Prime Time: Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre (2023)

Guy Ritchie has certainly settled into a new groove in recent years. His output has increased, and he seems to enjoy moving between comedy capers, like this one, and darker fare (such as Wrath Of Man and his upcoming film, The Covenant AKA Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant). Working again with Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies on the screenplay, Ritchie and his cast probably had a lot of fun making this. It’s a shame that viewers don’t get to enjoy themselves quite as much as those onscreen.

Something has been stolen, and it is due to be sold off to the highest bidder. It’s not important to know exactly what the stolen item is. It’s important to know that it is very dangerous. The person most likely to be brokering that deal is the super-rich and super-dodgy Greg (Hugh Grant). A team is assembled to get close to Greg. That team is made up of action man Orson (Jason Statham), tech whizz Sarah (Aubrey Plaza), and a man who can support both, JJ (Bugzy Malone). Cary Elwes plays Nathan, the man trying to remain in charge of this small team, and problems arise when he realises that they aren’t the only ones assigned to this job. But they are the only ones who come up with the idea of getting close to Greg by introducing him to his favourite actor, Danny (Josh Hartnett).

I am not going to use this review to try and pretend that I didn’t enjoy this film (and to hell with typing out that unnecessarily unwieldy title every time I am referring to it). This is a fun time, thanks largely to the cast obviously having fun in their roles, but it’s an insubstantial and lesser fun time than many other films directed by Ritchie.

Timing is a big part of that, especially when the central idea is so close to the plot of The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent (which had the added bonus of letting Nicolas Cage playing a version of Nicolas Cage), but there’s also a script issue. This is an action comedy that doesn’t quite have enough action or comedy in it, and I cannot imagine how people will react to this if they aren’t already fans of the cast.

Statham is on good form in the lead role, doing what he does well (being charming, cocky, and good at punching people in the face), and both Plaza and Malone work well alongside him, the former getting more of the laughs with her constant playfulness and teasing. Elwes has to roll his eyes often as he tries to keep his team in order, and he is subsequently ordered around by Eddie Marsan, fun in an all-too-small role, while Peter Ferdinando does well as the head of the secondary team. Hartnett has a great time portraying a slightly precious actor, roped into a scheme he would rather know nothing about, and Grant delivers yet another hilarious rogue that seems to be his forte nowadays.

A lot of people will enjoy this. There certainly isn’t much here to hate. It just doesn’t do anything as well as expected though, sadly, with the 114-minute runtime feeling overlong, the soundtrack disappointingly sticking very much in the background, no major set-pieces, and a third act that lacks real tension. Nobody ever feels as if they are ever in proper danger, which means that you never get the sense of the stakes being very high. I don’t regret passing some time with this, especially as I like every main player, but I would rewatch either The Gentlemen or Wrath Of Man ahead of it, and I highly recommend both of those films to anyone who hasn’t seen them yet. The former is in line with the tone of this film, the latter is quite a bit darker and more violent.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Netflix And Chill: Choose Or Die (2022)

It feels obvious that this is the first feature from director Toby Meakins, who also helped to co-write the screenplay, but the fact that others involved (mainly co-writers Simon Allen and Matthew James Wilkinson) couldn't do enough to make up for the director's inexperience makes me think that everyone was somehow thinking they were creating something fun and entertaining. There are some decent moments here, especially a final "big boss" battle that has a very enjoyable twist, but far too much of this feels like it is coming along at least twenty years later than it should. I know that is part of the main concept, being based on people finding a survival horror computer game from the 1980s, but it feels more laughably outdated than cool retro.

Iola Evans plays Kayla, a woman who is having a tough time of things. She is working as a cleaner while trying to complete her studies, and she's also struggling to keep her drug addict mother safe and healthy. She does have a good friend, however, in the shape of Isaac (Asa Butterfield). Isaac helps her in her studies while working on coding his own game. One day, while nosing around the many bits and pieces accumulated in Isaac's apartment, Kayla finds an old computer game called CURS>R.  It offers a large cash prize reward to people who call a special number and then start playing the game. Kayla decides to compete for the prize, but soon realises that the game can affect the reality around her, and when she is forced to make a choice it is usually going to result in someone dying.

Bookended by a few great scenes that involve Eddie Marsan, as someone who also played the game, Choose Or Die makes the crucial mistake of filling out the majority of the film with moments that don't have enough random characters to become potential victims. The very first time that Kayla realises the danger of the game, forcing a waitress to smash a load of glasses and then clean up the mess with an unusual, and fatal, method. This should have been an ongoing aspect of the film. Yes, put the main characters in peril, but keep a decent selection of others around who can be despatched in mean-spirited ways.

Another mistake is the format of the game. A text-based adventure doesn't just seem cool and retro, it feels practically archaic nowadays. This could have easily been even a basic 3-D adventure, incorporating enough elements from Kayla's surroundings to show her how much the lines between the gaming world and the real world were being blurred.

Finally, but arguably most importantly, there aren't any characters, outwith Kayla, that viewers can really care for. Isaac is really just there to explain things, and try to help at a crucial point, and Kayla's mother spends most of her time in bed, and in pain. The best character isn't even shown onscreen, it's the voice on the recorded telephone message (a fun cameo by Robert Englund playing . . . Robert Englund).

Evans does a decent job in her role, and is certainly the best of the main bunch, and Marsan is as good as ever, particularly enjoyable as a character who will do anything to maintain some status quo, but Butterfield, although not bad, will probably not want to keep this one near the top of his CV. Angela Griffin deserves a better role than this one, she's that pained mother lying in bed, Ryan Gage is an over the top Mr. Nasty, and Joe Bolland has a decent scene, playing the creator of the game.

Falling right in between where it should have landed, Choose Or Die is neither continually nasty enough to make it worth your time nor enjoyably silly in a way that plays up the retro-gaming aspect of the premise. There's nothing here that feels worthy of praise, nothing here that really feels worth your time. I hope Meakins picks a better project for his next directorial outing, and everyone who worked on this script needs to get used to taking a step back, maybe putting their work away for a while, and then getting back to it some time later with a better sense of what they should really be aiming for.

3/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Prime Time: Wrath Of Man (2021)

Guy Ritchie seems to be on a bit of a roll at a moment, having made use of his blockbuster success with the Sherlock Holmes movies to play around a bit more with projects that feel more in line with his earlier works without just feeling like regurgitated "mix tapes" of his past glories. Wrath Of Man may be a remake of a 2004 movie, Le Convoyeur (sadly, I haven't seen the original yet), but it's also great material for Ritchie to slot one of his favourite stars into.

There's also a great remix of Folsom City Blues, familiar already to anyone who saw the trailer. Yes, it's so good that I am mentioning it here before I forget to mention it at all.

Jason Statham is H, a man who gets himself a job at a cash truck company. The company had a truck robbed some months before, a robbery that resulted in some deaths, but H doesn't seem bothered by the risk inherent in his new role. In fact, he seems to want robbers to try their luck with him. He definitely has his own agenda, and there's a lot more to him than he is revealing to his new work colleagues.

Having worked on the screenplay with Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies (who also worked on The Gentlemen and the upcoming Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre), Ritchie uses a familiar bag of tricks - the friendly faces, a non-chronological approach to the main storyline, a good helping of dry wit - to sugarcoat what may well be his darkest film yet. The film is broken into a number of chapters and one, entitled "Scorched Earth", stands out as being a mix of the cinematically stylish and the incredibly nihilistic. It's a flesh-coloured trip through a circle of hell that shows Statham's character beginning his quest for whatever it is that he's seeking.

Aside from Statham, being as great as ever in the lead role, the rest of the cast includes some fine supporting turns. Holt McCallany enjoys one of his best ever movie roles as Bullet, one of the main company staff members, straight-talking and with the potential key to information that would prove invaluable to H. Josh Hartnett is good fun as the "all mouth, no trousers" Boy Sweat Dave, Eddie Marsan is the depot boss, Jeffrey Donovan is someone who thinks they have a perfect robbery planned, and Scott Eastwood does his best work yet (not saying much though, compared to how bland so many of his other performances have been) as Jan, a robber with the kind of attitude that you just know is going to lead to trouble. There are other people doing good work here - Andy Garcia, Niamh Algar, Alex Ferns, Darrell D'Silva, etc - but they're very much minor moons orbiting the planets at the heart of the big set-pieces, although D'Silva still does enough to make himself an easy highlight.

I'll want to see the original movie at some point, and some people have said that it's a superior work, but this surprised me with how good it was. It's a classic tale of revenge, and the structure of the narrative helps the pacing and increases the tense gathering of thunderclouds and the impact of the storm that you just know is coming along in the third act. It's not one to watch if you want an action thriller grounded in any kind of reality, but it's a perfect choice if you want a superior Statham vehicle that has plenty of bloodshed, fun dialogue, a cause you end up rooting for, and a number of set-ups that are all paid off before the end credits roll.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Gentlemen (2020)

I absolutely understand that Guy Ritchie movies aren't necessarily designed for anyone other than Guy Ritchie fans (and I'm not talking about his studio work here, I am talking about GUY RITCHIE movies), and I also absolutely understand that another crime comedy from him will be about as appealing as a smack on the back of the head from an irate Jason Statham, but The Gentlemen actually ends up being a lot of fun. Ritchie is confident enough in his own abilities, and he seems to relish the chance to get down 'n' dirty with a great cast who will help him create his most blatant homage yet to The Long Good Friday.

Matthew McConaughey is Mickey Pearson, the mastermind behind a superbly profitable drug business. It's pot he sells though, which means we can still view him as a good guy compared to other criminal types onscreen. Charlie Hunnam is Ray, Mickey's trusted right hand man. Mickey wants to retire, which sets off a twisted and violent chain of events as people try to nominate themselves as worthy successors. The prime buyer would seem to be a savvy businessman named Matthew (Jeremy Strong), but Dry Eye (Henry Golding) is an up-and-coming boss/thug who wants to get a big piece of the pie. We learn all of this through a lengthy conversation between Ray and a bloodhound journalist named Fletcher (Hugh Grant).

The Gentlemen is a film that does everything well, and is elevated by the cast. From those just mentioned, the only performer I didn't really enjoy was Strong, who delivers a performance that feels just a bit too weak and lacking in confidence for his character (despite his character being the kind of brain who outsources to brawn).McConaughey is his usual cool self, and very laid-back until he has to pounce on someone, Hunnam is the best I have seen him be, Golding is enjoyable in a role that thankfully doesn't have him yet again showing all of us men up as inferior and unromantic souls, and Grant has an absolute ball playing the kind of unscrupulous journo he has often publicly berated while working in support of Hacked Off, a campaign group set up to hold members of the tabloid press to account over their illegal tactics of phone hacking to gain private information that would provide them with juicy tabloid gossip. Michelle Dockery is a fitting queen to McConaughey's king, Eddie Marsan has fun in a small role that leads to a punchline both hilarious and appalling, and Colin Farrell once again proves that he can be relied upon to do his best work when not constrained by the packaging of a mainstream star vehicle.

There are only two main problems, and they're problems you find in most Ritchie movies (although I hadn't realised it before). First of all, every character feels like a character written by Ritchie. Nobody has their own voice here, although Grant almost overcomes this with the strength of his performance. Secondly, the large selection of characters inevitably delivers some that you wish weren't given much screentime (in this case it's a bunch of amateur criminals who upload their exploits to YouTube).

Those with sensitive ears will want to give this a miss, because the word "cunt" is bandied about more than it would be at a Christmas night out with a bunch of gynaecologists, and those who prefer their tales of crooks and crime to be told in a more straightforward fashion may also be a bit peeved, especially during the indulgent moments that allow for some playful unreliable narration from Grant's character. Everyone else should have a great time.

8/10

I Want Candy (2007)

Well, here we are with a British sex comedy. Let's all take a moment to wipe our minds before we go on. There used to be the solid reputation, often viewed with rose-tinted glasses, of the Carry On films, of course. And things got naughtier with "Adventures Of..." and "Confessions Of..." movies. But, let's face it, British movies have done better over the past few decades when they focus on the romance over sex. On the one hand you have a number of films featuring Hugh Grant, and on the other hand you have, ummmm, films like Fat Slags and Sex Lives Of The Potato Men (neither of which I can envision appearing on blu-ray any time soon).

So where does I Want Candy fit in? It's the tale of two students who want to make their first film. Joe (Tom Riley) and John AKA Baggy (Tom Burke) have a vision, and they have a lot of faith in their own talent. What they don't have is anyone willing to back them. Until they make a deal with Doug Perry (Eddie Marsan). Unfortunately, Doug is in the porn business, and the deal is made on the understanding that Joe and John have the hottest adult entertainment star, Candy Fiveways (Carmen Electra), in their movie. It's then up to the young film-makers to come up with a plan that pleases everyone and allows them to get their film made.

Directed by Stephen Surjik (who has a hell of a lot of TV work in his filmography, with his biggest movie release being Wayne's World 2, back in 1993), I Want Candy isn't the kind of film that has any individual style stamped all over it. It's rude without being explicit, I may have already forgotten some details but I don't believe you ever see any actual nudity, the cast of main characters are ably supported by a decent enough ensemble, the soundtrack contains a cover version of the song with the same name as the movie, and the ending is completely unbelievable, but in line with the feelgood nature of the film.

A lot of people worked on the script, far too many than you would expect for something this lightweight. There was an "original idea" by Piers Thompson and Olivia Glazebrook, that was fleshed out into a script by Peter Hewitt, Phil Hughes, Jamie Minoprio, and Jonathan M. Stern, and then some further dialogue was added by Fred Wolf and Jimmy Carr, apparently (the latter has a fun cameo role that may have allowed him to improv some of his dialogue, or maybe he also helped with some other parts of the movie). And despite all of those people involved, it's never as funny as it could be. I suspect this is partly to do with keeping it a bit too tame, and also partly to do with not having the perfect cast in place.

Riley and Burke are good in their lead roles, they're just not great. Riley just doesn't have the charisma to sell his character as well as someone else might have done, and Burke is hampered by the script wanting to keep him very much in the "sensitive young artist" box. Marsan is a lot of fun in his role, the potential villain of the piece, and Electra just has to turn up and look incredibly desirable, which she does. Easily. Felicity Montagu and Philip Jackson are good value as Joe's mum and dad, Mackenzie Crook has fun in his role as a teacher trying to stay cool with the kids, and Michelle Ryan is the female friend who keeps being very helpful and loyal to a main character who cannot recognise something with the potential to blossom right under his nose (I am on about romance, that is NOT a porn term . . . I hope).

This isn't a terrible film. It's certainly not half as bad as those awful examples I mentioned in the opening paragraph. It's just not any great shakes. Relatively amusing enough while it's on, very easy to forget as soon as it's finished, and bottom of the pile when compared to other films in the same vein (the Risky Business type of film, arguably most successfully reworked as The Girl Next Door).

5/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy it here.

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019)

Anyone who knows my view on the Fast & Furious franchise should predict that I was optimistic, yet also very cautious, about this spin-off. The car-based core series has often entertained me, they peaked with the mix of action and ridiculousness in the sixth and seventh instalments, and then eight just went too far over into the kind of silliness that kept taking me out of the movie. This film, pairing up Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham for their own action-packed adventure, looked enjoyably silly from the first trailer I saw.

And it is. Which was a huge relief for me. This film makes it obvious from the very beginning that the central characters are almost superhuman and your brain shouldn't spend too much time calculating the odds of all of their plans and stunts being physically possible.

Written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce, the story concerns a deadly virus, a cybernetically-enhanced supervillain (Brixton, played by Idris Elba), and a young woman named Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) who has already tried to defeat Brixton, but finds herself defeated. Fortunately, Hattie is the sister of Shaw (Statham), which is why he is asked to help, along with the one person he really doesn't want to be paired up with, Hobbs (Johnson). This isn't a one-man job though, and working together may be the key to any chance of success, which would also basically save the world.

Directed by David Leitch (who previously did such good work on Deadpool 2), this is big dumb fun that runs for just over two and a quarter hours (do any major action movies nowadays manage to come in at a brisk 90 minutes?) and manages to entertain from start to finish, thanks to the comedic tone of the script, the charisma of everybody with a major role, and the pacing. The set-pieces are enjoyable loony, with as many challenges as possible thrown at our heroes while they generally outrun, out-think and out-fight everyone around them.

If you enjoyed the interplay between Johnson and Statham in Fast & Furious 8 (which, let's be honest, was at its best when they were onscreen) then I don't see any way that you wouldn't enjoy this. They remain amusingly antagonistic towards one another, and competitive when it comes to who can despatch the most disposable henchmen, and both men get an equal amount of time to show off. Elba is a fantastic villain, and he appears to be having a lot of fun in the role, and Kirby is as good as, if not better than, anyone else onscreen, with a tough attitude and a badass skillset ensuring that she can hold her own in any of the major action sequences (including a scene in which she believably takes on Johnson). Helen Mirren reprises her role, as the mother of the Shaws, and entertains once again in her one main scene, and Eddie Marsan is good value in a small supporting role, a Russian Professor who may be able to help ensure the virus can't harm others.

Plenty of punches are thrown, you get a few moments of vehicular mayhem, there are a couple of fun cameos (which I won't spoil here), and those who are patient enough to sit through the end credits will be rewarded with numerous little extra scenes, which are also a lot of fun. I doubt anybody is going to spend too much dissecting this, or searching for hidden meanings or metaphors, because it's absolutely not that kind of film. But I am pretty certain that it will please most action movie fans, and be on regular rotation when it comes to the home media market later in the year. I know I'll be getting it, and am already looking forward to a rewatch.

8/10

Deadpool 2 (2018)

It's a running joke with people who know enough of my general movie opinions that I tend to be Mr 7/10. I can't really deny this, and yet I don't see anything too wrong with it either. Because, despite trying to see every movie that I can fit into my busy schedule, I will always tend to a) prioritise movies I think I am going to enjoy, and b) look for the good in any film I am watching. What the hell does this have to do with Deadpool 2, you may be wondering, apart from the obvious foreshadowing of exactly what my rating might be. Well, I rated the first Deadpool movie a 7/10 and felt the need to mention it here. It is, in a number of ways, a better film than this sequel, but it also had enough drawbacks to knock it down a few points. Not least among them was the fact that I'd seen the best sequence of the film in a rough version that was used to get the project support and traction, which it very much did.

Basically, you will know a lot of people who rate Deadpool higher than I did, but don't think that I disliked it. I laughed quite a lot. And I laughed quite a lot while watching Deadpool 2 (the biggest laughs involving some brilliant cameos and a mid-credit sequence that may well be the best superhero sting yet). It's a very good sequel . . . but it also has enough drawbacks to knock it down a few points.

Assuming you know the merc with the mouth, what's the story this time around? Well, DP (Ryan Reynolds again, of course) ends up trying to protect a young lad named Russell (Julian Dennison) from a time-travelling badass named Cable (Josh Brolin). There are still only a few X-Men allowed to join our (anti-)hero, budget allowing, but it's obvious that the success of the first film has made it possible to have even more fun this time around.

A lot of the main names return, with the notable exception of director Tim Miller, and that shows in the final product. This is a film that tells an interestingly different story from the first movie while maintaining a consistent tone and style, a "same but different" approach that is exemplified by the hilarious opening credit sequence. David Leitch is no stranger to the character, having directed the wonderful short film "No Good Deed" that showed Deadpool taking far too long to change costume while his help was needed, and he seems comfortable directing what we all know is essentially the chance for Ryan Reynolds to act like a kid in a candy store. If the kid was foul-mouthed and fast-talking and the candy store was full of dismembered limbs, drugs, and objects that could be used as improvised sex toys.

It goes without saying that Reynolds is superb again in the lead role, bagging all the best lines from the script (which he had a hand in, alongside Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick). Dennison gives another fantastic performance that has a number of nods to his previous star turn (in Hunt For The Wilderpeople) and Josh Brolin gives a "supervillain" performance that only comes second to the other main antagonist that he has portrayed recently. Karan Soni returns as taxi-driving Dopinder, Morena Baccarin is the love of Deadpool's life, Brianna Hildebrand still isn't allowed to smile much as Negasonic Teenage Warhead, and T. J. Miller manages to bag some of the better lines not being kept for Reynolds. Zazie Beetz is very enjoyable as a newcomer, Domino, with luck as her superpower, Eddie Marsan is enjoyably horrid, and there are some other people I won't mention because spoiler-free is the way to be.

You get the witty dialogue, another lively soundtrack, and some excellent action set-pieces, but it's interesting that Deadpool 2 falters when it slows things right down and attempts to show some proper emotional depth. It's interesting because it doesn't need to do that. There are some moments that work, judged perfectly between the comedic and the dark and the potentially cheesy, and some that really don't (the finale features a couple of them), but the fact is that the movie was doing a bloody good job before it started to show just how hard it was trying. Throughout most of the runtime, Deadpool 2 is an interesting look at personal responsibility and consequences, whether the actions are good or bad. It looks at cycles of violence and how the abused may damage themselves as they set out to damage their abusers, and there are times when it effortlessly does this better than any of the other superhero movies we have had over the past couple of decades (with the exception of Logan perhaps, ironically enough). But it doesn't do it in a way that interferes with the action or comedy . . . unlike some of the other emotional beats that are crammed in there.

Deadpool 2 - go along for the laughs, stay for the sheer entertainment, and leave while thinking about what they managed to slide inside you while you weren't even noticing (oo-er). Things may not feel as fresh this time around, inevitably, and there's a lack of REAL villainy, but I'm already looking forward to a third film. And everyone should try to see this one before some idiot blurts out some of the best gags.

Can you guess my rating?

7/10

Get it, when available, here.
Americans will be able to get it here.
Seriously, if you use either of those links, even to buy other stuff on Amazon, I get the pennies. Give me the pennies. All the pennies.

The Limehouse Golem (2016)

Bill Nighy has, let's face it, been making a lot of people happy by playing what we all consider a version of Bill Nighy onscreen for the past couple of decades. He's the elderly gent with a wry sense of humour, ready to give us a wink before heading off to the dancefloor with a crowd of youngsters who have embraced his good company. He's basically the cool uncle at a wedding party, although that means you sometimes roll your eyes when he shows up because you know he's going to be there a bit too long, might still be wearing jeans when they don't suit him, and will probably ask the DJ for a bit of Whigfield near the end of the night. Some people will always enjoy those moments, whereas some people will start to feel bitter about him. I am in the former camp, but I can see why people may start falling into the latter camp.

Why have I started this review with that rambling, poor, analogy about an uncle at a wedding party? Well, The Limehouse Golem is an interesting and surprising film for many reasons, but the main one may be what a great lead role it hands to Bill Nighy. And he does so well with it that you are reminded of how talented the man is. Like meeting that cool uncle during the week, when he is in between meetings during a typically busy work day. The fun aspect of him is just that, one aspect.

Anyway, let me get to the film itself. Directed by Juan Carlos Medina, who previously gave us Painless AKA Insensibles, this is a very dark murder mystery, so bloody on the odd occasion that most horror fans should be kept happy enough, set during a time in London not that far removed from the exploits of Jack The Ripper. Indeed, this feels very much like a Jack The Ripper film in all but name. It's based on a book by Peter Ackroyd, and the script was written by Jane Goldman (possibly her best work), but I have no idea if the source material tries to make things more or less . . . "Ripper-esque".

Nighy plays John Kildare, a lawman tasked with solving the series of murders perpetrated by a mysterious figure people have taken to referring to as The Limehouse Golem. Kildare is a man who has already had his reputation questioned, due to his perceived aversion to female company, and he knows that he has been given this case as a pretty hopeless endeavour. He will take the expected fall if no culprit is caught. Olivia Cooke plays Lizzie Cree, a woman put on trial for the crime of poisoning her husband, and the two tales quickly intertwine as Kildare starts to suspect that helping Lizzie may actually help him solve the case. He believes that she knows something she doesn't want to reveal to the public, a secret she may end up taking to the grave if she is found guilty, and he wants to gain her trust, learn her full story, and kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Nighy is just great in all of his scenes here. He doesn't overdo things, this isn't a role looking to squeeze comedy out of his usual demeanour and mannerisms, and viewers get to stick close to him and his appointed assistant (Daniel Mays) as clues are uncovered and witnesses questioned. Cooke is also excellent, allowed much more screentime as the investigation delves deeper and deeper into her life story. Douglas Booth and Sam Reid both do well, playing men in Lizzie's life, and also suspects in the case (the latter is the murdered husband - no spoiler, that is how the film begins), and you also get enjoyable performances from Eddie Marsan and Maria Valverde.

Every aspect of this production is polished and handled with care. Medina brings everything together beautifully, with impressive camerawork throughout allowing viewers to be fully immersed in the world depicted onscreen. It's grimy and gorgeous at the same time, with impressive sound design and an effective score also helping, yet none of the details or flourishes ever detract from the performances that sell every scene. The structure may disappoint some - shock opener, a hefty middle section full of characterisation and details, fairly swift resolution - but it will work well for those who don't need jumps or set-pieces every 10-15 minutes. Sometimes the joy is in the destination, sometimes in the journey. The joy here is in both.

Goldman deserves a decent amount of praise for her script. It's masterful in the handling of the characters, with plenty of ambiguity throughout to keep viewers guessing the identity of the killer, alongside Kildare. And I must say, as slow as I can sometimes be with movies like this, I was very impressed by the finale.

I am sure that many sharper viewers will be unsurprised by anything the film delivers, and it does enough to allow you to be one or two steps ahead of the main characters, but I loved how it was put together, and I was also surprised by one or two moments throughout. Highly recommended.

9/10

You can get The Limehouse Golem here on bluray.
Or here, Americanos.

V For Vendetta (2005)

"Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V."

It's sometimes heavy-handed, it's sometimes simplistic, it's NOT The Matrix (which is what many expected, I think, when this was heavily pushed as being from the Wachowskis, who wrote the script), but V For Vendetta is also absolutely brilliant stuff that packages some very interesting ideas in a mainstream blockbuster form. A lot of the themes explored in the movie are scarily pertinent to civilians living in first world countries nowadays and it's nice to be able to enjoy something so subversive that also has a couple of good action scenes thrown in for good measure.

Natalie Portman plays a young woman, Evey, who has her eyes opened one evening when she is saved from a nasty situation by a masked terrorist, V (Hugo Weaving, behind a Guy Fawkes mask for almost the entire runtime). V takes a liking to Evey, but things get complicated when she gets in the way during another of his spectacular strikes against the repressive government. This means that Evey becomes almost as wanted by the authorites as V, but one policeman (Stephen Rea) starts to dig around and starts to see what V might be trying to show the entire nation.

Directed by James McTeigue, and developed from a graphic novel by David Lloyd and Alan Moore, this is an action movie not designed for those who need a fight sequence every few minutes. It's paced carefully, allowing more time for the dialogue and ideas than the actions that they necessitate.

The cast all do a fantastic job. Portman just about carries off her English accent from start to finish, despite a few wobbles, and Weaving somehow invests his character with so much wit and intelligence that the mask he wears SEEMS expressive, despite the fact that it never really changes. Rea can do the tired, hangdog act about as well as it can be done, and his performance here is a treat. The casting of John Hurt as the leader in a Big Brother world may be a bit of a stunt, but it works. Elsewhere, Stephen Fry does a great job (perhaps, mostly, because he's voicing opinions that don't require him to stretch himself in the acting department), Tim Pigott-Smith and Rupert Graves do well with lesser roles, and Eddie Marsan, Sinead Cusack and Imogen Poots also do well, despite very limited screentime.

But the cast have the Wachowskis to thank (who can, in turn, thank Lloyd and Moore) for such great material. Love or hate their movies, it's hard to argue with the fact that the siblings have succeeded more than any other modern film-makers in packaging smart and/or potentially off-putting material into mainstream blockbusters.

I liked V For Vendetta when I first saw it, but now I love it. Part of that is, undoubtedly, to do with my recent, growing displeasure with the British government and the ever-growing economic divide. But a lot of it is to do with the fact that it's just a bloody great film.

9/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/For-Vendetta-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B0019FLTI2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1381334033&sr=8-4&keywords=v+for+vendetta

War Horse (2011)

This Steven Spielberg movie, based on a popular play written by Nick Stafford which was based on the children's book by Michael Morpurgo, is an easy target for critics to take aim and fire at. There's no denying that it has many moments that exemplify the very worst of Spielberg's predilections and there will be many people for whom this is just absolute anathema. Nevertheless, I quite enjoyed it.

Peter Mullan plays Ted Narracott, a farmer who doesn't really have much luck in life. Mind you, he doesn't always help himself, like when he decides to outbid his landlord (David Thewlis) for a horse that everyone knows will be of no use to him for ploughing purposes. He gets the horse, but is also indebted to his landlord. It looks grim, grim indeed, but his son, Albert (Jeremy Irvine), has faith in the horse and sets out to prove everyone wrong by leading it around the field and getting it to pull the plough. Sadly, despite the horse showing great tenacity, there's not enough done to keep the farm safe and so Ted sells the horse to an army Captain (Tom Hiddleston). Albert is determined that they'll be reunited one day and he signs up for the army as soon as he's old enough, but there's no guarantee that he'll ever actually see his horse again or, indeed, survive the perils of war.

Yes, it's overloaded with sentiment in places (thanks to Spielberg and the music of John Williams) and yes, there are too many shots with rays of sunlight just providing an aura for the lead characters, thanks to cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, but this is still an enjoyable family adventure that will take you through a range of emotions before the end credits roll.

The best thing about it is the quality of the cast. As well as those already mentioned (Mullan, Thewlis, Irvine, Hiddleston), viewers gets to see the following actors in a variety of small and large roles: Emily Watson, Niels Arestrup, Benedict Cumberbatch, Geoff Bell, Eddie Marsan, Toby Kebbell and Liam Cunningham. Even the lesser-known (and unknown) cast members do a great job, with Celine Buckens making a good impression as young Emilie, a girl who also makes a connection with the titular horse.

There are one or two moments of darker content in the movie, but they're handled with kid gloves and moved aside in plenty of time for the next uplifting sequence. People will accuse the movie of being far too sugary and heavy-handed for its own good and it is, but it's also just a nice, old-fashioned adventure story with plenty of great moments throughout.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Horse-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B00742SSEW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356070669&sr=8-1