Sicario

#StokerScore 9/10

Slow-burn movies are those that while taking their time to get where they're going never forget to take the audience with them. If director and screenwriter get it right, then the experience is often one of the best of movie experiences. The brashness that many action movies rely on, the goriness of horror movies, the sentimentality of dramas and romantic movies, all are worthy traits but think of those movies that seemed to draw you in and then take you along with story rather than set pieces, that's the domain of the slow-burn movie and which can also apply to most of those other forms of movies I just mentioned, if done right.

I'm sure you have a favourite or two? A few years ago, struggling to decide on a movie to watch I bought Trade starring Kevin Kline. It was the story of sex trafficking between Mexico and the US and the movie just seemed to keep getting better, partly due to the chemistry between Kline's off-duty policeman and Cesar Ramos as the brother of a kidnapped girl. I remember at the end that I sat back, satisfied that I'd been told a great story, accepting that life isn't fair and definitely NOT needing a sequel. Don't misunderstand me, the characters that Kline and the others were playing weren't unlikeable, it's just that the story was told. End of.

This week I got to see another little gem in the form of Sicario. Starring Emily Blunt and Benicio Del Toro, who I last saw together in the much maligned The Wolfman, the cast is augmented by Josh Brolin and Daniel Kaluuya, and all of them are bang on form.The story again centres on the connection between Mexico and the US but this time, instead of people, it's the drugs trade. Many of the characters have dubiuos backgrounds and morals, and ethics seem flexible in search of  each character's goal.

Of the three main actors, Blunt has never been better in all of the movies I've seen her in. Josh Brolin is articulate, easily convincing of his potential duplicity and again I've not seen him take on anything this good recently. Even Del Toro tones it down, allowing his character to come to the fore.

If you're in the mood for a movie that makes you think, especially about subject matter that continues to be used by much more mediocre projects, give this a go.........

The Hateful Eight

#StokerScore 3/10

Movies are a personal choice. Professional critics have generally been educated as to the different techniques and the lighting and the script-doctoring and usually know what a best boy and a key grip do on a movie. But for those of us without film-related degrees we are driven by what we enjoy. Those movies may change over the years or become more refined but the originals? the ones we saw throughout our formative years? They never stop influencing us.

"Go on, I dare you to say again that Excalibur is better....."

We're about to head into awards season and already movies are shuffling and jockey-ing for position and, in many cases, have a team of people whose sole job it is to get the awards committee to recognise the movie they've been paid to promote. Certain film directors are always shoe-ins for recognition and it's widely understood that if you make a movie that contains specific themes then it's also more likely to be in contention. 

"We've got you, me, and Michael Mann. The Oscar is in the bag."

Laughingly, and in contrast, you hear of movies being voted worst ever and Golden Raspberries being handed out but what does that really mean? If a movie produces 'x' in terms of ticket receipts, this may be due as much to the number of cinema screens that it is available to be seen in and the marketing machine behind the movie to promote it as it is to if it's a good or bad movie. But trust me when I say I have seen bad movies too.

"the name's Cage, depatment of  bee movies"

So it is that I don't like all movies and I don't think that makes me a bad person. I also have reasons for liking and disliking the movies that I do. I like some horror movies, I like selected comedies, I like many action movies and a lot of sci-fi movies. I'm generally not a fan of dystopian future movies but I can think of some that I enjoy, and what some people call classics I have sometimes called bullshit. I like feel-good movies but conversely I also like black comedies and noir cinema. I'm certainly difficult to pidgeon-hole and friends are constantly surprised, amazed and appalled, in seemingly equal numbers, by my choices.

I suspect, to bring it back to my original point, that this is becuase of our individual conditioning. It's that conditioning that means I love westerns. I rank Pale Rider, Open Range, and Once Upon a Time In The West, ahead of Dances With Wolves, Unforgiven and A Man Called Horse. and because my Dad was a fan I was exposed to more westerns than any other genre as a kid growing up. 

Quentin Tarantino isn't a film school graduate, he's basically just a guy who loves movies, has worked around movies and had a number of peers who exposed him to movies. A mixture of good luck and a singular vision led to Harvey Keitel investing in the production of Reservoir Dogs and once that was followed up by Pulp Fiction it appeared that a new voice in film had been discovered. 

But just how singular that vision is has been open to debate ever since parallels between Reservoir Dogs and a number of other properties were noticed. Maybe I'm being unkind but his reliance on the word 'homage' has really started to lose its value in favour of just rehashing old movies and polishing them for a new generation.

Lots of people like Tarantino movies and forgive him his idiosyncrasies because they are recogniseable by the casts he puts together, the way the timeline jumps around and the clever dialogue. The Hateful Eight very clearly has the first, The cast is a solid mix of Tarantino regulars plus the inclusion of some new faces. The second area it employs sparsely but it's the third where I had problems as it also has a running time that drags unbelievably. I've never walked out of a movie but this one tried my patience. What is potentially a simple set-up and execution in the style of an Agatha Christie drawing room mystery is drawn out to the extent that I was just plain bored. I wanted to enjoy it, hoping that it was going to back to his lean, early movie best rather than my perception of the bloated excesses of his recent films. Maybe an M. Night/Tarantino collaborative piss up might produce more meaningful results for both of them...

Crimson Peak

#StokerScore 1st Half 8/10, 2nd Half 2/10

Guillermo Del Toro

Genius film maker? Uber geek? Misunderstood auteur? Are these titles mutually exclusive?

I've never met Guillermo Del Toro but I'd like to. I've read a lot about him and his works and I've also seen him interviewed on numerous occasions. He's passionate about his work, he works in genre fim making and he responds vocally and vociferously to his fans. But, look at some of his personal film choices and ask yourself, why the hell did he choose to make that?

Imagine that you're being allowed to make a personal project. The studio have negotiated a deal where if you make a film for them then in return they'll bankroll a film for you. It's not exactly unheard of and if you look at some of your favourite stars, either actors or directors, if they've had a big hit then they may also have a pet project that may have been made too. On more than one occasion, to confuse movies and humane approaches to sick animals, that movie should also have then been taken out behind the barn and put out of its misery.

Examples of this are rather too easy to find. John Wayne's bloated Alamo, Angelina Jolie's recent directorial effort By The Sea, Steven Seagal's On Deadly Ground, Travolta's Battlefield Earth, or Shyamalan's After Earth would all apply as studio-funded vanity projects and in at least two of those cases the studios should have known better.

In contrast, and purely my own opinion, Del Toro seems to be considered to be different. The fans love him because if you believe his interviews he says he wants to make films for the fans and he drops project names like confetti; Justice League Dark, Pinocchio, and lets not forget the most deeply personal film that he talks about even more than Hellboy 3, his interpretation of Lovecraft's novella At The Mountains of Madness. This in turn makes the studios love him because he brings that Hall H fervour from San Diego's Comic Con and all the fans that go with it. This may account for why he goes and signs on to stuff like Pacific Rim and follows that with a supposedly personal project like Crimson Peak. I understand that the studios may balk at funding a particularly niche project like ATMoM, especially when the director wants a hard R certificate version, but that didn't necessarily hurt a movie like Cabin In The Woods or even Event Horizon which while not the commercial success it could have been has grown to be more loved. I know they have different source material, hell, they're completely different kinds of movies, but the premise of cost and certificate vs not making the movie at all is similar and with a bit or marketing Cthulu could become better known?

Cthulu plush doll - strange choice for your sleeping infant?

That Del Toro has an eye for the unusual isn't ever going to be in question. Look at the original films that he's made like Cronos, Mimic, and Pan's Labyrinth or his work on Hellboy and Blade 2 to see what he can come up with. My assertion, and I truly believe this, is that he's at his best when working with a small budget.

Thanks to IMDb we know that Blade 2 was made for the cost of $54,000,000 and was green-lit primarily because the first one was such an unexpected hit. Yet Cronos came in at a miserly $2,000,000 and garnered even more praise.

Crimson Peak, made thirteen years after Blade 2, was supposedly budgeted at the same amount as the 2002 vampire sequel and when you look at Crimson Peak from a purely visual and casting perspective he's done a stunning job. But what is Crimson Peak supposed to be? Is it a drama that has ghosts? A ghost story that has drama? A gothic horror with little horror to point out that that is what it is? The movie has a fun first half and, to be frank, a boring second half. Anyone waiting to be scared will no doubt still be waiting. Personally I was expecting a ghost story with touches of Edgar Allen Poe's "Fall of The House of Usher" in terms of tone. But, whilst it certainly has a ghost, it turned out to be more Legends of the Fall for me

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

#StokerScore 9.5/10

I've really enjoyed going to the cinema this year partly because I'm lucky enough to live in a country where cinema tickets and all of the add-ons like drinks and food etc are all reasonably priced, plus we have an IMAX screen too! So yesterday, for less than $10 (6.50 in English currency) , I saw the latest installment in the Star Wars franchise...in IMAX.

I suppose the score I've given generally tells you everything you need to know about my thoughts on the film but instead I'll try to explain why the missing half point rather than the actual score itself, and all without spoilers.

Like many others who are giving up their thoughts on this movie, my memories go back to being a ten year old kid being taken to either the Odeon or ABC cinema in Darlington (somewhere in the following 38 years I seem to have forgotten which).

In 1977 we weren't really used to cinematic blockbusters. Two years earlier had seen Jaws start to change peoples' perceptions on the concept of big tentpole movies, but they were still in their infancy. Saying that, '77 saw plenty of big movies including Richard Dreyfuss playing with his mashed potato in Close Encounters of The Third Kind, Roger Moore's underwater Lotus Esprit emerging onto the beaches of the Cote d'Azur in The Spy Who Loved Me, Travolta's advert for polyester suits, Cuban heels and Bee Gees music in Saturday Night Fever, and everyone's favourite moustache in Smokey and The Bandit. Interestingly the total cost of all five of these movies was $50 million, or as near as dammnit is to swearing.

This was also the year where, as a young cinemagoer, I got my first look at Nicholas Hammond as Spider-Man - a tv movie that got a cinematic release in the UK, The awesome Sinbad and The Eye of The Tiger, and Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo, all of which were equally as high, if not higher than Star Wars on my personal movie radar at the time and often inspired as much by the poster art rather than the trailers for the movies. Obviously the following years have shown which of these movies would stand the test of time.  

That Star Wars has gone on to become so highly regarded owes nothing to the initial thoughts of many of the cast. Alec Guinness who played Obi-Wan Kenobi in the first (4th chronologically-speaking) movie reportedly thought it was fairytale rubbish and only agreed to be in it once his pay was doubled. Harrison Ford lobbied for Han Solo to be killed off in the first movie and even George Lucas himself ditched the premiere in favour of a Hawaiian holiday, so sure was he that the movie would be a flop.

So after the high expectations for the disasters that were the Star Wars prequels, I admit that even through the hype I still had doubts walking into the cinema. I'd managed to keep myself spoiler-free having only seen the trailers so I, my wife and five friends settled back to watch amidst a packed house.

From the familiar scrolling text to the iconic music, from the weird and diverse alien characters to the ones who we're more familiar with, from the action to the quieter, character-defining moments, this movie did the unimaginable and exceeded all of my expectations. We left the theatre over two hours later questioning much of what we had seen and how it would impact on future sequels. But we left knowing that we had seen Star Wars return triumphantly and due in no small measure to J.J. Abrams. The director has followed, some might say a little too closely, the ideas that made the original Star Wars film so memorable to audiences and critics alike. I'm going to need to go back and re-watch it now that I am comfortable in what I'm looking out for as well as just to damn well sit back and enjoy it all again, especially knowing what's coming.

The acting talent is great from the returing characters to the debutantes. That there is not one annoying character says as much for directorial influence over the marketing department and I have no doubt that your first glimpse of the Millenium Falcon in action will leave you gobsmacked. The potential for where this story can go next is so diverse I can't wait to see what's in store.

So why the half mark? Well it is down to that slight sense of repetition with which I watched some things play out. It's a small, small thing in the concept of a much bigger and immensely varied tale, and it didn't stop my enjoyment of the movie, but in the hands of such a talented director I think he could have switched things up a tad........

Victor Frankenstein

#StokerScore 1/10

I have been reading horror stories ever since I can remember. My Nan and Pop (Grandparents, in the Geordie dialect) had a little book of northern tales that I came across during a stay at their house outside Durham and it contained the grisly story of "The Lambton Worm". This, along with having the surname of Stoker, was like a gateway into all that was fantastical and horrific in fiction and I devoured every piece of pulp horror I could find and, with the invention of VHS, did the same with movies too. No movie was too Z-grade for me. 

In novel and novella form I was a big fan of Stephen King, Shaun Hutson, Guy N. Smith, Clive Barker and Brian Lumley, as well as the compendiums you could buy too. I never forgot the classics either, the ones that provided all of the inspiration. As well as dear old Bram there was Sheridan Le Fanu, Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft and of course, Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley.

a doctor's worst nightmare that took a lot more than wire wool to get rid of

I was always aware of Frankenstein, even before reading the book. As a kid growing up in the 70's, the BBC would show occasional, late-night summer double-bills where they would pair a classic black-and-white horror from the 1930's with a contempory Hammer Horror. Such was Hammer's love for the classics, you could watch Boris Karloff, with the iconic square head and bolts, and then be blown away by the more visceral (Hammer movies were in colour) Christopher Lee.

I assume that because of the iconic nature of the visuals, Frankenstein eventually became the victim of parody, similar to other equally dark characters. 'Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein' was the end of the run for the character as something to make you squirm and cinemagoers would have to wait nine years for Hammer to revitalise the character and return him to something of his former glory.

The ensuing years saw Frankenstein's monster appear many times, but it wasn't until 1994 that we saw Shelley's character truly come to life through the eyes of Kenneth Brannagh and in the form of Robert de Niro. 

So how does this latest movie compare? Is it a new look at an old character? Well, it has certainly tried to take a different point of view, that of the maligned assistant Igor. But for all of that it is still lacking. The story of the monster, his creation and what it means to the worlds of science and theology, these are lost under overwhelming subplots of unfathomable revenge and unrequited love. It's a mess that even when pared back to the basics seems to lack a sense of direction, instead stumbling from one hackneyed scene to another.

Was the world ready for another Frankenstein movie? Well considering Universal's attempts to design a "Monster Universe" akin to marvel's superhero one, I have a feeling that it won't be too long before we get another one, whether we like it or not. Whether yet another telling of this tale can wash away the memory of Victor Frankenstein,  we'll have to wait and see. But if Dracula Untold and it's tacked-on ending are anything to go by, I won't be holding my breath.

I'll leave you with my favourite version of Frankenstein's assistant and the hopes that no-one ever tries to remake this

Spectre

#StokerScore 9/10

The much anticipated culmination(?) to the current run of Daniel Craig -starring Bond movies finally arrived in cinemas last week and I was blown away by it. Well, most of it anyway.

I should point out that I'm a massive fan of Bond movies and I've seen every one at least 3 times, so it's fair to say that I'm biased. I even love the bad ones. The ones that seem to get less love for numerous reasons. 

Where the question of "who's the best Bond?" is concerned, I have always listed them; Connery, Dalton, Lazenby, Brosnan, Moore, Allen! But on seeing Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall, Craig went straight to the top.

In an interview I saw recently, Craig was asked for the main difficulty with making Bond movies and he cited Mike Myers' creation of Dr Evil. He suggested that so all encompassing was the character, so many of the absurdities of being a Bond villain did he mock, that creating a worthy villain was the biggest task. In that respect I think this run of movies has done so well. They've continued to get top-drawer acting talent and generally left Bond's gadgets out and so with good scripts they've been able to look at the wear and tear of being the ultimate secret agent.

Skyfall left us with lots of broken pieces. M's death but Mallory waiting to take over, the potential effect those would have on Bond, are just some. Spectre starts with none of those things, instead we're treated to another exceptional, action-packed start which seems to show Bond right back where he belongs, on task.

That Spectre is able to still find new twists and turns, to outdo it's masterful predecessor is a credit to the writers, director and actors. As a viewer, you can't help but be influenced by the sheer frustration of an enemy who appears to be so many steps ahead and all-pervasive in terms of just how many pies they have fingers in.

Yet it is also the writing of Bond's love interest in Spectre that I found the most unbelieveable. There is a moment where we seem to go from one extreme to another without ever explaining the steps needed or the characters motivation. Small thing as it is, it's the reason why I'm knocking a point off.

If you love Bond movies, you won't be able to help yourself from enjoying this one. I just hope that when the character returns, with or without Daniel Craig, that they continue in the same vein, although how they're going to top this is hard to imagine......

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

#StokerScore 4/10

There was a time when the numbers after a movie meant the sequence order for a movie franchise. You know, like Evil Dead 2 or the parodistic Naked Gun 33 1/3. Obviously that was only if the movie didn't come with some sort of a pithy subtitle as with the Friday the 13th movies who soon got fed up with numbers: Part 2, Part III, and went with The Final Chapter for number four in the series before the flogging-of-a-dead-horse that was part five's The New Beginning. No, these days, the number after the movie is more likely to tell you which remake, relaunch or reboot you're watching, such is Hollywoods seeming lack of imagination. 

That being said, there are good remakes out there; John Carpenter's "The Thing"? was a grerat remake of a terrible B-Movie from the early 1950's. But of course for each of those there are also bad movies such as Matthijs van Heijningen's "The Thing (2011)"? Here is a movie that scores 35% at Rotten Tomatoes and which is, in my opinion, a pale imitation of a copy. 

Of course it all depends on your personal taste and first of all you have to come to terms with if you even think a movie should ever be remade because the first one is just too damn good, Sir! I hear friends who like movies often suggesting that even thinking of remaking a film such as Apocalypse Now or The Godfather is worthy of the death penalty for all involved, and maybe Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho would validate that argument. As I said, personal taste.

So it was with zero trepidation that I approached Guy Ritchie's movie version of the 1960's tv show The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015). Here is a director who continues to write great dialogue, choose great casts and make great movies (I've deliberately forgotten Swept Away for the benefit of those last statements). Ritchie's recent success with the Sherlock Holmes movies assured me that I would be blown away by his style and penchant for cartoon violence mixed with great dialogue.

Leaving the cinema I could only think "a swing and a miss" and a few days to digest it and consider it further hasn't changed that initial thought. The 60's tv show had a suave, debonair lead in Robert Vaughn's Napoleon Solo and seemingly youthful exuberance in the form of David McCallum's Illya Kuryakin, even though they were both virtually the same age when they made the show. Vaughn was coming off the back of macho roles in movies such as The Magnificent Seven, and McCallum from a significant role in The Great Escape. The casting in this new movie is equally as iconic with Superman playing against The Lone Ranger, the problem is that there just seemed, in comparison with the tv show, to be so little understanding of the roles or chemistry between the two men. That the dialogue wasn't as punchy as is Ritchie's norm definitely didn't help either. The two leads were mainly wooden with only some brief glimpses of anything approaching fun. The villains certainly came across better and it was only with the introduction of Hugh Grant's character that the whole thing warmed up.

It's an ok movie and I've certainly seen worse this year, but I guess I just expected too much....

Fantastic Four (2015)

#StokerScore 3/10

I can only imagine that someone at 20th CENTURY FOX, you know who I mean, it says it right there on the poster, the studio who brought us X-Men: Days of Future Past, I can only imagine that their executive said in a meeting "...but just imagine the marketing opportunities if we can get this right!! We could have the rock guy built back in pieces,  and maybe the Human Torch could actually be a torch, and the stretch guy would finally replace Stretch Armstrong and, and, well we're still struggling for how we can make a toy out of the Invisible Girl, but hey, three out of four ain't bad, is it?" I genuinely believe this cash-in was more about the marketing opportunities than it ever was about making a movie. 

For example, Fox are the same film studio who were responsible for this...

and this...

and, lest we forget, this...

Yes I know this is the studio who made Castaway and even True Lies, but my point is that where the current craving for superhero movies meant that even Sony realised they were onto a good thing when Disney agreed to partner them on the next Spider-man movie, so bad was the response to the direction in which they were trying to take that character, for Fox to march blindly forward, desperately hoping to unite the FF's to the X's at some unknown point in the future is just sad to see.

In fact if you look at just how much Fox have been messing about with the X-Men, trying to get that right, and that they thought that people might believe this new Fantastic Four movie more if they reminded people about it on the poster, it reeks of desperation. I mean forget the fact that you've got Josh Trank as director, who created a superhero movie out of a shoestring when he made Chronicle, or the kid from Whiplash starring in the damn thing. To quote Lock Stock's Winston the horticulturalist. "Alarm bells are ringing, Willie"

I wanted to like this movie, I really did. Having only recently seen Ant Man, another example of the incredible things the people at Marvel/Disney can do, I really hoped that this movie was going to be more than the horror stories that were coming from behind the scenes. 

I'm glad I saw this on the big screen rather than wait for the dvd and there are things to like in this movie, there just aren't enough of them to outweigh the things that there are to dislike. And the biggest problem of all? It just wasn't Fantastic.

Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation

#StokerScore 8.5/10

As a kid growing up I used to watch a lot of tv in the summer holidays. English Summers are not just rainy, the amount of water can be of Biblical proportions. So if you woke up to a rainy day and there being no internet or Minecraft available to play in the 70's, you watched TV.

Back then there were also only three channels. You had a choice between BBC1, BBC2 and ITV and the programming was limited to a few, quick, morning kids' shows as there was just so much to pack in to the schedules.

So it was that afternoons would see re-runs of certain tv shows from the 60's, including Mission: Impossible with the debonair Peter Graves in the lead role. 1996 comes along and we're introduced to Tom Cruise as big-screen IMF agent Ethan Hunt and, nearly 20 years later, the franchise is still going strong.

I say that even though I wasn't a real fan of numbers two and three in the series of movies, but 2011's Ghost Protocol really brought it back with some style and that over-the-top action has returned with a vengeance with stunts and a plot of equal complexity.

This movie was actually a solid 9 for me all the way to the end, the extra half mark that I've deducted is because of my personal opinion about the movie's ending. I'm determined to keep these reviews spoiler free, just in case people haven't seen it, but feel free to message me on twitter or facebook to talk about the ending some more.

Cruise is looking older, hell he's no Dorian Gray, yet he still manages to make the action look as realistic as it can given the fact that the missions are technically impossible. That he does a lot of his own stunts, such as the one in the picture above, helps me to accept alot of what his character does too.

I sometimes get a nagging feeling that I've seen some of the set pieces before, there is one scene that reminded me of 'Goldeneye', but with the resurgence of spy movies I guess it's only to be expected.

I thought the bad guy in the movie was particularly good, there are enough red herrings to keep you guessing all the way to the end and it is a rip roaring ride all the way. That being said, when you come off a motorbike, at speed, without a helmet, you do tend to usually wind up at the very least in hospital, if not the morgue.

Ant-Man

StokerScore 9/10

Picture the scene. A dark, cloud-filled sky seems to pour forth rainwater of biblical proportions. Sombre, foreboding music, coupled with our hero's facial expression, that depicts so much angst and inner turmoil, allows us an insight to impending DOOM for someone. 

This is not Ant-Man. 

The difference between Marvel and DC characters being portrayed on screen at the moment would appear to be the amount of fun that it s possible to have. I understand the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" thing, ironically a line from a Marvel character, but just imagine that you've been given superpowers, or at the very least tech that could lead people to believe that you have superpowers, what would you do? That question is somewhat answered in Ant-Man, Marvel's latest step down the road to bringing all of my childhood (and adult, I admit) comic purchases to life.

It's had a rough-ish ride towards the big screen, in comparison to the rest of the MCU movies. An earlier, much-publicised but never fully explained falling out with original director Edgar Wright was cause for some initial trepidation. That Wright's and Joe Cornish's names appear on the screenplay and story credits went a long way towards removing that, especially with Marvel's Kevin Feige assuring people that much of their initial story remained. It has also been saddled with being the film expected to burst Marvel's bubble in their run towards cinematic domination.

I mention these things for the simple reason that Peyton Reed, the film's final director, and Edgar Wright could not be more different in terms of their cinematic output to date. Maybe Reed was more manageable in delivering Marvel's vision of the character, who knows, but the outcome was, for me at least, a really fun superhero movie that allowed you to enjoy the characters, feel for them when things got tough, and ultimately leave the cinema with a smile on your face and with key images flooding your mind on some sort of loop. So as for the second concern, sure, it's no Avengers with action from the first minute, how could it be? We need to get to know the characters involved first and the film does that from the outset. I can only begin to imagine that the way to make Michael Douglas look as young as he did in The Streets of San Francisco was to have taken images from that show and cut them into the movie. But Karl Malden is no Howard Stark and the 1970's police procedural was never that bothered about technological advancements.

This movie was a lot of Fun with a capital 'F'. It contained no existential message other than the good vs evil thing, the action set pieces were excellent, especially when juxtaposing the size difference between regular Ant-Man and shrunken Ant-Man.The Indonesian audience with whom I saw the movie audibly appreciated the visual humour as well as the drama and I'm really looking forward to watching this again.

Jurassic World

StokerScore 7/10

40 years ago this year, the template for Summer blockbusters hit our screens. Jaws is as revered enough now as it was then and is getting a cinematic re-release in honour of the fact. It's part of the reason that I chose this fan art poster from the internet rather than Universal's own poster.

But is Jurassic World bigger than Jaws, as the poster might suggest? Hell, is it even bigger than the first Jurassic Park?

For me the answer is no and no. But that doesn't make it a bad movie. 

From the outset, a clever opening scene slow reveal sets the tone for a movie which tries hard to be original but ends up following the course of the first movie just a tad too much. The action and scale are huge, the trailer hasn't given away all of the movie's good stuff and the lighter tones, there's a great put-down that made me really laugh, detract sufficiently from the full scale slaughter on the screen (c'mon, this was shown in the trailer so it's not a spoiler). 

When we finally see the dinosaurs I felt equally as awed as when I watched the first JP. But the underlying message of the film, that we're always in need of something newer and shinier, isn't really adhered to by the screenwriters who rehashed a little too much from JP1.

That being said, the actors are spot on, with the disappointing exception of Vincent D'Onofrio's villain who doesn't really seem to do too much and whose motives are never really fleshed out, the new additions to the park are excellent and I'm sure John Hammond would have relished seeing his dream become reality.

Finally, is there an opportunity for a sequel? Well, considering the numbers for its opening weekend I guess the accountants will demand one even if no-one else does but I can't help thinking it'll have to be better written if I'm going to enjoy it more.

Tomorrowland

#StokerScore 4/10

Brad Bird. The man behind my favourite animated movie, "The Incredibles", and the director of the best movie in the "Mission: Impossible" franchise. A man with a vision. A man who when he says he has a great idea for a movie, people listen. A man who evidently kept all previews and trailers under wraps until just prior to release and even then to a level best termed mysterious. 

I saw Tomorrowland a couple of days ago following a chance viewing of the trailer in front of Mad Max: Fury Road. I was aware of the movie and the magazines and articles I'd read talking about how mysterious the project was and how little was known about it and now, even having seen it, I have to admit I'm not sure where to start with this review. I suppose with that being the case I should just describe the general story without giving too much away but then that would clash with Mr Bird's original intention. He seemed to want everyone to arrive at the cinema in a state of curiosity, even though the trailer I saw explained it all very generally, with the possible exception of Hugh Laurie's role.

So look, it's a Disney movie. It's got lots of great visuals. It's got a solid cast. But for me it doesn't know what it wants to be. Most kids' movies work on an adult level to keep the guardians amused whilst at the same time entertaining the little ones. That was something I loved about "The Incredibles". This movie is way too complicated to maintain the interest of the audience members at which it is aimed (what is that, by the way?) and although I agree that it has a sense of charm and Clooney's Clooneyisms, it is overshadowed by its MESSAGE.

I don't think any movie deserves comparing to "Battlefield: Earth" but this comes perilously close, purely for gag reflex which keeps being induced everytime the director thinks the audience is unclear on the MESSAGE. I understand that audiences are being accused of being dumbed down but this doesn't hint at a problem and a solution, it picks you up and slaps you repeatedly with a week-old haddock.

As I said, visually stunning, but ultimately confusing and even a tad boring?

The Lazarus Effect

#StokerScore 2/10

Looking down the listings at the two local cinemas, hoping to see an early glimpse of Mad Max: Fury Road, I came across showing times for The Lazarus Effect. I hadn't really heard a lot about this movie, other than it's a horror movie, starring Olivia Wilde (the feisty and cute doctor from the Fox tv show House, not to be confused with the vulnerable and cute doctor from the Fox tv show House) and that it was a spin on the 80's movie Flatliners.

Firstly there are a few comparisons that can be made with Flatliners; medical ethics, past sins, and life after death to name some but that would be like comparing Superhero movies and complaining that the basic plot is the same. When you make a movie with similar subject matter to another, it's bound to draw comparisons and hey, isn't that why they made this movie in the first place?

The story, without giving anything away in terms of spoilers, is ok. It has many holes, as you'd expect from a horror movie churned out to relieve those of us who like the genre from a few shekels, but it also lacks charm. Where Flatliners had Oliver Platt and Kevin Bacon, The Lazarus Effect tries to make do by wasting its bests talent, Olivia, and then trying to get Evan Peters to cover for her.

Don't get me wrong, there were some jumpy moments, not all of which were signposted using neon lights, but ultimately the movie seemed to lack direction and could have fleshed out some more of the "what-the-hell-is-going-on-here" stuff.

I left dissatisfied and my wife left bemused as she was also trying to keep up with this nonsense with Indonesian subtitles and I really only recommend this if you have money that you're happy to throw away on a movie that is only 83 minutes long. Saying that, I can only imagine the Indonesian censor cut a few scenes as I'm sure it didn't seem as long as that. Maybe they also cut out the point.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

                                                                                                            #StokerScore 10/10

It's been a couple of months since I was last at the movies and I have to admit that I'd been really looking forward to this one.

Last time out we saw the Avengers see off a threat from Loki, in league with Thanos, and this time we're thrown straight back into the action. The movie opens with an all out assault on a HYDRA base with the team still trying to recapture Loki's power staff. That every character was given an opportunity to show off their skills in the opening minutes is a credit to the writers and director and for me, a guy certainly old enough to know better but who grew up on Marvel comics, it was satisfying on every level.

I am annoyed that the powers that be can't seem to get their act together and have just one Marvel Cinematic Universe. Sure, this is the name being given to what Marvel and The House of Mouse are doing, but it's the second version of Quicksilver in a year. Don't get me wrong, both Aaron Taylor Johnson's and Evan Peters' versions are satisfyingly different, but ultimately what's the point? Small gripe out of the way and back to the movie at hand.

Guardians of the Galaxy and the first Avengers movies really set the bar for fun, comic-based movies, but AOU moves away from that into more serious territory. Sure, there's still the well-thought-out set piece scenes, a feeling that you're watching Superheroes and with enough colour in both costumes and writing to rival the moody direction that DC are taking, but there is also what's to come. The increased roster of characters doesn't feel that each get's significantly less screen time, a problem leveled at other movies trying to pack too much in.

This movie effectively ends what's known as Phase 2 and next up with Thor: Ragnarok, Captain America: Civil War and Doctor Strange (who doesn't seem to deserve a colon) there are going to be some tough times ahead and I thought the explanation of these characters stances was justified in taking time away from the explosions and destruction.

Special mention to James Spader, the voice of Ultron, for having to take over from Tom Hiddlestone as the movies bad guy. I wasn't sure that was possible but I was wrong!

If you enjoyed The Winter Soldier and are looking for a comic book movie with some pithy one-liners married to some great story-telling, whilst at the same time feeling truly awed, this is the movie for you.........and finally, where is Hulk? Planet Hulk, anyone?

Dragon Blade

This is currently playing in 3D IMAX in the town where I live and I still can't bring myself to watch it. Maybe on DVD, Maybe.

Jupiter Ascending

Jupiter Ascending                                                           #StokerScore 3/10

I didn't have high hopes going into this. I'd read some pretty damning comments but had stayed away from any reviews with a view to making up myown mind as much as possible. As ever, I'm going to try to keep this as spoiler-free as possible but my apologies in advance if I let anything slip.

The Wachowskis have directed some good movies. Bound is a great little noir thriller, and of course The Matrix was a cinematic milestone, but then there were the Matrix sequels, Speed Racer and Cloud Atlas all of which were just huge in terms of scale and effects but let down by story and perhaps expectation.

The trailer for this movie has been playing, seemingly, forever and just looks so lush and amazing that I've been really looking forward to seeing it. It's a space opera and from the trailer we get to see a random cleaner, played by Mila Kunis, find herself in some sticky situations that need a pointy-eared Channing Tatum to rescue her from on her way to becoming some kind of intergalactic monarch.

The trailer also shows us a manic Eddie Redmayne as well as the rarely-makes-it-to-the-end-alive Sean Bean along with some truly jaw-dropping special effects.

The reality for me though was just that. The special effects were incredible, but the script was just plain shocking. Characters uttering nonsense is to be expected to a certain axtent in Sci-Fi movies, but these characters were just plain dumb. On top of thaat the movie seemed to have been edited meaning that characters seemed to all too easily accept things that happened without question. I can only assume the disbelief scenes ended on the cutting room floor.

Would I recommend it? No, not really. I was eventually bored as even though the special effects seemed to just keep getting better, the story got more and more pathetic. The really only important thing for me was whether Sean Bean would make it to the end and for the answer to that you'll just have to sit through it yourself :-)

Not sure what's next. Part of me wants to see just how bad the Jackie Chan/John Cusack "Dragon Blade" is......

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Kingsman: The Secret Service                                                         #StokerScore 10/10

Directed by Matthew Vaughan, who has been responsible for some awesome movies as a producer or director including; X-Men First Class, Kick-Ass, Stardust and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Hell, he’s even got a producer credit on the new Fantastic Four movie which is the only thing keeping my faith in that movie having seen the first lackluster trailer. Anyway, suffice to say he has an eye for action and a heart for story.

The movie owes a lot in so many ways to the 60’s and 70’s spy movies, with particular attention to Moore’s Bond. There was also a feel of ‘The Man from U.N.C.L.E’ tv show, which is also about to see a cinematic return, and I’m even more convinced that I saw tv’s ‘The Persuaders’ where Tony Curtis’ brash American has to go toe to toe with Roger Moore’s Lord Brett Sinclair.

Basically the plot goes that, by virtue of an experiment equivalent to the comically referenced Trading Places and equally comically referenced My Fair Lady, A chav gets the opportunity to be inducted into the ranks of an ultra-secret - and ultra-snobbish - spy organization and fish-out-of-water games ensue, culminating with the realization that he’s not so fish-out-of-water at all and much to the satisfaction of a very happy pug. The lisping bad guy is suitably OTT with a great henchperson to support them and a lair to stand alongside all evil-doer’s lairs.

The cast is excellent, including cameos for some great character actors, with the old stages such as Colin Firth, Samuel L. Jackson, Mark Strong and Michael Caine effortlessly guiding the relative newcomers, and the plot moves us along at a rip roaring pace. The language is, for anyone who hasn’t seen Kick-Ass, rather choice so don’t take your granny if she’s going to be put out by consecutive F-Bombs, but in the context of the movie it’s nice to see something that isn’t overly sanitized.

I’m sure that this movie has its faults, but I’m not reviewing it for that. Uchiel and I enjoyed this equally and that’s what these reviews are about. Plus, it’s set the standard for a very promising year of film.

#StokerScore 10/10

Next up is the would-appear-to-be insanity that is “Jupiter Ascending”