Reviews

Barbarian is a low budget horror movie that holds real promise for most of the first half. Although there are some pretty obvious plot holes, the act of building suspense is used to great effect as we just do not know what is coming and how the grizly story will unfold.

The movie is at it's best in the darkness seen through torchlight and this provides the viewer with some genuine 'jump' moments. After one of the biggest such moments we get a suspicious story about turn, taking the movie into dark comedy territory. We get some moralistic set up too with the way this character is introduced to us, which makes it clear what will happen to said person... Ok....still reserving judgement...

But the worst is saved for the last act.... What had been a suspenseful and well imagined horror is given such a cliched and ridiculous finale that it actually ruins the whole movie. Without giving it away, we see too much of everything and see some preposterous actions and consequences from certain characters.

I had to check if it was just me that came to this conclusion but it seems the majority on here do too. The ending feels totally rushed and like the writers didn't know what to do so just did everything to cover all bases.

Great first half, great potential but let down in the home straight.

6/10.

Hostiles starring Christian Bale, Rosamund Pike, Wes Studi, Ben Foster and Jesse Plemons and directed by Scott Cooper, somewhat flew under the radar upon it's release in 2017, though not totally surprising given that Westerns are not so fashionable in current times. It was a surprise to see that it did not even reach its modest budget in box office takings.

This movie is mainly about two things. The stunning Cinematography and the amazing cast. The shooting of the vastness and expanse of the natural environment is excellent, and we get to feel the elements along with the characters with monsoon style rainfall to spring morning light in the prairie grassland. We are immersed into this beautiful but harsh frontier world.

The cast is superb and praise starts for the two leads who both successfully portray a full range of emotions that we empathise and feel together along with them. Early on we feel Bale's character is just a racist killer, we get to see the loyalty and companionship with his men and then as the journey evolves the complex character evolves and opens up to reveal his own historical emotional scars from his years of service.

Pike totally keeps pace with, and maybe exceeds Bale's performance with a wonderful portrayal of love, loss, compassion and defiance. It is wonderful to see and she is picking up a positive reputation for this type of performance.

You do need to be switched on from the first moments of this movie as we get a shocking opening and I found myself holding my breath at times. As others have mentioned, maybe the film is slightly long and could have benefitted from some trimming in the middle sections, but I for one love the way the story is allowed to breathe with considered dialogue and long open shots. Or what others might argue is a 'slow pace'. This is by no means an action movie, more of a drama.

I will not spoil it but end scene is really excellently shot and acted and I found myself willing on how I wanted it to play out as a viewer.

A lovely modern Western 9/10.

Rain Man is a 1988 Drama staring Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise playing brothers, one being an autistic savant (Raymond, played by Hoffman), and one being egotistical and selfish (Charlie, played by Cruise). Valeria Golino is the third key character as Susanna, Charlie's girlfriend. This was 1988's biggest grossing movie and rightly won Oscars for Best Picture, Best Actor (Hoffman), Best Director and Best Screenplay.

Most prominent and famous is the acting performance by Hoffman who portrays the syndrome of his character superbly. The dedication to learning and researching apparently took him one year and is evident in the realistic yet sympathetic and lovable way he portrays Raymond. Cruise's role was inevitably overshadowed by Hoffman's performance, but the way we see the character of Charlie slowly evolve through the film is also a quietly skilful piece of acting, and somewhat overlooked in Cruise's resume.

This is a movie full of depth and quality and the direction lets this play out with long takes of Hoffman stealing the show with his performance (and in my opinion with a number of takes that were improvised by him on the spot as on occasion, understandably, the support actors seem to take a split second to react). As the movie moves along we slowly see the bonding and building of relationship between the two estranged brothers, and this is the foundation of this movie to the audience, and provides the reason to care for the outcome.

The subject matter has of course dated terribly with how we understand and treat autistic people, but the movie and acting is timeless and is understandably viewed as one of the classic movies of the 1980's.

9/10.

Valkyrie staring Tom Cruise in the leading role as Colonel von Stauffenberg caused some controversy at the time due to his casting as the officer who led the plan to kill Hitler during WWII. Ultimately the movie did better than expected at the box office and proved popular with movie goes if not film critics.

An important note is that this is a thriller movie set during World War Two, rather than a drama of that period. This is an important distinction as what director Brian Singer gives us is a fast paced, well shot and tense action thriller. The downside is we lose character development and depth but that would have slowed the pace and maybe lost the urgency of the act of the attempt to overthrow the Nazi's (so more about the act rather than individuals involved).

This does mean that the stellar cast including; Terence Stamp, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy and Tom Wilkinson are all underused for their roles but also that Tom cruise is not overwhelmed in his role for which he thankfully keeps it simple and straight. And that is not to criticise him, this is the type of role he can do well.

As mentioned the pace is fast and the viewer is kept involved throughout. Apparently they had lots of documentation about the real plot left by the Gestapo who investigated it and so could keep things as close as they could to reality, though just condensing the time frame.

This is one movie where the critics get it wrong. Though maybe depending on your views of Tom Cruise as an actor as to how much you enjoy this, Valkyrie is a well directed and convincing period action thriller that does not disappoint.

8/10.

Spy Game is directed by Tony Scott and stars Robert Redford and Brad Pitt. It is an old style spy thriller such the like that is rarely seen in modern cinema.

Redford is excellent as Muir, a seasoned CIA case officer, nearing his retirement and has good chemistry with Pitt playing Bishop, who was mentored by Muir and is a CIA agent locked up in a Chinese jail.

The film plays out through a base location of a nondescript CIA office HQ where Muir is called into a task force meeting to be questioned about his knowledge on Bishop. From here we get flashbacks taking us through the pairs history from Vietnam, Beirut and beyond.

Redford portrays Muir superbly as a case officer who all his colleagues underestimate and dismiss because of his unassuming nature and age. However, Muir is working behind the scenes to collect information and help his former protégé get out of the potentially deadly mess in which he finds himself.

This is a subtle film that builds tension through small acts and intricate glances and lingering shots, it is not in your face and is the better for this. Scott really directs superbly using some nice camera techniques but nothing that detracts from the story. The way Redford plays Muir (a 'Company Man' if ever there was), keeps the interest and the tension of the CIA office environment high as we become invested in how he goes about the last day of his work before retirement.

A minor complaint would be the score, which I noticed stand out a few times, which is not generally a good thing during a movie, as it didn't seem to fit and felt slightly of its early 2000's vintage. This is a minor detail in an otherwise under appreciated and slow burning modern spy thriller.

8/10.

Red Notice is what happens when a streaming giant (Netflix) just throws a stupid sum of money ($200 million apparently), at making a movie when they have A-listers but no script or plot worth a note.

This is unashamedly a blend of everything all at once thrown together to see what sticks. As others have noted, the Rock plays the Rock and Ryan Reynolds plays Ryan Reynolds. Unfotrtunately I find both pretty annoying. Gal Gadot seems to be having a ball playing a character more on the wrong side of the tracks than is normal for her. And there we go.... the usual exocic locations and cities are visited for mere minutes just to tick them off. Lots of CGI and bad jokes.

You can see the executives sitting around a table deep in Netflix HQ saying, "...yes but we have $200 million so we can make a spy movie AND a comedy AND an adventure film!" We even get generic looted Nazi treasure at the end in a blatant Indiana Jones rip off.

It is not awful, you can pass some time with this movie, it is just amazing the money spent on it and the blandness of the result. This is what modern Hollywood now proudly delivers us as 'original material'.

Disappointing 5/10.

Scott returns to what he does best with a period action film with a dose of drama added in too. Supported by an all star cast including Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Adam Driver and Jodie Comer.

Based on a true story set in the 1300's in Medieval France about a Knight (Damon) who accuses a former friend and Squire (Driver) of raping his wife (Comer). Affleck plays Count Pierre d'Alençon who unashamedly sides with Squire Jacques Le Gris (Driver).

As we would expect from a Scott period movie, the cinematography, costumes and setting is all superb. We really feel the damp, cold, dark and brutal nature of life in 1300's Europe. Action scenes are handled excellently also, with specific mention for the final and titular 'duel' which concludes the movie.

Comer stands out in her role, as does Driver, though we realise this is a movie all about men, their pride and status and their possession of a woman as their wife, not about her as a person. This gets portrayed well as the film evolves and Marguerite (Comer), learns the reality of what speaking the truth could mean to her.

The format of the movie however does hinder it. The retelling of the story from three perspectives does feel repetitive and the subtlety of the different versions mean it is difficult for the viewer to feel engaged throughout. Affleck is mis-cast and puts on an awful version of an accent. I feel that Scott is probably not the man to deal with the intricacies of such a story, no matter how well he sets the scene and portrays the action.

A good film well shot and worth a watch if you are a fan of period action or historical drama.

7/10.

The Creator is an original sci-fi movie written, produced and directed by Gareth Edwards (commonly known as director of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story).

Lets start with the positives first. The Creator looks visually superb. They have really imagined a interesting future earth and used the production budget wisely, not over extending what is possible, and creating a curious mix of retro and future looking technology. The cinematography and location shots featuring the spaceships and battle scenes are really well done.

On the negative side, the script is not very strong and we are not fully invested in what is going on or the characters involved. We neither see the bigger picture of this post nuclear reality, nor are we given significant smaller details and depth regarding the people and what they are fighting for.

It is a bit of a mish-mash of seeing robots caring for children and animals and dressed as buddhist monks and US style imperialism (think post cold war foreign policy), with marines massacring indiscriminately while looking for 'the weapon'. We are given a nugget of thought when the Human / Neanderthal analogy is dropped in but it is never followed up with any real substance to carry the idea forward. Therefore we don't know who to root for and the viewer is left hanging.

The acting is average and not great, perhaps reflecting the reality of the budget more than the excellent effects do. John David Washington feels out of his depth with the emotional range he is asked to give, and is eclipsed by the child actor playing 'Alfie'.

Overall, it's not awful, it's a bit disappointing as the potential was there and perhaps another draft of the script could have taken it to another level.

6/10.

Ben Affleck makes his second attempt at directing following on from the excellent 'Gone Baby Gone'. It is clear Affleck has a really talent for spotting a script with potential and taking it through to a finished feature film. Here he acts and directs an ensemble cast, including; Jeremy Renner, Pete Postlethwaite, John Hamm, Blake Lively and Rebecca Hall. The characterisation gets time to build some proper depth and with many of these actors receiving similar screen time we really feel an insight to their stories as well as the people living in Charlestown, Boston.

Renner especially seems to bring out the best in Affleck's acting and gives a strong performance of a career criminal that knows no other path. Not only do we have strong acting performances but the action scenes (shootouts) are some of the most realistic feeling in cinema since 'Heat' and the car chases some of the best since 'Ronin'. This is no faint praisem, and the whole coordination of the filming and orchestration of action feels to be of someone of greater directorial experience.

The whole vibe of Boston and especially Charlestown feels well researched and gives the feel of a gritty and dangerous city neighbourhood filled with numerous shady characters such as Fergus (played by Postlethwaite). If I had to throw in a complaint it is that there are a number of cliches thrown in the mix as well. Overall though this is one of my favourite crime action thrillers, and proves Affleck has talents well beyond his acting roles.

8/10.

To Catch a Killer caught my attention via a trailer on YouTube. I was suspicious at first as it is not a high profile cast, but the premise and what was released as a trailer looked very interesting.

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. This is like an old style crime thriller working out who carried out a mass shooting on New Years Eve. Shailene Woodley and Ben Mendelsohn are the leads, and do an excellent job as police trying to crack this case under pressure from superiors and the media.

I couldn't find a box office taking but this was filmed on a very low budget of $3 million, but it really doesn't show. The script and direction is excellent and the cinematography and pacing is also very good. Yes, it is not an Action Thriller but a Crime Thriller, so if you need explosions every few minutes instead of dialogue, look elsewhere. Saying that, when there is action it is handled very well and realistically.

There are a few nice twists and turns along the way but if there is one complaint it could be that it is a little too straight and predictable, though the final scenes are acted very well and conclude things nicely in the storyline.

Not excellent but very good and a pleasant surprise.

7/10.

The Silence of The Lambs as a novel adaptation and stars Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins plus a strong support cast. This is one of those rare generational movies that has morphed into pop culture and is ubiquitous (and notorious) beyond the boundaries of cinema.

Released in 1991, it has to be admitted that it is not as shocking or terrifying as it once was, as we as a generation have become desensitised to the topic of serial killers through mass media exposure. However, even 33 years cannot diminish the power of this movie and most notably the harrowing portrayal of Dr. Hannibal Lecter by Anthony Hopkins.

Hopkins is outstanding and terrifying in equal measure as the highly intelligent and psychopathic doctor, playing him as still, cold and calculating which is somehow scarier than some outwardly unhinged maniac. It's a truly superb portrayal of a killer that has since redefined how such a character is portrayed in cinema.

Foster, though also superb, is asked to overplay the gender role of being a (young) woman in a male dominated world, and as such is portrayed as weaker than she should be, to reinforce this stereotype (as a highly trained psychologist I'm pretty certain she would not fold so easily upon meeting even such a monster as Dr. Lecter), but this is a minor quibble that is only highlighted through time and changing gender roles in greater society.

This is a truly great movie with performances and a story that is clever but not too over the top, combining to make some really special cinema and will make you rethink your meal wine selection choices for many years to come!

9/10.

Crimson Tide is a Tony Scott directed and Simpson & Bruckheimer produced cold war action thriller set on the American Navy submarine the USS Alabama. A strong cast is led by two of my favourite male actors, Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman as Executive Officer Hunter and Captain Ramsey respectively.

This movie is a lesson in both the craft of storytelling and acting with some superb (and possibly career high) performances. It has to be noted that to create such a quality movie from the cramped confines of a submarine with barely minutes in total of exterior scenes is remarkable and goes to support the quality of the film making and character acting.

From very early on we see the characters of Hackmen and Washington sizing each other up and a notable scene is the officers of the submarine gathered around the officers mess table discussing the complicated topics of ethics and war, and as the scene moves along, the nervous laughter from the round table discussion evaporates and probing questions from Captain to new XO become more explicit, XO Hunters underlying beliefs are slowly revealed to his fellow officers.

The key to the movie is the tension slowly building to a head as we are never sure which crew member will side with which officer. We know there are certain loyalties and certain shared histories, but there are some surprises as crew members face moral, ethical and hierarchical choices. The cramped and sweat soaked atmosphere of the submarine totally adds to the tension and the great script and screenplay brings out the best in all of the actors.

This is a film I never get tired of and is undeniably in my all time top 20 movie list. If you have not seen it and are a fan of these actor or the war thriller genre then delay no further and check it out.

10/10.

Heart of Stone is an extremely disappointing Netfix action movie staring Gal Gadot and seems to to fall within a glut of other pretty expensive but massively disappointing action (usually spy) movies created by certain streaming services recently (The Grey Man jumps to mind as one prominent example).

We get a CGI heavy and over the top sequence of action set pieces and a cast of very poor actors reading a very poor script. They throw in 'team banter' from the off in a not subtle imitation of Mission Impossible (which took 4-5 movies to master the perfect action to comedy / banter ratio). These actors just can't pull in off and we know nothing about them to give us a reason to even care.

All the budget has gone on CGI with skydiving with no parachute sequences (again, yawn). So much is just cut and pasted from MI, Bourne, James Bond and many other films, and when it is clearly CGI you feel empty from it, with no investment in an outcome.

Maybe I'm being harsh but it is such an unoriginal movie and offers nothing new.

4/10.

Champions is a Basketball Sports, Drama, Comedy movie starring Woody Harrelson, Kaitlin Olsen and Ernie Hudson (of Ghostbusters fame). We see a hot headed sports coach forced into doing community service coaching a special needs basketball team, reluctantly at first and then over time the role and the kids of course grow on him to be much more than just a hinderance in his life.

This is a strange film to categorise as it isn't very funny as a comedy and doesn't delve deep enough into the lives of the characters to be a real drama, so it misses the mark. You can imagine how 30-40 years they could have gone full in, comedy-wise in a way that is not acceptable in 2024.

Of course the kids do a great job in their roles and deserve big credit and its great to see them portrayed in more positive light on the big screen. I felt Harrelson was pretty much sleep waking through his role and there was not much believable emotional substance from his character.

Not awful but certainly not great as a movie, although I can understand how many will be happy to see this movie purely for the topic it represents.

5/10.

Reviewing this movie as a stand alone (not seen the original):

A quick glance at the reviews and it's clear this film is getting a lot of stick for being a remake. As is the trend now in modern Hollywood, so many movies being re-made or sequels coming decades after originals.

The Magnificent Seven features one of my favourite actors in Denzel Washington, and favourite directors in Antoine Fuqua (and the pair have work together numerous times). What we get is a really nicely shot and scored modern take on the genre. You could say it is more of an action or MCU film set in the West rather than a true Western, being less character driven and more set piece action.

We get fully overloaded with every Western trope available (bar goes silent as unknown cowboy enters. CHECK. Baddie gets shot and falls backwards into a coffin. CHECK. Etc), so there is not too much original going on here. And the titular 'Seven' are truly a check list of modern diversity. However the action is spectacular and it is all superbly shot with a strong cast.

Washington plays the strong, silent protagonist extremely well, adding in small details and improvisations into his minimalist acting, as is his way. Vincent D'Onofrio is notable in support as mountain man Jack Horne.

Although the end shootout is more an action movie bodycount test the choreography of it is extremely impressive and deserves praise.

So not a philosophical or moralistic film, but a spectacular action take on the Western genre, and I for one had fun with it.

8/10.

Upon initially, hearing about the concept and cast of The Gray Man I was immensly looking forward to it's release, but I have to say, it was a fair disappointment upon viewing.

With an insane budget of 200 million USD and Ryan Gosling in the lead of a spy action thriller I was hoping for something along the lines of Bourne franchise movies (gritty and based in a reality), but everything about The Gray Man is just ridiculously OTT. We get a stupid amount of locations thrown in for the sake of it (as if the more the better), so lots of private jet hopping. I sure hope Prague made some good money for their part in a surreal action set piece.

It tries to be funny, maybe MI or John Wick style, but it doesn't have the actors, back history or script to pull it off. Way too much OTT CGI as opposed to actual stunts or fights just make it seem like complete fantasy rather than at least having one foot in some reality.

Ana de Armas is a saving grace as she looks great and does her best, Ryan Gosling is sleepwalking through it and Chris Evans is just being a camp OTT bady with bad tach, bad clothes and bad lines. Can over-acting be good acting??

Despite the lavish budget and non-stop action I found myself looking at my watch well before the end, suggesting a run time of over 2 hours is just too much to sustain for this type of movie.

I can't help but be disappointed.

6/10.

The story of Big George Foreman is an amazing one, and its stunning to think that just as many if not more people will know him only for his Foreman grill which I assume has made him a millionaire many times over!

The movie tries to tell his whole life story in one two hour piece, and given the obvious, and clearly defined dual boxing careers he had, we cover a lot of events here in not much time. There are not many known actors in this movie and overall it was a little sterile for such an inspired story. I feel this comes from the script and the acting not being especially great.

In my opinion the bigger problem is that, as amazing a story as it is, George as an individual is not especially charismatic nor did he influenced pop culture or define an era as an icon, as did Muhammed Ali. So it would have been nice to see the writers and director tackle the story in a slightly different way to make a way past these hurdles, rather than the pretty conventional and straight chronological, even paced movie that got made.

But it is such an amazing story of achievement and reinvention that it is one everybody should know. And if this movie brings it to a wider audience that is all the better.

7/10.

Transformers: Rise of the Beasts is the latest movie of the franchise series (and I actually lost count of how many there are). Just a quick check and the first movie was way back in 2007 and of course made stars of both Megan Fox and Shia LaBeouf.

This was more enjoyable than I was anticipating, it adds some new dimension with these 'Animal' Transformers and having a large part of the film set in a natural setting created a different environment as did its date of 1994.

Anthony Ramos is good as a likeable rogue mixed up in some petty endeavours who accidentally steals Autobot 'Mirage', disguised as a Porsche. These two characters give good banter and comedy, especially in the 'joyride' scene.

I found this easier to watch than other instalments I remembered as too often previously the action moved so fast often fight scenes were rendered incomprehensible. I'm not sure if they have consciously addressed this or it's just that over time the CGI has got better (and clearer), but this makes a huge difference to the viewers enjoyment.

6/10.

Rogue One (2016) was the first stand alone movie after Disney purchased the Star Wars franchise and acts as a prequel to 1977's Star Wars.

This is a really enjoyable addition to the overall story and puts context to what we later see in the original Star Wars. It does not have the flash and glamour of the main series episodes, but does not really suffer from this. Instead we visit far flung moons and outposts and a more primitive series of settings throughout the movie. Some of these locations, such as in the early scenes (i think is Iceland), are really stunning, as is the end battle at the reef atoll.

It does, however lack a strong stand out character or performance to take it to the next level, and it is a worry when a CGI Robot makes one of the better performances, as K2-SO does here (he is actually genuinely funny at times). Also, I found that some of the mid and lower actors in the movie were not very good at all, making it a surprise to see it is one of the most expensive movies ever made.

What it does well is give great additions to the franchise of other worlds, technology, battles and locations, we get dog fights and close combat guerilla tactics and large scale clashes and see different troops and resistance fighters alongside the expected stuff.

Apparently George Lucas preferred Rogue One to The Force Awakens and i'm inclined to agree with him (though it is close!).

8/10.

Context is important to review Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The original Star Wars was an iconic movie of its time and holds fond memories for lots of people from childhood watching the movies, re-enacting the characters and playing with the action figures.

As George Lucas found out with the average (at best) prequel trilogy of the late 90's and early 00's, its better not to mess with this nostalgia (recall; bad acting, annoying characters and over-use of CGI, all still fresh in peoples memories). So it was always going to be a balancing act keeping everyone happy by providing something new and fresh but not trampling on legacy and memories.

And I think they managed it pretty well.

In the secure hands of director J. J. Abrams (why handled the new Star Trek movies very well), we have new and interesting characters in Rey (Daisy Ridley), Poe (Oscar Isaac), Fin (John Boyega) and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), all acted very well and creating a fresh dynamic in the story.

The plot you could argue is pretty formulaic and too close to the original Star Wars, but care has obviously been taken in its making with a nod to the past with revisits of old characters (Han Solo), old equipment (Millennium Falcon) and also a revisit of original production methods, such as the use of puppets in some roles when CGI could easily have been used. To Star Wars fans these small details make a difference.

A cynic would say that it is too superficial and not enough fresh ideas or depth, just a ploy to get tickets sold, but for me it was an enjoyable movie with lots of escapism and interesting scenes, great visual effects, and it really did not drag in its length.

I'm not a Star Wars buff by any means, but I for one felt more than satisfied having watched this episode.

8/10.

The Covenant written and directed by Guy Ritchie and starring Jake Gyllenhaal in the lead role, tells the story of the USA's use of Afghan translators in its recent war in Afghanistan.

I have to admit I'm not a big fan of movies depicting wars that are still recent and therefore have not had enough time for proper reflection and assessment of events. However this is an important story that deserves to be told, that of tens of thousands of Afghans employed by the US as interpreters during the conflict and promised visas and resettlement in America in return. Though in reality, the majority having been abandoned and denied this promise and left at the mercy of the Taliban (who consider them traitors), along with their families.

So this is a serious story that deserves a serious appraisal and given depth and time to build layers to make the viewer understand and care, but unfortunately this movie does not do it. The movie plays best through the middle section when Ahmed (an excellent Dar Salim) the hired interpreter gets to show his resilience and loyalty (even though his motives are never fully clarified for the viewer) and we fully witness his dogged determination and mental strength that matches his physical attributes.

For me, Gyllenhaal never fully grasps this role and we are left with a more two dimensional war movie whenever Ritchie focusses on his character for any length of time. The score instrumentation is of note and used well and is one other standout highlight along with Dar Salim's contribution from an other wise missed opportunity and by the numbers war movie.

7/10.

Total Recall is an above average sci-fi action vehicle for the enormously popular 80's action hero Arnold Schwarzenegger. Directed by Paul Verhoeven, famed for his sting of movies containing a high level of graphic violence and sexual content (Robocop, Basic Instinct, Starship Troopers).

It's a tough one to review as in retrospect the sets and costumes look cheap and unrealistic, despite it being one of the most expensive films made at the time. It's hard to pin what this is from as older films such as Alien, The Terminator, The Thing, Blade Runner (as some examples), have not dated visually nearly to the same degree. For me the 'world' seems small and feels and looks like a series of sets that are not connected, especially on Mars.

The action and violence is strong and frequent, as expected from Verhoeven, and often over the top with graphic injuries thrown in or lingered in shot for just that bit longer (I remember as a kid being quite scared of the Mars environment exposure scenes). But credit to some of the weirder aspects of the characters portrayed and the creativity behind that, additionally so of how various baddies meet their demise as its very imaginative in that regard.

The topics raised in the movie are valid and interesting, with themes of reality and memories being more scary than some of the physical violence that garners the greater attention. I might argue that the role Schwarzenegger plays would be more suited to someone with a better acting range, but credit for him stepping outside of his usual action roles at this time of his peak popularity.

Overall I was a bit disappointed having revisited the movie for the first time for a long time, but it raises some existential subjects arguably bigger than this movie could deal with and no doubt has influenced much of the sci-fi genre since, so credit is due.

7/10.

Hoosiers (a.k.a Best Shot), from 1986 is inspired by the true events of the 1954 Indiana state basketball championship where the tiny Milan high school won that years tournament against all odds.

The movie stars Dennis Hopper (who won an Oscar for his supporting role) and Gene Hackman, (who apparently felt this movie would be a "career killer"!), in the lead role as coach. The whole movie, like the story is that of the underdog, with a low budget and poor distribution. However, it received favourable reviews upon release and became something of a cult movie in the years since.

So what makes it special? It seems a familiar story now, the sports underdog, but that is only in hindsight, it is easy to forget how many movies since the Hoosiers have followed this same story line. Also it is a likeable movie, well shot with a strong redemption story from a likeable but complex lead (which is Gene Hackmans speciality).

The screenplay is done by someone that knows sports and understands the greater dynamics of non-professional sports with the interaction of parents, teachers, students etc.

It is all very well done and with great in game action we can really root for these underdogs in the team (and the coach), to prevail agains the odds. I enjoyed watching this film and it reminds me of the quality (unmatched in modern cinema), of Gene Hackman who has to be one of my favourite actors.

9/10.

Jerry Maguire seems to be a passion project by Cameron Crowe who directs, writes and produces and he really hits the sweet spot with this movie about a sports agent with a conscience. You can see why it did well at the box office as it has something for everyone and you can imagine a couple going to the cinema together and both parties being equally enthusiastic to see it. There is a wonderful blend of drama, sports, business, comedy and love... and it really works well.

It is well scripted and the characters are really fleshed out over the generous (though not over-long), runtime. Particular credit has to go to Cuba Gooding Jr. As NFL player Rod Tidwell, who rightly won an Oscar for best supporting actor. It would have been easy to make his character unlikeable to the viewer, but Gooding Jr. Adds a warmth and cheekiness that makes us warm to him despite the obnoxious nature and 'chip on his shoulder'. Cruise is also well cast as a sports agent with a conscience and gives an underrated performance here.

The number of memorable and quotable lines from this film is impressive; "Show me the money!", "You had me at hello" and "Help me, help you", all are credit to Crowe and the quality of the script. The soundtrack also deserves a mention as it is filled with iconic and perfectly appointed songs, and again credit to Crowe and his then wife Nancy Wilson (of 'Heart' fame) for this bonus.

It's really hard not to like this movie and it's one I enjoy revisiting and despite being nearly 30 years old, it hardly ages. Highly recommended if you have not seen it yet.

9/10.

Taking a quick scan of user reviews from closer to this movies release date its easy to see how relieved people were to get this after those two AVP movies, and I remember I had similar emotions at the time as well.

Rewatching it now in 2024 after the excellent 'Prey' I can still appreciate what Predators offers but also the flaws stand out more with retrospect. The concept is good, with kind of an elite collection of human mercenaries, soldiers and criminals collected on a planet to be sport hunted by the Predators.

Adrien Brody is a surprise choice in lead as a muscled up soldier for hire. Unfortunately none of the characters are really fleshed out and it's all very two dimensional. The dialogue has to be mentioned as its truly awful, and no opportunity is missed to point out something obvious just in case the viewer misses it.

Positive things include the surprise we get with an insight of the predator hierarchy and the Laurence Fishburne character is interesting (there was talk of future sequels exploring this character further). It is just a fun action film at heart and goes back to (and tries) to be like the original film, and of course falls short, though there is no shame in that.

I did find the CGI patchy in parts and sometimes they tried to do too much to the Predators themselves, with the weird masks and strange tech that is not really explained or explored, just seems to be for the sake of it.

It is an enjoyable film for Predator fans, though not without it's faults.

7/10.