Film Reviews by GI

Aside from the glaring grammatical error of the title (or is there some meaning or joke I've missed?) this is a bit of a misfire. A rather silly crime caper that is simply a vehicle for Brad Pitt and George Clooney, great friends in real life, to share a screen together. To be honest it's difficult to tell them apart in this and that maybe part of the humour but after awhile their banter is the only thing that produces humour and it begins to lose it's impact quite quickly. This is a film that I couldn't help think would have been better as a serious crime thriller, certainly all the gritty ingredients are there, dead bodies, a bag full of drugs, a horde of nasty Albanian gangsters etc etc but alas the script opts for comedy that is mostly mediocre including a totally ridiculous set piece in a night club. Clooney and Pitt play two underworld 'fixers' who find they get hired for the same job and have to work together. I'm struggling to remember if their character names are at all mentioned but if not it doesn't matter because this is all about Clooney and Pitt, on screen...together. They resent having to do so both believing they are the class act in their field. But what seems a simple job of disposing of a corpse soon goes awry and the two are beset by the aforementioned gangsters after a young man with the drugs that the two have to....blah blah blah. It matters not this is a self satisfied crime caper with the two stars having great fun which is, in parts, infectious but overall this is a bit of a disappointment.

I often wonder who funds or at least is persuaded to fund such awful derivative films like this one. A shameless rip off of Aliens (1986) and with various steals from Predator (1987) chucked in for good measure. The script by couple, director Neil Marshall and star Charlotte Kirk, is all very serious but ultimately laughable and I'm afraid Kirk is really wooden with many of the other actors hamming up their American accents that sound like you're watching a cartoon, the worst offender being Jamie Bamber who has been given an eyepatch to make him more heroic? I think not. So basically a ragbag group of American and British soldiers plus a shot down RAF pilot (Kirk) have to deal with a bunch of nasty alien hybrid creatures in an old Russian laboratory deep in the Afghan desert. There's plenty of gore and some routine firefight set pieces but overall the film is a damp squib with the creatures played by actors in obvious rubber suits. It's a real mess of a film and a shame really because Marshall has made a couple of real gems in The Descent (2005) and Dog Soldiers (2002). Sadly this is nowhere near those in style, originality or direction.

This horror/thriller has gained some cult status over the years probably due to Rutger Hauer as the malevolent and enigmatic killer and certainly his performance, slightly reminiscent of his Roy Batty in Blade Runner (1982), is what makes the film so enjoyable. A nod here, a sideways glance there and that charismatic smile that portrays so much. Often derided for it's violence but this is deceptive because while the murders are all horrific, whole families are massacred and a young woman is torn in two, they are all off screen and we never get to see much of the aftermath of them either. But it is a disturbing film in any case and this is because of its subtleties, for instance the revving of the truck engine in Jennifer Jason Leigh's death scene. Hauer plays John Ryder, a hitch hiker picked up by young Jim (C. Thomas Howell), he's a strange man who quickly tells Jim he intends to kill him. But by a quirk of luck Jim escapes and then finds that Ryder stalks him along the desert highways killing as he goes and eventually managing to have Jim suspected of all the crimes. Much has been made of Ryder, is he a ghost or the devil for example, mainly because he pops up out of apparent nowhere and can escape just as mysteriously. This is partly what makes the film enjoyable because of the way the character is portrayed in the narrative. For a debut feature from director Robert Harmon it's really an achievement and a notable film of the 80s.

An authentic and quite vibrant coming-of-age drama that delves deep and very effectively into the dilemma of young women regarding their first sexual encounter and what it means. The title is clever in that it is essentially a question of what sex is about and what it's effects are combined with the elements that make up the process towards a sexual encounter ie alcohol, peer pressure, the opposite sex. This is played out here in a narrative that also acts as a warning. Three young girls awaiting their A-Level results are on a summer holiday together, a sort of wild adventure, to a resort in Crete. One of them, Tara (Mia McKenna-Bruce), is looking for her first sexual liaison prompted by her two more experienced friends. As they embark on the wild nightlife of drink and drugs Tara strikes up a friendship with a boy in the next hotel room. But they drift into that difficult area of friends making it uncomfortable, in their naivety, to make the move into romance. But when Tara witnesses him getting a blowjob on a night club stage in front of a cheering crowd she is disgusted and inadvertently falls into the arms of his friend who fucks her. Tara's emotions after the experience are at the heart of this film, the ambiguity of the encounter highlights the difficulty of this rite of passage. An unsentimental look at young relationships wrapped around an arguably clichéd depiction of modern young people over indulging to the point of recklessness but a powerful film all the same

Here's an example of a ridiculous film that seems to be there just to give the two stars a vehicle and believe me both of them deserve much better than this poorly directed, badly written and utterly pointless piece of hokum. Basically a contemporary western, with heavy doses of homage to Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969), about two biker drifters who try and get a friend out of trouble with the big nasty (Tom Sizemore) by robbing an armoured car only to find it contains drugs belonging to the same big nasty! They are then hunted by his robotic thugs led by Daniel Baldwin looking like he turned up at the wrong movie set and should've been in some derivative Matrix like sci-fi nonsense. The action set pieces are poorly structured and set and the entire plot drifts ever gradually into silliness. Mickey Rourke effectively disowned this and I can see why. Both he and Don Johnson were better than this awful film.

Hilarious and deliciously ribald adult comedy that also has some sharp observations on self identity and cultural belonging. There's gross out moments in this no holds barred story of four unlikely friends who go to China on a journey of self discovery and yet the film also has a beautiful emotional moment or two that makes this endlessly enjoyable. Ashley Park plays Audrey, a Chinese American who was adopted at birth by a white couple. She has become an ambitious lawyer but maintained her childhood friendship with Lolo (Sherry Cola), who is a wayward artist never afraid of expressing her opinions. When Audrey is sent by her boss to China to secure a new contract Lolo tags along and brings her weird cousin, Dead Eye (Sabrina Wu) along much to Audrey's consternation. Once in China they team up with Audrey's Uni friend, Kat (Stephanie Hsu), a Tv actress desperate to hide her sexually wild past. Lolo has a plan to find Audrey's birth mother but Audrey is less keen. The film is really a series of incidents almost like comedy skits as these four journey across China. Of course they get into all sorts of scrapes and have plenty of rows and adventures. It's all very adult, sometimes outrageously so, but very funny and well worth checking out.

A historical drama set in the court of Tudor King Henry VIII where suspicion, intrigue and danger forever lurk. It's a slice of faux history as events are interpreted based around Henry's sixth and last wife, Katherine Parr (Alicia Vikander). Trusted as Regent while Henry is overseas she has an agenda to introduce more religious tolerance and ensure the bible is available in English over Latin. She also protects her friend, a known heretic, who preaches revolution, a dangerous thing to do! This brings her into conflict with Bishop Gardiner (Simon Russell Beale) who would love to see her disgraced or worse. Henry's return reveals a king who is ailing, cantankerous and suspicious, his mind poisoned by the whispers of his entourage. Jude Law makes for a great Henry and he dominates the film with his surges of anger and pain so much so in fact that he does overshadow Vikander who plays the Queen quietly reflecting that Katherine was wise enough to know survival depends on keeping a low profile. The narrative surrounds Katherine's position as potential guardian to the future king, Prince Edward, a position Gardiner wants to avoid at all costs and Henry's gradual loss of mind as his ulcerated legs take ahold of his reason. It's a well acted film, interesting and with a great cast that includes Eddie Marsan and Sam Riley. If you liked Wolf Hall then this will be right up your street. It's certainly the best 'Tudor' drama since Elizabeth (1998)

Kate Winslet's performance as famed Second World War photographer Lee Miller is the reason to see this film. She dominates the film and perfectly epitomises the strong willed and highly talented woman struggling and overcoming the condescension of a male dominated world. As a biopic about Lee this holds the interest as her life is depicted from living a hedonistic life in 1930s France to becoming a hardened war correspondent via her time as a journalist for Vogue magazine. As a drama the film has an uninspiring structure as it's told in flashback by an elderly Lee but it has a quick pace which keeps the film always interesting and it doesn't fall into war film cliché. There are some tough scenes though mostly about her recording of the Holocaust in photographs rightly celebrated to this day. Winslet's influence can be felt throughout as the film doesn't hold back in identifying the misogyny within modern culture over the role of women, their bodies and male aggression. In that sense the film has a power even though it's a by-the-book drama. Interesting and enjoyable throughout.

If you're a nerd about David Lynch then this documentary is a must see. As a fan of many of his films this is certainly an interesting film, made up of six essays presented in chapters where various people discuss Lynch's obsession with the 1939 film, The Wizard Of Oz. The film is a clever look at the visual, thematic and narrative connections that can be found littered throughout Lynch's work, the most obvious example being Wild At Heart (1990) which shoves these links down your throat! For any cinephile interested in film analysis this is a riveting documentary about one of the most beguiling, challenging and unique filmmakers of our age.

A creepy horror tale with throwbacks to Rosemary's Baby (1968) and Suspiria (2018) and some nods to the Frankenstein story with an undercurrent theme around exploitation of women's bodies. This especially made obvious by the presence of Sydney Sweeney in the lead role, a young actress whose body is often to focus of critique. Here she plays Cecilia, a young American who joins an idyllically set convent in the Italian countryside and becomes a nun. With some trauma in her past it soon becomes apparent that she has been selected to be there and dark shenanigans are at work behind the scenes. Finding herself mysteriously pregnant she is declared a miracle and her unborn child the 'second coming'. Gradually realising all is not as it seems Cecilia has to find a new resolve to discover what is going on in the forbidden areas of the convent. There's some stomach churning violence on offer here and various horror film 'nun' tropes at work. But the narrative is neatly paced and Sweeney carries the role of the trapped and naive nun without recourse to sexual distractions. This is a watchable horror film, it does have a somewhat underwhelming end but it's better than many horror films released of late.

Director Frank Darabont's adaptation of Stephen King's celebrated novel is a film that requires at least two viewings to fully appreciate. The sheer epic structure and yet intimacy of the drama and the two quite shocking execution scenes in which the electric chair is shown to be a particularly flawed and cruel means of causing death cause the details of the narrative to be overlooked. On second viewing the small details that Darabont has included are revealed as rather important to the overall feel and texture of the film. As a supernatural/fantasy story this is a quite moving story and yet it's also difficult to pin down exactly what the basic theme of the film is. Certainly it boldly attacks capital punishment and there is the obvious condemnation on the weakness of the criminal justice system that so easily condemns a black man (one of the other executions is of a Native American). But this is also a spiritual story with possible religious overtones that doesn't reveal itself as a christian idealogical tale indeed in many ways it debunks the christian view of the incidents depicted. It can be read as a story of 'otherness' and one of good vs evil, and even one about the meaning of life and death within a universe that is not understood. Whichever way the text is read it is impactful and a bit of a tearjerker. Mostly set on death row in Louisiana State Prison in 1935 the main story is told in flashback by Paul (Dabbs Greer as the older man and Tom Hanks as the younger), who is the prison officer in charge of the wing and running the executions. One day a huge man, John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan) is brought in convicted of the murder and rape of two young children. It's not long before Paul and his team begin to witness strange events and come to believe that John has a unique gift which results in them becoming convinced he is innocent. The story is involved and character driven and also centre around the two real 'villains' of the film, Percy (Doug Hutchison), a prison guard and 'Wild Bill', a convicted serial killer (Sam Rockwell). There's a lot to debate here and the film warrants an in depth textual analysis but suffice to say that it's a film that dwells in the mind long after it's over and definitely grows on you the more it's viewed. The cast are all exceptional including David Morse, Barry Pepper, Jeffrey DeMunn, Bonnie Hunt, Patricia Clarkson and James Cromwell. One of those films you ought to take a relook at and certainly one to watch if you've never seen it.

Despite the massive affection and fan base for Four Wedding and A Funeral (1994) and Love Actually(2003), Notting Hill is a far superior film in the Richard Curtis penned canon. Not only is it tremendously funny but its a pitch perfect romance too and the cast are all impeccable. Hugh Grant as William, a humble bookshop owner, has the same bumbling, foppish and charming englishness he always does so well but here he adds a complexity and emotional range that gives the character some real depth. William lives in Notting Hill and one day he has a chance meeting with Anna Scott (Julia Roberts), a world famous Hollywood actress and over the course of the story they fall in love. It's a real Cinderella story but delves effectively into the price of fame and celebrity. Aided by Tim McInnerny, Gina McKee, Hugh Bonneville, Rhys Ifans and Emma Chambers the film never has a misstep and it really does leave you feeling warm and feeling you've watched a film with real heart. It has the best romantic line I've ever heard in a film and it deserves more accolade than it often receives. A truly lovely film, I never tire of watching it.

The golden age of the fun filled family film from Disney is no doubt long over and this crass piece of merchandising nonsense based on another Disney theme park attraction is a joyless mess. No doubt a great film for youngsters to hide behind the sofa on Halloween night but otherwise it seems to me a lot of money has been spent on a very forgettable film. It's laborious and mostly unfunny, although admittedly some of the comedy hits the mark. Tiffany Haddish and Jamie Lee Curtis bringing some fun to the occasion. But otherwise this drags on and on into silly farce so by the time it's over you're glad and there's not even an end credit titbit to enjoy. There's rather pointless backstory that starts the film and eventually the script relies on an extended exposition from Danny DeVito to explain what the story is all about. That story is basically that a mum (Rosario Dawson) and her nine year old son (Chase Dillon) move into an old mansion which turns out to be haunted by hundreds of ghosts so she calls in a motley bunch of 'experts' led by LaKeith Stanfield to get rid of them. But of course it's not that easy. Loads of effects don't make for a good film and this is tiresome. Owen Wilson costars and Jared Leto and Winona Ryder cameo. One for the kids.

This is a rather strange, almost abstract, thriller from writer and director Stephen Poliakoff, here foraging in the world of film rather than his usual TV medium work for which he is more renowned. This conspiracy and political thriller lacks any real drama and at times the performances are annoyingly wooden or are they extremely nuanced? Charles Dance, in a very early role, seems to be trying. very hard to make something of the script but he is hampered by his costar Cassie Stuart, who is either unable to deliver any of her lines convincingly, or could it be she is meant to be unrealistic here? This is the debate because the narrative, as it progresses, could be an imagined one in the mind of Dance's character, author James Richards, as the plot is an enigmatic mix of the real, dreams and flashbacks. Richards is approached by a hyper and apparently desperate young woman, Sharon, who claims she has discovered weird government secrets hidden around London in the form of videotapes and files that show the abduction of a woman all relating to a big cover up. Unconvincingly she persuades the academic Richards of this and they embark on trying to locate these secrets by uncovering a whole world of secret tunnels and buildings. There are incompetent officials along the way who make attempts to stop them. In between this plot Richards has dreams of his schooldays and a particular teacher who he bumps into during their search. It's all fairly weird in many ways and it's a film that never really lets you in to make your mind up to exactly what's it really about. By the end it's a film that makes you shrug with indifference as you feel very disappointed that its led nowhere.

The second film in The Hobbit trilogy is a darker film than the first but it's overly long and lacks the cohesion of the original trilogy leaving a feeling that the film meanders along. As basically a chase film this often renders the film tedious especially in the attempts to be ever faithful to the source novel and the other works of Tolkien and yet also adding additional characters and events made up for the film. But if you're a fan then there are enough elements to offer an entertaining adaptation. Peter Jackson knows how to present Middle-earth by now and creates a fantasy world that often is a delight to behold. Martin Freeman remains a delight as he was in the first Hobbit film and Ian McKellen portrays Gandalf with aplomb. There's too many characters here though with too much backstory to absorb effectively and even though the Extended edition is a more whole narrative it doesn't lift the film enough to put it up there with the original LOTR trilogy. The final battle with Smaug the dragon, malevolently voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch, is a great climax to this film although the expected cliffhanger ending in readiness for the next film is little underwhelming. Better than the first Hobbit film but not on a par with LOTR.