FILM: Hobo With A Shotgun (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
A recommendation from a friend this one. I had never heard of it before.

What's it all about?
A hobo (Rutger Hauer) gets off a train in Hope Town, a lawless town viciously controlled by Drake and his two sons, Slick and Ivan. After saving a hooker from their grasp, the hobo gets his hands on a shotgun and goes on a violent one-man rampage to clean the town up.











The Good:

• The cartoon villains Drake, Slick and Ivan
• Full of quotable, cheesy and amusing lines
• Cinematography, straight from the opening sequence of the Hobo arriving on the train the colour palette used is vivid, bright and fluorescent
• Rutger Hauer brings a much needed likeability to the old Hobo
• The low budget violence, if you can handle it

The Bad:

• The low budget violence, if you can't handle it
• Although tongue-in cheek exploitation violence, there are a few instances, the school bus massacre being one, where it is a little difficult to take 

Literally, a hobo with a shotgun

Favourite line:

'I'm going to wash away my blood....with YOUR blood' - Slick

Stand-out moment:

The montage that follows the Hobo picking up the shotgun!

Like the film? Watch: Death Proof, Machete, Planet Terror

What my wife would say: I'm more than certain she would be disgusted.

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 66%

Metacritic - 55/100

LAMB Scores - 3/5

Twitter - 

On the "movies to watch with your friends late a night" hobo with a shotgun ranks a 10/10 on the ridiculously hilarious scale
— Jesse Cox (@JesseCox) March 27, 2012

TV: Hell on Wheels (S1) (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
Season one originally aired in 2011 and I saw a re-run advertised and looked up the show's premise. On the back of that and the fact that it comes from the network behind The Walking Dead and Mad Men I thought it was worth a watch.

What's it all about?
After the US Civil War finishes, former farmer and Confederate soldier Cullen Bolhannon travels West to Hell on Wheels, the travelling settlement accompanying the construction of the transcontinental Union Pacific railroad in 1865. Although looking for work at the railroad Bolhannon is secretly on the trail of the Union soldiers who murdered his family during the war.

The Good:

• Excellent production as you would expect from AMC. Epic Western setting.
• Mostly decent acting from the likes of Anson Mount, Colm Meaney and Tom Noonan
• The Swede (he's actually Norwegian you know)

The Bad:

• Common's performance as former slave Elam Ferguson isn't the best
• Disappointingly Hell on Wheels' storylines (Bolhannon's manhunt, Durant's financial difficulties, the Indian problem and Elam's fight against racial inequality) are underwhelming and not as interesting or absorbing as they could have been.

Favourite line:

'Do you not believe in a higher power?' - Sean

'Yes sir. I wear it on my hip.' - Bolhannon

Stand-out moment: Bolhannon going after Union soldiers or Indians

Like the show? Watch: Deadwood

What my wife would say: The historical setting and story-lines wouldn't appeal. 'Boring' I would imagine.

What the world thinks:

Metacritic - 63/100

Twitter -

So Guys…looks like I’ll finish up Hell On Wheels Season 1 tonight. I’ve really been loving this show so far.
— Danté, The Destroyer (@DanteLerae) November 20, 2013

FILM: J. Edgar (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

J. Edgar Hoover is a historical figure I've always wanted to know more about. I enjoy American crime-based history and after reading James Ellroys's fantastic Underworld USA trilogy, which although fictional certainly suggested that Hoover was a very interesting character in American crime fighting.

What's it all about?

A biopic of John Edgar Hoover, the FBI's first Director, Clint Eastwood's film finds Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) recounting his career for his memoirs and reliving his beginnings at the Department of Justice before becoming Director of the department's Bureau of Investigation. The film touches on his war against communism, interest in scientific investigation, the G-men era and his relationship with close friend Clyde Tolson (Armies Hammer).

Should you watch it?
J. Edgar is a strange film. While I wouldn't go as far as saying I really enjoyed sitting through it's two hours plus running time, I found the subject matter incredibly interesting and DiCaprio's powerhouse performance as Hoover kept me glued to the screen. The film is certainly not lacking for strong performances as DiCaprio is well supported by Armie Hammer and Naomi Watts.

I think writer Dustin Black struggled to balance the elements of character study with the events taking place around Hoover. The film is definitely at it's most interesting when Hoover is leading the FBI through the pursuit of Dillinger, investigating the Lindbergh kidnapping and plotting against Martin Luther King. When the film remembers it's a biopic it turns to Hoover's personal life and time is spent analysing his relationships with close friend Clyde and his mother, played by Judi Dench. This narrative, from various times in Hoover's past, both professional and private life, to the current day, does jump around without too much coherence but I didn't find it as troubling as many critics seem too have.

J. Edgar will not appeal to those with no interest in American history yet for those keen to understand Hoover's dogged role in the creation of the FBI and some of the major political events of the twentieth century, and willing to forgive it it's flaws, it offers a fascinating look at the achievements and legacy of the man while touching on his character, all told through the great performances.


Oh and yes, some of the make-up and prosthetics used on DiCaprio and Hammer during the later years are distractingly laughable.

FILM: Immortals (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
I guess I watched this because I'm a fan of 300 and I was drawn in by a combination of the Greek legend and 300-style visuals.

What's it all about?
King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) feels wronged by the Gods (the Zeus's) and plots to release the Titans (a race of deities previously beaten and imprisoned by the Gods) by finding the Epirus bow. Zeus won't allow the Gods to intervene directly in the lives of mortals so it's left to the warrior Theseus (Henry Cavill), trained by the Old Man (John Hurt), to save mankind.
Should you watch it?
I'm going to compare this Immortals to 300, I can't help myself. The film was marketed as 'from the producers of 300' so they can't blame me. If you want to watch a Greek mythology based film loaded with impressive visuals and special effects then watch Zack Snyder's.


Don't get me wrong, director Tarsem Singh delivers some eye-popping visuals and fight scenes that rival those of Snyder but in truth the rest of Immortals really falls short of being anything close to a great movie. 

Soon to be Superman Henry Cavill looks the part as Theseus but I thought he was pretty wooden although he certainly wasn't working with an award winning script. The army rousing speech scene (think 'tonight we dine in hell' with Gerard Butler, no acting great either) made me pity the guy for having to read the lines. Unfortunately, Mickey Rourke doesn't fare much better either, his performance made even more comical by his venus fly-trap/playboy bunny headpiece. Seriously, what were they thinking?

Immortals didn't even manage to hold my attention for the duration, which for me is almost unheard of, but hey, it looks good right.

Man of with Steel

FILM: Moneyball (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

Moneyball came onto Sky Movies a while back, I remembered it earning several Academy nominations so thought it was worth recording for a rainy day.

What's it all about?

It's 2002 and the Oakland Athletics baseball team is licking it's wounds following defeat to the rich New York Yankees in the play-offs and being raided for their best players over the close season. General Manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) realises that his team will never be able to compete with the richer teams financially, in terms of attracting and retaining star players. He recruits Yale graduate Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) from the Cleveland Indians to roll out a recruitment strategy based on average statistics and percentages rather than traditional scouting methods.

Should you watch it?
My knowledge of baseball is very limited (my choice of US sports is football), thankfully however this didn't limit my enjoyment of Moneyball (even if I did have to Google 'on-base percentage', but I got the gist of it). At its heart, the film is a real life underdog story revolving around Billy Beane's unshirking determination and belief in Peter Brand's methods, in the face of extreme consternation and criticism.

"There are rich teams, there are poor teams.
Then there's 50 feet of crap and then there is us"

Moneyball's script was co-written by Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) and Steven Zaillian (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) and the result is a clever and witty narrative that delivers some amusing scenes, usually involving Jonah Hill's shy and uncomfortable Assistant GM Brand. Hill himself is a revelation (Academy nominated for Supporting Actor) in a straight role, playing against his norm yet still being responsible for most of the film's light hearted moments. It seems a shame he even considered starring in The Sitter after this performance. Brad Pitt is another who stands out with an admirable performance as the main character, embodying just the right amount of likeability, softly spoken confidence and self-belief, without crossing into meglomaniac territory, despite practically shutting down his scouting department. When considering the three leading names, Philip Seymour Hoffman seems to be underused as Coach Art Howe, mostly seen standing around in disbelief as his team is dismantled. I would have liked to have seen more of him, given what the man can really bring to a role.

A really enjoyable sports underdog story, and not just for baseball fans.

FILM: Margin Call (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

Having never heard of this film before, I saw it advertised and liked the look of the ensemble cast and hoped the script could make the subject matter interesting enough.

What's it all about?

Set in the weeks prior to the 2008 global financial crisis, Margin Call takes place during a 36 hour period at an unnamed investment bank. Risk analyst Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto) completes the work of his former boss (Stanley Tucci) and realises that the recent volatility in the market falls outside the data applied to the firms heavily leveraged investments, meaning that over the time the firm holds such investments, losses will be generated in excess of the firm's worth. Sullivan passes this news upwards through the management chain (Paul Bettany, Kevin Spacey, Simon Baker, Demi Moore) culminating in a middle of the night emergency board meeting with CEO John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) to discuss the options to save the firm. 

Should you watch it?

If you have any interest in a smart and tense drama dealing with the financial crisis and featuring a first rate cast, then yes. First time director and writer J.C. Chandor delivers a gripping, tense film with Academy nominated screenplay, told largely over the hours of a single New York night.

The majority of the 'action' takes place in dimly lit offices, often lit solely by the banks of computer monitors flashing with the doomed data, with the neon skyline of New York as a backdrop through the office windows. It's a setting that reflects the severity of the situation, once aware of the issue no-one ever suggests calling it a night. The sense of importance is also highlighted by the manner in which the disaster-in-the-making is passed up through the chain, with each manager, head of department, or senior executive, only able to pass it on until the CEO choppers in at 3 AM to rule on the matter.

Justifiably, the banking industry has been criticised and penalised for the greed that led to the 2008 crisis but interestingly, despite the firm making a decision that will ultimately lead to the crisis, Chandor gives a voice to the industry to justify their greed and existence. Will Emerson (Bettany) argues that the bankers greed is only able to exist due to the demands of 'real people' to own things they cannot afford, while CEO Tuld (Irons) is considerably more blasé, stating that the downturn is simply part of the economic cycle and even that there will simply be more starving dogs than fat cats for a while. The narrative is balanced however, with Sam Rogers (Spacey) and several others voicing their discontent at the irresponsibility about to be shown by Tuld and Cohen (Baker), while scapegoat Sarah Robertson (Moore) goes down declaring that her warnings were not listened to.

'How many zeros?!'

A great cast, an interesting subject and great film making, Margin Call is a must for those wanting a film to test the old grey matter.

FILM: The Artist (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
How would you not want to? Lavished with awards throughout 2011, including Academy Awards for Best Picture, Actor and Director, somebody must have done something right.

What's it all about?
It's 1927 and George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is at the height of popularity as a star of silent films when he meets Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), an aspiring actress. Two years later and Miller's popularity has rocketed while George's studio has ended production on silent films, making the switch to 'talkies', leaving George struggling to  cope with his fall from stardom.


Should you watch it?
I sat down to watch The Artist with a certain degree of apprehension, it was the first black and white or silent film I have ever really watched. Sadly these factors put off Mrs Media Worm so I watched it solo.

The Artist is like no other film I have seen (stating the obvious) before, in the same way I often lean towards black and white photography, I found the lack of colour enhanced the film's stylish presentation. After a short time I forgot I was watching a film with no dialogue, and enjoyably so.  Ludovic Bource's score sublimely supports the cast, with necessary dialogue provided by the occasional old fashioned dialogue intertitles.  

Best Actor & Best Dog - George & Jack

Before seeing the film, I'll be honest, I was sceptical of the film's hype, especially seeing actors unknown to a wide audience wining awards for Best Actor, but Jean Dujardin's performance as the proud, egocentric star George Valentin is as wonderful as I have seen lately. Dujardin seems built for silent film where expressions count for so much, ironic given the film's story. The contrast between his over-acted performances as the silent film actor and his toned down but still expression led performance as an actor in what is a silent film is subtle but fascinating. Berenice Bejo is just as rapturous as Peppy Miller and together the two are enchanting. Considering the film is French, I was surprised by the faces that popped up amongst the supporting cast, notably John Goodman, Malcom McDowell and James Cromwell. Credit must also go to Uggie the dog, probably now the most famous on screen canine since Snowy.

The stairs scene

Academy Award Best Director Michel Hazanavicius includes some stylish shots, my favourite being the shot of George and Peppy talking on the stairway of the Bradway Building while extras busily move around them on all levels at a seemingly faster speed.

The film's plot is actually a sombre, simple little romance story where very little actually happens but what does transpire does so leisurely, at an easy going pace, as befits the time.

FILM: X-Men: First Class (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
I'm a superhero geek (just without the comics). I thought the original X-Men films were a mixed bunch but the concept of a prequel as an origin story was definitely a good idea to refresh the franchise.

What's it all about?
First Class introduces young Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) and explains how, through assembling a team of mutants to assist the CIA in stopping Nazi Klaus Schmidt, their relationship develops and ultimately breaks down, leading to the formation of Professor X's X-Men and Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants.   

Should you watch it?
First Class is one of the strongest, if not the most enjoyable, members of the X-men film franchise. It's plot is perhaps overly congested, dealing with a range of characters going through the self-doubt and insecurities of being 'different' on top of the relationship between Charles and Erik in addition to stopping Schmidt from causing the Cuban Missile Crisis from going from military stand-off to full blown war. As usual with X-Men, too many characters are included purely for bodies in the fight scenes. Step forward Angel, Banshee, Havok, Darwin, Azazel and Riptide. Avengers leads the way in accommodating a group of major superheroes without shoehorning wafer-thin characters for cannon fodder. Special mentions for January Jones, who gives the flattest, monotone performance I can remember as the Schmidt's female sidekick, Emma Frost and Kevin Bacon, for performing scenes in German and Russian!


On to the positives......Michael Fassbender. It is not often you associate a superhero movie with powerhouse performances, but Fassbender's intense, brooding portrayal of Erik, hinting at the flaws that ultimately come to the surface as Magneto, is just that, and is a joy to watch. Only a few leagues below (and given Fassbender's performance this is still high praise) is James McAvoy's performance as Charles Xavier.

All things said and done, First Class is an enjoyable action film, benefiting from some excellent actors and the curiosity attached to seeing younger versions of familiar characters.

FILM: Bridesmaids (8/10)

Why did I watch it?
Heard good things about this from friends and the missus so I gave it a go. Judd Apatow produces and he generally knows funny when he sees it.

What's it all about?
Annie (Kristen Wiig) is a single, mid-30s woman with a failed business venture behind her. She is asked by best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) to be her maid of honour but quickly finds a rival for the position in Lillian's new friend Helen (Rose Byrne). As the wedding preparations continue, Annie and Helen spar with each other while Annie struggles to overcome her past difficulties and be the perfect maid of honour.

Should you watch it?
Before seeing Bridesmaids, I genuinely thought it was just a female Hangover rip-off. Maybe that was the marketing or maybe I was being lazy. Having seen the film, the truth lies somewhere between the two. Yes, its about chaotic pre-wedding festivities, the gang intend to go to Vegas and yes, there are some moments of hilarious toilet humour, but that's about it. 

Melissa McCarthy steals most scenes she is in with her brazen vulgarity, a supporting role for which she was Oscar nominated. Prior to his appearance in Lena Durham's Girls (also produced by Apatow), Chris O'Dowd appears as a traffic officer and Matt Lucas has a cameo as Annie's landlord. After reading that Rose Byrne and Wiig ad-libbed most of the speech scene, Byrne's stock has increased in my eyes, as I would never have thought her capable of a comedy role. 

What sets Bridesmaids apart is that as well being hilarious, it's script has heart, and genuine heart, not the over the top contrived heart usually found at the end of most comedies. 

Over everything else, Bridesmaids is a showcase for Kristen Wiig's sharp co-written script and funny portrayal as the flawed and troubled maid of honour. Her inclusion in the upcoming Anchorman sequel is surely down to the success of Bridesmaids.

I would even go as far as that the girls have outdone the boys and produced a comedy better than its closest sibling, The Hangover.

FILM: Limitless (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
This was one that the missus recorded, presumably just because it had Bradley Cooper in it. Still, I remember seeing the trailer when it came out and wondering if it was worth a watch.

What's it all about?
Based on The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn, Limitless tells the story of frustrated writer, Eddie (Cooper), who is offered a pill with the ability to enlighten senses and increase the brain's capacity for memory and awareness beyond that of human beings. Having taken the drug, Eddie's success improves dramatically, and his life along with it, but problems arise at the top when he attracts attention, struggles with the side effects and realises his supply cannot last indefinitely.

Should you watch it?
Limitless is an above average thriller, not without its flaws, but nonetheless well anchored by Cooper's versatile performance as both bum and success story. The film earns points for its varied cinematography and effects, giving clear distinction between the times when Eddie is experiencing the drugs illumination and not. The plot is a little thin, the ending feels almost tagged on as an afterthought and while Abbie Cornish doesn't really have much to do, Robert De Niro doesn't bring as much gusto as you would expect to his role as the investment kingpin who takes an interest in Eddie's success.

FILM: The Adventures of Tintin (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
Spielberg's first animated film, produced by Peter Jackson and based on the popular children's books, it seemed worth a watch.

What's it all about?
After buying a model of a famous ship, The Unicorn, Tintin becomes entangled in the villainous Sakharine's attempts to discover the ship's secret treasure. After being kidnapped by Sakharine (with Snowy obviously), Tintin escapes with Captain Haddock and helps him to unravel the mystery of his ancestor's sunken ship.   

Should you watch it?
Based on the books of the forties, The Adventures of Tintin is good clean fun and is a genuinely enjoyable film suitable for all the family. Spielberg's team of British writers, Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz), Stephen Moffat (Sherlock) and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block) combine elements from three Tintin stories to produce an exciting adventure   but simple mystery.

Watching the fantastic looking animation, it's easy to forget that with the motion-capture, the actors aren't just providing voices but are responsible for all character movements. In terms of performance, Andy Serkis steals the show as the largely inebriated Captain Haddock. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost pop up as bumbling Interpol officers Thomson and Thompson for comic effect.

One thing I couldn't shake from my childhood was how serious, self-righteous and frankly annoying Tintin can be. Obviously that's a criticism of the character not of the movie, but this version didn't go anyway to changing my opinion.

Spielberg evokes pleasant memories of Indiana Jones in several chase sequences and action set pieces, none more so than the intrepid reporter and Haddock riding in a motorbike and sidecar. Not a bad thing at all.

FILM: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
I saw Guy Ritchie's first take on the Sherlock Holmes story in 2009 at the cinema. It was a pretty fun outing for Robert Downey Jr. so I decided to give the follow-up a go, albeit at home this time around.

What's it all about?
Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law reprise their roles as Holmes and Watson respectively, with Guy Ritchie once more in the directors chair. This time around, new writers Kieran and Michele Mulroney plump for a story pitting Holmes against his traditional nemesis, Professor Moriarty. Having moved out of Baker Street to get married, Watson is pulled back into Holmes' investigation by Moriarty, who targets Holmes' sidekick and his wife as revenge for Holmes' attention. The investigation into Moriarty's warmongering schemes sees Holmes' travel across Europe to Paris, Germany and finally to the famous Reichenbach waterfall in Switzerland. 

Should you watch it?
Game of Shadows is certainly not going to uproot any trees but as with its predecessor it's a entertaining action film that audiences can enjoy with minimal effort. As with the original, the film makes a mockery of Holmes' traditional sleuthing and is nothing more than a buddy movie complete with Victorian fisticuffs with the Sherlock Holmes badge on. At least the writers paid some homage to the story by featuring Professor Moriarty and the infamous waterfall scene even if Moriarty's warmongering plot is 

Downey quips his way through the film (is his Holmes character an ancestor of his Iron Man!?) while Jared Harris (Mad Men's Lane Pryce) provides Holmes with an intellectual foe as clever as himself as Moriarty.

The film suffers from being unevenly paced, at times the action and script, especially considering Downey's sharp delivery, are overly frantic. The film's action pieces are heavy with slow motion effects and while this works in places, it felt overused by the film's end.

FILM: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

From the days when I used to watch the re-runs of the original TV series, I've always been a fan of the Mission Impossible franchise. Also, word spread about the Burj Khalifa scene in Ghost Protocol and having been up to the top of the Burj last year I was definitely interested.

What's it all about?

Following the death of their own agent, the IMF is implicated in an attack on the Kremlin and the US president implements 'ghost protocol' procedure disavowing the entire IMF. With no support, Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) leads his team to recover Russian nuclear launch codes and launching device from the Kremlin's true attacker, a rogue Russian nuclear strategist with visions of nuclear war.

Should you watch it?
Ghost Protocol is probably the strongest entry in the Mission Impossible series so far. It's a fast paced, strong plot loaded with exciting action set pieces, none more so than the Burj Khalifa stunts, which look fantastic. With clever gadgets, missions, disguises and Hunt working as part of a true IMF team, Ghost Protocol stays true to the Mission Impossible mantra. Speaking of the IMF team, Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg add to the film's dynamics as well as most of the film's humourous moments. 

Make no mistake though, Ghost Protocol is Tom Cruise's film. When Ethan Hunt is on form, and is he in Ghost Protocol, Cruise probably doesn't play a better character these days. He seems to thrive on the stunts he performs himself and the film is better for it. The film isn't without its flaws however, I didn't feel that anywhere near enough emphasis was placed on Michael Nyqvist's villain. In fact, I could barely remember him the following day! Also, for the fact that the film is based on a protocol that supposedly renders the team with no support or back-up, it didn't really seem to have any impact at all on the mission. I can't remember it really being mentioned later on.


All things considered though, Ghost Protocol is a really enjoyable action film with some fantastic action sequences.

FILM: Friends With Benefits (7/10)

Why did I watch it? 

Mila Kunis. It looked like a reasonable rom-com with more untraditional leanings. Mila Kunis in pants.

What's it all about?

Dylan (Justin Timberlake) moves to New York after being head-hunted by Jamie (Mila Kunis). The pair become friends and having both had relationship problems in the past decide they can become 'friends with benefits' in order to satisfy their needs without affecting their friendship.

Should you watch it?
Having read the plot outline above, it will probably be pretty obvious to all how the story ends and unsurprisingly Friends With Benefits stays true to expectations. That said, what happens prior is largely enjoyable thanks to a strong script, energetic performances from the leads and fantastic chemistry between Timberlake and Kunis. Woody Harrelson turns up as a gay sports editor to some amusement. I did get a little frustrated at how flippant and cocky the pair are in assuming that their friendship will be unaffected, especially when as a viewer you know what's around the corner, perhaps that's the whole rub of the film though I guess.

The writers try unashamedly hard to pitch their characters as the coolest inner city hipsters, Jamie from N.Y. and Dylan from L.A, listening to Semisonic, with flash mob contacts and friends with street artists. As the pair make fun of romantic film stereotypes, the writers just about avoid falling into the traps they mock.

FILM: Cowboys & Aliens (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

No particular reason, it just came along and looked a pretty harmless action adventure film.

What's it all about?

Daniel Craig stars as a cowboy who wakes up with no memory and a strange futuristic bracelet on his wrist. Apparently an outlaw, he is captured and taken to the local sheriff where he gets caught in an alien attack on the town, learning he capabilities of his bracelet in the process. The alien planes capture a few residents including local cattle baron Harrison Ford's son. Craig and Ford lead a rescue mission to retrieve the captives.

Should you watch it?

Based on a recent graphic novel of the same name, the concept of cowboys battling aliens is certainly a novel one but it doesn't really work for me. I expected more intrigue from a screenwriting team including Damon Lindelof. 

What you get if you cross a John Wayne film with Independence Day

I'm not sure if Jon Favreau and Universal Studios were trying to pitch this as a new Indiana Jones but Daniel Craig is not nearly likeable enough with his stereotypically surly cowboy. Ford is suitably gritty as the veteran gun-slinger finding his softer side. Granted there are some exciting scenes but overall it falls pretty flat in merging the two polar genres. One scene where Craig carries Olivia Wilde in his arms until he collapses in exhaustion simply made me want to watch True Grit instead. 

FILM: The Tree of Life (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

Came across this one after seeing it mentioned in Sight & Sounds 2012 greatest film poll. Although it didn't make the final list, 16 critics voted it in their top 10 greatest films of all time. That coupled with the fact that I enjoyed another of director Terence Malick's films, The Thin Red Line, made this worth investigating.

What's it all about?

Simply put, the film largely chronicles the childhood memories of a middle-aged man Jack O'Brien (Sean Penn). Growing up in Waco, Texas, Jack is the oldest of three boys, sons of parents Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain with contrasting views on life. Pitt is frustrated with his achievements in life and raises his sons with a firm hand, in particular Jack, as he attempts to impress upon them that life is a cruel game that must be conquered through hard work and desire. In Chastain, the boys have a mother with a carefree spirit, happy to simply be alive amongst the wonders of God. In between the present day and the retold memories, the viewer is told at the film's offset that one of the younger boys died as a young adult in military service.

Should you watch it?

The Tree of Life is without doubt the most difficult film I have ever watched. I'll admit to watching this in two sessions as I stepped away from it after the first twenty minutes or so, frustrated with the lack of narrative and religious whispering behind scenes of light flickering in the dark.

Thankfully, I returned to it later although I almost gave up again during the twenty minute sequence covering the creation of Earth and life upon it. This was like watching a nature documentary and culminating with CGI dinosaurs, I still question the necessity for this sequence. To me it felt completely detached from the 'the tree of life' that was the telling of the life of Jack.

"Do not speak unless you have something significant to say"

The film is edited to within an inch of it's life as some fantastically beautiful shots and imagery are interspersed between the scenes of the family's relationship. I believe the only person who will truly appreciate and understand the intricacy of the film's editing and imagery is Malick himself.

A corner is turned once the philosophy of evolution is put to one side and the narrative (although still unconventional) begins. Pitt, Chastain and Hunter McCracken (young Jack) give truly excellent performances. As the oldest of three brothers myself, I related to the boys innocently running amok in the neighbourhood, usually going too far in their youthful exuberance and daring (and usually the younger brother paying the price!). I really enjoyed this section of the story, as Jack became troublesome and his relationship with his father began to breakdown to the point of him considering dropping a car on his head. Disappointingly though, for me the ending was as unrewarding as the film's start leaving my enjoyment of The Tree of Life a real quandary.

FILM: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (8/10)

Why did I watch it?

I am a massive fan of Steig Larsson's series of books so I was keen to see Hollywood's take on the story. I've haven't seen the original Swedish versions of the films yet.

What's it all about?

Based on the book of the same name and set in Sweden, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo tells the story of disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) and extrovert freelance researcher Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) investigate the disappearance of teenager Harriet Vanger decades earlier. As the pair attempt to hunt down the murderer they become entangled in an estranged family with shady history.

She used to be such a nice girl

Should you watch it?
TGWTDT is essentially a cold case whodunit but what sets the story apart is not the complexity of the wealthy Vanger family and their whereabouts on that day but the characters investigating the mystery. Blomkvist is fresh from losing a libel lawsuit and accepts the case as a sabbatical from work while Lisbeth Salander is now probably one of the most iconic female characters of recent times. A gifted researcher and computer hacker under state guardianship due to a chequered adolescence, Salander only enters the story in its main sense half way through. The first half introduces her character's issues, her initiative and resolve in the face of difficulty. Despite being a whodunit, as the title suggests, the story is really about Salander.

I enjoyed the US film version and thought David Fincher managed to do the book justice squeezing just enough detail from the book into the two and half hours without compromising some of the more extreme scenes.  I was concerned that some of the complexity of the various generations of the Vanger family would be lost in the translation from book to film but Fincher managed to explain this carefully enough with visual aids for it to get across to the audience.

The faults with the film are similar to the book in that the postscript ending seems just as tagged onto the end but this is a small gripe and it rests with Larsson's decision to set up the next instalment here. 

Rooney Mara is excellent as Salander, and the production team did a great job designing her appearance true to the story.

FILM: Crazy, Stupid, Love. (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

Another Mrs Northerner special this one while we were on holiday. I hadn't even heard of this film before watching it.

What's it all about?

A romantic comedy that weaves together the romantic entanglements of several interlinked characters. To refer to Crazy Stupid Love as a love triangle would be simplifying it grossly. A love triangle dangerously perched on top of a love pyramid would be more accurate. Steve Carell is the soon to be divorced middle-aged guy with no interest in finding another fish in the sea. He meets successful ladies man Ryan Gosling who offers to help reinvent him as a ladies man himself. Meanwhile Gosling meets a girl and begins to question his own lifestyle of fast women while Carrell's young son ambitiously pines after his babysitter, who herself has eyes on a guy herself. Amongst all this, Carrell's wife Julianne Moore continues to date Kevin Bacon, the cause of the divorce.

Chat-up lines Dad-style

Should you watch it?

As rom-coms go, Crazy Stupid Love is definitely worth a watch. Steve Carell is pretty funny as always and the same can be said for the plot machinations which culminate in a hilarious farcical scene as the love triangle/pyramid collapses. It also features a pretty large A-list cast which certainly helps things along.

FILM: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
My other half came home from the shop with this the other day. I was looked forward to watching it mainly because of the fantastic British cast, Oscar nominations for adapted screenplay and best actor and the fact that John Le Carre's book has long been on my list of books to read.

What's it all about?
Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is the first feature length film adaptation of John Le Carre's well respected spy novel of the same name. Set in the early 70's, in the midst of the Cold War, the film follows retired spy George Smiley (Gary Oldman) as he is tasked with uncovering a suspected mole in the British spy fraternity known as 'the Circus'.

Should you watch it?
Following the press the film received and with the ensemble British cast (Oldman, Hardy, Firth, Hurt, Cumberbatch)  I had high expectations for it. I'm sad to say the film fell somewhat short. Although a spy film, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is the complete polar opposite to Britain's most famous member of Her Majesty's Secret Service. Given what James Bond gets up to, it is therefore more than likely a far more realistic take on the world of government intelligence, in particular considering the era. This was not a problem for me, I love realism in stories but Tinker is too slow, too deliberate and too ponderous.

Spying 70's style - glasses, coats, tweed and briefcases

Granted that the standard of acting is high, as you would expect from the cast and Gary Oldman is captivating with his quiet and understated performance as Smiley. The production also deserves credit and these two pluses carry the film a long way.

I'm sure that a lot of the detail of the book could not be squeezed into a two hour adaptation. The film is a slow-burner, which is usually my favourite type of story, but once the final act arrives it lacks any really punch and I could not recall any twist or even being led in any particular direction with my suspicions. Not what I would expect from a 'thriller'.

Worth watching to see the all round strong acting performances and production but I will definitely be reading the book in the hope it delivers a stronger story.

FILM: Apollo 18 (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
Being a bit of a sci-fi and closet horror fan, I was suckered in by the trailer and the interesting premise of a disastrous secret moon landing ending the NASA Apollo missions.

What's it all about?
Apollo 18 is a found-footage type film marketed as being made up of footage recovered from a top secret NASA moon landing in 1974. The Apollo 18 mission is cancelled publicly, however the mission secretly still takes place under stewardship of the Department of Defence. One astronaut stays in orbit while the other two land on the moon and begin their mission of deploying detectors to monitor Soviet activity.

Should you watch it?
First of all, Apollo 18 owes a lot to other found-footage films like Blair Witch and Cloverfield. One difference however, is that the events are shown from a variety of cameras, handheld, inside the lunar module and from cameras on the outside of the module. The editing is very choppy and often switches between the various cameras as you imagine a security guard would. While this never gives the audience a chance to rest as you find yourself scoping out all the shots for any movement it becomes tiresome and interrupting. Coupled with the 'interference' to the footage and the grainy nature of some the shots, its all a bit too realistic but difficult to watch. The same applies to majority of the dialogue, radio transmissions are authentic but not employed with the viewer in mind.

The director creates suspense on occasions by using the vast and isolated yet claustrophobic setting of the moon and also the cramped safety of the lunar module coupled with a cabin fever mentality. I won't deny that on occasions the film succeeded in building uneasiness and made me jump a few times. The technique of using intermittent light flashes to illuminate pitch black environments, in Apollo 18's case moon craters, has been used previously in Saw and is not employed anywhere near as well here.

The main thought I had following the film's ending, which I won't spoil, is how on Earth (no pun intended) was the footage found? Based on this it had me thinking, was the found-footage approach really necessary? Did cost negate a traditional approach? Films like Alien prove that suspenseful sci-fi horrors work minus the novelty.

Will appeal far more to horror genre fans than traditional sci-fi fans.