Film Reviews by The REAL Film Cricket

The Keeper is a good entertaining and uplifting film. It is the usual fare of film-maker wanting to entertain and a ‘true-story’. As far as I can tell the basic building blocks of the real-life story are there but last ‘fairy-tale’ moments from Bert’s life have been airbrushed out or not included. Thus it ever was before and so it will be in the future real-life stories in the cinema.

Getting past this, and some people cannot, you have to make sure you have an interesting, well written and acted story instead, the trips along and keeps you invested in the tale. The Keeper does this. German actor, hoorah a German playing a German no cod-accents here, David Kross is a handsome, charismatic presence on screen and gives Trautmann a grounded story, he’s no angel here but most importantly was not a Nazi, was there any in Germany, was it just 12 men in that whole country that were Nazis? To be balanced neither is he a goody-too-shoes but the audience is forced to sympathise with him, giving him nightmares about the appalling treatment of a Jewish child, the deaths of his comrades and so forth – it is somewhat heavy-handed at times.

Nevertheless John Henshaw comes in playing Northern Man and boy is he reliable solid and so believable at it and for once the ‘northern English folk’ are not tired stereotype ecky-thump types but ordinary people living in the north of England. The football scenes are surprisingly realistic for film football scenes, not a high bar but at least the snippets you get it does look like players are trying to stop their opponents scoring rather than falling back like the Red Sea when a player approaches them.

Freya Mavor as Margaret, Trautmann’s first wife (never revealed in the film), is given a great role, and is impressive as the free-spirited, tough, northern lass, whose heart is captured by the boyish charm of goalkeeper Trautmann.

The football recreation is a small part of this story, so don’t worry if you do not like football, the balk of the drama is taken up with the problems of Bert being a German prisoner of war staying in the country he was ‘at war’ with and taking on every prejudice, bias and hurdle placed in his way whilst falling in love and marrying an English girl along the way. As often happens in the life of people who are successful things happen to seem to take away their happiness or ‘test’ them. In real life this really happened to Trautmann and his family and it was no writer’s conceit.

The Keeper, or Trautmann in some markets, is a well-made film in every department, writing, acting, directing, filming, all round it is good. Some of the dramatic constructs are glaringly obvious and a bit ham-fisted at times and being ‘true to life’ it is not strictly ‘true’ but overall it is an entertaining and engrossing film about a really interesting character in a time when intolerance and prejudices had to be overcome – thank goodness that’s changed.

I am not obsessive about much and certainly not music, I am one of those weird people to whom music has no massive presence in their life. Having said this I did know lads at school that obsessed over groups and brought Japanese print only vinyl for £100 of any group they took a shine to, they went to concerts all over the UK, talked all day about their obsession. So this film seemed very familiar with the opening ten minutes.

Juliet, Naked is light and funny for most of the running time with the three main characters well played by Chris O’Dowd, again, Rose Byrne and Ethan Hawke, who I could believe was not stretching himself, I’m sure I’m wrong but I think he lives a bit like Tucker Crowe. O’Dowd, in particular, seems to know exactly what obsessive to the point of unhealthy and dull to be around is through his performance but you have to suppose a lot of actors and especially the females, might well know where that side of ‘fandom’ comes from.

Annie is cautious and bit frightened of her own shadow, she puts up with a lot, it’s me for goodness sake. I felt Rose Byrne got this right too – despite being a lead in the story it is the one part that should not be showy but if anything underplayed, almost wallpaper, I thought the Australian actress got this virtually spot on. If there was one misstep in the characters it was Annie’s lesbian sister that just seemed to be a lesbian and her sister for laughs and nothing else, a bit of frippery.

Throughout the story the hands of Nicky Hornby are all over this. As an author he can write true to life authentic, sympathetic, deeply flawed, ordinary folk, that behave in a realistic manner. Sometimes these characters do not transfer to the silver screen so well, in the case of Juliet Naked the hit rate is much higher than the miss rate.

The location was generic English seaside town, actually Broadstairs in Kent, but like most Hornby creations it is irrelevant, it could be the States or Australia he is digging into people and their foibles. You have to admire his ability to crank out stories that mine the same rich vein but generally do not get too familiar or boring.

Juliet, Naked is fun and enjoyable.

I have to once again reiterate that I am not a big fan of superhero movies and comics. So I do not have a huge stake in any of the MU movies. Having said all of this I do enjoy the Spider-man franchise more than most and in particular, Tom Holland who has seemed to encapsulate the character of Peter Parker perfectly.

Everything in the Marvel movie world is here. A big baddy, whose reaction to his situation seems to have been slightly over-the-top in my view but I suppose super-hero stories are always over-the-top so I’m being churlish. Huge confusing battles and explosions and comic relief from best friends and Happy Hogan.

The story takes you a direction you are expecting and at least drags into a different direction which is definitely to the writers’ credit. I did feel the big-bad was generic and the reaction that made him a ‘big-bad’ was shall we say, a bit of an over-reaction? Jake Gyllenhaal, always reliable, arrives as a competing and competent super-hero that seems to threaten Peter Parker's superhero credentials.

All the actors do their superhero bits well, some could probably do this in their sleep but for me, this is just another superhero film amongst many, I was not following it so intently so I did not notice and clues to further stories (apparently this happens) and I could not help feeling that despite a nice trip around the landmarks of Europe there did not seem to be any reason for Peter to got Europe.

Spider-man is a good comic-book super-hero, he is fun, interesting and more importantly flawed (and I very much like his aunt) but even this film was stretching my benevolence towards this particular hero.

I fell comic-book and super-hero movie fans will love this next instalment whereas others in the same mould as me (is there anyone like me) will be a bit bewildered by moderately entertained.

I still get bored by the huge noisy explosive action scenes and surely I am meant to get excited. I find it very odd.

This is a Finnish film set in Finland in the capital city Helsinki although to be honest it could have been any mainland European city as the location was clearly not the star of the movie or important to the story. I’ve been to Helsinki at least twice and could not place the vista at all.

It pays to be aware of what type of film Aki Kaurismaki makes before you view in all honesty. This moves at a very slow-paced. Everything is played dead-pan when I say dead-pan I mean really dead-pan. It is almost anti-acting at some points. There is little to no ‘body-acting’ either, when the dialogue is sparse you do not get eyebrow-raising or gurning to portray what is happening. You need to get used to this because it is an old style of acting and an odd way of presenting characters within a story.

Without wishing to stereotype the Finns are reserved and stoical people so it seems entirely normal that a Finnish film should reflect this. But, like the Finns, inside the story, there is a sense of fun as the story stumbles forward, with plain useless police officers, doctors, nurses and employment office employees to the fore. Only the truly dense could not see the huge signpost Aki Kaurismaki is pointing at his own society here.

Here we see ’M' as our nameless lead is called strive to find out about his past and slowly get closer in dribs and drabs but then when he finds out, I will not spoil this part, but it neatly fits in with the overall style and feel of the story.

With the container homes, the odd assortment of characters overseen by a corrupt security guard and incorruptible Salvation Army you are stepping into as an un-Hollywood film as you could possibly get. The scenery, setting, is not really important as Karuismaki is clearly interested and focussed on ‘M’ and those around him and has directed them to be as plain-faced and dead-pan as possible.

I can see how this film will not appeal to some film-fans with a glacial pace, simple story-line and strange stylised acting but even if Man Without a Past does not sound like your ‘cup of tea’ it might pay to give it a chance. After all, a slice of Finnish cinema has to be the antidote to the endless output from Hollywood.

It’s weird, but like all weird things, some people will take to it and others reject it. It’s all good.

There is a huge swell of love for Wild Rose, it is a popular film. So knowing this perhaps when I sat down to watch it I had high expectations. All of us say we do not let others views colour our expectations or even opinions of films but truth be told it is hard not to.

Jessie Buckley is always a good screen presence, she was great in director Tom Harper’s TV adaptation of War and Peace, so far so good.

The story itself is fun and kept my attention, the directing keeps things moving along at a pace and all the characters are big enough and colourful enough to be intriguing but there are few huge stumbling blocks along the road.

Honestly the biggest hill I encountered is if you sell or deal in Class A drugs and you go to prison for it and are released on licence you will not get into the United States of America. There is more than a whiff of wish fulfilment fantasy in the story. An upper-class lady just loves rough at the edges, sweary, women, she just loves her and her kids love country music. I know children that would not watch Dr. Who because Peter Capaldi was ‘old’ so these country music-loving young, modern, children are at best an amazing rarity. The husband was so clearly a pantomime baddy, the character the audience could hate, it was ridiculous. Why do the makers of drama still use this hackneyed and as old as time itself conceit? It is probably just me but I hate it. You end up with a one-dimensional character whose only motive, often disguised skilfully by script, actor or both, is to be be ‘bad’.

It is not all bad. Clearly the writer has tried to add some jeopardy into the proceedings by having Rose-Lynn messing up on her ambitions, finding out Nashville is nothing like she thought but, rather childishly, every problem, every obstacle, in Rose-Lynn’s life/singing ambitions fades away to nothing rather quickly so that she can get a final denouement.

It’s all too neat, all too great in the end for Rose-Lynn.

This is more like an upgraded soap storyline than anything hard-hitting or gritty but the trouble is I think the makers were trying for hard-hitting and gritty.

Ultimately Wild Rose is truthfully Mild Rose.

Firstly I do have to say how does this film get so much love out in the world? Is it because the genuine nice chap Keanu Reeves is in it? It mystifies me.

I don’t like action films. So when I saw the first John Wick I was amazed I liked it so much, it was action-packed but John Wick was just good at his job but got hurt and if he had a weapon he used it and though patently daft it was not that daft. It was certainly entertaining and different enough for me to enjoy it.

Then we got John Wick 2 (QPR 3) which was ‘quantum baby’. It was ‘very silly baby’ if I’m honest, The preposterousness of it was cranked up to 11 and it was beginning to look like a superhero film rather than a tough assassin gig. A bulletproof jacket, more baddies CGIing to death, in fact more deaths than World War 2 it seemed. It wasn’t good.

Now we get the last-minute equaliser, John Wick 3 (QPR 3) and if you are a football fan it felt exactly like a last-minute equaliser, upsetting and putting a downer on your day.

In what seems almost a parody we get nearly everyone in world being a member of the assassin’s guild, except how did they get to be the these assassins as they are all to a man and women completely crap at killing people. I mean really bad. None of them can kill John Wick, he’s only one man and most of the time he has little in his armoury and is wounded. Then again John is indestructible as shooting him, stabbing him, throwing him into walls or through glass hardly breaks his stride. Even running him over has no effect. It’s is silly but in fact, in reality, it is pathetic, Is it a kid's film/story? I sincerely hope not because more people die anonymously and willingly too (they are after all working for the ‘Guild’) than have done in any film I think I’ve ever seen.

There is barely a story but mainly loads of excuses for action set pieces which after the first one you’ve seen them all and tend to blend into the same thing. It is truly tedious – and it does not need to be as the first film ably proved.

The film reminded me of watching a video game walkthrough with actors cameoing their way through cut-scenes. I like video games, they generally do not make good films, with a few exceptions. Some of the next ‘baddies’ for John Wick seemed all too reminiscent of next level bosses it was that poor.

I know being green is an admirable and sensible thing in the world today but did the makers of John Wick 3 need to recycle so many set-pieces and action farts? There is a feeling that the ideas well is running dry.

A lot of the acting is a risible with Halle Berry clearly feeling that that next Raspberry could be hers, either that or she just could not be bothered. Jerome Flynn, why is he in this? The boss of the Guild pointlessly lives in the middle of a desert, I could not figure out why he was boss of the Guild it does not even make sense if you run it by your brain for a few scant seconds.

John Wick 3 might appeal to action junkies who are not worried about story or realism but I feel even some of these people might get quickly bored and frustrated.

For me John Wick 3 is where this little foray into killing scores of people for no real reason should end. I feel there will be many more victims in the near future. Mind you why would you work for the Guild? If the John Wick franchise is anything to go by you are definitely going to die and not necessarily in a quick or pleasant way.

Guess what? I did not like John Wick 3 in any way shape or form.

Depending on your viewpoint they will definitely be parts of Shazam that will annoy you. I have to be honest I find the whole premise of superhero movies a bit silly and I never showed an interest in any of the comics from a young age until an adult. My boat was never afloat. I will watch them on film and I have viewed all of interminable Marvel Universe series, with the explosions, and so forth, but in general I like these type of films with a light touch, so Spiderman, Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool, oh I know they have a serious side but the touch is light, now we can add Shazam!

I would say this film is a great big smile of a movie, it is clearly made to be enjoyed, to be entertained. With the casting of Zachary Levi the makers got the perfect focal point. He exudes the joy of being a boy in a grown-up superhero body with the fun and underlying seriousness this brings. So far so Big, so far so daft.

The rather bland peril given to Billy, his alter ego and his best friend are very ‘comic-book baddy’ boilerplate and although they are given to the very capable and charismatic Mark Strong the whole story was much less interesting or important to me than the dilemma that being Shazam brings up for Billy and his best friend and indeed surrogate family. It is much more compelling.

Therein lies problems for Shazam!, it’s great and it’s fun but it can’t escape it’s superhero restrictions. Boring pointless baddies whose motive and plans seem ludicrous and ill-thought-out. Although this does give the film and most joyous and fun ending.

The special effects, set pieces and overall look of the film are good, A super impossible situation mixed into a blandly normal world is tried for in many superhero films and with Shazam! this attempt is definitely more hit than miss. The direction and editing move the story on at a good whip and the film never sags which in these types of films can definitely be a problem.

Overall Shazam! is a bright, joyful, fun-filled film and with the genius casting of Zachary Levi in a role, he was seemingly born to play you have a film with way more summits than troughs and you should get just over two hours of entertainment.

You cannot really ask for much more can you?

The Sisters Brothers is another modern western that attempts to show a different west from the traditionally accepted, which it mainly succeeds all the while somehow staying close to what the viewer expects.

There’s more to cold-blooded killers than cold-blooded killing but they still are very good at their job and never get bested. Gold and the discovery of it is a driving factor in the hunt and impending downfall of their quarry – but Riz Ahmed is not your usual grizzled prospector, Jake Gyllenhaal is a bounty hunter too – but he finds people and waits for the real killers to arrive.

It all seems to be laid out in front of, you know the characters and even the storyline, but then it is not too. This is definitely the film’s strength and I can also see that it could be a weakness for some. Director Audiard shoot entirely in Europe and brought a sense of a European continental film to the story and the way it progressed. The action certainly has that grimy, gritty sense of the more modern westerns, scruffy, unclean, ragged around the edges, death is quick and cheap. Yet in amongst this the main characters are striving for a redemption of any sort that they might get. There is no black and white (hats) the whole canvas is a muddy grey and no one comes out clean.

Amhed’s reason for being pursued and escaping his pursers and capture is so incidental to the plot in real terms it might as well have ‘MacGuffin’ printed on it in foot-high letters. Audiard is more interested in his characters and how the ‘Wild West’ has shaped them, making seemingly tough, hardened, greedy and all the other characteristics we are used to seeing but giving them a real human side that motivates their actions and allows them to display other sides to the individuals rather than ‘killer’, ‘pyscho’, ‘greedy’, ‘untrustworthy’ and so on.

To do this the there is a lot of dialogue and a lot of simple pursuit, what violence and hardships that are suffered seem even more pertinent to the story as a life can be snuffed out easily for what sometimes is a random, undeserving, moment.  So far so bleak.

As the characters traverse through the very western looking scenery the film can seem to be slow-paced and meandering but this is a strong point in the story and fits the overall narrative and what the director/writer wants to tell you. Shooting, galloping, yelping and screaming gunslingers would not be true to the story.

With great scenery and score the eyes and ears are as well treated as the old grey matter with The Sisters Brothers add into this mix John C Reilly, Joaquin Phoenix, Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed on your starting roster and you have strong film. Female characters are not so strongly treated by Rebecca Root gets a great expanded cameo and as a ‘bad as the men’ character and Carol Kane turns up near the end which is always a nice treat for film lovers.

The Sisters Brothers is nice little western born of the same family as The Unforgiven and zigzagging across the genre right back to Shane. There’s redemption, death and life in the hard world of the west, but something that’s missing from a lot of those films is a European sensibility and an underlying sense of humour. This The Sisters Brothers has for me.

All in all The Sisters Brothers is good at what it does but be warned if you are expecting a more rock ‘em and sock ‘em western about bounty hunters shootin’ up the town then maybe do not set this aside to watch. I still think some viewers looking for that type of film might get enough from what they see but I can also see why some will not like the story as much as me.

Apparently, it has been fourteen years since the first Incredible film came out and this type of gap between sequels always makes me nervous. For instance, The Incredibles 2 starts off minutes after The Incredibles movie concluded. Did it? I honestly could not remember.

The film fires us into the Parr family immediately with all the kinetic and colourful action of its predecessor and this is not a bad thing.

The standard of the voice acting and animation is as usual top-notch and getting back into the life of the superhero Parrs was easy. Mr. Incredible having to stay at home and look after the children is perhaps not as ‘different’ as the makers think and in truth the man not being able to cope with raising the kids is very cliched, as cliched as having women not being leads and so the direction of the story falls between two stools. Whilst the Soy Drinking Virtue Signaller in me applauds the different take on the superhero animation genre, the old man who has seen it all before also sighed and raised his eyes to the heavens as well. Having said that the audience of younger adults and children may not have seen these scenarios before, so cynicism probably needs to be put back in the box or at least diluted.

Despite this the film is entertaining and made me laugh and there is fun to be had for adults that will pass over the heads of the ‘adults in waiting’ that will lap up the brightly lit and explosive action.

All in all despite the message the makers are trying to get across one cannot help feeling that the biggest talking point from the movie will be Jack-Jack and his blossoming and seemingly uncontrollable powers. A set-piece with a raccoon will raise the roof.

The Incredibles 2 is not as good as The Incredibles but certainly not as bad as some will have you believe. Sure, enough they have tried to address modern-day concerns and issues but that is what many films do and have always done so getting overly excited about this is a redundancy. The message, and indeed story, are perhaps not as fresh as Bird believed them to be and disappointedly for a film that is gently trying to prod some more contentious modern issues the story and characters can feel hackneyed with more of the whiff of cliché and lazy stereotyping.

Deep breath and relax though – it is a light-hearted animation about a slightly silly superhero family that is made mainly for the younger cinema-goers and as such it does the job comfortably.

Viewers are treated to marvellous unromanticised scenes of Will and Tom’s life in the woods and this gives you a strong base to the story and to the father, daughter dynamic. Skilfully weaving into the narrative, post-traumatic-stress, unyielding family loyalty and the need for true solitude you know we are on an interesting and perhaps harrowing trip.

The deft handling of director Debra Granik in the pacing and telling of the story ensures that you are never really sure where we are heading as we troop along with the main characters and also some impressive cliché swerving is done as no character in the film is given a black hat. Everyone is doing what they think is correct for a reason and the reason makes sense – you know, real life.

There’s a documentary feel to the filming and style, and Leave No Trace is all the better for it, bringing it’s naturalistic acting to the fore even more.

Tackling such diverse topics, particularly the post-traumatic-stress parts, with subtlety and without resorting to ‘flashbacks’ or teenage histrionics is something I can only applaud and a refreshing change and restraint to this type of story. We do not need abuse and evil authorities for the trip to be engrossing and entertaining.

The cast is uniformly natural and the leads Ben Foster and Thomasin McKenzie having a real and honest father-daughter dynamic that in other hands may have faltered.

In the end Leave No Trace is a love story between a father and daughter were death, trauma and huge changes in their lives ultimately cannot weaken the love.

Worth a viewing but if you’re looking for Rambo or teenage ‘oh my god’ angst look elsewhere.

There is a mantra I live by, if Maggie Gyllenhaal is in something watch it. Even a baked-bean advert. You'll see a great performance even if the product is not good.

Kindergarten Teacher is a very interesting film, it can literally be seen as a 'slow burner' as we are treated to Lisa's life both work and family and there is little that is remarkable about it with all the actors giving fantastic naturalist performances. So, if you are looking for intriguing action or drama from the get-go you really need to have a modicum of patience.

Eventually Lisa crosses paths with Jimmy a strange five-year-old in her class, wonderfully played by Parker Sevak as good as a young child can play a role, and here we start into a rabbit hole that Lisa should have avoided but due to her life just could not.

Your view as to what type of film Kindergarten Teacher really depends on the viewer, obviously this is true to an extent of any film, but in general you know a film is a horror, comedy or war film usually. But Kindergarten Teacher can sit comfortably in several camps. It is definitely a psychological drama, is it a horror-drama? Only you can decide and for me it shows tremendously skilled writing, directing and acting that leaves you questioning as the final scene closes. What did you just watch? How do you feel about it? That final line, for me Lisa was correct, her actions not so much but she was correct. That's all I can say because if you do watch this film and like it any more will ruin it.

For me there a lot of horror and thriller films that fall far short of the potential scares that this film produces with great subtlety and with all the scenery left unchewed and intact. A typical understated Gyllenhaal performance seems to have permeated throughout the film and it is all the better for it - although I am being disingenuous director Sara Colangelo clearly believes less is more - it looks as if she is correct.

After watching I found out this is a remake of a 2014 film of the same name, it would be interesting to see if this is the better film.

Kindergarten Teacher is a film that will make you feel uneasy the longer it goes on and will make you think about what you have just witnessed long after the final credits have ended. This film will 'get to you' I recommend giving it a go.

This is not going to be a long review because this is a Marvel film and therefore to start of with it includes all of the Marvel Universe tropes that we have seen in the previous, goodness-knows-how-many other Marvel movies, and there would be too many spoilers for people who still have not seen the film.

I will go on a limb that Marvel aficionados will love the film and see it as a fitting denouement to the ‘series’. That’s okay with me and understand it.

I have to say I am not a Marvel Universe fan and in general I find the brightly coloured, explosive action and none-too-subtle emotions on display to be overwrought, overlong and tedious. Usually when the scriptwriters and directors inject some levity and do not take it too seriously the films are more enjoyable, so Guardians of Galaxy and Spider-Man are easier watches for me but po-faced and duck-faced frowning by Scarlett Johansson are not my bag man.

The time theme in this film is full of big ‘buts’ so that the viewer cannot say ‘Hang on if they did X why can’t they do Y’ but they feel exactly that. The only reason you cannot do this is because it ruins the story of the film, to hell with logic. That grates with me straight away.

The acting is the usual fare, those that seem not to take the film seriously are better, Chris Hemsworth being the star here, Paul Rudd is great but I wish would could have had more of Tom Holland and Chris Pratt. The ladies are front and centre, including one cringe-inducing scene which although I applaud the sentiment the execution was frankly childish and in particular Karen Gillian is strong and fun throughout, she could have pointed out some space-time anomalies seeing as she knew all about that stuff in her old job. I liked all of the female leads with the exception of Scarlett Johansson who seems to be ‘acting’ all the time and does not convince me in the slightest.

With so many Avengers many favourite characters are side-lined and we get to focus on the irritating Tony Stark who seemingly is superior, rude and snarky but has loads of friends, alongside the ridiculous Brulk or is it Hanner? After all he is a redundant character if he can only pop up when he gets really angry, and Antman and some others I cannot remember and do not really care about.

I had to watch the film in two bites as other people live in my house and forcing them to watch/listen to three hours of Avengers is hardly fair and we had other stuff to do. To be honest it did not drag too much but as usual with these movies the final confusing CGI fest that is the BIG BATTLE is confusing and for all those superior intelligences and superheroes lacks any tactics, they line up and run at each other like brainless idiots. Luckily only nobodies die and each character gets a chance for a little pause in the massive battle for a set scene.

Then Captain Marvel turns up and everyone else can sit down and take a cup of tea as she is indestructible and able to basically do anything. Luckily, she had to shoot off early in the film otherwise we would have had a ten-minute movie. I do like her hairstyle though, it was cool.

This film would not have been so bad if it was written for kids but so many adults watch and love it and yet cannot see how childish some of the action, stories and set pieces are.

The final scenes, I will not say what it is as that is mean and spoils the story, are so contrived and tacky I thought it was a promotional shot for the Avengers film series. It was horrible and if I’m not mistaken horrible CGI, I’m sure they were not all there.

Well I do not like to say it but just as fantasy film without all the baggage Avengers: Endgame is watchable, once, I’ll never watch it again, as an expensive film, with an all-star cast it really is not that good.

Still the cash-cow goes on no matter what happens in the films.

Stephen Marchant longtime collaborator with one Mr. Ricky Gervais has also carved a nice niche for himself in solo projects on TV and film. Here he tries his hand at feature-film directing and writing and it has to be said he appears to have learned a great deal from his years in the business and applied it.

He has crafted a film, that on paper would only appeal to dedicated fans to pro-wrestling, but skilfully and artfully made it a film about something else whilst not losing the focus on the wrestling. With a great cast, I even enjoyed the much maligned Vince Vaughn who for some reason has become a bit of hate-figure recently, he is ably assisted in this funny and entertaining story of love, family, pursuing your dreams and redemption.

No doubt Mr. Merchant was helped no end by the quite fantastic Florence Pugh and Jack Lowden who are wholly believable as brother and sister. Throw into the mix Nick Frost playing a part of a real person who was seemingly made for him to play and Leana Headly throwing off her Cersei mantel with some ease as the determined family lynch-pin Julia and frankly, even with a poor script and story, you would still get something watchable. With a great script and mostly true story you are onto a winner. Fighting With My Family is undoubtedly a winner.

Bringing in all of this under two hours and you have a fun, interesting and entertaining film. Throw in ‘The Rock’ with his charisma and worldwide recognition and you are going to the championship belt with some ease.

If the film lags or loses momentum anywhere it is that part where you can almost see the fingerprints of the WWE. Throughout the film it is made clear the Saraya/Paige and her family run scripted wrestling events, yes I know people get genuinely hurt in these and they are difficult and athletic but they are scripted and staged, once we get into the world of the WWE, the apex of the families dreams, there is the implication that the bouts are spontaneous. This is nonsense, there has been a court case where it has to be admitted, it does not harm the product and it is still as fun. It’s a shame this part could not be as adult as the rest of the film.

Fighting With My Family is good old underdog fights their way to the top, learns a lot about their family and life in the process and wins against all odds story and as an added bonus it is 90% a true story.

In all honesty just over 90 minutes with Saraya and her family is as pleasant a way to spend some spare time you have.

Made in 1985 Scorsese’s lesser-known black comedy seen through the lens of 2019 is a strange little movie. Increasingly it reminded me of a wacky BBC comedy of errors, including the usual well-known faces, Teri Garr, William Heard, Catherine O’Hara all turn up like some Terry and June episode. Although the story is undoubtedly dark and adult unfortunately the escalating farcical nature of what happens is the type of story that has always annoyed the heck out of me – when the old 1970s British sitcoms did it, when Frasier did it, it annoyed me, characters doing stupid things that lead onto even more stupid events when all anyone ever has to do is talk to each other – I would say it’s an age thing but it’s not, it annoyed me as a teenager.

Having said that the acting is quirky and fun with the highly underrated Griffin Dunne supplying an almost pitch-perfect nervous, fraught ‘little man’ up to his neck in circumstances he cannot understand in a world he does not live in, even though to be honest it was not a sympathetic or likable character, hopefully this was purposeful. Along the way we get to see ‘quirky’ characters who populate Soho ‘after hours’. Rosanna Arquette and and almost unrecoganisable Linda Fiorentino share a flat in what seems to start off as an off-kilter love story but veers into weirdland and there the film and story stays.

Therein is the problem with the film, it starts off comedic almost romantic and then careers off the road into a dark territory where we see people having sex ala a ‘Rear Window’ device and then an out and out cold-blooded murder, there’s suicide the list is wackily endless. But I didn’t find it wacky and the longer it went on the more I felt that I just wanted Paul to get home.

You can certainly see in some shots and framing Scorsese honing his skills for his future output but in someways this is also a problem for me as the film seems a practice, a students work if you will, before the director got better.

After Hours is not bad but it seems a film not made for my tastes, it was something I was happy to watch, was very 80s in the style and cinematography but not anything I would watch again unless it was on a channel I was flicking through late at night. I did not laugh much for a comedy, black or not.

I had heard good things about Bumblebee with more than a few critics and viewers saying this was a film that gets the Transformers franchise back on track with something resembling characters and a decent story.

Well for start Michael Bay is not directing it and Hailee Steinfeld is the main actor so that has to be an improvement on paper before the film is even watched?

Unfortunately for me the film was basic Transformers-fare. When we had quieter moments with Hailee Steinfeld featuring we had a teen-angst plot that felt shoe-horned in and fairly generic and when we had John Cena and Transformers we had explody-shouty-headachey action where I could not figure out who was fighting, winning or even why to some extent. Cena seemed like he was written into the story after the final script had been signed off and other than 'hey it's John Cena' I saw no purpose for him being in the story. He's big and he shouts a lot - I thought the eighties were thirty years ago?

The film is set in the 80s so there is a big Stranger Things bookmark tagged on there and I got a distinct ET vibe with the 'mysterious alien amongst us that only I know about' part of the story. In all honesty despite the crashing, exploding and transforming I found great passages of the film boring. Alongside the cinematography being dark and murky meaning I was confused. I was confused by the giant robots often forgetting which was which but it is at this point that I fully realise that Bumblebee was not for me, not intended for me and never will be.

Another strange point for me was the overall tone of the film, it starts of robots lambasting each other, then battling on Earth, one lot is good, the other lot are bad, okay all fairly simple and appealing to kids, then at least two characters are turned into liquid goop, the die presumably a horrible death but on we go, it's okay. Nah, I'm no prude or ultra-conservative but something did not sit right with me when this happened. Perhaps it was my overall mood whilst watching that coloured this opinion? Maybe so.

Overall it is competently made film with what I expect is the requisite amount of action and humour to keep youngsters and nostalgists going but as for adding something new to the franchise, I have to say not really.

Too young to watch afternoon Doctors and too old to watch Transformers films, exploding, round-housing robots do not a happy old fella make.