The Lawnmower Man - Playstation 2 with superpowers

In the early nineties, special effects were coming along in leaps and bounds: 'Jurassic Park' and 'Terminator 2' led the way seamlessly incorporating computer effects into live action films.  However, 'The Lawnmower Man' simply chose to show off its computer SFX as computer graphics in its own live action horror film.  It's also worth noting that, although the film is billed as 'Stephen King's' it isn't really much to do with him, only using the title of one of his short stories and about one scene in the entire movie is based on his work (I believe there were rumours that King himself wanted his name removed from the project - which is a little unfair, as it's not that bad really!).

Pierce Brosnan plays Dr. Lawrence Angelo who's merrily experimenting with chimps in order to increase their learning capacity through virtual reality.  When one of his subjects goes crazy and starts killing people, Brosnan loses his job and is forced to take his work home and look for other 'lab rats' to play with.  He therefore choses a local gardener (yes, the titular 'Lawnmower Man' so to speak) 'Jobe Smith' (played by Jeff Fahey) and continues his work.  And, in true 'Frankenstein' fashion, Dr Angelo soon discovers that he's created one hell of a (virtual?) monster.

Back in 1992 when this film was released, all people could talk about were the special effects. 'The Lawnmower Man' was a huge hit, simply because it was basically one of the first films to use such effects to such good use.  Nowadays, anyone who watches it would think that these 'cutting edge' special effects look more like the cut scenes from a cheap Playstation 2 game than something Hollywood would have churned out.  However, it's worth noting that they were pretty state-of-the-art for the time and they don't feel at all out of place here.

I've never read King's original short story, so I can't compare the two, however, I do think that once you take away all the glossy effects, the story if pretty much just a glorified B-movie.  Obviously Pierce Brosnan can carry a franchise and yet he struggles to  make much with the dialogue and his ear ring just looks laughable (plus his major 'character development' appears to be how his haircut changes so radically at the end of the film when compared to the beginning.

Jeff Fahey also does his best playing the 'learning impaired' young man with a haircut even worse than Brosnan's (think Lloyd from 'Dumb and Dumber' meets an early Trey Parker or Owen Wilson cut).  I never did buy his performance when he's trying to be dumb; personally I much preferred him once virtual reality had cranked up his mind and he was doing 'threatening' instead of 'confused.' You also have the kid from 'Last Action Hero' (proving why he never really made it past 1993 with anyone hearing of him) and Dean Norris' ('Hank' from 'Breaking Bad') head, putting on some sort of weird semi-British accent (possibly worth watching the film for this alone!).

The whole thing feels a bit like an extended episode of 'The Outer Limits,' only with a bigger budget.  However, for all its flaws, it's still reasonable fun.  I hadn't watched it in a while and I definitely think it's one of those films where you need to know what you're getting before you sit down.  Don't expect amazing acting, script or special effects, but just view it as a quirky bit of sci-fi.  Besides, the one thing that always stuck with me through the years was the ending.  But I won't spoil that.  I've never watched the sequel and I hear from what I've read online that I'm not missing much!

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

I Spit on Your Grave (2010) – Certainly simple, but not necessarily effective

I normally berate people for watching films where the subject matter is blatantly obvious from the title (such as ‘Snakes on a Plane’) and who then go on to say they didn’t like it.  I mean… what were these people expecting from a film with such an obvious giveaway as a title?  Anyway, when I sat down to watch (the remake of) ‘I Spit on Your Grave’ (2010), I was hardly expecting Shakespeare.  From what I knew of the original it was a revenge tale of a woman getting attacked, only to later return and take vengeance on those who had wronged her.  And, to be fair, I did get just that.  However, there’s a ‘however…’

I was indeed treated to a woman.  A gang of despicable hoodlums.  And a revenge segment.  So, I guess I got what I expected.  So why do I feel a little aggrieved?  Basically, this is one film that could have done with a little more in the way of ‘character development.’ Yes, I know that term is hardly widely-used in the horror genre and most of the time the only ‘development’ you get is when a character transitions from being alive and engaging in pre-marital s3x to sliced to pieces by a chainsaw. 

In ‘I Spit on Your Grave’ we have the woman – who is our protagonist and therefore good.  We know she’s good because, er, she’s our protagonist and so has to be, right?  Then we have the gang and they’re bad because  - yes, you guessed it – they’re just bad.  Thus conflict ensues.  And that’s about that in terms of plot.  Yes, if you’re looking for good gory revenge, you’ll certainly find it here.  Of course you’ll support our good-looking young heroine, but only because she gets involved in a horrible incident.  And, because of this, you’ll automatically hate the gang because they were the sickos who perpetrated it.

However, I just couldn’t help but cry out for a little bit more in the way of backstory for our protagonist and ‘motivation’ for our hideous antagonists.  Maybe what the film is saying is that some people are just bad and therefore beyond any deeper thought than that.  If that’s the case, this lot are totally bad through and through and deserve everything they get.

It's a bit of a 'film of two halves.' The first centres around our woman and shows the horrors she's subjected to.  However, once this is over she's - almost - written out of the story where we see the lives of those who did it to her.  Then she kind of stalks them in the background a bit like Jason Vorhees might.  It's never really made clear how, in the space of a seemingly short period of time, she becomes adept at trap-setting and ninja-style killing.  I guess that's something that's left up to the imagination.

Basically, I did know what I was getting when I sat down to watch this and I got what I knew was coming.  However, with just a little bit more writing and plot (maybe an additional scene here and there), this could have been turned from a – pretty forgettable – gory revenge tale into something that was actually more memorable for something other than being a deliberately disgusting remake of an old film that – also – was deliberately disgusting enough to shock many a cinema-goer.

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

47 Ronin - Stylish and interesting, but also slightly odd

’47 Ronin’ is actually based on an old Japanese historical event when 47 samurai avenged the death and disgrace of their master, even if it marked them as ‘criminals.’ This tale is very well known and documented in Japan and people still visit the graves of the deceased in order to remember their commitment to their cause.

It’s been made into a film at least six times before, but this is the most ‘Hollywood’ version to date.  For a start, we have Keanu Reeves as the lead character and it’s fair to say that no westerners took part in the actual event.  Therefore, it’s safe to say that many liberties have been taken in this retelling.  This point is hammered home by the inclusion of various mythological creatures our valiant exiled samurai encounter.  And, I’m just guessing, but I’m pretty sure there weren’t any dragon-witches or giant ogres in Japan back then.

So, don’t expect a faithful re-telling of the historical event.  But, do expect entertainment.  I don’t know why, but ‘The Pirates of the Caribbean’ kept going through my mind while I was watching this.  The whole affair sort of reminded me of Captain Jack Sparrow in the Far East.  Every so often there’s a chase scene or a monster to fight and there are plenty of CGI backdrops for us to pretend are real.  Perhaps the one thing that isn’t really included is an awful lot of fight scenes.  I expected more ‘martial arts’ from a film about samurai, but there’s only a couple of swordplay scenes included.

All in all, it’s not a bad adventure film, but it’s kind of hard to think who its primary audience is.  Like I said, it doesn’t have enough fights to be a martial arts film.  It’s not ‘fun for all the family’ like Pirates of the Caribbean, so it’s more serious.  If you like supernatural action/adventure movies which have had all the major gore and adult-stuff edited out, then you might like this.  Keanu Reeves is ‘the star,’ but it’s the supporting Japanese cast that really hold it together.

I didn’t regret watching it, but I doubt I’d ever watch it again.  I’ve got a hundred better action adventure films already in my collection.

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

Gambit - High on talent, but a bit short on laughs

Gambit is a remake of an old Michael Caine film, where an art dealer (Firth) attempts to con his unbearable boss (Rickman) by enlisting the help of a beautiful, but slightly naïve, American cowgirl (Diaz). With those three names on the cast list, you know it's going to be good, especially when it's written by the - critically-acclaimed - Coen brothers. However, you may be wrong.

And it's not the fault of the actors. To put it simply, they're given very little to work with, script-wise. Cameron Diaz does what she does best, i.e. she's cute, a bit dippy, but thoroughly endearing nonetheless. Alan Rickman is...well, Alan Rickman - he's devious, cold-hearted and charming. Still, so far, so good, but then we come to Colin Firth - an actor who's proved his excellent credentials in numerous films. However, he's the protagonist here - attempting to basically rip-off his boss by foul means. Therefore, for us to feel sympathy towards him, we need to see him as more of a good-guy. Yet, he does very little to warm the audience towards him. He's spineless, a bit too weedy and, just because his boss isn't very nice, thinks he can take him for all he's worth. He doesn't even give us that many laughs (a few, but certainly not many). Unfortunately for him, Rickman steals the show and - despite obviously being the baddie - seems to charm the audience more than Firth can.

I know Gambit is supposed to be an addition to the long line of British `farce' films, but it does tend to rely a little too much on low-brow humour, rather than utilising the cast's natural talent. Also, because it's rated 12A, it can never really descend into the `gross-out' territory and do anything too risky.

Unfortunately, what you're left with is a very capable cast, being reduced to simply one of a number of stereotypes (the English are VERY English, Cameron Diaz is VERY Texan and the Japanese are VERY Japanese).

It's not a bad film. I quite enjoyed it, plus it doesn't drag itself out for too long. It's charming enough in its own way, only with the heavyweight names that go with it, it could have been so much more than just an excuse to watch Cameron Diaz in hotpants.

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

I Am Soldier - Noel Clarke just about makes it watchable

I really wanted to love this.  Not because I’m that much of a fan of ‘war movies’ in general, but I just liked the premise, i.e. seeing what it takes to be part of the S.A.S. (something that I would never be able to do myself, due to being too addicted to comfy sofas, Playstation and takeaway pizza – apparently the world’s toughest soldiers aren’t allowed any of these during missions).

The story follows two recruits (each with their own personal demons) as they go on an S.A.S. training mission in the British wilderness to see if they have what it takes.  I won’t tell you if they succeed or not, only that I wouldn’t have made it for five minutes.

Noel Clarke (Kidulthood) is one of their various ‘drill sergeant-type figures’ who is there to mentor them as they go and he does his best to lift the film out of mediocrity.  He’s about the only star you may really recognise.  And, perhaps that’s one of the film’s main faults: it screams ‘cheapness’ at all times.  It has no real big name actors and the dialogue and acting talent on show isn’t exactly top drawer.  However, its bleakness does add a level of realism to the film that gives you quite an overall gritty tone.

I’ve read comments online about how there are blatant errors in the story.  These seem to all come from people who have actually served in the military and can spot when a British soldier gives an American salute (I didn’t even know there were two different types!).  But, from my completely nonexistent military background, no ‘factual errors’ were apparent.  If I had to guess I’d say this was a reasonable portrayal as to how tough recruits have it.  I rolled my eyes more when our two recruits encounter an attractive woman on the train, only for her to ‘coincidently’ show up a few scenes later.

It’s not perfect and definitely isn’t for everybody.  But if you’re in the mood for something gritty and brutal, plus you like soldier movies in general, give it a go.  It’s not the longest of films, so you won’t feel like you’ve invested too much of your life in it anyway.

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

Jack Reacher - Nothing new, but nothing bad

I'm a casual fan of Tom Cruise, so I just watched this regardless. I didn't know much about the book, so I can't comment on how accurate it is to its source material. All I remember hearing was that the titular character was much taller in the book, therefore an actor of Tom's - ahem - 'stature' wasn't the best fit to play the giant of a man.  I thought it would be more action-packed - like a kind of vigilante going round seeking revenge on your general baddies. As it turned out, it's more like a cop movie (but without a cop as the lead character). What action there is is all right, plus the acting is fair and it is not hard to see that money has been put into this movie.

Tom Cruise is an ex military policeman who's investigating a seemingly motiveless sniper who killed five apparently innocent civilians. No sooner is he on the case does he meet the unfeasible attractive attorney, played by Rosamund Pike. I found this aspect of the film the most far-fetched - you know instantly that she's going to be the `will-they/won't they' love interest of the film.

From then on, the film follows a typical template for this kind of movie. It's played absolutely straight (a bit like the `Bourne' films, but without the near-constant chase scenes all the way through) and it doesn't really add anything original to the genre of action/thriller movies.

If you're looking for a bit of a conspiracy thriller with a plot that slowly unravels, this isn't a bad way to spend a couple of hours (plus it's nice to see Tom Cruise and Robert Duvall sharing the screen again since 'Days of Thunder'). If you can believe that every single female in America who meets Tom Cruise wants to bed him, whether she's twice his age of half his age, then you should find this enjoyable.  It's been a week since I watched 'Jack Reacher' for the second time and I actually can't remember anything about it (besides what I've written above) - I think that tells me everything I need to know, i.e. that it's an enjoyable enough romp while you're watching it, but it's hardly likely to leave a long, lasting impression.

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

2 Guns - 2 Guns - no nonsense

Yes, there have been cops and robbers movies. Yes, there have been `buddy-cop' movies and yes, there have been a tonne of movies where the protagonists fall foul of the mob and end up `owing them big-time.' However, very few of those manage to pull of those generic plotlines off in one movie (and, more amazing still, make it work).

The two of them play a pair of bank robbers.  Or do they?  Maybe they're really working for different law enforcement agencies and are just trying to infiltrate the crininal underworld?  And maybe they don't know each other's motivations!  This 'uncertainty' (for the characters, at least - we, the audience know what's going on - it's not rocket science) about who's working for who gives the two A-list leads plenty of opportunities to engage in great banter.

'2 Guns' is nothing original, but it is fast-paced, slick, stylish and, best of all, entertaining. This is probably down to the two leads - the ever-reliable Denzel Washington and the mainly-reliable Mark Wahlberg. Perhaps without these two heading the bill, the film would have been as sub-standard as the plot suggests. The two actors play off each other brilliantly and save every scene from ever slipping into mediocrity. There's a real `Pulp Fiction' vibe between them with all the banter and general chit-chat which helps establish their characters.

There are plenty of good performances from the supporting cast, too. The long forgotten Bill Paxton (still best known for `Hudson' in Aliens) is great as the villain.  There's a minor 'love interest' thrown in for Denzel Washington and, yes, it could probably have been removed completely, but at least it doesn't get in the way of the general action andd carnage.

Basically, if you like cops and robbers, crime, gangsters, or just generally action movies, you can't go far wrong with this one. Grab the popcorn, ignore the odd plothole and just enjoy the ride.  Oh, and if you're not into multiple cursing and violece, you may want to steer clear of this one.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one