Film Reviews by Strovey

The Limehouse Golem is called a horror film due to a few extreme gory and graphic murder scenes but all told it is a Sherlock Holmes-style murder mystery where the viewer is expected to figure out who the killer is whilst being led up the garden path by misleading reconstructions of the murders. It’s none the worse for this.

Victorian London is a place that regular viewers of TV dramas and cinema is now getting used to and the squalid underbelly her is shown to good effect, although everyone, once again, is probably a bit healthier and more bonny than what would be the real thing, but it is a drama, a film, entertainment, so this has to pass. Including, as the novel does, real Victorian characters, Dan Leno, Karl Marx and George Gissing, once again for clarity the timelines of these real people don’t tie up particularly the real Marx and Leno but this doesn’t distract from an interesting twist in the usual type of Victorian murder mystery.

Oliva Cooke plays the role of Lizzie Cree almost to perfection and certainly, there is not a trace of the irritating vocal-fry the distracted so much in the TV production of Vanity Fair, her story is sordid, sad, vicious and interesting. Ably supported by the somewhat somnambulistic and unemotive Bill Nighy and the ever-stalwart Daniel Mays who could play his type of role in his sleep the film is in experienced and good hands. I couldn’t decide if Nighy was playing his character in this style or if he was picking up a cheque. To be fair to him it does work. Douglas Booth gives a strong performance as the Victorian superstar Dan Leno and the whole parts of the film involving the music-halls are lovely recreated, add into mix creepy Eddie Marsan and Maria Valverde and you do have a melodramatic grand Guignol murder mystery. It’s always a matter of opinion but I think the film was created on the slightly over-the-top camp side to fit in the setting and story if it was it works.

Overall The Limehouse Golem is a slice of horrific melodrama populated with good actors playing mysterious characters all apparently hiding their true selves from the world as the real Victorians did. The dark alleyways, murders and music-halls are all ticked off in competent style, the murders mysterious and gory and suspects many. If you looking for straightforward entertainment with a dark side this could be the film for you.

Interestingly depending on your experience you make take a guess at the killer and get it right at various points throughout the film. It took me just over halfway through the film for the coin to drop, others I have read online took less time and still others longer or not at all.

I would recommend The Limehouse Golem if you like your murky, gory, Victorian murder mysteries but if you are a bit blase about the genre and are looking for a realistic representation of that period be warned you might get a bit peeved.

Obviously made on a low budget and a collaboration between three or four companies this film happily does not suffer for it. Casting well-known character/comedy actors make the viewer, in particular, British viewers, feel comfortable from the beginning. Clearly, the story is written by fans of the sci-fi and in particular time-travel genre. Therefore the poking at the tropes and blind alleys that more serious films gloss over is done with fun and true love of these types of stories. There are as much imagination and ingenuity shown in the storyline as is demonstrated in much bigger and more serious films of the same type and this is the strength of the film. More flippant or less grounded would have made this something that you sat through rather than watched. If you are observant or really know this genre as much as the characters in the film you will spot signals, background things going on that tell you how the story will go, if you don’t, that’s okay, because it’s as, if not more, enjoyable as the silliness unfolds.

Chris O’Dowd, Marc Wootton and Dean Lennox Kelly are stalwarts of British TV although all three have gone further afield over the years their down-to-earthness is perfect for the roles and they all are well-craft in playing the normal but somewhat bumbling ‘bloke’. The complaining mates-conversations about films, music, what their future holds will seem realistic to thousands of people who have sat in pubs and other places and rambling, seemingly pointless conversations over the years. I certainly know I have taken place in a few ‘conversations’ like this over the years.

The situation, which cannot be gone over in too much detail as it will spoil it for those who have not seen this film yet, involves a convoluted time-travel situation for the lads and being mixed up with the charming Anna Faris, so it was not entirely a bad day for the lads!

Overall FAQ About Time Travel is a knowing wink to the science-fiction well-worn story of time-travel but it sets about trying to avoid the usual plotholes and asking all the questions these films often leave unanswered with a great sense of humour and some good acting but still with a clear love of the genre it sending up.

Not so well-known or watched this film should be more popular as director Gareth Carrivick’s final film as he sadly died soon after the completion of the film. Recommended.

In an age proliferated with so many ‘pastiche’ and comedy versions of genuine films an genres a lot of film-goers might feel they will never laugh at another ‘satire’ again. Airplane! started it all with a spot-on, occasional miss, ‘zany’ comedy riffing on many films and genres. Then the goose that laid the golden egg was not only slaughtered but minced, fried and feed to ravenous pigs. Most of us have hardly laughed since at the hilarious ‘take-offs’.

Black Dynamite directed by Scott Sanders, albeit from nine-years ago, gets all of this back on track with loving, spot-on and hilarious tribute the glorious Blaxploitation phenomena of the seventies.

It is clear to see on the screen how much Sanders and his collaborators loves and admires those at times preposterous films. It is all there, this is not mean-spirited in the fun, whilst taking the proverbial throughout this is a film that loves its source.

The boom mike makes a deliberate appearance during the shoot as it did so often in the 70s and with the perfectly shoot zoomed-in close-ups followed by the over-exaggarated facial expressions at times you would have thought you were watching a product of the 70s such is the skill and dedication shown in the making.

The film takes place in the 1970s, using the wild and somewhat strange fashions, all cranked up to ‘eleven’ and then it sirs in the language, slang, of the era adding in the low-budget errors, miscues and continuity errors, including a character hitting his head against the boom mike. My favourite was the stuntman who was replaced during a take after getting punched for real during a stunt fight. This is all framed with shaky close-ups, exposition in song, supporting actors appear out of nowhere the list is extensive and on the whole accurate.

The script by Michael Jai White, Byron Minns and Scott Sanders is pin-point accurate and is played entirely straight by the cast of (stalwart) supporting cast.

Black Dynamite is an underappreciated spot-on parody of a cheesy but needless to say important genre of films from the 70s.

Highly recommended you jive-ass suckas!

In the end, despite the reams of text written about The Shape of Water, it would appear that del Toro has made a simple love story, albeit between an amphibious humanoid and Sally Hawkins, but at the beating heart of it all, it is a simple love story.

Stylistically directed and shot the film very much reminded me of The City of Lost Children and similar Jeunet output. This is no bad thing and gives the film an air of fairytale despite the real-world setting. Like that French director’s films del Toro does not allow the saccharine to creep in too far and this film, like all his other outputs is filled with some unsavoury characters and involve sex and real death with all the messy details.

We do get a clear line of black and white hats, with Stuhlbarg’s character being a dark shade of grey, and having a noble motivation, whilst Michael Shannon being Michael Shannon does very well in a role that could have been said to be one-dimensional. He gives Strickland a scary motivation that most viewers could not agree with but could understand but he definitely has a hat that says ‘Bad Guy – hate me’.

Sally Hawkins effortlessly plays a non-speaking role to such a skilled and nuanced effect that I genuinely forgot for long periods her character is mute. Ably supported by Octavia Spencer and the sublime Richard Jenkins who plays the type of character that he has made his own over the years the film is in good hands.

Guillermo del Toro has often made films about being an outsider and being the ‘different’ one and here has turned the dial up to ‘eleven’ on this theme. You can’t be more outside than a ‘gill-man’ but then he throws into the mix Octavia Spencer as a poorly treated black cleaner with a work-shy husband, a mute orphan girl and a sensitive and lonely gay man. You’d have to be tone-deaf to not see his message.

Whilst others might baulk or see this message being pushed as unsubtle or ‘PC’ it has to be said in this day and age there are plenty of other films taking an altogether different message to the masses. Admittedly they won’t have the stellar cast or acting that del Torro gets but they are there. I did not see this as particularly anti-American or PC but it just says ‘be nice’ when you boil it right down. If you don’t agree with this simple message well….

This film gave me pleasure in watching it and equally nearly as much when I read some utterly foaming at the mouth reviews on IMDB. I thought people like me were supposed to be snowflakes? It’s just a film calm down. It won’t change anyone’s views that are not already entrenched.

The Shape of Water is a very modern fairy-tale about love and hate and like all good, violent and sexy fairytales in the end love wins…just.

Right from the opening scenes the director makes it obvious this is more than just a story of how the characters of Winnie the Pooh were created. It is not a feel-good story. It seemed to me to be how much of a hole a great and terrible war can leave inside a person. Domhall Gleeson plays AA Milne with the such unsmiling, frowning, sombreness that you can’t help feeling the war had absolutely nothing to do with his lack of emotion or response to anything other than being ‘proper’ and ‘correct’. We are only lead to the conclusion that is was the war by a brief battle-scene and the flinching and ticks he displays at noises. I started off feeling sorry for him due to this setup but less than halfway through I started to think he was just an unloving, stiff-upper-lip git. I’m not sure Gleason or the director wanted this.

Disappointingly the makers decided that the ‘baddie’, (every film has to have one), would be Christopher Robin’s mother. A harpy interested only in having the right type of husband and family, who had a child to please her husband and treats ‘lesser’ people like slightly intelligent stock. Was she really this way? Even some of the worst types of these people, believe me, they still exist, are not as two dimensional and cartoonish. Margot Robbie does well as she can with the role but her odd cut-glass accent definitely slips back to Australia a few times during the run.

No doubt Gleason and Robbie are fine actors but in truth, they were blasted off the picture by the amazing acting of ‘small’ child actor Will Tilston who just seems to be natural and unaffected by the whole process. Right from the get-go, I believed he was a small boy going through these circumstances, amazing. He is ably backed up by the ever-reliable Kelly MacDonald whose character is clearly the surrogate audience and voice of conscience. As usual, she does well with a character who most film-goers would start to lose patience with and begin to yell ‘Tell them to stick it…’

The settings are pastoral green and do a good job of sending us back to the oft-imagined and over-exaggerated green and pleasant land that so many seem to dream of and believe in nowadays. Whether it was as idyllic as this is a moot point but certainly the real Christopher Robin remembered it with real love and affection so a portrayal of the scenery in this way suits the narrative.

The film builds us up to a difficult and spiky relationship between the main four characters and then pulls all this back to end with the sentimental tear-jerking that people expect from a Winnie-the-Pooh based tale.

All in the all the film as a story on its own is good and the acting, with a few wobbles, is top class. Unfortunately, once again, it is a ‘true story’ where the actual truth and the story are only nodding acquaintances. Christopher Robin loved being Christopher Robin until he went to school and really started to dislike the fame when he was in his twenties and so each layer has a grain of truth to it but seems to have been altered, shortened or moved for the benefit of running time or my personal bug-bear to give the audience ‘a focus’ etc.

Goodbye Christopher Robin is a film I enjoyed watching and I’m glad I watched it. I doubt I’ll watch it again and it did make me research the truth but I do get frustrated with mangling of history when the true stories are as interesting as what is finally put out into the cinema. I’ll never understand it no matter how much film-makers try to justify it.

No Man’s Land garnered a lot of awards and was feted for being a realistic and funny depiction of the futility of war.

If nothing else this film shines a light for us fat and comfortable Europeans who saw the events on TV for a few months and then promptly forgot about them.

Directing Tanovic clearly tried to condense something of the conflict down into a manageable personal conflict. It is not the first time someone has tried this nor the last, this type of film certainly has been better made and definitely worse. Tanovic’s effort falls between the two stools. You can see what he wants to say, you get the funny and futile message he makes but at times it appears to be simplistic and childish.

The start of the film certainly shows the amateur and foolish side of war. There are no slick heroes here. They get lost and ambushed. No one really seems to have much of clue of what they’re doing. Instead of being slick cohesive units who know what is going on these ‘war heroes’ are scruffy, unmotivated, clumsy, scared and barely much use to anyone.

When we get down to the on-off three-hander in the trench things start to come a bit unstuck and clunky metaphors start to leak in. It seems to be obvious who the director things the real baddies are and what each of the characters represents.

For instance, one side seems to have a lot of overweight, unshaven slobs in their ranks. I don’t think this is a coincidence. One dead combatant is shown to be gay by having a picture of a nude muscled hunk in his wallet. This is treated by the character who finds the image with much disdain. It’s a bad thing, funny even, there is no doubt about the director’s message here.

Georges Siatidis is superb when he shows up as the hopelessly powerless UN sergeant only allowed to observe but who really wants to intervene in the carnage. Then we get Simon Callow playing directly opposite this as lazy, uncaring UN general who at first doesn’t want to leave the comfort of his office and sexy assistant and then when he’s forced to wants to get out of the situation as quickly as he can without any regards to anyone else. I’m sure the drama and conflict of what people wanted to do and what they had to do and why they had to do it could have used a slightly more subtle brush.

Katrin Cartlidge is the only female character of any note but I found it confusing for some time what here charactering was representing? Any other example of the west just being disinterested voyeurs, but Tanovic makes our mind up with giving her character some telling dialogue about murder and then makes her dispassionate near the end about the outcoming of her ‘breaking story’. As I’ve said before a bit clunky. A more interesting question would be, ‘if you take sides, how do you decide which side?’ Perhaps that is a question for another film. Nevertheless, she does well enough with her ‘writ large’ role.

The story plays out with mainly a big broad strokes to its conclusion – unsatisfactory and stuffed with more metaphors but as I said I found it unfulfilling.

The acting wavers between great and a bit wobbly and despite being labelled as surprisingly funny the laughs are sparse. Having watched a lot of films over the years I am well aware of the horror and stupidity of war so when a film comes along and says this again it has to be well acted, interesting and say something new for it not to get stale. I liked the vivid green of the Bosnian countryside which made a big difference from a lot of muddy brown hell-holes but for me, something was missing from the whole film.

No Man’s Land has its good points and while I feel that it is not the Emperor’s new clothes it definitely is wearing his jacket and tie.

Don’t go into this film thinking you are going to see a silly but exciting spy drama. Quite frankly the plotline and story presented with Central Intelligence are neither central to the film’s purpose or in any shape intelligent. Clearly, this film was made as another vehicle to showcase Dwayne Johnson amiable hunk film persona along with Kevin Hart’s uptight and intense version. To this extent the film works with the schtick being Johnson is the loveable and over-enthusiastic nerd, although still massive, imposing and impossible to defeat in any situation and Hart, normally more wild and bug-eyed, playing a straight up 9 to 5 white collar bore. It works but it really isn’t so different or unusual that I sat up from slump on the sofa as the film played out.

Both actors have a good chemistry with each other and with Amy Ryan and it is this dynamic that saves the film from being just another m’eh in a long, long, line of mismatched partners comedy films.

The film does try to make a point about cruelty and bullying but in huge broad strokes that only an utter idiot or the world’s biggest bully might not get and we get to this point by having the most poorly written and pointless cameo as Jason Bateman pops up as the father of all bullies with his cartoonish and shoe-horned in character. It was at his appearance that the film started to lose me.

The action side of the film with shooting and even death involved is almost a side issue it is so silly and slight. I’m sure they didn’t make this film to be this way though.

I understood that early on the spy, CIA side, of the film should not be taken too seriously and mismatched friends are where the viewers should be focussing but this overworked trope was going to have to be completely captivating and different to keep me glued to the screen. Johnson and Hart just about worked enough magic and fun to stop me sighing continuously but it was close.

Everyone in the film keeps things moving on, there is some funny laugh out loud moments, not enough but they are there, but the longer the film goes on the more it sags under its own weight and by the end it is dragging along.

It’s a shame because Johnson’s on-screen presence is certainly enough to keep most viewers enthralled because in all honesty it’s a big as him and his 100 Megawatt smile. It works, he knows it works, and film-makers do. Kevin Hart with his considerable smaller frame and more intense energy, can also work in the right film, playing off against the personality of Johnson it works but in this viewers opinion it needs a better script and film.

Enough for a wet Sunday afternoon or a boring middle of the weeknight but film-makers have to got to stop churning out these films unless they do something different, something that’ll make anyone over twenty-years-old sit up and take notice.

Close but no cigar – even for the artist formerly known as ‘The Rock’.

So often in the modern filmmaking world, reboots/remakes that claim to 'pay homage' to the original films they are based never live up to the originals. Now as a huge childhood fan of the original Planet of the Apes films (and the TV show) it is a great pleasure to see a set of film-makers and actors who clearly have a great respect for the source of their film.

The War for the Planet of Apes is clearly greatly updated in the storyline, realistic settings and unparalleled special effects and ape acting but if you look closely you can see the setups and references to those original films. In particular, I was delighted with the build-up and story behind 'Nova' the mute girl and how human's became mute (or will). The makers really sat down went through the original stories and must have said let's pad this out, give it a reason and not just say 'because it is'.

It made me smile and still does thinking about it now. Someone thought long and hard about the backstory, cogs and wheels in the background.

The story itself is as old as the hills, revenge, pure and simple. What makes it better than most is the clear villain, Woody Harrelson, has a motive that makes sense and there is a reason for his specifically cruel and merciless actions. Most of us, but not all, would not agree with them but we do know why he does them and it's not because he is 'evil'. Yes, the makers do have a dig and modern society and the current world situation and why not? It's a road that is clear for all to see.

The action sequences are as good as most serious war films and especially the opening assault puts me in mind of a few Vietnam films from over the years, both claustrophobic and then all-encompassing with some great sweeping camera shots.

It takes some great writing and motion-capture acting to make you close to tears over the deaths of CGI apes and laugh at the antics of Steve Zahn's comic side-kick 'Bad Ape'. In lesser hands it could have been awful but the motion-capture and Zahn's comic chops had the role on the right side of the tracks. Needless to say, Andy Serkis is basically now a real talking ape because he has his role to the T so much you forget he's an actor from London. He is helped no end with his supporting cast, particularly the other apes where facial and body language is the performance. That is not to cast the 'humans' into the shadows because overall I could not think of a character that jarred with me throughout the running time.

It was great to see that a film that uses 'War' in its title did not go down the explosions and non-stop gun battles that perhaps some would expect or even want it to be. There is a battle at the beginning and battle at the end but in between you get a drama with pathos, laughter, tears and peril. Pretty impressive I'd say.

Both the main character are neither black nor white, there is a moral to the story and real peril throughout with no character, favourite or otherwise, guaranteed to make it to the conclusion. The settings and locations are both magnificent, wild and natural. A world left alone.

If I have a quibble it would be the ending seemed rushed and slightly too neat, which is odd considering the film's 140 minutes running time, I can't actually say what happens without spoiling the film but considering the way the story was crafted as messy and difficult for all the characters, like real life, the ending was just too neat, too tied up in a bow but it's a personal quibble really. Others will love the ending I'm sure.

Oh and I hated Woody Harrelson's actor's tool, the unnecessary sunglasses, used to take off and put on to emphasise points.

War for the Planet of the Apes is a very, very, good film, it sits comfortably with the first two films of the series, is a fine update on the original films and pays knowing, loving and carefully thought-out tribute and continuation of those 70s film storylines.

The original Stake Land was a breath of fresh air in the fetid landscape of the myriad vampire films that saturated the viewing choices at the time. It wasn't the slickest or best-made film you have ever seen but it wore its heart on its sleeve and it tried something original with the genre Vampirism was disease turning its victims into unthinking monsters that mostly came out at night like some bastardised version of zombies. But it was interesting and fun.

Having and end but being sort of open-ended the film could have been set up for a sequel and in 2016 along came one. Connor Paolo and Nick Damici returned in the likable roles of Martin and Mister and away we went.

The film portrays through flashbacks the gaps between the events of this film and the last and does a good job of world building using great locations to show abandoned America with only the hardy, insane or infected left alive. Conor Paolo slips back into his role of Martin with some ease and is a good central presence throughout the film although it has to be said some of the support acting slips up and down on that scale albeit they are not helped by some hokey script too.

Stake Land II while not a bad film certainly has a strong first film to compare to and unfortunately in this regard it fails. The story, although classic in so many genres, is slight and seems a far too simple reason for the whole reason for the sequel. For me though, the worst aspect was the disjointed story, it was hard to follow exactly what was going on and in particular the Mad Max style 'Thunderdome' fighting area part of the film made little sense and seemed to had a huge part of the progression missing or edited out.

Further to this, on the DVD I had the music seemed to be set at volume 10 whilst the dialogue was volume 3 meaning that deft hand on the remote control was needed and the final climactic battle took place in pitch black meaning that lots of what was occurring were nearly unwatchable as there was lots of screaming, grunts and crashes that made little or no sense as shadows jittered about in front of me.

Overall Stake Land II was a disappointment after the hugely enjoyable first film. I would have loved to have seen what became of Martin and Mister made into an exciting and maybe original adventure but too much of this film was dabbing into bits from a film here and a film there and the longer the story moved along the more drab and dull it became.

Shame but sequels often fail to live up to their promise. Time to stake this Stake Land through the heart and move on.

For a viewer like me, just a little tired of the Marvel and DC-verses, Superbob popped onto my TV screen like a breath of fresh air. It asks the questions that I have always like to see asked, particularly in the opening acts. After all in most more ‘serious’ superhero films, the main character is usually an ordinary man thrust into an extraordinary situation. Yet these characters are not really that, for instance, Robert Downey Juniors’ Tony Stark is virtually an unassailable superman before he even dons his tin clothes. Other more humble heroes are quick-witted, able to balance their normal life with their alter-ego’s life with ease and so it goes on.

This is the beauty of SuperBob – he is impervious, he does save lives and fly around the world, but as we find out not always – but he does have days off, he is regulated by the government and in all other aspects of his life he is fallible if not at times darn right useless. He also yeans to have a normal life and meet a normal girl and fall in normal love.

Therein lies the strength of the story. The superhero, superpower, side of the story is an important part but it’s not the story. That is a sweet love story about a vulnerable man controlled by most everything in his life despite being in reality totally uncontrollable by even the greatest governments. He is given great powers and yet does not have the strength the break free from the powers that seek to hold him in place. It’s everything the bigger budget and star-ladened similar themed Hancock wasn’t.

As a small independent film, the most important part for the makers is the cast and it is in the small ensemble of main players where they hit pay-dirt. Brett Goldstein, also co-writer, is the glue the holds the story together by playing to his strength coming across as a very ordinary Bob who has superpowers but is anything but super. He is ably supported in this role by the powerful and vivacious form of Natalia Tena who plays off Bob’s gormlessness with an engaging portrayal of the focused and firm Dorris. In the hands of different actors both Bob and Dorris could easily have been pat and cookie-cutter characters and tipped over into ‘here we go again’ territory but Goldstein and Tena traverse this fine line with skill. Drop into the fray Catherine Tate, who brings everything she is to the pivotal role as Theresa. Seemingly able to play serious boss to utter pillock from role to role without breaking stride the film-makers must have known they were entirely safe when she said yes to the film. Then finally add in the Laura Haddock as a red-herring and a bevy of recognisable British film and TV talent popping up here and there what’s not to love?

If you are going to be churlish you could say the film hits so many targets with skill with regard to super-hero film cliches and then misses the love-story one which means regular filmgoers will immediately suss-out Dorris’ part in the film within minutes of meeting her but it does not ruin the film or enjoyment and it is nit-picking. Perhaps the pace sags every so slightly in the middle but that is setting up the punchline and after the sharp and smart start the film certainly gave itself a high bar to achieve throughout it’s tight running time.

As I’ve said that is all churlish and SuperBob can certainly be filed with other successful and quirky British comedies that are coming out of the UK all too infrequently. It’s fun, warm and lovely, doesn’t take itself too seriously, makes you laugh and feel sad and rather neatly pops the pompous bubble of superhero films.

I know many will not like it for the reasons I’ve outlined, but I and others will definitely like it for the very same reasons and let’s be honest, if there was a real British superhero it would be more like this than any Marvel film. Imagine those forms….

It is a confident film-maker who remakes the 1960’s seminal film The Magnificent Seven. No amount of confidence or star cast is going to make the film good if you don’t get it right.

With some beautiful cinemtography and fabulous scenery as credit in the ‘bank’ as it was Antoine Fuqua frontloads the film with his go-to actors from his previous films in the shape of Denzel Washington (Training Day, The Equalizer) and Ethan Hawke (Training Day) and an actor whose star is high in the firmament Chris Star. Unfortunately on the whole the film fails to live up to the premise.

The opening set-ups are entertaining if a little laboured, in particular the hand-holding and giant sign-posting that lets us know that Peter Sarsgaard’s character ‘Sir Jasper Naughty-Bonce’ is evil, like totally evil dude, was bordering on pantomime. I understand that if you looking for a realistic portrayal of the West in the late 1800s then don’t watch this film. This is definitely pop-corn, brain on hold, fare. Nevertheless, I do feel that my intelligence does not need to be insulted in quite the way it was from time-to-time.

As entertaining as those opening scenes were the ending scenes were as disappointing. I get the feeling that the Marvel Universe style denouement is infecting action films of all types. This film had explosions, as many baddies and goodies being, shot, stabbed, blown to bits and generally murdered as the average small war. After the end credits rolled the people of Rose Creek need no longer worry about n’er-do-wells as the local population of them had been totally eradicated, along with ninety-percent of the town folk.

Denzil Washington and Chris Pratt are always good value for money and the rest of the cast acquit themselves well in general. Peter Sarsgaard and Vincent D’Onofrio veer into pantomime territory on several occasions, particularly as D’Onofrio seems to be playing some sort of Brian Blessed hybrid. The need for every diverse type of population to represented in the ‘seven’ does not get me frothing at the mouth and red-faced as some reviewers and I can understand the modernising of the story but I’m not sure it was necessary in my view.

The Magnificent Seven was really The Average Seven and although the relentless drive for entertaining the multiplex masses has probably forced the hand of the director and producers I’m sure without such a big broad brush and some muted colours there was a good modern remake of The Magnificent Seven in there. Instead, this was slathered with the bright explosions of the ‘Why’s he doing that?’ crowd.

Antoine Fuqua can make good films and tell good stories, The Magnificent Seven was a good film and a great story. It should have worked but in reality it didn’t. It’s a shame.

I do a lot of minor and wishy-washy complaining about the current state of the cinema and film-making. Too many explosions, too many comic book films, too many sequels and remakes so in my egotistical way it seems as if Dave McCary, Kyle Mooney and Kevin Costello have been listening to me and made a film that I wanted to watch.

Well if they did (they didn’t) they were listening very well and understand me. In my case, this film is a perfect fit. Exactly what I wanted to watch at the right time, telling the right story in the right manner.

I suspect this movie won’t have a huge audience and it is shame as it reminds me of the strange and quirky films of my youth that would pop up on BBC2. Things like Harold and Maude and Brewster McCloud which so fascinated me with their quirky characters and odd storylines. The last film I viewed that captured me in such a way was the similar Wristcutters: A Love Story, although not the same type of story but made in the same spirit. Just like Wristcutters this film is easily going to be high on my favourite films list.

I won’t go into detail on the story because the less you know about how it all pans out the better but this film has pathos and fun by the bucketload and for once, and in a refreshing change from a lot of films, nearly all the characters are basically nice people without bringing any saccharin to the screen.

I’ll admit I don’t know much about Saturday Night Live’s Kyle Mooney but he is in that small group of comedians who can act with the comic brush in one hand whilst dabbing on drama with the other at will, without making the performance jarring or showy.

All he had to do was make sure the director was on the same page as him – he was, Dave McCary is a lifelong friend – and populate the film with quality actors. He did. Greg Kinnear is, as usual, standout as the kindhearted cop, Mark Hamill and Jane Adams manage to imbue some depth to their mainly unsympathetic characters and Matt Walsh and Michaela Watkins bring reliable believability to their pivotal roles. I’m saving a lot of my praise for Ryan Simpkins who is believable as James’ long-lost sister, both spikey and loving as the story moves along, and Jorge Lendeborg Jr. who is so great as the loveable nerd Spencer that I wanted him to be my friend.

And yes I did look at the pretty blonde lady and say to myself ‘Is that Clare Danes?’ It was.

There is no doubt this is a well-written, well-directed, well-acted film lovingly crafted by the makers, it’s a film about transformation, love, redemption and the wonder of imagination and friendship. It hasn’t got a bad bone in its body. It’s not perfect but what is?

I will be purchasing this for my Blu-Ray collection. I buy very few discs to keep these days so that is the best way I can praise this.

Fun, different, original as you can get in 21st-century cinema and with additional Andy Samberg.

Why not give it a go? I reckon most people will like Brigsby Bear, he’s a nice sort of bear.

Fences is a hugely successful stage-play and this film mainly features the cast from that play. Bearing that in mind and bearing in mind that August Wilson was trying to show a slice of life for working-class black families in the sixties you are not going to get much ‘action’ or anything the average cinema-goer would see as exciting. Denzel Washington and his ensemble must have slipped into their roles like familiar slippers. It shows.

Viola Davies and the rest of the cast are consummate actors so you know you are in some safe hands if nothing else. The film has one actor that the stage play didn’t have though and that is the city of Pittsburgh which is where Washington filmed this adaptation and if nothing else it helps to layer on the realism.

Being a silly old man from Hampshire I cannot vouch for the language, slang and nuances of the script in relation to 1950s Pittsburgh but the language and conversations seemed real to me. In my opinion, working-class people from that era with a limited access to good education probably could not express themselves quite so clearly and if my grand-dad was anything to go by they did talk as much and feelings were never discussed. Mind you if you made a film that realistic, it would be very short and very boring, so it is not any sort of criticism.

The small situations, battles and dilemmas the family finds themselves in seem real and in all honesty, they could easily have been set in any city and with any family of any creed. I feel Wilson wanted the story to be universal and feel relevant to anyone regardless of skin colour or ethnicity anyone whose family was poor and had to work really hard for every penny can take something from it.

Certainly, they are many people who can recall a wife, a tour-de-force by Viola Davies, who through some strong sense of loyalty and what is right stands by her man despite him doing many things that don’t deserve that loyalty. The film does not pontificate, no one says this right its just how it is and how she feels. The roles of Maxson’s two sons are ably filled by Hornsby and non-cast regular Adepo, Mykelti Williamson plays the very difficult role of Gabriel’s brother who suffered a severe head wound in the war, in the wrong hands this could easily be comedic and finally Stephen Henderson is a stand-out as Maxson’s long-time and loyal friend who tries to keep his friend on the straight and narrow. It’s all good.

You do have to bear in mind this is a near-direct transfer of a successful stage play to the screen. It is going to be talky and the players are going to have to-and-fro dialogue zipping between them. Its main weakness is probably that it does seem ‘stagey’ at times and if you do not like watching stage plays then you will probably not like this.

I did.

This is film that enters some very well-worn movie territory. The parents that ruin your life. With a cast most producers would sell their grandparents for and a fine dramatic premise surely The Family Fang could not fail.

For me, it was a little from column A and little from column B. You have to hand it to Nicole Kidman her choice of starrers is eclectic and with Bateman taking on the directing reins and as well as a role he seems to be leading away from his more comic roles. He does a fine job. Walken and Hahn are old hands at this and probably hardly needed any directing.

So having said that, this should be a great film. But something was missing and I can’t explain what. Somewhere deep in the soul of the film that little spark that makes a standard film great was missing. It was impossible not feel sorry for Annie and Baxter but after what they had been put through, whether they agreed it was ‘art’ (they didn’t seem to) or not, you could not help feeling that they would not have anything to do with their parent whatsoever. Even America has a social services programme for children that are mistreated and whose parents make them commit illegal acts.

The story and performances kept me watching with the use of flashbacks in the form of a never used documentary ‘The Family Fang’ being a clever touch but I feel that you get out of the story what you bring to it.

For instance, I sort of get Caleb’s take on art, I truly do, but to take it as far as he does in the film leaves me cold. I could feel the pretentiousness washing over me as I watched. So, in the end, I couldn’t connect with them, I felt they was more of the touch of idiots about them and my tolerance for such people in real life would be lower than it was for this film. Therefore the treatment of the children just became abusive the more the story progressed.

If you want to be blunt this is about two selfish a-wipes who messed up their children permanently for art. How you feel about that is going to be how you feel about this film from the start.

The Family Fang is probably worth a watch but you really have to be in the right mood that’s for sure.

Paddington the little bear from Peru is now happily living in London with the Brown family. He brings joy and happiness to his local community with his positive outlook, friendly manner and marmalade sandwiches. His latest adventure starts when looking for a present for this Aunt Lucy’s 100th birthday he finds a pop-up book in his friend Mr. Gruber’s shop. Having no money Paddington decides to earn some by getting any sort of job but no sooner is he near to having the necessary cash the book is stolen and Paddington is mistaken for the thief. Now it is up to the Brown’s and Paddington’s new friends in prison to prove him innocent, find the real culprit and get the pop-up book for his Aunt.

The first Paddington film, despite trepidation from the viewing public, was a great success, funny for everyone and endearing, almost the perfect children’s film for all the family to enjoy. Would Paddington 2 find the same success or would it turn out to be one bear too many?

Without a doubt, this film is a fabulous children’s film. All the same characters/actors return and feel like a nice comfortable pair of shoes. Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins make great parents of the Brown children and who better to play the anchor in the family Mrs. Bird but the multi-talented Julie Walters? All it needed was an interesting and fun story and a memorable villain. It has these.

Hugh Grant is the star turn as the boo-hiss Phoenix Buchanan a part he clearly relishes playing, perhaps taking from his film-making experiences over the years, who knows? On the flipside, you have the legendary Brendan Gleeson playing the uncompromising Knuckles McGinty and at a stroke, the writers add in two new characters played by good, reliable actors that slot into the on-screen Paddington world perfectly.

The film looks great with the surroundings both familiar to most of us but somehow seemingly childlike with vibrant colours and a mainly bright palette. The script is fun and funny both for the children watching and the older people accompanying them and the pace never drags or slows.

The makers have slipped in worthy messages to the audience about tolerance, kindness and maybe just being nice without being heavy-handed or earnestly ‘preachy’. Odd that some critics of the film take some umbrage at this being suggested to children like it was some sort of bad message to be spreading. The story is touching and not without peril, particularly to the younger film-goers, but this is Paddington 2’s strength. It even has a surprisingly strong moment of serious peril at the end that was both poignant and very sad that seemed to be from a more adult focussed movie before we quickly returned to the more familiar ground of the Paddington 2 story. Watch out for it.

Without going too over-the-top about what is essentially a children’s film, the sequel to Paddington is extremely impressive and ultimately fun particularly when considering the target audience. It seems some have lost sight of this when criticising/reviewing the movie.

Paddington 2 a safe fun night out for children of all ages, sit back, relax and enjoy the world of marmalade sandwiches and the occasional hard-stare.