Godzilla: King of the Monsters - Was hoping for so much more

I was looking forward to 2014's Hollywood take on 'Godzilla' (ignoring, as many of us did, their attempt at entering the franchise back in 1998 with that weird Mathew Broderick effort).  I'm not a huge Godzilla fan, but TV's 'Breaking Bad' had just ended and none other than the ever-awesome Bryan Cranston was cast to go up against the giant scaly beast.  However, that never really happned.  Cranston's character was not in the film for more than about half an hour.  The rest of the story was carried on by his bland as sand kid.

Not only that, but there was a hell of a lot of criticism regarding the fact that in a film entitled 'Godzilla,' you never properly saw him (at least until the final throw-down).  In quite a long film the producers mercilessly teased us as to what he'd look like, before we finally saw him head to toe. 

I mention all this about the first film because it wasn't just me who felt let down by it.  This tone of voice reached the film-makers, so they made sure they corrected their mistakes when it came to the sequel.

Now - believe it or not - Godzilla is in it more - not THAT much more, but he's in it more.  And, when he's not stomping on things in general or shooting blue fire up into the sky (he does that a lot, seemingly to announce his presence and to generally look cool) there's a whole horde of other giant beasts stomping their way around the globe.  And none of them are that friendly.  If you check out Godzilla's Facebook profile you won't find a single one of the other 'titans' on there.  So he has to fight them and prove that he's the king.

So, before you think this film is just going to be one long tale about giant beasts crashing their way through the world's cities and slugging each other the head, I should point out that someone decided to put a human or two on the cast list.  And, when I say 'one or two' I mean a whole load of annoying, erratic lunatics who do the craziest things in order to make sure that their lives are as terrorised as possible by giant, flesh-eating lizards and the like.  You may recognise Charles Dance as the bad guy.  He's motivated by being bad.  And Vera Farmiga in on the cast list.  She's the one making all the crazy decisions to destroy the world because it's the right thing to do, or something.

Basically, the humans are pretty dire and if I was watching this on DVD I'd be skipping a lot of stuff involving them, especially when we have the obligatory sub-plot of a father going off on a mission to rescue his daughter.

I liked bits of 'Godzilla: King of the Monsters.' I thought it could be fun.  And some parts were, especially a few classic set-piece monster fights.  However, for every five minutes of fun it was followed by twenty minutes of humans talking and arguing.  The film's over two hours long and it sure dragged when the humans were on the screen towards the end.

I hear that off the back of this one they'll be pitting Godzilla against King Kong next.  Just from that idea it sounds like it could be fun, but if they make it another two hour film and fill it with an hour and forty minutes of humans arguing, I really don't think I'll be watching this one.  It wasn't a complete waste of my time, but I don't think I'd be watching either Godzilla (2014/2019) again (although, for some weird reason, I did love 'Kong: Skull Island!').

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

Hardcore Henry - Probably the greatest film ever

Yes, it’s true, when historians look back at the finest works of art ever committed to celluloid, ‘Hardcore Henry’ will trump Citizen Cane, Empire Strikes Back and the Godfather.  Just kidding.  However, just because it won’t sweep the Oscars doesn’t mean that it’s not a blast.

First of all, before you decide whether or not to see it, let me ask you a question… do you know what an ‘FPS’ is?  If the answer is ‘no’ then you probably won’t agree with my – slightly flippant – opening comment about ‘Hardcore Henry’ being the greatest film ever.  If you do know that ‘FPS’ is a computer-gaming term referring to ‘first person shooters’ then you’ll probably be aware that the entire film is shot through the eyes of the titular ‘Henry’ – a genetically-enhanced human who has the skills (and firepower) to shoot, blast and kick his way through hordes of faceless enemy goons (oh, and one telekinetic ‘end-of-level’ boss).

Basically, this ‘film’ (and I put ‘film’ deliberately in quotes) plays out like one long computer game (or ‘FPS’ I should say).  It has minimal story and character development, simply moving from one breath-taking set-piece to the next.  So, if you’re looking for deep and meaningful story-telling, then best you look somewhere else.  This plays out like one long music video, relaying on special effects and awesome stunts to wow the audience – as long as you’re aware of this (and possibly have a healthy appreciation for the FPS genre) then you should be entertained.  Oh, and just because Henry stays mute throughout the whole film, doesn’t mean that there isn’t some pretty snappy and hilarious dialogue courtesy of the (ever reliable) Sharlto Copely.

And ‘entertained’ is the word.  This film’s selling points is its stunts, not its story.  And it is a landmark achievement in film-making, if not storytelling.  It really is well-done when you consider that it’s trying to tell a story using a silent main character and shot entirely from his point of view.  Basically, ‘Hardcore Henry’ isn’t Shakespeare, it’s just good, daft, action-packed fun.  And, if you’re aware of this, you should enjoy its pure over-the-top silliness, shooting and stunts.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master - Freddy at his best

You’ll notice that I say ‘Freddy’ at his best. In Part 4 of the popular horror franchise, Robert Englund gets top billing and for a reason… he’s definitely the best part of the film. He’s back as the undead child-killer who attacks teenagers in their dreams and this time… well, who cares, right?

By Part 4 of any horror franchise you pretty much know the set-up. Teens. They dream. They die. It’s all pretty standard. However, as I mentioned, what makes it worth seeing is Freddy. He’s truly deliciously evil, obviously revelling in his own grisly performance. Plus (and I always thought this aspect elevated the Freddy films over the ‘Jason films’) because the death scenes happen in a ‘dream world’ they are always a lot more imaginative and fun than simply seeing a man in a hockey mask chopping a semi-naked teen up.

Personally, I enjoy seeing Freddy have fun and ‘mess’ with his victims. I think it makes him more evil. However, some long-standing fans of the franchise felt that Freddy was getting too ‘comical’ to be taken seriously. That’s one opinion, but I disagree.

Basically, Nightmare 4 is worth a look if you’re a fan of the franchise or like cheesy eighties horror films. Just don’t expect great acting from anyone other than Englund. The other actors really don’t seem to be up to the job (or, to be fair on them, this fault could lie with the writers/director) and recite their stilted dialogue with all the conviction of a cheap daytime soap. But then I don’t watch this film for them. It’s Freddy all the way.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Us - Don't think, just enjoy it

'Us' is the second film written and directed by Jordan Peele (the first being the awesomely-creepy 'Get Out') and I was pretty interested by what I'd heard online about his new film.  A family goes on vacation, only to get stalked and attacked by an identical family - in every way!

I was going to see it no matter what, but I never got round to watching it in the cinema.  However, from various online sources, not only did I get the impression that it was one of those films that people either absolutely loved or really despised, but also I basically learned the entire plot - practically beat for beat.  So, by the time it came for me to watch it on the small screen, I knew everything that was going to happen, including the overall premise as to what was occurring in this unsettling world I was witnessing.

However, even though I'd deliberately removed all forms of 'mystique' from what was going on in the film, I still enjoyed it.  Even though I sound like a bit of a hypocrite, I would recommend NOT finding too much about the plot before watching it.  I've already given the briefest of synopsis and that should be all you'll need.

'Us' is a bit of a 'mish-mash' of genres.  Overall it's a horror and, if you're looking into more of a 'sub-genre,' you could call it a 'home invasion' movie.  However, this 'sub-genre' then changes into yet more variants of the overall horror theme.

The main cast are all believable as a unit and play off each other nicely and you won't question that these are a group of people who have lived (and put up with!) each other for many years.

What I liked about the film was the premise.  Yes, it borrows from many sources, but the overall theme of what was really happening was original enough for me to really appreciate as something new and not a topic that had been done before (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!).  Of course it's not perfect.  One of the main reasons I saw people online saying it was far inferior to 'Get Out' was its lack of answers to some questions.

Like I say, the plot is pretty original, but with it brings many things you could ask yourself about how this all came to be.  The film doesn't offer any answers and you could well not come up with any feasible ones yourself if you ponder too long on it.

However, almost all films require a certain element of 'suspension of disbelief' when it comes to enjoying them.  For any horror fan out there who wants something a little different, just make sure you're in a forgiving mood and settle in for a really creepy premise which is well worth a watch.

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

Dark Shadows - The jury's out 

I like Tim Burton, I like Johnny Depp and I like vampires. Hence Dark Shadows was always going to be something I watched. The film is based on a little-known TV show where Depp plays a vampire who's been buried alive for two hundred years and awoken in the seventies, where he tries to rebuild his family's fortunes while fending off the witch who originally buried him.

Having watched the film, I'm still kind of in two minds whether I liked it or now. There were some bits that were really good. If you've seen anything by Tim Burton, you'll either love or hate his gothic fairytale style (which is, once again, evident here). Depp, as usual, puts in a good performance. However, it seems he's trying a little hard to be different with some not particularly good dialogue. A lot of his `acting' in this involves him waving his fingers in a semi-threatening manner.

I couldn't work out whether the film is trying to be a comedy or a drama, but with horror elements thrown in there as well (and a kind of `action' end standoff/battle). The film seems to lurch from one genre to another. There are some funny moments utilising the fact that Depp doesn't understand the world he's now living in, but they're few and far between.

I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure how. Just like I'm not sure I'd be in much of a hurry to see it again. It's even left slightly open for a sequel, however with the mixed reviews (which now, having seen the film, I can fully understand) it's probably in some doubt whether there's any more Dark Shadows to come.

Although, it was great to see Alice Cooper rocking out in a film again!

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

The Last King of Scotland - Whitaker kills it (in so many ways!)

I don't know how much of 'The Last King of Scotland's' 'story' is based on real life, i.e. how a young, impressionable doctor from Scotland is taken under the wing of one of the most dangerous dictators of recent decades, but, to be honest, I don't care.  Whether the story is 'real' or not (and how many Hollywood films are that true to life these days?) it doesn't really matter.  What is important here is the portrayal Forest Whitaker gives as the Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin.

James McAvoy is the young doctor who, unhappy with simply tending to little old ladies in Scotland, thinks he can do more good for those with less access to medicine in the impoverished Uganda.  However, no disrespect to him or his acting ability, but he gets outshone at every turn by Forest Whitaker's 'larger-than-life' portrayal as Amin.  In short, this is Whitaker's film, even though he's - technically - not in it as much as other actors.

I think Whitaker's strength is just how amazingly charming he is.  Yes, most of us going into this film know enough about the real Idi Amin to know that he was responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths among his own people.  Therefore, this is going to be one hell of a 'baddie' who we're automatically going to hate.  Yet we don't.  And that, as much as we probably don't like to admit it, is what happens in real life.  If you look at some of the worst people in history (Charles Manson, Ted Bundy to name but a couple who spring to mind) the one thing that links them (besides their evil deeds) is that they came across as charming, nice people who others could relate to.  How else would they be able to go so long unnoticed and get away with what they were really doing for so long?

Like I say, I don't care if this story is completely made up.  It's a character portrayal of a man who used his charm and public persona to rise to the top and they prove how much power can then corrupt absolutely.  And for Forest Whitaker's performance this film deserves to be watched.  Maybe if it does have a fault it's that the story never really tells you much about Amin's backstory.  It just presents him as the ruler and yet never really goes into much detail as to how he got where he was.

Oh and Gillian Anderson is in it, too.  But you may just forget about her input completely - again, no criticism on her acting ability, but her character is never really fleshed-out and - again - Whitaker is who we'll all be focusing on.  There's a reason Forest Whitaker won 'Best Actor' at the Oscars for his performance.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Carjacked - Not as bad as some make out

Just before I wrote this review, I looked up Carjacked on IMDb and happened to notice some of the reviews on there. Pretty much all of them gave it 1/10! Now, I'm not going to say that Carjacked is a classic or that it offers anything that you haven't really seen before, but I would stress that it's a lot better than a 1/10.

Single mother Maria Bello stops off for petrol (or `gas' as they say in America) and gets carjacked by Stephen Dorff, taking her and her son hostage. What follows is basically a `cat and mouse' sort of situation where she tries to protect her son and/or escape at the same time.

There you have it - nothing new. However, it's still not as bad as a 1/10. All three lead actors play their parts well. Special mention to Stephen Dorff who flits between charming and psychotic quite nicely. Mario Bello does her best to escape, but, as is pointed out at the beginning of the film, has a history of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, so that kind of excuses some of her subsequent bad decisions she makes throughout the rest of the movie. Even the kid, who is naturally squeaky clean, is actually not totally unlikeable and annoying (like most kids in films).

So, there you have it, nothing new, but nothing bad. Although I probably wouldn't watch it again any time soon, it kept me entertained for an hour and a half.

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