Film Reviews

Anyway, back to the movie.

It is very “Heat”esque in its storyline and who is trying to undermine and outsmart whom was done extremely well. It starts with the baddies (Schreiber’s crew) doing what seems like a pointless heist of an armoured vehicle, as there is no money in it, and it leaves the Major Crimes unit (Butler’s Crew) a tad baffled as to why. Their aim then is to find someone who they can manipulate to find out what Merrimen (Schreiber) is up to. This is in the form of Donnie (O’Shea Jackson), the seemingly innocuous driver.

Donnie certainly plays the part of the innocent in the team very well and Big Nick (Butler) falls for it. Even Merrimen believes Donnie when he tells him he ‘didn’t tell the cops anything’. Merrimen then decides to set the cops up.

What happens is that both Merrimen and Butler get double crossed.

It is a very violent movie, with more than its fair share of fatalities, but, to be honest, I wouldn’t expect anything less from this sort of movie.

The only bad points for me were the shooting range scene where, apparently, Big Nick was trying to out psyche Merrimen. To me it was just a willy waving scene, which would have been far quicker. The other was when they were stuck in traffic and there was a huge shoot-out between the crews. Given the accuracy of fire at the shooting range, the level of inaccuracy in the shoot-out, made my mind boggle. It was bullets for bullets sake. But that’s a female take on the two scenes, as my male friends thought they were both awesome….enough said.

My only question, in the day and age we now live in, is whether Major Crimes would get away with the level of brutality they inflicted. Given how the do gooders have ruined the world, I highly doubt it. This would be my only question over believability.

It was, all in all, an excellent action movie, catering to both sexes on different levels. Well worth a perve…I mean a watch ?

The house was said to be under constant 24 hour construction during the 38 years that Sarah Winchester lived there, although this has been disputed by her biographer. True or not, the higgledy piggledy nature of the house – with doors with no rooms, stairs that lead nowhere and corridors that make your head spin – make it a feat of construction and a place that the faint hearted would not want to be lost in after dark.

Sarah became obsessed with the belief that the souls of all those killed by a Winchester rifle were out to destroy her family; her husband and daughter being the first victims, although her husband died of TB. To appease these spirits, she was advised to build a room in her house to enable the spirit to enter this world. Once she’d done this, she sealed the room with a wooden brace and 13 nails, thus sealing the spirit inside and out of harm’s way.

The film is based around Dr Eric Price, a man whose wife committed suicide using a Winchester and who shot him in the process. He “died” for 3 minutes and was revived. He kept the bullet and restored it lest he ever forget. He has been recruited by the Winchester Repeating Rifle Co to assess the mental state of Sarah Winchester and to determine whether she is fit to stand as the figurehead of the company.

Price goes to stay in the mansion and is soon plagued by the spirits that roam there. He dismisses what he sees as hallucinations, due to his abuse of Laudanum, until he is led around the mansion to the sealed up gun room by a butler, whom Price believes to be on staff. It is only when this butler turns all monster on him that he realises there may very well be something in Sarah Winchester’s story.

The fake butler is soon revealed to be Corporal Benjamin Block, a soldier in the Confederate army who lost his two brothers to the Winchester rifle. He storms the headquarters and kills 15 members of staff before barricading himself in the gun room and waiting for the police, armed with Winchesters, to come and get him and get him they did.

The spirits have spoken to Sarah and demanded the gun room be rebuilt so that Block can cross over and seek his revenge.

It is then down to Price to help Sarah defeat this ghost and his two brothers, who are closing in on Sarah’s niece and her little boy.

The film-makers have succeeded in creating a spine chilling movie based around this true story. The ghosts are corporeal and disturbing and the frights are certainly not for the faint hearted. Whilst it didn’t scare me, there were many in the audience hiding behind their coats, which I found charming.

This was an extremely well put together ghost story, with fantastic special effects and stellar acting from Mirren and Clarke.

A definite must see. Now, where’s my Winchester…..;-)

As Annabelle Creation is to The Conjuring franchise, so too is The Last Key to the Insidious franchise – a prequel. I love a prequel, or a prologue as I prefer to call them, as everyone who reads my books will attest. Prologues set the scene and hint at the horrors to come.

The prologue did not disappoint. Learning Elise’s history at the hands of a father who feared her because she was different, did not come as a surprise. Human nature dictates that if something or someone is different, then it must be destroyed. Throughout time mankind has annihilated anything that it cannot figure out (why do you think there are so many wars!).

Josh Stewart, better known to me as JJ’s husband in Criminal Minds, carried off the role of the intimidating and fearful father perfectly; a father who, at the end of the film, in ghost form, tries to save Elise and thus redeem himself.

Elise has always been able to see the other side, a gift that her mother made her promise never to give up, despite her father’s attitude. She knows the house she is living in is home to many malevolent spirits, due to it being next to a state penitentiary, where many criminals have been sent to the electric chair. One such spirit resides in her bedroom and it draws her down to the cellar where a red door exists. Behind the door echoes the voice of a child, begging her to find the key and open the door and free them all. Elise opens the door and through it comes a monster with the power to silence a person with a key inserted into their throat. The monster takes the life of Elise’s mother, leaving her at the hands of a father who doesn’t understand her.

As a teenager she finally stands up to her father, when she admits to him that she has seen a badly beaten woman in the laundry room; a woman who actually proved to be real. Under threat of yet another beating she leaves, leaving her younger brother behind, and never goes back. She knows there is something the house is trying to tell her, but she can’t take the abuse anymore.

Years later, when she is in the latter years of her life, she receives a call from the present owner of the house, asking for her help, as he believes the house is haunted.

Elise goes back to help him and, in doing so, finally unearths the dark secrets the house holds, and the impact it has had on the male occupants over the years. With the help of her newly discovered nieces, Elise fights to finally defeat the monster that she believes she is responsible for bringing into the world.

The end of the film perfectly dovetails into the first Insidious movie.

The story isn’t necessarily a new one, but the filmmakers have succeeded in suspending my disbelief by creating a believable scenario in the eyes of a woman who has never let her sixth sense be beaten out of her.

Full marks for this movie. It even made me jump, but only once ?

Funnily enough, I saw a younger Lin Shaye only a week ago when I went to The Plaza in Stockport for Grimmfest’s showing of A Nightmare on Elm Street. I’d forgotten she was in it ?

Harrowing is probably a mild way of describing this movie, but add to that the words beautiful and heartbreaking and you will get a feel for the type of movie it is.

The opening scene is enough to test the hardest of hearts when Rosalie’s (Pike) entire family are slain by Comanche Indians. She escapes, not realising that the baby in her arms is dead. To say she is broken is an understatement, but as the film progresses she shows a strength of character and an unbiased nature that we should all strive for.

The second story thread is with Sgt Joe Blocker (Bale), a decorated soldier who is about to retire, but is given one last assignment – to take a Cheyenne Indian Chief, who is dying from “the” cancer, and his family home. Chief Yellow Hawk and Blocker have crossed swords on many occasions and each has as dark and despicable a past as the other. Blocker despises the Chief and all his “kind” stand for and refuses outright to do it, until he is threatened with the loss of his pension.

The two stories collide when Blocker and his party come across Rosalie’s burnt out house and find her inside with her dead children.

What follows is a raw look at how bigotry, racism, hatred and fear can be overcome in the face of adversity, how people can learn to live alongside one another and work together towards a common goal and how hatred and can turn into friendship and respect.

For me, this is a movie that everyone should go and watch, given the intolerant and hate filled world we are living in. There are lessons to be learned.

True to the real story? Well, I’m not so sure of that, but would it be quite as wonderful if it were too close? I’ll let you decide.

From what I know of Phineas Taylor Barnum, he wasn’t as beautiful as Mr Jackman and his life wasn’t quite as neatly packaged as the movie makes out, but then again, stories don’t translate directly to screen – not in a good way, anyway.

The movie did encapsulate the better known events of his life – his rise from poverty to wealth, his marriage to Charity and birth of two children (rather than four), the success of his ‘freaks’ to bring his museum to life, his meeting with Jenny Lind and the tour that saw him shunning the people who made him, an abbreviated version of his partnership with Philip Carlysle, the fire that destroyed his museum and the circus tent that rose from the ashes. As to how accurate and linked these events really were is up for debate.

Barnum certainly had more than just Carlysle as a business partner. He also had a very successful museum before he added the ‘freaks’, though the movie says otherwise, plus his museum suffered two large fires, not one.

Despite this, the movie does depict very well the determination of one man to make his dreams come true and the heady heights and rock bottom lows that he suffered. Despite bankruptcy, ruin and everything else life threw at him, he always rose again. To me, this is true proof of a successful man.

The sadness comes in his ‘freak’ show. Was it exploitation, was it giving these misfits in society a place where they could stand tall and shine, or was it a bit of both? I feel it was the latter, because he certainly didn’t do it out of the goodness of his heart, yet he did give these people, who were shunned and ostracised by society, a sense of belonging and a family. Rightly or wrongly, he gave them a wealth and fame they would never have found without him.

It saddened me because it highlights very clearly the lack of tolerance human beings have for those who are different. It still goes on today, albeit to a lesser extent, and I feel this is only because many of the ‘freaks’ in Barnum’s show had genetic, hormonal or medical conditions that are known, understood and managed today, but they weren’t back then.

As many of you know, my debut children’s novel, The Misfits, deals with children who are different and don’t fit in to what is deemed the ‘norm’. My message is to embrace your uniqueness and let it shine, for it is the people who are different and unique who have innovated and changed our lives. It’s about time Joe Public remembered this and thought twice before shunning someone a little different from themself…..

Jacob Tremblay did an amazing job of playing Auggie, a 10 year old boy born with a facial deformity which has set him aside from other kids and prompted him to be home schooled by his mum. On the advent of him moving to middle school, his parents made the decision that he needed to go to a mainstream school and start to interact with kids his own age.

Now, we all know kids can be brutal at the best of times, and this was no exception. It was heartbreaking to watch the way he was teased and ostracised by most and pitied by others. As hard as it was for him, though, he stood tall and continued to go to school, continued to brave the insults and the staring, until eventually the kids saw past the wrapping and saw who Auggie really was.

It is a movie that will tear at your heartstrings as you see, not only the impact of this situation on Auggie himself, but also on his family and friends. It is a great insight into the reality of being different from other people and to the bullying that ensues and it should act as a lesson to us all in how we should treat other people.

Being different, being unique, not following the crowd are all perfectly acceptable and to be applauded. Everyone is perfect, just the way they are and no one should ever be made to feel that they’re not.

First off, and I feel I should get this out of the way, I like his moustache – very touchable and, apparently, it is closer to the book version(?). I did have a chuckle at the device he wears at night to keep it in place too!

This is a very charming film, from the point of view of the settings, the direction and the sweeping and artistic cinematography. You can’t help but be swept up and come to the conclusion that no expense was spared in making this movie – just in case you haven’t guessed that from the cast list.

Each actor plays his/her role to perfection. You have to remember the time that this story was written as well as when it was set, yet, despite this, I didn’t wince or feel any of them were hamming it up. I did feel the make up artists were a tad heavy handed with the old foundation though……trowelling it on springs to mind!

This is a typical Christie whodunit, with red herrings, twists and turns and a detective who is so brilliant, he is able to solve the crime without that much investigation, because of his natural ability to read people.

Is Poirot a believable character? Probably not, because no matter how brilliant a mind, there is a limit to what it can solve on its own. However, he doesn’t stand alone. Believable or not, Poirot is a thoroughly charming, engaging and witty character and, from this point of view, you are willing to suspend your disbelief and just enjoy the show.

I always saw Agatha Christie’s stories as complex with regards to the weaving of the clues, but this story seemed more straight-forward and the perp more apparent. Maybe it’s that I’ve watched/read enough murders now to know what I’m looking for, or maybe it’s just that seeing the wounds on the body tends to point you towards certain conclusions.

SPOILER ALERT

I do need to get something off my chest thought about this film so I am issuing a huge SPOILER ALERT now so, if you don’t know the story, stop reading for the rest of this paragraph. What spoilt this movie for me, was the scene where the murderer is revealed. There is no way you can fit 10+ people in one of those compartments, especially 10+ people who are ‘frantically moving about’, shall we say. Also, there is no way Porot would not have heard them. On exit they all banged the door, amongst other noises. Poirot, as is demonstrated in the film, is an extremely light sleeper. Yes, he does hear some noise from Ratchett’s compartment, but he would have heard more and would not have taken the response of ‘Rien’ (nothing) so easily, especially as Ratchett doesn’t speak French.

SPOILER OVER

All this being said, this is a thoroughly enjoyable movie and I am looking forward to the next instalment – Murder on the Nile.

What a web John Kramer has woven over the years and what a fantastic idea – a serial killer who doesn’t kill….inspiring! For those of you not in the know, Kramer’s M.O. is to kidnap people he considers to be sinners and to set them up in a life or death game where they have to solve his riddles to survive – ‘what does a life mean to you?’.

It’s about redemption and to be redeemed, you have to confess.

The great thing about Jigsaw is that not only did it have a very interesting and, dare I say, inventive set of games for the sinners to survive, but it is all set across two timelines. Now, I didn’t get this straight away, which is good, as I don’t want to be able to guess what’s going to happen – all the enjoyment is lost then.

I don’t want to give any more away, but it is a very thought provoking film from the point of view of keeping you guessing as to who is behind it all….as we all know John Kramer died quite a few years ago.

The blame was shared amongst several cast members and a rather elaborate torture chamber of all Kramer’s devices threw an interesting slant on what may or may not be going on.

Anyway, if I continue, I will tell you too much and spoil your enjoyment. After all, it is no good knowing the ending to a horror film.

I do have to say, it is great to see Matt Passmore (The Glades) in this film as I always did have a soft spot for him ?

In summary – very inventive and creative film, which suspends your disbelief and, in a way, creates empathy with Kramer for what he is trying to do with his games. GO SEE IT!

I haven’t read the book, but I am reliably informed that this film bore little resemblance to the book. Now, we all know (or you would if you’d done a screenwriting course) that books do not and cannot be translated exactly to the screen, it just doesn’t work – for a multitude of reasons I’m not going into on here. That being said, the film should follow the book as closely as it can.

I may not have read the book, but I did see the trailer. Having watched the film, I have to wonder whether they’ve released the wrong version of the film….in error. Most of what you see in the trailer is NOT in the film.

Given I haven’t read the book, you might be wondering what I found so terrible about the film……

Well, to start with, the main character – Harry Hole – was such a weak and pathetic character, that I had no respect for him during the film at all. They neglected to give you any backstory as to why he was such a pathetic drunk who was quite content to collapse in the street and stay there. Sorry, but if you are going to do this, you need to tell us why!

The second biggest issue was that it was disjointed. Whoever edited this film needs to be shot. Nothing fitted together, especially at the beginning. Scenes should flow into one another making the film capable of being followed. With this film, I got the impression that all the scenes had been cut into little pieces and mixed up and then just stuck together in whichever order they’d been picked up. Appalling!

My last major gripe is about the ‘baddie’. If I thought Hole was pathetic, then the ‘baddie’ is even more so. There was no sense of fear or foreboding coming from him. He was someone who you could call a name and he would cry. I’m not sure if this is just the casting or not, but it didn’t work for me. Why? Because it wasn’t believable that he could overpower and kill anyone, irrespective of whether he had his little device with him.

I could vent forever, but I won’t.

In summary, this film was an insult to the author and I would highly recommend you don’t waste your money. Sorry Michael, but you really should choose your scripts better!!