The Lincoln Lawyer - Better call Matt!

‘The Lincoln Lawyer’ seems to have slipped by a lot of people.  Yes, Mathew McConaughey’s star may have waned a little in the last few years, leaving no real big names involved in the production (and, fans of 'Breaking Bad' may be disappointed at how little Bryan Cranston contributes - I watched this film for a second time a few years after my first viewing and I'd completely forgotten he was even in it!), but don’t let lack of ‘star power’ put you off.

It’s quite a clever little piece.  I’m tempted to call it a ‘thriller,’ yet there weren’t that many (what you might call) ‘thrills’ in the story.  As the title hints, it’s about a lawyer, therefore expect much of the film to take place inside a courtroom.  If courtroom dramas aren’t really your sort of thing then you’re probably best to avoid this all together.  But then, saying that, the film certainly takes place in other settings, so hopefully the courtroom stuff won't spoil it too much for you.

Mathew McConaughey plays a slick lawyer who thinks he’s seen (and possibly represented) them all, until a wealthy client comes along with a ‘fool proof’ way of beating a pretty 'open and shut' murder charge.  If this new situation didn’t invoke enough of a crisis of faith in our titular lawyer then he soon finds himself a little more intertwined with the whole proceeding than he would like, leaving his family and freedom at stake.

Perhaps one option would have been to go on some sort of ‘Kill Bill-style’ murderous rampage of revenge and blast everyone who’s trying to do him wrong into next week.  However, Matt decides the only way out of this is to out-think his opponents, therefore, as I mentioned, there’s little action and more plot twists and deceptions to follow.

Like I said, if you’re into clever courtroom dramas then you’ll like this.  If you’re into high-octane thrill-rides then this isn’t for you.  Personally, I really enjoyed it, but, if I have to pick one negative point about it (besides the under-use of Bryan Cranston), I'd say that it doesn't seem to know when to end and I kept thinking it was drawing to a conclusion when it suddenly decides to start up again!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Riddick - A film of three halves?

Okay, I don't really like doing `spoilers' in my reviews, but, in the case of `Riddick' I really can't help it. If you don't know, Riddick is the titular character who first appeared in the low budget sci-fi flick `Pitch Black.' That movie was such a success that it spawned a big-budget sequel `The Chronicles of Riddick,' which, for some reason, didn't seem to do so well.

The problem with the third instalment is... (and here come the spoilers) that it's approximately 1 hour 53 minutes long. The first thirty minutes consist of Riddick, alone on a barren world, fighting one computer-generated monster after the next. Hardly much story there. Then we see two separate spaceship descend on the planet, containing two lots of bounty hunters. And, for practically an hour, we barely see Riddick. Instead, the film turns into some sort of sci0fi `slasher' film where Riddick stalks and eliminates these baddies one by one. Only, we know it's Riddick killing these people and we don't really care anyway as they're all pretty much horrible people. It's only in the last half hour do things pick up (I won't spoil it any more by saying how). It's fair to say that I enjoyed the last half an hour, but it seemed like I had to wait an awful long time before I go to a bit that I really liked.

Basically, this is just `Pitch Black' again, but with different characters and a different setting. If you really enjoy the Riddick universe then you should like this. I enjoyed it really, however, I was hoping it would be better (or just different) to how it turned out. That said, if ever `Riddick 4' is made, I'll be there to watch it, too.

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

Killing Them Softly - So much right and so much wrong

Killing Them Softly is about a trio of thieves who rob the wrong people and end up with the gang and a hitman (Brad Pitt no less) on their trail. The advertising describes it as a `black comedy/drama,' although I found little to laugh at during the whole thing. It seems like its trying to be a homage to `overly-talkie' films like Quentin Tarrintino writes, but sometimes the dialogue simply went nowhere.

The actors are all great. It has a stellar cast who do their best, plus the cinematography is all top notch. There's some, but not as much as you may have been led to believe, violence in it. If you've heard this is a violent film, they're probably referring to one particular scene midway through the film. Apart from that, there's actually very little else that will shock you visually.

So it has good actors, a good setting, quirky dialogue and a premise that, although not totally original, is certainly watchable. I can see how some people liked it. Although, not everyone did. Some may say that the only thing missing from such greatness is a story. The narrative doesn't really have much focus and flits back and forth from different people leaving you wondering where you'll be next.

And then there's the politics. Throughout the film we're constantly seeing the 2012 presidential election campaign on TV screen. Apparently (and I have to confess that I didn't get this) the whole film is an allegory of modern America, i.e. one character represents the American public's sense of despair and apathy, while another represents the American public's sense of knowing what's really happening, but knowing they can't do anything about it and so on.

There's a lot to like about Killing Them Softly. There are some very good bits here and there. But then that's the problem - for every good scene there's a dull one that either goes on for too long or doesn't go anywhere.

Not bad, but could have been better.

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

Beautiful Creatures - Did someone say vampires?

You may find many reviews for Beautiful Creatures which compare it to Twilight. How cynical that is. Twilight is about a teenage girl who falls in love with an immortal vampire and has to learn to live with the supernatural goings on in his life and family. HOWEVER... Beautiful Creatures is about a BOY who falls in love with an immortal which and has to learn to live with the supernatural goings on in HER life and family.

How people can see a similarity is beyond me.

The worst part about it all is that Beautiful Creatures is probably the better of the two films. It's better acted, there are better characters and the special effects are probably more natural. But, seeing as Twilight came first, it will always be considered as `the original' whereas Beautiful Creatures will just be seen as a cash-in or copy.

If you liked Twilight, or simply haven't seen it and are intrigued with the prospect of a teenage supernatural romance/drama then give it a try. It is slightly longer than the average movie and you can see that it's designed to be part of a greater filmic body of work. Seeing as it didn't set the box office on fire as the film-makers probably hoped it might, it may end up as a stand alone. Either way, it's not bad. Teenagers will probably love it - much more than a cynical thirty-something male such as myself.

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

All the Money in the World – Worth the watch

If you can get past the controversy of recasting Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer and having all relevant scenes reshot in about a week, you’ll actually find there’s quite an interesting film here.  It’s based on a true story about the (at the time this film was set) richest man in the world, oil billionaire Paul Getty, and his reaction to the kidnapping of his grandchild back in 1973.  Now, most of us would instantly say ‘Just pay the ransom!’ if a family member was in mortal danger (and you had millions in your back account!).  However, he responded by saying something like, ‘I have fourteen grandchildren.  If I pay the ransom for one I’ll have thirteen more kidnapped grandchildren.’ Weirdly, and against all natural parental reactions, I can kind of see where he’s coming from.

‘All the Money in the World’ is directed by veteran, Ridley Scott, so, if you’ve ever seen any of his other work, you’ll know you’re in for a visual treat.  Now, on to the casting… Despite a strong cast, all talk about who was in it surrounds Kevin Spacey, who was recast after all his scenes were shot and edited into the movie, due to his off-screen life at the time.  Therefore, Christopher Plummer stepped in at the last minute and went on to win awards.  Before I saw the film I did wonder whether these awards were given simply to try and justify the blatant recasting, however, now I’ve watched it, I can see that he did turn in an amazing performance at what must have been extremely short notice.  But, while we’re on the subject of the stars, I think Mark Walberg deserves a mention for his part as Getty’s ‘facilitator.’

I guess if the film does have a ‘drawback’ is that some may feel that it goes on for quite a long time.  It feels like it’s drawing to a conclusion at just over the halfway mark, before you realise that it’s all starting off again.  This is certainly not a thrill-ride, so you’ll need to know that you’re not going to get Bruce Willis storming into an enemy lair to rescue the teenage Getty.  Instead, you get the story as it plays out – and all the laborious and depressing loopholes that have to be jumped through in order to get your loved one returned to you safely.

So, if you’re in the mood for something well-acted, well-directed, interesting, yet kind of long and drawn out, then you should definitely give this one a watch.

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

Ted 2 - Am I weird in that I enjoyed this one more than the last?

I’ve been a huge fan of Seth MacFarlane’s ‘Family Guy’ ever since it aired, so I was delighted when he made ‘Ted’ – the tale of a foul-mouthed (but loveable) teddy bear who came to life for no real reason.  And, it seemed that the majority of cinema-goers agreed with me.  Ted was a massive hit and, I suppose in Hollywood terms, that means that a sequel is inevitable.

So, the – not that imaginatively-titled – ‘Ted 2’ was born.  And, from what I gathered, reviews were mixed.  Most said that it was ‘okay’ – pointing out that there are parts that make you laugh, but long areas where the jokes get a little thin.  Others said that it was just a ‘re-tread’ of the first one and not original enough to warrant being a classic in its own right.

Now, I loved the original.  I laughed all the way through, so perhaps – because if the lukewarm reviews part 2 was receiving – I went into the cinema with low expectations.  Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised.  Perhaps I should have watched the original just before the sequel – that way I could compare which one I laughed more in.  Granted, I haven’t seen the first one for a year or so, but I found I was actually laughing more in the second one than I did in the first!

Mark Wahlberg returns for the sequel and, not being one to take comedic roles that often, again does well to get the laughs.  Especially when he’s opposite the ‘true’ star of the film – the computer-generated furry bear himself, Ted (voiced in the style of Family Guy’s Peter Griffin by Seth MacFarlane).  The only notable absence from the cast list is Mila Kurnis, who was unable to reprise her role as Wahlberg’s love interest due to her real-life pregnancy.  She’s replaced by Amanda Seyfried who does well to ‘airdrop’ herself into the mix as a blatant replacement love interest.

Yes, there’s not an awful lot of ‘plot, character development, or storyline,’ but the jokes do come thick and fast.  Basically, if you like Family Guy (or should I say Family Guy’s irreverent and often adult and vulgar!) humour, then you should already have seen Ted and therefore should appreciate its sequel.  If you’re not really sure of the ‘tone’ of the film and whether you’ll like it, I suggest you look up clips of either Family Guy or Ted online and see if you’ll go for this particular brand of humour.

Don’t be too swayed by the negative reviews.  Perhaps you should allow yourself to lower your expectations as I did and find yourself pleasantly surprised?  Maybe if I watched the original again I’d realise that it was in fact superior, but, I’m happy to have Ted back and I think that it makes a great compendium piece.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Invaders From Mars (1986) - Never judge a film by one scene

It’s hard to believe that in 1986 the world was treated to James Cameron’s ‘Aliens.’ Not only was it an awesome sequel to Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien’ movie, but it also set the trend for female role models in science fiction forever.  But then you probably already know this.  However, what you might not know is that ‘Invaders From Mars’ was also released that year.  It too had a female lead, but it’s unlikely that she’ll be remembered in such ground-breaking terms as our flamethrower-wielding space lieutenant.  She spends her time screaming, getting into trouble and generally being one of the worst representations of women on the big screen since ‘Willie’ from ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.’ But, I’m getting ahead of myself.  She’s just one part of a much bigger problem.

It’s always brave of film-makers to produce a film which has a child as the main star, especially if the film isn’t really aimed at children to begin with.  In fact, it’s actually quite hard to see who this film is aimed at.  Part of it feels like it should be some PG children’s film about a plucky young scamp, accidentally stumbling across an alien plot and then foiling it in a light-hearted manner (think ‘The Explorers’ in style, but with more tension).  However, it then comes across as quite a lot darker in tone, making it almost seem like a horror movie, but without too much gore.  As I say, the star is a – very annoying – young boy with an awful haircut (even by eighties standards!) whose home town comes under attack from aliens who take over his parents (amongst others).  He therefore runs around shrieking the whole time in an attempt to get people to believe what’s happening.  Yet, no matter how annoying he comes across, he’s still better than the female lead (his teacher) who he constantly has to tell what to do.

The reason I watched this film (besides my natural love of sci-fi and eighties cheese-fests) was because of the aliens from Mars.  If you look at any advertising relating to this film you’ll see that they’re featured heavily.  And there’s a reason – they’re the only decent thing in this movie.  The monsters really are pretty special for practical/non-CGI effects.  It’s just a shame that it feels like the whole film’s budget has gone on them and they’re only it in for a handful of scenes.

Okay, so you can probably tell I’m not a massive fan of the film, but – from a personal point of view – the aliens weren’t just the only good thing about the film.  Eventually, the boy enlists the help of the military to help out and, for once, they’re surprisingly competent.  Not only that, but James Karen (most famous from his roles in the first two ‘Return of the Living Dead’ films) also pops up as the general and – as always – he’s a treat to watch.

The ending was sort of okay too, but it was too little too late.  The two leads are possibly some of the most annoying characters ever committed to screen and the cool practical effects just don’t warrant sitting down to watch this one.

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