The Conjuring (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The World's End (2013)

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

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

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

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

Drink up lads. But seriously, do drink up.

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

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

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

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

Monsters University (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pacific Rim (2013)

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

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

Meet Cherno Alpha! Poor bugger only has Speed 3

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

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

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

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

Acting

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

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

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

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

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

V/H/S/2 (2013)

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

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

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

Untrustworthy...

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

Zoms

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

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

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

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

Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)

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

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

Doesn't this guy know how doors work?

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

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

More lingering Enterprise shots

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

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

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

Necessary? You be the judge

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

We have Sherlock in custody

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

More of these guys please

Would you watch it again? Sure would.  

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

Iron Man 3 (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The Three Musketeers (1993)

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

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

Best bits? Nothing to see here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Three Musketeers (1973)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain Hook maybe?

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

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

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

The Untouchables (1987)

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Do you feel lucky punk?'

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

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

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