The Social Network - A film for my generation?

Looking through the reviews on this site, it’s hard to really add anything new about The Social Network. It’s brilliant. I can hardly fault it. However, I am a serious Facebook addict (currently undergoing electric shock treatment to help myself cut down) so it fascinated me to hear about the back story as to how it was created, who owned it (and who nearly owned it).

 I would rate this 9/10 – great performances, great direction (David Fincher, I now officially forgive you for your part in Alien 3) and great pace.

 So, as an experiment and, in keeping with my 9/10 rating, I invited my Mum and Dad round to watch it. The second time around I enjoyed it as much as the first. In short, when I asked my parents to rate it out of 10, they gave it a 5 and a 6. They didn’t get it. They didn’t understand Facebook, or “the fuss” about it. They didn’t understand anything more technical than the term “the web” and they found all the characters unlikeable and annoying. Only a few hours after the credits rolled and my Mum was having difficulty remembering anything other than people were generally moaning at each other over something that involved money.

 I guess if you’re one of the stereotypical ‘Facebook generation’ you may love this. If not, stick with your knitting (and, no, my Mum will never read this).

 I’m now off to cut and paste this whole review to my status – please feel free to comment :oD

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Dolls - Got myself a crying, walking, killing, talking... living doll!

I’ve been watching ‘Dolls’ every few years since I first saw it near its original release in the eighties.  It’s fair to say that it’s a classic (for what it is).  That doesn’t mean that everything about it is perfect, but it does do the job if you’re looking for something short, sweet and pretty scary.

As a guy, I’ve – obviously! – had very little interest in children’s (or should I say girls’?) dolls.  I always did find their blank, staring expressions, their perfectly-powered rosy cheeks and their overly-chiselled cheekbones a little unsettling.  Perhaps that makes me the perfect demographic to get the most out of this film?

Basically, during one of those types of storms you only really get in horror movies, various strangers all seek refuge in one of those creepy old mansions in the middle of nowhere (that also always seem to turn up in horror movies).  There, they encounter more than they bargain for when they meet the occupants.  And I’m not talking about the softly-spoken, perfectly polite old English couple who live there.  It’s their murderous ‘creations’ who cause the problems.  And guess what they create? (Clue: there’s a hint in the title)

So, what you’re left with is a quite a short film that charts the survival of the humans as they taken on a whole swarm of Barbie’s evil cousins.  If you like the sound of that, you’ll probably enjoy it.  As I mentioned, it’s not perfect.  Some of the actors’ performances are pretty atrocious and others seem to try and over-act as if to compensate.

But we don’t really watch horror films for great acting performances, do we?  It’s the dolls who steal the show.  And they do it well, even without any formal acting lessons behind them.  The gore flows nicely, as you’d expect from an eighties B-movie and everything rolls along nicely.

Special mention to the human ‘villains,’ who, despite creating hordes of evil, murderous dolls, seem to be strangely likeable – a rarity in any film, let alone a horror film.

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

8mm - Meandering Cage flick

It's hard to believe that back in the nineties Nicholas Cage was a Box Office draw.  Slowly, the quality of his films deteriorated to the point that many were straight to DVD and only noticable for how truly awful they were.  1999's '8mm' was one of those movies which started the trend in his downward spiral.  It's not awful, but then it's nothing you'd probably want to watch again.

Cage plays a private detective who's hired by an old, rich widow to investigate her late husband's involvement in a 'snuff film' she found among his possessions after his death.  He therefore leaves his wife (Catherine Keener) and young baby for a while in order to look into the girl in the film's disappearance.

First of all, the whole point of him leaving his wife to work is a bit of a redundant sub-plot.  Because they spend so little screen time together there really isn't the chemistry between them that should exist with these two excellent actors.  I'm guessing the only real reason the 'wife element' was included was to show that Cage's character was a wholesome family man who was about to descend into the murky depths of the criminal underworld.

The film is quote long (just over two hours) and for the first hour not much happens.  Then Cage's investigation takes him to L.A. and he encounters a small time s3x shop worker (Joaquin Phoenix) who helps him along the way.  Now, it's well known that Phoenix is a great actor and he certainly lifts the film's quality and gives Cage someone to 'bounce off of.' However, his inclusion was a little late and they needed him in it much more.

Plus the film doesn't really have a defined antagonist.  Granted the story is about investigating a girl's disappearance, so, until about three quarters of the way through, we don't get to meet the person behind the crime.  And, when we do, there's sort of three of them - none of which can really be described as the actual 'villain' of the film.

What follows is supposed to be tense, but ends up more of a revenge flick where there aren't any real stakes.  I say this because, to get the tension, our hero should be in danger, not the one constantly in charge of every situation.  Then it ends.  But it doesn't.  It starts up again with a similar scenario.  In fact, it has roughly three endings (one per criminal who needs punishing).

There are a couple of moments that are supposed to be shocking (I would say 'twists,' but I don't think they're as clever as that), but you can spot them coming a mile away.  Ultimately, this film is just slow.  The colour pallets are drab and it's mainly walking and talking.  There are good bits thrown in there, but they're so mixed up it was like the film-makers had a lot of different ideas and tried to include all of them, rather than sticking to one solid premise and running with it.

If you're a fan of Cage you may get something more out of it, but it's Phoenix who steals the show at every turn.

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

Bright – An idea better than the film

Sometimes a film comes along with a premise that sounds so good that you couldn’t see failing.  However, when it comes to being executed on screen, it doesn’t live up to what it could have been. ‘Bright’ has been getting a lot of hate from the critics, some even calling it ‘the worst film of 2017.’ Personally, I didn’t think it was that bad – just could have been better.

Apparently, in ‘Bright’s’ world, elves, orcs, fairies and other supernatural beings have existed alongside us humans throughout the ages.  Now, we’re in modern day L.A. and we see the results.  Now, off the bat, if these types of creatures had lived among us all through our history, our cities would be radically different.  They’re not.  It’s basically L.A. with a few different races roaming around and occasionally have their own ‘districts.’ And that’s an example of how a film like this probably should have been done differently.  You had an interesting idea and wasted it.

But, like I say, it’s not as bad as some are making it out to be.  It’s effectively a ‘buddy cop’ film where Will Smith (human) is paired with the first ever orc cop (Joel Edgerton).  So, we have our typical ‘mismatched cop’ duo who bicker constantly all the way through it.  Soon they come across an elven maiden with a wand which the bad elves are also after.

So, again what could have been a vaguely interesting set-up turns into a series of action set-pieces where one group of bad guys attacks our trio after the next until the obvious end battle.  First the humans attack.  Then the orcs.  Then the elves.  Then it’s over.  Again, nothing wrong with that, it’s just with an idea like this it should have been able to have been stretched into more original territory.

However, it has Will Smith at the helm and, just because he’s on Netflix, don’t think he’s any the less charming.  He holds it together and the action is fast-paced and fun.  There’s quite a lot of swearing, so it’s not a family movie, but, if you’re looking for something action-packed (only!) to watch, stick this on your ‘watch list’ and, as long as you’re not expecting too much, it’ll keep you entertained for a couple of hours.  Oh, yes, it’s a couple of hours long.  It probably could have been an hour and a half and been all the better for it.

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

U.F.O - A bad film, but not quite as bad as some would make out

If you check out the other reviews of UFO, it would seem a fair percentage of viewers have given it a critical 1/10, meaning it's probably the worst film ever made. Is it? No, it's not, but that doesn't mean it's particularly good, either.

In fact, when it began, I quite liked it. The characters were nice and the banter between them realistic and amusing. However, the fact is that the idea far exceeds the budget. The titular `UFOs' only make two appearances in the first hour, leaving much of the setting in people's living rooms. The story focuses on the effects on the everyday population at seeing giant UFOs hovering above the cities (when you start to see a bit more of the aliens near the end, there's a definite resemblance to the Skyline monsters). The director tries to make up for this by long rambling scenes which don't really go anywhere, plus (attempted) `cool' camera angles where the camera rotates around people and is placed at funny angles. However, when the setting is simply someone's kitchen, it's about as stylish as waving a camcorder around in your Nan's house.

Many people have criticised the acting talent on display here. It didn't bother me that much. Sean (son of Pierce) Brosnan is the star and puts in a good performance and everyone seemed to play their parts accordingly (what else do you want/expect in a low budget B-movie?).

Perhaps what most people hate about this film is the way it's advertised (and ignore the not-so-subtle posters for `Airborne' by the same director). If you look at the UK artwork to support it, you may be duped into thinking it's some sort of Independence Day style action romp, starring Jean Claude Van Damme. However, the `muscles from Brussels' is only in it for about ten minutes and his part is little more than a cameo (some of which he doesn't even feature in the same shot as other actors, making it look like he filmed his scenes on his own somewhere in Hollywood).

I can't really recommend this film, even though it's not quite as bad as some are making it out to be. If you like B-movies, then there's better about. Sadly, what could have been a decent little B-movie never had the right budget to really live up to its promise.

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

The Trench - Before they were famous

‘The Trench’ is basically a World War 1 drama with a host of ‘soon-to-be-famous’ faces, including Daniel Craig, Cillian Murphy and Danny Dyer (the latter of which produces arguably one of the best performances of his career).  It does its best to portray life on of the most depressing and violent conflicts in the history of man.  But does it do it well?

It’s hit and miss.  First of all, with a cast list as above, you can’t really fault the acting.  Everyone does their best with what’s provided.  However, where it falls down is the story.  There isn’t really one.  But then that’s hardly the film’s fault, more a by-product of the subject matter.  You can’t really tell the story of the entire First World War in an hour and a half, so the film concentrates on just the build up to the first few days of the battle of the Somme.

The characters just wander around, waiting for the final call from the military’s top brass to send them over the top in an attempt to gain ground from the Germans.  You get to know some of the soldiers and naturally care for their fates, it’s just the whole film is really just about showing the conditions they had to live in, rather than telling a story which wasn’t really there to begin with.

I grew up on Blackadder (Goes Forth) and felt, despite its ‘comedy’ tag, it was somehow more touching than The Trench managed.  Plus both the TV show ‘Blackadder’ and the film The Trench seemed to have similar budgets when it came to sets.  I know it’s a minor gripe, but everything in The Trench was ‘filmed from above’ so to speak.  That way you never saw the sky (with the exception of about two shots).  I know this might have been designed to heighten the ‘claustrophobic’ nature the soldiers had to live in, but it just felt cheap to me – like everything was simply filmed on a ‘trench set.’ Plus the soldiers’ uniforms looked way too clean to be rolling around in mud for months on end!

If you’re looking for a film that shows the conditions of what the soldiers had to live in then this is it.  If you want something with drama and poignancy then try Blackadder Goes Forth (plus it has humour, too). ‘The Trench’ isn’t a bad film.  It’s just that it’s hard to make a story out of just showing soldiers in the trenches.

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

Snow White and the Huntsman - Much better than I expected

I think the best thing to do with this film is to go into it with low expectations. I'm no fan of Kristen Stewart and am getting pretty fed up with Hollywood milking every conceivable old story (and now fairytale) and repackaging it as something new (I've already watched and hated their adaptation of Little Red Riding Hood).

So, it was fair to say I went into Snow White and the Huntsman not expecting too much. And, for once, I was pleasantly surprised.

For a start, Charlize Theron carries the film. She seems to love being deliciously over-the-toply evil as the nasty Queen and Thor (sorry, Liam Hemsworth) is an excellent leading man (if, at some times, a little too similar to his Hammer-wielding alter ego). The dwarves (who come into it about half way) are also quite amusing and, by the time they do come into it, add another dimension to the film.

I've never read Grimm's original Snow White. I've only ever seen Disney's classic cartoon adaptation, but, amazingly, Snow White and the Huntsman follows the story pretty well. The only (slight) drawback is Kristen Stewart who, despite her best efforts, still seems to come across like Bella Swann in different clothes.

But, if you forgive her (and can believe that a supposedly magical `all knowing' mirror would claim that Kristen Stewart is `fairer' than Charlize Theron) then you should be able to enjoy the film. It's certainly different enough to the animated version (I certainly don't remember any mutant trolls and fairies in the 1930s version). In fact, Snow White and the Huntsman comes across more like a Lord of the Rings entry than a fairytale, but, in my opinion, that's no bad thing.

Snow White and the Huntsman makes up for the travesty which was Little Red Riding Hood and I now hope that the upcoming Sleeping Beauty live action remake (with Angelina Jolie as the evil witch) will be half as good as this.

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

Doghouse - Not a ‘chick flick’

Sensitive.  Deep.  Emotional.  These are all words that will NOT be used to describe ‘Doghouse.’ It is certainly an ‘acquired taste.’ And when I say acquired taste I mean basically a film that will primarily be enjoyed by blokes (probably after a few beers).  Let’s just say that the ‘fairer sex’ doesn’t come off too well.

A group of lads (with vaguely distinctive personality traits) decide to go to an out-of-the-way little town in country England for a guys’ weekend away.  Why?  Does it matter?  Anyway, they quickly discover that all the women there have become bloodthirsty zombies.  Cue a fight for their lives (and in many cases body parts).

Yeah. It’s a B-movie, but then it never claims to be anything else.  It has Danny Dyer and Noel Clarke in it.  Yes, they’re about the biggest names in it.  Again, it doesn’t need particularly big names in it.  It’s basically an excuse to get a load of wise-cracking guys being constantly pursued by females zombies (and the inevitable sexist quips which come with it).

Basically, you’re either going to appreciate it for what it is (and cheeky little gorefest which puts men against women) or find it totally stupid and low-brow.  Both arguments have their merits.  I can see why some people would hate it.  It’s hardly ‘high brow.’ You definitely need to be in the mood for it and know what you’re getting from the hour and a half of guys screaming and being dismembered by female monsters.  Shakespeare it is not.  Fun, it is.  It’s got enough nice touches to be added to your collection (that statement is true possibly more if you’re a guy!).  It may not be that original, but it has good gore, some nice one-liners and a cast that are just about lovable enough to root for over the insane harpies who hound them.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

A Bridge Too Far - One of the best accounts of a military failure ever

 ‘A Bridge Too Far’ was never a blistering success at the box office when it was originally released in 1977.  People felt that World War II films were a little ‘old hat’ by then, so there wasn’t as much interest in it as there possible could have been if it was released a couple of decades earlier.

Plus, when the history textbooks are studied, you hear a lot about the D-Day landings, the Battle of Britain and so forth.  However, ‘Operation Market-Garden’ rarely gets a mention.  It was an audacious plan by the Allies to take four bridges in only a few days time in the middle of German-held Europe, thus ensuring a vital route of supplies is maintained to the Allied forces fighting on the frontline.

A plan of this magnitude and intricacy could only be done justice on an epic scale.  And, to the film’s credit, it does just that.  It has a stellar ensemble cast, including such greats as Sean Connery, Anthony Hopkins and Michael Caine, all of which play different Allied military personnel  at various points of the mission.

Without wishing to give too much away, perhaps one aspect of the film’s success may be down to the fact that the ‘goodies’ don’t necessarily win.  It’s unlikely that most of us would appreciate a World War II film where the Germans come out on top, however, history was not kind to Operation Market-Garden.  It went ahead and, in one Allied General’s own words “Was over 90% successful.” Unfortunately, a catalogue of errors – some manmade and others beyond the Allies’ control – contributed to it being labelled one of the biggest mission failures of the latter half of the war.

If you like your war films, you should love this.  It’s big, powerful and doesn’t pull many punches when it shows the horror of what soldiers on all sides went through.  You need to be okay with ensemble casts.  There could probably be a film made about every character featured in this film.  But there isn’t enough time for that, so we do have to sacrifice a little character development in favour of condensing the mission down into a watchable viewing.

‘Saving Private Ryan’ may have a better budget, but A Bridge Too Far has a raw, epic feel that really makes it come across like a history lesson which more battles and stars.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Tremors 3 - Back To Perfection - Not bad - for a second sequel 

The original Tremors was a classic (not in the sense of The Godfather or Empire Strikes Back). If you like cheeky monster-munching B-movies, you couldn't go far wrong with Tremors. Plus it was successful, therefore sequels were inevitable.

Amazingly, Tremors 2 was reasonably well-received, so many doubted how a third outing would turn out. The two main stars are now gone and the top billing falls to a secondary character in the first two films - gun-totting Burt Gummer. He now returns to his home town to find that the monster worms are now back and spawning (another) new strain of their lifecycle.

Now, Tremors 3 will never be perfect and definitely not a patch on the original, but, for a sequel, it is fun. The worms are now computer-generated (which is a downpoint), but, if you enjoyed the first two and are happy to see the story go on then you should already like the genre and probably won't be two disappointed. On the other hand, if you've never watched a Tremors film before - start with the first one, then the second. If you're still happy, then do the third. 

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

Snitch - Do you like `The Rock?'

Apparently, that's the question you need to ask yourself before watching this. There are mixed reviews about `Snitch' and whether they're good or bad seem to depend on how much you like the actor (now better known as Dwayne Johnson). Yes, he didn't start out as an actor, instead he was a wrestler.

However, after numerous films of various genres, the jury is still out as to whether or not he can actually act. If you think he can, you'll probably like this. If you think he can't, probably best to steer clear.

Here, Rock Johnson plays a father whose estranged son is convicted of a drugs offence and so he has to help out the authorities bring the culprits to justice in order to get his son's sentence reduced.

If you've seen any of Dwayne Rock's other movies then you'll probably expect a fair amount of action and fighting. However, if that's what you're looking for then you'll probably be sorely disappointed. Here, there's more to do with drama and tension than all out scrapping. And, I think it worked. There are plenty of pretty tense scenes when you will be wondering whether something major is going to go wrong. All the characters are good - yes, The Johnson may not be the most accomplished actor, but he's not having to recite Shakespeare here, merely being a tough father interacting with various drugs cartels - a task which I think he's more than capable of pulling off. Plus you have Susan Sarandon - an actress who you might not normally expect to star opposite The Dwayne.

Jon Bernthal (once from 'The Walking Dead' and more recently 'The Punisher') is also supporting The Rock in his efforts.  He plays his part pretty well, showing he's quite a capable actor and not just there to rub the back of his neck (ala 'Shane' from 'TWT').  However, my personal favourite character wasn't actually in it much.  He's a DEA agent with a big beard - I don't know why, but I found he gave the best performance out of the lot (and I can't even find out his name on IMDb!).

A lost of the best bits of tension do feel like they've been lifted from 'Breaking Bad,' but that's no bad thing.  And, although 'Snitch' does have a bit of a `made for TV' feel about it, its A-list cast elevates it to something worth watching, which it is. Don't expect action, just tension. Also... it's apparently based on a true story. But then I've heard that before about Hollywood films, so I just look at it as some fun fiction.

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

Dog Day Afternoon - Certainly not a ‘dog’s dinner’

Perhaps if you sat down to watch ‘Dog Day Afternoon’ you may come away claiming that it’s totally unbelievable to be a good film.  I might have done if it weren’t for the fact that I was alerted to it being based on a true story by someone else.  It’s about a bank robbery in the seventies that was carried out in broad daylight.  It’s safe to say that it would be a pretty bland film if everything went according to plan.  However, in this case, nothing went according to plan and it was a total mess from beginning to end.  That’s what makes it such a damn good film (well, that and Al Pacino).

Pacino plays the lead robber (well, out of the two of them) who managed to bungle his way through raiding a bank and taking hostages at the same time.  Of course his ineptitude means that the police have plenty of time to show up and Pacino is forced to hold out in the bank with little idea of how to escape a secure building surrounded by marksmen.  The film clearly rests on his shoulders and, as the majority of his performances show, he can more than handle the responsibility (which is probably more than can be said for his character!).  He clearly enjoyed himself on set and much of the dialogue ended up being improvised as he almost becomes institutionalised over the period of a matter of hours, before almost succumbing to the brief stint as ‘minor celebrity’ that his dodgy deed affords him. There are a few twists and turns which I won’t go into for fear of giving plot points away, although I will say that it’s an interesting commentary on the issues of the time and would be equally interesting if something like this happened today – I’m guessing plenty of #bankheists would be posted from bemused onlookers. 

If you’re in any way a fan of bank robbery/heist movies, or just a fan of Al Pacino then you really have to watch this.  It is a little long and may have benefitted from a harsher editor here and there, but apart from that, it stands the test of time.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The Bridge on the River Kwai – Captain Ahab must get his bridge

There are many Second World War films that will definitely stand the tests of time and be looked at as – almost – ‘historical’ representations of the events that transpired.  I’m not entirely sure that ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’ will be one of those, as it’s far too ‘niche’ to maintain its popularity, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a bad film.  For a start, if you’re looking for huge ‘Saving Private Ryan’ style battles involving the heroic Allies blasting their way through legions of German troops, you’ll be very disappointed here.  With the exception of a couple of brief shoot-outs and the odd knife to the back, there’s little in the way of action here.

It’s about an unfortunate bunch of British (mainly) prisoners of war who are incarcerated in a Japanese POW camp.  There, they’re forced to help build a bridge (over the river Kwai, believe it or not!) in order to aid the Japanese war effort.  You may think that a WWII film based around a POW camp would mean that our plucky Brits would spend their time and efforts devising new and ingenious ways to tunnel their way out of there.  Not here.  The camp doesn’t even have any fences due to it being on an island, therefore there’s nowhere really to escape if they tried.

Instead, the story predominantly focuses on two character – one is the Japanese warden who runs the facility and the other is the British officer ‘in charge’ of the captive prisoners (there’s also a sub-plot regarding how the rest of the Allied war effort perceives the camp and what they’re doing about it, but that’s secondary to the one-on-one between the two leads in my opinion).

Now, I wouldn’t go as far as saying you’d be able to ‘identify’ with the Japanese guard, but you will definitely get to know him and his motivations and, dare I say it, his character even develops as the film progresses.  However, the most interesting character is his British opposite, played by none other than (the original) Obi-wan Kenobi himself, Sir Alec Guinness.  He’s a man in charge of both keeping his soldiers’ morale up, but also the ‘good name’ of the British army/Empire.  He’ll go to almost any lengths to ensure that neither are brought down in reputation in any way.  And, his choices lead to some interesting outcomes which I won’t go into in great details here.

So, if you’re looking for an outright war film, you won’t really find it here.  Instead, you’ll get (quite a long) character study about stubborn madness, maybe even a little ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ and – what I perceived as – a variation on the ‘Captain Ahab and his whale’ type story.  Alternatively, if you’re just looking to see what old Ben Kenobi looked like without a lightsabre, you’ll find that here, too.

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

Transcendence - Like watching a ‘magic eye’ picture

Have you ever looked at one of those ‘magic eye’ pictures?  They’re those pictures made entirely of coloured spot and *supposedly* if you stare at them and relax your eyes in just the right way then you’ll see some magical sort of picture contained within.  Well… Transcendence is a bit like one of those.

I stared at the film for nearly its two-hour runtime and I’m pretty sure there was something magical contained in there somewhere.  I just wasn’t sure of what I’d seen.

For a start (in case you didn’t know) Transcendence wasn’t a commercial success.  Despite it’s a-list cast (think Johnny Depp and Morgan Freeman), it wasn’t that well-received.  One reason – that anyone thinking of watching it should know – is that Johnny Depp’s face was used heavily in the film’s marketing.  Therefore, his legions of fans naturally assumed that this was a ‘Johnny Depp film.’ It isn’t.  Not really.  I don’t think it’s too much of a spoiler to mention that he dies about twenty minutes into the film.  That’s integral to the plot.  For he plays a computer genius who is experimenting with artificial intelligence and, after his death, has his consciousness transferred into a machine.  And, as the saying goes… with disastrous consequences.

So, what little we see (and hear) of Depp is largely his face on a computer screen throughout most of the film.  And that didn’t go down too well with those people who had gone to see the film just because he was in it.

Without wishing to give too much away about the story, I thought it was quite an original idea overall.  It was just executed in a bit of an odd way.  You’re never really sure what sort of film you’re watching.  Yes, it’s heavily sci-fi and there’s a fair amount of ‘romance’ thrown in there between the computerised Johnny Depp and the lady he ‘left behind’ when he died.  Then you have various sub-plots surrounding those who don’t trust this new ‘human-machine-intelligence’ hybrid and have set about bringing it down.  Those scenes are reminiscent of an action movie.  Then there’s the overall ‘dystopian-future disaster movie’ feel to it.  All of this makes it a bit uneven.

If you’ve heard it’s a ‘bad’ movie, then you’ve heard wrong.  It’s not bad.  It’s just not what most people want because it never really settles on one type of genre for long enough to establish itself.  Sci-fi fans will probably get the most out of this as it doesn’t have enough ‘Johnny Depp’ in it to be considered a Johnny Depp movie.  It doesn’t have enough action in it to be considered an ‘action movie’ and it doesn’t have enough romance in it to be considered a ‘romance movie.’  However, no matter what the ingredients are, it’s still quite an interesting, thoughtful movie.  It’s probably not actually as ‘mainstream’ as most people think it’s going to be, so you’ll need your quiet, contemplative head on when you sit down to spend a couple of hours with Johnny Depp’s virtual incarnation.

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

Snake Eyes - Over the top, but still watchable fun

Once upon a time, there was a very talented actor called Nicholas Cage, who set Box Offices alight all over the world.  As it stands... this fairytale hasn’t concluded ‘happily ever after,’ as poor old Nick hasn’t had a hit movie in years.  But, during the ‘once upon a time’ phase, he did a lot of good stuff.

‘Snake Eyes’ is pretty good.  Yes, it’s a little far-fetched, but the fun you’ll get out of it will make up for the times when you have to suspend your disbelief in order to ignore the plot holes (and obvious storytelling).

During a live title fight in an Atlantic City boxing ring, a visiting politician is assassinated.  But, local cop (and a slightly crooked one at that) Nicholas Cage, is on hand to get to the bottom of it all.  So it’s a kind of ‘who-dun-it’ conspiracy thriller.  Although there aren’t really that many possible culprits, so you’ll probably guess who’s the mastermind behind it all long before the final act.  But that doesn’t really matter.  The phrase ‘larger than life’ is best suited to describing Cage’s performance.  He’s pretty over the top in all his scenes and, again, you may not always believe that a real person can act like that, you’ll enjoy the ride all the same.

It’s not a long film, clocking in at slightly over the hour and a half mark.  And, despite having not that much new on offer, it’s still worth a watch.  If you find it on TV late at night some time and feel like staying up, you’ll have a good time.  Despite being shot in the nineties, it still stands the test of time in the ‘fun stakes.’

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

DOA: Dead or Alive - No one will ever admit to liking this film

That’s because it’s possibly the worst film ever made.  I implore you never to waste your time watching this garbage.  I would certainly never watch it multiple times over the years, let alone own it on DVD.  Honest.

I thought I’d review ‘DOA: Dead or Alive’ on (about) my fourth viewing.  I felt such a work of art requires numerous screenings to truly understand such a complex structure and narrative.  Okay, I’m joking – this is simply a guilty pleasure film of mine.  I’ve never played the computer game that it’s based on, but, from my experience, pretty much no film based on a computer game has ever been hailed as a masterpiece.  This one is no different.  The dialogue is extremely clunky.  Every line for about the first half hour is designed to inform us of each character’s relationship and (slim) motivations for doing whatever the hell they’re going to do.

Talking of characters, they’re about as two dimensional as the pixelated sprites that they’re based on.  Don’t expect any great development in this story.  Ah, yes, the story.  Well, if you don’t know ‘Dead or Alive’ is based on a ‘one-on-one’ fighting games, so there’s not much story to talk of.  The film is basically the same – a trio of ridiculously brilliant fighting women gets invited to a tournament called ‘Dead or Alive’ (where no one actually dies – if you’re looking for a computer game to film where they die – try (the first) ‘Mortal Kombat’ film!).  It just so happens that our three central protagonists are also extremely attractive, therefore we’re supposed to root for them.  And, whereas their dodgy dialogue can be excused due to their physical appearance, Eric Roberts’ performance is not afforded the same luxury – for he’s the evil mastermind in charge of setting up the tournament and intends on stealing the three girls’ powers for his own.  He’s about as threatening as the green silk lounge suit he wears through this film.

What follows is a series of fights, nicely choreographed, but also completely unrealistic, involving our annoying attractive heroines.  Um, and that’s about it.  If you’re a teenage boy you’ll probably love this and long for the day that your girlfriend will be just like the girls on film.  Alternatively, if you’re someone like me who also likes it and won’t admit to liking a film as bad as this, you’ll also love it (and just not tell anyone).

It is bad.  There’s no mistaking how bad it is, but it also has an audience of faceless guys who will make sure that it gets repeated viewing – and it’s not because their X-boxes are broken and they need their fix of a fighting game.

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

Bride Of Chucky - Quite good (if you don’t mind the change in genre)

There was quite a lot of fuss made by ‘Child’s Play’ die-hard fans when the fourth instalment (aka ‘Bride of Chucky’) was released. Not only did it drop the ‘Child’s Play’ title, but it also changed genres.

The first three films played it dead straight every time. They were horror movies through and through. However, Bride of Chucky could almost be considered a reboot, as it uses very little of the ‘mythology’ from its predecessors and introduces a whole new concept to the franchise, i.e. humour.
This is very much a ‘black comedy.’ Personally, I was never that scared of the original films and thought that a story about a possessed killer doll was hardly ‘serious’ subject matter to begin with, so I was okay with the change. However, Child’s Play ‘purists’ disagreed.

So, if you only see the Child’s Play franchise as straight horror, I’d leave the series at Part III. However, if you’re okay with some campy humour added into the mix, or are just a fan of black comedies in general, I’d give this one a try.

Special kudos to Jennifer Tilly, who’s brilliant as the ‘bride’ of Chucky in both human and doll form.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Trance - Inception, but with less action

Wow! I thought, as the first ten minutes of `Trace' went by - it's like an updated version of Danny Boyle's masterpiece `Trainspotting.' Everything said Trainspotting to begin with - the narration, the direction, the quick cutting and the way the main character told us the `rules' of the world we were about to see.

Then it all sort of changed. Yes, the direction was still slick. London shows off its coolest side with the buildings and architecture and Danny Boyle does what he's best at by showing off his style as much as possible.

It's about a gang of art thieves of misplace their latest stolen painting and turn to a hypnotherapist to retrieve the information from the man who had forgotten where he put it. And that's the story. The hypnotherapist trying to get the information. Because of the nature of `delving into people's minds,' we're able to play around with reality in the way the story is told. All this reminded me of Inception (albeit without the folding streets) and, once again, it all looks visually amazing.

You've heard of `style over substance;' well this is more a case of `style over story.' Trance looks amazing. But the story could be summed up in about half an hour and it doesn't warrant the full ninety minutes treatment. Yes, there are some twists and turns along the way that you might not see coming, but the characters themselves - being thieves - are a pretty unlikeable bunch who I doubt you'll care much about their fate.

Trance - once again - proves that Danny Boyle is a master of making things look cool and stylish. However, I just got a bit bored with the lack of story. It's not a terrible movie, it's just it could have been so much better. I see that there's plenty of people who have given it five star reviews. I expect Trance is a film that (some of us) need to sit down and watch again to fully appreciate. I may just have to do that.

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

Smokin' Aces - There's a good film in there somewhere

Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels was the first film I saw which involved multiple sets of characters going about their - murderous - business, independently of each other, only for their paths to eventually cross. There may be other movies before Lock Stock which have used a similar model, but I can't name them right now.

Since then, both America and Britain have produced more of the same sorts of gangster movies. Smoking Aces is one such film. Only this time we add the FBI into the mix as they try to save potential informant Buddy `Aces' Israel from being assassinated by several different contract killers.

I've watched Smoking Aces three times now and each time I find I've forgotten what it's all about (or the finer details and plot twists). I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or not that a - quite complex - film leaves my memory so quickly. Either way, I do enjoy it, even though it probably could be better.
With any film which utilises many characters, you can expect the story to never be able to do every last one of them justice. Many of the hitmen are simply one-dimensional tools, used to move the plot (or what little plot there is) forward.

Perhaps Smoking Aces is a victim of its own aspirations. It tries to be incredibly complex, but ends up being a bit confusing if you're trying to follow it too closely. Either way, it's a daft, fun film that shouldn't be taken too seriously. If you like your gangster films gritty and violent - and aren't bothered by a few plot inconsistencies - give it a go. It's not half as bad as some of the other reviewers are making out. It's no classic, but it's worth a watch nonetheless.

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

Django Unchained - A difficult watch, but ultimately rewarding

Django Unchained is a Quentin Tarantino film. That is all most people need to know to get them to watch it. Most of us have seen (and probably loved) Pulp Fiction and therefore that's enough to get us to keep watching his films forever in the hope of reliving that classic movie. However, over the years, this eclectic film-maker has dabbled in various different types of film - most of them have been hits and all of them have been hits to someone. Just because you liked his last one, won't mean you'll automatically like his next.

Django Unchained is about a slave (Django) in America - pre Civil War - who is trained up to hunt down and rescue those responsible for abducting and torturing his long-lost wife.

The biggest similarity I can make with this film would be Tarantino's previous outing - Inglorious Bastards. IB was Tarantino's take on World War II and DU is his imagining of the slave trade in the deep south of America. It's a long, rambling epic of a movie, filled with erroneous dialogue and gratuitous violence (not to mention racially offensive language in this case).

It's quite exhausting to watch, but, once you've say through it, you'll hopefully feel that it was worth the journey. Obviously, you'll need a strong stomach. Tarantino is not one to do things by half measures. Expect a LOT of violence and a LOT of bad language.

If you've enjoyed Quentin's previous dark humorous epics then you'll probably like this one. I don't claim to know how factually accurate it is, but it's still a ride-and-a-half anyway.

Note the hilarious - if a little out of place - scene with the lynch mobs discussing their `wardrobe malfunctions' - classic.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Brick Mansions - The action makes up for the downfalls

‘Brick Mansions’ is a remake of a foreign film (which I haven’t seen, so I can’t really compare it to that.  However, if you check out the internet forums, you’ll naturally see many comments on how the original is better than the Hollywood remake).

It’s also Paul Walker’s last (fully-filmed) film, which adds an element of poignancy to it all.  Even though he never really had a breakout stand-alone film that really catapulted him much higher than a decent B-list action star, I always felt he had it in him somewhere to really move into the mainstream.  And, because of his tragic death, many will go easy on his last outing.  I would have liked to see him produce something really memorable to go out on and, although you’ll probably have seen much of what’s on offer here before, it is entertaining enough to raise itself above the mountains of generic action B-movies infesting the DVD buckets.

Paul Walker plays an undercover cop (yes, another one – if you’ve seen him in The Fast and the Furious) who has to infiltrate another gang before they blow up the world.  Or something.  That may just be me making that bit up.  But it doesn’t really matter.  You know he’s the good guy and will have to bring down the baddies before they do whatever bad things they’re going to do.

And, in my opinion, it’s kind of the baddies who let the film down most.  They’re just too clichéd.  They all have a weird tendency to  shoot dead their own men in front of the rest of the gang.  Yes, this is a display of force intended to show just how terrible they are and keep their gang members living in fear.  However, I always wonder why the gang don’t leave on account of it might one day happen to them?!  Also, the baddies keep exotic fish here and there – all they’d need to be a proper ‘Bond villain’ would be a volcano lair and weirdly-named henchman.  Naturally, all baddies use machine guns, yet five of them firing round after round only serves to shoot ‘near’ our hero.
It makes you wonder what the film-makers were trying for.  For the most part everything is really serious.  Yet, suddenly they’ll throw something funny in there that wouldn’t be out of place in a Roger Moore Bond film.

Paul Walker does what he does best and you can’t fault his performance or what he’s given to work with.  But, the best part about the film is its action sequences.  Yes, they’re hardly realistic, but they’re so well-choreographed that they’re damn good fun to watch.

So, if you’re into your action movies and fancy a fun, if not a bit generic, one that does its best to say farewell to Paul Walker, give it a go.

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

Assassins - Nineties action fun

'Assassins' may have been made well into the nineties (1995 to be precise), but it somehow feels more at home with the slew of action epics made in the eighties where they were so deliciously over-the-top that you couldn't - truly - take them seriously and just enjoyed them for what they were - mindless popcorn fun.  The eighties (and nineties to a degree) were populated with the 'muscleman action stars' such as Schwarzenegger and, in this case, Stallone.  I know that Sly was more famous for his turns as Rocky and Rambo, so 'Assassins' may not be quite as fondly remembered as those, but it doesn't mean that it's in any the less fun if you're in the mood for something nice and bullet-ridden.

Stallone plays - guess what? - an assassin at the top of his game, but young upstart hitman Antonio Banderas is well up for dethroning 'the king' and not just taking his title, but also his life - especially after Stallone decides to protect the target Banderas is trying to kill (a very young Julianne Moore).

What follows is effectively a cat and mouse game of chase as Banderas decides that the only way he's going to be 'number one' is to get rid of both of them.  So, in true eighties/nineties fashion, expect plenty of shoot-outs and explosions.

What could just be a pretty average film is certainly made a damn sight more watchable by its A-list cast and also the great way the two leads play off each other throughout the movie.  They say one way a great film is judged is the 'relationship' between hero and villain.  In 'Assassins' there are more moments than you might imagine where two professional killers have little chats without actually murdering each other.  

It may not be up there with the most memorable of Stallone's work for the period, but it you're either a fan of his, Banderas or just eighties/nineties-style action movies, this is definitely one that will keep you entertained - no real brainpower required.  Oh, and there's a cute cat thrown in there quite often if that sways it for you.

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

Trainspotting - Choose... THIS film

Despite an offshoot of moral crusaders berating `Trainspotting' in 1995 for allegedly `glorifying heroin' there seem to be few who can doubt the greatness of such a cult classic.

Yes, it is about a band of horrible, nasty people, but - most importantly - it does NOT glorify any form of drugs. On the contrary, it would recommend that this film is shown to youngsters as a way of showing just how wretched and awful people's lives can be when they're hooked on substance abuse.
Ignoring `Shallow Grave' this could be considered as Ewan McGregor's `breakthrough' performance and, although he does steal the show in every scene, the whole `ensemble' cast should not be forgotten - special mention to Robert Carlyle as `Begbie' who is a truly terrifying on-screen psycho.

It's hard to imagine there are too many people who don't like Trainspotting. It's a great British film which catapulted many of those involved into mainstream stardom. Some people say that it's quite bleak and, although the subject matter is pretty dark, the cast handle it with enough wit and charm to have us - sort of - rooting for them (or at least Ewan McGregor's `anti-hero' - Renton). Yes, it can be a bit dark and disturbing at times, but the real life `horror' of the `junkie lifestyle' has to be shown in all its glory if its really going to portray it accurately.

So, if you're any way interested in popular culture the Trainspotting perfectly sums up the nineties. Even if you're not, it's one of those films that you really should see before you die - if nothing else then sooner or later you'll find yourself in a situation when all those around you are talking about it and you really don't want to be left out!

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

Smokey and the Bandit 3 - Luckily this was the last

‘Smokey and the Bandit.’ In case you didn’t know (and who the hell starts watching a film series on ‘Part III?’) was about a car racer, aka ‘Bandit’ helping his tracker mate ‘Snowman’ to get their load across America, while constantly being pursued by a relentless policeman, ‘Smokey.’

Therefore, you’d expect part III would be along those lines.  The film’s only just over an hour and twenty minutes and for the first half an hour, we don’t see the ‘Bandit.’ That part of the film should just be called ‘Smokey and the.’ Then the Bandit enters.  Only he doesn’t.  Burt Reynolds didn’t come back to play the titular role for the third instalment.  Instead, the trucker ‘Snowman’ takes on his role of car driver.

Does he pull it off?  Not really.  He tries, but it’s pretty hard to watch.  First of all he’s not – and never will be – Burt Reynolds.  He can’t really bring anything new to the role.  Secondly, in terms of character development, the character of Snowman completely changes from what we’ve gotten used to from the first two outings.  For a moment I even thought it was a different actor playing him!
Then Snowman (or maybe ‘Bandit’ now?) gets a girl/partner to drag along.  It seems totally forced, simply copying the same plot device used in the first film.

However, worst of all, is that there’s nothing new here to see.  Seriously, you should try this, if you’re watching Part III on DVD, just skip a couple of chapters for the hell of it.  You won’t miss anything and you’ll completely be able to work out what’s happened.  Basically, in DVD terms, every ‘chapter’ represents a time where Smokey nearly catches Bandit, but he gets away.  Each time Smokey’s car gets trashed, but somehow still manages to carry on then he moans at his long-suffering son (who he’s dragged along for no real reason).

If you haven’t actually seen the first two and happen to stumble onto this one, I’m not saying you won’t smile the odd time.  There are moments of fun, but, if I want fun, thrills, good characters (played by the right actors!) and originality, I’ll just watch the first one thank you.

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

The Divide - Will leave audiences... divided 

We see a nuclear bomb go off in New York and the survivors hold up in the basement. That's the premise to The Divide and, although not that original, could just work. And it does... sort of.

Whether you'll enjoy The Divide or not will depend on where you expect the film to go from there. I suppose I better put in `SPOILERS' here, just in case you really don't want to know. Basically, the rest of the film is the characters decent into the fatalistic realisation that their world is gone and how they deal with that.

If you like the sound of that, give it a go.

I could leave it there, but, unfortunately, there was a semi-flaw that bugged me - there are certain scenes in the film that don't fit with that neat little premise and will leave you wondering what is actually going on. Well... those scenes did that with me. I then waited through the whole film for them to be explained. They weren't. I was annoyed.

Despite feeling that a few scenes shouldn't have been in there because they radically change the whole story, the overall film was actually okay - Michael Biehn (remember him? Terminator, Aliens and the Abyss) does well as the slightly psychotic lead and the others serve their purposes well.
Bottom line: if you like a bleak tale - this is for you. But if loose ends grind your gears, be prepared to be frustrated by the time the credits roll.

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

The Break Up - WARNING: This is NOT a romantic comedy 

Some actors get typecast pretty quickly. I think it's fair to say that Jenifer Aniston is one. She readily plays the loveable, kooky happy-go-lucky characters in a will they/won't they romantic relationship (and let's face it - they always do).

I don't normally watch romantic comedies. I find them predictable and identical (and rarely are any of them worthy of the `comedy' half of their labelled genre). I was curious about The Break Up because I heard it didn't subscribe to romantic comedies' formula. And there's a very good reason for this - that is because it's NOT a romantic comedy.

Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn get together in the opening montage and break up about fifteen minutes into the film. I knew this before I watched it. Therefore, what I expected, was roughly another seventy-five minutes of laughs as the two central protagonists make each other's lives hell.
However, what I got was simply two people being nasty to each other. Sadly, this is probably a lot more realistic than most rom-coms, and, upon watching it, I think I'd rather stick with the fantasy of boy meets girl and they live happily ever after.

The bottom line is that this film is more of a drama than a comedy - the jokes are few and far between. The scripted arguments may be accurate, but they're not that nice to keep watching. It's quite sexist too. Jenifer Aniston may be a bit uptight, but Vince Vaughn is a berk. The hardest thing to imagine is these two characters getting together in the first place and staying together long enough to even buy a house, let alone fight over who should keep it once they've split.

Bottom line - yes, it's more `real' than a romantic comedy, yet it has less comedic elements than even the most unfunny romantic comedy. It certainly doesn't stick to the rom-com genre. For the first time in my life I find myself saying `Pity.' 

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

Tower Heist - Average, but not necessarily bad 

Tower Heist is Ben Stiller's latest comedy where he plays the building manager of a New York high rise tower block. He regrettably invests him and his staff's pension money with a smooth-talking crook who lives in the top floor penthouse. Naturally, the crook wastes their money and they're left without a cent.

Therefore, Ben and a few other disgruntled employees, enlist the help of small time crook Eddie Murphy to break into the penthouse and steal back their money.

It's a decent enough premise and, again, all the cast to a decent enough job. There you have it - it's a decent film. Not quite funny enough to be a comedy through and through. Not quite dramatic enough to be a straight drama. It even throws in a bit of a high speed car chase into the mix to add an element of `action' into the genre.

It's a bit of a mixed bag. If you go into it without any expectations, you should find it an okay watch.
Not great, but not bad either. Fans of Stiller and Murphy should find extra things to enjoy about it.

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

Smokey and the Bandit 2 - Could have been so much better

If it wasn’t for the almighty ‘Star Wars’ then the 1977 Box Office would have been topped by none other than ‘Smokey and the Bandit’ which performed equally as surprisingly.  Therefore a sequel was inevitable.  In fact... a sequel was the natural evolution considering how the original ended.  However, what people got was a different beast all together.

Instead of directly continuing from the original, we have a new tale, utilising the old characters.  Only it doesn’t feel particularly new, more rehashed.  If it was made now, it might almost be considered a ‘remake.’

The ‘Bandit’ is back, only he’s all burned out and only tempted out of his alcohol-induced retirement by the promise of a big paycheque.  Again, he has to drive across country, helping his trucker chum ‘Snowman’ to safely get his cargo to its destination.  It’s basically the same story as before.  Again, it uses the same route.  Again, it uses the same plot device of ‘Smokey’ (the cop constantly pursuing Bandit) only really chasing him because his son’s bride has left him – yes, again – at the altar to run off with Bandit.

It all feels a little like ‘rinse and repeat.’ Smokey catches up with Bandit.  Bandit just so happens to know someone that can help him out.  They block Smokey.  The Bandit escapes and then it all happens again a few scenes later.

Smokey’s police car also seems to get completely trashed and yet be perfectly be okay to indulge in yet another high speed chase a little way down the highway.  Of course the chases scenes are fun.  At the time of production, the film boasted about having the most expensive car chase ever filmed for a movie.  And there is one that lives up to that titled.  Only one.  Much of the driving seems to be done at the correct speed limit, meaning there’s a distinct lack of tension going on.

Yes, the stars return.  And they do add an element of fun to the movie.  If you liked them the first time round you’ll probably like them again this time.  However, since they’re doing almost exactly the same thing as you saw them do in number one, then there’s little point in watching them do it all over again, right?

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

Divergent - The Hunger Games by another name

Some girl in a dystopian future decides to buck the system when she discovers she’s *vaguely* special and, in doing so, finds love while helping to bring down the corrupt regime of the time.  Sound familiar?  It is.  Whoever wrote ‘Divergent’ obviously has read The Hunger Games and changed a few things here and there.

But is it any good?  The answer to that question really does depend on whether you liked The Hunger Games or not.  If you did, you’ll love this.  If you didn’t, this one isn’t for you.  It basically follows all the same rules.  Instead of kids fighting it out for food, ala Hunger Games, you have kids who are split into five (supposedly radically) different factions after they complete a test in their early adolescent years.  This *slightly trippy* test determines which faction they’re destined to be part of for the rest of their lives. 

Of course if they don’t agree with the test results they don’t have to be part of that faction (I didn’t get that bit).  Then they all sit around in a big room and pick up a handful of rocks which tells them which faction they’re going to be in (completely negating the test they took only days earlier).  There are various factions which they could be in, all of which have names like the ‘houses’ in the Harry Potter films.  However, about the only faction you’ll remember is ‘Dauntless’ which is made up of some of the most annoying people you’ll ever meet.  They’re supposed to be ‘protecting’ society, yet all they do is run around the streets making whooping and cheering noises while generally getting in everyone’s way and practically knocking over old ladies.  Our heroine (not Kaniss, but someone just like her) is conscripted into this band of nutters.  However, she isn’t destined to be a simple ‘Dauntless’ lass, she has traits from ALL the different factions, thus making her a ‘Divergent’.  And, apparently, being a Divergent means you need to be hunted down until you die.

But, help is on hand for our Katniss-clone, in the form of a blatantly older hunky guy who’ll have a love/hate relationship with her until he eventually decides he loves her.

Yes, it has a budget, so the scenery is nicely futuristic and the actors play their parts well.  They’re either hunky and good.  Hunky and evil, or hunky and annoying.

I’m not sure how well this film will be received by cynical older males such as myself.  However, I really don’t think I’m its target audience.  It’s aimed at kids and, I’m reliable informed, the kids loved it.

Does anyone else hear the words ‘Hunger Games-sequel/franchise?’ (Sorry, I meant DIVERGENT sequel/franchise!)

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

Breakout - One coincidence after the next

Oh dear, where to begin. Sadly, Brendan Fraser might be many things, but a `Bruce Willis' he will never be. What we have here - loosely - is `Die Hard in the woods.' The former `George of the Jungle' (aka Mr Fraser) has only gone and got himself locked up for protecting trees (perhaps he should have lived on Pandora?) and thus has found himself separated from his (not so loving) family. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, they only go on a camping trip and witness a murder!
Cue Brendan Fraser deciding that that was the time he better break out of prison and save them. Because - and let's face it - no one knows those woods better than an eco-activist who's dedicated his life to protecting them.

So, if you think that sounds any way enjoyable or believable, go ahead and watch it. You may be surprised. However, for me, it was just one unbelievable coincidence after the next. I'm all far `suspending your disbelief' while watching a film, but this is taking it too far.

If you like the idea of `Die Hard in the woods' try a little-known film called `Predator.' It was kind of cool. This, however, is not. End of. Sorry Brendan... but you're better off sticking to watching out for trees rather than protecting them!

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

Tower Block - Cheap, but decent British flick

The first thing you should know about Tower Block is that it doesn't have much of a budget. And it shows. However, for all its financial shortcomings, it does its best to lift itself above the rest.

The residents of the top floor of a high rise tower block - soon to be demolished - are targeted by a sniper who won't let them leave (alive, anyway). What follows is an hour and a half of a siege movie where they desperately try and find ways out. When I read the blurb about the film, I wondered how they could stretch that out for the full ninety minutes. I was pleasantly surprised when they did.

It's no classic, but enough of the characters are fun, stupid, or evil enough to take pleasure in watching and the typical `stupid decisions' they normally make in these sorts of films are kept to a minimum.

My advice: suspend your disbelief and just give it a go if you like the sound of it. You could do worse (I found the only major plot point I found hard to stomach was how one sniper could effectively shoot everyone in 0.1 seconds as soon as he saw them at any window - seriously, he must be the best marksman in the world!).

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

Smokey and the Bandit - The best film of 1977 (not including the other one)

1977 was a great year for cinema, largely because it was when ‘Star Wars’ was released to worldwide acclaim.  However, what few people seem to remember is that the ‘runner up’ at the Box Office was an equally fun (and just as far-fetched as an epic space opera!) little film called ‘Smokey and the Bandit.’

As with many of the best films, the plot is extremely simple – an outlaw driver, aka ‘The Bandit’ (played with perfect cool by Burt Reynolds), has to escort a truck filled with contraband across America.  However, a certain ‘Smokey’ (slang for state trooper/lawman) is not going to make it easy for him and vows to catch him at all costs.  Smokey and the Bandit is possibly the most perfect example of a ‘cat and mouse’ chase ever put to film.

It’s basically a chase movie, filled with high-speed stunts and one car chase after the other.  It doesn’t always have to be believable to be fun.  It just has to entertain.  And it does.  Obviously it’s Burt Reynold’s flick and he carries it with charm and uber coolness.  You can’t help but root for him, while, at the same time, also having just a little soft spot for – technically – the ‘baddie.’ Perhaps what makes the relationship work is that you can root for both the ‘hero’ and the ‘villain’ (the long-suffering police officer who’s desperately on Bandit’s tail).

The film also spawned two sequels and it’s worth noting that neither are regarded as highly as the first.  To really appreciate the magic of the original, you have to see what they did with the sequels.  They’re both overblown.  The car chases cause too much damage and it’s hard to believe that if any ‘bandit’ caused that much carnage, he wouldn’t be on the FBI’s ‘Most Wanted’ list.  Also, the jokes get silly in the two sequels.  Yes, even in the first film the characters are a little ‘cartoonish,’ but there’s just enough believability in them to make them seem real.  In the sequels they’re either ‘too dumb’ or ‘too cool.’

But, those are problems with the sequels.  If you’re into car chase films, Burt Reynolds, or generally light-hearted action with plenty of comic moments, you’ll do worse than riding along with the Bandit.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

District 9 - Avatar for grown-ups

Every now and again, two films with similar themes will come along within a short space of time completely by coincidence - District 9 and Avatar are a prime example of this. Both tell the stories about how a (reasonably) ordinary man ends up getting his life entwined with an alien race and - kind of inadvertently - becoming their saviour.

Avatar still stands as the highest-grossing film of all time, but then it had pretty jungles, cute aliens and gave birth to the 3D culture. I don't begrudge it its success, nor do I hate it - it's just that I LOVE District 9. Here, instead of being set on a far-flung planet, an alien space ship arrives over Johannesburg and its alien crew given `refugee status' on in the city itself. However, after twenty years, the aliens haven't shifted and people are getting pretty mistrustful of them. So, when a camera crew follows in an office pen-pusher to help evict them, he quickly discovers more than he bargained for.

If you're into sci-fi or action then there's no reason you won't enjoy this. The acting is top notch. The direction is superb. You'll care for all the characters and it even manages to make you look upon the (computer-generated) aliens as real people and feel for their plight, too. Then of course it has action, much destruction and incredibly cool weapons. What more does the average sci-fi nut want? More? Okay, how about the face that the story also - not so subtly - plays on existing `racial tensions' around the world - how about that... a little bit of politics and satire thrown into the mix.

Like I say, if you like sci-fi or action then this is for you. Oh, it also has big cool endoskeleton robots which shoot lasers and pigs (seriously), what more can you ask for? Roll on `District 10.'

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

The Brass Teapot - Lots of fun for everyone (in the big brass teapot)

‘The Brass Teapot’ is basically a fable, retold for the modern audience with the addition of call-centres and camera phones.  A young married couple, currently struggling in these financially-difficult times, think their luck has finally changed when they come into the possession of a brass teapot – one which very kindly spews money whenever one of them hurt themselves.

Now, at first the odd pinch here and there gives them enough money to pay their rent, but, before long, the temptation to score ‘big bucks’ out of the teapot becomes too tempting and they need to up their ‘physically enduring’ game.

The story is nothing new.  It’s one where we can see how greed can corrupt the virtuous and that love should be treasured over materialistic wealth.  However, just because it’s a tale as old as time, doesn’t mean it’s not very enjoyable.

For a start, the young couple are just so likeable.  They are genuinely nice people who do love each other and are finding it hard to make ends meet, financially.  And that’s probably something most of us can relate to in this day and age.  When they do get the teapot and start exploiting its powers, they do it in a way that most of us probably would and nothing ever really seems too far-fetched (assuming you can suspend your disbelief enough to believe in magic teapots).

The story does change in ‘feel’ a bit as it goes on.  The beginning has people falling off bicycles and awkward situations that give it an ‘American Pie’ kind of feel.  However, as the film goes on, you start seeing the darker side to the magic and it ends up coming across like a Japanese horror film about possession and betrayal.

If you can take the genre switch and are happy to watch a story that you will probably work the ending out without much trouble, you’ll probably enjoy retreading a well-worn path as it’s just such good fun.

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

The Tournament - If you go down to Middlesbrough today...

...then you're sure to be in for a surprise. I confess... I have never been to Middlesbrough, but, based on what I've seen in `The Tournament' I can obviously expect to see a pretty deserted city where the few remaining inhabitants appear to adopt a `live and let live' policy to car chases on the motorway, shoot outs in strip clubs, exploding petrol stations, policemen being shot in the street, burning men running through the streets and bus hijackings.

For all these events are apparently all part of everyday life in Middlesbrough - especially when the thirty greatest assassins in the world have come together to play a `last man standing' game of death in the city, all for the benefit of some of the most clichéd billionaires ever seen.

You may have to suspend quite a lot of disbelief to truly get anything out of this film, like the way the billionaires can see every inch of Middlesbrough courtesy of CCTV cameras which can apparently peek inside buildings as well as watch streets. It's hardly a masterpiece, with many of the characters sporting fake American accents and Liam Cunningham speaking some of the most badly-written lines ever committed to film script.

There is so much wrong with this movie it's hard to list all its faults. However, there's still enough action in it to titillate most action-junkies.  The premise is just too 'out there' to be believable, i.e. that a tournament such as this can take place in any major Western city in broad daylight and yet no one really notices (plus how a man can have full body burns in one seen and then look 'a bit reddish' in the next!).  But, if you can get past that then there's plenty of reasonable action scenes to pass the time.  It's pretty forgettable, but not entirely awful. Robert Carlyle lends it a certain credibility, but Ving Rhames just looks a bit too old and fat to be believable.

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

Sleepwalkers - Strangely watchable Stephen

Yes, it’s a book-to-film adaptation of another one of Stephen King’s horror novels.  And, if you know anything about how well his stories transfer across medium, you’ll know they have a history of not really working.  For every Pet Sematery and IT there’s a dozen ‘Sometimes They Come Backs’ and ‘The Dark Halfs.’ However, Sleepwalkers is oddly sit-throughable.

I use the word ‘sit-throughable’ over good, because I want to set you expectations at the right level.  You’ll be okay to walk in and out of the film to make a cup of tea and come back without really missing that much.

It’s about, er, things.  They’re like people during the day, but sometimes monsters.  And they have powers.  You don’t really get much back story concerning where they’re from, what they are and what they’re capable of, but never mind.  They’re a mother and son couple.  And, when I say ‘couple’ – I mean couple.  Yes, yuk!

They move from town to town sucking the life – literally – out of people – mainly teenage girls the son manages to seduce with apparent ease.  And did I mention they don’t like cats?  And it’s not a case of a mild allergy where they sniff a bit whenever Mr Tibbles walks into the room, they go a bit mental.  But then cats hate them, too.

Yeah, it’s all a bit of a mess.  They move to a town and the cycle starts all over again, but will they manage to suck the life out of Twin Peaks’ Madchen Amick?  Yes, this is probably her biggest role since leaving the cult TV show and she... well, she’s okay, but much capable of more.

Basically, if you don’t mind cheesy horror that could be so much better then you’ll be okay with this.  It’s short.  That’s a bonus.  It doesn’t drag.  But don’t expect anything to really make sense.  Things happen just to move the plot forward and that’s about it.  Your expectations need to be low.  In fact, in these days of remakes and prequels, this is one film I’d actually like to see a prequel to.  There’s so much left out of the history of the characters, a prequel might explain some of it.

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