (and when I say ‘simple’ I also mean different) which will make you want to know how things turn out. 

I guess, if I had to try and put this film in to a genre then I’d hedge my bets and say it was a ‘drama-thriller.’ The drama bit is easy to classify, but don’t go expecting any fast-paced thrills here.  There aren’t any fancy special effects, major ‘set-pieces’ or anything else that may say ‘big budget,’ but don’t let that put you off.  It may be old and look a little a little dated by today’s standards, but if you like carefully-crafted slow burning films which will make you wonder how they will end, definitely give this one a go.  I can’t believe it flew below my radar for so long.
7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Ghost Ship - Hauntingly average

I think I’ve watch ‘Ghost Ship’ between 2-3 times.  I think I’ll say twice.  The reason I can’t remember is that, even though I’ve only watched it a few days ago, I’m already starting to forget what happened.  Although, saying that, the one thing I can always remember is the beginning.  It’s a classic moment of horror that will come out of nowhere and stick with you (well... it certainly stuck with me!).  It’s just a pity everything else in the film comes across as so ‘below standard.’
A crew of – mainly disposable – characters board a passenger liner that’s been missing for several decades in the hope of scoring some major bounty.  Guess what they find instead?  Hint: the clue’s in the film’s title.

And so they get picked off one by one, sometimes in gruesome ways, other times way that I can’t really remember.  Gabriel Byrne is in it.  I remember remembering him the first time round.  I don't think I'd heard of the film's leading lady (Julianna Margulies) when I first watched it and, now I've seen her in it again, I still don't think she's been in anything else I've watched (or at least noticed her in).  Now, some several years later I notice that the cast list also has a young Emily Browning (who is actually pretty good for a child actor and you can see that she was going to go further than this floating vessel of a film), plus Karl Urban who does nothing here to show that one day he’ll actually be a damn sight better than his performance in ‘Ghost Ship’ allows him.

Ultimately, ‘Ghost Ship’ is one of a million other forgettable horror films which you won’t remember by the time the credits roll.  As I said, the only really good bit happens within the first ten minutes.  You can probably turn it off after that without really missing anything.  However, if you do choose to have it on in the background while you do other things, you’ll find it’s one of those films where you can easily check your mobile phone every few minutes and still know everything that’s going on onscreen.

I really wish I could think anything else to say about this film, but the fact that I can't probably speaks volumes.

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

Transporter 3 – Better than I remembered

I loved the first ‘Transporter’ film.  Then I watched the second offering and loved that, too.  Naturally, I then watched the third when it came out and found it totally forgettable – being the only one of the three I didn’t bother buying on DVD.  I don’t know what kind of mood I was in that day – maybe I was annoyed and something and not in the right frame of mind of that kind of film?  Either way, I saw ‘Part 3’ was on an online streaming service and decided to give it another go.

Now, I think most of us won’t expect the third outing of a B-movie type action franchise to rival Shakespeare, but – this time – I found it really good fun.  If you’ve seen either of the previous instalments then you’ll know the drill: Jason ‘The Stath’ Statham plays a practically indestructible hero, Frank Martin, as he has to ‘transport’ a ‘package’ from Point  to Point B.  He does this through his ability to drive a car faster than anyone pursuing him and also beat the living daylights out of armies of faceless henchmen who always only attack him one at a time.

Nothing new on the ‘plot front,’ unless you consider moving the film’s location from sunny Florida to cloudy Eastern Europe.  And, this time, the ‘package’ is a young woman (with more freckles than I’ve ever seen on an actress (Natalya Rudakova) – nothing wrong with that, just unusual in a Hollywood type film in my opinion!).  So, together they have to evade, escape and generally obliterate anyone and everyone standing in their way.  Yes, it’s definitely not Shakespeare.

So, if you’re in the mood for a mindless action film which, keeping in tone with the previous two, never really takes itself too seriously, give it a go.  Now I’ve seen it again and appreciated it for what it was (I have no idea why I didn’t like it the first time round!) I’m definitely going to add this one to my DVD collection. Although, as it stands, I have still refused to watch the ‘reboot’ as I truly believe that no one will ever be able to deliver a package from Amazon quite like Jason Statham.

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

Hereditary – The ultimate in ‘slow burning’ horror

I’d heard quite a lot about ‘Hereditary’ before I actually watched it, most of which stating that, although marketed as a ‘horror’ movie, it wasn’t so straight forward.  Now, having sat through it, I can – sort of – see what they mean.

When you think of ‘horror’ you probably imagine monsters, slashers or something similar.  Now, although ‘Hereditary’ definitely has a strong supernatural element running through it (not to mention some pretty disturbing imagery which I would definitely describe as ‘horrific!), it’s certainly not your average run-of-the-mill horror.

When questioned, even the film-makers go to great lengths to describe it as more of a ‘family drama’ (plus supernatural, etc).  It weighs in at just over two hours, which is certainly longer than your average tale about a guy in an ice hockey mask slicing up teenagers.  Instead, we have a story about what, on the surface could be described as a ‘traditional’ family of four (Toni Collette and Gabriel Byrne as the mother and father and Alex Wolff and Milly Shapiro as their children) and the way they’re coming to terms with the recent loss of the grandmother of the household.

It’s certainly a ‘character-focused’ piece and all four (or at least three – I did feel that Gabriel Byrne was given the least to do of the four) major characters get their chance to shine and also develop.  We see how the death of the ‘matriarch’ affects them all and their dynamic, plus the problems her loss causes among them.  For the most part, what ‘horror’ is displayed is due to their various mental breakdowns and how they see things (although there is one particularly graphic scene – only for a second or two – which will stay with me forever).  Any supernatural threat comes in the final act when the weird stuff really starts going down.

It was certainly nice to see a horror movie try to be a little different and I felt compelled to watch it to the end, simply to see where it was going and, perhaps more importantly, what the hell was going on!  Yes, it’s not completely black and white and the story does make you work for a few answers here and there.  I even went as far as to watch a YouTube video on its ‘ending explained’ just to make sure I had actually understood it (and I’m pleased to say that I had!).

If it has a fault (for me, anyway) then it’s the film’s run-time.  Yes, it does do a good job of building tension, however I did feel I’d like to get to the ‘meat’ of the story a little quicker than I actually did.  However, that’s just a minor gripe and there were more than enough shocks and surprises that I never saw coming (and I’ve seen a lot of horror films!) which made the (long) journey worthwhile.  If you’re in the mood for something long, drawn out and a little different in terms of horror, then it’s definitely worth sitting down for.
7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that