Reviews

If you enjoyed the last twenty minutes of Titanic, then this film is for you. If you liked the bleak vision of humanity that Christopher Nolan portrayed in The Dark Knight Rises, you might like the atmosphere of this film. If you want a generic war-is-hell and survival is matter of chance film, you may well appreciate this.

If you remember Dunkirk as a victory snatched from the jaws of defeat; as a near-miracle when for a full day a storm grounded the German air force in Flankers while the Channel was as calm as a millpond; as a day when sixty German planes attacked four hundred men on the beach and inflicted no casualties; as a time when men were buried hastily but with military honours rather than being allowed to lie dead on the beach; then this film does a huge disservice to the truth.

Finally a note on accuracy. The film may look right but it is missing almost any detail that might bring hope into the situation. The images may be accurate; the atmosphere is more appropriate for a film about a concentration camp.

I popped out to see the film "San Andreas" tonight. I rather enjoyed it, and managed to stay right through to the end (first time I've done that since "Fury" last year) -- and was only mildly distracted by the woman next to me who was already snoring when the film started, and didn't stop till it was over. (Her husband only jogged her when the snoring got loud).

To enjoy it, you have to be able to suspend disbelief. Right from the very beginning, when we were asked to believe that the offspring of Dwayne Johnson (African-American) and Carla Gugino (Italian-American with hair and eyes reminiscent of Sophia Loren) is a girl with the bluest eyes you've ever seen (Alexandra Daddario, Italian/Irish/Hungarian/German/English-American), believability flies out of the window. If you look at a list of the top disaster movie clichés (like this one: http://www.wow247.co.uk/…/9-of-the-worst- disaster-movie-cl…/), then you'll see well over half of them in this film. And, like many disaster movies, Mr Scott is ignored: you can actually change the laws of physics, particularly towards the end of the film.

Having chosen to suspend disbelief, the best ways of enjoying it are actually to hope the main characters get out alive, and to enjoy the special effects. I particularly liked the apparent aerial shot of the land oscillating up and down like the waves of the sea. (I hope I haven't spoiled it for you by revealing that the film includes at least one earthquake).

It's not going to give you any deep insights into humanity or real life. But if you're in the mood for some big loud disasters, it's worth a night out.

Fury is intended as a "horrors of war" film in the same way that Saving Private Ryan was, and there are perhaps too many scenes of deeply unpleasant injuries and deaths. However, it has two key strengths. One is the tank battle scenes, which I have not seen done so effectively before. The other is realism; it includes vignettes on the enormous psychological resistance to killing another human being; whether there are atheists in foxholes; and incongruous moments of humanity.

It does include some war film clichés; there's a transformation from "boy" into "soldier man"; the usual "band of brothers" stuff; and the Americans are not nice, but the Germans are nastier (though sadly, this reflects the reality of spring 1945 pretty well). There are also a few "but why didn't they just ..." moments in the plot.

It won't become that classic that Private Ryan is -- Private Ryan earned that status by being the first "real war violence" film and also having a journey as its core plot -- but it's well worth the night out, as long as you have the stomach for the bloody bits.

The strength of X-Men films has always been to give a large number of characters a decent bit of the story, and to allow viewers to imagine what it would be like to have that particular power. The moral of X-Men films has always been the same: people who are genetically different have to learn to live in peace. This film is absolutely solid on both of these aspects, along with occasional self-referential humour.

However, it doesn't bring anything outstanding beyond the above. It's set partly in the 1970s, and goes out of its way to include odd stuff from the seventies (let's face it, there was plenty); it charts more of the characters' personal development; it performs the necessary reboot that major franchises seem to require these days; and it has plenty of high-tech special effects. All perfectly competent (apart from one 'revelation' concerning a well-known three-letter acronym that nearly made me laugh out loud), and yet I walked away feeling I'd seen most of it before, in one form or another.

See it of you're a fan of the franchise and want to watch the story progress. If you haven't seen any X-Men films before, it's a good night out but you'd be better to watch some of the others first.

I'm a fan of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan books and I have enjoyed most of the previous films based on his work. I expected this to be the first film based on the recent series of books about Jack Ryan Junior, but it wasn't; it was a "reboot" of the original Jack Ryan, in which he first meets Cathy. The whole plot is time-shifted to 2013, probably so they could save money by not having to make places look old, and so they could have modern day product placement (unless they had Windows 8 mobile phones in the 1970s).

Okay, so I tried to watch the film as a stand-alone spy thriller. But such films have to fall into one of three camps to be successful: they have to be non stop action; or they have to be incredibly atmospheric (like Skyfall, or perhaps Mission Impossible); or they have to do gritty realism (like the Bourne films). This film fell between all three stools. I actually walked out after an hour or so, and there had only been one action sequence up to that point; the atmospheric shots were nothing special; and the realism was damaged by the rushed set-up sequences (twelve years in ten minutes), and especially by the stereotyped villain. In his first scene, we are introduced to the back of his head; he takes drugs; he kicks his subordinates; and he has significant tattoos. All he needs to be the complete clichéd bad guy is to wear uncool and unnecessary dark glasses.

As for the acting, you get the feeling the actors are all doing the best with the material they've been given, but I still found myself thinking of the name of the actor/actress whenever I saw them instead of their character -- which is a very bad sign. Chris Pine (as Ryan) appeared to have been told to look like a dork who's out of his depth; he did that successfully, but it's just not very interesting.

Oh, and there's no tongue in cheek humour, either, from anybody. Please, bring back Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham to give the film something to make it watchable.

I really liked the film, because it's different. At first you think it's going to be another wimpy-kid-coming-of-age story, though set in space. But it isn't. Then you think it's a smart-kid-can't-unlock-the-key-secret-until-he-understands-himself, but it isn't that. Maybe it'll be another Hunger Games, teenager-uses-skills-to-survive-and-then-to-beat-the-system? No, not that either.

In the end, it's a film about the rights and wrongs of war, and of training for war. And I do mean rights and wrongs, plural: this is one of the best films for a long time for making you think about more than one side of a complex issue. It also takes a hefty (though mitigated) swipe at video-game culture; but if you think that's a modern politically correct message, remember that the book was written in 1985. Its message is best summed up in one (sligh mis-)quote from the film: "It's not what you do; it's why you do it." It's one of the most thought-provoking films I've seen for a long time. If you come out of the film wanting to know more about the issues that the book raises, I recommend the excellent (if slightly academic) book "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Lieutenant-Colonel Dave Grossman. It doesn't tackle exactly the same issues that the film raises (which is good, because that means the book doesn't act as a spoiler for the film!) but it does address the wider issues.

I'm sure this is a good film for the right audience -- by that I mean people who liked the set-piece bitchiness of Gosford Park, the long-playing social relationships of Downton Abbey, the humour of old folk forgetting things, or the nostalgia of opera. For such folk, my comments below can be safely ignored. But if you don't like any of the above, you may find (as I did) that the senility was over-acted for supposedly comic effect; the emphasis on characters over plot made the film drag; and some of the plot ideas were telegraphed so far in advance, they could have used pigeon post and it would still have arrived in time. I can't even tell you if it had a happy ending as I didn't make it to the end of the film, though it looked like most of the tensions were going to be reconciled while one key character suffered an emotion-jerking exit.

If you want a film where old people are not either incredibly wise or suffering from comic levels of senility, I recommend The Bucket List.

This is a documentary, in the style of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine. But the subject matter is very different from Moore's films: Darren Wilson is trying to capture examples of (the Christian) God in action. To this end, he travels with and films various Christians who minister to others (many of them are not "ministers" by profession) just to see what happens when people put their trust in God. He finds examples of self-sacrifice; supernatural guidance; remarkable 'coincidences'; and above all, the power of love as an expression of God's heart for his children -- i.e. anybody.

There are some surprises: without giving spoilers, there are some situations where people play a role that "good Christian theology" would not predict. This film may not include big special effects or airbrushed movie stars, but like Moore's documentaries, its attraction is that it is real; and after seeing it, I expect you'll believe that God -- the Father of Lights himself -- is real and active too.

This film lets you know in the very first minute that it's a musical, turned into a film, that shouldn't be taken too seriously. It has plenty of good one-liners, big hair and shocking outfits, and well known 80s hits. The stars play their parts to the hilt, and Tom Cruise as Axel from Guns and Roses ... whoops, I mean Stacie Jaxx from Arsenal conveys the perfect aura of a rock god - somewhere between mystical and utterly stoned.

So why have I only given it 6 out of 10? Because musicals take classic hits and weave them into the story - they're sung by the actors, and the atmosphere provided by the band is replaced by a dance routine. The rock/metal numbers just didn't work for me in that format; this may well be the a musical that sells fewer copies of the sound track than the DVD. Oh, and it has Russell Brand in it ... even when he plays the same character every time, I can't take him seriously.

Sounds, the heavy rock newspaper of the 80s, used to rate albums on a 5 point scale. 2 out of 5 was classed as 'for real fans only'. Rock of Ages may well become a cult film for rock fans - especially after a few drinks - but if you don't already love rock or the 80s, it my not be for you.

I don't get out to the cinema much these days, and when I do I often pick the sci-fi films. This one turned out much better than some sci-fis, and much better than I expected, perhaps because the hero's "super-powers" come from an entirely logical source; you or I too could have super-powers in an identical situation. The situations that he encounters are reminiscent of Star Wars episode 1 (there are even characters who resemble Jar Jar Binks, though they're much less annoying - they're a nice mix of brutal and humorous), plus they threw in a gorgeous and definitely-not-helpless princess from Episode 4. Though come to think of it, this story was published 50 years before Star Wars, so maybe the copying was the other way round ... Anyway, if you feel like watching a hero/princess story with 1800s technology and with plenty of action and side-plots, go see this.

With five episodes gone, what do we make of the new Doctor Who, his companion Amy, and this two-episode story? The story was what we've come to expect: set up a scary situation, which plays on a typical childhood fear (in this case, fear of the dark); plant Amy (and a couple of others) in dangerous/vulnerable situations so that viewers can empathise with her fear; have the Doctor rush around madly making decisions at a moment's notice; and have the situation rescued at the end by an event that's scientifically barely plausible. Oh, and keep the special effects low-budget.

All the above makes the story sound dreadful. In fact it was pretty good, partly through some well-handled plot twists, and partly by designing antagonists who can be thoroughly scary with no more special effects than a few flickering lights. There's also a character from a (much) earlier episode who re-appears, who is more than a match for the Doctor in the banter stakes. Oh, and there's a 'surprise' scene at the end, which I did expect to occur, but not this early in the series -- and the exit line from that scene is once again implausible, yet unexpected enough to make the story engaging.

The new Doctor is ... in short, he's manic-depressive, with the odd bout of compassion. Matt Smith is therefore rarely in danger of over-acting! Matt pulls it off well, but there are times when I just wish the Doctor would calm down and think about a decision for at least ten seconds before making it.

Amy comes across as a good mixture of feisty and yet fearful. She joins in the banter, and hasn't let out any spine-chilling screams yet, so if/when she does, I think they'll be very powerful.

Terry Pratchett recently described the science in Dcotor Who episodes as "paper-thin", and regretted that it was classified as "science fiction". I would prefer to see less wildly implausible scientific events in Doctor Who. But all in all, not bad at all.

I like sci-fi, she likes love stories. This is both, which makes it a good film to watch together. It has some light humour, some pathos, and a good talking point for the two of you to discuss afterwards -- would YOU want to know 'that'?

It also goes to some effort to get time travel 'right', which is harder than it seems. It is used to create some nicely contrasting moods as he 'jumps' from one situation to another. And the two lead characters are good-looking and (mostly) realistic.

Some critics have lambasted this film, especially for being different from the book. I haven't read the book, but now I would like to -- which has to be a good recommendation for the film.

First, the bad news: Think of the action scenes in every James Bond film you've ever seen (except the sex -- this film is aimed at a young audience). Add in anything you remember from Top Gun or Iron Man. Well, it's all here -- every action film cliché. Worldwide locations? High-tech gadgets? Fast vehicles on land, sea and air? Fights with all kinds of weapons, or none? They're all here.

Some key plot elements get a scene or two to develop them, but many others just get a single expository line from one of the main characters -- there's just no time to develop them, even though it sometimes comes across as comically bad scriptwriting.

As for realism, the filmmakers didn't watch enough Star Trek episodes to know that you cannae change the laws of physics. Plus computers with incredibly simple user interfaces can issues incredibly complex commands, and incredibly complex computerised control panels can be understood by 'science boffins' after seeing them for about two seconds. And if I gave you a list of questions of the form "If they had the technology to do this, then why didn't they do that?", it would fill the page.

Now the good news: The action never stops for more than a couple of minutes. The gadgets would be great fun to use if they were real. The main characters in the cast are all incredibly fit (in both senses of the word). The main action sequences are good, though not outstanding enough to compete with the likes of the Matrix Revisited. The CGI explosions/disasters are well done.

Summary: If you are happy to switch off your reality detector, and imagine yourself as the heroic knight/feisty damsel saving the world while having fun using these gadgets, you should love this film. But if you're looking for emotional depth, you'll find more in a rain puddle.

See it if you like action films, or if you were a fan of the TV show Gladiators/American Gladiators ... one of the actors is a dead ringer for one of the original British Gladiators, and there's even a scene in the film that pays homage to Gladiators. And Gladiators has a lot in common with this film -- there's supposed to be a plot, but all the fun is in watching fit people fight.

I read a review in USA Today comparing this movie with "Three Men and a Baby". Hey, I thought, I liked 3 men and a baby, I'll go to see this.

BIIIIG mistake. You have to look very, very hard for similarities between those two films. This was much more in the style of "Road Trip", or for those old enough to remember them, the "American Pie" films.

I have to say, the acting was pretty good. Some of the characters are intended to be unlikeable, and boy did I dislike them. Trouble was, I found I had almost no interest in whether they succeeded or failed in their mission. And the events that unfolded in the film were meant to be increasingly outrageous, but I just found them increasingly beyond belief.

Forget about the baby. This is about three men being juvenile. The so-called humour comes in watching them suffer. Ha-ha-not.

I went to see this film because it was tagged as 'sci-fi'. In fact, it plays out more like a horror film -- and a pretty clichéd one at that. If I asked you to guess which part of the USA it takes place in, what the weather is like near ground level, what time of day most of the action takes place, and the age of the character at the centre of the strange goings-on, you wouldn't find the answers hard.

The ending is far-fetched and features some major plot holes too, which I'll submit to the Trivia section. It's pretty, though.

The film is saved from mediocrity by some decent acting, and especially by the special effect sequences.

You might enjoy it if you liked "Millennium", a rather old B-movie with Kris Kristofferson and Cheryl Ladd.

After all the negative reviews, I was pleasantly surprised by Australia. Yet it's very hard to describe it as a "good" film because in some ways it's excellent, and in other ways formulaic. I loved the cinematography, and if the film gets an Oscar, that's what it should be for. It's very long because it essentially has two plots, one cattle story with good guys and bad guys which belongs in the realms of cowboy films, and another story of interracial mistreatment which is straight out of the Hollywood politically correct playbook. Also in the mix are love, war, clash of cultures, mismanagement by the government/religious authorities, and lessons in the ethnic culture of the Australian aborigines.

Perhaps it's best to think of it as Australia's equivalent to that nine-hour travel commercial for New Zealand, Lord of the Rings. Baz Luhrmann has tried to ground the story in reality, rather than using the fantasy genre of LOTR. The end result is worth watching on the big screen, but I don't imagine it'll sell on DVD as well as LOTR did ... the story is just too predictable for that.

This film works for me because of the way it unfolds like a good mystery story, so that at the end you can look back and say "Ah, that's why so-and-so happened". It's not a mystery-story plot, though, more of a tear-jerker, though for reasons well removed from the usual "I love her, she doesn't love me, smoke gets in your eyes" plot-line.

The film cleverly mixes themes of war horror, law, young love, and self-development. I can't think of another film that is similar to compare it with. Recommended for anyone who likes thinking over films after seeing them, doesn't mind nudity, and likes films about character development ... this isn't a film of non-stop action or spectacular explosions.

My wife usually hates Jim Carrey, but she liked this film. Carrey mostly subdues his Ace Ventura wackiness for his Truman Show empathetic self. Great premise, pretty well acted out, produces an uplifting film. Differs quite a lot from the book, so you can see the film and read the book and enjoy both. The plot isn't too original but the individual episodes are fun to guess about. Watch this if you liked Bruce Almighty ... and stay around for an extra clip during the credits. And take a friend if they stay at home all the time and refuse to come out to have fun ... or at least, buy them this film on DVD. It will do them good ... oh YES!!

This film is another worthwhile addition to the litany of low budget Scottish films. It's short on explosions and other spectacular effects; instead it majors on how the events in the film bring out the true selves of the key characters, while retaining a streak of slightly whimsical comedy. It reminded me very much of "On A Clear Day" -- indeed, one or two of the same actors appear -- but that film was about a man finding his own soul; this film is about finding the soul of a nation. Furthermore, it's true ... OK, so some of the events are re-ordered or omitted for dramatic effect, but much of what you see really did happen. Even the filming venues are genuine ... you really are seeing Glasgow University and you really are seeing the interior of Westminster Abbey. The music is genuinely Scottish too ... 'Wild Mountain Thyme' and 'Scots Wha Hae With Wallace Bled' form a lot of the backing music.

See this if you enjoyed 'On a Clear Day'; to a lesser extent it's also like 'The Full Monty', 'Heartlands', and 'Braveheart'.