Casino - The 'other' Goodfellas

Yes, it's impossible to review 'Casino' without mentioning Martin Scorsese's other gangster epic of the nineties, 'Goodfellas.' If you're feeling cruel, you could call the former a shameless rip-off of the latter (and substandard to boot).  However, for all 'Casino's' similarities, it's not without its (brutal!) charms.

Along with the same director (Scorsese), the two most memorable actors from 'Goodfellas' returns for this (non-sequel) 'sequel i.e. Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci.  And, once again, they're gangsters (only this time living it up in Las Vegas, rather than an east Coast US city) and, once again, they're pretty much the same characters, only with different names.  DeNiro is the more 'cool-headed' gangster who's trying to look legitimate, whereas as Pesci is, to be blunt, a complete psycho who doesn't care what he does, who he hurts and what effect it has on those around him.  The third cast member (and - sort of - replacement for Ray Liotta's absence to the line-up) is Sharon Stone, who, by her inclusion as the love interest for DeNiro (and maybe others - no spoilers here!) does go some way to moving 'Casino' out from under 'Goodfellas' shadow.

I think the main problem with 'Casino' is 'Goodfellas' itself.  If you've seen what came before then you'll be unable to help but compare the two. 'Goodfellas' is possibly the greatest gangster film of the nineties (and beyond?), therefore nothing is going to live up it - even something which is basically made by the same people.

If you like 'Goodfellas' (and, if you're into gangster films in general) then you should like 'Casino' - it's certainly a good film with excellent performances, so, if you don't mind the foul language and violence associated with the genre you should have a blast here.  Maybe the best way to enjoy 'Casino' is to watch it first, i.e. before 'Goodfellas' (if that's possible!)?  My main gripe was that I found there to be a little bit too much narration for my liking.  I know many films have a narrator who mainly opens and closes the story.  However, there were different characters narrating and it went on all the way through the film.  Anyway, that's a minor gripe.  Don't judge it too harshly or be put off with the - undeniable - similarities to 'Goodfellas' - it may not be 'Goodfellas,' but it is good.

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

The Meg - Mega fun

I always feel that the best films always ask questions of their audiences. 'The Meg' poses a real 'thinker' of a conversation piece in, 'Who would win out of a fight between a prehistoric, giant shark and Jason Statham?' Actually, it's not much of a brainteaser - I think we all know that it would take more than an aquatic, hungry dinosaur to stop 'The Stath.' But it's still fun to watch the fight go down.

Yes, our very own British hardman Jason Statham plays, er, well kind of the same character he always does, but with one important twist - this time he's in the water!  Anyway, he's a diver (sort of) who rescues people.  Then he loses a load of people to Davey Jones' Locker and retired.  Then a load of other people get stuck at the bottom of the ocean and - guess what - he's the only bald man who can get them out of their watery grave.  And then a giant shark starts eating people.

Come on…  you've seen the posters and the marketing for this movie.  What are you expecting?  Something deep and meaningful with great dialogue and moving character arcs that question the very nature of human existence?  No, if you're thinking about watching this then you basically like daft, fun B-movie-esque films which are just there to entertain.  And entertain you this will.

The Stath is the only real character you'll care about, however fans of the American 'Office' will probably recognise Rainn Wilson, as the billionaire who owns the ocean base most of the action centres around.  The other characters are - predictably - there to, quite literally, dangle themselves in the path of rows of huge teeth.

Before I watched 'The Meg' I did see a lot of other reviews mention how it was a bit 'tonally' all over the place.  Now, I do have to agree.  The film is at its best when it's not taking itself seriously and knows that it's just a daft (and yet epic) B-movie of a monster.  However, there are parts where it does try to exceed its reach and inject some heavy drama into the action.  This just feels a bit forced and could have been taken out so that the audience just either laughs OR cries, rather than trying to work the two in together.

It's basically a B-movie with a budget that's been (cleverly?) marketed as an A-list outing.  And it seems to have worked.  It's great fun and hopefully there are schools more aquatic terrors for The Stath to punch squarely in the face.  Leave the logical part of your brain at the door and just enjoy this for what it is.

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

Wishmaster - Seriously nineties horror

Despite being marketed heavily as a 'Wes Craven film,' the horror mastermind neither wrote nor directed this campy nineties splatter-fest.  Also, if you were drooling at the thought of seeing Freddy, Candyman and Jason on the same billing (Robert Englund, Tony Todd and Kane Hodder are all in it) then you may be a little disappointed, as their input amounts to just a few cameos here and there.  Anyway, minor gripes out of the way, 'Wishmaster' is actually pretty good fun - if you're into this sort of film.

While bringing an ancient statue to America, it accidentally breaks, releasing a big blue cartoon genie, voiced by Robin Williams, who happily makes various pop culture references and grants our plucky young hero the wishes he needs to win the princess' heart.  No, not really.  This is one genie you wouldn't find in a Walt Disney movie - he delights in making all the wishes he grants impact on the person who made them in the most negatively-bad way possible.  Plus he's not half as sweet as Robin William's classic genie - this one has fangs, red eyes and all sorts of weird, slippery appendages sprouting out of him.  Now, it's up to our leading lady, Alexandra Amberson (played by a Linda Hamilton-esque Tammy Lauren) to get this genie back in his bottle - so to speak.

I know a lot of hard-core fans objected to the 'change' in the 'Nightmare on Elm Street' films when Freddy started becoming less scary and more comedic, taking pleasure in his kills with a snappy one-liner here and there.  Well, if you (like me!) didn't mind this, then you should also enjoy 'Wishmaster.' The titular evil character is certainly a villain of the latter Freddy films, taking his time to mess with his victims, rather than kill them outright.  I felt this possibly works better here in 'Wishmaster' than the 'Elm Street' franchise because the Wishmaster himself - technically - can't kill anyone outright.  He has to mess with them enough to get them to (inadvertently) kill themselves.  Yes, that sounds a bit weird and you'll have to watch the film to see how.

The film has a real 'nineties' feel; it's not just the clothes, scenery and hairstyles, but it was part of the latter half of the decade where horror films really started to make a comeback (largely due to 'Scream' I seem to recall) and they were really having fun with the budget they were given.  Yes, there are hardly any A-list actors involved and the script is a little clunky as times, but there are plenty of excellent practical effects, creepy sets and a genuine desire to try and do something (a little) different.

Wishmaster' isn't 'dark and brooding' like today's horror films, but if you're in a forgiving mood and don't expect too much, this one is certainly entertaining enough to keep you occupied for an hour and a half.  Plus is spawned numerous sequels (although not as many as Freddy or Jason), but that's hardly a benchmark with which to judge a horror film, is it?

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

Slugs - Slippery good fun

Slugs!  You've seen them in the garden eating your lettuces.  Now they're going to eat YOU!  And, yes, slugs are about as threatening as you might imagine.  But… wait… these aren't just your ordinary garden slugs - these are 'super slugs!' And, yes, even 'super slugs' that can take a bite out of you are about as threatening as you might imagine.

Something bad happens (does the catalyst really matter in a film called 'Slugs?' and this creates a plague of carnivorous slugs sliding their way across a town.  And, unless you happen to fall over and roll round and round on the ground in a pile of them, seemingly forgetting how to right yourself, then you're in trouble.
Slugs' is typical of those eighties B-movies that tried to make every different type of animal scary, providing there were enough of them and the humans were stupid enough to fall victim to them.  It's definitely a B-movie and it shows when it comes to acting.  You won't find a recognisable name among the cast here, but at least what little budget the film-makers must have had went some way to providing a few nice touches of practical gore.  The actors do their best with a lame script to try and act scared when they see slugs dripping out of their tap and few actually think of just swatting them with a rolled up copy of a handy magazine.  In fact, despite the obvious B-movie qualities, I did wonder whether the producers really had hopes that this would be genuinely scary, as it never seems to feel like it's 'self-knowing' and that it's accepted the fact that it's an out and out 'cheese fest' and just going with what it is.

However, for all its corniness, I stuck with it until the end.  It's truly a masterpiece of bad cinema.  If you love bad movies and have a soft spot for cheesy horror films from the eighties then you at least have to watch this one once, just to laugh (I assure you... none of the characters laugh on screen - they're too busy running, screaming from a 'monster' that can't walk, run, fly, or actually move faster than, er, a slug!

Oh, and is it just me, or did they try to re-enact a bit of 'Jaws' in there when the protagonist tries to get the Mayor of the town to try and shut down the water supply to stem the flow of slugs, only to be reminded about the financial implications of doing so?

Pure 'car crash' film-making' and definitely so awful it's great!  I will never forget the close-up shot of a slug trying to take a bite out of someone's thumb!

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

The Crazies (2019 remake) - The thinking man's zombie

Okay, so my title might be a little misleading - it implies that the average viewer may need to use their mind to understand this film.  However, it's basically a zombie movie without 'traditional' zombies, instead choosing infected humans who have simply gone bonkers in the nut.  It's a different enough premise to sit down to, assuming you're into undead movies in general.

After the successful remake of George A Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead' in 2004, it was as if someone watched that and applied the same visual style and feel to Romero's lesser-known film 'The Crazies.' In these days of 'shared universes' it certainly feels that the 2004 zombie film sits comfortably with 2010's version of 'The Crazies.'

The plot is hardly inspiring: chemical leak makes residents of small, secluded town go mad (with fatal consequences!).  Now it's up to the local sheriff (Timothy Olyphant – and if you’re asking, ‘Who’s that?’ then you’re probably not the only person – he’s the leading man, but he’s hardly A-list – and he’s the most recognisable of the cast!) to lead a band of survivors out of the infected zone before the government decides the only option to contain the spread is to nuke the site from orbit.

Along the way there's plenty of gore for those of us who like the ol' 'red stuff' and, although hardly terrifying, it doesn't pull any punches when it comes to its victims and there are some genuinely disturbing scenes.  There's nothing new here, like I say, not only is it a remake anyway, but its overall feel has been lifted from 2004's 'Dawn of the Dead' (and possibly '28 Days/Weeks Later').  However, with all the run-of-the-mill zombies films being churned out all over the place, this one is just about different (and good!) enough to stand out from the pack, if simply because the 'zombies' aren't zombies.  They actually have enough brainpower left to really cause our heroes some major problems.  You may never want to get your car washed again.  Simple, but effective.

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

Spiderman Homecoming - Where we all wanted him to be

Everyone seemed to like the Tobey Maguire 'Spiderman' trilogy (although less said about 'Part III' the better), some people were okay with the Andrew Garfield reboot, but then all five films came along before Marvel's 'shared universe' really kicked off.  As soon as it became 'the norm' to see Captain America crossing over with Iron Man, Thor and the like, everyone wanted to see their favourite web-slinger swinging alongside them.  However, it seemed that there was one force more powerful than a thousand Infinity Gauntlet-wielding Thanos - studio film rights.  Sony held the rights to Spiderman, rather than Disney, so, after much wrangling, it was decided that Sony would allow Disney to include him into their 'shared universe' (hence creating the 'Homecoming' part of the title).  And the result is pretty good.

At least the film-makers were aware that, seeing as we've already had two 'origin stories' in a matter of years, most of us are already aware of how teenager Peter Parker got bitten by a radioactive spider and it gave him superpowers (plus he had a kind of extended cameo in 'Captain America: Civil War' to remind us all of his roots).  So they don't waste any time with how he came to be and we join him already 'webbing' local muggers around his home city of New York.
I think out of all the Marvel films in this current batch, 'Spiderman Homecoming' seems the most designed 'for kids.' It's predominantly about teenagers and I would say its primary audience would be pre-teens.  That could be a criticism, if it wasn't for the fact that it's one of those rare filmic beasts that can also be enjoyed by adults, whether you're heavily into the MCU or just casually aware of it.

It's worth noting that if there's one weak point the MCU has, it's lack of decent villains (excluding Loki and Thanos, of course).  Therefore, not only do they get (former awesome Batman himself) Michael Keaton as the villain, but they give him some half decent motivation for his actions - he was a contractor employed by New York council to clear up the debris left by the alien attack which the Avengers thwarted, only for him to lose the deal after investing heavily in it.  This makes him no fan of Iron Man and co!  Now Spidey has a feeling that he's about to start selling weapons based on alien tech to the highest bidder, regardless of the cost to human life.

Of course, having Spidey in the Marvel universe wouldn't be worth doing unless we could have some decent cameos from other superheroes and who better to add in than everyone's favourite billionaire, Tony Stark (aka Iron Man).  Naturally, Robert Downey Jr is excellent, even in small doses, but, more importantly, adds a much-needed sense of a 'bigger world' at work for Peter Parker to exist in.  And who doesn't like seeing Iron Man and Spiderman teaming up to fight side by side?  Tony Stark also acts as a kind of mentor/Uncle Ben figure to our young hero, further helping to do away with repeated backstory.

There's obviously a great deal of special effects needed to show the destruction caused by flying fighters and teenagers swinging all over well-known monuments, so expect plenty of CGI.  However, it's certainly improved a lot since the first Sam Rami Spiderman movie where the effects looked more like cut scenes from a Playstation game.  Here, much of Spidey's movements almost look natural (almost, I'm being generally forgiving).

Overall, 'Spiderman Homecoming' is a worthwhile addition to the MCU.  It's certainly the most 'happy go lucky' of all the colourful films and hopefully Sony will release some of Spidey's other characters who they also own the rights to.

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

Die Hard 4.0 - John McClane in the MCU

Okay, so my title is a little bit misleading - Bruce Willis' tough-talking, no-nonsense New York cop will never fight Thanos alongside Captain America and Iron Man.  The reason I mentioned Marvel movies is because I always see 'Die Hard 4.0' as a 'superhero movie.' The original 'Die Hard' film was about an ordinary man who was flawed and just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  When terrorists took over a large building, he was the only one who could stop them.  It's wasn't just an action film, but a tense, claustrophobic thriller.  However, as the sequels piled in, the action got more and more overblown and it became less 'Die Hard' and more 'Die Impossible.' In short, it's probably easier to kill the entire Avengers line-up than one - supposedly normal - human.  Now, that may be a criticism, but then I quite like Marvel superhero movies, so I just go with it.

Sometimes 'Die Hard 4.0' is also known as 'Live Free or Die Hard.' If you're wondering what that means then don't expect an answer here.  It simply marks the beginning of the film-makers' desire to start naming the films using 'cool-sounding' phrases that don't actually make any sense.  Therefore, I prefer 'Die Hard 4.0' (what followed, aka 'A Good Day to Die Hard' is even less fathomable!).

This time round poor ol' McClane simply gets a call to escort a young man to the FBI one night.  This results in him (eventually) destroying a helicopter with a car and taking out an American fighter jet while armed only with a truck.  Yes, the 'Die Hard' franchise has progressed to that from one man with a gun and no shoes.  Therefore, if you're willing to accept this mega change in the way the story is told, you'll have an absolute blast.  I see this film more like a Bond film (pre Daniel Craig, of course), rather than a super-serious, ultra-realistic spy-thriller (ala Bourne).  It's got so much overblown action that it's the perfect film to watch while munching popcorn (if anyone still eats popcorn at home while watching various popular online streaming services).

The trick is simply to suspend all disbelief to enjoy this.  You'll have to just accept that Bruce Willis is - once again - in the wrong place at the wrong time (possibly making him the unluckiest man alive in the process!).  You'll also have to accept how a bunch of cyber-terrorists trying to bring down the American economy also directly happens to threaten McClane's daughter (after his wife was put in the firing line in the first two and his son in the - next - fifth instalment).  And, if you can do that and put up with Bruce Willis' trademark smirk and array of one-liners, then you should have a lot of fun in this.  Big.  Dumb.  Fun.  Besides, it's a worthy of Oscars if you compare it to what came next in Russia alongside Jai Courtney.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one