Film Reviews by Strovey

Firstly, this is an Asylum film so you know what you are going to get, some okay acting, some really poor acting, some okayish screen effects and created by a new user to Photoshop. All done with an underlying sense of humour and a bit of cheek.

Here though the film is set in the world of Asylum, so they are a film maker in the story and it is their films that cause the disaster. Asylum milk this well, especially early on and to completely frank it is funny. Particularly later in the film where we meet ‘actor’ played by Mike Gaglio, sort of playing himself, in a film, it is rather funny as so meta your head might start spinning.

The effects are absolutely spot-on Asylum effects, you can see where they give the creators a budget limit but the intent is there.

Credit where credit is due, despite the absolute lack of any care for any details of US military operations, ranks or how it all works, and clearly limited locations, the one thing that Asylum do is unashamedly have women in leading and important roles. In Monster Armageddon it is the unlikely-looking Maddy and Quinn played by the delightful Lindsey Marie Wilson and Jhey Castles both attractive and sparky ladies but at no point did I think they were sisters. Nevertheless, Asylum unashamedly put them front and centre as the heroes and also sort of did it in a way that says, ‘this is completely normal’. No fanfare or highlighting, two ladies, in the lead, saving the day, let us get on with it. Fair play to them.

Not only that but the people who bring how the ‘aliens’ are operating to the authorities' attention are also a woman, and a brown man, who are happily married.

As mentioned before the acting varies from scene to scene with probably the worst being in an obvious cost-saving scene as the main protagonists escape from the marauding ‘crocosaurus’ they comment on what they can see as they look out of the helicopter window. Except all of them seem to be watching a Sunday picnic or seem as emotionally affected in that way. Michael Pare probably the most experienced actor in the film is the worst, he is looking at a 200-foot-long crocodile destroying Washington DC with literally no emotion on his face.

The story wobbles all over the place and like many Asylum films seems to have changed at the last minute, cutting scenes or dialogue out that then makes things a bit incomprehensible but if you are in the right mood, that is the fun of it.

We get everything, from giant robots, snakes, sharks and so on, but we also get potato-headed aliens and zombies, the cleanest looking unscary zombies ever to have risen from the dead but they are there.

Overall, Monster Armageddon or 2025 Armageddon as it appears to be called now is everything bad about Asylum, cheap, silly, nonsensical and rushed and everything good, cheap, silly, nonsensical and too rushed. But the winner for the company is the premise. Base everything on your films, promote them in the film, take the mickey and even cause an alien invasion. That has never happened to MGM.

If you cannot stand any Asylum film and I admit I am not a big fan and have never been, you might be able to bear this effort. If you love watching their style of silly rip-off fun then you will love this.

You pays your money and takes your choice.

The film Meg 2 gives all the appearances of being written by a very excitable 11-year-old who wanted to watch, monsters, robot suits, baddies and see explosions, monsters eating people and a hero killing the monsters, oh and guns and shooting.

Well anyone who wants to watch this has got it and Meg 2 is ten out of ten for that.

If you are over eleven years of age and have a discerning part of your brain that can reason and see at least a fundamental logic then the Meg 2 will annoy you and in fact, as it did with me, bore you.

The positives in it are Jason Statham and Jason Statham and even then I am not so sure I could see the glint of his bank-balance in his eyes because even with his history of hokey and utterly stoooopid films this one towers above them.

The other cast members are ‘I’ve seen him in something before’ and ‘She looks like cut-price Kate Winslett’ and ‘Who?’ They try their best and are enthusiastic but I feel that this film is not their path to fame and stardom even if they were ‘acting with The Stath’ and being directed by ‘Ben – hang your head in shame – Wheatley’.

The opening scene is similar to something I saw on an Attenborough documentary on dinosaurs but was more believable how it occurred and featured a different sea monster because megalodons did not exist at the same time as tyrannosaurus rexes and the whole shock event was just there to say the Meg is bigger and scarier than that Jurassic Park star and much more powerful. Ironically Jurassic Park jumped the shark some time back. This opening ‘wow’ scene does not make any sense and is highly unrealistic and thus we are set up for the entire film.

The visual effects are poor at times, especially things on the surface of the sea, some of the sharks look impressive in certain setups, but other times not so much. I thought the whole octopus part was almost a parody because of what happened and how it looked but no apparently it was meant to be terrifying.

The lizard things, not sure how they lived where they did, not sure why they just went around killing people because predators in my experience tend to kill other animals to eat them. These just wanted to kill people, that was it.

Statham plays Statham as per usual, still does not know how to use a razor but luckily enough for him his stubble stays the same length in perpetuity. He looks like he is carved from granite, he just looks tough, I suspect he probably is fairly tough, so why make his character impervious to the laws of nature and physics? This is a common theme nowadays, even the recent ‘The Killer’ on Netflix set it up with a calculating, clever and cerebral assassin still being indestructible in one scene as his skinny frame survives a battering that would literally kill anyone – why do filmmakers to this? In films made for grown adults?

The film is poor and has little to no redeeming features.

It does however open up an interesting can-of-worms. Clearly the brief was ‘bigger’, and expand on everything the first film had. S, more megalodons, more monsters, more peril, more evil baddies and just more. I have no doubt there is an audience that will lap this up so we will get the terrible prospect of Meg 3: This Time It is Personal soon.

Why can’t the makers, writers and actors look at the first film and say ‘how can we improve on this’ (not difficult but they failed) how can we expand the lore and make it interesting, perhaps we can make it different? Nope, they just doubled down and made it stupider. But this is not the Meg 2’s fault they are just following a too well-worn path now in moviemaking. Is it us the audience’s fault, it seems that films that deal with serious problems or have stories that do not involve explosions and monsters or superheroes do not do as well.

Is the audience getting dumber and the films are being made for them?

Do dopey films make a dopier audience?

The Flash is an odd superhero movie, it has the elements we expect, a lot of explosions, a lot of cars flipping end over end, a lot of peril for people, including a ‘shower of babies’ that the hero eventually puts a stop to – but only just. Yet it mixes this in with a dorky alter-ego and some misplaced and at times rather low-brow humour. Pile on top of this a lot of people getting killed, and there were a lot of families of servicepeople who were going to be affected and the unpleasant stabbing murder of the main protagonist's mother. What age group was it aimed at? I have no idea.

The story is certainly nothing we have not seen in many films, books and other fiction before. A Sound of Thunder always comes to mind when anyone tackles this because the outcome, the moral, is always exactly the same. You cannot go back in time to change one thing without changing everything.

In The Flash it seems as if the writers could not resist the temptation to make this simple premise well, simple really. It gets convoluted and odd and makes little sense the longer it goes on. What it really seems to be is a good excuse for some hard-core comic-book, super-hero nostalgia porn, as every version ever put on any screen (in the Western hemisphere at least) of Superman and few other heroes pops up for a little cameo, including poor old Nic Cage’s fervent wish from decades ago. For me it did nothing but for some viewers I would imagine it was Nirvana.

The visual effects on display are at times poor, and Polar Express 'uncanny', which considering the development time and money spent is a poor return. Apparently, this was deliberate as it was supposed to represent the view through Barry’s eyes in the alternate dimensions and it had absolutely nothing with impossible deadlines and penny-pinching.

Ezra Miller plays dual roles and much like Ezra’s off-screen persona they are both at times good and others really bad. Playing up the camera and hamming it for it is worth and then in an emotional scene with his mother getting the effect required from the acting. Puzzling. Regardless of the events beyond the camera, I can only judge what I see on the screen. It is not a review of dreadful events in the real world although I have opinions on those, definitely for another Blog or place.

Throughout the run time we get superhero returnees, including croaky-voiced Affleck and Keaton as Batpeople and discarding with Henry Cavill we get Sash Calle donning a figure-hugging CGI suit as Superman’s niece who does very little except get angry and killed – about twenty times.

Michael Shannon returns as Zod, again looks mean, badly CGIed and does little else.

Really the whole thing is a mess but I am glad every probably got paid well at least.

Sprinkle throughout as some familiar faces to UK viewers, Saoirse-Monica Jackson, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Kieran Hodgson, who was sat on the sofa of Glaswegian living-room only a few days previously.

The more enjoyable aspects are when Barry interacts with his parents, the ever-reliable Ron Livingston and Maribel Verdú but people who watch The Flash do not want to see that, they are there for their heroes and explosions, and flipping cars and derring-do and to be fair you do get that.

Overall, The Flash had a job to do, to persuade me to review my bias against comic-book superhero films and it failed. Flashing lights, a billion dollars worth of CGI and visual effects, non-stop violence where peripheral characters die, a flawed protagonist, who starts out a bit wonky but gets better and learns near the end and a big ‘twist’ that I guessed the first time I saw the character.

If this was for adults it was too simplistic and too illogical and if it was for the younger generation too violent and panders too much.

Cutter's Way is a film that sneaked under my radar way back in the early eighties when I was a teenager and with subsequent showings on TV which I am guessing there must have been, its style and story seem set up perfectly for late-night Saturday night showings on BBC2 when I was in my twenties but even I cannot see every film.

When I was a young man in his twenties I would have loved this and it has to be said despite it being of its time with a few moments that rightfully would have to be handled carefully in this day and age it is still a well-acted, well-directed enjoyable romp despite the content which, let us make no mistake, is dark from the beginning to the end.

Cutter's Way is certainly of a ‘type’ with the two main characters whilst both likable in their own way are ‘off the normal path’ and in real life would be avoided by a country mile by most of us.

Alex Cutter is played by a noticeably young John Heard, the late actor here is unrecognisable if you only know him from his later work. Cutter is a rage-filled, drunken and disabled by war veteran. More or less embodying the Vietnam rage felt by many Heard enjoys bringing all of his acting tools to the fore. Some scenes showing the pent-up rage and impotence of his character are actorly and exceedingly dramatic but within the context of the story and characters it a cinematic device that can be forgiven.

The mystery of the murder and who committed it takes a step out of focus and we are plunged into the nuances of the relationship between Bone, Cutter and Mo and the complicated and fractious set of protagonists.

The stunningly handsome and languid Jeff Bridges despite being a drifter with little focus is front and centre and the moral guide, trying at all turns to save Cutter from himself and comfort and console Mo his much put-upon wife.

Lisa Eichhorn given the difficult role of Mo is at least given something to do other than just being the ‘wife’ but herein lies the problem as she is sidelined for longer periods and although Cutter is damaged his treatment of his problematical to say the least, but nevertheless Eichhorn holds her own against the male heavyweights and is memorable.

So far so good, Cutter's Way seems to be a buddy movie from the early 80s with two loveable but wacky main characters supported by Eichhorn and Ann Dusenberry, the vengeful sister, and the establishment friend Arthur Rosenberg, both creditable. In reality clearly, the makers, and the original novel I suspect, is an indictment of the relationship between the small people and the wealth and power of the USA. Corruption and power rule the roost and justice for the small and weak is rare, if not impossible with the not long passed Vietnam War the pivot on which the tale revolves.

This theory taken to an extreme means that Cutter has seen the corruption and uncaring nature of power, or J.J. Cord (an oil baron surprise, surprise), and Bone is an aware but naïve American public. It seems obvious to me but if you miss this point, it is underlined, Cutter tossing an innocent child’s toy into the Ocean and then shooting it to shreds, Bone taking the gun off him and throwing it away – and so forth.

If you do miss this, or do not agree, Cutter's Way is still a great murder revenge tale about a corrupt man intending to get away with literal murder. On this level is quirky, well-acted and fun. It has aged well, there are few ‘N’ references and some spousal abuse, so not cool, but within the context of the characters and story you should be able to let them pass with perhaps a modicum of bad taste in your mouth.

Not my usual fair, a Croatian film, so the culture and sensibilities on display will clearly not be something I am used to at all. The story involves the Roman Catholic Church, their attitude, in the form of a young priest, to birth control, sin and confession and the hypocrisy of those that practice it and how it affects everyone. When you take on a topic that can be as heavy as this, in a culture that has suffered a catastrophic war you are always doing something risky. Humour and satire are always a way to approach it.

Vinko Bresan is a veteran of Croatian cinema and apparently the situation we find ourselves in is something with which he is familiar. He likes to set stories on islands, probably confining the action and actors to a restrictive setting almost a play setting in some ways.

The island setting itself looks slow and idyllic and sets the atmosphere and feel for the story very well. The acting, for my part, seemed fairly natural and there was not too much ham or gurning, even in the more farcical situations, I have since read the accents are not island-style but I am never going to know if that is a failing or not if I am honest.

It is easy to see The Priest’s Children as a polemic on the Catholic Church but Bresan oversees how the priest behaves fairly and at no time is he the deliberate butt of every joke and stupid situation. Indeed, the islanders can be seen to be more hypocritical at all times whilst Don Fabijan is held to the highest standards. It is an interesting point raised with a smile.

Where the problems start to arise is this basic tenant is established early on and that is all we get throughout the film, just characters weaving in and out of the same problem. Until the film ends on huge tone shift where there is no laughing to be had. This is a huge gear change and no clutch is used. It was problematic for me.

It has to be said it is some sort of strange skill to get a mainly farcical comedy film that is just over ninety minutes long to seem longer.

The acting for all involved is subtle and good enough not to ruin the story and the fun poked at the corruption of the church by the people inside it, the bishop rolling up in a yacht that one character thinks is either a government or Mafioso yacht is laugh out loud funny, but what you get from this film will definitely come from where you start, being Croatian or from that area and growing up amongst a strong Catholic Church presence means you will certainly view this differently than me, an atheist 61-year old man from Hampshire in the UK who has had a lucky and charmed life.

Overall, The Priest’s Children is certainly worth viewing, if only to see some Croatian cinema, and get a feel for it. If you watch enough satires on religion and how people interact with it there is nothing new and if you do not like repetitive, twee and on-the-nose music throughout the runtime you will not like this.

I have watched The Priest’s Children, it kept my attention but I doubt I will ever watch it again.

Grand Theft Auto was really Ron Howard’s first film he directed but Night Shift is touted as his first attempt at a big Hollywood style film or feature. At the time he was just twenty-eight and it seems he was in a ‘safe place’ as he was surrounded by Happy Days friends, Henry Winkler or Fonzie and the writers Ganz and Mandel who wrote for Happy Days. Throw in the mix Richard Belzer, Winkler’s cousin, who in this film looks too much like him, and his brother Clint, who has an entire career based on Ron Howard’s films and the young director must have been fairly relaxed.

Michael Keaton is probably second billed here but it can be argued that this was his breakout film and his manic, cock-eyed and very Keatonesque performance proved popular with the 80s audiences, on the other hand Winkler, certainly the bigger star at the time, played against type swimming upstream from the confident, all-fighting, all-loving Fonzie to play what is basically a cowardly dweeb for want of better description. It maybe did not help him that he played it very well showing a bigger range than early Keaton but audiences did not like or could not adjust to it. Aside from playing Fonzie for a few more years Winkler sort of disappeared whilst Keaton went from strength to strength.

The final member of the trio, and basically the film revolves around these three for the majority of the running time is Shelley Long, who cleverly booked a role in long-running TV success ‘Cheers’ whilst still popping up in mainly light frothy comedies. Here, much like a lot of her roles, she is not given a great deal to work with being the favourite of Hollywood an attractive, lovely, prostitute (I am using the vernacular of the time) who is smart, intelligent and kind. Sure, they will be out there but in the cinematic world there seems to be a lot. Having said that she plays this role to the hilt and the chemistry between her and the two male leads is up there to be seen.

Overall, where does Night Shift sit? The comedy revolves around the mismatch between the two male leads and at this point it works, Keaton and Winkler play off each other well and the mismatched friendship is believable, as is the romance between Long and Winkler despite the role Long is given. The rest of the story is problematic. I suppose in 1982 when I was 20 I would have laughed like a drain but viewing from 2023 we can see things we could not then,

We have, Gina Hecht, who plays Chuck’s attractive and slightly paranoid fiancé Charlotte, somehow being one the film’s more unattractive characters yet basically she does nothing wrong and is dumped. How many films have you seen where the original partner of a character is shown to be undesirable often by being normal? It was a trope in 1982 and it is a trope now. Tired, lazy and worn-out.

Then of course the whole topic of sex-workers exploitation. All the girls look exactly what you think they should look like at the time, except they are on the right side of attractive, not one of them drug-addled and worn out from the life they have led. Rather than beating a dead horse than you have read from better writers on the topic than me this all seemed to me to be a bit stereotypical and even for the eighties once again, a bit tired.

The film is comedic, yet there are murders, women being exploited and beaten, men earning from immoral purposes, I mean I am not one for stopping distasteful comedy but I think when you get into this territory you need to try to have an underlying message to give the comedy some substance. Night Shift mostly misses this target and let us face it even back then it was a fairly big and easy target to make a statement.

Night Shift is worth watching to see Henry Winkler showing what a good actor he is and the start of Michael Keaton’s screen persona around that time and much like Winkler what an accomplished actor Shelly Long was.

Although despite this the truth is I probably would not watch it again

Conviction is not something you have not seen before, that is the plain truth. An innocent man imprisoned and fighting to prove that innocence against all the odds by one determined individual. So far so TV movie of the week. What lifts this particular film way about this crowd is, and I have said this so many times before with my opinions, the acting. The script, directing and pace of the film are all good and help but add two less talented actors taking the weight of the story on their shoulders and you get a poorer quality product.

Another strength for Conviction is that as improbable as it might seem it is based mainly on a true story. A man really did spend eighteen years of his life in prison for a crime he most definitely did not commit and the only person who believed him from the start and stuck with him to the bitter end was his sister.

What we really have here amongst the courtroom, lazy police officers, and trailer trash witnesses’ travails is a simple dramatic story of the love between two siblings. Viewed like this Conviction is a triumph. Hilary Swank once again is strong, earnest and fun as the hard-working, almost in some sense blind to her brother’s short-comings Betty Anne and Sam Rockwell in the more colourful role of Kenny once again shows his acting chops by toning it down, making Kenny, dreadful, funny, sad and sympathetic. I have previously noted Rockwell seems to have the ability to create believable on-screen chemistry with his co-stars, an amazing tool he has at his disposal. It is now at the point that if Sam Rockwell is in a film I will watch no matter the topic.

Strong support is provided by the always dependable Minnie Driver, possibly a fictional character to reflect the audience's viewpoint, and the black-hat Melissa Leo as a vengeful cop and white-hat Peter Gallagher as the Innocence Project bossman. Equally, the young actors dropping in and out of the film as her sons put in believable performances. Casting is so important in any film.

Director Tony Goldwyn and writer Pamela Gray carefully avoid too much courtroom or prison action or even the desperation of the law classroom for Betty Anne, wisely choosing to invest emotional heft in familial flashbacks and dramatic meetings between desperate Kenny and determined Betty Ann. This keeps proceedings simple, some would say dull or slow I suppose, but it builds up to what, if you do not know the story, you hope is the end. For me it worked well.

If I have any complaints it does appear that the makers want to really underline who are the baddies later in the film with Juliette ‘look at my manky teeth’ Lewis looking like a leftover from The Walking Dead and Kenny’s ex-wife, played by Clea DuVall, looking as if her double-dealing has made it all go downhill. Doing the wrong thing means the rest of your life will not turn out too well. We all know that is not necessarily so but it is a filmatic device and not a major complaint.

Overall Conviction is a fascinating tale of strong sibling love, and one woman’s utter set-in-stone conviction and unbreakable determination. All true as well. Sure, there will be little breakaways from the story, dramatic devices and exaggerations but as ‘true life stories go’ stick in Sam Rockwell, Hilary Swank and Minnie Driver and half your work is done before you start.

This film took ten years to make due to funding falling through, so take a little under two hours of your day to watch it and then ponder in the same circumstances could you do it? I am not so sure I could, shame on me.

It has to be said upfront that the Spider-Verse animated films are not targeted to me, a 61-year-old man. Nevertheless, the original Into the Spider-Verse film featuring the adventures of Miles Morales and his Spider-Friends was one of my favourite super-hero films of any type of ‘brand’, therefore, I was looking forward to the Across the Spider-Verse further adventure.

In some ways my anticipation was more than excelled but some ways it was disappointed.

The animation, voice acting, fun and excitement were again top-notch. Which coming from with the kinetic and brightly coloured nature of what is thrown at you on the screen is a high compliment. The bright colours and almost surrealist-style shapes which would normally have got these old eyes spinning and upset me just seemed part of the story and in keeping with what I was expecting. All good.

What perhaps held this particular film back from being as well-regarded by me as the first, I really did like that first film, is the running time. Did it really need to be over two hours long? I would say no and the part that failed the most was what I think the makers as the showpiece. When Miles gets to Spider-Verse Central and we see many, many versions of Spider-types. It was too much, with too many variants and became a little dull. I also feel it would have been wiser to make this, like the first, a self-contained story and not a part one. Seems a cynical money grab if I am being honest.

The humour throughout the film is spot on including the in-joke of having Miguel O’Hara, voiced by Oscar Issacs, being the only Spider-Person with literally no sense of humour or fun. It also helps, unlike a lot of Marvel output that this humour derives from many sources and is not just the central character being a ‘smartarse’ to the point where you start to dislike them.

This time I feel the animation, although fluid and impressive did not have as many variants but that might have more to do with my lack of observation than any failing on the part of the makers. The voice acting and casting is spot-on, especially Daniel Kaluuya going back to London, and frankly the film and performances drag you into such a point that you almost forget you are watching an animation, no small feat.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse is a fun action-packed adventure that adds to the first Spider-Verse film and takes nothing away. Fans and aficionados will love it and if a tired, seen-it-all old man can enjoy it then Lord, Miller et al have done their job well.

I will watch the ‘Part 2’ that is going to turn up and no doubt enjoy it. Just make sure you have a nice comfortable cushion to sit on before settling down.

Although Italian actors Mario Girotti and Carlo Pedersoli, who to make them more recognisable and popular in the USA changed their names to Terence Hill and Bud Spencer, had been acting for some time before this comedy ‘spaghetti’ western and had teamed up previously in God Forgives, I Don’t and Ace High, this was the film that elevated them to stratospheric fame, particularly in the English speaking world, and cemented them as a charismatic and fun comedy pairing. An amazing fact really considering someone like me, as a young child when I first saw these comedy westerns, would never hear them with their genuine voices.

I can recall watching this film on Saturday night at home on my own aged around 12 or 11 so about four or three years after the film was made and thinking it was the funniest thing I had seen ever. After this recent viewing my enjoyment whilst still there at watching the antics of the lovable duo was nowhere near as elevated.

I did notice that my snorting and giggling was strongest at the start of the film as we are very quickly shown what type of person Trinity (Hill) is. Tramp-scruffy, so lazy he gets his horse to drag him across the desert and does not even stir as the travois goes through a river. Unassuming and harmless-looking, he has a reputation by name only, which is demonstrated when two rival bounty-hunters try to shoot him in the back. All done with humour and charisma from beginning to end. Indeed, a strong beginning and some skilled filmmaking.

Despite being cynical and old now and confirming some of the film's fun had faded this was still an enjoyable romp through its running time and it has to be said the movie being fifty-three years old does have to be taken into account.

Where writer and director Enzo Barboni hits the nail on the head is with the satire of the whole genre of the film. He is on record as saying he did not like the uber violence of the countless Italian-made Westerns that were cashing in on the Leone’s ‘classics’ in which stoic and seemingly indestructible anti-heroes were only successful if their body count hit triple figures. It has to be said even at this time there appeared to be a Spaghetti Western fatigue setting in so the timing of Trinity was fortuitous.

The trope of a silent, dressed-in-black killer, is destroyed by Hill in one memorable scene and throughout the film he is so deadly with his gun he can shoot someone pointing his gun behind his back without looking. Hard to exaggerate an already exaggerated genre and do it for laughs but it works.

Where the film lags is after we establish Major Harriman is the big bad and will do anything to establish control of the land for his beloved horses. The setup is funny but then the build-up and indeed the final showdown ending just goes on too long, outstays its welcome and somehow makes a slapstick, comedic fight between, standard Mexican bandits, henchmen and ‘shackles-off’ Mormons too long and eventually not funny.

The storyline is bog standard, I mean a group of well-meaning non-violent people are harassed by very violent evil-doers who want them out of the way using their own nefarious means. This is almost as old as boy-meets-girl, so it must stand on its premise and comedic outlook which it definitely did at the time it was in cinemas and still, in a way, does now, even if from a film-history perspective.

Without a doubt, if you enjoy spaghetti westerns like slapstick and silly humour delivered by lovable fools this film will be worth your while seeking out. It is over a century old but at the time was definitely a shot in the arm for what was becoming a tired genre and this does not distract from the fun and entertainment that can be had in a viewing and Hill and Spencer were without doubt a slick and comfortable double-act that worked perfectly.

Lee Van Cleef pops up in The Big Gundown in a role that paid so many of his bills as an older, wiser, but stoic bounty-hunter style hunter-killer in the Wild West. Sometimes he was bad, sometimes good, in this interesting and superior ‘Spaghetti Western’ he is mainly good but there are a lot of shades of grey to be seen in his performance as you watch the story unfold.

With The Big Gundown the story is all. Being an Italian-made western well over fifty years old and therefore right in the middle of that genres boom years, you get the overwrought and a tad odd set pieces with over-the-top sound effects, play-ground style shoot-outs where the combatants pull off impossible feats but while this might put off a younger generation, brought up on more realistic effects and films (sometimes), perhaps for certain generations it is delight that makes you smile.

Tomas Milian, a Cuban American who carved out a career in Italy, here plays Cuchillo, the scruffy n’er-do-well who is deadly, and I mean deadly, with a knife. Cleverer than he appears, a hidden strength, Cuchillo in general stays one step ahead of the greatest bounty hunter, who does not collect bounties, in the land. Milian plays the role to the hilt, wide-eyed and open-mouthed, arms pin-wheeling everywhere, screaming, pleading, gurning, almost a parody but actually fitting for the role and highly entertaining, never before has so much over-acting worked perfectly. His foil, in what for most parts is a two-hander, is Van Cleef, who seemingly just goes into his western hitman role and pushes ‘play’. His Corbett is minimal in expression and word and the polar opposite to Milian, he shows emotions or thoughts with a glance up, a slight movement. So different from the Cuchillo character it works well. If you like your pasta-based oaters this will be familiar and welcome.

The story apparently derives from an original written by Franco Solinas and Fernando Morandi which was set in a contemporary time period, with the protagonists' ages reversed and ending in a very bleak and nihilistic manner. When it came to the screenplay setting the tale in the ‘Wild West’ made more sense as it gave Sergio Sollima a lot more leeway with lawlessness and story beats. The ending is hilariously so ‘Western movie ending’ it is again almost parody but it was most definitely added as a nod to cinematic lore and to leave the audience upbeat.

But it is definitely the story that raises this film’s stock above similar-style movies. As with much Italian output, there is a barely hidden political agenda at play. Solima was in the Italian resistance against the Nazis in World War Two and the theme of the downtrodden, underclass maligned and mistreated fighting back is in the forefront with the armed branch of the elite, Van Cleef doing the bidding of this masters until the scales fall from his eyes. There is even a Nazi representation with stiff as a board Austrian Baron bodyguard played with fun and elan by Gérard Herter to who the death of a person just happens to be a side-effect of his obsession. Racism, classism and unthinking capitalism are all front and centre. Perhaps this sounds dreary and preachy to some, and that is understandable, but such is the format, such is the screenplay and acting that if you choose not to see that message it is easy enough to enjoy a rip-roaring and over-the-top western.

For ‘Spaghetti Western’ aficionados’ The Big Gundown is a must and anyone interested in cinema with an open mind likewise. If you are really fussy with realism, dodgy dubbing and so forth then perhaps bear in mind the year, 1966.

As this film unfolded I immediately thought that the makers saw or were involved with ‘Role Models’. The final third of that film takes place entirely at a LARP event. They must have thought expanding the fun and idea of ‘nerds made good’ would be a great idea for a full movie. Truthfully, it is a great idea for a movie, unfortunately somewhere between the planning and the execution something got lost. I have read that the director's vision or version was much chopped about in post-production, unfortunate, but we who view the film can only judge on what we see, not what we’d like to see.

The cast is strong, I personally have never seen Ryan Kwanten before but he is well-known for a certain demographic and Dinklage, Zahn, Pudi and Simpson bring their own cache to the production so all good. Summer Glau, I have not seen her in anything since Serenity, and Margarita Levieva are the only female cast of any note, are easy on the eye and do as much as they can within the limitations of the writing.

The story itself is actually horror-film-standard. Unbeatable demon/monster accidentally revived/summoned by helpless fools and the same helpless fools have to overcome the seemingly insurmountable evil. Much blood and limb lopping off ensues and a few ‘heroes’ fall by the wayside but the main couple overcomes the odds, get it on and live a happy post-credit life.

Bearing this thought in mind it would seem to be really important that the process of setting up the characters and story is greater than the actual story. The Knights of Badassdom fails on this. It definitely did with me because during the running time my attention was wandering, so much so I lost a few plot points and never resolved how certain things happened. Never a good sign.

The biggest roadblock has to be are you interested in LARPing, Dungeons and Dragons, fantasy that sort of thing? If not then I have to say thirty percent of the story is probably diminished. Perhaps unfairly but if you watch a sports film and a sport you have literally no interest in, it better be really well made and captivating otherwise they lose you.

Further to this the tone was a bit hit-and-miss. It seemed to be a slapdash look at the wacky world of LARPing and then showing how these much-maligned people were actually okay and looked out for their friends. Then we get heads coming off, innocent people, who are not even into LARPing having their throats cut and beating hearts ripped out. You can juxtapose gore with humour, it needs a bit of skill, I’m looking at you American Werewolf in London, but in my experience, mostly the target in this shooting range is missed more than hit generally.

Reading some reviews after the film had concluded there were some nods to real role-playing that were clever and funny but it is a complete miss if you have no idea what they are.

Negative opinion I am afraid and I do not like giving these when I can avoid it but The Knights of Badassdom really feels like a film that was a good idea and then lost focus, stumbled around in the woods for a while and then fell asleep.

It could have been better, so much better, I am sure.

It has to be remembered that Kotch is 52 years old as a movie and was also versatile actor Jack Lemmon’s only directorial effort. Perhaps on this showing you can see maybe he was not really up for that side of the creative process in filmmaking. This is not meant to be disrespectful to a fine actor but there is something ‘off’ about Kotch from the minute the film opens.

The opening credits feature scenes of Matthau, only fifty-one at the time, looking somewhat unconvincing as a past he seventies widower taking his tiny grandson to the park and entertaining him. Clearly setting us up to show us what type of man Kotcher really is it is saddled with a syrupy music track and has all the subtlety of a very tacky Hallmark card or the worst meme you have ever seen.

The whole essence of the shots seems….TV movie. So much treacle you can feel your teeth rotting. So faced with this you feel you are not trusted by the maker and you must be forced into opinions.

The story itself must have been relevant when I was 9 years old but truthfully is relevant now so as they say ‘kudos’ to the writers Paxton and Topkins but unfortunately it is wrapped up in some sugary pap and tiresome characters whilst you are battered about the head with over-the-top and intrusive music. Another attempt to manipulate how you feel about certain scenes.

Matthau is good, but not convincing as a wind-bag old codger, he was great as the sort of chap you might meet who is nice enough but goodness he can talk your ear off, me perhaps, but he does not convince at looking like an old man and this can whip you out of scene fairly quickly.

His son played by everyman actor Charles Aidman is okay but forgettable, with the requisite sexism and seventies sensibilities and the task of the ‘horrible bitch ‘ wife is left to Jack Lemmon’s real-life wife Felicia Farr. She is a little redeemed near the end but basically is the normal 1970s wife you see in a lot of TV and films. Dire.

Deborah Winters does get some plaudits for her portrayal of the teenager who becomes pregnant but even here it seems you have seen all the dramatic points dot-to-dotting in the story before.

If you follow me on social media you know I am an admirer of Matthau’s acting throughout his career, including taking the time to paint a portrait of him, but this, whilst good enough, is one of his weaker moments. He is not helped by the pedestrian story beats and horrible music score but ultimately he has to salute and go down with the dull ship as it sinks below the sea of better films.

If you read the blurb and general outline of the story you have to understand what you are getting for your money. This is unashamedly feel-good, underdog, storytelling. You will have seen this before more than once. So the only thing that can win you over and make this hold its head higher than the others behind it is the direction, the storytelling and the acting. For me, Champions wins due to the positives they can put in each of those columns.

The story starts quickly and sharply introducing you to the heel of Woody Harrelson and if you want an actor to play a role, with more than one level, who is both a good man and an arrogant a-hole at the same time the former bartender from Cheers is definitely your man. This is not a criticism in any way but he definitely can do this role in his sleep. Here it is effortless.

His amor is the nearly unrecognisable, for me at least, Kaitlin Olson and it has to be said she is a revelation. Freed from her role as the cartoonish one-level shrieking Dee in Always Sunny in Philadelphia she is really good. I would go as far as to say that Always Sunny has shackled Kaitlin. Here in a grounded more emotionally realistic role she a strong important part of the film and makes it work. It would be interesting to see how she would work in completely different genres.

With Harrelson and Olson anchoring the story ably supported by Cheech Marin – the strong realistic boss figure, and Matt Cook – comic relief who proves capable near the end, the genius of the makers is to use genuinely intellectually challenged people playing the roles of the kids. By showing them joking, having challenges with serious topics, being funny, diligent, and being everything except their disability, we have honesty at the heart of the film and story and I dare say for some people eye-opening honesty.

All of these young people are great. Some stand out and have more important story beats than others but they all get their fair share of screen time with the star that shines brightly from the minute she gets on the screen, Madison Tevlin, playing the hard-assed and sassy Consentino, she clearly loves every line, every emotion she has to show us on the screen, and she makes you laugh.

The film cleverly does not have a ‘revelation’ moment for the Marcus character but more subtly changes his attitude without ever signposting it at all which is an aspect I liked. Lesser storytellers would hit you over the head with this moment to show it. Consequently, it feels much more natural and organic.

The sensitive content around the youngsters with the challenges and obstacles that we can never truly understand or know are managed very well throughout the runtime and it was never there to manipulate your emotions cheaply as some films would. The whole film is obviously manipulating your feelings, but in a good way, perhaps even challenging how you think on a small scale but it does try to highlight more understanding in the viewer and the upbeat side of such tales.

Within the scope of stories like Champions emotional beats are signposted and pushed, which I understand some people do not mind, Champions seems more organic and natural in the way the story and characters progress. A big plus for Farrelly, the writers and actors.

This is not to say this is a perfectly wonderful film. Although it zips along it could also lose a few minutes of run time and some set pieces seem a tad unrealistic and are shoe-horned in to highlight a point or get the characters to where they need to be. To be fair, it is not like that has never happened in a film before.

The story treads a very well-worn remarkably familiar sports story path and if you watch films you have seen this before. Even the ending is familiar.

Champions is a well-acted, well-made, story that lifts intellectually challenged people out of the role of ‘how difficult is their life’ to a more rounded view.

Lawn Dogs is an odd film. The strongest point, and once again a theme I come to many times with a Sam Rockwell film, is the chemistry between the leads that is to be seen on the screen. Mischa Barton, eleven years old at the time, is believable as the loose cannon Devon and the bond and innocent friendship between her and the always great Sam Rockwell’s Trent is believable and endearing. Not easy to do and it could have easily slipped into creepy or ‘that girl seems more like she’s thirty’ territory so it is a credit to the direction and more importantly the acting that it does not.

The film zips along at a great pace with the usual rich people are vapid and a step away from the devil trope that many films love to run with, but in Lawn Dogs defence having seen documentaries/interviews with people who live in gated communities it is probably closer with the displays of casual promiscuity, thoughtless violence, sexism and racism shown by the broadly written supporting cast than you might think. You only need to look at what is happening around the world and especially in the USA to realise that it is not as far-fetched as it once might have been.

Having said this the supporting cast has a feel of cardboard-cutout-villain about them, in particular the influential family's son Sean, who is a school-psychopath-bully that you have seen in every US drama, comedy and horror film ever made. In real life locked up before they were sixteen. It does seem they were in the film to make a point and they do.

Devon refers to the Slavic folklore of Baba Yaga throughout the film and because of how the film ends this fable underpins the whole thing. Unfortunately, if you are trying to make some fantasy-type drama and have nothing pointing to this until the final fifteen minutes or so all it will do is confuse the average viewer.

This is what happens here. Without ruining the ending it makes you question what has gone before. Are we seeing the imagination of a child, and thus an unreliable narrator? It is all true or a dream? I do not know. This is a misstep for me along with Trent’s visit to his parents which was awkward, odd and almost from another film coupled with some poor acting it did not sit well with me.

Lawn Dogs stands up to scrutiny. It is odd and will not be for some, the friendship between and grown man and a child made the powers-that-be in the USA and UK ban it but this only goes to show they utterly misunderstood what they were seeing, clearly Trent and Devon were the only normal people in the film everyone else was grotesque and horrific.

I would recommend Lawn Dogs, it has Sam Rockwell in it for starters, it is odd enough to keep you watching but I could not help feeling it was an opportunity missed to make a great ‘strange film’. We all love strange films do we not?

You could be forgiven for taking a sort of dislike to his film by reading the blurb or outline of the story before watching. It is not like it is something you have not heard or seen before. A kooky girl meets up with a wacky guy, or sometimes the other way around, but there is something in the way, a roadblock that must be overcome before they set off into the sunset to lead their kooky life.

To overcome perhaps regular film viewer's disdain and cynicism you have to hitch some good actors, or ‘stars’ if you prefer, to the tale. Luckily for Mr. Right, they do this. Sam Rockwell a veritable expert at playing the slightly off-key dangerous but niceish chap and Anna Kendrick a pretty, odd but lovable woman who is has reserves of hidden strength she did not realise she had. Both these actors are slotted in their most comfortable zones and it has to be said they play it to their maximum abilities and it helps that the chemistry between works, is palpable.

Just for this alone and despite the utter absurdity of the story and the unfocussed tone and moral compass, Mr. Right is enjoyable.

The film definitely lacks originality but the energy and pure belief in the project from the main actors is there on the screen to see, so although you feel you have witnessed this somewhere before and you are sure you know what is going to happen the journey to the story points and set-ups are enjoyable. Even a terrifically nasty bad guy played with nice easy nonchalance by Tim Roth is fun although he is meant to be the dark soul of the movie.

The dialogue, although hokey, drives it along and is delivered with a natural ease and never grates no matter how silly it gets. Definitely a note of thanks to the actors from the writers was needed here.

Unusually for a film of this type the bad-guys and supporting characters are given a little more meat on their bones and almost seem fleshed out. Anson Mount, unrecognisable from Captain Pike, is a little more than a godfather-type crime boss, sure evil is his main characteristic, but there is some grey in the black and white. Likewise, even a small supporting role such as Martha’s girlfriend by Katie Nehra has a little more to it than ‘best friend’ written in the screenplay. Nice to see in this type of film.

I would recommend Mr. Right, because of Sam Rockwell, I would watch a Snickers advert with him in and the fact that a daft film about basically unlikeable and evil people is fun, perhaps the moral compass is miles off kilter but if you are in the right mood a lot of the faults and peccadillos can be ignored. If you happen to be in the wrong mood, or looking for something serious or worthy, you will hate this. Be warned.