Film Reviews by GI

When this was initially releasedI was not convinced we needed a sequel to The Shining (1980). But on further viewings (and with the benefit of a Director's Cut) this adaption of Stephen King's novel, a sequel to his original book that mixes elements of King with the original film directed by Stanley Kubrick (a film that King notoriously hated), a rather interesting, fascinating even and in depth horror movie emerges. You still have to have a rather full knowledge of the original film to get involved with Doctor Sleep so if you are unfamiliar with it you'll need to watch that first. This is a horror/thriller in which a grown up Danny Torrance (Ewan McGregor) has suppressed his 'shining' powers after being haunted by the events at The Overlook Hotel all those years ago. He's drifted around and faced his demons with alcohol until he connects with a young girl who can shine, Abra (Kyliegh Curran). She is being hunted by a group of parasitic nasties led by Rose (Rebecca Ferguson) who murder children with the 'shine' and ingest their life-force (there are clearly ideas from the 1987 film Near Dark at play here). The final confrontation leads back to The Overlook where the film finally settles issues from The Shining. Admittedly the film lacks big scares, and even the attempted sense of dread is lacking at times, this is a film that does have a disquieting atmosphere to it and there are some shocking and disturbing scenes including a sacrificial child murder that is horrific. The film tries to recreate the unique atmospheric feel of the original film and I'm not convinced that truly succeeds. Overall this is a film that deserves a reappraisal as it has a lot going for it. Rebecca Ferguson is a beautiful, seductive evil being, almost like the female vampires of the Hammer films, and McGregor gives the film his all. Give this another try and I think you'll be even more intrigued and satisfied than before.

A rather dull kitchen sink drama set in a Scottish fishing town. The story focuses on Finnie (Mark Stanley), a thirtysomething family man married to the plucky Katie (Amy Manson) and with two sons. He's grown disillusioned with his mundane life and after one tense evening he 'borrows' his eldest son's car and goes on a joyride trying to recapture his youth. He even considers running off with his son's girlfriend! The performances are no doubt good but it's a laborious narrative and you never get to care about anyone.

Quentin Tarantino's 'slave' western inspired by his love of spaghetti westerns and the exploitative 'Mandingo' films of the 70s is a treat even though it's clear he has been unrestrained in the making of this. Firstly it's a film that could do with exorcising some scenes that make the film start to feel laborious, the section that involves Tarantino himself is a good example. This self indulgence taints his work of late and could be seen again in his next film. However that said Django Unchained is joy and is a really good example of Tarantino making movies to be really enjoyed and yet he casually throws in traumatic scenes to jolt, shock and make an audience sit up. This western is set in 1858, an unusual time for the genre, and in the south where slavery is prevalent. It follows the character of Django (Jamie Foxx) freed by bounty hunter Dr Shultz ((an excellent Christoph Woltz) who needs him to track three wanted brothers. They form a partnership and Schultz agrees to help Django to find his wife who s a slave on the plantation of the nasty Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). The violence is typically excessive with gouts of bloodshed that is typical of Tarantino and the screen charisma between Schultz and Django is fantastic. Tarantino gives some of his favourite, and often forgotten actors, roles such as James Remar and Don Stroud and his use of his favourite soundtrack segments from other films along with good songs allows a knowledgeable viewer the chance to spot the homages. As mentioned this film has some difficult stuff to negotiate including a bloody fight between two slaves for the enjoyment of Candie and his killing of a runaway slave by setting dogs on him. These are examples of way Tarantino can blend extreme violence with his representation of his cinematic passions. Overall this is an entertaining epic with some great set pieces and a fun story even if you cringe at the language and the bloodshed.

This is the sort of blockbuster adventure that drives home the necessity to see films at the cinema and not rely on home turf channels. Big, brash, endlessly exciting Top Gun: Maverick is exactly what you'd expect it to be. Whilst it comes 36 years after the first film it manages to recapture the essence of what made that film so popular, with its rocking soundtrack, macho posturing and sheer spectacle. The various links back to the original story work well and for those who loved Top Gun it becomes a real treat. The homoeroticism, so evident in 1986, is toned down to almost nothing here although a beach football match mirrors the famous volleyball episode with the sweat shining and muscle ripped bodies all on display. Politically the film will appeal to American audiences who are tunnel visioned enough believe that they are out there protecting the world and comparisons with Team America: World Police (2004) can't be helped as here we have a story about attacking a uranium plant in some unnamed country, it's war without there actually being one officially. For the rest of the world this is a good old Hollywood adventure film, pure hokum but plenty of panache and all the better for it. Tom Cruise returns as Pete 'Maverick' Mitchell, still a lowly Captain but a top fighter pilot. Not popular with his superiors who are trying to get him to retire quietly. But then this uranium plant needs destroying and it's a nigh impossible task so Maverick is called to train a set of young hotshots for the mission including the son of his former partner played by Miles Teller. Of course Maverick ends up on the mission himself because he's still the best and the film turns up the action in the flying sequences where we have a story very reminiscent of 633 Squadron (1964) and a pretty obvious Star Wars: A New Hope (1977) section even turning "Use the Force Luke' into "Don't think, just do". Jennifer Connolly is the new love interest (her character is linked to the first film) but is somewhat underused and Jon Hamm and Ed Harris are the disapproving bosses but the cherry on the top of the casting is Val Kilmer cameoing in a touching scene as Iceman, now an admiral and maverick's friend and protector. It's all great entertainment and absolutely best seen on the biggest cinema screen you can find where you can sit back and remember why you fell in love with cinema in the first place.

A big cult spaghetti western that gained a lot of quite unfair and frankly ridiculous controversy over violence resulting in its being banned in many countries. Viewed today it's clearly a ludicrous imitation of Sergio Leone's far superior A Fistful Of Dollars (1964), with a clumsy script, often identical characters, set pieces and story and Franco Nero barely containing his Clint Eastwood impersonation especially in the film's first half. A mysterious gunfighter arrives in a squalid US/Mexico border town pulling a coffin behind him. He's lightening fast with his gun and has an agenda involving the two warring factions that use the town. With it's whipcrack gunshots, comic book deaths and torture this is the ultimate example of the extreme spaghetti western. This is simply cinema exploiting cinema, Leone did it far more subtly but here it's just done for laughs and style. Yet it has it's big fans and of course its the inspiration of Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (2012), and it's an interesting example of how the Italian western changed. Audiences of the day loved this and yet it took directors like Sam Peckinpah and even Clint Eastwood to channel the feel of the Italian western and remould it back into the genre in their revisionist yet grounded vision of the west. It's quite fun to watch Django today, there's nothing to think about, it's offers nothing new to the western other than pushing a new film movement just a little bit too far.

A tragicomedy that looks at the absurdity of life. It's a wry, existential study set in a remote naturist campsite in the Ardennes forest of Belgium. This is where Patrick (Kevin Janssens), the son of the owners, is the handyman. He's a shy, unassuming, almost a Forrest Gump type chap who happens to be a very talented carpenter but is overshadowed by his domineering father. When one of Patrick's hammers goes missing he becomes obsessed with finding it and after his ailing father dies he becomes more focused on his quest. The campers think he's avoiding grief by his hammer search and a takeover of the campsite by some of the regulars who seek to take advantage of Patrick begins. There are some very tender and touching moments here as well as the farce of the situation. Anyone expecting titillation from the nudity will be disappointed as this is a tale of the human condition and the nakedness of the characters becomes a uniform that highlights the sheer ridiculous ness of modern life. It shifts from sad to absurd quite suddenly making for a very interesting and at times uplifting film. Well worth checking out.

Brash, audacious, highly original and a confident directorial debut from Neill Blomkamp. This darkly funny science fiction film, with it's obvious allegory to apartheid, isn't meant to be taken too seriously, it's far to gut wrenchingly violent and gory for that but it is a film that is clever and very entertaining. The film begins some twenty to thirty years after a gigantic spaceship, more or less derelict, arrived and positioned itself over Johannesburg. Inside were found a large number of malnourished aliens that have an insectoid appearance. At first welcomed they have now become unpopular and are forced to live in a shanty town called District 9. Now derogatorily called 'prawns' the aliens are overseen by a shady company and are to be relocated away from the city in a new township. Wickus (Shallot Copley), a hapless bureaucrat for the company, is tasked with organising the aliens eviction and relocation. During the operation he inadvertently becomes exposed to an alien fluid and his whole life is affected. Told in a mockumentary style and showing the aliens living habits as completely different to humans Blomkamp creates a grungy image of an alien visitation and completely different to something like Close Encounters of The Third Kind (1977). The focus is on the human attempts at exploitation, in this case alien weaponry. Copley, in his first film role, is the character who starts as a typical cynic and condescending to the intelligent aliens but by the turn of events comes to understand them. In many ways he's a comic version of John Dunbar. With it's exploding bodies, cannabilism, and gritty gunfights this is a film that really rocks and it remains Blomkamp's finest film to date.

With its subtly clever title this is a nail biting British crime thriller with a narrative arc that constantly surprises and a first class performance from Gemma Arterton in the title role. Alice is kidnapped by two men, Vic (Eddie Marsan) and Danny (Martin Compston), who have meticulously planned the crime and intend to demand a big ransom from Alice's rich father. But lies and deceit begin to erode the plan and the plot offers surprising twists in a clever script and a film that boasts only the three characters and for the most part takes place in a rundown apartment. This results in an element of claustrophobia in a taut story that has Alice not the pushover that the two men think and relationships between the three are a key part of the plot that keeps you on your toes throughout. This is an example of what can be done on a small budget as it's a thriller that holds your attention from start to finish and has that gritty, realistic look that British crime films exemplify.

One of the most famous (or infamous even) American cop thrillers, a character that Clint Eastwood is often best known for (the film spawned four sequels of varying quality - none as good as this original) and a much studied, critiqued and analysed film. It's often cited as morally right wing, and it certainly praises the law of the gun, with its narrative that focuses on the question of importance of offender rights and whether society wants its law enforcers to have free hand in bringing criminals to justice. Overall though this is basically a violent (and in 1971 seen as considerably so) thriller about the hunt for a murderous psychopath, played here by Andy Robinson who calls himself Scorpio and is clearly based on the real life 'Zodiac Killer'. The film opens with his shocking shooting of a young woman swimming in her pool and from this we are introduced to the film's anti-hero, homicide Detective (in the film referred to as Inspector which is the title that the San Francisco police used for it's detectives), Harry Callahan. He's a very savvy, uncompromising, arguably racist, cop known to shoot first and ask questions later, exemplified by his use of an unofficial .44 calibre revolver. He's certainly a character that appeals to the more conservative viewer and his actions are defended in the film by showing he always knows more than everyone else, especially his more cautious bosses and he disdains the political interference of the city Mayor (John Vernon). With it's famous "Did I fire six shots or only five......" speech and equally famous set pieces from an opening bank robbery foiled by Harry, to his unsympathetic dealing with a man on a roof considering suicide (a scene later copied 1987s Lethal Weapon) and the highly contentious torture scene which is given a moral justification this is a tough and gritty story with Eastwood (sporting a very bouffant haircut!) making the transition from the western to the contemporary thriller. If you study the various scenes closely you'll see many make little sense and so the story is preposterous but director Don Siegel makes the whole thing a thrill ride dominated by a sardonic and original lead character. It's key film of the 1970s, a decade where the cinematic rule book was rewritten.

A typically silly, and it gets more so as it goes on, adult and arguably puerile comedy that does have laugh out loud moments courtesy of the two leads, Seann William Scott and Paul Rudd, who improvised many of their lines and have that hilarious ability to make knowing looks that almost break the fourth wall but not quite. They play a couple of losers, Wheeler and Danny, trapped in a dead end job with Wheeler constantly on the look out for his next shag and Danny hopelessly in love with his fiancée, Beth (Elizabeth Banks) but with their relationship failing. After Danny loses his temper they end up with a choice of jail or a sort of community service with a private organisation run by Sweeeny, played by the hilarious Jenny Lynch. They opt for the latter and have to spend their days as the adult 'friend' of a couple of lonely kids, the unsociable Ronnie (Bobb'e J. Thompson) and weird Augie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), who is obsessed with a bunch of equally weird people who spend their days role playing as medieval knights. This is one aspect of the film that is pushed to the point of farce and makes the entire film too predictable and clichéd. But Rudd and Scott have a good buddy chemistry that works to keep the viewer amused even if you end up wondering why there's a need to show some breasts every so often or resort to the characters simply ranting at each other to get laughs from the F word.

This is a nifty little British thriller that gradually racks up the suspense courtesy of a great sound track and a good cast. Set in the rural countryside of England three ne'er do wells have hatched a plan to burgle the rambling country house of retired Dr Huggins (Sylvester McCoy) and his dementia suffering wife (Rita Tushingham). Reluctantly joined by Mary (Maisie Williams) their plan soon goes awry when they fail to open the elderly couples safe and so decide to await their return home and force the combination from them by threats and intimidation. But the Huggins' are more resourceful than anticipated and they have a dark secret. Viewers will find familiarities with the narrative that does make the story a little predictable but it's all done with a sense of foreboding and dread making for a great piece of entertainment.

Whilst this sits within the cycle of big budget, all star action war films of the 1960s it is much different from, say, a film like The Great Escape (1963). The Dirty Dozen is a film about murder, there are no heroics, no redeeming characters and it borders on being somewhat nasty. From the opening scene of judicial execution to the climax of mass murder the film retains its controversiality as an action/adventure WW2 story. It is of course pure hokum and bears no relation to real combat in any sense, indeed its star Lee Marvin, a veteran of the war himself, declared it a load of nonsense. He plays a battle hardened officer, who on the approach to D-Day, is given the job to train twelve condemned men, all murderers and rapists, and lead them behind enemy lines to raid a French Chateau used by German officers and kill them in order to create confusion on the eve of the allied invasion. This ultimately necessitates the killing of unarmed men and their women by locking them in the cellar and setting off grenades after pouring petrol down the air shafts. The whole premise of the film is brutal and yet it gets away with it by the way the criminal soldiers are portrayed as victims of a system. With the exception of Telly Savalas, who plays a psychopath and nearly sabotages the mission, the rest are given excuses as to why they are condemned to death by court martial, even Marvin's role is that of a soldier who has broken the rules and is given the job as a punishment. Ultimately the sheer spectacle and characters makes for an entertaining film that is only marred when you stop to think about what is actually taking place. Director Robert Aldrich gives the whole thing a sense of fun even though it's a violent film and all bar one of the dozen die to give a final sense of justice. The survivor Charles Bronson is earlier given a moral justification for his crime and an aura of unfair conviction so he's allowed to live on. The cast are good and include Clint Walker, Robert Ryan, Ernest Borgnine, George Kennedy, John Cassavetes (who is excellent) and Donald Sutherland, whose career was launched from here. An interesting film that is worth analysing just to see how heroism was being defined by Hollywood at this time.

A sparse, slow burning character study that you'll either totally warm to or be bored by. Andre Riseborough plays Hana, a British surgeon who has just finished work in war torn Syria and is on a holiday in the Egyptian city of Luxor where she once lived. Depressed and probably suffering from PTSD she wanders the city in contemplation, reconnecting with a former lover. The film has some interesting lines in a script that could be construed as improvised and it's beautifully shot as Hana walks the ancient city. The undercurrent of despair and regret can be felt but the lack of any dramatic plot leaves the film feeling empty.

Bill Murray in a film is always a potential thrill but this one lacks the script and comedy to make it enjoyable. It does have its moments but it seems that Murray is going through the motions and opportunities are lost. He plays a retired, wealthy art dealer who lives a whimsical life but dotes on his daughter, Laura (Rashida Jones), so much so that he resents her husband Dean (Marlon Wayans) having the top spot in Laura's affections. So when Laura, an author with writers block and mother of two, suspects Dean is having an affair she unwisely confides in her dad. He convinces her to go on a spying campaign with him to entrap Dean. This could've led to some great comedy but it just doesn't appear leaving the film as a damp squib. Mildly amusing at times and ultimately predictable this is one you can take or leave either way it's forgettable.

The Devils is a powerful, bold and flamboyant piece of filmmaking. It's often considered director Ken Russell's finest work and it has many admirers. It's certainly his most political and daring film and it retains the power to shock today so it's quite understandable how much it affected audiences and the studio in 1971. Warner Brothers still refuse to release a directors cut version where controversial scenes are allegedly restored. But championed by renowned film critic Mark Kermode it maybe that Russell's version could one day be released. In any event this is a remarkable film and it's almost beyond comparison with it's futuristic set designs of 17th century France and a story of political corruption to destroy the priest who stands in the way of the ambitions of the power hungry Richelieu (Christopher Logue). Oliver Reed plays Grandier, the handsome priest in the town of Loudun. He's charismatic and a philanderer but dedicated to protecting the town and defies the attempts by the Government to pull down its fortifications which would expose it to enemies. To defeat him false charges of devil worship are levied forcing confessions by torture from his friends and the local head nun, Sister Jeanne (Vanessa Redgrave), who secretly lusts after him. With it's scenes of sexual abandon and deviant orgies, torture and death the film is a boundary pusher. In many ways it's quite restrained by today's standards but the mix of religious corruption, sex and critique of christianity as the cauldron of disillusionment and selfishness it's a film bound to offend and it still causes great angst in the USA. However it's an important film from the very British of directors and one that all film lovers should see.