Casino Royale - A brave new Bond

Okay, let me say that the reason I'm reviewing this film several years after its release is because I've decided to give it a second viewing (in the wake of Skyfall's success at the box office).

I've watched all the Bond films, right the way through from Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan and, although they vary slightly depending on the story, I have to say I've loved them all. I love the silliness, the tongue-in-cheekiness, the witty quips and the gadgets.

Then came Casino Royale.

I had no objections to Daniel Craig being named as James Bond (after his part in Layer Cake, I think he proved he had what it took). I didn't even object to the fact that Bond was (sort of) being `rebooted,' showing how Bond became a 00 agent etc. What I objected to was that, in my opinion, it was NOT Bond. Yes, it had action, ladies and exotic locations, but gone was everything that I thought made Bond Bond.

I watched the whole film and give it a disappointed two stars out of five, admitting that the action sequences were good, but it was more The Bourne Identity than Bond.

However, as the years have gone by and my shock has dwindled, I've re-watched it and come to accept that it does have its merits. Yes, Bond has changed. Maybe it's for the best. Daniel Craig's (current) three outings have been the most financially successful of all the Bond films, so I guess he's appealing to the masses.

This is indeed a `new slant' on Bond. Gone is what I loved, but it's been replaced by something - now I'm viewing it in the cold light of day - with some ALSO pretty good too.

I appreciated that the plot to Casino Royale was actually a lot more intense than many of its predecessors, plus there was far more reliance on character development, rather than just invisible cars (yes, even I found that one a little hard to swallow in Die Another Day).

Although I will forever enjoy the cheeky charm of `old' Bond, I will admit that this one has its place alongside it and now am beginning to look forward to the news of a new Bond film in the making.

Now I give it a much more respectable 8/10.

Atomic Blonde - Style over originality

I'm annoyed.  I really wanted to love 'Atomic Blonde.' It certainly has two things I enjoy in a film - action and eighties neon (or 'three' if you count Charlize Theron!).  She plays Lorraine Broughton, a hard-hitting, super-spy from (eighties!) Britain and she's sent to a divided Berlin in order to prevent a stolen list of the world's secret agents from falling in to the wrong hands.

I'll stop right there.  How many times has a super-spy had to retrieve such a list?  Probably quite a lot.  However, it's a well-known fact that there are only so many different stories and the success or failure of a story is largely due to the WAY that it's told.  The problem is that 'Atomic Blonde' isn't told differently enough.  Which is a shame, because there's loads of positives.

First of all there's the cast.  Of course Charlize Theron is totally A-list and she looks and acts the part of a high-kicking, bad-a$$ spy who has a habit of getting her own way.  Accompanying her are whole host of other great actors including James McAvoy, Eddie Marsen, John Goodman and the excellent up and coming Sofia Boutella. 

Then there's the direction.  The film looks (i.e. visually) stunning.  Every shot is beautifully-crafted and the neon really highlights the eighties feel of the settings.  The soundtrack is effectively a playlist of some of the best songs you're likely to find from the era and I was delighted to hear some of them used to such perfection throughout the film.

But despite the cast all playing their parts well and the film looking and sounding amazing, no matter how many famous faces you have on the cast list or whether your favourite artists are included on the soundtrack, sometimes these sorts of things just don't take away from the fact that film is too unoriginal and too long.

The film is nearly two hours long.  Now, this wouldn't be that bad, but the problem is the film feels the need to have so many twists and turns that it requires nearly four potential endings in order to tie everything up.  Plus all the characters seemed like superheroes.  Now, it doesn't bother me that much when Thor or Captain America take what feels like an infinite amount of punishment when engaging in a hand to hand fight.  They're superhuman therefore the rules are different.  The problem is that in 'Atomic Blonde' everyone is plain old human and therefore shouldn't be able to take quite such heavy beatings and just get up and do it all over again.  It's worth noting that the fight scenes are very well shot and quite memorable, it's just they're also too unbelievable and I actually found myself laughing at just how much abuse each character took before getting up and continuing the battle.

Overall, I was disappointed with 'Atomic Blonde' and no one is more annoyed with that outcome than me.  However, judging from the other reviews I've read online, most seem really positive about the film and clearly enjoyed it more than me.  I've even seen online that it will be getting a sequel at some point, so I guess I'm in the minority with this one.

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

Eraser - Not classic Arnie, but good Arnie

To enjoy Eraser you must...

1. Already like Schwarzenegger and his films
2. Suspend your disbelief
3. Have popcorn and nibbles on hand while you watch
4. Find a comfy chair
5. Enjoy the ride

If you can do that, you'll find that your two hours spent in front of the TV will not be wasted.
Simple as that. Some people called Eraser `Arnie's last great action film' (not including Terminator 3). That it may be. He got old. He went into politics. Action heroes became younger, better-looking and the stunts they participated in more elaborate and dangerous.

So maybe Eraser is Arnie's `swansong?' Maybe not. I hear he's gearing up to do some `post-politics' acting. If so, following in Eraser's footsteps would not be that badder place to start.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Shaft (2019) - Not PC, but not bad either

I'll start by saying that I don't know an awful lot about the 'source material' when it comes to the 2019 version of 'Shaft.' I never saw the original films (or were they TV shows - that's how much I know!).  And I never saw Samuel L Jackson's earlier outing as the titular anti-hero detective.  However, seeing as I am a fan of Mr Jackson and this incarnation has just dropped on a well-known online streaming service, I thought I'd give it a go.

In case you don't know, (John) Shaft (played perfectly by Samuel L Jackson) is a private detective who plays by his own rules.  In other words... he kind of beats people up to get information from them.  Nothing too radical about this premise, but I did see a few reviews (or should I call them 'moans?') about how 'politically incorrect' this film was.  I saw words like 'dinosaur' and 'outdated' when it came to describing this film.  And, now I've watched it, I guess I have to agree with them.  Although, in my opinion, that's no bad thing.

We get a brief scene at the start showing how Shaft actually has an estranged son (John Shaft Junior - played by Jessie T Usher) and the film quickly skips forward over twenty years where Jr is now a data analyst with the FBI.  However, when a friend dies in suspicious services, it leaves this 'non field agent' down a few dark allies in Harlem, where he needs the help of his long lost father in order to (safely!) navigate.

Now, Samuel L Jackson is well-known for taking any mediocre film and making it great fun to watch.  This is probably one of those.  The plot is nothing new and you'll see most beats coming a mile off (you'll know the 'true' villains the moment you see them, no matter how nice they try and act).  Also, there's the obligatory love interests which are there because...er, I suppose they have to be.  But what saves this film is Jackson's dialogue and banter with his son.  Yes, Shaft (Senior) is a 'dinosaur.' He's now in his sixties and from a completely different 'age.' He uses different words and acts differently around people, i.e. definitely NOT politically correct.  So, I guess if you're easily offended by various - now frowned upon - terms to describe various groups of society, I guess you'll be on Twitter before the credits start decrying this 'terrible' film.

But it's not terrible.  It's just good fun.  Like I say, if you go looking for things to be offended by then you'll be delighted with the amount of things you can complain about here.  Or, you can look at it as the tale of two different generations and their various outlooks on the world.  Yes, it's no classic, but it's certainly fun if you like either Samuel L Jackson, or just gritty detective stories.  For me, it was worth it just for the line where Jackson totally spoofs a popular misconception about himself and another actor!

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

The Family - Fun for all the family (the on-screen one, anyway)

Or at least those who like kicking the hell out of you if you happen to annoy them. Yes, Robert DeNiro plays a mob boss (who’d have thought that?!), but this time one who has turned on his former life (and more importantly colleagues) and is now living – with his family, obviously – in sunny France. However, his former gangsters decide to hunt him down and now the family faces more than just surly French supermarket owners.

‘The Family’ has come in for a fair amount of criticism. Yes, it has a stellar cast (and director – Luc Besson), so perhaps expectations were a tad too high for this. And, sure, it’s no ‘Goodfellars’ (despite DeNiro actually watching Goodfellars during the film itself!), but it’s not that bad either.

DeNiro carries the film (naturally), but Michelle Pfeiffer plays her part, too. As do the kids and Tommy Lee Jones (as the poor agent assigned with the task of protecting this family of criminals). The major flaw people seem to be finding with this film is that most of the characters are pretty unlikable. Yes, they’re criminals and tend to beat the hell out of people for things that most of us would just shrug off with an expression of mild annoyance. But, these people aren’t your next door neighbours, they exist purely on-screen. Hence you only have to spend just under two hours with them.

Ultimately, it’s no classic, but if you’re a fan of DeNiro and you don’t have great expectations that it’s going to be another classic, then you should enjoy it enough. Although you may not feel that compelled to watch it again for a while.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Braindead (1992, aka 'Dead Alive') - Bl00dy brilliant!

Long before Peter Jackson's name was linked with mega-budget films, such as the 'Lord of the Rings' saga, 'King Kong' and whatever others he's done since, the writer/director (and sometimes actor) seemed more in favour of crazy, over-the-top gore and silliness.  I'm not saying that the 'Lord of the Rings' movies weren't awesome, as Jackson is a very talented director.  However, there are times when I pine for a drop of twenty of the 'red stuff' flying in all directions.

Whether you know the film as 'Braindead' or 'Dead Alive,' it's set about fifty years ago in a quiet little down in New Zealand.  A young man called Lionel's life starts off simple enough, looking after his overbearing mother (perfectly played by Elizabeth Moody), until she's bitten by a 'rat monkey' during a trip to the zoo.  Instead of just reporting this and getting the appropriate medical attention, they let the wound fester and slowly, but very surely, she starts to change into a zombie, before doing what the undead do best... biting - and therefore spreading - their plague.

Unfortunately, during this particular zombie apocalypse, no one thought to just call Rick and Daryl from 'The Walking Dead' to just shoot these ghouls in the head.  Lionel isn't the type to wield a crossbow or magnum, instead choosing the more gentile option of simply locking them in the basement and sedating them in between meals of bowls of custard (did you know zombies also eat custard?  Well... apparently, they do).

Sadly, regular meals of sugary dessert is no match for a zombie's thirst for human flesh and Lionel soon finds himself the custodian of more and more of them, until... well, if you've seen one zombie movie then you know how they eventually turn out.  What transpires is just one epicly-hilarious horror film.  I know it's largely known for its gore (which is a fair point).  However, if you're expecting something that is gory AND scary, then this isn't it. 'Braindead' knows it's silly and plays up to it at every moment.  It's more of a comedy than a horror, with moments of - brilliant - gore thrown in there.  It's true... you're unlikely to see a more gory movie to this day and, to make things even better, being made in 1992 all effects were practical and therefore a lot more 'real' than the regular CGI-fest we get today.

The performances from the central two characters (Timothy Balme and Diana Penalver) and as good as any you'd expect to see in a horror movie, but the real stars are (as I already mentioned) Elizabeth Moody as Lionel's evil mother (and that's just BEFORE she became part of the undead!) and also Ian Watkin, as Lionel's truly disgusting 'Uncle Les.' The local priest also made me laugh, but isn't in the film for a long as he probably could have been, but his notable line of 'I kick a$$ for the Lord!' will live with me forever.  I'm not sure I can count a certain 'infant' zombie as a 'character,' but, again, little 'Selwyn' will also be a continued source of amusement for me.

I read online that, in the final act of 'Braindead,' they got through about five gallons of blood per second (or something like that - either way, it was a lot!).  That should tell you all you need to know about the film.  It is totally disgusting, possibly the more gory film you're likely to find, it's totally over-the-top and crazy and, if you're into something like that, it's definitely the one for you.  Plus it has the lines, 'Your mother ate my dog!' in it and the subsequent response, 'Well... not all of it.'

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Paranormal Activity 3 - More of the same  

Picture the scene... An empty room. Still an empty room. Wait ten seconds. A little bit more the empty room. Something moves. Repeat.

Just thread the above together for 80 minutes and you have a chapter in the Paranormal Activity franchise.

Am I being harsh? I actually liked the first movie. The first half was a little slow, but there were some genuinely creepy moments in the second act.

However, part 3 could basically be part 2. It follows the formula exactly. Yes, you get a few scares along the way. Yes, I even jumped and my heart raced when something jumped out at you, but if you've seen either of the previous instalments then you've seen this one.

It's technically a prequel to the previous ones. I guess if you REALLY loved them, you'll like this.

I noticed that it was produced for £5 million and made £105 million. With that kind of money-making power behind it, I'm guessing this will not be the last Paranormal film we'll be seeing. Although it WILL be the last one I'll be watching.

4/10 Dumb and Dumber could understand this film