Film Reviews by RP

Plenty of throbbing, glistening muscles, crash-bang-wallop, gunfire and general mayhem in this truly awful Arnie vehicle. Bad script, awful acting, ludicrous story, terrible accents, bad one-liners - yet if action films are your thing, you may just enjoy this,

Arnie plays Col John Matrix, a retired super-secret commando sort of man, living alone with his daughter in the California hills. Then his daughter is kidnapped in an attempt to get him to foment a revolution in some dodgy South American banana republic and Arnie has 11 hours to get her back. Cue much mayhem and general silliness, a high body count (80+ at a guess) - but Arnie comes through with minor scratches.

The 'acting' is pathetic and the idea that some USAnian elite fighting force would be populated by a psychotic Aussie and led by an inarticulate Austrian is just silly - but then Arnie did become Governor of California, so what do I know? It also looks very dated.

Having said all that, I have seen a great deal worse so I'll give it 2/5 stars.

Arnie has made over 40 films - most of them complete tripe. There are however four that I really like, namely 'The Terminator', 'Total Recall', 'The Running Man' - and 'Predator'. All are pretty simplistic but of a style I call 'crash-bang-wallop': lots of action so that you don't have to think very much, just sit back, enjoy and be swept along.

'Predator' starts out as a jungle commando movie until it becomes clear that someone / something is stalking Arnie's party of hard men. In a bizarre twist, it turns out to be a trophy-hunting, seriously ugly alien - and Arnie is left to face him alone. We can all guess who comes out the winner, of course.

Director John McTiernan went on to make 'Die Hard' with Bruce Willis the following year and also directed Arnie again in 'Last Action Hero'.

This is a minor sci-fi classic and still looks good for a film approaching 30 years old - great stuff. 4/5 stars.

It's sort of a wilderness chase drama. FBI man Sidney Poitier (somewhat elderly - he was 61 when this was filmed, although he doesn't look it) follows jewel thief, kidnapper, murderer and all round bad guy Clancy Brown from big city to Canadian border, tracks him over the mountains (with a bit of help from mountain expert Tom Berenger) and catches up with him in Vancouver.

It's not bad, although the action sequences do seem a bit contrived and it's a bit stilted at times. The scenery is magnificent (it was filmed in Canada) and provides an excellent backdrop to the story, which does unfortunately have a rather silly ending as Mr Poitier (chasing his man in Vancouver as a foreign cop with no jurisdiction) survives several bullet wounds.

I enjoyed it (although it's not up to the standard of another wilderness drama that I saw recently, 'The Edge') and I'll give it 4/5 stars, although that does seem a bit generous.

Walt's misadventures continue - with his marriage on the rocks, he gets deeper and deeper into high volume drug manufacturing.

In this series, each episode starts with a flashback that gives context to earlier events - a nice touch that shows how the characters and events are intertwined.

Although the episodes here are rated certificate 15, be in no doubt that there is some serious violence which if not shown in close-up detail is pretty grim even at a distance - the actions of and the demise of Tuco's cousins perhaps being the prime example.

This is really great stuff. I watched the entire 13 episodes in three sittings - I'm addicted, and I've already ordered up Seasons 4 and 5.

5/5 stars. Great, unmissable TV.

Nic Cage has made some truly awful films in the last few years - for example, 'Season of the Witch' and 'The Wicker Man' remake were nominated for Razzie awards - but this one isn't too bad.

It's a police procedural film, set in Anchorage, Alaska and is based on actual events. Nic Cage and sidekick Dean Norris (who played brother-in-law Hank in 'Breaking Bad') are on the trail of serial killer John Cusack who has been implicated in the rape, torture and killing of a number of prostitutes in the boom years of the Alaskan oil pipeline construction. The town is teeming with oil men and the women who service them and clues and witnesses are hard to track down.

The film centres on the protective relationship that develops between Nic Cage's State Trooper and a teenage prostitute played by Vanessa Hudgens who is an escaped victim. As you might expect, good guy Cage tracks down and entraps bad guy Cusack and (of course) all ends well.

It's OK - but the problem I have with Mr Cage is that the characters he plays always seem 'over the top' with too much shouting and attempts at dramatic moments - and he is guilty of the same here. Having said that, it's a great improvement over some of his other films - and the Alaskan scenery is worth watching.

It's a pretty average sort of film so I'll give it 3/5 stars - watch it if you like Nic Cage and police procedural dramas, but frankly it reminded me of a big budget version of the TV series 'Law & Order - Special Victims Unit'.

[Aside: Look up "Robert Hansen" on Wikipedia if you want to learn about the background to the film]

I saw 'Gravity' twice in 3D at the cinema, the second time on an evening out with friends. Frankly, having seen it once, seeing it a second time wasn't my choice.

Now here I am at home watching it for a third time, in 2D on a modest 40" screen and from a DVD copy rather than the higher resolution of Blu-ray. And my opinion hasn't changed.

'Gravity' has spectacular CGI special effects. I can only begin to imagine the huge amount of compute time required to generate the film. Seen on a big screen, the film is visually spectacular and the 3D effects do add something - unlike other films I've seen in 3D.

So, spectacular graphics - but everything else is awful. The physics is silly, the spaceflight sequences look good but are unrealistic, the script is truly dreadful, and the so-called 'acting' by big ticket names George Clooney and Sandra Bullock is embarrassing.

It's won 7 Oscars. That is impressive - but then other than Best Director you realise they're for cinematography, visual effects etc - with nothing for script, acting etc.

See it on the largest screen you can (IMAX 3D if poss) but as a home small-screen experience it's well below average. See it out of curiosity - and unlike for example '2001: A Space Odyssey' I predict that it won't be in anyone's list of the best space / sci-fi films in 45 years time.

No, I didn't like it. I'll give it 1/5 stars then add another one for the excellent visuals, making 2/5 stars.

It's a remake, so by definition it isn't very original. I couldn't help constantly comparing it to the 1978 version directed by Richard Donner and starring Christopher Reeve - and while that film is flawed, frankly, 'Man of Steel' falls short.

One thing that is improved on is the Jor-El role, Superman's Kryptonian birth father. In the 1978 version he was played by Marlon Brando whose part lasted far, far too long before the action started. Here, he's played well by Russell Crowe who is quite effective, and the action (well, the CGI effects anyway) start pretty quickly.

Unfortunately everything then slows down to a snail's pace as we see Superman with his earthly adoptive parents in a series of not-very-interesting flashback and flash-forwards. But half the film has now gone - perhaps the director recognised that he was running out of time to make things interesting so added on another hour or more of CGI effects to add loads of crash-bang-wallop in an attempt to recover the audience's waning interest. It all adds up to 2 hr 17 min - and it feels even longer.

Henry Cavill plays Superman / Clark Kent with a permanently furrowed brow - he just didn't seem as 'human' or as geekish as the hero of the either the original comics or the 1978 film. Nor did Amy Adams convince me as Lois Lane, nor was Michael Shannon 'bad' enough for chief baddy General Zod. And there's no Kryptonite and no Lex Luthor :(

I really wanted to like this, but I didn't. I suppose I really ought to re-watch the 1978 film to make sure, but I don't need to: although that film starts off boring, it doesn't end up boring. This one does.

I'll give it 2/5 stars, although that does seem a bit mean. But I honestly didn't like it.

It's a Steven Seagal film, so you know what to expect - ponytail, general mayhem, martial arts, silly plot, weak script, straight to DVD. But no, while this is no Oscar winner, it is a cut above the rest - and he hasn't got a ponytail.

It is of course a very, very silly story: baddies disguised as a rock band and led by an over-the-top Tommy Lee Jones take over a battleship and steal its cruise missiles to sell to the highest bidder. Unfortunately for them, the cook turns out to be Steven Seagal, a Navy SEAL serving out his time in a lowly job after striking an officer. He then retakes the ship single handedly (well, with some minor help from a Playboy Playmate, who also gets to show a bit of bare chest), fires the main 16" naval guns, sinks a North Korean submarine and defeats all baddies. I told you it was silly :)

Ignore the general silliness and it's quite enjoyable of its kind, so I'll give it 3/5 stars.

[Aside: the battleship is named as the USS Missouri, the last US battleship built. The surrender of Japan in World War II was signed on board and it was used for bombardment in the first Gulf War in 1991. It was finally decommissioned in 1992 and 'Under Siege' is supposedly set on its final voyage home. In fact, most of the battleship scenes were filmed on the USS Alabama which is a museum ship moored off the city of Mobile, AL]

It's a thriller, the first half isn't bad, the ending is truly lazy. Err, that's it.

I quite enjoyed it - but it's one of those films you'll either love or hate. It's also very American and I'm not sure that I quite believe the emergency call centre setup - far too sophisticated, and I certainly don't believe the technology.

Halle Berry plays a 911 emergency call centre operator who handles a disturbing call during the kidnap of a teenage girl. Psychologically scarred, she retires from front line duties and becomes a trainer. While showing a newbie the ropes, in comes yet another call from a teenage kidnap victim. Suddenly unscarred, Halle Berry leaps into action and not only leads the chase for the kidnapper from in front of her screen and keyboard, but eventually transforms into action woman, tracks down the kidnapper in his lair and confronts him, leading to an even more unbelievable and very lazy ending.

The first half of the film is pretty good provided you can suspend your disbelief at times and there are some tense moments. But the thought of a call centre operator investigating and tracking down a dangerous criminal without help or backup strains credibility - but then perhaps they do things differently in the USA.

I have to say that generally I don't find Halle Berry a very convincing actress, and this film is no different. But I've seen a lot worse films than this...

Because I did quite enjoy it, I'll give it 3/5 stars - and if the ending hadn't been so poor I might even have given it an over-generous 4/5, but that ending is just so, so lazy.

I have always found Tom Hanks to be a 'wooden' actor, but here he plays his role excellently as Captain Richard Phillips of the container ship Maersk Alabama as it is hijacked by Somali pirates. The film is long - overlong - and tense; but then it descends into Hollywood farce as seemingly the entire might of the US Navy is deployed to rescue them.

I couldn't help but contrast this with the Danish film 'A Hijacking' which tells a similar tale of a merchant ship attacked by Somali pirates - far more restrained, more tense, and far more gritty and down to earth. And there's no last minute rescue by the US Navy either...

Perhaps the best thing about 'Captain Phillips' is that it attempts to give some insight into the lives and motives of the pirates and does this fairly well.

I enjoyed it, but it's seriously overlong and while it may be based on a true story it gives off more than a whiff of Hollywood drama.

3/5 stars. And for the record, I rated 'A Hijacking' as 5/5 stars.

A great spy film starring Michael Caine as Sergeant Harry Palmer, a somewhat rebellious and ill-disciplined army intelligence spook in 1960s London. Much period background, gourmet cooking, and a little bit of mystery and adventure.

Harry investigates the brainwashing of British scientists, is captured and brainwashed himself, but escapes - and finds himself out on the streets of London and not in Eastern Europe as he imagined. Now to find the traitor in the department...

All good stuff, quite a few differences from Len Deighton's novel (including the fact that the central character definitely wasn't called 'Harry'), but enjoyable stuff nonetheless.

I enjoyed it, and although it's a little dated it gives a window onto the London of 50 years or so ago. 4/5 stars.

I rather enjoyed this over-the-top slasher movie.

I couldn't help but compare it to 'The Strangers' that I saw recently. In both films mysterious strangers in masks invade a peaceful household - but there the similarities end. In 'The Strangers' nothing much happens, here there is a surfeit of bloody violence as the invaders, hidden behind animal masks, slaughter their victims one by one. But they get a nasty shock when one 'victim' turns out to be a survivalist with well-developed weapons skills who retaliates and kills the attackers off one by one...

Yes, it's unrealistic, yes the plot (such as it is) is plain silly, yes the dialogue is ropey - but there's enough gore to satisfy most viewers of this genre. And if you're a fan of Aussie soap 'Home and Away' you might recognise Sharni Vinson in the role of the victim who fights back.

I'll give it 4/5 stars, although that does seem a little generous.

It's yet another 'assassinate the President' sort of film - and unless you're from the USA, you'll probably find it a bit over the top in its gung-ho style and patriotism.

I had recently seen 'In the Line of Fire' which is a pretty good example of this genre and also directed by Wolfgang Petersen and thought I'd view this one again. I'd seen it a few years ago and remembered it as OK, if a bit over the top.

It's got a shed-load of well known actors including Harrison Ford (the Pres), Glenn Close (the Vice Pres) and Gary Oldman (the chief baddy). Harrison Ford plays yet another of his 'humble man' roles, only this time he's not only the Pres, but also a highly decorated ex serviceman, so any baddy better watch out. And that's exactly what happens - Gary Oldman and other Russian baddies infiltrate themselves onto the President's plane and attack, and Harrison Ford fights back and (of course) saves everybody.

Well, there are a few casualties of course - but the biggest casualty is credibility. It really is unbelievable stuff - I don't think it's that easy to board Air Force One, automatic weapons fire spraying everywhere but no bullet holes in the fuselage, an escape pod for the Pres, parachutes for everyone else, special effects that nowadays look quite amateurish, relationships with Russia looking like something from a different era, etc etc.

Gary Oldman makes a good baddy but that's about it. I suppose if you close your eyes and let it wash over you, you could enjoy it, but frankly it's the over-the-top reverence for the Pres that got my goat.

I'll give it 2/5 stars.

Yet more compelling TV. You know, I think I'm getting addicted to these US TV series - this one has 13 episodes of around an hour each (53 - 72 minutes or so) and I managed to watch them all in 3 sittings. That's a heck of a lot of TV - it needs to be good to hold the viewer's attention over that length of time - and it is.

I found this season an improvement over season 3, perhaps because there was less emphasis on therapy, less on Tony's children and more on the adults and adult themes. Yes, there are many family details thrown in, but there is no doubt that Tony Soprano is a ruthless mobster with a violent temper - and there is a little bit of blood and gore thrown in for good measure with scenes of dismemberment and a burial in which he gets to show off his JCB driving skills.

This time round the FBI seem to be closing in, Adriana gets a 'new best friend' who is an agent, Chris has to go into rehab after his heroin problem becomes serious, Uncle Junior is in court, Ralph gets his comeuppance - and last but by no means least, Carmela is seriously angered by Tony's extramarital activities.

5/5 stars - great stuff.

It's a drama, told in a semi-documentary style, about the on-track rivalry between Formula One racing car drivers James Hunt and Niki Lauda, and specifically the 1976 season when Lauda was horrifically burnt yet still competed.

While it's not a bad film, it really does seem to be a boy's film about boy's toys - fast cars and beautiful women, money and fame. Back in the 1970s Formula One seemed less corporate, a time when it was still possible for a rich man to bankroll a team, a time when it was possible for a rich playboy to be a racing driver. James Hunt was the son of a wealthy stockbroker, Lauda the son of a wealthy banker - and while they clearly had the necessary driving skills, they also had the kind of background that allowed them to play with boy's toys and indulge themselves in racing without having to work for a living.

Hunt is portrayed as brash yet talented, a reckless driver, a heavy drinking womanising playboy, careless of the risks he took both on the track and in his personal life. Lauda is shown as more professional, cool, calculating, more Germanic (OK, Austrian...), more restrained, more risk-averse. How true these portrayals are is hard to judge - but in real life they were friends and I believe they even shared a flat back in their early days, so I suspect there's more than a touch of dramatic licence in the tale.

The acting is good - Chris Hemsworth plays a good Englishman for an Aussie and Daniel Brühl makes a good Lauda, even if the scripted dialogue is a bit stilted.

It's a good looking, well photographed, well acted film, some good racing sequences, tense where it needs to be and I enjoyed it. 3/5 stars.