Edge of Tomorrow - Bill Murray never had to go through this

Okay, let’s get the ‘Groundhog Day’ comparisons out the way straight away.  Ever since Groundhog Day was released, any other film that has based its premise around a single day repeating itself has been compared to it (i.e. Repeaters, Source Code, that episode from the X-files and so on).

This time we have aliens invading the Earth in the near future, but, just like that load of extraterrestrial nasties in Oblivion and War of the Worlds, they didn’t figure on us humble earthlings having Tom Cruise on our side.  And he’s on cracking alien-slaughtering form.  He may start out like a bit of a wimp – merely a disgraced army media spokesperson, forced to fight the xenomorphs on the frontlines.  However, a freak accident means he acquires the power to restart the day every time he dies, meaning he gets one hell of a ‘heads-up’ on our invading monsters.

Naturally, Tom doesn’t have to go it alone and soon recruits the highest-decorated soldier to help him out.  And, just as naturally, the highest-decorated soldier just so happens to be a super-fit baddass  chick, played by Emily Blunt.  So, the two of them have to replay the day until they finally come up with a way of saving the Earth (and most likely getting together for good measure).

And it’s a pretty good ride.  I guess the main audience for it will be sci-fi films (dare I say men?).  It’s actually more intelligent that it sounds and there are a number of different aspects to the story that make it more than just an ‘action version of Groundhog Day.’ Also, it does play out a bit like a sci-fi version of a war film (think Saving Private Ryan, but with monsters), so you may have to appreciate war films, too.

Tom and Emily undoubtedly carry the film.  It’s their chemistry that makes it.  It’s good to see Tom gradually get to know her day by day, only for her to completely forget who he is when the day resets.

If I had to pick one flaw in the film it’s the aliens themselves.  You never really get much of a look at them.  Yes, they’re pretty horrid – fast moving squid-like things, but, because they’re computer-generated and so damn speedy, they move in a blur and you never really get much of a look at them as they tend to kill the cast before we can take stock of their real form.

However, that’s a minor point.  Basically, if you either like Tom Cruise, sci-fi in general, or just a big-budget summer blockbuster that actually makes you think, then give it a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Oculus - Competent little horror

‘Oculus’ is actually pretty entertaining as far as horror movies go... for the most part.  But then if a modern horror movie can maintain its status as ‘pretty entertaining’ even for just half the film then it’s probably a cut above most of today’s horror offerings.

The story centres on the same family, but bounces back and forth between two timelines – one when the central brother and sister characters were young and living with their parents and the ‘modern day’ period where they’re now grown up and recounting what they remembered.  Basically, when they were young, their family came into possession of a creepy old antique mirror.  Once the artefact was in their house, their lives promptly fell apart.  Now, the two kids have grown up, they are determined to rid the world of this mirror once and for all.

So why don’t they just smash it?  I hear you say.  Well, they can’t.  It’s apparently beyond just taking a hammer to.  However, the brother and sister spend much of their time debating whether the mirror was truly responsible for all the bad things in their life, or whether they just imagined it through childhood high spirits and an overactive imagination.

And, while that’s happening, everything is pretty good.  It’s not terrifying or bloodthirsty, but then it’s not supposed to be.  It’s designed to make you wonder whether there is a rational explanation for everything that transpired all those years ago, rather than a supernatural one.  And this is where the film’s strength lies.  It’s pretty good at making you doubt the obvious explanation (whether your ‘obvious’ explanation is supernatural or natural – it gives both sides equal credence), plus the characters behave in ways you’d expect, i.e. setting up plenty of cameras to gather evidence of any supernatural doings/threats.

However, it does fall down a bit in the last act, relying on cheap scares and obvious shocks, plus the constant swapping of timelines gets a little hard to follow at times.  But that’s not so bad – there’s still enough here that’s entertaining and there’s some pretty creepy and unsettling imagery to turn your stomach.

In a vast sea of forgettable horror movies, this one may stay with you a little longer than most.

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

Never Say Never Again - A Bond too far

Yes, we all love Sean Connery's Bond. However, age gets to us all and we really should know when to call it a day. Shame on you Mr Connery. Yes, you're still a cool old guy, but you should have known better. Connery hadn't been in the Bond character for some years and was lured back for this one which, due to technical and legal reasons, isn't considered part of the `official' Bond saga.

It's not even an original story, being a remake of the not-so-spectacular `Thunderball.' But, worst of all, is that Connery is starting to show his age. He's looking less like the dashing rogue we saw in Dr No and more like your uncle at a wedding.

Yes, there's some action, some fights and car chases, but it just doesn't feel like a proper Bond film. All the cast have been replaced as the producers weren't allowed to use the `proper' M, Q and Miss Moneypenny. Plus - and unforgive able in my opinion - is the lack of the `Bond theme' every time the action gets going.

The whole thing has a `Bond-made-for-TV' feel to it. If you're a die hard fan of Bond and are craving one last Connery outing then you'll probably get something out of it. However, if you're casual fan of the franchise then you can probably afford to give this one a miss.

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

Abduction - The Bourne Identity (for early teens) 

I don't know whether I should be ashamed for liking this film or not. There's absolutely nothing new here that you haven't already seen (assuming you've been consuming a basic diet of Hollywood mainstream movies for the last two decades like I have).

Abduction is about a boy Taylor Lautner (from Twilight fame) who discovers he is suddenly on the run from a group of baddies (you know the type - foreign accents, plenty of disposable henchmen and can only shoot bottles when firing machine guns at a teenager). Um, that's about it really. Taylor gets chased here, Taylor gets chased there, hooks up with a pretty young girl with big eyebrows along the way - that sort of thing.

However, Abduction's big difference is that, instead of an adult being hunted by baddies who can't shoot straight (or overpower a fifteen year old), it's the afore-mentioned fifteen year old. And, baring in mind that there's minimal violence (defined by a lack of the red stuff when people get shot), this film is largely aimed at mid teens. It has plenty of pop culture references to Lady Gaga and Facebook that will amuse their generation.

I couldn't really think of anything wrong with it. Okay, I've seen it all before and it ticks all boxes. It's not a classic, but it's entertaining enough.

If you haven't seen this type of sinister-conspiracy-CIA-chase-type-film before, you'll probably love it and give it 5/5 (or just someone from `Team Jacob').

If however, you grew up collecting the original Star Wars toys and can remember when Transformers had nothing to do with Michael Bay, you may feel like it's Beverly Hills 90210 mixed with Jason Bourne and your score will be more around the 3/5 mark.

Maybe I'm just a child at heart. I actually appreciated it for a piece of silly, chase-orientated action entertainment. Plus it had Sigourney Weaver in it - and Ripley rocks.

Give it a go. There's worse out there (Michael Bay, are you reading this?)

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

Freeway (1996) – He’ll huff and he’ll puff

‘Freeway’ came out in 1996 and somehow I completely missed it.  Either it never got a particularly promoted theatrical or VHS release, or it just wasn’t very popular in the UK.  So, when I sat down to watch a film that was basically twenty years old, I wondered how it would hold up after all that time.  I was pleased to say that I was actually quite impressed.

‘Freeway’ (believe it or not) is actually based on the fairytale ‘Little Red Riding Hood.’ Now, that’s not just what the critics said about it when they were trying to fish for ‘deeper meaning’ in what is technically a drama/thriller-type film which spans numerous genres.  It’s actually highly prominent that this film is based on the fable right from the start when we see a character watching a retelling of the story on TV.  For the first twenty minutes or so, the two stories almost align completely (albeit in a much more ‘adult’ nature)... We have Reese Witherspoon in a red leather jacket as ‘Vanessa Lutz,’ a teenager who comes from a broken home with a drug addict for a mother and a step-father who’s intentions towards his adopted daughter are hardly benign.  When the pair of them are arrested, she has no one to look after her apart from her grandmother.  Therefore she sets off on a road trip across the state in order to see her relative.

Of course no ‘Red Riding Hood’ tale would be complete without the ‘Big Bad Wolf.’ Here, he’s perfectly played by Kiefer Sutherland as ‘Bob Wolverton’ (do you see the pun there in his name?).  He offers her a ride when her car breaks down and we find that she’s been picked up by the only man who has lower morals than her step-dad.

Like I say, that’s basically the first half.  The second part does tend to start moving away from the source material.  I’m guessing there’s hardly enough to be drawn out into an hour and a half, so the film-makers certainly take even more creative liberties with what they’ve got to work with (the ‘Red Riding Hood’ aspect comes back again towards the end of the film).

‘Freeway’ still stands up today, simply because of the gusto both leads put into their performances.  It’s clear that they’re both enjoying what they’ve got to work with and are giving it their all.  Personally, I found some of the plot (in the latter half) a little bit far-fetched, but when the inspiration is a fairytale, I guess you can hardly expect 100% total realism.  But that’s just a minor grip. ‘Freeway’ spans multiple genres, but if you’re into suspending your disbelief to enjoy a thriller which realise does utilise its stars to the max, give this one a go.

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

The Hole (2001) – Hole in the plot?

‘The Hole’ is one of those films that is good to watch, if you don’t think too deeply about it.  Ironically, this could be considered slightly contradictory to the film’s nature, as it does actually try and be smarter than the average horror.  But, then again, it’s not really horror, just like it’s not really a teen drama, or slasher film, but something that’s a bit of a hybrid of all those genres.

It’s set in a well-to-do English boarding school where four pupils decide not to go home for half term, but instead to party on down in an abandoned, er, hole – w ell, it’s some sort of underground bunker-type-thing where they can lock themselves away from the rest of the world and do all those naughty things that teenagers do.

All of this is orchestrated by Liz (Thora Birch, sporting a just about passable English accent).  She wants her mates Geoff and Frankie (Laurence Fox and a then pretty unknown Keira Knightley) to help her get it on with the most popular guy in their year, American hunk Mike (Desmond Harrington).  Unfortunately, he’s not just her ‘crush,’ but her whole reason for living.  And she’ll do almost anything to get him.  And that means anything, even if it’s to the detriment of everyone around her.

I won’t go into the details of the plot and what happens down there, as there are plenty of twists and turns – some of which that you might not see coming.  I mentioned earlier that ‘The Hole’ tries to be clever.  The police get involved in what went on down there and the kids are questioned and the film then tells the same story more than once, only from different perspectives. 

I also mentioned in the title that there may be the odd (pun intended) plothole in ‘The Hole.’ This comes in terms of the official investigation and things do tend to need an air of coincidence to make all plans succeed.  Plus some of the police do seem a little conveniently inept at times.

However, I watched ‘The Hole’ in the cinema back when it was released and I was certainly entertained.  Since then I watch it again every few years and there’s definitely rewatch value in it.  Especially now you can most likely find it on various online streaming services.  Give it a go – it may not be quite a clever as it wants to be, but it is certainly an entertaining adult drama/thriller.

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

The Hangover Part II (2011) - A review of The Hangover Part 1...oh, wait, it's Part 2 actually 

If you haven't seen the Hangover (Part 1) then Part 2 follows the same characters as they, again, wake up after a heavy night with no memory of what happened and plenty of new problems to deal with as a result of it. If you HAVE seen the Hangover (Part 1) then you've basically seen the second one too.

A lot of review of Part 2 use phrases like, `The Hangover Part 2 uses the same jokes, just cranked up to 11.' I sort of agree. Part 2 isn't a bad film; it's quite funny actually, its main problem is just that it doesn't offer anything new.

The writers (if you can call them that) have basically taken the script to Part 1, photocopied it, changed the locations and (very) slightly adjusted the jokes and sold it to the studios as a sequel. If fact, it's probably not best described as a `sequel,' a `remake' might be a better label. I wonder if the writers did it on purpose, i.e. keep the situations identical in a hope that lightning would strike twice. For me, as every new crazy moment passed, I just couldn't believe how similar it was. It became almost weird just how copied it was. In the end it kind of detracted from the story as all I had to do was think back to what happened next in Part 1 to know what was coming in Part 2.

That said, Part 2 is okay if you liked the first and basically want more of the same silliness. It's just a shame the makers didn't wait a little longer and come up with something just a little bit fresher.
The monkey is cool though. Just don't let him near your water bottle. 

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