Focus - For a film called ‘Focus’ it’s a little blurred

Okay, I’ll admit one of my main reasons for watching ‘Focus’ is because I saw Will Smith and Margot Robbie in ‘Suicide Squad’ and thought they were the best part about it.  It was only then that I found out they’d already starred together in a crime-caper and, based on their super-villain chemistry, thought it would probably be worth a watch.  And I was pleasantly surprised… to begin with.

Smith plays a suave conman who stumbles on a not-so-suave conwoman, played by Robbie.  However, she is endearing to him enough for him to feel like he needs to take her under his wing and teach her to refine her scamming ways in order to keep her out from the law’s reach just that little bit longer.  Luckily for him (and the speed of the narrative!) she takes to it pretty quickly and in a matter of seconds (well, ‘screen-time’ seconds anyway!) she’s as much of a pro as he is.  And so, he inducts her into his gang and off they go scamming people during a big festival-type event.

And I was quite enjoying this.  Yes, you do kind of have to leave the fact that, despite their charming exteriors and witty quips, these are criminals and although it’s quite fun and cool to watch them ‘work’ we’d most likely be a little less tolerant if one of them lifted our camera while they pretended to ask for directions in a crowded public place.  Anyway, it was fun seeing them scam – even if it does serve as a warning to watch out for these types of people and the tricks of their trade which allow them to operate.

However, about a third of the way through the film everything changes.  The group goes their separate ways after their major scam is complete.  After this, everything sort of slows down.  There’s only really one storyline going on which – obviously – centres on our two attractive leads and the single scam that’s now taking place.  It was about this time that I stopped watching intently and enjoying the light-hearted caper and had that burning desire to check my emails on my phone.  That’s what happens to the plot – it sort of drifts away from you and you stop really paying attention.  I think I may have checked Instagram once or twice during the second act and I’m pretty certain that I didn’t miss much.  It becomes the sort of film where you can quite easily nip out for a cup of tea and you won’t really have missed anything vital.

Overall, ‘Focus’ isn’t a bad film.  I really enjoyed the first half and the chemistry and coolness-factor of the two leads just about took me through the rest of it.  I’m not sure how often I’d bother watching it again.  I could probably go many years before really bothering to invest another couple of hours on this one.  Definitely one of those films where you’re better off watching it for free on one of the internet’s ‘streaming’ services rather than buying the 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

Everest - I think Marvel has ruined me

I decided to sit down and watch a film that involved a disaster which didn’t involve and army of flying robots dropping an entire Eastern European city on the locals while Robert Downey Jr saves the day.  I know.  I was amazed to find a single disaster movie which couldn’t be described like that.  However, I came across ‘Everest’ – a filmed based on an ill-fated expedition to the titular mountain back in the nineties.  The team of climbers was left in a pretty bad way after a freak avalanche and what followed was a harrowing tale of human versus the elements as they tried to survive in one of the most inhospitable environments in the world.  I have to say that I was quite optimistic.  I’d watched similar films in the past like ‘Alive’ and thoroughly enjoyed them, plus ‘Everest’ boasted a cast which included Jake Gyllenhaal, Josh Brolin and the latest ‘John Connor’ from that ‘Terminator’ movie which no one apart from me liked. 

However, despite my optimism I was left with a feeling that this film was nothing I hadn’t seen before.  A team climbs Everest.  They get stuck.  They have to survive and get back down.  I knew that going into the film so I suppose I can hardly claim to be disappointed about what I got, as I got exactly that.  No more, no less.  Everything about the film can be summed up in a single sentence. 

I don’t know what I was expecting, obviously just more than was on offer.  Yes, the actors were predictably sufficient in their respective roles and the scenery (filmed in picturesque mountains with epic views – don’t know whether it was technically filmed on Mount Everest or not, but it was suitable to fool a geographical novice like me!) was truly magnificent.  However, there just wasn’t that much to keep me interested.  I know it was a true-to-life story, so they hardly bring in a fleet of alien spaceships with death-rays, but there just wasn’t much there to keep me interested. 

I also have a problem with certain war films where soldiers are basically all dressed alike.  I find it quite difficult to tell one actor from another.  Here it’s a similar problem as they’re all wrapped up so tightly to protect themselves against the harsh elements (not to mentions porting full facial beards making identification even harder!) it made telling who’s who quite hard sometimes.

I certainly didn’t hate the film.  The quality of acting talent on offer and the great filming locations made it just about worth sitting through.  However, when a film can be summed up in one sentence I just feel it doesn’t offer (a) much in the way of shocks or surprises or (b) little when it comes to making me want to sit through its two-hour run-time again.  Pity, but only the once.  Maybe I’m now so brainwashed by Marvel-style movies that I can’t appreciate a film that doesn’t involve Optimus Prime smashing his way through New York with a battleaxe for an arm. 

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

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation - Which number is this in the franchise?

I’ve just watched ‘Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation.’ I notice that for a film in an ongoing franchise, it doesn’t actually have a number attached to the title.  I’m guessing this is generally because it doesn’t matter which one it is.  If you’ve seen any of the previous instalments (excluding the original which requires some sort of post doctorate in nuclear physics to understand the numerous double-crossing plot threads) then you’ll know what you’re getting.  The ‘MI’ franchise has certainly settled into a formula and, try as I might to hate it for basically doing the same thing over and over again, I have to confess that I thoroughly enjoyed it (after all, if Marvel can do it, why can’t Tom?!).

Tom Cruise plays… oh, does it matter?  He basically plays Tom Cruise playing a sort of James Bond role where his team of secret agents has to stop (yet another) super villainous organisation from overthrowing Britain.  As a Brit, I could probably take offense at us needing saving, but my fellow countryman Simon ‘Shaun of the Dead’ Pegg is helping him out, so I guess I’ll let that one slide.  He accomplishes this through numerous high-octane car chases, gun fights and stunts – none of which leaving so much as a scratch on our hero.

Oh, dear – three paragraphs in and I’m already running out of things to say about ‘Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation.’ I’m guessing that’s because there’s not much that can be said about it that you haven’t already seen written about the others.  In all the film franchises of recent times (including the reliably similar Marvel movies) this is just about as identical in structure as those that have come before it.  In a nutshell: if you like Tom Cruise then you’ll probably like this.  If you’ve liked any of the previous instalments (2-4) then you’ll also like this.  Of course if you haven’t seen any of them and you’re just a fan of action movies with a pinch of spy/doublecross involved, again you’ll get something out of it.  You don’t really need to know what’s come before.  You can join the franchise here or at any point after the first film.  Just put your brain in ‘neutral’ and enjoy the nicely-choreographed action scenes and Tom Cruise fighting wave after wave of useless henchmen.  Sheer popcorn fun.

Oh, and I’ve just checked online.  It appears that yet another ‘Mission Impossible’ film is pencilled in for 2018.  Gee, I wonder what that one will be like?!  It’s fair to say that I’ll be watching it either way.  The only downside will be that when I come to review it I’ll probably have even less original observations to make about it than I did here!

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

Fortress - Ahh, nineties sci-fi

There’s something very comforting for me about watching Christopher Lambert in the nineties sci-fi/action movie ‘Fortress.’ It’s like revisiting an old friend in a comfortable environment.  Yes, it’s fair to say that anyone who was basically in their early teenage years of watching films would find this film particularly deep and thought provoking (like I did at the time).  Now, over twenty years (and several thousand) films later, my cynical and jaded eyes see it for what it is – a load of nonsense (but kind of good fun nonsense if you’re in the mood).

Sometime in the near future pregnancies are controlled and anyone having a child without government approval (or something) is imprisoned in the most hellish of judicial facilities imaginable.  The opening scene shows us Christopher Lambert and his pregnant wife attempting to flee the country, but getting caught in the process.  Guess where they end up?  The titular ‘Fortress’ is a prison (tower) buried under the ground in the desert where escape is ‘impossible’ (yeah, in the same way that ‘no one’ had ever won ‘The Running Man’ until Arnie had a go).

Once imprisoned, Lambert is subjected to all the usual prison movie tropes, including clichéd cellmates, aggressive bully-type alpha-male prisoners and – of course – the fascist warden in charge, this time played by Kurtwood Smith (or that-baddie-in-Robocop to most of us).  Whereas most of the film is pretty run-of-the-mill, Kurtwood does his best to turn in a pretty sinister and menacing performance.  Of course there are some pretty big stretches in the plot which are designed to further the story rather than be realistic.  These are things like the warden just so happening to fall in love with Lambert’s wife (like our hero needed any extra excuses for hating the man in charge of the barbaric facility).

The sets are pretty bland.  In fact, the sets are sets – pure and simple.  Grey walls with people wandering around in orange jumpsuits.  The special effects aren’t that special and the dialogue is a bit corny here and there.  All in all, it’s probably not the greatest of films and it’s no wonder that it’s been pretty much forgotten compared to the classic action films of the decade.  And yet, I stand by my original statement. Watching ‘Fortress’ takes me back to my childhood, so, yes, a lot of my appreciation of this film stems from my nostalgia of the era.  It’s a simple film from a simpler time. 

I doubt it would hold up today against the current crop of action movies.  It wasn’t much more than a ‘straight-to-video’ affair back in its day, but, like I say, if you’re looking for a slightly dated, more simple action movie then this one is worth a watch if you feel like wasting an hour and a half.  The deeper meaning I may have once seen has long since been painted over by clichés and cheesy nonsense, but I like that sort of thing.

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

Warcraft: The Beginning - I wanted to like this so much

No, I’m not a die-hard ‘Warcraft’ fan on the computer games this film is based on.  However, I am a huge fan of its writer/director Duncan Jones (and of course his late/great father, David Bowie).  If you’re a fan of sci-fi then you really should check out Jones’ first two films: ‘Moon’ and ‘Source Code.’ They’re a great example of what can be done on a smaller budget with a decent script.  Therefore, my hopes were high when I saw the amount of money and resources being poured into ‘Warcraft: The Beginning.’ However, as many who have studied film since the mid-nineties will know… films based on computer games rarely work out.

If you have no idea what ‘Warcraft’ is (and my knowledge is based on playing ‘Warcraft II’ on the PC many years ago and that hilarious ‘South Park’ episode that rips into it) then it’s kind of like ‘Lord of the Rings’ i.e. a medieval-type world and an ongoing war between humans and Orcs.  Now, I mention ‘Lord of the Rings’ not just because of the (loose) plot similarities, but also because the trilogy is currently around fifteen years old and dealt with battles between green-skinned Orcs and humans.  Therefore, you may think that the special effects will also be fifteen years more advanced that what we’ve seen before.  Not in my opinion.  This was my first major gripe with the film – the CGI.  It just didn’t look real.  The dwarfs and elves looked almost comical and the Orcs were basically so blatantly made with computers it took me right out of the story.  Unfortunately, the costumes weren’t an awful lot better (and these weren’t even made with computers!) – they looked like what you’d see at a cosplay event and were way too clean without the rugged ‘battle-worn’ look that’s been displayed in Lord of the Rings.

Then we have the plot.  Yes, it could simply be described as ‘Orcs vs humans,’ but they at least try and mix it up a little with some good Orcs and some bad humans.  However, the characters are so one-dimensional that the baddies (or either species) simply come off as cartoonish (and doubly cartoonish if they’re already drawn on computers and look like a cartoon anyway!).  There’s a plot in there that kind of reminded me of ‘Avatar’ (for some reason) about inter-species relationships and working together to save both races.

The action was okay.  Yes, there are battles, but nothing that Lord of the Rings hasn’t done before.  All in all this film feels like painting by numbers.  It’s not terrible, but it probably could have been a lot better.  I could imagine a young boy (most likely) who hasn’t seen many films being totally blown away by this and loving it (and then going out and buying all the toys afterwards!).  However, I’m just too jaded and have seen all this before.  Maybe I should be more forgiving when it comes to films like this.  I guess it’s aimed at children rather than me.  But, love it, hate it or – like me – be kind of indifferent to it, I still have faith in Duncan Jones that he’ll come back with another awesome film.

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

Get Out - Good horror isn’t dead

Let’s face it, the horror genre seems to have got even more stale than ever lately.  Sure, ever since ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ kind of launched the ‘slasher’ sub-genre of mainstream horror, many films have followed that particular layout, especially when teens were the leads.  However, I’m pleased to say that ‘Get Out’ is actually a breath of – pretty horrific – fresh air.

I’m going to get the word out the way straight away – awkward.  Yes, this film’s primary emotion it generates in you is not fear, disgust or dread.  It’s awkwardness (an emotion we’ve all felt from time to time and one more associated with turning up to work in trainers in an office full of people in smart shoes than full blown horror).  However, there’s more to it than that.We meet a young mid-twenties couple who are returning to her parents’ house in a small, but ‘respectable’ town in ‘Middle America.’ Nothing particularly out of the ordinary there, but Chris Washington is a black man and his girlfriend, Rose Armitage, is white.  Again, nothing that would raise an eyebrow in most places these days, but this is – at heart and despite its overall awkwardness – a horror movie after all. 

When this black man arrives in his potential inlaws' house, there’s quite an uncomfortable feeling in the air.  They’re not racists or bigots, just people who haven’t really experienced people of other cultures and races – queue the start of the awkwardness.  They do their best to make him feel welcome, constantly referencing supposedly ‘black’ culture in an effort to make him feel at home.  But there’s still that awkwardness in the air that something else is going on.  This is the point where I can’t say too much more without dipping my toe into the territory of ‘spoilers.’ I will just say that if you thought Ben Stiller had it bad in ‘Meet the Parents’ you won’t believe what poor Chris Washington has to go through!

Eventually, the awkwardness and uncomfortable atmosphere cracks and ‘Get Out’ turns into what it’s meant to be – something pretty horrible.  It’s definitely a pleasant change from the slasher/zombie horror films which seem to be infesting the cinema these days.  The closest film I could liken it to may be a certain other dark classic from the seventies starring (amongst others) Nannette Newman, but I’ll leave you to wait and see any slight similarities.  It does touch on quite a few modern issues with race and the perception thereof, however it’s never preachy or annoying by trying to put its message over the fact that it’s a dark, disturbing film first (social commentary later!).

‘Get Out’s’ primary strength is its two young leads.  They have to be believable as a normal couple who you can relate to in order for us to buy into their plight.  And they do.  Daniel Kaluuya (Chris Washington) ultimately carries the film and it’s impossible not to sympathise for him when the bad stuff really starts to happen.  All in all, whatever your politics, as long as you enjoy good, solid, slow-burning horror films which gradually crank up the tension, you really do need to watch this.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Kickboxer - A true classic (somehow)

When it comes to those musclebound heroes who were so popular in the eighties/early nineties, you kind of remember their breakthrough roles. ‘The Terminator’ is still a classic to this day and you can see how it catapulted Arnold Schwarzenegger into super-stardom.  The same can be said for ‘Rocky’ and ‘Die Hard’ for Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis respectively.  It was fair to say that Jean Claude Van Damme hadn’t done much before he starred as the lead in ‘Kickboxer’ (and a brief turn as the Predator before he threw a hissy-fit on set doesn’t count – seriously, look that up).  In ‘Kickboxer’ he plays a ballet dancer who turns professional kickboxer to avenge the crippling of his (also kickboxer) brother in the ring at the hands of a psycho.  No, really.  That’s the plot.

Okay, so you can expect a certain amount of training, in-ring fighting and romantic love interest thrown in there for good measure.  That’s all taken for granted in pretty much any film.  However, all these tropes can’t hide the fact that Van Damme isn’t really that great actor.  Okay, so he’s hardly improved dramatically over the years, but he’s definitely got better to justify his casting as a lead.  Here, he can barely look like he understands other characters’ lines, let alone form a facial expression that relates to them.  I guess what I’m trying to say it that, even if ‘Kickboxer’ isn’t the worst film ever made, it’s quite hard to see how this was a springboard for his rise to stardom.

I suppose he was cast simply because of his looks (which my girlfriend tells me are pretty hot back then – not to mention other areas of his anatomy!) and his ability to throw a kick or two.  That, he can do for sure.  Yes, the film-makers may have felt the need to overlay a sound effect reminiscent of you hitting a sponge sofa really hard over every punch, but you can  tell he’s really got the moves in the ring.

‘Kickboxer’ is a classic.  Everything about it should make it bad – reading back over this review I can see how scathing I sound.  And yet, after watching it, I really don’t feel like I’ve wasted my time and even enjoyed much of it.  Yes, it’s quite silly in places and the songs played over (alleged dramatic moments) sound like something Trey Parker and Matt Stone would spoof in ‘South Park.’ Plus the overall story plays out like a slightly more violent ‘Karate Kid’ movie, but it’s still fun.  You’ll have seen it all before and know exactly where it’s going, but if you’re a fan of JCVD, or are just happy to sit through martial arts movies or general eighties overblown cheese, you should find some enjoyment here.

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

The 6th Day - Could have been a classic

Spot the odd one out: ‘Terminator 2, Predator, Total Recall, The 6th Day.’ Yes, it’s 2000’s ‘The 6th Day.’ The others are all regarded as action classics of their day which most people are aware of, regardless of whether they’ve seen them, or particularly like Arnold Schwarzenegger or not.  However, even fans may have forgotten ‘The 6th Day’ entirely.  I didn’t see it at the cinema (and I’m a die-hard Arnie fan!).  I saw it a good few years later on video and was actually pleasantly surprised.  Although, I can see why it was always destined to fly under the radar.

For a start it was released in the year 2000.  This was hardly ‘peak time’ during Arnie’s  time in centre stage.  I would imagine that if it was released in the late eighties/early nineties then it would have gathered much more attention at the Box Office.  So an ‘Arnold Schwarzenegger’ film in 2000 wouldn’t attract many new fans, but what about his existing audience (like me!)?  Well, we grew older by then and were probably less inclined to go to the cinema as much.  And, those who did go to see it often levelled the same criticism at it, i.e. it’s a bit too similar to his previous classic, ‘Total Recall.’ Now, I can see where they’re coming from here.  The ‘set up’ is similar.  In ‘Total Recall’ you have an ‘everyman’ slowing finding out that his life isn’t what he thought it was and then getting chased by shady forces through a sci-fi setting and – er – that brief and vague synopsis could be used to describe ‘The 6th Day’ too.  Yeah, there are more than a few similarities with the set-up, but I also think that there’s enough here that’s different to make it not just a ‘poor man’s Total Recall.’

Now, I briefly mentioned that it’s set in a ‘futuristic setting.’ Okay, admittedly not far in the future, but enough that you need a reasonable budget to make it look believable.  Perhaps the budget all went on Arnie’s paycheque?  There are these space-age helicopters which transform into jet planes and every time they come on the screen they look about as convincing as a cut-scene from a Playstation 2 game.  In fact, the whole film feels like it’s been ‘made-for-TV’ as the sets are, well, so ‘set-like’ that you’d think you were watching a low budget soap opera, not a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster.

So, it’s a film released at the wrong time for its major star, it looks cheap and kind of rips of a (arguably better) piece of work.  It didn’t really get the hate that some films do, but it got a hell of a lot of indifference.  And this is a shame, because it’s rather fun.  It’s tone is actually quite light and never feels bogged down in ‘darkness’ like so many modern action films which strive to be gritty and realistic (‘Bourne’ Franchise and Daniel Craig’s ‘Bond’ – I’m looking at you!).  There are plenty of one-liners and you have to suspend your disbelief a great deal to enjoy it.  Yes, Arnie despatches hordes of bad guys without breaking a sweat.  Realistic?  Hell, no!  But this is Arnie!  He does this all the time – we all know that.  Deal with it.  Trust me, you’ll enjoy it a damn sight more if you do!

‘The 6th Day’ really is a film out of its time.  While action films were getting more and more serious, it sits firmly in that over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek era that Arnie owned back in his day.  I keep using the work ‘fun’ to describe it, because that’s all it is.  Good, action-packed, popcorn fun.  Who can’t laugh at Arnie killing off the baddies, only to have them cloned back in the next scene (at great personal expense and annoyance to the evil villain in charge!) ready to be killed yet again.

Don’t expect a classic example of film-making.  Don’t even expect much originality.  Just expect Arnie doing what he does best – killing bad guys and then saying a dodgy one-liner.

Oh, and if you’re a fan of ‘The Walking Dead’ – ‘Merle’ is in it, too.  He’s always good to watch being bad, but the true stand-out role is a plastic child’s doll-toy which steals every scene (she was awesome – odd that we haven’t seen her career take off since!).

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

The Green Hornet - Why all the hate?

There are some films you just watch without knowing an awful lot about them.  For me, ‘The Green Hornet’ was one.  Okay, so I generally like superhero movies and Seth Rogan’s brand of crude/adult humour always tickles the more immature side of me.  Plus I’ve never even read a Green Hornet comic (or did it originate on the radio?  See, I don’t even know that!) so I can’t really compare the film to the source material.  Anyway, in short, I really enjoyed it and went round recommending it to anyone I happened to stumble upon.  It was only after a few weeks of it being released did I realise that it was almost universally not liked.  Did I watch the same film?

I’ve had a look at a lot of the negative criticism and it seems that much of it revolves around Seth Rogan himself.  Yes, he’s normally that chubby bloke who smokes too much in all those comedy films that sort of roll into one.  Yes, I would agree that he’s not exactly the first leading man you’d think of when you were about to sit down to a superhero movie.  People seemed to only see Seth Rogan playing the same old Seth Rogan character he always does.  I guess that could be seen as a fair point.  However, I argue that ‘The Green Hornet’ isn’t your average superhero movie.  Our protagonist wasn’t bitten by a radioactive spider and therefore attained superpowers.  He’s just a rich guy.  And not particularly fit.  However, anyone – even a rich guy in a mask – can land a devastating blow to a thug if he whacks him hard enough with a piece of lead piping (this is basically what our ‘hero’ does).  Therefore, Rogan’s ineptitude is actually the whole point.  He knows nothing and isn’t physically intimidating.  So how come he’s a hero?  Enter ‘Kato.’

Kato is the guy who makes The Green Hornet’s cups of coffee in the morning.  However, making a swirly leaf pattern isn’t his only skill.  Arguably, he DOES have superpowers (not that they’re ever really explained).  Not just is he a wizard with a wrench and can knock up an armed vehicle to the standards of ‘The A-Team’ but he also sees dangerous situations practically in slow motion, meaning he can use his martial arts powers to defend his employer (and part-time buddy).  Not only does this lead to Kato saving The Green Hornet’s (not particularly toned) backside on numerous occasions, but also makes for quite an entertaining way of filming a fight scene in a genre saturated with simple whacking people and the occasional ‘bullet-time’ effect.

Other criticisms are levelled at the supporting cast, namely the (obligatory) baddie and love interest (Christoph Waltz and Cameron Diaz, respectively).  Yes, Chudnofski is the villain, but he’s actually poking fun at the usual bad guys you get in superhero-based movies.  He’s constantly striving to be one, but quite often getting the overall feel wrong, despite being more evil and violent than anything you find in your average Marvel movie.  I suppose that I can see how Cameron Diaz hardly has an awful lot of ‘character development’ put into her role.  She’s kind of only there for ‘star power.’ She’s well used to action and comedy and yet never really gets to do either here.  However, at least she never sinks so low as to just be the ‘damsel in distress’ that are so commonplace in the genre.

Basically, ‘The Green Hornet’s’ biggest weakness is that it is probably too many things to appeal to one mass audience.  It’s not just a superhero film, it’s also an action movie, a comedy and a satire that pokes fun of the conventions and clichés you’d normally find with the genre.  I guess if any sort of superhero film wants to evolve from a stand-alone film to a profitable franchise it needs to have plenty of merchandise to go with it.  This film is mainly aimed at adults (even though there’s not that much violent/drug use/profanity so it never got the obligatory computer game, McDonalds Happy Meal tie-in or action figures for the kids to play with.  However, if you’re generally a fan of Rogen’s work/sense of humour, plus you’re up for a little fun being made of all those ‘shared universes’ out there right now, then give this one a try.  It’s simple, but fun.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

X-Men: Apocalypse – Stuff happens

I’ve been a fan of the ‘X-Men’ films since they first appeared on our (big) screens way back in 1999.  The first two were great, I didn’t even mind the third that much and the spin-offs were better (in my opinion!) than most people made out.  Naturally, I was sceptical of the franchise’s (soft) reboot with a new – much younger – cast.  However, thanks to JJ Abram’s style of rebooting a franchise, i.e. shove in aspects of time travel and a parallel universe to keep us die-hard fanboys quiet and it sort of worked out, blending old and new cast members alike.  Then came the awkwardly-titled ‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’ and I got completely lost.  That may come from me not seeing its predecessor (‘First Class’) for a while, so I had kind of forgotten who’s who.  However, you would think that any film would need to be reasonably accessible to a new  audience (or someone like me who had just forgotten what had happened before).  Basically, it was a bit all over the place and people who were dead were now alive and people who were alive were now recast.  Unfortunately, the latest ‘X-Men Apocalypse’ movie kind of feels more like ‘Days of Future Past’ than ‘First Class.’

It’s quite a long film and so at least they try to give some of the characters a bit of an introduction.  Even if you – technically – know who these characters are/were, they’ve most likely been recast, so you’ll probably need a refresher on who they are and whether they’re still playing roughly the same role as before.  I guess the new cast are pretty good/relatable, but I’m afraid I’m used to the ‘old lags’ and it’s like watching ‘Muppet Babies’ or ‘Tiny Toons’ only with mutants instead of miniature Kermit the Frog or Bugs Bunny (there’s even a – practically – teenage Striker trying to hunt the mutants down!).  We see our – now young – heroes going about their daily life, getting picked on by that clichéd bully we see in every Hollywood movie with a high school in it and the once fearsome Nightcrawler looks like he’s about to cry most of the time.  It just feels so far removed from the original 1999 ‘X-Men’ movie that this is completely unrecognisable.

Then – as my title suggests – stuff happens.  We’re treated to one scene after the other where someone does something.  That’s my main gripe with it.  The story doesn’t really go anywhere.  Sure, the effects are good and the make-up believable, but it almost comprises on a load of stand-alone sketches that don’t seem to follow on from the one before.  We see the titular (‘first mutant’) ‘Apocalypse’ get released and then start recruiting for his higher-management team by generally making them ‘level up’ quicker than usual and a new haircut for free.  Then we bounce back to the fledgling X-Men and so forth until they have to face off against him.  I may enjoy the X-Men films, but I have to confess that I’ve never read the comics, so I can’t really comment on how authentic Oscar Issac’s look or performance is.  All I know is that he looks pretty unrecognisable as the bad guy and is reasonably cool when it comes to villains and the villainous stuff they generally do, but as far as I understand the real comic book fans felt a little short-changed at his overall role. 

However, it all feels a little samey when you place ‘X-Men Apocalypse’ next to every other recent superhero movie these days (and also some NON superhero movies, too) as Apocalypse’s big plan involves the almost mandatory ‘skybeam’ i.e. the giant computer-generated beam of light coming down and laying waste to a populated area.  Yup, it does seem that that’s every super villain’s masterplan these days.

So, did I hate it?  Well, no.  It’s okay.  Like I say – stuff happens.  And, despite most not really following on from whatever stuff happened right before (and don’t get me started on the whole film not really following on from the rest of the franchise!), some of the stuff that happens is kind of cool.  So, it does have that going for it.  I just think that it’s all a bit of a wasted opportunity when you’re presented with such great characters and none of them ever really feel like they’re allowed to shine.  I didn’t think I wasted my time watching it, but out of all X-Men-related films, I think this is the one I’m least likely to bother watching again.

Oh, and is it just me or is there a weird ‘Mother Theresa cameo’ near the start?

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

Arrival - A thinking man’s ‘Independence Day’

Oh, no – giant alien spaceships arrive on Earth and hover over every major city with disastrous (and most likely CGI-heavy) consequences!  Yes, we’ve seen this tired and strained plot for many decades (albeit the slightly older films relied on strings holding up the UFOs, but that was still pretty ‘high0-bidget’ at the time!).  However, in this case, the aliens actually don’t go straight into nuking every recognisable landmark they can find on Google Maps.  Instead, they actually try to have a chat.  However, just because they’ve left the White House in one piece, doesn’t mean things go smoothly.  Basically, they have a completely different language to us, therefore the American military enlist the help of a reclusive language specialist (Amy Adams) to help translate.

Naturally, there’s the obligatory ‘love interest’ for Adams.  This comes in the form of Jeremy Renner, who is likable for what he’s there for.  Forest Whittaker is always good at pretty much whatever he does, so he’s not out of place as the army general in charge of the operation. 

I knew this basic premise of before I sat down to watch the film and did wonder whether it was possible to string the entire film out for around two hours on this.  And, I’m pleased to say that it actually worked.  You see the alien ships land in various countries around the world and, although we obviously only really focus on America’s involvement with them, we get to hear about how other countries handle them.  ‘Arrival’ is one of those films where, in some ways, it’s very difficult to review.  If I give away too much it may spoil certain elements of the film.  If the basic premise interests you (and you’re not expecting wild aerial dogfights against waves of invading flying saucers) then you should definitely give it a go.  The film is basically a mystery.  You know the aliens are here for a reason, but you have to learn what it is at the same pace as the film’s characters.  And, if you don’t mind the wait, you should enjoy the slow burn.

I definitely enjoyed it, but, as I know the ending now, it does mean that it’s never going to be as mysterious the second time around.  I’d certainly go for a re-watch one day, but you’ll only ever get to see it for the first time once and be totally in the dark as to what the ending will entail.  Sorry I’m being a bit vague, but, if it interests you, the less you know the better.  Either way, at least it proves that you don’t need epic space battles or global destruction to make a movie interesting.  And this one even raises a few questions in terms of what one person perceives as ‘language’ may be totally different from another.

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

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)