Operation: Endgame - Pretty straightforward movie

Sometimes you may want a film to twist and turn, keeping you guessing at all times. Other times, you may just want a bit of straightforward carnage. This is the latter.

It's about a top secret base, located under Washington, where two teams of secret agents try to kill each other off. We're introduced to each one briefly, before their boss is killed and the two teams go to war.

What follows is one fight scene after the next, until the killer is finally revealed. Unfortunately, that's all it is. It is quite a short film and having many characters means that most of them are pretty one-dimensional stereotypes who you won't really care if they live or die. Plus some of the good characters are killed off too early, leaving the annoying ones still standing.

On the plus side, the base is under constant surveillance and the two men charged with overseeing the mayhem are quite funny as they watch the bloodshed unfold without being able to affect the outcome.
The budget is pretty small - don't expect any `Matrix-like' fight scenes, but at least the duelling is well done, with the agents utilising one piece of office equipment after the next to despatch their adversary.

Operation: Endgame isn't anything special, but if you like seeing people keep fighting each other in a `last man standing' kind of way then you won't waste too much time watching the eighty minutes that it is.

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

A Few Best Men - The British take on `The Hangover'

The Hangover was a surprise comedy hit, so it made sense that it would `influence' other films. A Few Best Men does its best to steer clear of too many comparisons, but four friends waking up with little memory of a groom's stag night the day before (and naturally leading to disastrous consequences) will always sound like a `Hangover clone.'

David is a Brit on holiday in Australia where he meets the girl of his dreams and subsequently proposes straight away. He therefore flies his three best friends over from Blighty to celebrate (if you can believe that anyone would marry after just two weeks!). Naturally things go wrong and lead to a string of embarrassing (and potentially relationship-ending) events that take place in Australia's `high society' wedding.

Yes, it's a bit predictable, but it's not all together bad. I found this very watchable if you don't think too much about it. Some of the jokes you can see coming, others do come as a surprise. The characters are just about likeable enough to care about and they all play their parts well.

It's not as good as The Hangover. The Hangover will always have the edge due to it being released first. However, if you fancy a few chuckles here and there, you could probably do worse.

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

Mission Impossible: Fallout – Nothing new, but is that so bad?

I remember watching the first 'Mission Impossible' film back in the mid-nineties. No, I won't claim to understand every single plot point in the film, but when the stunts were so high-octane, I simply put it down to some evil supervillain trying to take over the world somehow and a pumped-up Tom Cruise and co out to stop them.

Now I'm older (and so is Tom Cruise, although he seems to be aging a damn sight better than me!) and therefore I should be able to get my head round the (only slightly less complicated!) plots. Sadly, I can't. Besides the fact that there's another supervillain (or society - the 'MI' films tend to alternate between the two threats) threatening the world with another menace (this time the 'tried and tested' trope of 'stolen nukes') and so Tom and co must spring into action.

Yes, there's more to it than that. It is - after all - a 'spy movie' therefore you have to expect all the clichés that come with the genre. You have the Government officials who want to shut down Tom's team, some doublecrosses thrown in here and there and all the obvious action. And, yes, there's plenty of action.

Tom Cruise makes it well-known that he does all his own (or is it at least 'most?') of his stunts and there are some pretty impressive ones here. If you believe the online trivia for this film, he had to train for a year to do one such action set-piece. There's also a pretty high-octane motorbike chase through the streets of Paris. However, despite saying that Cruise does most of his stunts, I couldn't help but feel that some of the shots looked a little 'CGI' (feel free to correct me if you can find proof otherwise).

Although 'Fallout' is - as usual - Tom Cruise's 'baby' and, seeing as the entire franchise has lay heavily on his megastar shoulders, this one is no different. But, as is now common in the series, familiar faces such as Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames are also on board in order to lend a hand where necessary. The real newcomer to the show is none other than 'Superman' himself, Henry Cavill, who can certainly rival Cruise when it comes to kicking people's heads in and I think he's a welcome addition to the film and adds something that the previous instalments haven't had.

Basically, if you like the recent 'MI' films (at least from 'Part III' onwards) then you'll like this. If you're a fan of either Cruise or Cavill then it's definitely worth a watch. In a world where action films are 'uber-serious' and everything is highly realistic, it's nice to see one that's totally over-the-top in terms of its stunts, action and - of course - those 'perfect fit' full face masks guaranteed to fool any baddie they need to. It's a great popcorn movie where you don't really need to understand every last betrayal to have fun.

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

Jeepers Creepers 2 - I do believe we have bats in our belfry

I'm one of those rare people who thinks that this - the sequel to the original `Jeepers Creepers' is actually better than the first one. The original film was too irritating due to its central characters never really bothered to *properly* escape the `Creeper' (aka a giant half man/half bat monster with a taste for human bodyparts). However, here we have a central scenario which lends itself better to the situation.

A schoolbus full of teenagers gets stranded (with a little help from the Creeper himself) in the middle of nowhere, now the flying bat out of hell can take his pick of their tender, young, tasty bodies for him to consume and regenerate.

However, all is not lost for our prepubescent Creeper-fodder, for a local father (played by the typically brooding and sinister Ray Wise, of Twin Peaks and Dead End fame) lost his young son to the Creeper recently and has sworn to track it down and exact some gruesome revenge (with a little help from a pneumatic harpoon).

Although most of the action is centred on the (pretty unlikeable) bus-load of teens, there is plenty of gruesome gore and nastiness as the Creeper picks them off one by one.

Personally, I would have preferred Ray Wise to be in it more, as he's clearly the best part of the film, but it's still an enjoyable little horror flick nonetheless.

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

Slaughterhouse Rulez - Why, Simon, why?

Ever since the comedy TV show 'Spaced' I've been a massive fan of Simon Pegg and the team who seems to surround him on many of his ventures (Nick Frost for one), so I was delighted when I heard the pair were using their own production company to produce a new film where a posh and snooty English boarding school ends up under siege from various forces of darkness, making teachers and pupils band together to fight for their survival.

I love horror films.  I love comedy films and I love the combination of the two.  It sounded right up my street, i.e. a totally self-aware and cheesy little B-movie romp which is enjoyable simply because it never tries to be anything other than what it is and where the actors enjoy their roles.  How wrong I was.

I know some argue that Pegg/Frost and co basically play the same characters in every film.  I know there's an argument for that way of thinking, but I beg to differ.  Yes, they probably don't have that greater range for their acting, but they're always good at what they do and are always worth the price of a cinema ticket.  Not here though.  Here, they mainly play staff and 'grown-ups' in and around the school and their characters indulge in practically every cliche associated with their character.  If someone asked you to do an impression of a Head Master and a private English boarding school, I'm sure you could manage it.  Well, that' exactly what Simon Pegg does - he's a 100% one-dimensional stereotype and, worst of all, he's not funny in the slightest.

However, the adults aren't really the stars.  The kids/teens are the main characters.  And they're awful.  I haven't watched many of the 'Harry Potter' films and yet even a 'Muggle' like myself knows how every class in Hogwarts has its own 'types' of pupil, i.e. one 'house' has all the 'jocks,' one house has all the 'nerds' and so on.  Here, in the unlikely-named school of 'Slaughterhouse' (yeah, you have to suspend you disbelief to get over that one!) all the different forms has all the exact same character types/cliches.  You have the 'rebel, the bully, the nerd, the hot-girl' and so on.  And you won't care about any of them.

Again, if the characters were interesting you could forgive this lazy writing.  But they're not.  They're all stereotypes and, as a result, fundamentally unlikable.  Then there's the villains.  There's currently a debate in the UK about 'fracking' i.e. drilling too deep (or not deep enough, depending on your point of view) in order to find natural fuels.  Near the ridiculously-titled 'Slaughterhouse' school, a company is drilling down into the woods and, in doing so, releases and evil force.  Unfortunately, the 'baddies' are no more interesting that the heroes and they're the most cliched villains you'll have seen in a long time.

It got to the hour mark and I was really tempted to turn it off.  I ever looked the film up online and saw a few comments regarding how the film picks up in the last act.  So I waited for that.  And I wished I didn't.  It doesn't get any better and the cliches come thick and fast.

For a film with such a great cast, all of which are well-known for working together to come up with some of the most classic comedy (mash-ups) of recent years, this one feels like such a miss-fire I can't believe that anyone actually watched it and then thought it would be well received upon release.

I will continue to follow Pegg and co's careers as I still think the team have many more great films in them.  This is sadly not one of them and will never be.  Normally, I can at least find one or two positive things to say about it.  I guess there's always a first time when my mind runs blank.  Sorry, Simon. 'Shaun of the Dead' and the 'Cornetto Trilogy' is still awesome.

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

Mama - A prime example of modern horror

`Mama' is the latest horror movie to receive a reasonable budget. That may raise it slightly above the hundreds of other B-movies out there, but the problem - in my opinion - is that is simply follows the typical (modern) horror structure.
This is as follows... Creepy things start to happen to a family (mainly the children). The adults put it down to a rational explanation and call the police. The police do nothing. Slowly the adults except that something supernatural is happening. They seek advice from a convenient expert in the field. They confront the horror at the end of the film.

Unfortunately, Mama follows this narrative structure to the letter. Yes, it is well shot. Yes, there are some `jumpy' moments and yes the overall vibe is slick, well-produced and a bit creepy. But, at the end of the day, it's nothing that seasoned horror fans (which I'm including me in) haven't seen a hundred times before.

It's certainly a decent offering in the horror genre, but it might be nice for film-makers to try something a little more out of the norm.

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

Real Steel - Couldn't help but like this (and I didn't mean to)  

When I saw the trailer to `Real Steel' I have to confess to being more than a little excited. Sadly, I have long since realised that I like `low-brow' films and the concept of big robots smacking seven shades of sparkplugs out of each other while under the watchful eye of Wolverine, did kind of appeal to me (especially in the light of the disaster that was the Transformers money-spinning bandwagon).

Therefore I waited in trepidation for this film to be realised. Then, when it finally came out, critics started using words like `heart' and `father/son bonding' when talking about it. That was the point when my expectations severely lowered. I didn't want to watch some sort of coming-of-age drama. I wanted to see droids' pro-wrestling or whatever it should have been.

And so I ended up not really caring when or where I finally got round to seeing Real Steel.

Amazingly, it contains both. There was plenty of bot on bot smackdown and a healthy dose of human-interest as Wolverine (oh, all right, Hugh Jackman) learns to love and look after his son of eleven years who he's only properly met (due to the boy's mother dying unexpectedly).

Okay, so my only gripe is that Real Steel is a little long. Personally, I would have trimmed down the human side and focused on droids stomping on each other from a great height. But, at no time did I want to fast forward the human stars.

Stephen Spielberg is among the behind-the-scenes people. I just wonder why he never bothered to make Transformers like this?

Don't expect wall-to-wall action. Don't expect wall-to-wall sentiment. It actually splits the two quite well. Hopefully they'll make a sequel where Wolverine gives his droid some claws. Now that'll be worth the price of a cinema ticket any day!

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

21 And Over - American Pie it is not

'21 and Over' is about two lads who decide to take their friend out for a drink the night before he's due to attend a highly-important job interview. Naturally, things don't go as planned.

But then that's the first problem - believability. I doubt anyone would actually agree to go out drinking with people who have a proven history of getting into trouble. Then there are the two `lads' themselves - one of them is likeable enough, whereas the other is a complete ******. He's one of the most unlikable characters you'll ever find... and we're expected to root and care about him for the duration of the film.

Then there's the story itself. It tries to be outrageous, but comes across as just dull. There aren't that many `laugh out loud' moments and there's a pointless love story woven into the plot.

People are naturally likening it to an adolescent version of `The Hangover' or `American Pie.' However, despite being about going out and getting drunk, this is nothing like the (far superior) Hangover or as happy-go-lucky and enjoyable as American Pie. In 21 and Over there just isn't the same sense of tension. The three boys are `stranded' in a busy town centre with working mobile phones - hardly the middle of the desert and any trouble they encounter is largely of their own making.

Just stick to the Hangover or Pie if you want your fix of teen shenanigans or drinking troubles.

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

Showtime – It’s lucky it has the cast

‘Buddy cop’ movies are nothing new.  They have been around long before 2002’s ‘Showtime’ and they have been popping up ever so often since.  They all revolve around a pair of mismatched police officers, forced to overcome their differences and character flaws in order to solve a crime for the greater good. ‘Showtime’ adheres to every single cliché and trope associated with this format.

However – and it’s a BIG ‘however’ – what ‘Showtime’ has that few other similar films do, is its A-list cast, namely Robert DeNiro and Eddie Murphy.  Just like every other ‘buddy cop’ film, DeNiro is the ‘straight-laced’ one and Murphy is the ‘wild and wacky’ one.  The set-up is nothing new, but the execution is a lot of fun.

When DeNiro (and I’m just not going to bother with ‘character names,’ seeing as it felt like I was simply watching the actors and NOT any on-screen variation of them!) gets caught on national TV shooting a cameraman’s camera, the television network threatens to sue the police force, or make a reality TV show out of it.  Naturally, what makes the best TV is plenty of conflict, therefore (through one twist of fate or another) DeNiro gets himself paired up with a person who is effectively the polar opposite of everything he stands for.

Because the two actors are so good at what they do, they bounce off each other just perfectly and the banter back and forth makes the film worth watching on its own.  And that’s almost all I have to say about ‘Showtime.’ If you like DeNiro or Murphy, then you should enjoy it.  It’s funny and that should be all enough for you if you’re sitting down to watch a ‘buddy cop’ film that’s blatantly marketed for laughs.

Of course it’s not perfect.  Because it’s a cop movie there has to be a crime to solve.  However, the story/banter between the two leads is so good that I almost felt it didn’t need the overarching ‘crime element’ to it to really add anything.  So there’s a bad-guy they have to track down and, along the way, there are various car chases and shoot outs for them to get involved in.  These – naturally – aren’t funny and could have been taken right out of any generic action film.

Luckily, the ‘story’ doesn’t drag down the comedy too often and, going back to what I said before, it’s worth watching just for the laughs that the two leads provide.  And, for any of us long-term ‘Star Trek’ fans, William Shatner makes an appearance which is true comedy gold (just wish he was in it a bit more!).

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

End of Days - Sympathy for the Devil

You've got to feel sorry for poor old Lucifer. I mean, what are the chances? The Prophecy says that he can rule the world IF he can find a woman in a three hours window on New Year's Eve 1999. Then, when the moment finally arrives, Arnold Schwarzenegger shows up and kills the mood for his supernatural love-fest.

 Basically, it's Arnie vs the Devil. Let's face it, deep down, we all know who's going to come out on top in that one, but, hey, let's go along for the ride anyway.

 Arnie plays an alcoholic cop who... oh, forget it. Arnie plays Arnie. He beats up bad guys and he's damn good at it. You must know what to expect from him by now? As I've said, in this case he's got his sights set on the high prince of darkness. Along the way he uses big guns, many stunts, lots of grunting and more explosions than Wile E Coyote has seen in his life.

 If you like the sound of that, you'll probably enjoy End of Days. If you don't, don't rent this - you'll only complain about the CGI and pick plot holes.

 Two bonus points: Gabriel Byrne is cool as the Devil and, if you ever saw Blackadder II, you may remember `Lady Whiteadder.' Well, imagine her kicking the hell out of Schwarzenegger. Seriously, she does. If that doesn't make it worth the watch then I don't know what does.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Fairytale - Oh, it's one of THOSE types of horror films

Over the last few years - and possibly spurred on by such bit hits as The Ring - there has been an influx in these types of horror films. Let me explain...

Step 1: Take a parent (normally a single mother) who lives with their child. Step 2: Child starts behaving oddly. Step 3: Disbelief. Step 4: Acceptance that something supernatural is happening. Step 5: Consult expert who just so happens to live locally. Step 6: Confrontation and conclusion.

Basically, Fairytale is one of those types of horror films. If you're a horror fan in general then you have probably already seen a dozen more like it. All these types of films follow the above plot points with only a few minor changes here and there. This one falls somewhere in the middle of them all. You'll have seen worse and you'll definitely have seen better.

One major downside to Fairytale is the acting. First of all the child is not a good actress. I know it's harder for kids to act and they should be given a little more leeway that adults, but she was just so unbelievable it didn't help an already shaky film. The lead actress isn't much better and the school teacher (thankfully only briefly in it) is the worst of all.

I can't really recommend Fairytale on account of it being so formulaic. Yes, there are a few scary/creepy scenes which pop up every twenty minutes or so, plus the odd plot twist, but there are so many better films like this out there, this one simply hasn't got the momentum to really stand out.

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

Paper Towns – One for the youth

There are some films designed for multiple generations.  Which adult hasn’t enjoyed ‘Toy Story’ equally as much as their child (only on different levels!)?  However, ‘Paper Towns’ seems to be one of those ‘young adult’ tales that can only really be believed if you haven’t really lived that long in life (yes, I’m an old cynic).  It’s the typical ‘boy meets girl’ story where the two of them grow up together – as friends, obviously – only for her to start partying hard during her late teens, while he studies hard for later life.  Naturally, once their circles have moved in different directions, he assumes they’ll never get together – until she appears at his bedroom window one night, asking to borrow his car. 

Now, the boy and girl in question – Quentin and Margo – are both likable enough (and played respectively by Nat Wolff and Cara Delevingne – who, despite what some people say, is actually quite a good young actress who can put on a decent enough American accent), as are their group of friends.  So the cast are a fun bunch of people who you will feel drawn to (even if they do offer little new in terms of ‘stereotypical American teens’).  The problems I can with ‘Paper Towns’ simply came in the form of its pacing and general believability. 

The first third of the movie is Nat and Cara, cheering fully tearing up the town in a wild night of throwing caution to the wind and general mayhem.  This is fair enough if this is how the whole film was.  However, and hopefully I’m not including a spoiler here, Cara then disappears in one of her character’s trademark ‘mysteries’ leaving the rest of the cast wondering where she’s gone and how they can find her.  And so, for fans of Cara, they may feel a little short-changed by her sudden lack of screen time, as the rest of the movie is taken up with the rest of the cast’s road-trip as they try to solve the mystery of where she went to and why.

I think I’ve probably said enough about the plot, so I won’t spoil what happens, only to say that – despite the lack of the ‘other half’ on the love interest part of the story – there are a few things even a hardened cynic such as myself didn’t see coming.  It seems that whether people love or hate this film depends on how they feel about its ending.  Personally, I really enjoyed how they wrapped it up – my only beef was about how the rest of the story was pretty unbelievable.  However, what do I know?  I’m clearly not this film’s demographic – my thirteen year old daughter absolutely loved it, so fair play to the millennials if they appreciate it more than me!

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

Ghostbusters II – Don’t believe the hate

I think it’s fair to say that the original ‘Ghostbusters’ is a classic.  Very few people will disagree with that.  Therefore, due to its success, a sequel was inevitable.  I remember watching ‘Ghostbusters II’ at twelve years old back in 1989 and absolutely loving it!  As did every other one of my friends.  It was only as I grew up (and possibly coupled with the rise of the internet) did I realise how – apparently – hated it was.

Since that revelation, I’ve watched it a few times and, every time, tried to see its flaws.  And, even after repeated viewings through older, more cynical eyes, I still love it!  It has all the original actors from the first film and they play off each other perfectly.  The story has literally moved on and the characters have grown as a result.  The special effects still look better than many that are overly-CGIed nowadays and best of all, it’s funny.

If I was really trying to be critical I could mention that it does seem a bit odd that, by all accounts, the city of New York has completely forgotten about how the Ghostbusters saved the world (and, sometimes, it’s even debateable whether the populous even BELIEVES in ghosts!).  Plus it is a bit of a re-tread of the first movie’s plot, beat for beat (but no one seemed to mind that much when ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ did that many years later!).

I’d never say it’s better than the original.  That kind of praised is reversed for the ‘filmic elite’ and rarely happens at the best of times.  However, just because it’s not as good doesn’t make it a bad film.  It’s a perfect compendium piece to the original and, if you accept that, you should have fun with it.  Now, if you REALLY want a bad and extremely pointless film, then check out the Ghostbusters remake (actually, don’t – stick with either of the originals, the eighties cartoon series or even the game on the PS3 when it comes to your fix of ghostbusting!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Inception – Don’t believe ‘South Park’ (completely)

I’ve watched ‘Inception’ twice now.  The first time I loved it (even though I didn’t quite understand every little thing that went on) and the second time I enjoyed it for different reasons.  Mainly, because in the years between viewings I’d watched the (typically-brilliant!) episode of ‘South Park’ known as ‘Insheeption,’ or, in other words, the episode that completely lampoons Christopher Nolan’s sci-fi epic.

In the near future, thieves are able to infiltrate people’s dreams and therefore steal secret information (such as PIN codes etc) for use in real life.  However, one such gang of crooks are recruited to perform a slightly different spin on this venture, when they’re hired to ‘implant’ an idea into a subject’s head without his knowing – a process known as ‘Inception.’

The first thing that you’ll need to know (and have probably already heard) is that the plot is pretty damn complicated.  There are scenes where dreams are intercut with parts of the story set in our waking world.  Then, just when you think you’ve got it figured, people start going into dreams within a dream and you end up with ‘different levels’ of the subconscious.

However, even if the story completely loses you within half an hour (and this is probably a good time to mention that the films lasts well over two hours!) you do have not only a damn fine cast of stars assembled for this blockbuster, but a sizeable chunk of money dedicated to some very revolutionary special effects (for the time, anyway – since then we’ve had ‘Dr. Strange’ which has adopted, adapted and improved (?) on them).  Part of the film’s marketing was dedicated to the crazy scenes where cities kind of ‘fold in’ on themselves over the protagonists’ heads.

Talking of the protagonists, I haven’t said about the cast.  It’s one hell of a good line-up for a science fiction/action film.  Obviously, much of the marketing (and screen-time) goes to leading man Leonardo DiCaprio, but you also have a supporting heavyweight cast including Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Michael Caine, Cillian Murphy and Tom Berenger.

‘South Park’s point was that just because something is complicated, doesn’t mean it’s any good.  And they’re right… to a degree.  Yes, there is plenty of ‘techno-babble’ where the physics of these new feats are ‘explained’ (mainly for the benefit of the audience!) and sometimes you just have to go with it.  I know that the details of the story will lose (and therefore turn off) some who watch this.  And there’s the ‘South Park’ school of thought which says that it’s too complicated for its own good and simply relies on deliberately being ‘out there’ in order to cover any script failings, but there is plenty to entertain, be it the impressive cast, the special effects, the action or a combination of all three.  Either way, it was met with praise from both critics and audiences alike and remains a revolutionary classic to this day (and possibly for quite some time to come).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans - Actually not that bad

Once upon a time the word ‘Nicholas’ and ‘Cage’ were something to set the box office alight.  Nowadays, pretty much everything he does is laughed at.  The only real enjoyment found from a Nic Cage film is us trying to guess just how low he will descend this time around.  However, although Bad Lieutenant (2?) is never going to be an absolute classic, it does the job for what it is.

First of all, it didn’t entirely escape criticism.  Its full title is ‘Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans’ and it’s actually a remake of the Harvey Keitel film of the same name (minus the bit about New Orleans).  Therefore, you naturally had all the original’s fanbase claiming how sacred the original was and how this was a travesty and a simple cash-in rip-off.  Well I guess all remakes are to a degree, but this one does its best to try and steer clear of borrowing too much from the source material.  In fact, some of the production team even go as far as to say that it’s not a remake, more a sequel that only borrows from the same principal.

And then there’s Cage himself.  He’s actually pretty good (again).  Yes, he specialises in some overacting from time to time, but anyone who’s seen him before should be used to this.  He’s propped up by a decent supporting cast, including Eva Mendes and Val Kilmer, but it’s generally Cage’s baby and he carries the film well.  As the title suggests, Cage plays the titular ‘Bad Lieutenant’ who, despite supposedly being a man of the law, is pretty broken and frequently bends the rules, especially when he’s in need of drugs (legal and otherwise). 

It’s a bit trippy, too.  You have to concentrate on what’s going on and you’re going to have to be okay with some more ‘arty’ elements, such as singing iguanas (which I loved!).  I think the more ‘out there’ parts of the film were trying to portray Cage’s slow descent into drug-induced madness.

I have to confess, I haven’t seen the original, so I can’t compare the two.  But, seeing as I haven’t watched it, I quite enjoyed it – it’s a tale of a man who’s on a slippery path to nowhere.  So, if you like your cops ‘dirty’ and films a little dark and whacky, don’t simply write it off as yet another of Cage’s ‘misfires’ and give it a go.

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

The Void (2016) - Saved by its special effects

It's fair to say that I'm a sucker for what's known in the film industry as 'practical effects' when it comes to my horror films.  Give me some stretched latex with pints of red liquid squirting out of a hole in some poor unfortunate's face over a digitally-rendered alien landscape filled with armies of marauding monster-soldiers.  In other words... I consider 'The Void' to be 'old school' in terms of its approach to horror.

An injured man is escorted to a hospital by the local police department one lonely night.  From there everything goes to hell (in more ways than one!) and what follows is a kind of inter-dimensional siege movie where the hospital's occupants fight for survival against various other-worldly foes.

I certainly enjoyed it and it's worth a second watch.  However, I'm certainly not saying that it's perfect.  In face, there are times when it's a complete mess.  I say I'd re-watch it and that's totally down to the 'weirdness factor' about it.  The film-makers really do throw everything they have into the film and do their best, plus, along with the great monster effects, it's certainly a cut above your average horror B-movie.

'The Void's' main problem is that it tries to do too many things at once and therefore comes across as a little 'unfocused.' The humans caught up in this awful nightmare of a situation don't just find themselves up against one enemy (or TYPE of enemy) - they have at least three different threats working to chop them up for lunch.  All three antagonists could have been the one and only villain, but trying to squeeze in reason and backstory behind them all really does crowd the proceedings.

Plus it is one of those sorts of films that relies a bit on your own interpretation as to what's happening and the conclusions you take away.  Don't expect to have everything spoon-fed to you and everything ultimately wrapped-up in a nice, neat little bow when the credits roll.  Maybe the producers were hoping for a sequel?  I don't know.

As far as the performances go, they're okay.  Most characters are there to be devoured horribly, so you're hardly going to get to know many of them.  The primary character is the local sheriff and a guy who looks like internet 'news' frontman, Alex Jones!  They get the most screen time and Kenneth Welsh (who I haven't seen since season 2 of 'Twin Peaks' is pretty reasonable as the crazy surgeon.  Otherwise, you won't be remembering many of the names attached to this project.

Ultimately, 'The Void' is very much a horror film.  If you like your scares rubbery and nicely non-CGI then you could do worse than watching this.  There are some genuinely creepy moments, but the story just needed a bit more direction to make it into the true 'cult classic' it should have been.

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

Hard Candy - Candy crush

‘Hard Candy’ is a kind of ‘cat and mouse’ tale in the most traditional of ways.  You may think that a story about – effectively – a young, skinny fourteen-year-old girl versus a fully-grown healthy man might be a little one-sided.  However, you obviously haven’t seen how Ellen Page plays it.

A successful photographer (Patrick Wilson) has a weakness for chatting up underage girls over the internet.  Yet he gets more than he bargained for when he finally gets round to meeting Ellen Page’s character, ‘Hayley,’ For she takes it upon herself to perform a little adolescent vigilante justice upon him.

Like I said... you may think that there’s not an awful lot a teenager can do to a man.  But then if I told you the specifics of what transpires, I’d be spoiling it for you.  All I’ll say is that the balance of power shifts and then shifts again between the two as their own private little war ensues.

There’s really only the two characters in the film, therefore it’s up to Page and Wilson to shoulder the film’s burden.  And they do it pretty well.  Both characters are a pair of sad and damaged individuals and one of the film’s many strengths is that it makes it hard for the audience to tell who’s the guilty party – if there is one at all.

It’s not an easy watch.  You have to be ready for a pretty dark and bleak drama with some really nasty moments.  One thing’s for sure... this ain’t no ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ tale.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

See No Evil, Hear No Evil - They don't make 'em like they used to (pity)

I’ve noticed, looking back on eighties movies versus today’s output, that back then (the best of them) just threw the audience into the action and went from there.  There was little in the way of ‘back-story’ or a long period of the film’s run-time dedicated to ‘setting up’ the characters.  We were just sat down with them and left to get to know them.

I watched ‘See No Evil, Hear No Evil’ many times during my childhood and I’ve only just re-watched it again (having found it on an online streaming service).  I have to say that it’s held up over the years perfectly and is still as perfectly funny today as it ever was.  Okay, so judging by today’s uber politically correct standards it may be a but ‘un-PC’ here and there, but – in my opinion – that’s no bad thing.

It takes two comic legends and puts them together, allowing them to play off each other wonderfully.  Richard Pryor is blind.  Gene Wilder is deaf.  One day, during their job working at a news stand, a murder is committed.  They get the blame.  Now, it’s up to the pair of them to apprehend the bad guys and prove their innocence.

Yes, it’s a little far-fetched and ‘screwball’ in nature and you may have to suspend your disbelief a bit in order to fully appreciate everything that happens (a blind man driving a car for one!).  However, it’s not meant to be a great work of art with lashings of realism.  It’s there to make you laugh and if you allow yourself to go along for the ride then laughs you will get.

The plot is driven by the pair’s banter between them as they try to get through this ordeal with their respective disabilities and, perhaps more importantly, try to get along with each other’s disabilities.  The nice thing about ‘See No Evil, Hear No Evil’ is that it never really makes fun of people with disabilities and provides a small – if humorous – insight into the perils they have to face in life while never showing that they can’t achieve great things.

It’s worth mentioning the bad-guys (and true killers) who are on their tale the whole time, simply because when I first watched it I never knew either of the male/female actors who played them.  Now, I was actually quite amazed when I realised that the man of the duo was none other than Kevin Spacey (sporting a near-flawless British accent).  I know these days he’s not many people’s favourite, so if you can overlook his input (and when judging Spacey on his acting alone I think few can say a bad thing about him) then there’s nothing to stop you enjoying this silly, over-the-top (and yet poignant) film from yesteryear.  Long may it keep up its sheer playful cheekiness.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 - Full of holes (but fun anyway!)

I watched the Nightmare on Elm Street saga when it first came out. And I loved it. Now, some years later, I can see all the – many – things wrong with it. But I still love it anyway.

It’s fair to say that if you’re into your horror movies then you probably enjoyed the first Nightmare film, about a child-killer who continues his deadly activities by invading the dreams of his young victims. However, most die-hards hated the first sequel (which had no input from the franchise’s mastermind, Wes Craven). So, in Part III, Craven returns to take creative control. And it helps.

We meet the last children from Elm Street, now traumatised and in a mental institution, still being picked off by Freddy Kruger. The title of ‘Part III’ is ‘Dream Warriors.’ This relates to how the kids are banding together to use their ‘dream powers’ to help defeat their nemesis. However, I find that title a little misleading. They aren’t what I’d call ‘warriors!’ They’re a bit useless really. And bland. In fact, the film’s ‘star’ is easily Freddy himself, who steals every scene with his delicious evilness.

You can either pick the film apart for its shortcomings, or just enjoy the imaginative dream scenes where Freddy pops up and ‘offs’ another teen. It’s silly and fun – not scary, but there are a few ‘yucky’ moments (the ‘puppet scene’ still looks pretty grisly to this day!).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Dark Knight Rises - If you liked the others, then you'll love this

There's probably not much to say about The Dark Knight Rises that hasn't already been said. You can't really walk into the cinema and wonder what you'll get from a film about a man who dresses up like a bat and fights crime at night.

Most people who will watch The Dark Knight Rises will probably have seen the previous two and will be aware of writer/director Christopher Nolan's `slant' of the classic Batman legend. Well... this is more of the same.

All the surviving cast members from the previous films return to tie up their character arcs and, perhaps the best thing about the film, is that it feels like a `real' sequel - not one that's been made by someone else and has a totally different feel about it all. The cast is as impressive as before and Tom Hardy puts in an excellent performance (I think he deserves credit for stepping into the shoes of `main baddie' that Heath Ledger wore so well and tragically last time).

The only drawback I felt was that there are so many good characters played by big names, that it was hard to give them all enough screen time and - believe it or not - there are long periods where the title character himself doesn't feature.

It's a great ride, but one that's definitely different to Marvel's current superhero crop. Everything from The Hulk, Thor, Iron Man and Avengers is big, loud and very `comic-book.' Batman is none of this. It, like its predecessors are more like crime dramas with a much darker feel to it and more realistic (well, slightly) action.

Basically, if you liked the first two, you'll probably see this as a fitting conclusion to the trilogy. You don't have to have watched the first two to understand everything that goes on here, but it will probably help. So, my advice would be to start at the beginning of Nolan's trilogy and work your way from there.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Impact - Three words: Made For T.V.

Impact is basically a `disaster movie' but on television (Think `a Michael Bay film, but without the budget or stars). An asteroid has only gone and knocked the moon out of orbit and now our former lunar buddy is on a collision course for Earth, dooming the lot of us.

But don't worry, seeing as Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck were unavailable to fly up there and blow it out of the stars, we have a team of international boffins who will come up with something to save us all. In the end they simply must have watched Armageddon, as they decide to fly up there and blow it up (just with worse special effects).

Most people could probably put aside the slightly dubious special effects and lack of big-name actors and give Impact a chance. However, its main problem is simply its lack of originality. Even if you do leave out the dodgy scientific theories behind the scenario, what you have here is one disaster movie cliché after another. The dialogue is horrendous and even when the action does pick up a bit and focus on the (slightly) more interesting characters, it keeps hopping back to some severely boring ones (aka their various families, who all happen to have put themselves in perilous danger at the same time).

I was never that much of a fan of Armageddon. I found it too over-the-top and daft to really enjoy properly. However, after watching Impact, give me Steve Tyler's `I Don't Want to Miss a Thing' any day.

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

Captain Fantastic – Not to be confused with Steve Rogers

‘Captain Fantastic’ is a film that I’ve had on my radar for quite some time.  I’d heard all good things about it before I sat down to watch it, so this normally meant that I find myself totally let down with what I got.  And, what I got was not what I expected.  I’ll admit to enjoying it and being glad that I have seen it, however, despite my good feelings towards it, I’m not sure it’s the sort of film that would inspire a repeat viewing any time soon. 

Viggo Mortensen (always worth a watch) plays a single father who looks after his children ‘on the land’ as you could call it.  They live together deep in a forest and have little to know contact with what we would describe as ‘civilisation.’ Here, Viggo teaches his brood how to survive using only nature and basic survival techniques that you wouldn’t get in your average comprehensive.  And they’re thriving – sort of.  They all agree with this way of life, but largely because it’s all they’ve ever known.  And, no matter how cool, Viggo is, he didn’t raise them on his own.  Early on we find that the children’s mother is in hospital and, sadly, she doesn’t come out again.  This is the catalyst which launches the family on a road trip to her home town (and awaiting parents who really don’t agree with their daughter’s lifestyle) for her funeral.  So, what you end up with is a real clash of cultures.  Obviously the father once lived among us ‘norms’ and most likely owned a mobile phone, mortgage and worked 9-5.  However, his children haven’t and we see how they react to this alien world.

I wonder whether people see this film differently if they have or haven’t got children.  Personally, as a parent, I understood the father’s desire to want to shelter his children from all the ‘horrors’ of the modern world.  No one wants to see their children exposed to dull, soulless 9-5 jobs, rubbish girlfriend/boyfriends and generally people who want to do them down at every turn.  However, as much as we want to wrap our children up and shield them from everything negative, we have to allow them the freedom to make their own mistakes.  This is the lesson of the film.  Not to mention how different people react to different ideals.  It’s fair to say that Viggo’s father-ion-law is not particularly happy with his son-in-law showing up and insisting that the funeral is held according to wishes of a dead person who can no longer confirm how she wanted to be mourned.

It’s all quite deep and high drama and I can see why such praise was heaped on it.  It asks questions about the way we live and the pros and cons of various lifestyles.  However, as I said at the beginning, despite liking it, I just found it’s not something I could watch again anytime soon.  In a few years time if I see that it’s on the telly and nothing else is on, I’ll definitely watch it again.  Just not worth buying on Blu-ray at full price.

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

On the Road - Good cast - long film

`On the Road' is a good two hours long. And it feels every minute of it. I didn't know it was based on a book, so I can't say how faithful it is to that. However, from the other reviews I've read, I hear it misses several pertinent points from its source material.

It's about three men in their late teens in 1949 who like to hug each other. If one of them seems to be out of the room for more than a minute then they need to reinforce the bond between them at the earliest opportunity. They decide to go on a road trip while trying to meet women, take drugs and write a novel. It sounds like the plot to some sort of wacky American Pie type movie. I wish it was. The American Pie films were at least funny.

However, most of On the Road is simply a couple of guys hugging then mumbling to each other in one hotel room after the next (then hugging again).

Yes, it is well filmed. The scenery is great, as is the wild jazz soundtrack (if you like jazz; if you're into classical, then it probably won't be to your taste). Plus the actors, for what little they're given, all do well. And it's got some pretty decent actors, too. Sadly, it just doesn't really go anywhere. With some road movies, the protagonists have to get from point A to B. Whereas here, they are just driving aimlessly, so the film follows suit.

I believe the words, `Stick to the book' are in order (then have a nice hug with the guy next to you).

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

The Adjustment Bureau - Better than the trailer makes it look! 

I saw the trailer to the Adjustment Bureau and thought it looked more like a romantic drama! Luckily, for the story, the romance part of it isn't the central theme and it's even necessary to the story.

Matt Damon is the youngest man trying to be elected as a Senator in the American elections. Before he's due to give an important speech, he bumps into a lady (Emily Blunt) who he falls for. However, apparently he was never meant to meet her and there are sinister powers who will go to any lengths to stop them ever meeting again.

The front cover of the film sums it up as `The Boune Identify meets Inception.' Yes, I couldn't put it much better than that. It's a chase film with Matt Damon and Emily Blunt being pursued by people (albeit sci-fi baddies rather than moral government agents) and trying to sort the mess out.

If you like chase films or sci-fi, give it a go. There's no Oscar winning performances here, but there is a lot of fun and , without giving away too much of the plot, it's a good overall premise which gives you enough questions to talk about after the credits have rolled.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Stigmata - Hasn't aged quite as well as I'd hoped

I watched 'Stigmata' back in 1999 and have seen it a few times since.  However, it's been a few years now and this time it had less of an effect on me.  I don't know whether that's because I knew what was coming, or because it hasn't aged that well.

It centres around a young woman in New York, Frankie Paige (Patricia Arquette), whose life takes a turn for the supernatural when she starts receiving the succession of wounds that Christ endured in the last few days of his life (i.e. the 'stigmata' to use the technical term).  And, having bleeding holes randomly appear in your wrists and getting whipped by invisible entities may cause you to have a few days off work and, in this case, attracts the attention of professional 'debunker' priest, Father Andrew Kiernan (Gabriel Byrne).

It's a kind of 'Exorcist' for the millennium.  And, even now I have to admit that there are some pretty intense scenes in there that are well shot and quite nasty.  Arquette shows that she has the ability to take centre stage in a film (and this probably went some way to getting her the gig in the TV show 'Medium') and there's plenty of chemistry between her and seasoned actor Bryne.

There's a sub-plot involving some cover-ups here and there, but that could probably have been taken out of the film completely, but I guess if you have use of an actor as good as Jonathan Pryce, then you might as well use him somewhere.

Although I loved 'Stigmata' when I first saw it (and enjoyed it during subsequent viewings) I certainly didn't hate it this time round.  I suppose that over the years I've seen so many 'possession-type' films that nothing here is as original as it probably was back in the nineties.  But, if you're into your religious/possession films then this is certainly up there with the best of them.  You certainly don't have to believe or not believe in God to enjoy this as simply a good horror film.

Oh, and there's an awesome remix of David Bowie's 'The Pretty Things Are Going to Hell' thrown into the club scene for extra coolness!

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

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang – Downey Jr without the iron suit

I’m guessing ‘Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang’ must have developed a ‘cult following’ by now.  Whenever I ask people have they seen it, they just give me a blank look as if I’m making the film’s title up!  If nothing else it stars ‘Iron Man’ himself (Robert Downey Jr) and also ‘Batman’ (Val Kilmer, but I daresay most of us will have wiped his turn under the cape and cowl from our collective minds).  Downey Jr was probably never meant to be the ‘face’ of Marvel’s ‘shared universe’ and yet his sheer charisma propelled him to deserved mega-stardom.  Here (back in 2005), he simply practices all those traits that would eventually make Tony Stark such a compelling character. 

It’s hard to imagine Robert Downey Jr not flying (literally!) headlong into the thick of the action in order to save a city from an alien menace, however, here, he plays Harry Lockhart who is a simple thief (and not a particularly good one!) who inadvertently gets mistaken for an actor and subsequently finds himself auditioning for roles in L.A. Now, as if that wasn’t unexpected enough for him, he also gets caught up in a double murder mystery and requires the help of Gay Perry (private detective, Val Kilmer) and flame-from-the-past Harmony Faith Lane (Michelle Monaghan) in order to solve it.

In short, if you’re a fan of Downey Jr’s work (or rather Tony Stark with a different name) then you’ll love ‘Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang’ totally and I could leave the review there, but for those who may require a little more convincing, I should say that the banter between Downey Jr and Val Kilmer is right up there with any he’s done with Captain America, Thor or the Hulk.  Kilmer himself deserves a nod for his portrayal of – openly gay – private detective Gay Perry (did the name not tip you off?), going some way to dispel typical gay stereotypes in major filmic productions.  Also, Michelle Monaghan is more than just ‘eye candy’ – her character isn’t a ‘Mary Sue’ and, besides looking damn fine, actually has relevance in the plot and gives as good as she gets with (her obvious ‘love interest’) Downey Jr.

Personally, I loved this film and the cheeky pokes it takes at Hollywood films in general, going some way to break a few of the tropes and clichés associated with the genre.  I’m not sure if this is a fault or just an observation, but since ‘Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang’ was released we’re probably all more familiar with ‘Deadpool.’ The reason I mention this is because this other superhero is well-known for ‘breaking the fourth wall’ and talking directly to us, the audience. ‘Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang’ also uses this technique, but mainly at the beginning and the end of the film.  It was as if the film-makers liked it, but then ran out of ways to incorporate Downey Jr (also our narrator and story-teller) turning to face camera and making wry observations.  Then, when the film was wrapping up, they realised they better put a few more of these instances in.

However, that doesn’t really bring the film down.  If you’re into banter-filled murder mysteries with an A-list cast then this should certainly be something you should check out.  Hopefully, since Downey Jr’s rise to fame more people will have checked out this little gem by now.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back - Awesomely stupid fun

There are some films that you know you just shouldn't like and yet you love anyway. People watching `Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' will either come to it fresh, or know about the `Askewniverse.' This film is definitely for the latter - those who have watched writer/director/star's previous work, i.e. Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy and Dogma - all of which are set in the same timeline (or `Askewniverse' to use the technical term). In other words, you'll get the most out of Jay and Silent Bob's movie if you've seen what's gone before (in the correct order).

If you're the former, you may like it, but it'll be a bit of a fluke it you do - it'll mean that you're probably into immature, smutty gags and smoke pot - which is mainly what's contained within the movie.

You really have to put your brain on hold, or at least move it down into your boots because the humour here is as low-brow as you're going to get. It's mainly a case of `know what you're getting' with this film. If you're prepared for one of the daftest, smuttiest, stupidest road trip movies ever made, which follows the exploits of two pot-heads who want to stop a movie about their life being made in Hollywood, then you'll probably enjoy this. If you're looking for something a little more intellectual then steer well clear.

Bonus points to the film-makers for getting what must be one of the longest lists of celebrity cameos ever assembled for a movie - every one sends themselves up beautifully.

I enjoyed it tremendously - in all it's low brow glory.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Maleficent - Evil has never looked so good

Okay, so, like many, I grew up on the animated Disney film, ‘Sleeping Beauty,’ so I flatter myself that I know the story pretty well.  I was sceptical about how well dragging out the ‘villian’s’ side of the tale would translate into a full length live-action movie, but I was pleasantly surprised.

For a start it had a big advantage with Angelia Jolie in the lead role.  She does seem born to play the titular evil fairy, Maleficent.  Obviously, the story does follow Sleeping Beauty for the most part and I actually got a little bored, technically just watching a live-action version of the classic fairytale.  However, when it changes, it changes.

I won’t go into too much detail, but the film-makers use a fair amount of creative liberties to stray from the story we know so well.  Let’s just say if you think you know the story, then you’ll probably be surprised by what transpired.

Of course it’s not perfect, but then my main gripes came from the excessive use of computer-generated scenery.  I always get a bee in my bonnet when I watch a fantasy film (think Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, or Oz: The Great and the Powerful).  I think I’m too old to allow myself to let go and just enjoy the story.  All I can see is *technically* Playstation 3 graphics talking on screen next to the odd real actor or actress.  Plus the three ‘good’ fairies just looked weird (in my humble opinion).

But the film does its job at breathing new life into an old (and well-known) tale.  It should be enjoyed mainly by children, but it shouldn’t be beyond finding its way into the hearts of adults, too.

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

The Land That Time Forgot - The film that remakes forgot

I used to watch this with my friends when it was on TV in the eighties. I’d seen a fair few war films and, back then, the prospect of Germans and Allied forces teaming up seemed pretty freaky and intriguing to me.

'The Land That Time Forgot' follows the exploits of a German U-boat crew who get overpowered by a lifeboat full of civilians who they actually just sank (no, seriously they do… just go with it – it’s worth it). Anyway, the U-boat gets lost and ends up in a secret land of dinosaurs and cavemen. There, they must work together to escape.

 I’d forgotten how much of the film actually takes place before they arrive on the island. Maybe I only watched the second half with the dinosaurs? But it doesn’t matter. It sets the scene perfectly – displaying the tensions between the two crews.

Then they get to the island and generally ravaged by dinosaurs. Only they’re not really dinosaurs, they’re large rubbery monsters. Hey, it was pre-CGI and 'Jurassic Park' – what do you expect? But, again, don’t let that put you off. If you can get past the dodgy special effects and just immerse yourself in the story, you’ll find that it’s actually quite a tight and tense little number.

When the special effects are that bad (even for 1974!) the film needs something to elevate it and, in this case, that special something is the cast.  Yes, it's a Doug McClure film.  He's the American hero who brings everyone together.  I'd be lying if I said he was anything more than 'functional' as the leading man.  And his 'love interest' (Susan Penhaligon) is equally passible.  The 'scene-stealer' is John McEnery who plays the German U-boat captain who, despite - technically - be 'the bad guy' brings more dimensions to his character than just your typical faceless Nazi who normally appears in these sorts of 'period' films.

What with all the films of the seventies being remade and Hollywood working its way through the latter end of the eighties and even into the nineties, I’m surprised this one never got the remake treatment. It’s probably ripe for one, but, once again, that’s not a detraction from the original. If you have a couple of hours to kill and can forgive a little bit of ham, just go with it. There’s worse about, even with realistic dinosaurs!

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

Violet and Daisy -Probably should have been half as long

‘Violet and Daisy’ tells the story of a pair of teenage assassins who get more than they bargained for on their latest job, namely someone who actually WANTS to be assassinated.
Now, the first question you may ask if you hear that is WHY does the ‘mark’ want to be ‘offed’ by a pair of gin-totting adolescents.  And it’s a good question.  However, despite the two girls staying with their man for most of the film, they don’t seem to get round to asking him.  Then, when you do finally find out (about three quarters of the way through the film) there isn’t really anywhere else left to go.
It starts off well enough.  I found the opening kind of similar to Guy Ritchie’s ‘Snatch’ as the two girls disguise themselves and chat happily on their way to their first ‘job’ of the day.  However, despite all the nice talk, the dialogue isn’t ever quite as snappy as a Guy Ritchie or Tarrantino film. 

All the performances are good and James Gandolfini deserves a special mention, as he does his character with a lot of pathos, helped no small part by the fact that, in the film, he wants to die and, not long after, he sadly got his wish in real life.

Whereas the film could have explained, or possibly delved into how using teenagers (who are still just about young enough to be considered – sort of – innocent), it never really touches on the subject, choosing to string the story out as to why James Gandolfini wants to die for as long as possible.
It’s not a bad film, but it could have either done with being cut down by about half to make it tighter, or taken in a more focused direction.

In the end it ends up as a sort of half-hearted homage to a Guy Ritchie/Tarrantino film that never really lives up to its potential.

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

Reality Kills - Wow... what a stinker

I write a lot of reviews on films and, normally, try to find something positive to say about a movie. No matter how bad it is, there's at least a couple of good points. In fact, I hate people who say things like `Worst movie ever!!!!' (note the annoyingly large amount of exclamations marks).

Well, this definitely isn't the worst movie ever (in my opinion `Seed' takes that particular accolade), but it is at least definitely in the bottom of the barrel.

My hopes weren't high from the beginning. I think Hollywood should be forced to stamp a great big warning sign on any film which is actually `found footage.' This emerging genre is certainly cheap to produce. Minimal actors and special effects are required and I daresay the editing doesn't take too long either.

Reality Kills is, sadly, one of these `found footage films. It's constructed like a documentary about people who were murdered in a house... or something. In fact, as soon as I realised it was found footage, I kind of lost interest. This review is only based on the first hour. I couldn't take any more. Cliche after cliché reared its ugly head. From the couple killed while having sex, to the shaky camerawork and killers who run in and run out of frame so quickly, you can barely tell what it was.

This isn't the worst movie ever made, but there are plenty of these types of horror films out there and they, at best, only become average - the kind of movie you watch to kill time and forget about afterwards. Sadly, this one isn't even that good. It's just one you need to avoid. Even if you're a massive fan of found footage films, this one doesn't make the grade.

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

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) - Good, but probably should have been better

'The Taking of Pelham 123' is a remake, therefore, by by most filmic logic, it's terrible.  Well... I never watched the original, so I can't say how it compares to the source material.  However, I can say that - whether it's a remake or not - it's certainly an enjoyable little thriller (with a few shades of action thrown in there).

And, if you're still on the fence as to whether to watch, I should point out that not only does it star Hollywood heavyweights (the excellent) Denzel Washington and (the mainly pretty solid) John Travolta, but it was also directed by Tony (son of Ridley) Scott, who has quite a flair for these stylish and tense modern day thrill-rides.

Washington plays 'Walter,' a man tasked with running the New York subway trains from a central office and making sure they run on time.  However, what he didn't bargain for when he put his socks on this morning, was that a terrorist known simply as 'Ryder' (Travolta) decides to hijack one of his trains while in a tunnel and demand a substantial amount of money in return for the passengers' safe release.  Therefore, this turns into a most interesting day for not only them, but also New York's long-suffering mayor, played by James Gandalfini.

With a cast list like that, you know it's not going to be awful.  And there's no way I could ever say anything overly negative about this film.  However, just because it has an excellent cast doesn't mean that it's perfect.

It does get a little bit convoluted in places here and there and possibly goes on a little too long than it should.  However, due to the fact that the two main stars don't actually meet face to face for the first two thirds of the film, there did need to be some sort of plot device that meant that you could get the two of them together to play off each other the way a pair of acting legends like Washington and Travolta should.

Overall, Scott's direction gives it a true air of an A-list film and the cast certainly lives up to that label.  It should keep most people entertained for a couple of hours, but it's one of those films that you probably won't bother giving it a second watch for quite some time... if ever.

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

Ender's Game - Ender’s in school

Okay, so I’ll admit I didn’t like this film as much as I wanted to. I’m a fan of big-budget sci-fi and alien invasion movies in general, so was hoping for an ‘us versus them’ kind of vibe.

I haven’t read the book, so perhaps anyone who has will already know what I found out… namely that the film is basically all about Ender who’s training to fight a second (alleged) alien attack on Earth. And train he does. About 75% of the film is about him in a sort of space school/boot camp. He doesn’t do that much fighting of aliens.

Apparently we (Earth) need kids to fight for us. This is because… er… we just do, okay? Moving on… And, while these wonderkids are preparing to take on every last intergalactic nasty, they spend their time being bullied. Ender gets bullied at his school on Earth. Then he goes home to his family to be bullied by his older brother. Finally, when he makes it to boot camp he’s bullied there, too. And, when he shines out among his peers he’s then elevated to a squad of cadets including the biggest (or should I say ‘smallest?’) bully ever to grace the screen.

This film is rated ‘12’ here in the UK and I reckon that if I was still a twelve-year-old boy then I would have loved it. Sadly, I’m an adult now and found it all a little boring.

But, it’s not all so bad. This boy who plays Ender does a really good job and will doubtless grow up to become a pretty big name in Hollywood. Plus you have Harrison Ford and Ben Kingsley – both of which turn in typically excellent performances.

Not my cup of tea, but I’m sure it’ll find an audience somewhere. Now… I just need to know where I can play ‘zero gravity Quasar’ – I may not be twelve any more, but that looks like serious fun!

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

The Spy Who Dumped Me - Could have been half hour long

As I get older, I find less and less comedies actually make me laugh.  Sadly, 'The Spy Who Dumped Me' is one such film.  I thought I'd give it a go as it's lead by Mila Kunis, who is well versed in comedy, thanks to her portrayal of 'Meg' from 'Family Guy' and she's done other things like 'Ted' where she's done well enough.  Unfortunately, maybe the title should have tipped me off, as any film based on a play-on-words from another (better!) story really should raise a red flag here of there.

Mila Kuis plays 'Audrey' - a woman who's basically a woman (I can't remember finding an awful lot about her back story) who discovers her boyfriend is a CIA spy, just as he ends the relationship with her.  However, as one door closes, she also learns that she has to get a CIA device across the globe in order to save the world (in that way most spy movies do!).  To this end, she's assisted by her best friend 'Morgan' (Kate McKinnon).

So, the plot is your basic spy movie with a hint of the 'Bourne' franchise thrown in there, i.e. it's a 'chase' movie.  The two women are pursued across one location to the next as they evade contract killers and government agents.  Actually, these chase scenes are pretty intense and wouldn't look out of place in a 'Mission Impossible' film.  The problem is they're not really needed here when a film's primary function is to make you laugh.

There are some laughs.  About half the jokes land, while the others fall way off.  There's okay-ish chemistry between Kunis and McKinnon, but the latter does tend to come off as a bit annoying from time to time and does things that any rational person would never do.  Her actions end up simply moving the plot forward, rather than having any logic behind it.

However, its main fault is it's length.  It's about twice as long as it needs to be and feels like it should really end about the mid-way point, before starting up again and carrying on for what seems like ages.  Basically, it's an okay film.  You can have it on in the background and listen for the good gags which come from time to time.  If you want an action movie, you might as well get one without the sporadic jokes.  If you want a spy movie, call 007.  If you want a comedy-spy movie, you have Austin Powers.  Sadly, 'The Spy Who Dumped Me' falls a bit flat on all the genres it tries to merge together.

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

The Paperboy - Cast over substance

In `The Paperboy' we have the classic example that having a stellar cast does not necessarily mean everything else to just fall into place around it. Nicole Kidman, John Cusack, Mathew McConaughey and even Zac Efron (who has a tough job at shedding his High School Musical persona, but very well here) all put in excellent performances in a story about a reporter returning to his home town to solve the mystery of the local sheriff's death.

However, the problem lies with the fact that the `story' seems to fall into the background and everything becomes so focussed on the characters and what they're up to. What little there is in the way of story occasionally resurfaces, leaving you wondering what's going on.

The writer seems to be so obsessed by trying to `shock' by getting the central characters to perform above and beyond their normal acting range that they seem to be just trying to get to one `outrageous set-piece' to another.

Yes, the performances are all strong, but for a `thriller' I didn't find it that thrilling. If you're looking for a set of characters who are pretty unlikeable, behaving outlandishly then you'll enjoy this - just don't try to tie it together too much.

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