Vondaz Reviews

The Company Men (2010)

A middle to upper class view of the economic downturn

[7/10 · 25 April 2017]

Having been there myself, there were certain elements of the movie that reminded me of the sheer desperation felt at not just losing your job, but also in the following months, or years, where you constantly fail to find employment.

I never had any real sympathy with Ben Affleck's character because he was an alpha male who believed he was good enough. Even though his pride took a battering, there was an eventual way out provided by Tommy Lee Jones. We didn't actually see Ben's character find the job himself, he got it thanks to someone else's charity (or even guilt). I did feel for Chris Cooper's character in terms of the discrimination against his age, as that was also something I faced. However, I am not sure it was made clear just how he was so desperate that he killed himself. Surely that would've been just as embarrassing for his wife as if her neighbours learned he was out of work. As for Tommy Lee Jones's character, it seemed he was only there to provide the balance of the executive with a heart, in the face of other inconsiderate executives and an even more insensitive wife. They one to prove that there are altruistic rich people out there.

The people I empathised with were the others in the outplacement centre. A place set up to replicate an office to try and engender a sense of "still going to work". A place so sterile in its sense of worth and purpose, that it actually drags you down further with each failed attempt by you or your "colleagues". I felt for the people who had been there for months, the ones who found that the only jobs available called for practical skills they didn't have such as construction - thereby making their white collar skills completely useless. The ones who had to keep themselves motivated to keep trying despite the knock backs - like Eamon Walker's character. At the end he still didn't have a job despite having been searching months before Ben's character. So whilst there was a nice tie up for Ben's character, there was still nothing for this guy. No matter how much he repeated the "self worth" mantra.

So in conclusion it hit home and had a "happy ever after" ending and was a decent first screenplay . But on reflection, it focused on the wrong characters and should've shown how, through perseverance, you too can "find" a job (and not just have one drop in your lap).

Chicken (III) (2015)

All good things come to those who wait

[8/10 · 18 April 2017]

That's not an a review of the plot line, more the need for the viewer to persevere. My initial reaction after the first few minutes was to switch it off. I found it difficult to understand what the 2 brothers were saying, and nothing annoys me more than the need to constantly ask "what did he say?". But after a while your ears become attuned to their speech patterns and you find yourself immersed and gripped by the developments.

I won't talk about the plot detail other than to say it's a proper drama that repays the viewer.

Oh and as for Scott Chambers . . . what a performance. This was the first time I'd seen him on screen and I had to check his background to see if he was acting or if this was just him being him - he was acting. I hope to see him in more movies soon.

Arrival (II) (2016)

Is the story too clever for my own good?

[5/10 · 3 December 2016]

An opinion on a movie can depend on so many variable factors:

• Have I seen a preview? Yes

• Have I heard a review/opinions of others? Yes

• Do I have a hangover? No

• Have I just eaten a big dinner? Over 2 hours ago

• Is the cinema full? No, just 3 people.

• Is the cinema full of noise makers? For once no.

• Are the screen and sound system big enough to immerse myself? It was a small auditorium, so not a large screen or sound system

And too many more factors to list.

The reason for mentioning them? Because one or more or all of them must have affected my enjoyment of this movie, because I thought it was OK, but nothing special - when it seems everyone else thinks it is a master piece. To be honest, I even closed my eyes on a couple of occasions. It suffered from taking a very short story and trying to stretch it into nearly 2 hours. Which naturally creates huge empty spaces which need to be filled with something more than just beautiful scenery or empty dialogue.

The language angle was good - the possibility of misinterpreting messages and intentions. But at no point did I sense any jeopardy from making any mistakes. Even if the humans attacked the "Aliens" where was the certainty that they would retaliate? There had been no previous show of aggression. In fact "jeopardy" was lacking in all interactions. We see a previous person being carted off after interacting with the aliens - what happened to him/her? When our guys interact with the aliens I sensed no risk or threat. So why the predecessor had to be carted off is beyond me.

And of course it committed the cliché of depicting America as the world's peace keeper, China as the world's aggressor and Russia as the brutal nation which executes one of their own.

And then there are plot holes:

• Are we really expected to accept that these "aliens" suddenly arrived completely undetected in their approach, placed themselves in 12 apparently random locations (that happily included America) and then spent months in dialogue with lots of so called linguistic specialists, none of whom could have enough common sense to work together.

• They came to us to give us a gift and yet made it almost impossible to communicate it? Surely if they had the power of foresight they would've known that communication was key and would have worked something out? And what will be happening in 3,000 years that we will help them out with?

Like I said in my summary, maybe it was too clever for me. Maybe I need to see it again to "get it". But frankly I have no desire to sit through it again.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)

Huge disappointment

[7 November 2016]

Having read all of the Reacher books, I was one of those who cried "What??!!" when Cruise was cast as Reacher, but I changed my tune when I saw the first Reacher movie. I thought Cruise carried it off well.

So I was really looking forward to this next instalment . . . and what a disappointment.

The difference between the Reacher stories and other so called anti-hero stories is the realism that Lee Child brought to them. For example, none of those long slugging punch ups, Lee Child made it clear that a single punch would suffice and if not delivered correctly, then there was a danger of broken hands etc. And they followed this ethos in the first Reacher movie. But in this latest offering there was just slugging match after slugging match after slugging match, with nothing to show for it other than a cut above Reacher's eye. Where's the bruising and swelling? I'm sure he got smashed on the arm by a pipe, but there's nothing to show for it the next day when he's wearing his t-shirt.

On top of that, there's a hell of a lot of running throughout the movie - I'm surprised they didn't run to the toilet. This, with the camera work and editing had a way of making the movie feel rushed.

Finally, the script had one of the clever wit in the books.

All in all a disappointing follow up. Was it the Director? I think so.

The Magnificent Seven (2016)

Not really Magnificent - more like Ordinary

[6/10 · 25 October 2016]

OK so they've remade the Magnificent 7. Did they bring anything different to the table?

The only thing they did differently was to change the ethnicity of the movie - from the heroes, to the townspeople, to the baddies. Did this make any difference? Not really.

So the leader of the heroes is black - so what? Nobody treated him any differently, no- one abused him racially, everyone accepted him as if it was totally normal to see a black man as a deputised Marshall and also leading a group of mostly white men - am I being ignorant or was racism not rife in this time period?

So the heroes included a Mexican, a man from from China and a native American. So what? Didi it make any difference? Again no, there's no obvious racism - other than a small example of a fellow hero referring to the native American as savage - which he immediately drops as soon as he discovers this guy can speak English!!

So the townspeople and baddies are no longer Mexican. Did it make the baddies any more menacing? No! Peter Sarsgaard is just not menacing, no matter how much he tries to snarl and grimace. He wasn't menacing in Flightplan and nor is he here.

Everything else is as you have already seen before - and I mean EVERYTHING, even a rerun of the knife/gun duel (instead with a hair pin).

What was missing? Bar one instance where a local woman hands a hero a blanket, there's absolutely no emotional tie-in to the townspeople. Whereas before we could see why the heroes would sacrifice their lives to save these people, now there's no reason other than an apparent disregard for their own lives.

All in all, it was an efficient movie, well acted, directed and shot. But it might as well be called "7 men protect a town", because it brought none of the magnificence of the previous version.

Spectre (I) (2015)

Mendes is scared to continue the direction set by Casino Royale

[6/10 · 28 October 2015]

You reboot a franchise because it has become old, tired and boring. When the reboot is a huge success, you should continue in that direction (just look at Batman). What is the point of ignoring the changes and taking it back to what it was?

Mendes seems hell bent on doing this. Skyfall was bad enough but I allowed him this because it was the 50th anniversary of Bond, so maybe he felt obliged to reference every previous Bond movie and play out all the old clichés . Therefore, I had hoped that now he would get us back on the track set by Casino Royale, but alas no.

Firstly, he continues his nods to previous Bond movies - Live and Let Die, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Moonraker and I could keep going. Which itself becomes an unwelcome distraction as you mentally note that you've seen this before in an earlier Bond movie and bemoan the lack of originality.

Secondly, he continues the clichés of the old Bond franchise: the room of baddies around a table with the head baddie dispatching the vocal dissenter. The comedy moments in the middle of life or death situations (i.e. the Fiat 500). The signposted gadget that you're just waiting for him to use . . . oh wait he must use it here, yup thought so. The succumbing of women to just his look, no verbal jousting just taking what he wants and they let him - what decade are we living in?

If I put these to one side and assess the actual film itself, it's beautifully shot and has a good single track shot in the opening sequence. Which makes it all the more galling that the helicopter fight scene has such poor CGI. It already looks fake and will look even worse as time goes on. In fact it was as poor as the CGI in the opening sequence in Skyfall on the rooftops. How can the same director get it wrong twice?

Then we have the villain. When I first saw Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds, I felt his menace. Which made me long to see how menacing he could be in Spectre. He was about as menacing as a wet fish. In fact Mendes did to him what he managed to do with Javier Bardem. He was a silent menace in No Country For Old Men and then became a camp psycho in Skyfall with no menace at all. Again how can the same director get it wrong twice?

As for the action scenes - well Mendes managed to put a tick in the box that said "insert action scenes here", but that was all he did. The plane scene (BTW where'd he get an airplane from in the first place???) was lacklustre. The car chase - in an empty Rome (really????) just seemed to show off 2 beautiful cars. The train scene - where was everybody? The train seemed bereft of staff or passengers. As for the final scene, well by then I'd lost any interest.

Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. He isn't pretty or particularly handsome, but he looks like he could handle himself in a fight and most men would love to be him. Which makes it such a shame he is being wasted in this box ticking exercise. I hope (no I pray - and I'm not religious) that the next Bond brings us back on the track set by Casino Royale.

The Riot Club (2014)

What was the point?

[6/10 · 23 September 2014]

I went into the film with no background knowledge. The use of "Riot" in the title and the picture of obvious toffs gave me an inkling as to what would/could happen. I had already formed a UK version of Skulls in my head.

Pre-credit(?) scenes that set the origins of the club were almost comical in their direction and I feared that might be the tone for the rest of the film. Thankfully not. But then again, it didn't really get much better.

It is cliché ridden with one posh but decent guy and one posh but nasty guy, who hates nice guy, despite nice guy having been decent to nasty guy. zzzzzzzz.

Nice guy appeals to working class northern girl, despite their being from different classes because he is so decent. But can it last? Surely not when he gets tempted by the Riot(ers?). She won't see the funny side of it (even if she didn't get involved in the actual event). After all, she didn't approve of the room trashing.

In some ways it did make me think slightly. I thought it was interesting how it was only the "working class" who stood up to them (hooker, landlord's daughter, Lauren). Even the landlord, who firstly gave in to their demands, eventually stood up. And yet, the rich privileged Miles hasn't got the guts to stand up.

Is it trying to say that the price of reputation/peer opinion far outweighs principles? Perhaps not, because it was only after the landlord's daughter pointed out that he had sold out, that he decided to stand up.

Also, the power of the pack was emphasised. There were a number of the group who were such wet farts, that a simple punch would've felled them - Ryles as a key example. A sobbing wreck after the cashpoint hold up and then acting tough as nails when he's got the backing of the group behind him. And as for the pair that were chatting up Lauren in the pub in the early part of the film, a strong wind would've blown them away.

The climax of the debauched behaviour was surely beyond realism? Not least because he could've (should've) died after that.

And as for the "we stick together" at the end between Ryles and the MP Jeremy - was that honestly trying to tell us that they can cover up a prison record for assault?

Finally, the way no-one speaks as if drunk despite having consumed vast quantities of alcohol and no-one wakes with a hangover the next day.

My review may seem rambling. If it does, it is because I found the whole film to be rambling and pointless.

A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014)

Pointless

[4/10 · 20 September 2014]

I went into see this movie with absolutely no background knowledge of what it was about or understanding that it was based on a series of stories. Had I been aware of this I might have saved myself the money and the time.

It's not that it wasn't acted well by Neeson or shot/directed well. It was other things that bothered me:

• the signposts to Y2K - of what relevance was that to the story? In fact what was the purpose of setting it in the late 90s? To show us how life used to be before the internet and mobile phones took over our lives?If so, then fine make that point, but give it some relevance to the story.

• the 12 steps - of what relevance was that to the story? In fact (i) it was shot in such a way that the scenes distracted me and I can't remember any of them and (ii) I don't recall our hero carrying out any of them himself.

• the clichéd drunk cop goes clean to redeem himself. TBH we never see him struggle with temptation for a drink, so maybe it wasn't enough of a sacrifice to give any redemption?

• the clichéd smart-alec kid from the streets - he's street tough, but vulnerable, he's techno smart, but can't carry out a simple instruction. In fact why would any script writer worth their salt allow the line "stay in the car"?

• the clichéd climactic fight scene - why was the killer waiting for our hero to return? He'd already heard him say he was going. So why set up the elaborate body positioning in the hope he would return?

At the end I just went "meh" and walked out without any sense of satisfaction. So as I said - pointless.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Tiresome action scenes - with SHAKY CAM!!!

[6/10 · 16 May 2014]

These super hero movies are getting tiresome. One 1 man against 100? No worries. He'll throw his shield, or hide behind it or run, leap or roll dodging every bullet known to man. Oh god, will someone please just kill him!!!! Even his own attempt at self sacrifice doesn't kill him (that's 2 movies now!).

They try to balance the action out with the ethical issues being faced, but we were never really given an indication of the true horror of what is being proposed. To be honest even I was thinking, heck a few million baddies (or potential baddies) for the good of the many billion goodies? Yeah go for it.

Or maybe it was because I had become desensitised by the shaky camera action scenes that just left me cold and made me want them to end as soon as possible. If you can't film action scenes without waving the camera around then you shouldn't be let loose with one.

And hands up - did anyone really think he wasn't going to get the 3rd chip in place before they opened fire? Of course he was - it was pointless leaving to the final second. Oh and how convenient that the ships all fell into the water and not on top of innocent civilians.

And to make things worse, there's the end credits scene setting up the next "enthralling" instalment.

Calvary (2014)

A compelling hook that doesn't let you off

[9/10 · 16 May 2014]

From the most memorable opening line to the most dramatic climax, this movie had me enthralled. Brendan Gleeson is compelling with his craggy, red beard framed face carrying a range of emotions as he battles against the turmoil of his family, his flock and his own pending peril.

It is a movie that tackles sex abuse, faith and suicide - both in terms of their impact within the Church and without. Gleeson plays a modern day Christ figure. He's a good man and a good priest, but he must die to pay for the sins of the bad. Even then, he continues trying to help those in need of salvation, but never takes the opportunity to save his own skin (hence the reference to suicide).

Admittedly some characters are a bit one-dimensional or caricatures, but they are more than balanced by Gleeson's power.

The movie still manages a bit of gallows humour even from the off with Gleeson's response to his threat and throws in moments of gay abandon (old definition of "gay").

But ultimately, don't expect to come out of this feeling great. It's not a feel good movie.

But I'd watch it again.

Godzilla (2014)

Darker than previous 1998 version - but in more ways than one

[6/10 · 16 May 2014]

The plus point is that this film had more dramatic development than the previous 1998 version.

But then again other re-re-booted movies have also adopted this approach - Man Of Steel, Amazing Spiderman, Incredible Hulk. The problem they all have is that it is just a pre-amble to the inevitable over the top action sequences.

And in the case of Godzilla, action sequences that are done in darkness so you can barely see what is happening. It might have been the 3D glasses making it darker than it would be in 2D, but the detail just wasn't there. Godzilla and the MUTOs were apparently going hammer and tongs at each other, but I couldn't sense the extent to which they were injuring each other (until the final atomic breath climax).

We've all grown up with the original impact of the jaw dropping moment we saw dinosaurs come to life in Jurassic Park. This movie added nothing more in terms of impact of the last 21 years of development since Jurassic Park (Godzilla even sounded like T-Rex).

The human peril element is handled in 2 ways (i) intimate focus (on the train or in the rubble) where those who do perish are mere unknowns, so long as our heroes survive or (ii) detached focus (buildings being knocked down as the monsters fight) where you assume all occupants are dead (or conveniently trapped safely under the previously mentioned rubble). And as for our heroes - there was no acting. No development of character. They just provided the human forefront to the monsters back drop.

What I also found confusing was that Godzilla was hailed a hero for destroying the MUTOs and applauded as he walked back indiscriminately through the rubble and dead bodies that he had helped create.

The end was the usual cliché - family reunion that you could predict a mile off. Did the director really think "people will want to know that the family are re-united, so I'll draw it out". Oh come on, I found my empty popcorn box more appealing at that point.

Can this please please please be the last of these movies? Please please do not feel the need to develop a sequel.

All Is Lost (2013)

Novel concept, well acted, but ultimately just a gimmick

[7/10 · 12 May 2014]

As a concept of a single character with little or no dialogue, it was a gripping drama. I was totally immersed and not worried about a lack of dialogue or additional characters. However, the reality of his not uttering any expression until one late exclamation, to my mind, is stretching things too far. With each obstacle, you would envisage a "sh*t!" or "oh come on!" even a "dear god no!" (even if not religious it is a safety net most of us fall into in moments of absolute peril).

A picture of calm in the face of adversity or unappreciative of the gravity of his situation? With every emergency he faced, he moved with slow considered movement. This may be because as an experienced sailor, he knows that it is better to act calmly rather than jump around with great urgency. But perhaps greater urgency would've reduced the impact of some of the issues he faced?

The extent of his desperation is not fully developed. He remains so calm throughout all the obstacles, that we do not see a progression towards a feeling of despair. So that when he makes his last 2 decisions, I failed to accept they were his only options.

The ending, if taken literally, is a cop out for me, and if not taken literally is too ambiguous.

The relevance of the opening monologue is unclear. What did it contribute to the overall plot? Or the outcome? And it was read with little or no emotion.

The effects were also not very convincing - all the while I could tell it was filmed in a tank in a film studio. Having seen the Behind the Scenes for A Perfect Storm, the "realism" of all subsequent "at sea" movies has been spoilt.

Finally, undoubtedly there are glaring errors in the seamanship decisions/choices made, that will leave all sailors pouring scorn on the movie. But even I, as a non seafarer, had to question the logic of using a hand held flare first and a rocket flare second.

My conclusion is that, similar to Gravity, it is a gimmick movie. It's been done, but will never need to be done again.

True Grit (2010)

A remake with nothing new

[6/10 · 24 April 2013]

I grew up on the original classic with John Wayne. A film that has been shown a multitude of times in my 40 odd years and still I stop to watch it.

So it was with interest that I watched this remake. And it basically is the same movie just made in the 21st century to broaden the story's appeal to a new generation. After all how many people will now sit down to watch the old classic westerns? Especially people of a generation younger than me.

There were almost the same lines "If I met a Texan who didn't drink water from a horse's hoof, I'll buy him a drink" and the same scenes - Mattie swimming the river on her horse. The classic reins in his teeth, guns blazing charge was poorer than the original So if you're going to just repeat it all, then why bother? Nothing new was added. Except for CGI which was frankly poor - the opening scene of the train coming into the station is a prime example. As well as Rooster and Mattie on horseback.

Very disappointed.

Oblivion (I) (2013)

Unspectacular

[6/10 · 10 April 2013]

Yes it is a bit of a turkey.

Great scenery and effects and of course Tom. But it's just Total Recall meets Mad Max meets Waterworld meets Independence Day (and I am sure there are other "meets" that can be found - heck I might even have found a reference to The English Patient at one point too).

Olga Kurylenko is painfully short as an actress of any quality, so is just there for looks. The only actresses of any quality are Andrea Riseborough and Melissa Leo, neither of which given enough to show off their talents further.

The pace of the film starts out very engaging, with the customary slow parts in between, to ensure it's not too relentless, but then it gets even slower further into the movie and I was starting to get fidgety.

The actual reveal is not really that revealing - you didn't go "oh I seeeeeeee", you just went "Oh right OK". So a lot of build up to nothing really.

And of course it is cliché ridden - just once if a child falls in mass stampede, could the heroine just keep running? And why is it sleeping together once is always absolutely certain to result in a baby? All in all, not sure why Tom signed up for it. Joseph Kosinski (Director) hasn't exactly got a good track record and this matches it.

Salt (2010)

Too many WTF moments

[4/10 · 19 March 2013]

I know all this stuff about having to suspend disbelief in an action thriller, but I already made that compromise by accepting that someone as distinctively beautiful as Jolie could be a spy. No amount of disguising could ever mask those lips.

So to then be assaulted by numerous examples of death defying leaps and jumps and fights and . . . oh the list goes on. We ended up laughing at each unbelievable piece of action - and when you start laughing then it is no longer an action thriller. In fact learning that Tom Cruise was originally slated to play a male version of Salt, but pulled out, makes me think he realised that it was too over the top to be taken seriously. After all he has made Knight and Day which is full of its own unbelievable action scenes, but is done in a tongue in cheek way so that the audience doesn't throw their hands up in disbelief.

Overall Salt has been done before with Russian sleepers infiltrating Western society to be awoken to redress the power balance Russia's way (No Way Out immediately springs to mind) and the stunts have been done before. And even having a female agent has been done before - A Long Kiss Goodnight.

One seen, immediately forgotten and never re-seen.

Cloud Atlas (2012)

It's just 3 hours of playing "Who's that in disguise?".

[5/10 · 5 March 2013]

Right from the start you play the game of trying to identify who the famous actor is underneath all the prosthetics - "Ooh that's Tom Hank" or "Is that really Hugh Grant?" or "Can that possibly be Halle Berry?" etc etc. All this disguising of nationality, race and gender is all very clever, but unfortunately it's just self indulgence on the actors' parts and gets in the way of listening to what they are saying.

That is assuming you could even understand what they're saying in the first place. The language on the Big Island is a prime example, which appears at the very beginning and sets the tone of unintelligible mishmash for the rest of the film. And if your movie is going to be so complicated in its telling, then you really should do us all a favour and make it easy to understand what's being said. Yet another example of directors assuming that because they know what they're actors are saying then we all will - you only know because you told them what to say in the first place!

Having mentioned the prosthetics, I also have to call into question the quality of the make up - especially in Neo Seoul, where the attempts to make Western actors look Far Eastern was laughable - almost as laughable as the attempt to make Doona Bae looked Western by giving her red hair and freckles.

So, on top of distracting disguises, poor make-up and indecipherable dialogue, then you have the problem of telling 6 stories in parallel. This means we never get the time to invest any emotion into the plight of the characters (possibly with the exception of Sonmi~451) so really I didn't care what happened to them. Ewing? Didn't care. Frobisher? Didn't care. Rey? Didn't care. Cavendish? Didn't care - and anyway what was the point of this element of the story?

I have just read the plot overview on Wikipedia and can tell that either the directors cut bits out of the movie or the problems with spoken language made it impossible to pick up on certain aspects that MAY have made this a more enjoyable movie.

In conclusion, nearly 3 hours of butt numbing, sleep inducing, self indulgent multiple role playing with no regard for the audience.

Oh and finally, Susan Sarandon's teeth in the Big Island! They're all living in straw huts with no technology or medicine and yet Susan Sarandon's got the most amazingly white teeth! Do directors actually look at what they directing?

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Not really a reboot, more a rehash

[5/10 · 29 January 2013]

So what was the point of this so called reboot? What did it do that was anything new? The following can't really be called plot spoilers because they've all been seen in the previous Spider-man movies.

Geeky kid, who is picked on? Tick.

Gorgeous girl who has sympathy for geeky kid? Tick.

Geeky kid bitten by spider and gets amazing powers? Tick.

Geeky kid exploits new powers? Tick.

Geeky kid learns that not only can he climb tall buildings, but he can jump off then too? Tick . . . now if only he had something to hold on to though . . . oh wait . . .

Geeky kid develops his own seemingly endless supply of web? Tick.

Uncle to geeky kid gets killed? Tick.

Geeky kid goes on a rampage against all baddies? Tick.

Geeky kid swings between buildings defying all laws of momentum and physics? Tick.

An otherwise normally mild mannered scientist induces himself with some drug and metamorphoses into a deranged monster hell bent on conquering the world? Tick.

CGI dominated battles ensue between Spider-man and said monster? Tick.

Stan Lee has a cameo? Tick.

Seriously with the exception that the love interest is Gwen Stacy, there is nothing new with this reboot. Batman Begins provided a good reboot of that character because the previous ones had become too comical. But this "reboot" of Spider-man did nothing new or darker.

And anyway, why is he Spider-man? Surely it should be Spider-kid or Spider-boy?

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Hmm over-hyped and riding on the coat tails of Hurt Locker

[5/10 · 27 January 2013]

What is this film about? One woman's crusade to find and kill OBL. Why is she so determined? We don't know, we don't see any personal connection. She didn't volunteer, she was assigned. Why? Because she's a killer apparently - we only have by way of dialogue, we see nothing else to back that up, other than her determination to catch him.

The first 30 or so minutes (difficult to tell, it felt a lot longer) was full of indistinguishable or undecipherable Arabic names being flung around during interrogations, questionings or in meetings in that "realistic" way of portraying conversation i.e. you can't understand anything. Note to Directors as a whole - just because you know the names your actors are spouting in that mumbling, talking over each other way, doesn't mean that we, the audience can hear them or differentiate them. Try directing with the audience in mind next time.

A lot has been said about the use of torture to illicit information and was this film sanctioning it. Well by now we're seen water boarding all over the place, in other movies and even on TV dramas. The level of torture depicted in this movie was not shocking at. I learnt nothing new about the lengths we went to try and get information. If you want to see what lengths you could possibly go to, watch The Unthinkable.

And as for the Director, Hurt Locker announced her brilliantly to the movie world. I think she only got this gig because of it. Whilst everything was directed competently, she has a habit of signalling when something is going to happen.

SPOILER ALERTS When the friendly source comes to the base it is obvious something is going to happen beyond what was hoped by the intelligence people.

Or when our heroine is filmed leaving her apartment and exchanging pleasantries with her security guard, you knew something was going to happen, otherwise why are we seeing such detail?

That said, there was one scene that took me by surprise, but maybe that was because I didn't recall the Marriott 2008 bombing.

Overall I found it too long and too unclear. The only people I felt any concern for were the Canaries, and we all know they survived anyway.

What have we learnt from this film? That it took one woman's tenacity to track down OBL. Is that it???? Hardly worth the effort to make it or indeed watch it.

The Last Stand (2013)

OK you gets what you expects

[5/10 · 27 January 2013]

It's Arnie so what do you expect? Character acting? Purleeze.

It's fun, it's full of all the old clichés, it's predictable, it's got guns, girls, goodies and goons - everything you would expect.

But it still only warrants a 5 because it's done nothing new and it's full of strange pieces:

• Harry Dean Stanton for all of 3 minutes

• Forest Whittaker once again proving he can't act and doing his best "whisper" talking (even when shouting??)

• Arnie, who when he was young could barely talk intelligibly, now also suffers from that old person affliction of sounding like his dentures are too loose as well

• A 1000HP super car that outruns even helicopters being out run by a Corvette??

• a 70 year old beating up a 30 year old

It whiled away an hour and a half on a wet afternoon, but I wouldn't recommend it or ever watch it again.

Mosley (1998)

Interesting insight into a much reviled man - but was it biased?

[8/10 · 22 January 2013]

I knew little of Oswald Mosley before watching this drama, other than he headed the British Union of Fascists and therefore must be an awful man - after all there's a good reason why fascism doesn't last long in civilised societies.

However, the drama paints Mosley in a very flattering light:

• a war veteran with desires to prevent another Great War where those safe in war rooms plot the deaths of so many men.

• a man who can see that for Britain to succeed it needs to remove itself from the grips of the old men who had taken her to where she was (a failing empire).

• a man not tied to a political party regardless of policy, but willing to change allegiances to achieve the ultimate aim of a Great(er) Britain

So far so good. I was even nodding at some of his economic growth ideas and admiring his oratory skills. I found myself wondering where is this evil racist that everyone despises? Even his philandering/bed hopping and associating with the Italian fascists and German Nazis didn't make him to be that bad - after all he had openly stated he was not anti Semitic and no harm would come to the Jews.

Then all of a sudden in the last 20 minutes he turns into a foaming at the mouth racist condemning the Jews - all because of a brief debate with Joyce. And even then it was almost like he was forced into it because of political ambition.

And that is why I question this drama's bias. Was it written to present the truth about Mosley or as an attempt to persuade people that he was a poor maligned and misunderstood man who wanted nothing but good for his country?

Whatever its purpose it has resulted in my researching him myself to make up my own mind. Which is no bad thing for a drama, provided people do not take it as gospel.

The Iron Lady (2011)

Not what you expected(?)

[5/10 · 8 January 2013]

I admit I entered this film thinking it was going to give us the warts and all look into Thatcher's key moments - becoming an MP, becoming party leader, becoming PM, the Falklands and the Belgrano, the privatisation of the public services, the poll tax, the miners strike, her eventual resignation etc. So many key events that would be fascinating to watch unfold in detail. And it did touch on them but only in small parts and instead it very much focused on Thatcher's slide into dementia. And this infuriated me throughout the film, right up until the last 5 minutes, when she finally let's Dennis go. At this point I think I got what its purpose was. It was saying all the other stuff is out there for anyone to read about, it's nothing new. But do we really know what the woman was about behind closed doors? So I gave it 7 out of 10 because it didn't give me what I expected and maybe that was the fault of how it was named/marketed or my fault for making an assumption? There was also a chronological error in that a protest march for jobs had a banner dated 1983, before we'd had the Falklands war.

Skyfall (2012)

We've lost the reboot and gone back to the old Bond

[5/10 · 27 October 2012]

No! No! No! No! No! No! Mendes has taken the hard, gritty reboot from Casino Royale and gone full circle back to the light-hearted humour of the old Bond.

OK, so first let's say it is a HUGE improvement on Quantum of Solace – none of that Paul Greengrass/Bourne-esque jumpy camera cuts (or whatever the technical jargon is). Also, to make Mr Silver as quite openly gay was a brave move – was it to bring the pink pound in I wonder?

Then let's overlook the "eh?" moments: • Bond is shot and falls hundreds of feet into a river and somehow survives? (eh?) • Then somehow he finds his way to some sun-kissed location without M knowing his was alive - obviously must've had a huge wad of cash handy nearby because a credit card would've revealed his identity. And that cash lasted his pain killers and drinking and then enough to get him home again (eh?) • Or how Bond can fall into a lake in the moors in Scotland, which is so cold that he can run on top of it and yet he can survive an underwater fight and still make his way to kill Silver without contracting hypothermia (eh?) • Then there's the way Mr Silver got himself out of his cell and killed 2 guards by . . . well all we saw was him stretching so god knows how he did it (eh?)

Maybe we can ignore the clichés • car chase where cars crash into loads and loads of barrows and stalls etc and yet NO-ONE is seen getting injured or killed. • Bond shoots his shirt cuffs after getting off the digger on to the train. Like Brosnan adjusting his tie under water in World is Not Enough

Then let's say nothing about the nods to other films or themes: • the Roger Moore alligator run • the Mission Impossible NOC list

Perhaps we can let slide the inconsistent background to Bond's youth – in Casino Royale, Vesper says "you didn't come from money and your school friends never let you forget it and you were at the school by the grace of someone else's charity hence the chip on your shoulder". Well looking at Skyfall he DID come from money (they had a gamekeeper for chrissakes), albeit maybe it went when his parents died, but then why the chip on his shoulder? At least they kept the orphan aspect consistent.

Finally, let's take for granted the fact that if all Silver needed was to be imprisoned and his laptop captured, then all he had to do was walk up to M after the bombing and say it was him. We didn't need Bond to go to Shanghai, kill an assassin, have a stupid fight in a casino, shag a girl and ultimately get her killed.

All of that I can just about stomach (just about), but the ONE thing I cannot abide is the humour! There are lives at stake, both his and other's and yet he can openly make quips? No! Mendes just pandered to ignorant press comment lamenting the lack of humour since the reboot.

So, I am afraid I don't give it 10 stars or even 7. I give it 5 just for Craig and the action.

Oh and the last problem was the length of it, never better illustrated by the way Silver lumbered slowly and exhaustedly to the chapel. That was how I felt about the film up to that point. It was too long.

The Sweeney (2012)

Pointless remake

[4/10 · 18 September 2012]

Another shameless example of cashing in on middle aged people like me wanting to be reminded of the "good ole days", and then this time adding a current pop star to draw the youngsters as well.

Sadly, for all it's style and glam etc, it misses the cold hard mark of the original. Winstone is no longer "hard", especially not when they dress him in trendy gear - he just looks like a mid life crisis bloke (better in a Crombie). Admire his ability to laugh at his ever expanding gut, but he doesn't carry off the tough guy anymore.

Plan B is also laughable - although I recognise that he is obviously trying, but it's not enough. And Damien Lewis is just a caricature that is miscast.

Plus it is too long. I was almost asleep by the "climax".

They do try to introduce humour, but with one notable exception (face in window) it just doesn't work.

And if the shooting accuracy of coppers and ex paras is reflective of real life, then the crims and Afghans have got it made - this lot couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo. And love 2 examples of a goodguy taking cover behind something made of wood, which then gets shot exactly where he is standing, and he's not hit(??????). Remarkable wood these days.

Appaloosa (2008)

A terrible bore

[2/10 · 23 March 2011]

I couldn't understand how a film with so many good actors appeared to be written so badly, acted so badly and directed so badly - and then at the end I realised it was directed and co-written by Harris and that explained everything.

From the opening scene with Irons (affecting yet another rubbish American accent - see Die Hard 3) killing the sheriff and deputies I knew there was something wrong with the film. "I'm here to take the men" "You can't have them" "I'm taking them" bang bang bang. That was it but dragged out for a lot longer.

And that was the problem with the rest of the film. It took so long to move forward, we ended up fast forwarding after half way through.

It was a relief when it was over.

Frost/Nixon (2008)

Enjoyable as a story - flawed as a representation of the truth

[5/10 · 24 February 2011]

I had never seen the real interview between Frost and Nixon and so came into this movie totally fresh. The story is engaging, the script enjoyable and the acting fine. At the end though, I didn't get what all the fuss was about. I didn't get a "he said it!!" moment.

The film implied that Frost had gotten Nixon to admit to something no-one else could (i.e. something illegal), thereby condemning himself to political wilderness. However, instead I was left feeling that Nixon was an OK guy - an intelligent, quick witted, sincere and strong guy who did what it took to get things done. Whereas Frost came across as a chancer, who was a bit lucky. At the end I wondered what the purpose of the movie was.

I have now seen the actual footage of the interviews and can only conclude that the movie's purpose was to show Nixon in a much more favourable light than he would've come across in the real interviews - because in the real interviews, he stinks. In the real interviews you can see the panic in his face, you can see the often painfully contrived shows of friendliness in his mannerisms and you can hear the uncoordinated logic of his answers. Whereas in the movie he's smooth with his answers and his mannerisms.

Any Brits out there should liken Nixon to our very own Gordon Brown - a man as bereft of any social attractiveness as Nixon. By getting Langella to play Nixon, it's like getting Alec Guiness to play Brown. I.e. a brilliant actor, but a million miles away from the truth.

And THAT'S the problem with these recent "real life" movies that focus on people in high offices of state - The Queen, The Special Relationship and now Frost/Nixon. The films make the people in high office appear to be totally articulate, very quick witted, sincere, at times funny and always strong in character and determination. Whereas the truth is anything but that. We've seen footage of a supposedly eloquent Clinton and he is anything but. We've seen the Queen deliver her speeches and "sincerity" is never a word you'd associate with her.

I know the counter argument is that it is only a movie and we shouldn't take it literally. But that's just it, by giving the film "real" characters and "real story" lines, the film makers are implying it is real. In fact, it is the very suggestion that it might be factual that draws the audiences in. Otherwise where would the attraction be of seeing a film about a fictional President's relationship with a fictional Prime Minster? Or a fictional queen's reaction to the death of a fictional daughter in law? There would be no attraction. So the makers have lured us paying public to part with our hard earned cash to see something that promises fact but instead delivers fiction.

So yes, I enjoyed the "story", but ended up resenting its total fiction.