Movies: Skyscraper Review

July 15, 2018

There’s a lot about Skyscraper that is ridiculous.

Examples include

  • The cheesy dialogue.
  • The incredibly obvious villains who we’re not supposed to realise are villains.
  • Main character Will Sawyer’s continuous super-human physical fitness in spite of only having one leg and picking up numerous serious injuries on his arms and torso as events unfold.
  • The fact he has one leg for no other reason than so at one point he can rip off and throw it at a door to stop it from closing.
  • The bit where he doesn’t bother to save his daughter at the same time as the rest of his family just so that the film can be dragged out longer.
  • The way the villains tried to steal Will’s tablet at the harbour when they must have known they’d need his facial print to unlock it.
  • The hall of mirrors on the roof that appears to have no functioning purpose to the skyscraper other than setting up the confrontation at the end.
  • The way that the entire film is a set-up for a ‘did you turn it off and on again’ punchline.

I mean…if you really look deeply at it, Skyscraper doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

But I think to come away from it unhappy with its ridiculous elements is mean-spirited.

If you take it for what it is – a daft action movie that combined elements of The Towering Inferno and Die Hard – then it’s perfectly enjoyable. It’s my type of ‘popcorn’ movie.

And it’s an easy watch as well; you won’t get bored, and you’ll have a few laughs.

So this is one that I would recommend.

 

Advertisements

Movies: Avengers Infinity War Review (Contains Spoilers)

May 1, 2018

Note: This Review Contains Spoilers

So I suppose I’d better stall for a bit just in case any introductory text appears in the Facebook or Twitter links to this review.

Cos, you know, I’d be annoyed if I read spoilers without actually opening up the link, wouldn’t you?

…Pauses….

…whistles…

Engages in small talk…

What about that weather, eh?

Right, I think we’re clear.

So let’s get straight to it; the ending of Marvel’s blockbuster to end all blockbusters (until the next one), Avengers: Infinity War, certainly caught me by surprise.

To end with pretty much all the superheroes being wiped from existence and to have the villain of the piece win – for now at least – was a shock, but it was an enjoyable one.

But then it had shocks running through the movie from the very start. And not just shocks for the sake of it; ones that made sense for the story, even though they’d have lasting repercussions in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

That’s no bad thing though;  to constantly hit the reset switch and never have any of the main characters die despite the constant danger they find themselves in can be frustrating. I mean…how many times have we seen Loki defeated only to come back again.

So the significance of what happens throughout Infinity War felt like a reward for the long term viewers of the movies. Yes, of course the ones who were wiped from existence at the end will come back and save the day in the next instalment, but you’ve got to think we’ve seen the last of the likes of Gomora and the aforementioned God of Mischief.

Infinity War wasn’t just about random shocks though; it was an enjoyable movie.

Sure, if you look closely at it, it’s probably not got the best script or plot in the world, but the amount of characters in it from all the different ends of the MCU – characters, by the way, who all seemed to be given enough to do to justify their inclusion, which was no mean feat – meant that they got away with that as far as I’m concerned.

I really liked it.

But if I was going to be critical of anything it would be that the tone wasn’t consistent. The stuff with Thor and the characters from Guardians of the Galaxy was genuinely funny, but scenes with Captain America and his team of po-faced heroes were played mostly in a very serious way. It meant that from one scene to the next the mood changed.

Also, why was the Red Skull even in it?

But those are minor complaints. Having suffered from Marvel fatigue for a while, I feel they’ve got themselves back on track.

 


Movies: Death Wish (2018) Review

April 9, 2018

I’m the sort of person who falls asleep watching TV if it’s after 8pm, so to go to the cinema for a 9pm showing of Death Wish seemed like a bad idea.

Unfortunately that was the only chance there was to see it, as it’s only shown at that time, but I love the original, so needs must.

So one can of Red Bull later and I was in my seat for a movie that realistically wasn’t going to start until near enough 9.30pm. I crossed my fingers and hoped I stayed awake.

And I did. Yay!

Now when you consider that I’ve fallen asleep in quite a few movies shown at much earlier times, like Rogue One, Doctor Strange and others, then that’s no mean feat, and a credit to Death Wish.

Don’t get me wrong though, I’m not going to tell you this is the greatest movie of our time, because it’s not. In fact, it’s a pretty ordinary remake of the original, and a plot we’ve seen rehashed many times over the years in other movies. Essentially it’s about a man who becomes a vigilante following personal loss, and a perceived sense of injustice in how the police have dealt with that loss.

I like that basic plot. It’s fun. It’s what my girlfriend describes as a ‘Boys Film’ (note: this is the first movie I’ve seen at the cinema without her in over two years because she had no intention of coming). It has a man killing bad guys in darkly humorous ways and it doesn’t last too long; what’s not to like?

Bruce Willis – while no Charles Bronson – is good, and Dean Norris essentially plays Hank from Breaking Bad again, which is cool.

If you like that sort of thing too, then you’ll also enjoy it.

Just don’t expect a masterpiece…

Or anything quite as hammy as when Charles Bronson killed The Giggler.


Movies: When We First Met Review

March 26, 2018

Remember my review of Happy Death Day? The one where I said I loved the Groundhog Day concept?

Well When We First Met is based on the same idea.

It’s about a man who goes back in time to relive a day three years earlier where he first meets the girl of his dreams at a party, in the hope of waking up again in the present to find himself in a loving relationship with her, rather than in the dreaded ‘Friend Zone’.

As far as I can see, it’s been panned by most critics for a number of reasons unrelated to the quality of the movie. One said it was about a man who got to relive a day over and over in the hope of sleeping with a girl he was infatuated with – which isn’t what it’s about – while another slated it for not being in the spirit of the modern cultural movement of empowerment.

Well, just like when I was asked to review a book that analysed Doctor Who from a homosexual point of view (apparently the sexual tension between the Doctor and the Brigadier was off the scale, which is something I personally never noticed) I don’t really grasp the mindset there. Call me shallow, but when I watch a TV show or a movie, I just like to take it on face value rather than holding it to any sort moral code or looking for subtext to fit in with how I wanted to view it. If I didn’t, I’d be the sort of person who couldn’t enjoy Big because it’s about an adult woman falling in love with a child, or I would say that Death Wish is unacceptable because Charles Bronson should rely upon the criminal justice system rather than take matters into his own hands.

I just didn’t see anything particularly untoward with the ‘morals’ of When We First Met.

If anything, the only problem is that Adam DeVine is an unlikeable arsehole.

But once I got past that, I enjoyed it. The plot appealed to me, it flowed well enough and it didn’t end as predictably as you might expect.

At times I chuckled, and at no point was I bored.

So it served its purpose.

No, it won’t win any Oscars, and no, I don’t think ‘serious’ people would enjoy it, but I did.

And I’d recommend if you have an evening free, you should watch it too.

Just don’t try to search for any inner truth when you do.


Movies: The Cloverfield Paradox Review (or “Pish”)

February 6, 2018

This should have been a review of I, Tonya, but I’ve come to accept that I just can’t go to the cinema after 8pm anymore without falling asleep.

So instead, we decided to stay in and watch The Cloverfield Paradox; that way if I fell asleep on the couch at least I could rewind bits.

And that’s exactly what happened because despite taking a couple of caffeine pills to keep me going, I did fall asleep. The pills did nothing…nothing!!

The thing is though, part of the reason I fell asleep was because this movie was pish. If it had been exciting, it would have kept my attention, but alas it didn’t.

So what was wrong with it?

Well, think of it like this…

Imagine a really good episode of Doctor Who. No matter what way you swing it, part of what makes it a good episode is because of The Doctor. There are other things going on, but the writing and performance of the lead character will add something to it. Without him, it wouldn’t be as entertaining.

Now imagine a poor episode of Doctor Who. Even in this example at least you’d have the acting and performance of someone like David Tennant or Peter Capaldi to provide a little chink of light,

Finally, imagine a poor episode of Doctor Who without The Doctor, and then imagine that episode running for three times the length.

It gives you a cold shudder doesn’t it?

Well that’s what The Cloverfield Paradox was like. A poorly thought out, lazily written yawn fest on a space station that tried to be clever but failed to capture my imagination, and based on other reviews I just skimmed, everyone else’s too.

It took me about half an hour to even realise what was going on, and then once I did get up to speed, I just wasn’t impressed. It was dull ‘And Then There Were None’ stuff that seemed to exist solely to build to a ‘shocking’ twist that unnecessarily tied it in to the other Cloverfield films.

And that’s in spite of it having a stellar cast and what looked like a decent budget.

That all counts for nothing if the story doesn’t cut the mustard.

And this story did not.

You should avoid it, because like I say, it’s pish.


Movies: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri Review (or “Not My Cup of Tea”)

January 30, 2018

When lots of people passionately recommend a film to me, and then I watch it and don’t particularly enjoy it, I wonder if it’s my issue or theirs.

Why is it I don’t like this critically acclaimed picture that so many people rave about?

Sometimes it’s a mystery, but other times it’s obvious and in this case I know exactly why I don’t see the attraction in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri.

I just don’t like this relentless churning out of movies and TV shows set in rural, backwater parts of the USA. The environment doesn’t appeal to me, I wouldn’t want to live there and I tire of seeing actors put on these exaggerated accents and pretend to be country bumpkin hicks.

If Three Billboards had a gripping, fast paced story then I might have enjoyed it more, but unsurprisingly given the setting, it was pretty slow and ponderous as it examined life in ‘Disenfranchised America’. It’s as if stories told in that neck of the woods are incapable of being presented in any other tone.

But don’t get me wrong, this wasn’t bad. The plot did have some merit – even though I thought it lacked any sort of proper conclusion – and I can understand why people like it, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea.

For purely aesthetic reasons I would consider this one to avoid, however in the likely event you don’t have that seem level of disdain for the setting as I do, and don’t mind your movies to be slow and ‘sleepy’ then you should give it a chance.


Movies: The Post Review (or “Interesting, But Not Exciting”)

January 29, 2018

When it comes to The Post, I reckon you’re going to be in one of two camps; either you’ll have found it interesting or utterly boring.

My girlfriend Mhairi certainly thought it was the latter.

To her, the trailer made it look like it would be an exciting watch, but all that stuff only happened in the last 15 minutes, by which time it was devoid of any drama.

It just wasn’t her cup of tea.

I enjoyed it though. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t exciting and if I’m honest it was more than a little bit worthy, but it provided an account – whether entirely accurate or not – of an important point in the history of the government vs the press that is often overlooked in favour of Watergate and other scandals.

And I also enjoyed it because of its strong cast of recognisable, high quality actors, not least Tom Hanks.

Could it have been better? Yes, of course it could. I don’t think it would be fair to expect it to be exciting, but if I was to have one major criticism, it would be that it’s about the Washington Post rather than the New York Times, who were the ones who actually released the Pentagon Papers in the first place. Would they not have been the better choice to focus on?

For me at least, this is a movie I would recommend going to see, but be aware that you could just as easily come away from it finding it as boring as Mhairi did.