The 15:17 to Paris – Know what you’re getting

I have to confess I didn’t research this film to any great extent before I sat down to watch it.  However, the two things I did know – mainly courtesy of all marketing – was that it was based on the true story of three men who foil a terrorist attack on a train and that it was directed by Clint Eastwood.  Both seemed like equally good reasons to watch the film.  And – technically – both of those statements are correct.  However, I guess because the promotional material seemed to focus so much on the ‘terrorist attack’ that I expected something more like ‘Under Siege 2’ or ‘The Commuter’ than what I got.

The film starts off with the three Americans as young boys and shows us how they meet.  First of all I wasn’t that impressed with the acting ability of the boys and was quite pleased when this segment ended.  Then we get our first glimpse of what’s to come, i.e. something bad happening on a busy commuter train in Europe.  And then we’re back to the boys again.  Only now they’re young men and we see what they’re doing once they’ve left education.  Only we mainly just focus on one of the three.  The other two seem to get relegated into secondary characters.  Cue another flash-forward to the terrifying events on the train and we get back to the men travelling round Europe.  Then the bit on the train happens.  Then the film ends.

Now, you may think I’m being quite cynical and scathing towards the film, but I did actually enjoy it.  I just thought it was going to be something it wasn’t.  Once the child-actors are out of the way the adults take over and they’re all decent enough heroes who you find yourself able to root for.  Clint Eastwood’s direction is nothing special, but it’s functional approach works well with the subject matter, i.e. overly-stylish camerawork and effects would seem well over the top and out of place in this film.

It’s not a bad film, but I think any audience needs to know that what they’re sitting down for is some sort of drama about regular guys (who then happen to get caught up in a terrorist attack).  If you go in expecting ‘Die Hard on a train’ then you’re going to leave thoroughly disappointed.  It’s a slow, character-driven piece that is deliberately underwhelming in order to show how real life terrorist attacks differ to the Hollywood representation.  If you’re in the mood for something slow, serious and with meaning then you should enjoy this.

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

Now You See Me 2 – A trick too far

The original ‘Now You See Me’ film was an incredibly enjoyable affair.  It was possibly one of the finest examples of how, if you were willing to suspend your disbelief to epic levels, you really could have a great time watching it.  It was Hollywood glitz and popcorn-munching fun all the way through.  The – A-list – cast was perfect and played off each other brilliantly, depicting a quartet of modern day Robin Hood-style magicians who stole from the rich and corrupted through the use of their dazzling illusions and, in turn, gave back to the poor.  I suppose its success basically guaranteed a sequel would be greenlit.  And, where I do give the film credit for doing its best to follow-on closely from the events in the first outing, this time round it’s just too unbelievable to be convincing – no matter how hard you try to suspend your disbelief.

I really wanted to like this film – and I guess I did.  There were plenty of neat moments here and there, it’s just I wanted to like it a LOT.  And I didn’t.  The story picks up a little while after the events of the first one and the most noticeable difference for me was the fact that Isla Fisher hasn’t returned this time round.  She’s therefore instantly replaced by another female magician who slots into the team a little too well.  Then we get to the meat of the story where the twists and turns start to overtake general common sense and credibility.

The rest of the cast return, but the main newcomer is Daniel Radcliffe who entraps the magicians in an attempt to use their collective skills to steal something for him.  And, as I mentioned, the ‘magic’ set-pieces are indeed well-filmed and cool to watch.  However, the story just doesn’t add up.  One of the main complaints from the first one was the ‘twist’ which left some viewers feeling a little short-changed.  Here, the film tries to ‘out-twist’ the original by taking the story in all sorts of directions which leave you truly confused as to who is on who’s side and who is trying to double-cross who.

I know that part of the fun with watching magicians perform is trying to guess how the trick is done.  With the first film you could just about believe that the feats they carry out could just about be actually real if all the circumstances were just right.  In the sequel, everything feels a little cheap as you naturally try to predict how they accomplish these feats, only to find out that the ways they do them are tantamount impossible.

Overall, it’s an enjoyable enough film, but it does try to be a little too clever for its own good and therefore ends up being too unbelievable to be credible.

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

The Brothers Grimsby – Not as bad as you’ve heard

I recently watched an online survey video on Youtube about the stars who had – in their words – ‘lost their shine.’ I was surprised to see that Sacha Baron Cohen’s name was on there, largely to do with ‘The Brothers Grimsby’ (or just ‘Grimsby’ in some cases).  I saw the trailer in the cinema and it looked pretty funny (doesn’t it always?), but couldn’t see that it was destined to bomb.

It’s sort of a ‘buddy-cop’ film where a pair of mismatched individuals have to work together in order to solve X, Y or Z.  In this case, we have a pair of mismatched spies – one (Baron Cohen) is a slob from Grimsby, while the other is his long lost younger brother who is now a genuine suave, super-spy (Mark Strong).  Now, I’m a big fan of the pair of them and was looking forwards to seeing how they interact on the big screen, plus I own pretty much ever Sacha Baron Cohen film to date. However, now I’ve watched it, I can see why it didn’t do him any favours.

I’d say that the first third is probably the best section of the film.  It is genuinely funny and there were a fair few ‘laugh out loud’ moments.  It centres on the pair of brothers meeting and the set-up for their mission established.  And, yes, Baron Cohen and Strong do play off each other well (in fact, I swear there are some shots which had to be cut short due to Mark Strong trying not to laugh at his co-star’s antics!).  The film feels like an extended episode of ‘Shameless’ (only with more stylised gunplay) and works best when it’s actually set in Grimsby itself (although I do wonder what the real residents of Grimsby will make of the way they’re being portrayed on screen!).

Unfortunately, the action moves away from the titular town and begins to traverse the globe.  This is where things start unravelling.  There are still funny moments and many do land, however it’s not half as slick as its opening.  This wouldn’t be too bad if it wasn’t for the fact that the film includes between 1-3 (depending on your opinion) moments that are simply too over-the-top.  I was happy to suspend my disbelief in order to make the plot/gags work, but sometimes things go too far – as if Baron Cohen is trying too hard to shock in order to get laughs.  These bits stick out as annoying and just cringe-worthy in a film which is actually reasonably solid.

I enjoyed the film, simply because more parts of it worked that didn’t.  However, as I mentioned, due to those few scenes which just stick in your mind for all the wrong reasons, I can see how it won’t have helped Sacha baron Cohen’s star remain sparkling.

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

Den of Thieves – Better than I could possibly imagine

I didn’t expect much when I sat down to watch ‘Den of Thieves.’ Gerard Butler’s Box Office draw has long since faded and there were no other major stars attached.  All I knew was that the film was ‘long’ (well over two hours) and I even pictured myself walking out about half way if it really didn’t grab me.  Luckily, I was hooked long before the middle of the film!

If you’re bored of your typical ‘cops and robbers’ film, then this one does its best to be a little original.  The two things that stood out for me were the facts that it wasn’t so much ‘cops and robbers,’ as it was ‘bad cops and bad robbers.’ Seriously, the police didn’t act that much better than those who were robbing from banks in L.A. and gunning down anyone who tried to stop them.  The second thing was that normally this kind of film just concentrates on the cops who are out to catch the villains.  However, this time it felt like the robbers got equal screen time to those out to thwart them.  In fact, Gerard Butler was about the only officer of the law who you really got to know (out of his squad of about six men).  You actually got to see a lot more of the robbers’ home life and therefore understood their motivations (on top of just getting rich!).

I don’t want to give away too much of the plot, but you get the sense that this could go either way.  Will the robbers get their big score?  Will there be a twist or turn in the proceedings and, of course, who will make it out alive?  It is pretty violent, so expect a fair few scenes of torture, gunplay and general foul behaviour (and that’s just from the police!).

If the film does have a flaw then it’s the length.  I mentioned it was well over two hours and, although a lot of this is spent on establishing the characters, there are a few scenes (all of which involving Gerard Butler’s on-screen family) which drag and really do slow the pace down.  In some places I was just desperate for the bank-robbing portion of the story to start up again.  However, that’s a minor gripe.  I totally intend to buy this on DVD when it comes out and therefore may just skip those few scenes which I felt don’t really add that much.  Ultimately, if you’re looking for an excellent and action-packed, gritty cop thriller then this one will definitely keep you entertained.  Gerard Butler seems to have found his feet again after that awful ‘London Has Fallen’ nonsense!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

The World's End - Good fun (but not classic Pegg/Frost)

‘The World’s End’ marks the last (?) in the ‘blood and cornettos’ trilogy (aka Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and now this), but it has been the least well-received of the three.  Instead of horror or action, now the team behind the films parody science fiction.  It’s about five forty-something men who decide to attempt a ‘legendary’ pub crawl which they failed at during their youth.  However, this – unfortunately – coincides with a most sinister alien presence that’s started to take over their town.

The first thing I found was that it wasn’t as funny as the previous two.  Therefore, I was in the process of NOT enjoying it that much, until about half way through when the ‘character-building’ part of the tale ended and the action really kicked off.  About halfway through when the evil reveals itself, the film changes gear and moves away from (attempted?) humour to action and science fiction.

I kind of felt it worked a lot better as sci-fi rather than comedy.  Plus, whereas we’re used to seeing the film’s star – Simon Pegg – as a usual bumbling but lovable character, here he breaks form and comes across as a bit of an insufferable berk.  He’s actually pretty annoying for most of the first half, but luckily tones it down for the second leg.

Basically, if you’re hoping for something equally humorous as ‘Shaun’ and ‘Fuzz’ then you probably won’t find it here.  However, if you’re a fan of action and sci-fi then the second half will probably save it for you and tick all your boxes.

It’s also worth noting that a lot of people disapproved of the ending.  I certainly thought it was bold if nothing else!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Serial Mom – It is what it is

‘Serial Mom’ and ‘Snakes on a Plane.’ Two films that – technically – shouldn’t really ever be compared to each other because they’re so radically-different.  However, maybe the one thing they do have in common (besides sharing space in my DVD collection) is that they basically tell you all you need to know about the film in the title, therefore you should know what you’re in for before you sit down to watch.

Kathleen Turner plays the titular ‘Serial Mom’ – a wife and mother to a typical American suburban family who, on the outside, are perfect in every way.  But, the family’s ‘dark secret’ is clearly apparent in the title.  She takes pleasure in messing with some people and even killing others.

And, like ‘Snakes on a Plane,’ once you’ve given what little elaboration of the title is needed, there’s not an awful lot left to say.  If you’re looking for an – extremely – black comedy then you’ll definitely find one here.  Kathleen Turner is brilliantly evil, but don’t expect too much in the way of backstory as to why she’s like the way she is.  This film was made in the early nineties and I reckon that if something similar was produced today then we’d get a detailed backstory as to why she does what she does.

Either way, the film is – as I said – darkly comic and kind of pokes fun of the media reaction of the day (again, if this film was remade then expect all sorts of internet-related jibes involving the social media reaction to such events becoming public).

Oh, and if you ever watched Ricky Lake’s talk show then you’ll be surprised at what she used to look like before she had a studio audience standing behind her!

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

Downsizing – Big concept, downsized execution

‘Downsizing’ looked really good from the trailer.  Yes, don’t all films?  It’s about – believe it or not – a world where, if you want to decrease your carbon footprint and get more for your money, you can be shrunk to a mere five inches tall and (effectively) live in a doll’s house-like world with your friends and loved ones.  I know the premise is a little ‘out there,’ but Matt Damon is the lead and it looked really funny.  And it nearly was. 

The film had two major stumbling points for me.  I was quite happy to suspend my disbelief in order to accept the plot.  However, the first fault came because I’d seen the trailer.  The film almost feels like two stories rolled into one.  The first half is basically the trailer, only full-length.  Therefore, if, like me, you’ve seen the trailer, then you’ve basically seen the entire first half of the movie – i.e. no shocks, surprises or new gags to come.

Then, at roughly the halfway mark, it feels like a completely different writer took over control.  The film ditches ninety per cent of its established characters and brings in a load of new ones.  Not only this, but the whole film feels weirdly-different from everything that’s set it up beforehand.  The first half is like a quirky romantic comedy and the second turns into a deep drama with heady political messages about the environment.

Matt Damon is likeable enough in the lead and if you’re a huge fan of his then you’ll enjoy it.  The supporting cast all do their best, but it’s the writing of the secondary characters that lets them down – they individual character arcs all seem totally unbelievable.  It’s like Darth Vader suddenly turning good halfway through the first ‘Star Wars’ film.

Also, was it just me or did the special effects seem a little on the cheap-looking?  With a story involving tiny people interacting with normal-sized people you’d expect them to blend the two seamlessly.  However, much of it looked very ‘blue-screen’ esque.

I know I’m sounding quite negative about it all, but, believe it or not, it is quite fun.  There are definitely good jokes that land in there (well, mainly the first half) so it’s not all bad.  I just wished that it had chosen one particular genre and stuck with it, rather than trying to be everything all at once.

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