It (2017 remake) – A competent little remake

I suppose my enjoyment on the 2017 remake of Stephen King’s classic novel ‘It’ is based on two things (1) the fact that I’m very familiar with the original film adaptation and (2) I saw it a few weeks after it came out in the cinema, therefore I’d already been exposed to the numerous positive reviews claiming that, in a summer of lackluster Box Office performances, It ‘saved’ the summer’s takings.  However, once I left the cinema, I was left a little disappointed.  I’m not saying that I hated the film, just that it didn’t – quite – live up to expectations.

It’s about seven youngsters who discover an evil creature has been stalking and killing kids throughout the history of their town and need to survive the summer holidays before it gets them, too (think ‘Stand By Me’ but with a monster).  Films with children as the leads do sometimes tend to struggle, however, I’m pleased to say that all the youngsters rise to the occasion and perform admirably and you’ll have no problem believing that this band of self-confessed ‘losers’ would hang out in real life.

Despite all the kids being good at what they do, there are seven of them and a couple seem to get overshadowed and pushed to the back burners.  I know the original source material had seven, so they had to kind of keep to that template, but a couple could have quite easily been left out.  I think the one girl of the group, Beverly, (played by Sophia Lillis) is the stand out star and probably one to watch for future films.

But, no matter how good the kids are, most people are there to see the monster – aka ‘Penniewise’ the clown.  He was made famous by Tim Curry’s excellent performance in the original and many wondered how this could be topped.   Despite some people objecting to how the clown looks now (yes, he’s slightly different, but no less scary), the major difference is how he acts.  He isn’t as vocal as Tim Curry was.  Curry was constantly gabbling his jibberish while stalking the youngsters.  This time Penniewise relies more on transformations to intimidate his prey.  However, this links nicely into the involvement of the special effects which are used well to convey the dread Penniewise inspires in his victims prior to killing them and feasting on their fear.

I guess my major gripes came with the fact that it stuck a little too closely to the original, therefore I kind of knew who lived and who died, therefore taking away any worry I felt when one of the kids was in danger.  Plus, as I’ve already said, it’s quite a long film (or it seemed like that to me!).  By ‘long’ I mean that I felt like it should have ended numerous times before it actually did.  I kept expecting the screen to fade to black and people start leaving the cinema, only for it to start up again and continue. 

But, ultimately, it was still a pretty watchable film.  I can actually see the point in remaking this classic horror flick.  I guess it’s probably not really meant for me, as the original Tim Curry version will always be my ‘It.’ However, I can see new audiences who have never watched the audience really enjoying it (as other reviews suggest).

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

Spectre – Operatic 007

You need to know that I’m writing this review never truly warming to the tone the Bond franchise took post Brosnan.  I preferred the happy-go-lucky Bonds of the past compared to this new ‘darker’ Bond for the 2000s.  However, I learned to appreciate that ‘Casino Royale’ was actually a good film.  It wasn’t what I’d call a ‘Bond film’ but it was a decent spy thriller. ‘Quantum of Solace’ just seemed to be an ‘add-on’ to ‘Casino Royale,’ but I felt that the series was taking a few tips from the past by injecting a little ore humour into ‘Skyfall,’ therefore making it the best of the trio (in my opinion).  Now, having sat through Craig’s latest turn as the invincible superspy, I feel that it was a hard watch. 

Yes, it retained a little humour which I did appreciate and the action was there.  It was just the direction which seems to irk me.  The previous film (and my favourite you may remember!) was directed by our own Sam Mendes who I thought did a great job.  Therefore I was a bit surprised when I didn’t like his style any more.  The closest I can describe it as was when Homer Simpson ran a plough business and tried to boost his sales by making a pretentious black and white advertisement which had loud operatic music, beautiful women and no relation at all to the service he was providing.  This is what I felt when watching many long drawn out scenes in ‘Spectre.’ Loud opera music, slow moving people and grandiose locations.  It all felt really over the top – and not in a self-knowing good way.  It just screams that it’s trying really hard to be deep, meaningful and artistic, yet all it’s doing is coming across like a bad advert for posh perfume.

So, that’s the bad out the way, now on to the good.  The action is there, but (and I know I watched it on a popular online streaming service rather than on a big cinema screen) I felt like I could tell which explosions were computer-generated and which weren’t due to a weird graininess of the picture (I stress – this could have been down to the quality of my broadband, so I’m reasonably forgiving on this one).  I think the best part about the film was actually getting another dose of nostalgia by having our most evil of all Bond villains back again – Blofeld himself. 

This time he was played by Christoph Waltz who is actually pretty creepy as the – virtually – omnipotent leader of the infamous terrorist organisation.  It was nice to see someone repeatedly get the better of Bond and there were plenty of nods back to the previous (Craig) Bond films thrown in there for good measure.  The other thing I liked was how Bond didn’t actually do it alone this time.  In ‘Spectre’ he was ably aided by M, Moneypenney, Q and some other guy I couldn’t quite catch the name of.  This made a pleasant change to simply pitting Bond against the world and felt almost a little like one of Tome Cruise’s ‘Mission Impossible’ films.

Overall, I’d say that ‘Spectre’ is a pretty good effort.  It’s all there if you know what you’re expecting from a ‘modern’ Bond movie.  The direction grated on me and I tended to roll my eyes a bit, plus Craig himself was looking a bit tired all round.  I’ve heard the rumours about him not wanting to play Bond any more.  Maybe I was looking for signs of this, but I think it shows.  However, it was decent enough.  I’m interested to see where it goes from here, as it’s clear that the franchise is technically ‘ongoing’ as opposed to the old ‘stand-alone’ Bond films.

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

Kelly’s Heroes – True star power

There are some films that need little introduction. ‘Kelly’s Heroes’ is one of them.  However, in today’s Hollywood, movies about the Second World War are few and far between, so some may question the relevance of an ensemble piece set in the dying days of Nazi-occupied Europe.  First of all, I’ll probably stick my neck out and say that it’s probably not that ‘historically accurate’ (or at least not to my knowledge!).  By that, I don’t mean that Allied forces are fighting zombies or abducted by vampires.  From the little I know of the period, all the uniforms, military language and techniques look genuine enough to fool a layman like me.  When I say it’s not ‘historically accurate’ I mean that, whereas most films of this era concentrate (naturally) on the struggle between German and Allied forces, ‘Kelly’s Heroes’ offers more of a ‘crime caper’ set during the conflict.  If I could compare it to anything, I’d almost say it felt like an ‘Ocean’s Eleven’ in the middle of World War II.

Clint Eastwood plays the titular ‘Kelly’ – a war-weary soldier who’s had enough of potentially dying any day without anything to show for it personally.  So, when he learns of a bank full of gold behind enemy lines, he puts together a group of equally ambitious troops all willing to risk their lives for a slice of the bullion.  As I mentioned, it’s a bit of an ensemble cast, the two most notable additions are Telly Savalas and Donald Sutherland, both who vie for position of the cast member who’s trying to steal every scene they’re in.  However, just because the film is largely about the quest to blow open a bank vault, doesn’t mean that it’s not a war film.  The setting alone means that our ‘heroes’ come up against all the perils associated with the period and there are some pretty impressive set-pieces when it comes to the action. 

I think the best thing about ‘Kelly’s Heroes’ is that it has a pretty broad appeal.  Obviously fans of war films will enjoy it, but you have the added bonus of having Clint Eastwood in the lead (and in his prime, no less) supported by some amazing acting talent.  Then throw in the action element and the engaging crime plot and you’re really going to invest your time into caring whether these (not so heroic) heroes get the gold or not.  Don’t be put off by its age.  It’s as good – and more importantly fun – today as it ever was.  I will never grow tired from watching a tank freak out the opposing forces by playing music loudly as it comes into battle!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Evolution – Probably better than it deserves to be

Did you ever see or hear something and then found that, for ever after, it’s impossible to UNhear it?  I’ll explain… I watched ‘Evolution’ in the cinema and enjoyed it.  Then, some time after, I read a review that stated ‘It’s simply ‘Ghostbusters’ with aliens.’ Now, every time I watch it, all I can see are the parallels between the two films.  However, that’s no bad thing, as, no matter how apt that summary may be, the film is still good fun.  For some reason.

David Duchovny took a break from playing ‘Fox Mulder’ in the ever-popular ‘X-Files’ in order to film this other ‘alien invasion’ movie.  However, just because he left his FBI badge with Scully, didn’t mean that Mulder isn’t here in spirit.  I know he’s attracted more than his fair share of criticism directed at his acting ability (or lack thereof) and I don’t want to add to such negativity (as I am a fan, after all!). However, he really just seems to be playing a non-FBI Mulder, only with slightly tinted blond highlights in his hair.  In ‘Evolution’ he plays a scientist who works in a university in the desert, only to discover than a meteorite crashes nearby, containing microscopic alien life forms.  Unfortunately, they don’t stay that way for long and soon they’re threatening to have the locals on toast.  So, ‘not Mulder’ teams up with a couple of other scientists, plus a fireman-in-training to combat this alien menace.

‘Not Mulder’s’ fellow scientist is played by black actor Orlando Jones.  I only mention his race because he spends much of the movie spouting jokes based on black/white differences. Then there’s the government scientist played by Julianne Moore.  She’s also ‘Not Mulder’s’ love interest and spends most of her time falling over or bumping into things.  Comedy gold, eh?  Finally, you have ‘Stiffler’ from the ‘American Pie’ franchise as the amateur fireman.  I won’t even bother using the actor’s name as he’s effectively Stiffler who can drive a fire engine.  And, just like ‘Ghostbusters’ our quartet don’t just have aliens to worry about, but an inept military/Government agency who are also apparently hell-bent on impeding their efforts.

Now, you may think I’m sounding rather negative regarding a film that I claim to enjoy.  I guess I am.  There is nothing here that’s particularly clever or original.  And yet I still enjoy it.  I’ve actually thought long and hard about why I still continue to watch ‘Evolution’ and I’ve concluded that the simple answer is that it never tries too hard.  If it tried to be deep and meaningful, it would be an abject failure.  In the same way that if it tried to be an action movie it would fail.  The same goes if it went for a straight comedy.  As it is, it’s enough of all those genres just to pass itself off as light entertainment.  It’ll never really win any awards or be remembered as anything other than a sort of Ghostbusters-with-aliens clone, but if you like David Duchovny, or silly light-hearted sci-fi in general, put this on – it’s the kind of movie you don’t have to think too deeply about and can dip in and out of and still get a nice warm feeling of enjoyment out of.

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

Shotgun – So bad it’s…. just bad

There are bad films and there are ‘so-bad-they’re-good’ films. ‘Shotgun’ falls – weirdly – somewhere between the two.  Part of me wants to say that it was truly the worst film I’ve ever seen.  But then I am I charge of the remote control.  I could have turned it off any time I wanted, yet I didn’t – I stuck with it until the end.  I guess that means I took some strange form of enjoyment out of it?  I guess if I had to describe ‘Shotgun’ I’d call it a ‘Lethal Weapon’ clone, only filmed on the budget of £1.59.  It’s about two (mismatched) cops (one black, one white) on the trail of a brutal serial killer (as opposed to the kind and gentle serial killers, of course!).

Now, normally this is the point in the review where I say something like ‘So… if you’re a fan of ‘buddy-cop’ movies then you’ll probably get something out of it.’ I know it’s not the most original premise, but it can’t be THAT bad, can it?  The answer to that question is ‘Yes.’

The problem with this film isn’t its lack of originality, it’s the budget.  You could almost mistake this film as some sort of ‘student’ effort.  Seriously, I made a few short films at college and some of them look more professionally-done than this!  Almost every scene is a set.  Yes, I know most Hollywood films are made on sound stages for ease of production.  However, here, you can almost see the boom mic hanging down – it’s that obvious.  Then there are the actors.  Or should I say ‘actors?’ They can’t act.  Again, I get the impression that if you grabbed the nearest guy at the pub and stuck him in front of a camera, he’d pull of a more convincing ‘cop in crisis’ performance that the lead actor (plus he’d probably look less like a hobo-Beegee).  And don’t get me started on the action.  There’s the odd squib full of blood that just about looks passable, but when it comes to anything involving cars they just film the ‘chase’ at normal speed then fast forward the footage, giving off some sort of ‘Benny Hill’ vibe to the scene.

Overall, it’s really hard to recommend this film to anyone.  I only continued to sit through it just to see how bad it actually got.  By the time the credits rolled, the major emotion this film invoked in me was pity.  I actually felt sorry for the cast and crew who made this mess.  They must have known that the budget and talent wasn’t really there in order to make something that would compete with the proper Hollywood blockbusters.  They could have played this to their strengths and turned it into a parody (it worked for ‘Loaded Weapon!’).  Unfortunately, they seemed to act (and I use the word ‘act’ loosely) like the truly believed this was some sort of gritty epic action movie that would stand the test of time.  Sadly, it’s an awful movie.  If you’re looking for an action movie, there are better.  If you’re looking for a buddy-cop movie, there are better.  If you’re looking for a serial killer movie, there are better.  The only reason you’d want to watch this is if you’re a huge fan of bad movies and just want to say that you’ve watched what possibly could be one of the worst films ever made, just so you can win an argument in the pub at a later date.

2/10 Scuzzier than the leftover goo from a Queen alien's egg sack

Groundhog Day – Still as good today as it will be today.  And today…

If you’ve somehow found yourself watching the 2016 version of ‘Ghostbusters’ you may or may not have noticed some bloke popping up in the middle of the film, only to disappear as quickly.  I barely spotted him.  In fact, it took me until practically the end of the movie to realise it was Bill Murray, now reduced to a cameo in the film that – arguably – made him a household name.  Whatever you think about the ‘Ghostbusters’ remake, after the original he was riding high and one of his follow-up roles (and possibly ‘best’) was as Phil Conners in ‘Groundhog Day.’ If you haven’t watched it then, by now, you’ve probably seen a film that’s – technically – based on it.  The formula is a simple, if pretty basic one: a man is literally trapped in a day.  No matter what he does, where he goes or who he meets, he simply wakes up the following morning in today.  Since ‘Groundhog Day’ I’ve watched this format played out in all sorts of other films or TV programmes – everything from the ‘X-files’ did it, to variants of the genre such as incorporating horror and sci-fi to the mix.  However, no matter how fun they were, none have really come close to watching a grown man kidnap a small rodent and take it for a joy ride through a quarry pit in small-town America.

Bill Murray plays a weatherman who hates his assignment covering a – in his mind- low-brown and pointless celebration in a small American town which has a tradition involving a groundhog (also called ‘Phil!’) supposedly predicting the weather for the next few months.  Murray’s done it for years and is totally sick of it, however, when the day ends, a freak snowstrom strands him not just in the town, but also in the day.  What follows is quite an accurate account of what might occur should this happen.  At first you have confusion and disbelief, followed by the freedom to know everything that’s going to happen in the future (or at least for the next twenty-four hours) and finally depression at the realisation that you’re never going to live any other life that what’s on offer for this day.

Rumour has it that Murray disagreed with the film-makers as to what sort of film this should be.  He wanted it as a deep and emotional study of the human condition when presented with such a situation, whereas the director wanted more of a fluffy family (romantic) comedy.  From what I can tell both parties seemed to get their way.  Yes, this film could be classed as ‘fun for all the family.’ There’s something for everyone to enjoy.  It’s great fun without ever getting too dark to be difficult to explain to younger viewers.  However, it does also grant Murray his wish to a degree as, despite its absurd premise, you could argue that it plays out almost exactly how it would if a human was faced with this ‘capture in time.’

I watched ‘Groundhog Day’ when it first came out in the cinema and I’m pleased to say that it’s as good today as it ever was.  There are plenty of good supporting cast members, my favourite was Murray’s long-suffering camera man, but this is Murray’s baby.  The film sits firmly on his shoulders and he carries it perfectly.  Enjoy its numerous imitations, but this will always be the original and best.  If only the same could be said about the 2016 ‘Ghostbusters!’ (meow!)

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

Mystery Men – The Avengers they are not

It’s hard to imagine a year go by where you don’t see someone in a latex body-stocking flying through the sky while buildings crumble all around them.  Or, in other words, a superhero movie.  Marvel’s dominance reigns supreme these days and DC does its best to mop up any gap in the filmic calendar year that Marvel don’t already have a stranglehold on.  However, back in the ‘olden days’ of 1999, just dressing someone up in a silly costume wasn’t enough to guarantee a billion dollars at the Box Office.  That’s probably why ‘Mystery Men’ never really made much of an impact back then and only really fills a niche gap in the market today.  We’re introduced to a world of superheroes, or rather ONE superhero – the unsubtly-titled ‘Captain Amazing’ – a man who has dedicated his life to protecting the city from wrong-doers and has therefore enjoyed all the lucrative benefits that come with it, i.e. corporate sponsorship and women.  In fact, he’s protected the city so well that there’s hardly a super villain left worthy enough to take him on.  So, while he spends much of his time as his (completely unrecognisable, glasses-wearing) alter-ego, it’s up to another band of ‘heroes’ to mop up the few thieves still daring to snatch old ladies’ purses.  However, these heroes are anything but ‘super.’ Their ‘powers’ are unusual at best.  We have a man who gets angry to the point of, er, being very angry.  A man who puts on a fake British accent while he throws forks and a guy who hits people with a shovel.  Not a Batarang to be seen among them!

Nowadays, when you look at the cast of ‘Mystery Men’ it almost reads like a who’s who of Hollywood.  Yet, back then all the stars seemed to be faces who you kind of knew because you’d seen them before in… oh, you know… it was him out of that thing on TV.  You have Ben Stiller, William H Macy, Greg Kinnear, Eddie Izzard and Geoffrey Rush to name but a few.  It’s a pretty impressive ensemble, so I always wondered why it was never bigger than it seemed to be.  I guess at the time people may have thought it was a superhero movie and, due to the public seemingly thinking that all superhero movies were like ‘Batman and Robin’ they stayed away, plus Ben Stiller’s star hadn’t quite peaked back then, so it couldn’t ride on his future post ‘Something About Mary’ popularity.  Plus it might be difficult to market, as, on first inspection, you could be mistaken for thinking it was a ‘proper’ superhero film, i.e. complete with giant budget and epic action set-pieces.  Then again, if you look closely at the silly costumes and the fact that one woman is using the skull of her father inside a ‘magic’ bowling ball as a weapon, you could be forgiven for thinking that it’s a straight comedy.  However, again, it may have many funny moments, but you wouldn’t call it a ‘laugh-a-minute’ ride.

‘Mystery Men’ is one of those films that dips in and out of various genres.  Personally, I’d call it a ‘satire of the superhero genre.’ Now, I enjoy both DC and Marvel’s current crops so I like to think I’m well up on the various conventions and clichés associated with the genre.  Therefore, when I watch ‘Mystery Men’ I can appreciate how much work has gone into lampooning it.  However, when it was released the genre it was parodying wasn’t established enough to really sell this movie.  If you’re looking for something that takes a satirical, yet loving, swipe at all things superhero-related, then you should definitely check this out.  Don’t expect total action.  Don’t expect outright comedy.  Expect a subtle blend of the two.  If you’ve ever read the cult comic ‘Astro City’ you’ll know the tone of this film.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one