Moonraker – my favourite Bond (sorry!)

It’s probably a bit controversial to claim that Roger Moore is the best Bond.  It’s probably even more controversial to say that ‘Moonraker’ is the best Bond film ever.  I know.  I’ve read other reviews.  I know it had its faults. I guess, for me and my love of Star Wars, there was just something uber cool about seeing James Bond in space fighting with laser guns (and, yes, I know that they only made a ‘James-Bond-in-space’ film to cash in on George Lucas’ game-changing masterpiece, but I didn’t care about that, either!).

This time round, the UK government is charged with the task of transporting (and therefore safe-guarding) a couple of American-built space shuttles.  However, things do not go according to plan for her majesty’s minions when both shuttles disappear in mysterious circumstances.  Enter one 007 to get to the bottom of this. 

Now, as I’ve mentioned, I do love this film.  Maybe because I grew up with it and it’s totally tainted with nostalgic memories of watching it round friends’ houses on Sunday afternoons.  So, rather than saying what’s so great about it, I will acknowledge other people’s criticisms of what I consider ‘Bond’s finest hour.’ Firstly, people (even more cynical than I am) were taken up with the Star Wars cash-in I’ve already mentioned.  Secondly, there was too much humour.  Gone are the days of Sean Connery’s dry wit and darker take on Bond and they’re all replaced with a lot of tongue-in-cheek silliness involving pet dogs doing comedy double-takes when Bond drives a boat through a crowded market square.  The last two major complaints about the film revolve around the casting of the villain ‘Drax’ and the latest Bond girl – Dr Goodhead (seriously – that’s her name!).  Now, due to my love of this film as a child, I was more interested in armies of laser-wielding astronauts spinning off into the blackness of space than acting abilities.  However, over thirty years later, I do tend to cringe a little when either character opens their mouth.  Yes, they really are a little bit wooden.  Perhaps I’m being unfair as I guess they do their best with the lines that are given to them.  But, for every cloud there’s a silver lining – and that silver lining comes in the form of a giant with metal teeth.  Yes, ‘Jaws’ is another baddie hell bent on creasing Bond’s tuxedo – and he is as awesome as ever.

I know I’m not alone in my appreciation for Moonraker, but I think most people who enjoy it as much as me are my age.  I guess it might not hold up too well with the modern audience – it’s not the special effects which are the problem (correct me if I’m wrong, but a laser battle in zero-gravity space has never been attempted before on screen!).  It’s the tone that may not sit well with today’s Bond fans.  Currently, we have a much darker Daniel Craig Bond who rarely smiles or makes a witty (borderline innuendo) quip.  However, if you can appreciate a Bond with a much lighter feel to it (and I know there are people out there who do – otherwise ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’ wouldn’t be so successful!) then you could do worse than relaxing your brain for a couple of hours and letting it drift into deep space.  If nothing else, the final line about ‘attempting re-entry’ is worth watching the whole film for.  RIP Roger – you were always the best Bond (my opinion only!).

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

High Rise – high concept, low returns

Ever since Tom Hiddleston became an evil Norse god he can do no wrong in many people’s eyes (that’s a nod to ‘Thor’ in case you have no idea what I mean by that).  In any case, besides – allegedly – dating Taylor Swift for about five minutes, he’s pretty popular right about now.  Therefore, a high concept arty piece, brimming with social commentary and with him taking centre stage must be worth a watch, right?  Sorry Tom.

Now, I like to think that I’m no stranger to the slightly more ‘abstract’ films.  I don’t just want to see endless car chases or Transformers movies.  I loved ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and David Lynch’s work.  However, I just couldn’t really get into this.  It’s based on a book of the same name that’s apparently had a script associated with it that’s been kicking around various productions companies for years.  Now, it’s only just been made, despite everything about it screaming that it’s set in the seventies.

As the title suggests, it’s all based in and around a high rise block of flats.  The opening scene shows that some sort of catastrophe has befallen the building and those left are living almost in feral conditions.  Then we’re flung a little further back in time and the film begins proper with us seeing the events which lead up to this social decay.

And, Tom Hiddleston shows that he’s not just a meanie with a horned helmet, he can also hold his own as a leading man.  He does carry the film as the well-to-do tenant of one of the apartments.  He’s slightly aloof and disdainful of much of what goes on around him – almost carrying himself a little like Patrick Bateman from ‘American Psycho,’ but never without sinking into quite such a chainsaw-wielding maniac. However, just because he’s not trying to feed stray cats to cash machines, doesn’t mean there isn’t a healthy (or rather Unhealthy!) helping of s3x and violence.  In fact… that’s really all the film is.

It’s clear that the film has something to say about society and the way we lived.  But it seems to get stuck in a bit of a senseless loop where gratuitous violence is all that’s on offer.  And, once you’ve seen one stylised fist fight (or worse!) then you probably don’t want to see one in the very next scene as well.  Perhaps if this film had been released in the seventies when such sights were a novelty in cinema and would therefore generate enough ‘shock’ with the public to make it stand out then it might have got a greater following.  However, despite the decadent setting and the stylish way it’s all filmed, there’s not really an awful lot here to see.  Yes, fans of Tom himself should enjoy it more than most, but it still feels like an empty Clockwork Orange clone that’s been lost in time all these years and has missed its window where it would have been popular.

I really wanted to like this and stuck with it hoping that it would finally change pace and pick itself up.  However, it just repeats the same cycle over and over again and whatever message it thought it was trying to say gets lost along the way.  Probably would have worked better as an art house piece that ran for between 20-30 minutes.  It looks nice, but feels hollow.  Wait… is that what it’s trying to say about life?

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

Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – Not perfect, but fun

In case you don’t know, ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ was a science-fiction book by Douglas Adams which developed a major cult following.  This was then immortalised during the eighties in the British six-part TV series of the same name which, despite its low budget, (seriously – the man with ‘two heads’ has to be seen to be believed, trust me, it’s no ‘Avatar!’) was regarded very highly as a faithful adaptation and added to the following.

Since then, the author, Douglas Adams, had tried numerous times to get a big screen version made, but, despite the fans supporting this, it took until 2005 for this to happen.  And, despite the film also being written by Adams, for various reasons it received only mixed reactions.

It follows the original book/TV show’s format of a man about to have his house bulldozed to the ground to make way for a motorway, only to discover that aliens are literally about to bulldoze the entire planet Earth for similar reasons.  While the entire planet are mercilessly blown up, our everyman – Arthur Dent – is rescued by his best friend (who conveniently turns out to be an alien on a research mission to our planet and in possession with the titular Guide to the Galaxy) and they end up on the run in a spaceship, piloted by various freaks of the universe.

Now, first of all let me say the cast in – on the whole – fantastic.  Martin Freeman (from the UK’s ‘Office,’ but more recently ‘Bilbo’ from ‘The Hobbit’ is great as the long suffering last surviving earthling and Alan Rickman voices the ‘paranoid android’ Marvin to perfection.  And, while we have plenty of good cameos such as John Malkovich and Bill Nighy, the overall cast are let down by Mos Def’s ‘Ford Prefect’ and Zooey Deschanel’s Trillion (aka the obligatory love interest for Arthur).  These two seem to have little made of them apart from making up the numbers and drag the cast down.

However, the overall feel lifts the film back up again.  Of course most of the special effects are CGI, but there’s a great feel for many of the monsters who are all there courtesy of Jim Henson’s creature effects workshop.  The sets are also amazing and the universe really does feel alive with weird and wonderful creations.  Overall, I enjoyed it.  However, I do wonder whether a lot of the dislike came from those who, like me, know the WHOLE story.

You see, unless I’m really missing something, the film doesn’t have an end.  Or at least not a proper one.  If you’ve read the book or seen the TV show, you know the answer to various major questions (and I’m not just talking about the number 42!).  However, the film doesn’t address many critical plot elements that are set up.  Perhaps this is meant to be the first half and, because of its limited success, we never got to see the sequel/second half which would have answered the questions we die-hard fans were expecting.  Therefore, it did leave me wanting more than the film offered.

For all its plus points I wanted to see the end, which I only got a sort of ending that serves only as a midway gap that could be considered an ending if you haven’t read the book/seen the TV show.  However, I do own the film on DVD and watch it from time to time.  Like I say, it does have enough going for it to make it nice and light-heartedly watchable.  Although, I do wonder whether the ‘big budget treatment’ that’s been afforded to this film wouldn’t have been better spent on a new TV adaptation that could have fleshed out all the characters who seem a little one dimensional and also given us the ending that was a lot better than the film.

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

Mad Max: Fury Road – Practical Magic

“Mad Max?’ who’s he?” cry the younger generation.  Well, I guess he’s Tom Hardy these days.  However, to anyone born back in the seventies and eighties, he the titular character was synonymous with a different actor who has since majorly fallen from grace.  So, in short – it’s a remake.  But, in that most rarest of remake traditions, it seems that the general consensus is that it’s actually pretty good!  Now, I was never that into the original films (I can’t even remember whether there’s two or three of them!) so perhaps I’m more forgiving and not exactly a ‘Mad Max’ purist, however, perhaps one of the reasons this new version is so well received is that it’s written and directed by the original’s director, George Miller.

It follows the same premise, i.e. in a post apocalyptic world (or ‘Australia’ as it’s also known – boom boom!) gangs rule the deserts and fuel and water are the most rare – and therefore valuable – commodities that people will literally kill for.  Enter one gruff loner (or ‘Max’ as we later find out) who’s been surviving on the road all this time on his lonesome.  However, his (sort of) carefree days of eating lizards and driving a cool car quickly come to an end when he’s captured by a gang of those nasties who seem to come to be in every post apocalyptic world we’ve ever seen on screen.  So he’s tortured and killed and no one lives happily ever after.  Just kidding.  With the help of a load of other prisoners, he escapes and they all go on the run, hotly pursued by their psychotic former captors.  However, just because you’re on the run from people who want to strap you to the front of a high-powered vehicle and wear your skins for sun block, doesn’t mean it’s all bad.  There are worse people to be on the lamb with than Charlize Theron (unless she’s playing Aileen Phillips from ‘Monster’ I suppose!), so the pair of them do their best to fend off the constant attacks from the gangs, while protecting those who are escaping alongside them.

I guess if you were to sum up the film and try to pigeonhole it into a genre, you could say it’s an ‘action’ movie, but I think the sub-genre of a ‘chase’ movie is more in order.  It never really stands still for long and the film is ultimately one long chase across a desert, only stopping occasionally to gather a breath or two before everyone’s off blowing moving vehicles up again.  And, if that’s your thing, then you’re in for a real treat.  Part of the enjoyment of this (very simple) film is that many of the special effects are real life stunts, as opposed to CGI or blue-screen work (yes, I think there may have been a little bit of the afore-mentioned effects, but it’s pretty minimal) so you really get a feel of the danger the actors (or probably stunt people!) are going through.

Not only are the explosions all convincing, but the make-up is also really cool.  And, by ‘cool’ I mean absolutely revolting!  Although, it seems that in this dystopian future, only bad people are hideously mutated individuals and anyone who needs saving looks like a supermodel from a Victoria’s Secret catalogue.  Although, to be fair, it seems that once a woman stops looking like Cindy Crawford with slightly less make-up, if they still wish to stay on the good guys’ side, they automatically become a hard-as-nails old crone who’s got a heart of gold and a forehead that time forgot.  Anyway, that’s just me being picky, this film is fast-paced fun.  If you like numerous explosions, car chases and general mayhem then go on a road trip with these people and you’ll see how bad car travel can be – I promise you after seeing what these people have to endure you’ll never moan again when all you have to do is drive a car with your kids in the back while they constantly ask, “Are we there yet?”

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

Hell or High Water – Talk about de ja vu!

I don’t know why, but sometimes when I watch a film it reminds me of another film and I just can’t shake that feeling for its entire runtime.  In this case, ‘Hell and High Water’ just made me think of ‘No Country For Old Men’ all the way through.  They are both set in the deserts of Texas and are about an outlaw on the run from the law.  Okay, so that smallest of synopsis doesn’t quite fit if you’ve seen both films, but it’s as near as I can get in such few words.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that, in this age of ‘shared cinematic universes,’ it wouldn’t surprise me to see both films somehow existing side by side. 

Whereas ‘No Country For Old Men’ had a man on the run with an ill-gotten bag of loot from a hired killer while the law was – kind of – hot on both their trails, ‘Hell or High Water’ as a pair of brothers robbing banks while Josh Brolin is a sheriff on the brink of retirement and his long-suffering partner looking into the trail of empty cash drawers they’ve been leaving in their wake.  Both films show the contrast between the two sets of characters’ journey and from now on I’ll do my best to concentrate on ‘Hell or High Water’ rather than constantly dwelling on how similar it was to ‘No Country For Old Men.’ The two robbers here are played by Chris ‘new Kirk’ Pine and Ben Foster (who looks fatter than the last time I saw him on screen!).  I guess this casting was deliberate, but Pine is definitely the more sympathetic of the two and we get the feeling he’s being led astray by his older, more violent and law-breaking brother.  Plus Pine is also afforded the backstory of an ex-wife and child who he owes money to.  Then we have the long arms of the law, mainly Brolin, who shines as the gruff and not always politically correct sheriff who is hot on their heels.  I would say that him and his partner are probably more enjoyable to watch than the bank robbers as the banter between them and general long suffering vibe is truly a joy to watch.

So, it’s ultimately a cat and mouse game where you probably can guess that the two couples are going to meet up during the final act and it’s all going to end badly for someone.  Despite enjoying the film with its lush desert setting and realistic banter between the pairs, I’d say that its predictability would be the one area where it falls down a bit.  I was only about a quarter of the way through when I made my prediction as to how it will play out for the four main characters.  I won’t mention it here as it turned out to be 100% correct, therefore would be giving away one hell of a major spoiler. 

Despite the bank robbery scenes naturally involving high-tension and speedy getaways, I did feel that the overall pacing of the film was quite slow.  To some, that may sound like a negative point, but it’s not the kind of story that needs fast-paced shootouts and high-budget actions scenes.  It’s a character piece as much as it is a cops and robbers film.  I did my best to stop mentioning ‘No Country For Old Men,’ but I have to say that if you enjoyed that, i.e. characters, settings and mood, then you should like this one too.  At least no one gets killed by a weird, portably hydraulic air-type pump thing.  Weird.

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

John Wick – mindless action fun

I think I’m a little late to the party on this one and I guess it must have cost me.  I’m an action-movie fan.  I grew up in the Arnie/Sly era of the eighties and I have plenty of mindless action flicks in my DVD collection – everything from ‘Commando’ to the mode recent ‘Shoot ‘em Up’ pleases me to a degree and Keanu Reeves pops up a fair times in my watchlist.  However, somehow his film where he plays the titular ‘John Wick’ slipped past me.  I’ve only just seen it after its sequel was released and, during that time, I’ve seen many a positive review saying how great it was.  Therefore, by the time I got round to watching it, my hopes were high.

I guess what happened is the reverse of when I watched ‘Sex Tape’ and the big screen adaptation of ‘The Dukes of Hazzard.’ Both had been absolutely slated by the critics so my expectations were suitably lowered by the time I saw them.  And, weirdly enough, I actually took some small amount of entertainment in both!  I’m not saying either were particularly good, but enjoyable enough if you were in the right mood.  This time, my hopes were so high, I found that what I got didn’t really live up to what I was expecting.  I was waiting for something truly revolutionary and different from anything I’d seen before.  What I got felt like just another action movie.

Don’t get me wrong – it’s not bad.  It was enjoyable enough, but it wasn’t anything I hadn’t seen before.  John Wick is a retired hitman who’s forced out of retirement when a baddie (played by 'Game of Throne's' Alfie Allen) kills his dog.  Yes, that’s basically the catalyst and motivation for the entire film.  What follows is your average (and I deliberately use the word ‘average’) rollercoaster of violence and revenge.  Everything you’d expect is there: gunfights are plentiful, there’s at least one car chase, a betrayal and eventually Wick comes face to face with the evil head honcho.  So it’s all there.  And it’s well done.  The violence (and there is violence – no PG13 here!) is believable and gritty and Keanu Reeves is always fun to watch (even when he’s trying to be moody and miserable he’s still that long-haired ‘bogus’ surfer-dude we all fell in love with back in the early nineties).  So, I can see how there’s much going for it.  I was just expecting more.  And that’s a shame really because my hopes were so high that, even though everything I like was – technically – there, I still came away with the feeling like it wasn’t that much of a big deal.  But, like I said earlier, a sequel has been made and I will definitely watch that, too.

At the end of the day, this film may not have entirely clicked with me, but I’m glad that Keanu Reeves is back in a decent franchise and it puts him back in the spotlight – maybe John Wick can team up with Liam Neeson in a Wick/Taken crossover? ;o)

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

Point Break – ‘Point-less’

I’m sorry, there must be tonnes of reviews out there that have used the ‘pointless’ pun.  I couldn’t help it.  It’s just too obvious.  In case you didn’t know, ‘Point Break’ is a classic action/cop movie of the nineties.  Therefore, because of its ‘classic’ status, it was deemed 'remakeable' by our good friends - those wonderful Hollywood executives.  Now, I like to think I’m not a ‘remake snob’ – there are arguments for remaking a film, normally if you have a fresh take on something, or if the film was made so long ago that people have practically forgotten the original.  However, ‘Point Break’ was only made in the nineties and is still pretty dear to many people – namely me.  I may be able to forgive this new version for anything other than a cynical cash-grab if the original source material was particularly outdated, but unfortunately the sad fact is that the (dare I say ‘proper?’) ‘Point Break’ still looks as good today as it ever did.

In case you don't know, both 'Point Breaks' are about a young FBI agent (Johnny Utah) who has to infiltrate a gang of bank robbers led by ‘Bodhi’ who indulge in extreme sports, in order to gain their trust and catch them, obviously.  Whereas the original had Keanu Reeves playing our FBI hero and Patrick Swayze as the lead robber, the new one has… er, actually I don’t know either of them.  I like to think I’m reasonably good with actors, but I’ve never seen either of these two in anything!  But, I won’t hold that against them.  I’ll save my disdain for the chemistry between pretty much everyone on screen.  Everyone just seemed to be trying too hard to steer away from what we already know about the film, but never really achieving it.  This new ‘Point Break’ incarnation is like a meteorite that’s got hopelessly trapped in a planet’s gravitational pull and is fighting against the odds in a losing battle to escape. 

The new ‘Point Break’ does its best to try and create something new.  The bank robbers don’t just surf like they do in the original and it’s set across multiple locations around the world, rather than just a single beach in America, but it’s simply not enough.  I’ve briefly touched upon the lack of chemistry between the lead characters, but this really becomes obvious when they try and throw in the obligatory ‘love interest’ in there for Johnny Utah the 2nd.  It’s truly painful.  Almost as bad as watching (the usually awesome) Ray Winstone as Johnny’s partner Angelo Pappas.  It’s just weird hearing these names again, only seeing different faces associated with them.

Believe it or not, I didn’t hate the remake.  It’s a decent enough film and, if you’re into anything from extreme sports to cops and robbers films, you’d probably get some entertainment out of it.  But there’s a MAJOR but.  This only applies if you’ve never seen the original.  If you’ve watched that you’ll be crying out for a slice of Reeves and Swayze.  So, if you haven’t already seen the original, go and watch that – it’s a true classic of its time which still holds up today.  Let the remake be a message to Hollywood that we’re not interested in seeing all our favourite movies redone just to make a quick buck.

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