Goodbye Mr Snuggles
Dir: Jonathan Hopkins
2006
****
Goodbye Mr Snuggles is an excellent short film, British surrealist humour at its best. It's a bit like a Monty Python or Fast Show sketch but really dark. It's made all the better by the straght performances from Robert Hardy and James Fox who are obviously game for trying something a little different. Highly recommended and well worth seeking out.

Transformers: Age of Extinction
Dir: Michael Bay
2014
*
Transformers 4 isn't as horrible as I thought it was going to be. Don't get me wrong, it is horrible but certain issues have been addressed. It's not a reboot (well, it is and it isn't) it's a continuation of the story. By 'rebooting' they have got rid of many aspects of the franchise that I (and I'm not alone) hated. So bye bye Shia LaBeouf, bye bye Shia LaBeouf's parents, bye bye horrible and misguided humor, adios Army porn etc. Hello better characters (well, less annoying ones), good actors acting well, a Transformer that turns into a gun (not Megatron, but it will do, especially as they got the whole Megatron/Galvatron thing right) but most importantly, hello Dinobots!! (although they could have done without Optimus Prime riding them like a horse). So brilliant yeah? Well, no, unfortunately there is still a total lack of structure. It is a bolder film, thanks to a certain character being killed off which really got my attention but the film just went on and on and on until I really didn't care about anything anymore and I just wanted it to stop. Never a great way to feel towards the end of a film.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Dir: Michael Bay
2011
*
Shia LaBeouf was quoted as saying that 'We dropped the ball on the last one, next time we're really upping our game'. So now he's a liar as well as an annoying actor. I have referred to Megan Fox as a blow-up doll before but Rosie Huntington-Whiteley surpasses her dramatically. If you pause any of her scenes and look close, you can actually see a valve sticking out of her neck with a tiny 'Keep away from naked flames' label attached. So again, all women are portrayed as sex objects - or are they? No, Frances McDormand has joined the cast to smash any misconceptions that these films are sexist - Mrs McDormand plays a nagging headmistress type instead, so pats on the back all round there. Seriously though, Frances McDormand what are you doing? John Turturro what are you doing? John Malkovich what are you doing? Getting paid very well I hope! Okay, so here is something I liked about the movie. I liked the whole moon story and getting Buzz Aldrin to play himself was a great move. I also liked Leonard Nimoy as the voice of Sentinel Prime although the Star Trek puns wore very thin very quickly. I hated everything else but then it's pretty much the same as the two previous films and I hated them also.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Dir: Michael Bay
2009
*
Another childhood favourite ruined...again. Okay, so I can't fault the special effects, they are very impressive. It's just everything else that is so woefully bad. Michael Bay couldn't be bothered giving this film any structure what so ever so I shall do the same with my review and just list what I didn't like about it.

Shia LaBeouf
Megan Fox
The script
The crumbling career of John Turturro 
The way all women portrayed as slutty porn stars
'Frat' humour
Dogs having sex being height of comedy!
Shia LaBeouf's parents
Shia LaBeouf's mum getting high by mistake
Army porn
Pirate robot
Annoying Twin Robots
Lack of structure
Lack of narrative
Lack of character development
Ramon Rodriguez
Michael Bay 
The fact that it wasn't made for original fans of the toys, without whom Transformers wouldn't have been made in the first place.
And most importantly, Megatron still hasn't turned into a gun damn it!!!

Transformers
Dir: Michael Bay 
2007
*
Transformers were one of the best things about being a child in the 1980s. This film felt like I was being punched in the childhood. They got very little right regarding the Robots and the vehicles (and other objects) that they transform into. The acting was terrible, the story was horrible - really horrible -  the story involving Shia LaBeouf and his family was painful viewing. We're supposed to be watching a film about intergalactic Robots, not about a boy masturbating in his bedroom! This is the same old trash, different summer. The Visual Effects are stunning, just seriously let down by everything else!

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 days
Dir: Cristian Mungiu
2007
*****
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 days really reels you in with it's hypnotic voyeurism. It's brutal realism is uncomfortable viewing at times but is utterly captivating throughout. The long takes only emphasise how great the acting is, particularly from Anamaria Marinca in the lead role. The hotel scene is uncompromising, stunning and cinema at it's best. Cristian Mungiu is a director to look out for, just as he gets you used to being a fly on the wall he rolls up a newspaper and smacks you round the head with it, in what is now one of my favourite endings to a movie ever. Brilliant cinema.

The Adjustment Bureau
Dir: George Nolfi
2011
***
I read Philip K. Dick's short story 'The Adjustment Team' years ago and I think it's in need of a re-read asap just to remind myself of what I believe was the final message as this film has muddled and mixed so many messages together I lost track. At times the message seemed to contradict itself, or at least skip over what I believe was the overall message. Director George Nolfi has stated that it is a 'Loosely based' adaptation of the story and that the "intention of this film is to raise questions". I disagree, I think the original story did raise questions but the film does not - or at least not the intended questions. Okay, so I liked the casting. I think it's nice to see a good actress like Emily Blunt in a role like this rather than some blow-up doll with blond hair and big breasts. I liked the way it looked also, although Dark City did this sub-genre brilliantly and in my opinion it is yet to be bettered. I also liked the ending, or should I say, the lack of fireworks. I thought it was keeping with the theme and it could have been very easy (but wrong) to inject a bit of unnecessary action - the door thing was quite enough. My biggest gripe, and it is quite big, is that as a fan of Mr. K Dick's stories, I feel that yet again, he has been let down by another badly judged adaptation. The film should have been about defiance, free will and the illusion of fate. This film basically says that free will is fine because God says so, which is a complete contradiction. I don't know, Dick hated Blade Runner, so who knows, he might have loved it - but I doubt it very much. Now stop reading my silly little review and read one of his excellent books instead.

The Man Without a Past
Dir: Aki Kaurismäki
2002
*****
The man without a past is essentially an ode to classic film-noir but very much in keeping with Kaurismäki's style and love towards his homeland. It's also very wry, very funny and very beautiful. Part 2 of his Finland trilogy ( between Drifting Clouds and Lights in the Dusk), I didn't like it as much as Drifting Clouds or some of his earlier work but that's not saying much really because I think he is one of the top directors working today. I also caught the subtle tribute to Matti Pellonpää, it was subtle and quite lovely.

Sophie Scholl – The Final Days
Dir: Marc Rothemund
2005
*****
There are some great films and plays based on The White Rose movement but I think it's important to remember that this film is based purely on the manuscripts found from Sophie Scholl's interrogation and that it is this focus of story that makes it stand out from the rest. It is a near as possible reenactment of her last days, her actions and her words. The story has been respected as have the people and indeed history. An important story, directed beautifully and with strong performances by Mohr and particularly by Jentsch who's praise is rightfully deserved.

Me and Orson Welles
Dir: Richard Linklater
2008
***
Me and Orson Welles is a great example of one person's performance making the film. I really enjoyed the film, the late 30's style looked great - although I think Richard Linklater could have done better visually and the supporting cast did okay with what they had (Claire Danes good, Eddie Marsan underused again, Ben Chaplin overlooked once more). It is Christian McKay's portrayal of Orson Welles that really makes the film, without him I wonder how good it would have been. It did make me wish I had a time machine so I could go back to New York of 1937 and see the show.

A Woman Under the Influence
Dir: John Cassavetes
1974
*****
Cassavetes's leaves the camera running longer than any other director to great effect. It makes for uncomfortable yet compelling viewing and doesn't mess around with the subject matter either, the door to mental illness is left open for all to see, warts and all. Probably Cassavetes's best film, although not my personal favourite, with stunning performances from Rowlands and Falk. Classic American cinema at its very best.

The Wrong Man
Dir: Alfred Hitchcock
1956
*****
I think The Wrong Man is overlooked among Hitchcock's great films. First of all, Fonda's performance is brilliant, in that it is perfectly subtle with just that right balance of sinister, fear and bewilderment. The story itself is a fairly accurate account of the true story, with even a few real witnesses cast as themselves. For me though, it's the masterful direction that I love the most about this film, there are some beautiful shots of New York and the scenes where Fonda is taken to jail are brilliantly handled, close up shots used to enhance the feeling of claustrophobia. One of my many favourites of Hitch's and wouldn't it be nice if every film had an introduction from its director?

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas
Dir: Mark Herman
2008
***
I was worried at first that The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas was going to be like a typical BBC dramatisation; posh accents, bad child actors and Sheila bloody Hancock. Thankfully the film finds its feet within about 15 minutes (in the nick of time) and the story, mood and pace are set. It is a thoughtful story, is filmed well and the acting is acceptable, it is the ending that really makes this film something special. Mark Herman didn't do a bad job, he certainly wouldn't have been my first choice of director and even though I enjoyed it and would recommend it, I can't help but think someone else could have adapted it and made a masterpiece. Still, like I said, I still recommend it and it's perfect for educating kids on the holocaust but you should always read the book first!

I Love You Phillip Morris
Dir: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
2009
***
It's sometimes quite gringeworthy to watch a couple of straight actors play gay characters and tick every stereotype in the book along the way. Ewan McGregor gets away with it and so does Jim Carrey but only by the skin of his teeth. I would have been disappointed if they hadn't at least had a real kiss but they did, so good. I think the fact that this is a true story definitely helped with my enjoyment of the film and overall I really liked it, it is a unique and very touching love story but I'm not sure the duo directors did as good a job as they could. The jump from comedy to drama was not a smooth one, Carrey can do it and has proven so, so there really isn't any excuse. There was just so much to work with here, maybe it could have been a hit TV show! Alas, it is just a mere film, a good one but one that could have been great.

The Merchant of Four Seasons
Dir: Rainer Werner Fassbinder
1971
*****
Fassbinder's strength lies in his melodramas of suppression and release, The Merchant of Four Seasons is a brilliant example of this. Starring the incredible Irm Hermann, The Merchant of Four Seasons marks the next chapter of Fassbinder's career, just before the awesome The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant. Fassbinder is masterful at switching empathy and support between each character, by the end you will be torn as to whether you pity the main characters or reserve sympathy because quite frankly they brought it on themselves and in doing so it actually invokes a little bit of self assessment. The sign of a master filmmaker.

Stealth
Dir: Rob Cohen
2005
*
2005's Stealth was a good action film idea but ultimately the movie is ridiculous. The script is awful, the characters aren't very well developed and the camera is unnecessarily shaky all the time. There is also something quite worrying about the casual killing of foreigners for no apparent reason. I thought Josh Lucas was quite good though, he's a good actor, shame he doesn't seem to have got a break worthy of his talents. 

Superhero Me
Dir: Steve Sale
2010
****
Steve Sale has had a good idea here (to become a superhero and meet others with the same idea) and considering the small (no) budget he achieves quite a lot. It's very British but only in the way British people would understand (eg. Drunks shouting at him late at night and rubbish school fates). It's an interesting insight into the lives of real Superheros. It would be nice if a big production company would give him a chunk of money to re-make it/make a sequel to further explore the Superheros of the world (and of course if his wife lets him).

A Hard Day's Night
Dir: Richard Lester
1964
**
I like the Beatles (prefer The Rolling Stones) but I think you have to be a hard core fan to enjoy this one. It is, for the best part, quite frankly awful. I never thought I'd feel sorry for old Wilfrid Brambell but he doesn't deserve the abuse he gets here (*edit - maybe he did after all!). It's not very funny, there are maybe one or two good lines but it's fairly stupid for the rest of it. Very of its time and a little dated, give me Les Bicyclettes De Belsize over this any day of the week. It's really just a long music video, with a little insight into the cheeky lives of the Fab four, very much for their young fans of the time.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
Dir: Peter Weir
2003
****
2003's Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World was for me the return of the Peter Weir I love. The last Weir film I really liked was The Mosquito Coast made back in 1986. Master & Commander came out at a time were 'Epics' were rife, and the fact that Crowe had the lead role, well I thought this would be another case of 'Here we go again', thankfully I was wrong. There is so much more to this film than it just being another 'Swashbuckler', the visuals and the realism were impressive - I particularly like the fact that they had children on the ship, as they would have had at the time. I have to say though, I really can't stand Billy Boyd. Thankfully, that is probably my only criticism.

Animal Crackers
Dir: Victor Heerman
1930
****
I love the Marx brothers but I can't say I understand why this is often referred to as their best? I liked it, love it even but out of all their films that I've seen, this one has dated the most with the gags lacking their usual punch. They certainly improved after this but that said, it's great to look back at this and see their development of ideas and thankfully the road to greatness wasn't a long one.

The Iron Lady
Dir: Phyllida Lloyd
2011
**
Phyllida Lloyd started out her career in the theatre - this should give a clue about what to expect from The Iron Lady. It's basically a fictional account of Thatcher's life, then and before her death. It's about 25% factual for good measure but it's a bit of a stretch to call it a true biopic. The narrative is horrible, fans and critics of Thatcher can at last agree on something. It is of course Meryl Streep's performance that makes it worth seeing. The supporting cast is sometimes successful too but often amusing when it shouldn't be. I think Olivia Coleman deserves recognition too for her spot on performance, again she goes criminally overlooked. I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would but after Mama Mia and then Thatcher, I dread to see what Phyllida Lloyd comes up with next. *Warning, this film is unsuitable for miners.

A Useful Life
Dir: Federico Veiroj
2010
*****
A Useful Life is an exploration of cinema and a tribute to the silver screen. It's a film made by a cinefile for cinefiles. It is glorious from beginning to end, every genres is touched upon and every style is used. There are nods to many classics but never so much as to be too obvious. It is irresistible and sincere, Federico Veiroj knows his stuff and has produced an absolute joy of a film. I can't recommend this film enough.

Death to Smoochy
Dir: Danny DeVito
2002
*****
Death to Smoochy has received mixed reviews since its release. It's often described as 'odd', 'A misfire', 'Wacky' and 'doesn't quite work. I totally disagree, it was just going against the Hollywood grain and was (is) all the better for it. It has a certain 'cult film' essence about it, it's fair to say you either love it or are not that bothered by it. It's a shame really as I think it is criminally overlooked and unappreciated. I loved its excess, it's colour, it's silliness and it's energy. It's a great script, the story is sound and the performances are brilliant. Some might say the actors took a risk but for me it very much paid off, it is among their best work in my opinion.

Mahanagar (The Big City)
Dir: Satyajit Ray
1963
*****
Mahanagar is probably my favorite Satyajit Ray film. It really is a slice of the times and just shows how things were changing in the world. It is an honest account of emancipation but also of a changing economic climate and a change of what was expected. Ever member of the family has a reaction to something we take for granted these days. It's part kitchen sink drama and part historical document, it's somewhere between Ozu's Late Spring and Aki Kaurismäki's Drifting Clouds. The ending is so heartwarming and so positive it really makes for a joyous conclusion.

Red State
Dir: Kevin Smith
2011
****
Red State is a strange one and a hard film to rate, it certainly isn't Dogma 2 - which I was kind of expecting. Kevin Smith has said that what he was trying to achieve with this film was a level of uncomfortableness. He has said that it's like 'Going to sit on a chair and just as you are about to sit, I turn it over and you sit on one of the legs, then I turn it over again and the process continues' - unfortunately, he misses the point that after a while, the fact that you know not to expect a predictable storyline, makes it predictable. Anyway, it is unpredictable, original and interesting. It switches from one genre to the next, which I have to say I found refreshing. Why do films/stories have to stick to one genre? OK, so QT and Rodriguez did it in From Dusk till Dawn long before, as have other directors since but Red State is still pretty individual. It certainly wasn't what I was expecting from a Kevin Smith film. His heart, and more importantly, his head is in the right place. I prefer Lars Von Triers school of thought though, 'A film should be like a stone in your shoe' but I think they are essentially saying the same thing, Kevin Smith is just a little more brash. I like the way they send up Fred Phelps, a character far more frightening than Freddy Kruger or Micheal Myers - Michael Parks's performance is terrifyingly good, he leads a really good cast who are all on top form. The Westboro Baptist Church actually toured with the film and picketed at every screening, you can't buy publicity like that, which was lucky for Smith as it was pretty much a 99.9% independent movie that only made money as it toured the country so he was welcoming any free publicity he could get. I liked Red State, I think the independent film making aspect of it, the genre twisting and the religious and political issues it raises make it very original and interesting, at times it's more 'interesting' than entertaining but credit where it's due, this film deserves recognition. It does depend on your train of thought as to whether you like this film though, middle America scares the hell out of me and it's always easy to see things when your looking from the outside, I get it but will the people it's aimed at?

Explorers
Dir: Joe Dante
1985
**
Joe Dante's Explorers is a 1980's kids classic that seems to have totally passed me by. Was this even released in the UK? Released in the summer of 85, it had some pretty tough competition so it is easy to see how it slipped under the radar for many. It starts so well, it has all the ingredients of a classic kids 80's film until it gets halfway/towards the end and then it gets spectacularly bad. Reading up on the history of the project, it seems the producers got tired of it or scared and rushed it out without it being finished - which could be blamed for it being as awful as it is but it's still no excuse for those aliens. It's the only film I can think of where I loved the first half and absolutely hated the second. It's Bizarre. Maybe forgivable if I'd seen it as a child but in 1985 but there where some pretty good films out, so I still think it wouldn't have been a favourite of mine. Interfering producers ruin yet another Joe Dante film, I do feel sorry for him.

Loose Change 2nd edition
Dir: Dylan Avery
2005
****
Loose Change 2nd edition (I've not seen the first) asks a lot of compelling, intelligent and important questions. Many have been answered and are believable, some have been answered and are less believable but the most important questions have not been answered at all. Anyone who just dismisses this line of questioning as absurd, unpatriotic or as just stupid 'conspiracies theories' are helping the powers that be in controlling societies in a state of narrow-mindedness and blind trust. There is much I admire about America, it's culture and it's people but there is no denying that its government is, and always has been, the best at manipulation and propaganda. Why did buildings that were not on fire, nor were hit by the planes, fall? Why are there no pictures of anything hitting the pentagon and quite frankly, do you really believe that not one, but 4 planes were hijacked by men with manicure scissors? A real patriot would question what is happening to and who is (mis)leading his country. Although, much like the UK, were all f*cked in the end and have little clout. I've heard more unconvincing arguments as to why Loose Change is floored than I have serious and believable answers to its questions. Yes it's dramatised in places, 'TOP SECRET' has been added to files that are widely available but that is just nit-picking. It is all a conspiracy, step back and look, Bush shouldn't have even been in power, it was a rigged election with a 4 year plan and it worked beautifully. You might want to question who Mark Fenster and his friends work for too and as exciting as conspiracy theory's are - people generally want to hear that everything is good in our world and that our government wants the best for us without personal gain.

Please though, before you leave comment remember this: The official story of 9/11 is in itself a conspiracy theory by definition. A plot by Arab Muslim hijackers who cold barely fly Cesnas masterminded by a man on dialysis living in a cave in Afghanistan via satellite phone and computer which bypassed all intelligence agencies (in the US and its allies), overcame the most sophisticated air defenses on the planet and also crashed into the most heavily defended building on the planet after flying around for over an hour is BY DEFINITION a conspiracy theory. Question everything!

Double take
Dir: Youssef Britel
2009
****
2009's Double take is quite indulgent of Youssef Britel, who is a big Hitchcock fan and this isn't the first time he's subjected his late hero to celluloid. He's very respectful in his handling of his borrowed footage though and is acknowledgeably mischievous with it also. Double take is quite haunting at times, heightened by the excellent Bernard Herman soundtrack but also by the narrative that is actually more fact than it is fiction. A great bit of original cinema, compelling, frightening and quite astonishing at times. Recommended.

Undefeated
Dir: Daniel Lindsay, T.J. Martin
2011
****
Undefeated, a story of a High-school Football team and it's inspiring Coach, to my surprise was neither cliched nor cheesy. If you have The Blind Side in your mind then get it out right away, this is genuinely tender and uplifting. Bill Courtney belongs on the 'cinemas greatest heroes' list. What he does is so inspiring, the fact that it is American football doesn't really matter, so if you're not a fan don't worry, I'm certainly not but it didn't matter one bit. It's a film about people, not sport or winning or being the best, just people. It's a great documentary and I can see why it won at the Oscars.

Dog Pound
Dir: Kim Chapiron
2010
***
Dog Pound - written and directed by Kim Chapiron. Really? Written by? I think you'll find that it was written by Roy Minton! Dog Pound is a gritty and suspenseful drama set in a correctional facility for adolescents. The characters reflect the different backgrounds, cultures and problems that can drive young people to crime today but also sees things from the point of view of the prison guard, the pressures they are under, their and the public's perception to some extent. It's a good drama that doesn't pull any punches, the only problem I have with it is that it is a direct copy of Alan Clarke's 1979 masterpiece; Scum. Not once is the film mentioned nor Clarke (the director) or Minton (the writer) credited. So as much as I enjoyed the film, I'm appalled and shocked at the level of plagiarism.

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted
Dir: Conrad Vernon, Tom McGrath, Eric Darnell
2012
*
My immediate reaction to Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted was 'Was this written by a 7 year old?". The answer is no, it was written by Noah Baumbach! No, I don't quite believe it either. The story was awful. The laughs were few and far between and weren't all that funny. The only thing I enjoyed was Martin Short's Stefano. It felt like a vehicle for a video game more than anything and a lazy 3rd 'people will go see it whether it's good or not' cash in. What the hell is an 'Afro Circus'? Absolute rubbish!

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
Dir: Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath
2008
**
Much like the first film, I liked the story, I just didn't like the animation or script. I didn't care much for the human inclusion to the story either as I don't think Dreamworks do humans very well but I did find it pretty funny in places, thanks to the Penguins.The serious, and quite miserable story-line really brings the film down though and there really isn't any need for it. Why can't kids films just be fun? Any film that includes Reel 2 Real's 'I Like To Move It' is instantly hateable in my book. I liked the colours and the Penguins but that is about it I'm afraid.

Madagascar
Dir: Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath
2005
**
I like the story idea of Madagascar and the voice cast is impressive but I really don't like the animation style. Compared to what Pixar were doing at the time this seemed miles behind. I can get over the animation style to some extent but the poor script and the unfunny humor made me dislike it more so. Sure, I'm not the target audience but I don't think I would have liked it much as a child either. Besides, good animated films should be enjoyed by both children and adults. This just isn't my cup of tea.

Mood Indigo
Dir: Michel Gondry
2013
****
Michel Gondry started out making music videos, feature films were a logical progression and thankfully all the creativity and fun of his short films are still present. Mood Indigo is very loosely based on Froth on the Daydream, the 1947 novel by French author Boris Vian. The structure of the film is Vian's but everything else is very much Gondry's. Gondry's wacky visuals and surreal ideas are full of charm and wonder but I can't help but think that there is very little depth to it. I can't help but compare this to Terry Gilliam's The Zero Theorem that came out around the same time. Gilliam's message has been overlooked because of the visuals but Mood Indigo hasn't been judged the same way. I like both films, for very different reasons but I started to loose interest in Mood Indigo quite rapidly. The melancholic conclusion was a surprise and a bit of a disappointment if I'm being honest but huge credit for its originality. It is purely the wonderfully surreal visual ideas that make me rate is so highly but I will be far more critical of Gondry's next film if there is the same lack of depth.