Film Review: CHRISTINE (1983)

Director: John Carpenter
Running time: 110 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 18

Genre: Horror/Mystery/Thriller
UK release date: 2nd March 1984

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 27th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This is one of those movies that I’ve seen bits and pieces of over the years, but never all the way through, until now. You see, it’s always on late at night when I get home from the pub and I either see the start, or a bit in the middle, or the start and the end (having fallen asleep in between). And so, for the first time I’ve seen it all the way through. It’s actually pretty good, not great, but certainly worth watching sober sometime. But more of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters and those that don’t wish to know anything about the plot please help Arnie fix that beat up old Plymouth Fury while I write the next paragraph).

It is 1978 where Arnie Cunningham is a bit of a dork, he wears glasses and can’t get a girl to save his life. His best friend, Dennis Guilder, tries to help him out, but he’s just not cut out for that kind of thing yet. After a run-in with some bullies at school one day, Dennis is giving Arnie a lift home when Arnie spots a car for sale. It’s a beaten up red 1958 Plymouth Fury nicknamed ‘Christine’ by the owner whose brother, the former owner, had recently died. Arnie is instantly in love with the car and pays the asking price there and then. His parents don’t want the car at home and so he keeps it at Darnell’s ‘Do It Yourself Garage’ nearby. There is something strange about the car that Arnie can’t quite put his finger on, but he works hard to bring her back to her former glory. As time goes by he begins to become more and more confident in himself as his obsession with the car grows. By now he has a girlfriend, Leigh Cabot, but woe betide anyone that gets between Arnie and Christine. Now, you remember those bullies I mentioned earlier, well… Looks like that’s all you’re gonna get from me, you didn’t expect the entire thing did you? Sorry to disappoint.

Based on a novel by Stephen King I found this to be a pretty good adaptation of the story. The characters are well rounded and, of course, it’s a damn good tale. John Carpenter did an excellent job with the special effects, no CGI back then, but you wouldn’t know. Pretty good performances all round, particularly from Keith Gordon as Arnie Cunningham, he really had to ring the changes in this one. John Stockwell did a pretty good job as Dennis Guilder, as did Alexandra Paul as Leigh Cabot. I also have to mention Robert Prosky whose almost comic-book performance as Will Darnell was excellent and it was nice to see a younger Harry Dean Stanton as Detective Rudolph Junkins.

At the end of the day the star of the show is definitely the car, Christine. It has its own personality and a big role to play in the film. This is brought across very well by some excellent direction, some brilliant special effects and the performances of the human cast. It’s far from perfect I know, maybe a little long, but at the end of the day it’s still worth a watch (or two… preferably sober, but not essential)… Recommended.

My score: 6.5/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0085333/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/christine/
Official Site: http://www.theofficialjohncarpenter.com/pages/themovies/ch/ch.html
Trailer: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/christine/trailers/

Film Review: THE PRESTIGE (2006)

Co-Writer/Director: Christopher Nolan
Running time: 126 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12A

Genre: Drama/ Mystery/Thriller
UK release date: 10th November 2006

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 27th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

For the record, I have seen this film before, but this is the first time I’ve attempted a review. I will admit to being a growing fan of Christopher Nolan’s work, ever since the excellent ‘Inception’ last year I have tried to see all of his work whenever possible. Although not perfect, this is a fine example of his work, a beautifully crafted story that is both compelling and very mysterious. But more of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters and those that don’t wish to know anything about the plot please enjoy the magic show while I write the next paragraph).

Every great magic trick consists of three acts; ‘The Pledge’, ‘The Turn’ and ‘The Prestige’. Now, I could tell you what they all mean, but Michael Caine does it so much better in the trailer. But I digress; we’re here to talk about the plot. Two magicians, Alfred Borden and Robert Angier are working together when tragedy strikes. Angier’s wife, Julia, is killed in an onstage accident. He blames Borden for her death and thus begins a bitter rivalry. They both set out alone to be the better magician and both make every effort to thwart the other. Eventually Borden creates a trick that Angier cannot figure out and from then it’s no holds barred. In search of the answer he goes to America to seek the help of scientist Nikola Tesla. What he creates for Angier is quite mind-blowing and very dangerous. But the secret to Borden’s trick is not what you may think. I think I’ve said enough and so I’ll leave it there.

As you might expect from a Christopher Nolen film, it is very well made with great cinematography, great sets, costumes and, not least, performances. Great work from both Christian Bale as Alfred Borden and Hugh Jackman as Robert Angier, both are superb in this one. Also great to see were Michael Caine as Cutter and Scarlett Johansson as Olivia Wenscombe. And I must give honourable mentions to Andy Serkis as Alley and David Bowie (yes him) as Tesla.

I have seen this one before and so could remember a good portion of the plot while re-watching it. Even so, I found it quite compelling; I love the way the audience are drawn into the story. It may not have the scope of The Dark Knight or Inception, and it may not be quite as crazy as Memento, but it’s still a great example of his work. As I said at the beginning, it’s not perfect, I felt some of the early scenes were a little rushed and a little more time could have been spent on ‘The Pledge’ without ruining ‘the Prestige’ (just a little magician joke there). Over all, very compelling, excellently made with some great performances… Highly Recommended.

My score: 8.6/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/prestige/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2835284761/

Film Review: CIRCLE OF EIGHT (2009)

Director: Stephen Cragg
Running time: 84 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Mystery/Drama
UK release date: Straight to DVD

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 26th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

From the description on the TV guide, this looked like it might be interesting. Unfortunately you cannot believe everything you read. The concept was quite good, however, the execution didn’t match up by a long chalk. I’ll explain what I mean later, but here’s a brief summary first (summary haters and those that don’t wish to know anything about the plot please help Jessica move in while I write the next paragraph).

Jessica is moving into her first apartment in the big city (Los Angeles in this case). Driving through the streets she’s full of optimism and looking forward to her new surroundings. Outside the building, the Dante, she meets Evan, an attractive young man who helps her with her stuff. The building manager, Ed, is a bit odd, but likable enough, although he’s a bit particular about tenants going into his ‘File Room’. Having moved in, Jessica is then visited by several of the other occupants, an odd bunch to say the least. They are all very insistent that she joins them for a roof-top party to celebrate the New Year. And then strange things begin to happen, Jessica begins to see the other residents murdered, one by one. Nobody seems concerned about this and so she goes to Evan to try and get some answers. I’ll leave it there and I’ve probably made it sound a lot better than it really is.

This film has the look and feel of a student short that got made into a feature. It all seems very amateurish, everything from the cinematography, to the sound, to the acting seems to have had little thought to it. Nobody on screen really deserves a mention, but I will name a few so you’ll know who’s responsible. If anything, John Bishop was the best performer as Ed, but he wasn’t great, Ryan Doom (great name!) was adequate as Evan and Austin Highsmith was ok, I guess, as Jessica.

I feel I’ve been a little generous with my score (below), but the concept behind this very poor film was actually quite good. The trouble is, little, or no, thought went into the execution. Maybe some of it could be blamed on budget restrictions, but I’ve seen much better than this made for a lot less. I think you can probably guess what comes next… definitely NOT recommended… You have been warned.

My score: 4.1/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1520496/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/circle_of_eight/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi984024345/

Film Review: FIREFLIES IN THE GARDEN (2008)

Co-Writer/Director: Dennis Lee
Running time: 96 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

Genre: Drama
UK release date 29th March 2009

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 26th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This film was recommended to me by someone on Rotten Tomatoes (sorry, I can’t remember who). Reading through the cast list, it looks very impressive but as we well know, a great cast doesn’t necessarily make for a great film. This, unfortunately, proves the theory all too well. Although there are some great performances, the film lacks any heart, you don’t really care about the characters as so it all kind of falls apart. More of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters and those that don’t wish to know anything about the plot please go fishing while I write the next paragraph).

Michael Taylor is a writer of romance novels. His father, Charles, a much more serious and successful writer is a bully and made Michael’s childhood a misery. His mother, Lisa, is killed in an accident on the day Michael arrived home to celebrate her graduation from University. He is not alone, his sister, Ryne is with him, and his aunt, Jane Lawrence, and her family, husband Jimmy & children, Christopher and Leslie, are all there to support him. His ex-wife, Kelley arrives for the funeral and we are told, through flashback, of his life growing up in the same house in which Jane and her family now live. There is a sub-plot involving a manuscript that Michael has recently written, the significance of which is never really made clear.

Nicely shot with some really lovely imagery used, so hats off to the cinematographer on this one. As I said at the beginning, there are some great performances here. Ryan Reynolds stands out as Michael and Willem Dafoe is great, as ever, as Charles. Emily Watson did a great job as Jane Lawrence, Carrie-Anne Moss, again, a quality performance as Kelly Hanson and Julia Roberts was also great as Lisa. It was also nice to see Hayden Panettiere as Young Jane Lawrence (in flashbacks) and I thought Cayden Boyd did an outstanding job as Young Michael Taylor.

Now, despite all the star names in the cast and all the great individual performances, this film, I’m afraid, doesn’t quite work. The pace is, at times, painfully slow and I just couldn’t find anything I could care about in any of the characters. It’s a shame, I really wanted to like this one, but I guess you’ve got to watch a few turkeys sometimes so you can appreciate the good ones! Oh, and finally, I found the cruelty to wildlife depicted here in very poor taste, maybe another thing that put me off the characters. Sadly, NOT recommended.

My score: 4.8/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0961108/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10008601-fireflies_in_the_garden/
Trailer (Sorry about the subtitles): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phtd7XOiky0

Film Review: CASE 39 (2009)

Director: Christian Alvart
Running time: 109 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Horror/Mystery/Thriller
UK release date 5th March 2010

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 20th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I remember when this one came out I didn’t know much about it, but I had a feeling it was going to be an interesting film. Well, since then I had heard a few more bits and pieces, but not too much. So primed with a little knowledge and a glass of red wine I settled down to the scariest film I’ve seen this year (OK, it’s only February & it is only the 36th film I’ve seen this year). I will give you my thoughts after a very brief summary (summary haters and those who don’t wish to know anything about the plot please help Emily with those big bolts for the inside of her door while I write the next paragraph).

Emily Jenkins is a social worker who specialises in cases of child abuse, she lives alone, but has a boyfriend (of sorts), Doug, a psychologist. She’s already overworked when her boss, Wayne, gives her her 39th case file. It concerns a young girl, Lilith Sullivan, whose grades are dropping at school and she keeps falling asleep in class. Emily visits the family and the parents’ behaviour gives her cause for concern but there is no evidence of abuse. She tries to get a friend of hers, Mike Barron, a cop to look into the case, but again, there is no evidence. Having struck up a friendship with Lilith, Emily is more determined to get her away from her parents. She receives a phone call from Lilith late one night and, concerned, she gets Mike to meet her at the Sullivan house. There they find the parents attempting to kill Lilith (I won’t say how) and they are arrested after a struggle. Emily now applies for, and gets, custody of Lilith. At first things go well, but then… Well, that’s where I’ll leave it, but I will say it’s about to get very interesting to Emily.

I guess the plot is not entirely original, but the film is very well made with a decent cast to keep the audience interested. Now I’ll admit I’m not a huge fan of horror films and so I don’t watch many of them, but did like this one. The main reason being the performance of Jodelle Ferland as Lilith Sullivan, she was truly creepy when required and it really added to my enjoyment of the piece. It was nice to see Renée Zellweger in a genre I never thought I see her in as Emily Jenkins and Ian McShane put in a decent shift as Det. Mike Barron. I guess I should also give an honourable mention to Bradley Cooper as Doug, although he wasn’t really stretched.

I quite enjoyed this film; it made a nice change to see a horror film that was actually a bit creepy for a change. It’s not perfect, there’s quite a slow pace that’s used to build the tension and the final scenes are slightly predictable. Having said that, I think it’s worth a watch, it’s certainly better than some of the scores I’ve seen it given around the internet (you know who you are Rotten Tomatoes).

My score: 6.1/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0795351/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/case_39/
Official Site: http://www.case39movie.com/mainsite/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4192142873/

Film Review: CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010)

Director: Louis Leterrier
Running time: 102 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy
UK release date 2nd April 2010

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 20th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

As this film was released in 3D I had no interest in seeing it when it was released, I’m not a fan of paying extra for something that adds very little to the film and usually gives me a headache. Although, I believe, it made a bit of money, it was not critically well received. Well, I don’t always agree with them, but on this occasion I’m here to tell you I have to agree with the critics. But more of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters and those who don’t wish to know anything about the plot please fend off those giant scorpions while I write the next paragraph).

The gods live on mount Olympus and feed off the worship of the humans below. Unfortunately the humans are getting restless and don’t feel the love any more. The leader of the gods, Zeus, isn’t too happy about this and when his brother, Hades comes to him with a plan, he listens. Hades wants to teach the humans a lesson by releasing the Kraken, a giant sea monster, on them. Meanwhile back with the humans, a young man, a son of Zeus called Perseus is chosen to find a way to defeat the Kraken. A band of men go with him and one woman, Io, who proves to be of great help to Perseus. They must first find three witches who hold the secret to destroying the Kraken… I think you get the drift. There’s also the story of how the gods are trying to stab each other in the back going on, but I think there’s enough there to give you the gist.

This is a very well made film, you can tell they had a pretty large budget to make this one. There is quite a lot of CGI and it is all of high quality. The trouble is, it did tend to detract from the story by making the visuals more important and not progressing the story in places. Decent performances all round; Sam Worthington was good as Perseus, although I felt he was a little too subdued for the role. Liam Neeson donned the sparkly armour and did a good job as Zeus, Ralph Fiennes was the best of the bunch (IMO) as Hades, you got two for the price of one with Jason Flemyng as Calibos/Acrisius and Gemma Arterton did a decent job as Io.

I felt the plot was a little over complicated, there were lots of sub-plots going on and I could feel it getting a little confusing at times. Although the visuals were great, again, they didn’t really add a great deal (for me). Over all, although it’s not going to win any prises, it’s entertaining enough, a good one for a wet Sunday afternoon on the TV but I wouldn’t pay to see it in the cinema.

My score: 5.2/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0800320/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/clash_of_the_titans_2010/
Official Site: http://clash-of-the-titans.warnerbros.com/dvd/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2626946073/

Film Review: ASTRO BOY (2009)

Director: David Bowers
Running time: 90 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): PG

Genre: Animation/Sci-Fi/Adventure
UK release date 5th February 2010

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 19th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

Based on the Manga by Osamu Tezuka, this film tells the story of how Astro Boy was made and how he saved the residents of his home. I’ll admit I haven’t read the Manga or seen any of the TV series based on it made in the 1960’s. It’s quite a witty and interesting tale with quite a bit of drama thrown in for good measure. But more of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters and those who don’t wish to know anything about the plot please sort out that pile of robot parts over there while I write the next paragraph).

NOTE: There is what may be a spoiler to some in this summary… You have been warned!

Toby lives in Metro City which floats in the sky above the Earth, which is polluted and not a great place to be. The people there are waited on hand and foot by robots that are the invention of Toby’s father, Dr. Tenma. He is working alongside his friend Dr. Elefun on a project for President Stone called Peacemaker, a giant fighting robot. Toby, wanting to see the demonstration goes to the Ministry of Science and sneaks into the testing room. When the demonstration goes wrong the robot goes berserk and Toby is killed. Grief stricken, his father builds a robot that looks like Toby and, using his DNA, gives it all of his memories too. It is brought to life by a special power source that is thought to be only for good. Eventually the robot Toby finds himself down on the Earth’s surface where he meets new friends and has some great adventures… I’ve probably said too much, but that will do for now.

There are elements of other films in this one; in particular I found many similarities to Steven Spielberg’s 2001 film, A.I. Artificial Intelligence. Having said that, it is quite entertaining and there is a lot of humour both in the dialogue and some great sight gags too. The performances were ok, but it is hard to judge from a voice, so honourable mentions go to the voice talents of; Freddie Highmore as Astro/Toby, Nicolas Cage as Dr. Tenma, Donald Sutherland as President Stone, Bill Nighy as Dr. Elefun/Robotsky and Kristen Bell as Cora.

I don’t dislike this film; in fact there is a lot to like about it. It asks a lot of its audience and as such I found it quite strange to watch. On one hand it’s an animated film aimed at kids, with lots of jokes and plenty of adventure. But on the other hand it has a much darker story about a man losing his child and trying to replace him with a robot. But at the end of the day it’s an entertaining watch and so… Recommended.

My score: 6.4/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0375568/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/astro_boy/
Official Site: http://www.astroboy-themovie.com/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1058472473/

Film Review: FRAILTY (2001)

Director: Bill Paxton
Running time: 100 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Drama/Mystery/Thriller
UK release date 6th September 2002

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 19th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I watched this on the recommendation of a friend and was pleasantly surprised (thanks for that Mr The Aus Man). Although not perfect, I found it a quite compelling tale of how a vision from God can split a family apart and how it can lead to murder. I will tell you more of my thoughts later, but here’s a brief summary first (summary haters and those who don’t wish to know anything about the plot please dig a big hole in the back yard while I write the next paragraph).

After a crop of murders perpetrated by the ‘God’s Hand Killer’ remain unsolved, the lead FBI agent, Wesley Doyle, is surprised when a young man walks into his office and claims to know who the killer is. The man in question, Fenton Meiks, tells of how, at a young age he and his young brother, Adam, were roused in the middle of the night by their father. He has had a vision from God and they are to go out into the world and destroy demons put there by the devil. The boys live alone with their father after their mother died in childbirth. Fenton, being the older brother and is sceptical, but he also fears his father and so keeps quiet. The father is shown which tools to use in another vision and he brings these home. Soon the day comes when their father brings their first ‘demon’ home… I will stop there as I don’t want to give too much away.

A lot of the story is told in flashback and I was impressed with the work of both Matt O'Leary as Young Fenton and Jeremy Sumpter as Young Adam. There were some nice touches in the cinematography and I was relieved that it didn’t become a gore-fest, which it could so easily have done. Of the grown up actors, very powerful performances from both Bill Paxton as the father, and Powers Boothe as FBI Agent Wesley Doyle. Although more subdued, Matthew McConaughey put in a decent performance as Fenton Meiks.

The film has a very slow and deliberate pace that slowly builds up the tension. I would have liked a little more background on the father, particularly about the strength of his faith before his visions. There is a bit of a double twist in the tale at the end which, at first I found a little disappointing, but then changed my mind when the second twist was revealed. Don’t worry, no clues here! Over all, quite a compelling and powerful film that deals with the question of faith and how it can be misconstrued. I guess if you have very strong religious beliefs then you may not find this to your liking, but then, you never know. For me, I found it very watchable and quite compelling. Certainly worth watching for the performance of Matt O’Leary, he was excellent (IMO)… Recommended.

My score: 7.4/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0264616/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/frailty/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1319633177/

Film Review: THE CRAZIES (2010)

Director: Breck Eisner
Running time: 98 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller
UK release date 26th February 2010

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 13th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

This is based on a 1973 film of the same name, now, for the record, I haven’t seen the original so you’ll get no comparisons here. Although rather formulaic, it’s still a pretty enjoyable, if scary and at times gory film. There’s more from me later, but here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please stop acting crazy while I write the next paragraph).

It’s a typical day in a small town in Iowa, there is a baseball game going on and the town sheriff, David Dutten, is there with his deputy, Russell Clank. When a local man wanders onto the pitch carrying a shotgun, Dutten is left with no option but to shoot him. Thinking he was drunk, he goes about his day but feels there’s something odd about it. The next day he discovers the man was sober. More and more incidents begin to happen around the town and Dutten decides to take his wife, Judy, the town doctor, and leave. There’s a problem though, the army have now arrived in biohazard suits and are rounding the townspeople up… I’ll leave it here, that should be intrigue enough.

This is a very well made film; you can tell it had a decent budget. The effects and the stunts are all very well done and the cinematography is pretty decent too. I thought Timothy Olyphant played the part of the Sheriff very well, but it’s a part that seems to fit him pretty well. Radha Mitchell has a good scream (in places) as his wife Judy and I thought Joe Anderson was also pretty good as Russell Clank (although it’s a very comedy name).

I said at the beginning that I found this one pretty formulaic, what I mean is that it follows a similar pattern to several other films I’ve seen in the past. I’d like to name a couple but I’m getting accused of giving out spoilers… At the end of the day, it’s a pretty solid film with a few scares and some gory moments. A little predictable but perfectly watchable… Recommended.

My score: 6.5/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0455407/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1205380-crazies/
Official Site: http://www.thecrazies-movie.com/#/home
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3255239705/

Film Review: RAISING ARIZONA (1987)

Writers/Directors: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen (Uncredited)
Running time: 94 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

Genre: Comedy
UK release date 10th July 1987

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 13th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I do like the films of the Coen brothers, in particular their earlier works. This is one I have seen a couple of times before but this is the first time I’ve reviewed it. What we have is a brilliantly scripted piece with some great performances and a pretty crazy plot to boot! More of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please mind the baby while I write the next paragraph).

NOTE: Although every effort is made to give as little away as possible in my summaries, sometimes a little extra may slip out. If you feel you may read something here that may spoil your future enjoyment of the film then PLEASE DO NOT read the following paragraph. (I don’t know… one person whinges and you’ve got to put disclaimers all over the place!!)

H.I. McDunnough is a repeat offender; he robs convenience stores. He is often at the police station where he meets and falls in love with Edwina (‘Ed’ for short), a cop. They get married and live happily for a while… that is until they decide to start a family. You see, Ed discovers she can’t have babies and this dashes the hopes of the young couple. And then they hear of the ‘Arizona Qunits’; five babies born to Nathan and Florence Arizona. Thinking they’ve probably got more than enough to deal with, H.I. and Ed decide to steal one for themselves… and this is where it all begins. Now, in the interests of not giving too much away, and because I got whinged at (you know who you are) I’m not going to say any more here… although I would like to.

First of all, a truly excellent script, the Coens were really on form when they wrote this one. There is some tremendous dialogue, although the pacing does go a little awry in places. I think it’s one of the best performances I’ve seen from both Nicolas Cage as H.I. McDunnough and Holly Hunter as Edwina ‘Ed’ McDunnough. Also worthy of note are; Trey Wilson as Nathan Arizona, John Goodman as Gale Snoats, William Forsythe as Evelle Snoats, Sam McMurray as Glen and Frances McDormand as Dot.

The opening of this film is one of the best I’ve seen, beautifully paced, funny and it sets up the characters and the situation perfectly. Of course, this momentum cannot be maintained throughout and, although efforts are made to raise it, it never quite reaches the same heights. The characters are all fully formed and excellently portrayed, which seems to be a rare thing these days, particularly in comedy films. So, over all, a great script with some brilliant dialogue and excellent performances but the pacing is a little uneven… still very much recommended.

My score: 8.3/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0093822/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/raising_arizona/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/screenplay/vi1558512409/

Film Review: ARMORED (ARMOURED in English) (2009)

Director: Nimród Antal
Running time: 85 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12

Genre: Thriller/Heist/Drama
UK release date 22nd January 2010

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 12th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I remember this one being mentioned in dispatches when it came out, but that’s about all I remember about it. Now, having seen it I find there’s not a lot to add to that. It’s a pretty forgettable run of the mill heist thriller with a surprisingly good cast considering how average it is. But more of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please look after that big pile of cash while I write the next paragraph).

Ty Hackett has recently graduated to be a security guard working for Eagle Security. They transport money in armoured trucks around the city. He is a decorated soldier having served in Iraq and has to look after his teenage brother, Jimmy, after both of their parents died. A group of his colleagues, led by Mike Cochrane, are planning to fake a heist and steal $42 million from two of their trucks. At first Ty is against the idea, but after a visit from Social Services about his brother, he changes his mind, on the condition that nobody is hurt. As they are hiding the money a homeless man is spotted spying on them and he is shot. This leaves Ty in a dilemma, should he just turn a blind eye, or should he stand by his principals? Well I guess that’s enough to whet your appetite for now.

I’ll start with what I did like… well the music wasn’t too bad and the cinematography was pretty good, and that’s just about it. As I said, there is a pretty good cast which includes; Matt Dillon as Mike Cochrane, Jean Reno as Quinn, Laurence Fishburne as the trigger-happy Baines, Amaury Nolasco as Palmer, Fred Ward as the boss, Duncan Ashcroft, Milo Ventimiglia as Eckhart, Skeet Ulrich as the cop, Dodds and Columbus Short as Ty Hackett. None of which were really stretched in this pretty average caper.

So in conclusion, it’s a rather dull and slightly predictable heist movie with the twist being it’s the guards committing the crime. There’s very little here we haven’t seen many times before. And so a very average film gets a very average score from me… Not recommended.

My score: 4.9/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0913354/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10010705-armored/
Official Site: http://www.armoredmovie.com/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi3894936089/

Film Review: TRUE GRIT (1969)

Director: Henry Hathaway
Running time: 128 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): PG

Genre: Drama/Western/Adventure
UK release date 28th December 1969

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 12th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I have seen this film quite a few times over the years; it always reminds me of dull damp Sunday afternoons because that’s when it always seemed to be on. I also remember the picture quality was never great on TV back then, but now, re-vamped and digitised, it looks great. But more of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please unsaddle the horses and corral them while I write the next paragraph).

After her father, Frank, is shot dead, teenager Mattie Ross decides to seek revenge on the man that perpetrated this evil act. To this end she employs U.S. Marshall ‘Rooster’ Cogburn to help her find him in Indian Territory where, they believe, he has joined the outlaw Ned Pepper’s gang. The man in question, Tom Chaney, is also wanted by a Texas Ranger called La Boeuf, or ‘LeBeef’, as he prefers. The three of them set off, after a bit of an argument about whether Mattie should be allowed to go with them, and soon find a couple of vagabonds called Emmett Quincy and Moon. Having been shot, Moon spills the beans that Ned Pepper is coming to their location soon for fresh horses. More deaths ensue, but Pepper gets away with the unlikely trio in hot pursuit. I know there may be one or two out there that aren’t familiar with the tale, so I’ll stop there.

I had forgotten just how long this film is, at just over two hours it’s a lot of western, but pretty enjoyable nonetheless. Most of the exteriors were shot in Colorado and California and I must say it makes for a pretty spectacular backdrop for this story. For the most part the performances were excellent, particularly (of course) John Wayne as Marshall Reuben J. ‘Rooster’ Cogburn and Kim Darby as Mattie Ross. Also worthy of note were; Jeremy Slate as Emmett Quincy, Robert Duvall as Ned Pepper and Dennis Hopper as Moon. Not quite so good, performance wise, was Glen Campbell as La Boeuf (he latterly decided to stick to singing… good move).

It’s probably the best film I’ve seen starring John Wayne, but I’m sure I’ll be corrected on that point by someone. I thought it was a very well made film with some spectacular scenery. The only thing that grated slightly was the soundtrack; to me it seems a bit too dominant in the mix in places which I found a little distracting. Over all, I like this film, not only because it’s become a classic over the years, but also because it’s a good story done well, and you can’t go too far wrong when you start with a good yarn… Recommended.

My score: 7.8/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0065126/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/true_grit/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/screenplay/vi3741254425/

Film Review: THE MACHINIST (2004)

Director: Brad Anderson
Running time: 101 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Drama/Mystery/Thriller
UK release date 18th March 2005

Watched on Sky+ Tuesday 8th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I first saw this film several years ago and I remember being amazed by the performance of Christian Bale. He is so thin it’s almost unbelievable that he is able to perform. The film deals with the tricks the mind can play on you and the consequences thereof. But more of that later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please help Miller fix that machine over there while I write the next paragraph).

Trevor Reznik has not slept in over a year; he hardly eats and leaves lots of post-it notes all over his apartment to remind him to do things. He works, as the title suggests, as a machinist in a factory where he is just about tolerated by his workmates. He visits a hooker, Stevie, who he confides in and she, looking for a way out of the business, has some affection for him too. Late at night he goes to the airport where he has coffee and has conversations with the waitress, Marie. One day a mysterious stranger turns up at work, a man who calls himself Ivan. And whilst helping Miller fix a machine Trevor gets distracted by Ivan and causes an accident. This eventually leads to his dismissal as he becomes more and more paranoid about Ivan. As he sinks deeper into his paranoia he begins to hallucinate more and more and the line between hallucinations and reality becomes blurred. What is at the root of all this? Well, a resolution is found in the film… but you’re crazy if you think I’m gonna tell you here.

This is a really dark gritty film, very well made with a really great soundtrack that fits the mood perfectly. It almost has the air of film noir about it, or maybe that’s just the mood set by the musical score. A really great performance from Christian Bale as Trevor Reznik, how he got so thin I’ll never know. Also worth an honourable mention are; Jennifer Jason Leigh as Stevie, Aitana Sánchez-Gijón as Marie, John Sharian as Ivan and Michael Ironside as Miller.

I love films that make you think, and this one certainly does that. Yes, at times it does get a little ponderous, but I can forgive that because it does all tie up in the end. So, over all, a well made, dark mystery thriller with a great score and a brilliant performance from Christian Bale… Very highly recommended.

My score: 8.6/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0361862/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/machinist/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/screenplay/vi2062942489/

Film Review: YOUTH IN REVOLT (2009)

Director: Miguel Arteta
Running time: 90 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Comedy/Drama/Romance
UK release date 5th February 2010

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 6th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I was in two minds about watching this one but I had heard a couple of good things about it so I took the plunge. There were some good things about it but there was also a lot that I found very average. More of my thoughts later, here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please invent an alter-ego for yourselves while I write the next paragraph).

Nick Twisp lives with his mother, Estelle, and her current boyfriend, Jerry. For reasons I won’t go into now, they find themselves having to go and stay in a trailer park for a few weeks. Nick is into things like Sinatra LP’s and Fellini films, you know, he’s not your mainstream kind of guy. Of course this makes it very hard for him to meet girls, and being a teenager; of course he likes girls… a lot! Anyway, whilst there he meets Sheeni Saunders who has a lot of the same interests as he does. They begin to get to know each other but eventually Nick has to leave. Determined to see her again, he invents an alter-ego for himself, a suave sophisticated character called Francois Dillinger. He can say and do all the things that Nick can’t and this allows him to, not only, get his father, George, to move nearer to Sheeni, but also get his mother, and new boyfriend Lance Wescott, to send him to live with his father. This is only the start of the trouble for Nick, you see, he had to commit a crime in order to live with his father and now the cops are after him! From here on it gets a little complicated, so I won’t say any more.

First of all, what I liked; I liked the use of slow motion at the beginning of the film and the little animated segments. These were good. Also good were the scenes that included the ‘Francois Dillinger’ character, that was also good… And that about wraps up the good parts. Unfortunately Michael Cera can only play Michael Cera so many times before you ask yourself, is there anything else he can do? Well, he can play Francois Dillinger who I found much more interesting than Michael Cera, sorry, Nick Twisp. I guess I should give honourable mentions to other members of the cast… It’s not all about Cera after all… So, honourable mentions go to; Portia Doubleday as Sheeni Saunders, Jean Smart as Estelle Twisp, Zach Galifianakis (I still don’t think he’s funny) as Jerry, Adhir Kalyan as Vijay Joshi, Steve Buscemi as George Twisp, Fred Willard as Mr. Ferguson and Ray Liotta as Lance Wescott.

So, I’ve mentioned the good things and I’ve talked about Michael Cera playing Michael Cera one time too many for me. I guess the rest of it I found a little predictable and, for a comedy, not very funny. There was only one ‘laugh out loud’ moment for me in the entire film. So, over all, no great comedy, but bearable enough with the scenes featuring ‘Francois Dillinger’ being a highlight. Worth seeing for that alone, but don’t put too a high priority on it.

My score: 6.4/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0403702/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/youth_in_revolt/
Official Site: http://youthinrevolt-themovie.com/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi3181839385/

Film Review: HACHI: A DOG’S TALE (2009)

Director: Lasse Hallström
Running time: 90 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): U

Genre: Drama/Family
UK release date 12th March 2010

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 5th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I had better state first of all that I’m not particularly a dog lover, I’m more of a cat person, but I appreciate the bond that can exist between an owner and his pet. I should also say that if it wasn’t for the fact the Richard Gere appears in this film I very much doubt I would have watched it. Having said that, what I saw was a very heart-warming story that will most definitely not be for everyone, but for those that can appreciate it, it’s well worth a viewing. Here’s a very brief summary first before I tell you what I really think (summary haters please wait outside the railway station while I write the next paragraph).

Parker Wilson is a music professor at a university and he commutes by train every day. One day he finds a puppy wandering about on the platform. Unable to find anyone to claim the dog he takes it home. His wife, Cate, is not best pleased and tells him he must find the real owner soon. He puts up flyers and asks around but nobody claims the dog. He even asks Ken, a Japanese colleague about the dog. Ken tells him that he has a symbol on his collar that says ‘Hachiko’, which means ‘eight’ in Japanese. As you can guess, Hachi (for short) becomes the dog’s name. As the days pass the bond grows stronger between Parker and Hachi and Cate eventually relents and allows the dog to stay. Once fully grown, every day Hachi would follow Parker to the station and then go home until the evening when he would return to wait for his master. This goes on for quite a while and Hachi becomes a bit of a celebrity amongst those that work in and around the station. But something is about to go badly wrong and this will test Hachi’s devotion to his master. Of course I’m not going to tell you what that is as I really don’t want to give away too much.

You may be surprised to know that this film is based on a 1987 Japanese film called “Hachiko monogatari” by Kaneto Shindô, which is, in turn, based on a true story. There is a very nice musical score that complements the visuals perfectly and I love the occasional shots we get from the dog’s point of view. Nobody does a long stare quite like Richard Gere, and he was excellent in his part as Parker Wilson here. Also worth a mention are; Joan Allen as Cate Wilson, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as Ken, Sarah Roemer as Andy (their daughter), Jason Alexander, as Carl and Erick Avari as Jasjeet.

Although this has the feel of a TV movie of the week, it is a very well done TV movie of the week. If anything the ninety minutes running time is a little long for the story and you begin to feel there is a little too much padding in there. But having said that I still found it a decent watch. Over all, although it is not for everyone, it did bring out some emotions in me that I rarely show and so I deem it… Recommended.

My score: 7.3/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1028532/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hachiko_a_dogs_story/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/screenplay/vi2296906777/

Film Review: A GOOD YEAR (2006)

Director: Ridley Scott
Running time: 118 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Romantic Comedy
UK release date 27th October 2006

Watched on Sky+ Saturday 5th February 2011.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I have never made a secret of the fact that I am a fan of the work of Ridley Scott. So, in the interests of completeness, and although I’m not particularly a fan of romantic comedies, I decided to give this one a try. I was pleasantly surprised; a gentle comedy with a lot of charm and a very appropriate soundtrack is what I found, oh, and quite a few laughs too! But enough of my ramblings, more of that later. Here’s a brief summary first (summary haters please help Duflot clean the outdoor pool while I write the next paragraph).

Max Skinner is a tough, uncompromising investment banker in London. In his youth he had spent a lot of time with his uncle, Henry, who owned a vineyard in Provence (France). He had not been in touch with him for the last ten years when he hears of his death. It seems that, as his only surviving relative, Max is to inherit the vineyard. Intending to sell it, he heads out there only to find a lot of memories in his surroundings. The people who work on the estate, Francis Duflot and his wife, Ludivine are fearful that they will no longer be working with the vines. Max agrees that they will be kept on when the sale goes through. In the village, he meets Fanny Chenal, a mysterious, and beautiful young woman who he falls for. And then, out of the blue, a girl, Christie Roberts, claiming to be Uncle Henry’s daughter turns up. This adds a bit of spice and has Max afraid that she may have a better claim on the vineyard. Will the wine and the girl soften Max’s heart? Well I guess I’ll just have to leave you wondering.

A beautifully made film with that great visual style we have come to expect from Ridley Scott. As I said at the beginning, a very appropriate soundtrack, it fits the mood perfectly and enhances the visuals no end. I wasn’t sure about Russell Crowe in a romantic comedy, but he pulled it off pretty well. I just wish he could do an English accent. Albert Finney was perfect as Uncle Henry and Marion Cotillard was excellent (as ever) as Fanny Chenal. Honourable mentions go to; Freddie Highmore as Young Max, Abbie Cornish as Christie Roberts, Didier Bourdon as Francis Duflot and Isabelle Candelier as Ludivine Duflot.

A really good script by Marc Klein, based on the novel by Peter Mayle, contains an awful lot of humour and some great one-liners. If I have one gripe, it’s that not enough was made of the romance between Max and Fanny. Unlike most rom-coms, their relationship is not the main feature of the plot. It’s more about Max finding himself again, which, to a great extent, is achieved using flashbacks to his youth and his time with Uncle Henry. Over all, a very engaging gentle romantic comedy with some great comic moments… Recommended.

My score: 7.3/10

LINKS:
(RT = Rotten Tomatoes)
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0401445/
RT Page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/good_year/
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/screenplay/vi2046427929/