Slumpy Film Reviews

Need For Speed (2014)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:00:00 +0000

Sum this mother up in 8 words or less: Computer game about nothing into film about nothing

Okay, lay it on me: Merlin's beard... preposterous nonsense lasting over 130 minutes!? I'm guessing this lot rushed Aaron Paul on his last day of shooting Breaking Bad and he panicked and said 'yes'. Bad call, Aaron, you could have done anything! Anything but this! In fairness, I think I enjoyed it more than those 'Tokyo Fast Drift i'm Furious' films. At least this was done in-camera and had some creative shots. It's starts of as an easy midweek watch but the gargantuan running time really starts to take it's toll after the 90 minute mark. These lads love their cars, so much revving! Also, why is Michael Keaton in this? He must be saving up for a new shed or something.

Clearly too short to see over that wheel

Would you watch it again? No. This is midweek madness and then best forgotten.

Rating (out of 100): There's some form of trying going on here but I can only muster a 51

Chef (2014)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 07:00:00 +0000

Sum this mother up in 8 words or less: Jon Favreau cooks instead of making Iron Men

Okay, lay it on me: This little beauty completely took me by surprise. After biting the big one and getting critically smashed to pieces for 2011's horrific 'Cowboys & Aliens' big Jon decided to take it back to the streets and make Chef, a low budget flick directed and starring himself. Chef clearly mirrors Favreau's experiences as a director making large studio films but secretly wanting to flex his artistic side by making smaller, more personal projects.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Loved the snappy dialogue, the interaction with Favreau's character and his son, all really funny stuff. Had absolutely no problem with all the Twitter stuff, the graphics that appear on the screen when people are tweeting work really well in my opinion. Also, apparently Twitter had zero part in getting this film made or financed, the directer is just a massive fan and it serves the story. There's Twitter in life baby! Cynics stay away.

Big Favreau tweeting his face clean off

Would you watch it again? Yeah! So easy. Such an easy watch!

Rating (out of 100): Chef gets a delicious, slow cooked, briskety 81

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 20:05:00 +0000

Sum this mother up in 8 words or less: It's Thor 2. He visits Greenwich.

Okay, lay it on me: Of all the phase 2 Marvel films this feels like the one they rushed to get released and cared least about. Doesn't really have much impact on the Marvel Cinematic Universe, doesn't move much along, certainly not compared to it's other phase 2 counterpart, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which basically changes everything. Having said all that this film is still a mighty Nordic romp with great casting and a totally enjoyable fast paced, simple storyline. Given the subject matter it really is a miracle this film works. Best enjoyed on a Sunday evening with a nice glass of Fanta.

Thor in the UK. Just look at that big hammer

Would you watch it again? Oh, totally. Love the Marvel films. Thor me!

Rating (out of 100): I give this a "HAMMER!" 79

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Darren) — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:08:00 +0000

Sum this mother up in 8 words or less: Magazine interns go investigate time travel personal ad.

Okay, lay it on me: A great sci-fi indie from the man who is now directing Jurassic World, (Colin Trevorrow). This totally took me by surprise, it's funny, sweet and is about possible time travel. What more could you want? Plus, it had a totally good ending which is rarer and rarer these days.

Would you watch it again? Yes indeed!

Rating (out of 100%): I give it a GIANT £90 (90%) for having a big old heart and a nice pair of balls too.

Soup

The Conjuring (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (Darren) — Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:40:00 +0000

Sum this mother up in 8 words or less: Paranormal investigators think the world of themselves.

Okay, lay it on me: This is a good, solid, big budget horror. Finally. Good actors and a steady pacing (for the most part) means that they can play out all the old horror cliches and still keep people interested.

It's your standard haunted-house-angry-at-nice-new-occupants story, not dissimilar to the Amityville Horror (the 'real life' stories are connected too). The Warrens are real life Paranormal Investigators and my advice to you is; if you haven't heard of the Warrens, don't look them up before watching the film. (They are totally annoying fraudsters who only perform séances on tables with table cloths that reach right to the floor.) They will put you off the film.

The scares are good here. There's none of the snazzy (crap) MTV editing of The Woman in Black. And, if you let the film in, the scares are strong enough to will get under your skin. I have a feeling one of the best was shown in the trailer though. But it is cool.

Would you watch it again? Yes. I'm going to buy the Blu-Ray. I hope there's an option to turn of the Warren's smug self-praising (I looked, they were involved in the production as was a giant, stinking mound of cash I presume).

Rating (out of 100%): 81% A really good effort. If the Warrens didn't think so much of themselves I'd give it another 5%.

The World's End (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:51:00 +0000

Sum this mother up in 8 words or less: Weird nostalgic pub crawl gets all robotronic

Okay, lay it on me: Firstly, I love these guys. When I say 'these guys' I mean the chaps that brought us Spaced, Shaun Of The Dead, and Hot Fuzz, and I guess when I say 'chaps' I'm directly referring to Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost. The World's End concludes the so called 'three flavours Cornetto trilogy' and it's fair to say I had pretty high expectations before going in having loved Shaun and Fuzz for many years now.

Get ready for a rip roaring festival of fun! Wait... Oh crap.

Unfortunately it only took around 10 minutes for me to realise that this wasn't going to be the film I wanted it to be. Something was off, this Cornetto had turned! It was a combination of the setup, music and general tone of the opening act that made me as sure as Sherlock's eggs that I was going to really struggle with this ensemble; some kind of generational barrier blocking my relating receptors perhaps? I know they're integral to the story but I found all the peripherals around Pegg and Frost to be gut zappingly dull. The nostalgic pub crawl around their home town is a pretty good idea but to fill it with characters that don't really like each other hardly makes it a fun ride and when the robots turn up it just feels... well, random. Not random in a cool, down with the kids, genius way, but more like in a 'what's our thing in this one? Robots? That'll do' lazy kind of way. The initial robot fight feels really clumsy and a little awkward. The films ideals and notion of 'the past is the past' made me dwell on the directer and cast, I was all like 'yeah, you guys don't do this anymore, do something different, move on, you can't just slip back into Shaun Of The Dead mode, that was bloody ages ago, you're all up in Star Trek and Tintin's guts now. Let go maaaaaan!' That's exactly what I said when I said 'they were all like..'

Drink up lads. But seriously, do drink up.

You wanna see Pegg and Frost being buddies, not hating each other and getting all serious. Pegg's character 'Gary King' is relatively annoying throughout but is responsible for most of the big laughs. Oh yeah, there are laughs, I mean it's not a total stinker, it's just a disappointment, like toasting waffles. I will also say this, Shaun and Fuzz were late bloomers, their awesomeness blossomed on repeat viewings, layers etc, especially Hot Fuzz. The World's End may do the same, I just can't see people wanting to reminisce with Gary King as much as they do with Shaun and Nicholas Angel.

The drunker they get in the film the better it gets though, thank god Frost's character starts to drink! He has some really funny physical comedy moments and takes on a terrific WWF fighting style! All the ale stuff is fun and I love the 'Starbucking' jokes about the pubs all looking the same. I mean there's some classic stuff in there it's just surrounded, veiled even, in this weird, dark tone of 'we're really not into this, lets just bang it out because we have to' attitude. As the film went on I did finally start getting into the swing of it but then the ending left me feeling a bit empty, like I wished they'd made a different sort of film tonally to end the trilogy on.

Would you watch it again? Of course. I've been mulling this over for a few days now and feel like I may have been overly critical. A repeat viewing will settle my internal conflict.

Rating (out of 100%): A really disappointing 68%. Some great lines and isolated moments but it never comes close to the endearing charm and fun of Fuzz and Shaun.

Monsters University (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (Emma) — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:06:00 +0000

Sum this mother up in 8 words or less: Monsters getting degrees in how to be monsters

Okay, lay it on me: I have been anticipating this film for SO long that the pressure and expectation was stacked pretty high. It was a fab watch with glorious animation and attention to detail, but at times the storyline lacked some of the usual Pixar magic and it wasn't everything I'd hoped for, let me carefully explain....

In Monsters Inc there is shameless fun approach to the whole film, represented by a complimentary and perfectly balanced mix of emotional storytelling slammed right next to a monster falling on his arse and screaming in pain. Slapstick lols and tear jerking friendship bought together in the addictive and charming mix that encompasses all great Pixar stories. With Monsters University, I just didn't think that balance was quite there. It was all a bit too, hmmm how to describe, well, there were moments where it felt like they were trying to be a bit too 'tween'. Some of the humour was up aged and made 'cooler' with some of the references not feeling as layered for kids and adults in usual Pixar style but perhaps adapted to meet the needs of the generation who have grown up with Monsters Inc. To be fair there were a lot of tweens there having a blast so maybe they got that right but for me struggling to keep my 3 year old in the chair for the first 40 mins while the film took way too long to warm up meant all I could think of was 'thank christ for popcorn....and smarties.....and milkshake....a Pom Bear....'

Like this chap, Monsters University takes a little while to get going

I really don't want to give the impression I'm slamming it. I really did enjoy it and diving into the world of Monsters University really was an experience in itself. Similar to that gushy feeling I get about fantasising about studying at Hogwarts (yep, still hacked off it's not a real place - surely it has to be real right?!), I could easily wander my mind into the Monster University campus with the thought of studying there a really warm fuzzy one. Small touches to the way they bought to life the campus were really powerful and catapulted you right into the scene, but it was way too slow to get into gear and the new characters could have been better I felt. The mature student character for example was just pure weird, a bit creepy and not that funny. Thankfully it did end on a big high. When the action kicked in it was back to usual Pixar standards and for the remaining hour my boy was engrossed (this was a relief as experimenting with putting his head though the seats in front resulted in him getting stuck and crying.)

Don't worry Mike, when you're older you'll understand that bottom bunk is actually better.

Would you watch it again? Yes, I will buy it on Blu-Ray, not DVD, its not the 90s. Its definitely a re-watcher and I felt like there was loads I missed and couldn't take in. Partly due to the head-stuck-in-seats-incident but also because of the detail and little references that were coming thick and fast on campus.

Rating (out of 100%): I give Monsters University a furry-slimy 80%. In university terms this would be a 2:1 - brilliant achievement but must not forget to bring it from the heart to reach the magical dizzy heights of scoring a 1st.

Pacific Rim (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 19:52:00 +0000

Sum this mother up in 8 words or less: Badass robots fight gigantic cuddly toys. No, wait...

Okay, lay it on me: This isn't time to get sniffy, stop messing about! You've seen the trailer, you've been comparing Jaeger (the giant robots) stats for months now on www.panpacificdefense.com, you know exactly what you're signing up for. Strap in and let your senses get ripped from their goggle sockets!

Meet Cherno Alpha! Poor bugger only has Speed 3

I was always going to be more interested in the look and personality of the big metal machines as opposed to the rather wooden thespians that lurk deep within their gizzards. That's what got me so excited about seeing this movie in the first place. I mean what kind of Kaji (monster) doesn't want to see two gigantic things having a massive scrap in the rain, at night, in a neon drenched Hong Kong?!?!

I mean come on, how can you not think that's awesome!?!

I didn't go to see a film last night. No, I didn't go and see Juno or Heat (films). I saw an IMAX 3D (biggest screen in UK) 12,000 Watt digital surround sound system, melt- your-face-off presentation of Pacific Rim. This is more akin to a 2 hour theme park ride than seeing a traditional film, therefore I judge it more on spectacle and excitement levels than script and execution. What I'm trying to say is things are changing: seeing movies in these conditions is such an immersive and electrifying experience that you forget you're watching a normal film. You've paid a bit more for this roller coaster and you'll be damned if you're going to hate the show because it's actually a bad film! It's very hard to be objective about a film when you're seeing it on such an amazing screen.

This is more Hollywood than you might expect from Guillermo del Toro and serves up a spectacularly shocking script. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason to why the script is so bad. Although I will say this, if you want to hide bad dialogue don't have Idris Elba squawking in his native tongue! Hide it with a booming American accent! It's what people expect. My god, the dialogue clangs and clunks like a bag of disused Jaeger parts. I best not mention the Australian accents either *shudder*.

Acting

A horrific script and 'smell the fart' acting would usually be more than enough to condemn even the most exciting summer block buster to the murky depths of my Pacific Rim, but this has gargantuan buoyancy aids that come in the form of Jaegers and Kaji!

The fights between the big things are mesmerisingly incredible and worth the price of admission alone. On an IMAX screen the Jaegers feel almost life size as they tower over you, shaking your bones with their awesomeness. My jaw was open every time they were on screen (which thankfully was quite often).

I suppose Pacific Rim is a balancing act. For me the excitement, action and smashing just edged the scales on the the side of awesomeness, where as for others, the acting and script may prove to be too much of a distraction, thus tipping to the side of utterly unwatchable dirge.

Would you watch it again? I would totally watch this again.

Rating (out of 100%): 80% An incredible ride if seen in the right conditions. Might be too rich for the small screen. Must dash, I'm off to install an IMAX in my loft.

V/H/S/2 (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (Darren) — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:22:00 +0000

Sum this mother up in 8 words or less: Some Scary tapes loosely strung together.

Okay, lay it on me: Second in the anthology horror series, V/H/S/2 seems more intent on having fun this time around. Gone is the oddly misogynistic streak of the first film and in with lots more blood, more action, more excitement and some better directors.

It's all about Gareth Huw Evans' (The Raid) 'Save Haven' this time. Which sees a Micky-Mouse Camera Crew start to film a documentary about a cult leader in Indonesia. They are granted access to witness the inner goings on of the sect and an interview with 'Father' himself. The closing 3 minutes of this segment are just immense and unexpected and shouldn't be spoilt here.

Untrustworthy...

Other segments worthy of mention are the start of a Zombie Apocalypse as seen from the perspective of one of the first infected courtesy of a GoPro mounted on his cycle helmet. Hilarity ensues! (Directed by Eduardo Sánchez of Blair Witch Fame).

Zoms

There's a lovely 80's style sleepover segment in which the kids are witness to an alien attack. And a Tales of the Unexpected-esque 'Phase 1 Clinical Trials' where a man sees visions after having a mechanical eye fitted (What do you expect?!).

The wrap-around tape is better this time too. Not leaving much time between 'popping on' the next VHS.

Would you watch it again? Oh yeah. I'd watch Safe Haven over and over. The rest of them, only at Halloween.

Rating (out of 100%): 69% Watch it for Save Haven.

Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:51:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Kirk & Spock et al enter the dark

What's it all About? The usual suspects are all back on the bridge to boldly go where no one has gone before. In this case, they actually go where they've gone before ie, breaking rules, travelling at warp speed and punching people in the face. This time there is supposed rogue agent on the lose added to the mix.

Doesn't this guy know how doors work?

Best bits? The scene where The Enterprise plummets earthward with little to no power is exhilarating and tense and has sensational special effects.

Did it make you think thoughts? This experience started off with a whopping 6 trailers to get me in the mood. The Hangover III (awful), Enders Game (awful), After Earth (looks okay but will be awful), Fast and Furious 6 (cheesy fun), World War Z (awful) and Man of Steel (this has me super excited). I mentioned these trailers as it seems to be the norm nowadays to completely spoil any surprises for upcoming films by chucking every last twist, turn and cameo into the trailer. Fortunately the Star Trek trailer didn't go down this route mainly due to it being pretty terrible with super fast edits and stuff exploding that left me with a feeling of, 'what the hell was that all about?'. In this case a good thing though as it didn't ruin any surprises for the film itself the biggest of which is the identity of one of the villains. Avoid spoilers if possible and you'll get more of a kick out of it.

More lingering Enterprise shots

The film has a great opening sequence that throws the viewer straight into the action as the crew of the Enterprise try to save an indigenous population form impending doom. The action is fast, furious and ends with a moral dilemma that has an impact on later developments.

If you stick J.J Abrams on scriptwriting, producing or directing you know you're going to get something good and that's the case here. (the fact he's attached to the new Star Wars flick is exciting indeed) Everything seems spot on and although there are stretches of talking heads and playful banter, none of it drags on or impedes the ensuing set pieces. The performances are good, the script helps obviously, and we get a mixture of light hearted comedy, drama and anguished filled bad guys bent on the destruction of our heroes.

Future Spock rears his head again and has a conversation with young Spock but the resolution of that is left dangling. There's also a good bit towards the end that riffs on a previous 80's Star Trek flick but reverses two specific to great effect which I won't spoil here. It's just a shame that the 'event' isn't permanent as this could have continued into the next film much in the way it did in the 80's versions. If this all sounds confusing you'll know what I mean after you've seen it.

Necessary? You be the judge

There are a couple of missteps though. As much as I like Cumberbatch, his villain comes across as very 'pantomime' and most of his dialogue is delivered in such a way as to make it a bit too cringe worthy.

We have Sherlock in custody

Another criticism is that it didn't feel at all like a sequel. This is good in a way as it lets newcomers jump straight in without needing any prior Trek knowledge although it does mean that we see virtually zero character development and progression of story lines. I imagine that given time, it will also suffer a similar malady to the first installment. I've now seen the first one twice but, if quizzed, wouldn't be able to tell you what it was about or what happened. It's all kind of generic and melds into one big sci-fi space war thingy. Oh yeah, the Klingons are woefully underused as well.

More of these guys please

Would you watch it again? Sure would.

Rating (out of 100%): A great flick and my only concern is that the franchise will continue to not bring anything new to the table. That said, I give Into Darkness a beam-me-up 90%

Iron Man 3 (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 08 May 2013 10:28:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: The Golden Avenger vs domestic terrorism

What's it all About? Iron pants is back and this time he faces the threat of The Mandarin, a terrorist who has targeted the president of the united states. When Tony Stark's bodyguard, Happy Hogan, gets roughed up Tony dons the suit and takes the fight to The Mandarin.

Best bits? The bit where Pepper gets Iron manised is pretty cool but otherwise best bits are thin on the ground.

Did it make you think thoughts? Let's get the good out of the way first. Downey Jr is ace as Tony Stark. His casual, playboy super-mechanic is played to perfection and he manages to make Stark extremely likeable considering he's a bit of spoiled brat with a superiority complex. Unfortunately it's all down here from there and as a warning, SPOILERS WILL FOLLOW.

In a nutshell, the script is poor, the plot is poor and the direction is suspect. The actors do the best with what they've got and ultimately you can't fault their performances. Cheadle is good comedy relief and I thought we'd be seeing him in ass kicking action as The Iron Patriot but alas the film makers had other ideas.

I knew it would be a long 2 hours when at the beginning of the film we see Tony getting dressed in his new suit of armour by just pointing at it and having it fly through the air in individual bits before it attaches itself to his body. One major beef I have is with the portrayal of The Mandarin. The original comic book version of this character is Chinese in origin and megalomanic in nature. He is a super intelligent, highly skilled martial artist and has ten power rings that grant him extraordinary abilities. I appreciate that not all things in comic books will translate well to the big screen but what they have done with him is a travesty. I was appalled when he appeared on screen with a horrible american accent and no power rings. The reason for this became clear with the twist when it was revealed he was just an actor 'playing' the part of The Mandarin. When Ben Kingsley reverted to his english accent and actor guise I sighed such a sigh that I think I annoyed the only two other people in the cineplex. From this point on the film was dead to me.

With this shambles in place, we see the real villain is Guy Pearce's Aldridge Killian. A wet drip of a man who becomes all powerful when he takes on the extremis project. This extremis makes men (and women) near indestructable, gives them the ability to regrow limbs, makes them able to survive being shot, burnt, exploded, tasered ad infinitum...yawn. It's never explained how though save for some backstabbing science chick who reveals it's all in the 'dna'. The bit where the main bad dude breaths fire though? Wow, mega Ugh. Also, all Killian wanted to do was sell his extremis human weapons to the worlds arms market so why he had to go through the palaver of kidnapping the president and creating The Mandarin I'm not entirely sure. I don't think the screen writers were either judging by the crap job they did with the script and story.

The end action scene is horrible with the president strung up Jesus like and has way too many Iron Man suits clogging up the screen. Why didn't he just call for all those automated suits earlier when he really needed them? Maybe Mr Stark isn't a super genius after all. Oh yeah, and what was that whole bit with the kid about? Tiresome and pointless. Overall the action scenes suffer from a trend that I thought the movie business had grown out of, that of super fast editing that makes it almost impossible to tell what's going on. Terrible.

Here's the thing, I'm a big comic book fan and before all the chumps out there start banging on that, 'He's just a raging fanboy who would never be satisfyed,' you should all know I really liked the first Iron Man and even the second one that most people hated on. Whereas the first film was fresh and new, this just seemed like a Hollywood cash-in. More than anything I came away angry. Angry that all involved would make such a pile of dog turd and angry with myself that I was sucked into the hype that it would be a rollercoaster thrill ride. In fact I had more of a thrill on the pedestrian style monorail at Chessington World of Adventures last week. On a side note, I must say that for pure ride enjoyment, Thorpe Park is the place to go. Rush, Stealth, Detonator and Nemesis are all fantastic. Chessington is great though if you want a bit more bang for your buck. There's a zoo, aquarium, sealion shows, a mini safari and loads of other stuff to keep the kids busy.

My best advice to people would be to check out the Extremis comic written by Warren Ellis and drawn by Adi Granov and also Joe Casey and Eric Canete's Enter The Mandarin which will give a much better interpretation of what this story is all about.

Would you watch it again? The Chief's main premise for whether or not a film is good is it's rewatchability so no I wouldn't watch again. Either of the Fantastic Four films, Daredevil and even Elektra are better than this.

Rating (out of 100%): Man this sucks balls hard. I give Iron Man 3 a game-changing (and not in a good way) 28%

The Three Musketeers (1993)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 20:54:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Those pesky Musketeers are at it again

What's it all About? Yet another retelling of the Dumas Musketeer tale that changes things to become a bit more movified. The first 20 minutes are pretty much a scene for scene facsimile of the 1973 version. Then some big changes occur. Cardinal Richelieu and Rochefort have more predominant roles and instead of the Queen having an affair with the Duke of Buckingham, it is now the Cardinal who wants to unite France and England to depose the King. He has the Musketeers disbanded and only our three remaining swordsmen (and D'Artagnan) can fight together for King and country.

Best bits? Nothing to see here

Did it make you think thoughts? From the outset this film establishes itself as a light hearted, chuckling, true Disney affair. With this in mind I thought there would be heroes punching villains and using the hilt of the sword to knock foes unconscious. It was surprising then that the film depicts lots of killing, stabbing, sword slashing and a particularly gruesome iron maiden scene. I was confused. Oh well.

Looking at the action scenes, they do their job but have no choreography that shows off the abilities of the musketeers. That is, our heroes just fight like normal guys. It's fairly common practice in action films to portray the hero as a super dude who has crazy ass moves and dazzling skills. Our boys however, fight as if they've just finished their shift at the local burger joint, picked up a sword and fancied duelling some mustachioed villains. Boring and lame.

The set pieces are ok but there is one that sticks out as being truly abysmal. The three ~~stooges~~ musketeers and tag-along D'artagnan are being pursued by Rochefort and his band of horsemen. The muskies decide to de-board their horse and carriage, set it alight and roll it down the hill towards the enemy. How will the enemy avoid this? All well and good but then consider the fact that it's not a narrow path that the flaming carriage is hurtling down but in fact a massive, and I mean massive wide expanse, effectively a field. I surmise it would take approximately a 15-20 degree turn either left or right for Rochefort and his goons to steer around the wheeled doom that is heading towards them but they inexplicably turn around whilst shrieking like girls and ride in the opposite direction. Words failed me at the time and all I could muster was a loud groan.

The casting crew need to have a long hard look at themselves as well. Charlie Sheen? Now, stick Chuck in a comedy ala Hotshots and it's a winning combination. Make him have to pretend he's a 17th century French swash-buckler and there's a well deserved combination of egg and face. Oliver Platt fares no better and there's something about Sutherland that just rubs me the wrong way (I think it's his face, acting, posture and voice).

If you see this man, Slumpy commands you to punch him in the face

Tim Curry is the only stand-out performance. His Richelieu is all evil Disney cackles and laughs and loves protracted bouts of exposition where he delivers his plans like a Bond villain before his inevitable comeuppance.

The only thing better than the 1973 version is that the story is easier to follow and perhaps makes more sense.

Would you watch it again? Nah, this is a pretty poor effort.

Rating (out of 100%): It's a romp that is easily forgettable so with that in mind I give it a lacklustre 45%

The Three Musketeers (1973)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:45:00 +0000

In 8 words or less: Boozing, gambling, fighting. The life of a Musketeer

What's it all About? The oft-told tale by Dumas of deception, cunning and quests for power in 17th century France. Evil Cardinal R (Chuck Heston) intends to take the Queen's position of power next to King Louis XIII by revealing details of her affair with the English Duke of Buckingham. On the side of the good guys are the self titled Musketeers (Reed, Chamberlin and Finlay) along with bumbling hopeful D'Artagnan (York).

Best bits? The first 20 minutes are cracking. The slapstick comedy elements are stop on as D'Artagnan travels to France to become a musketeer only to anger Porthos, Athos, Aramis and the vile Rochefort.

Did it make you think thoughts? Wow, they sure flounced them costumes up in the 70's, didn't they. This film certainly looks the part with it's spectacular looking gowns, feathered hats and top notch tunics. No computer generated imaged here obviously and the sets look particularly authentic.

These boys sure do love cash and cleavage and to be honest they don't really give a monkeys about serving their king and this is one of the films failings. Scenes of gambling, boozing and cavorting are prevalent and definitely sidetrack the movie from it's main focus. There are also a few too many plot threads and non-needed characters that left me wondering why certain things were happening and characters motives. This also meant that the film was about 20 minutes too long. With so much going on, the two main villains get too little screen time to ham it up liked I'd hope they would. A missed opportunity.

Interestingly, during filming the producer shot two films at the same time without telling the cast. In 1974 The Four Musketeers was realised, a film the cast weren't aware of as they'd only been paid for one flick and not been told about it!

Captain Hook maybe?

Would you watch it again? Probably not. They are some good scenes and York is excellent but it just felt a bit like a rambling adventure film without much adventure.

Rating (out of 100%): Although this is considered somewhat of a classic by many, it must be remembered that The Chief is not the many. I was bored during too much of this film and therefore give it a French-bearded 48%

Worse than: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Better than: The Three Musketeers (1993)

The Untouchables (1987)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:14:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: 'G-man' Elliot Ness vs Al Capone

What's it all About? With police corruption rife, federal agent Elliot Ness and a small team attempt to strike at the heart of organised crime by bringing down the big dog himself, Al Capone (played brilliantly by Bob De Niro)

Best bits? The films closing 10 minute train station scene is full of tense, suspenseful drama and is a real tour de force.

Did it make you think thoughts? Connery won the best supporting actor Oscar even though his Irish accent is one of the worst ever in movie history challenging Pitt's effort in The Devil's Own, Cruise in Far and Away and Lee Edwards in Blown Away. Oh well, we know that the Academy is pretty clueless. In fact, this film is full of strangeties. Not only did Connery somehow win an Oscar but the film also snagged one for Best Original Score. Surely only because it was by Ennio Morricone as most of it's up beat, friendly-feel jingles seem wildly out of place.

This guys head is about to be introduced to a baseball bat

By all accounts, the majority of the story is fictionalised but that's ok as the action and drama is quite exciting and entertaining throughout. It's fairly operatic in nature and De Plama's standard style-over-substance routine is evident but slightly reigned in by the David Mamet script.

'Do you feel lucky punk?'

Would you watch it again? Yeah, it's ok, if a bit long, but it's light hearted, in places, take on gangsters v cops is good Sunday afternoon fare.

Rating (out of 100%): I give The Untouchables a bootlegging 68%

Better than: Dick Tracy (1990)
Worse than: LA Confidential (1997)

G.I. Joe Retaliation (2013)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:05:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Rock lays the smack down on Cobra

What's it all About? It's dual threat time as the covert ops team known as G.I. Joe continue their fight against Cobra but now also have to contend with clandestine forces within their own chain of command.

Best bits? Cobra Commander is cool.

Did it make you think thoughts? Two plots threads are followed up from the first film (Zartan impersonating a high ranking official and the Snakes Eyes/Storm Shadow history lesson) but to be honest a casual fan diving straight into this will easily be confused. That said, it's 50% sequel and 50% reboot. Yes, some characters return but lots don't and we are introduced to a multitude of new heroes and villains the main of which is Roadblock played by Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson.

Confession time. Back in the day I was a big wrestling fan and one of my faves was none other than The Rock. I liked this guy:

What I'm now not a fan of is this guy.

The stupid grinning, the cheesy posturing, the crumby film choices, bleh. At least in this flick he keeps it to a minimum but he still hams up most scenes.

If you're reading this you should know I'm a big Joe fan which is grounded in the fact that I have all the comics dating back over 20 years. Here's a sample of my custom bound hard cover collections.

I even use to buddy up with Slumpy president Ben to create battle scenes with our action figures. Hoo Rah.

Action figure set-ups!

With that in mind, this film was always going to be a tough sell and after hating the first installment on it's release, but then warming to it on re-watches, I was cautious about this one. I'm sad to say it's actually a bit worse than the 2009 flick. The action is even more over the top, the fight scenes are shot so fast with that super-choppy style of editing that I couldn't tell what was happening, the sub plot with Snakes and Stormy is hard to follow (if you're not a fan with knowledge of their history) and features a very bizarre cameo by RZA and the script is pretty woeful. In short, the film is firmly aimed at the pre teen crowd who will no doubt lap it up.

Would you watch it again? I would but only because I'm a fan of the source material and I'm hoping it will grow on me.

'Aren't you a little short for a ~~storm~~...Snake Eyes?'

Rating (out of 100%): There's bound to be a sequel but for now I give this latest G.I. Joe a, 'Here's hoping for some Dreadnok action in the next one' 50%

Braveheart (1995)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:44:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Aussie/Scot Gibson shows he's no cunning linguist

What's it all About? As a nipper, William Wallace's family and friends are slaughtered by the treacherous King Edward I. Wallace goes overseas and returns to raise an army in an attempt to unify the Scots and defeat the evil English.

Best bits? Dodgy accent aside, Gibbo's rousing speeches hit the mark with heart felt passion and inspiration.

Did it make you think thoughts? Say what you want about Gibson as a person, he maybe a loony tune but he can make a pretty good movie. I always use to be of the opinion that Braveheart was a fairly rubbish film and only decided to re-watch it as I was off and it was on tv. It actually stands up pretty well and I enjoyed most of the 3 hour runtime.

Gibbo screaming 'till he's blue in the face

The scale is impressive as Gibbo tries to create an old fashioned epic in the same vain as Spartacus. He succeeds in some if not all avenues. Slow motion must have been the flavour of the month as Mel splashes it around with gay abandon which amounts to overuse and sucks the life out of some scenes and makes dramatic moments tedious.

Praise should go to the cinematographer who captures the rolling Scottish landscape with lush panning visuals. The numerous fight scenes are also a highlight. Vicious, bloody battles that showcase the horrors of war. The editing in these scenes is particularly impressive.

'Look at my gigantic pole'

Would you watch it again? It's a proper rainy afternoon matinee flick so probably.

Rating (out of 100%): Not the oscar worthy flick that the academy deemed it to be (although it must have been a weak year seeing as Babe was also up for best pic) but a solid romp. I give Braveheart a mud slinging, freedom giving, English killing 67%

The Foot Fist Way (2006)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:00:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: King of the Demo...Tae-Kwon-Do that is

What's it all About? Fred Simmons (McBride) runs a Tae Kwon Do school but not everything is hunky dory. His marriage is on the rocks his self confidence is shot and his martial arts hero is a turns out to be tool.

Best bits? When Fred tries selling his car there's a good little back and forth with the prospective buyer.

Did it make you think thoughts? Sure did. I always thought I liked Danny McBride but I've discovered I'm not really a fan. Cameos in Superbad, Pineapple Express and Tropic Thunder (all rubbish films btw) all made me laugh but recent appearances in Your Highness and 30 Minutes or Less made me cringe. With this in mind I thought if I delved into his back catalogue I might find a gem and added to this I'd heard good things about Foot Fist. Sadly it was not to be. This is just a poorly made, unfunny film that has no real redeeming qualities.

'I will beat your ass little kid'

I think the film makers were going for a Napoleon Dynamite vibe with a kooky off beat lead character and not much plot. It that was the case it worked but it's now also made me question whether or not I should re-watch the aforementioned ND as maybe I'll now think that is turd as well.

The film flip flops between Fred being an inept joke of an instructor to him being competent and worthy of his skills. Strange. Ultimately I just didn't get it. What I mean to say is, I understood what was happening on the screen but I didn't understand what the point of it all was or what the film makers were trying to achieve.

'Your Kung Fu is weak'

Would you watch it again? No.

Rating (out of 100%): This falls down on the main concept of what a comedy should be. It's just not funny. I give The Foot Fist Way a two-footed 32%

Worse than: Talladega Nights: The Ballard of Ricky Bobby (2006)
As good as: Beverley Hills Ninja (1997)

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Everyman Denzil defuses underground hostage heist

What's it all About? A guy and his goons hijack a subway car and demand a cool 10 mil or they'l start offing the hostages. Yawn. Oh yeah, the head scum bag Ryder (Travolta) will only talk to train dispatcher Walter Garber (Washington).

A Chief pet hate. Movies that feature civilians with guns

Best bits? None come to mind.

Did it make you think thoughts? Within 30 seconds of this film starting I knew it was a Tony Scott flick. Slo-mo, sped-up, fast edits, blurry shots, it's all there and it's all very repetitive.

I was initially intrigued where this was going as I knew nothing of the original flick but it quickly turned into a run-of-the-mil hostage heist movie. Obviously with this being a Hollywood production it was inevitable there would be a twist and I waited patiently. I waited and waited and when the credits rolled I was still waiting. Hhmm.

'You make a lot of films, you gotta expect some to be turd'

Among all the mudanity we get a copy of the, wildly superior, John McLean-Al Powell dynamic from Die Hard with Travs refusing to speak to anyone but Denzil who is strangely at ease chatting with the terrorist. Also, why is no one on the train scared of the guys with the guns threatening their lives? In fact everyone in the whole film exudes a sense of clam and composure. Maybe it's a New York thing.

As the film neared the end I was still struggling to understand what Travolta's ultimate plan involving stocks and shares was. I shall lump it in with, why does toast always fall butter side down? as an unexplained mystery.

'What was my plan again'

Would you watch it again? Nah

Rating (out of 100%): The main problem here is that nothing interesting happens. It is literally a paint by numbers affair. It's not a complete turkey but doesn't add anything new or exciting to the genre. I give The Taking of Pelham 123 a lacklustre 55%

Better than: Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995)
Worse than: Die Hard (1988)

Lincoln (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Honest Abe or honest bore?

What's it all About? Can Lincoln push through the amendment to the constitution that will make slaves free men? It's kind of a pointless question really as we all know the answer.

Best bits? I wouldn't that there's one particular highlight but the overall package is very well produced.

Did it make you think thoughts? Let's get one thing straight, Day-Lewis is one hell of an actor and here he puts in another stellar performance. I can't say whether or not he nails the true Lincoln persona as I have zero reference point for knowing how this great historical figure actually acted but I do know he's probably already written his oscar speech.

The War Room. 'Get me those votes'

Elsewhere Tommy Lee Jones is miscast as Senator Thaddeus Stevens. I'm not sure what it is but I just can't take him seriously in that role. On the positive side, Sally Field is great as Mrs Lincoln. Fiery, powerful and a fantastic foil to the stoic single minded Mr Lincoln.

This Gordon-Levitt guy pops up everywhere

My main beef with this film is that not much actually happens. Don't believe all those glowing 5-star reviews that you'e undoubtedly seen on the tv, the web and in print proclaiming this as the greatest thing since sliced bread for it most certainly is not (that award goes to either peanut butter or Batman). A more accurate description would be that it plays like a dry history lesson with an over abundance of talking heads which is a shame because what I really wanted was a cradle-to-croak biopic not just a snap shot section of Abe's life.

It may sound like I'm giving this a bit of a bashing but I did like it and Spielberg has crafted a compelling if not fascinating look at a key moment in American history.

Oops, wrong film

Would you watch it again? Probably, if it was on at Christmas I would have it on in the background.

Rating (out of 100%): Two films delving into the horrid world of slavery have been released recently and this is the second best one. I give Lincoln a good but not great 72%

Better than: Amistad (1997)
Worse than: Django Unchained (2012)

Gunfight at the O.K Corral (1957)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:30:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Wyatt & Doc shoot 'em up

What's it all About? Marshall Wyatt Earp (Lancaster) and gambler/gunslinger Doc Holiday (Douglas) are worlds apart but end up in an unlikely alliance in this 'town based' western.

Best bits? While some hoodlums shoot up the town, Doc is sitting rock steady playing cards and telling the dealer, who is shaking and cowering, to deal the cards and get on with the game. Ice cool playa. There is also a fantastic scene in the barber's shop.

Did it make you think thoughts? There are two cracking lead performances here. It's a stand-off between bravura egos as the pair swagger and stride around every scene. Lancaster was arguably the bigger star but for the Chief, it's Douglas who steals the show. His tortured gambler is strong, resolute and stoic but hides an inner turmoil that threatens to destroy him.

It's also important to note that this was a big budget production and it shows. Sets are lushly constructed, colours vivid and the cast is all on top form. Even a young Dennis Hopper impresses as as a gunslinger who is conflicted by doing the right thing and standing tall with his cattle rustling family. Commercially the film did very well at the box office and sent the making of B westerns into decline.

Would you watch it again? Yeah, it's a great interpretation of the classic gunfight that is well worth yout time.

'No gambling here missy'

Rating (out of 100%): I really enjoyed this. It might be about 15 minutes too long but even then I give Gunfight at the O.K Corral a rootin' tootin' 82%

Better than: Wyatt Earp (1994)
As good as: Tombstone (1993)

Force 10 from Navarone (1978)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:30:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: A poor man's Dirty Dozen

What's it all About? The Force 10 squad led by Harrison Ford is tasked with blowing up a bridge in Yugoslavia. Tagging onto this group is Robert Shaw and his buddy Edward Fox who have a separate mission to route out a traitor and eliminate him.

'We're gonna need a bigger gun'

Best bits? There is a great scene where a captured Force 10 execute a cracking bluff to convince their German hosts that they are deserters and not on a top secret mission to cripple the Nazi war effort.

Did it make you think thoughts? This is one of those 70's ensemble cast pieces that popped up a lot in that decade. Harrison Ford, Robert Shaw, Edward Fox, Carl Weathers, Barbara Bach and Richard Kiel are all on show. Weathers appears to still be playing Apollo Creed with his, angry, shouty 'you done me wrong' Sergeant Weaver, Kiel is in Bond-villain Jaws mode except now he has a sketchy Yugoslav accent, Fox is excellent as the stiff upper lipped straight man and explosives expert Miller and Ford and Shaw display great chemistry as they repeatedly clash and unsurprisingly then buddy-up.

'Cut yourself shaving?'

Would you watch it again? Probably not. There are too many other better war movies out there.

Rating (out of 100%): A solid if not spectacular war movie that stretches on a bit too long. I give Force 10 a young-Han-Solo-outing 50%

Worse than: The Guns of Navarone (1961)
Better than: Attack Force Z (1982)

Pearl Harbour (2001)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:04:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: War movie with added love story

What's it all About? Set at the start of WWII, a couple of young hotshot pilots enlist in the airforce but things turn sour when Rafe (Alfleck) volunteers to go overseas and help fight in the Battle of Britain. When news reaches the States that Rafe has been shot down, the love of his life Evelyn (Beckinsale) falls into the arms of Rafe's best friend Danny (Hartnett). Oops. After the Japanese launch a sneak attack on the Hawaiian US naval base in Pearl Harbour, America officially enters WWII.

Best bits? The dogfights are very well done with some great sequences of aerial combat.

Did it make you think thoughts? Yeah, never listen to the Mrs. I'd never seen this before as I had heard it was rubbish but my better half (cough, cough) convinced me it would make good Sunday evening viewing. The first hour is filled with so much cheese I felt like I had enough calcium to last a lifetime. Once the action kicks in, things pick up a bit but the whole Cuba Gooding Jr shtick fees like a tacked on way to show that African Americans played their part in the war effort. Unfortunately it comes across as clumsy and hamfisted.

Run Affleck, run

Whilst watching it struck me how similar this was to The Dark Knight. Both films have a perfect end point, the Joker/Batman showdown, and here it is the bombing of Pearl Harbour. It's a shame then that both films add on a third act that overpowers the natural ending and thus is a big anticlimax. In this case it's the B-25 bombers flying to Tokyo on a reveng mission. It's all a bit heavy on the US war effort propaganda. 'You bombed our military base you dirty foreigners. We bombed your city full of civilians. We're heroes.' Ugh.

Luckily I had my laptop on showing some American football playoff action as well as a juicy rump steak accompanied by curly fries, onion rings and some buttered peas to soften the blow of this hamfest. Top draw.

Would you watch it again? No

Rating (out of 100%): Too long, too much schmultz, too much bad acting and script. I give Pearl Harbour a don't-waste-your-time 30%
Worse than: Top Gun (1986)
Better than: Being in WWII

Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (2005)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:11:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Here we go again....Oh dear

What's it all About? The bad dude from the first film (no not Jeremy Irons, we're talking about his right hand man whose name escapes me) is back in a quest to take over the land. Booorrring.

Our plucky band of adventurers

Best bits? None. The effects are even worse than the first instalment. In fact this resembles a no-budget straight to dvd hamfest. I actually quite like the poster though.

Did it make you think thoughts? See this link: Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

'Can you believe they paid me for this? The fools, ha ha ha'

Would you watch it again? No

Rating (out of 100%): This scores a couple of points based on the fact it has some comedy value. 6%

Dungeons & Dragons (2000)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:54:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Awesome fantasy dragon tale........erm...no.

What's it all About? An evil, vengeful sorcerer wants some kind of power rod that will help him control dragons and thus rule the land (maniacal laugh) Only some annoying teenage vagabonds an elf and a dwarf can save the day. Lord of the Rings this ain't.

~~Best~~ Worst bits? All of it.

Shouldn't this guy be in the Crystal Maze?

Did it make you think thoughts? There's an important question that need to be answered here. What the hell were you thinking when you decided to watch this Chief? Hhmm good question Chief. Why thank you Chief. I was under the impression that even though this was widely regarded as absolutely terrible, I would find some joy in it's fantasy sword and sorcery element. Oh dear, how wrong I was. Nothing like the fabulous cartoon or the long standing role playing game the only purpose this film served was to waste 107 minutes of my life. Oh yeah, what the hell is Jeremy Irons doing in this?

What do you mean this isn't the Tolkien book adaption

Would you watch it again? Ha ha, good one.

Rating (out of 100%): Terrible direction, script, acting, choreography, effects, plot, lighting, sound direction, screenplay, cinematography and costumes. Worst film ever? Maybe. I give Dungeons & Dragons a Christmas ho, ho, horrible 3%

Avoid any movie with this clown in

Total Recall (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:18:00 +0000

In 7 words or less: Sci-fi Colin does sci-fi Arnie

What's it all About? Set in the future where there are scant few habitable locations, The United Federation of Britain is fighting constant battles with a resistance movement intent on bringing the corrupt corporation to it's knees. Enter Doug Quaid, a factory worker who unlocks hidden knowledge on a visit to memory implant centre.

Best bits? This film looks great. Very nice futuristic feel and some quality special effects.

Did it make you think thoughts? Sure did. I expected to hate this. A tacky remake with the annoying Colin Farrell and no doubt rubbish special effects and plotting. To my surprise none of that was the case. It rattles along at a good pace with well choreographed fight scenes, a functional script and exciting action pieces.

This doesn't happen

Some might say it's pretty much a direct 'copy' of the original 1990 Arnie flick but that's not a bad thing. Yes, a lot of the scenes are the same and at first I was thinking, 'Man, this is just another one of those pointless remakes of ye olde classics' but after a while I got right into it. Good stuff.

This does

There's a nice bit of eye candy as well in the shapely forms of Jessica Biel and Kate Beckinsale which never hurts.

Women driver, look out!

Would you watch it again? Yeah I really liked it.

Rating (out of 100%): Miles better than Looper, this is definitely worth a watch. I give Total Recall a stuck-in-the-memory 75%