Echo Valley (2025)

Although I have seen at least one other film directed by Michael Pearce, I couldn't say that his name was one that I would be keeping an eye out for. The same goes for writer Brad Ingelsby. But give me a cast that includes Julianne Moore, Sydney Sweeney, Domhnall Gleeson, and Fiona Shaw and I'm happy to give up some of my time. This is why I eventually got around to watching Echo Valley.

Moore plays Kate Garretson, a woman who has given up almost everything in her life as she has struggled to help her daughter, Claire (Sweeney). Claire is an addict. She has cost her mother a lot of money over the years, and perhaps even created a weight that led to divorce from Richard (Kyle MacLachlan). It's hard with loved ones who are addicts though, which is why Kate once again hopes for things to turn out for the best when Claire arrives on her doorstep again. She's had a row with her latest boyfriend, Ryan (Edmund Donovan), but has also inadvertently thrown away some expensive "stock" that belonged to the very dangerous Jackie Lawson (Gleeson). 

While I wouldn't rush to recommend this to people, it's a worthwhile film that tries to balance two very different strands. One is an emotional, painful even, look at how much hurt can be inflicted by those ruled by addiction. The other is a straightforward and dark thriller, one that makes great use of Moore and Gleeson facing off against one another in a number of tense scenes. It's admirable that both Pearce and Ingelsby try to add a bit more substance to the standard thriller movie moments, but it's also obvious that the film works best in a third act that moves further into more standard and satisfying cinematic fare.

Moore is a great choice for the main role, delivering that combination of vulnerability and strength that she has shown in so many other roles. She's the one constant, trying to keep herself anchored as a few different characters do their best to untether her from a life that she has fought hard to create. Sweeney may not be doing her best work, but she's good at flipping between many different moods, depending on how good or bad she is feeling. Gleeson is decent when he gets to be properly menacing, although the script only gives him a couple of moments when he can show the real darkness of his soul. Although only onscreen for a couple of main sequences, Shaw makes a really strong and positive impression, playing the kind of good friend who will turn up and help deal with a crisis without asking too many questions.

It lacks a bit of impact, especially in a middle section that sets up a few plot points that don't all feel paid off by the time we get to the very end, but there's nothing here that I would single out as being bad. The performances all work, and the finale makes up for a lot of the minor flaws elsewhere. I was also happy that it was all wrapped up within 104 minutes, which felt like a nice change from the many movies that seem to need a minimum time commitment of two hours. 

7/10

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Mubi Monday: Psycho (1998)

Well, I guess I owe an apology to quite a few people. I used to spend some of my time online defending this ill-advised remake of the Hitchcock classic. This recent revisit, the first time I have watched the film since I caught it on a rental VHS copy, quickly had me reconsidering my view. So many elements are awful. And yet... yet... there is still something here that leaves it ad a fascinating experiment. Not a satisfying movie, and not a remake that comes anywhere close to the original, but something worth viewing as a way to strengthen the case of how many different elements come together to make a movie a timeless classic.

You know the story, basically. Unless you don't. If you don't, I am not going to spoil any potential twists and turns, even if you've seen the original film. Anne Heche is Marion Crane this time around, a woman who is left in charge of a large sum of money by her boss and, in a moment of madness, heads off to use the money as a chance to start a better life with her boyfriend (Viggo Mortensen). Tired from the drive, but so close to her destination, Marion pulls in to get a room for the night at the Bates Motel, where she meets Norman (Vince Vaughn). He seems like a nice young man, in stark contrast to his angry mother.

Based on the exact same shooting script as the 1960 original, written by Joseph Stefano, and with many shots replicated as closely as possible to the way Hitchcock already did them, it's understandable that many people cite this as an example of a remake that is completely pointless. I was tempted to think the same thing as the end credits rolled this time around.

And yet . . . there's definitely a lot to be gained from viewing this as an academic exercise. Director Gus Van Sant knows how pointless it is to try and remake such an acclaimed masterpiece, and he makes a great effort to highlight the futility of the exercise. Before you even see one bit of the performances on display, just watching the opening credits is enough to put you off. They're exactly the same as the original credits. They're just now in colour. Seconds into the film and it's already not as good, the colour seems to serve as a final flag raised up before the viewer. "You were warned," it seems to say, "and now the reality of the situation is here in front of your eyes." This continues throughout the entire movie. Even the moments that are staged as best as they can be (the sequence between Marion Crane and a highway patrolman, this time played by James Remar) just don't ever feel as good because, well, they're just not.

It's a shame that the cast don't do better though, even if they were given a thankless task. Heche is hard to warm to in the role of Marion, and Mortensen gives one of his worst performances as her beau. Vaughn is given the biggest shoes to fill, and I still find a lot to admire in his performance. It doesn't work, his laugh is too jarring and his quick-talking manner feels unlike the Norman Bates we're used to, but I still appreciate the way that he tries to make himself seem smaller and a bit more timid than he seems in most of his other roles. Julianne Moore, as much as I like her, is quite awful as Marion's sister, not helped by the pointless addition of headphones she is given to wear (as if the character was written to be some spirited, resourceful teen), but William H. Macy at least manages to make up for her presence in the second half of the film, easily outshining both her and Mortensen in his scenes as the detective, Arbogast.

And yet . . . there's STILL something here. Something in the heart of the story, something that pulls you towards it, even as the performances and the new colour scheme put you off. Van Sant knows this, he knows that YOU know it, and your growing appreciation for the original movie in direct correlation to your anger at the audacity of this remake just goes to prove the point that he decided to make when he took on this project.

4/10

You can buy the movie here, if you really want to.
Americans can buy it here.

Mubi Monday: Gloria Bell (2018)

Based on the original movie by director Sebastián Lelio, who also co-wrote it with Gonzalo Mazo, this remake has Lelio helming once again, the screenplay adapted by Alice Johnson Boher, and a cast that includes Julianne Moore, John Turturro, and many more. Having not seen the original, I cannot speak about how this compares to it. I can simply comment on the movie itself, and my comments aren't really overflowing with praise.

Moore plays Gloria, an older woman who enjoys spending some time in clubs and perhaps finding a new lover. She ends up meeting Arnold (Turturro), a man in a similar situation to herself. He is also a divorcee, and has two grown-up children (Gloria has a son and a daughter, Arnold has two daughters), and he claims to be in love with Gloria. Unfortunately, strain develops between the two when it becomes clear that Arnold is often too preoccupied with his daughters, either answering phone calls or disappearing to help them.

The above paragraph is a very basic summary of Gloria Bell, and there's a bit more to this character study than just what I have written there, of course, but not really that much more. In fact, take away the lead performances and this film becomes so lightweight that it's almost ethereal (and not in a good way).

Lelio directs competently enough, and the screenplay takes time to simply show a woman getting to grips with a certain period of her life, but it never really does a good enough job of making the interesting points it could make. Hmmmm, a central character may end up realising that loving oneself and/or life is a better route to happiness than trying to fall in love with someone else? There's something staggeringly original and daring. I really shouldn't lower myself to just delivering sarcastic comments, it's just difficult when a film like this comes along and seems to be viewed as saying something worthwhile. It's not. There's a small twist on the material with the age and situation of the lead character, yes, but when you see how she goes about her day you soon realise that not enough is done to make her anything more than a tool for the final obvious point that Lelio wants to hammer home. Gloria has a problematic neighbour, who is also the son of the landlady. Anyone could be in that situation. She has an ex who now has a new partner. Anyone could be in that situation. She has two children, which is where you think the material starts to feel more relevant to this specific character, but there's very little done with them that couldn't have been done if these central characters were siblings, for example, or close friends. And I understand that I could probably make this argument with many movies. It just stands out here because of the way everything seems underdeveloped. This is a film built around a couple of fun sequences, both set to enjoyable music choices, but without anything in between those moments to reward the patience of viewers.

Moore is as wonderful as ever in the main role, and she deserves better material to work with (although I can see why she would be drawn to this, considering the highlights and the fact that it allows her to be in almost every scene, which doesn't happen enough for such a great actress). Turturro is also as good as he usually is, portraying a different riff on the kind of character we have seen him play quite often throughout his career. The supporting cast includes Caren Pistorius, Michael Cera, Brad Garrett, Holland Taylor, and, the person I was most pleasantly surprised to see, Jeanne Tripplehorn (who deserves more roles in things I may see, cannot recall the last time I saw her in a major release). Everyone does good work, even if they are underserved by a script that is rightly more concerned with things as they are viewed and experienced by Gloria.

Although not a terrible film, I cannot think of many people who will come away from Gloria Bell thinking that their day was better for having watched it. Moore fans will get enjoyment from it, but I am hoping that whatever her next lead role is will also give her a better movie to match her considerable talent. Because this was a disappointment.

4/10

The movie can be bought here.
Americans can buy it here.

Mubi Monday: Children Of Men (2006)

The first time I saw Children Of Men I wondered what everyone else saw in it that I didn't. It was a good film but everyone else seemed to love it. And now I know why. What once felt like a low-key sci-fi movie that I could never warm to now feels like the kind of sci-fi tale warning us of what could be just around the corner. To be fair, it was probably always that way, it's just that when I first saw it I wasn't taking as much notice of the world around me.

Clive Owen stars as Theo, a man trying to keep his head above the dangerous waters of a society on the brink of collapse. There hasn't been a child born for almost two decades and the UK is dealing with an immigration problem by basically capturing them and keeping them in camps until they can come up with an excuse to send the military in to solve the problem with deadly efficiency. Theo also used to be a political activist, information that is used by his ex-wife (Julianne Moore) when she needs someone she can trust to assist a valuable young woman (Kee, played by Clare-Hope Ashitey) in escaping the country.

Directed by Alfonso Cuarón, who also co-wrote the screenplay with a number of other people (incorporating feedback and ideas from Owen), Children Of Men is a wonderful film that mixes hope and despair in a delicate and thoughtful mix. This is mainly thanks to the central character, an understandable cynic, being constantly surrounded by people who cling on to the smallest silver lining as the clouds gather overhead. It's also thanks to the fact that we can still watch the movie and, I sincerely hope, view it as a low point that we would never want to reach. We're already precariously close to it, in places, but I have faith that those with more common sense and empathy will always outnumber the small-minded bigots and xenophobes who keep trying to drag us further and further down into the mud.

Based on a novel by Ps. D. James (yes, THAT P. D. James), this story layers on the horrible  revelations and realisations as we keep moving towards the grand finale, not sure if this will be able to give us a happy ending, considering the overwhelming odds that keep mounting up against the main characters. There are a number of moments that let the action unfold in a number of impressive tracking shots, contributing an effective air of immediacy akin to the found footage format without really showboating in a way that takes viewers out of the movie (it's worth noting that I didn't notice these the first time I watched the film, I was so engrossed, and it was only in the intervening years that I saw them praised and then knew to look out for them on a rewatch).

Owen is superb in the lead role, he's an actor that is rarely given his due and this is one of his very best roles. Grim and determined, he is dragged into the situation in stages, always resisting right up until he realises that he's the only one who knows how to do the right thing at the right stage in the journey. Ashitey is very good in her role, similar to Owen in the way that she's often passive until the moment when she has to put her foot down, and there are strong supporting turns from Moore, Pam Ferris, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Charlie Hunnam, Danny Huston, and Peter Mullan. There is also a fantastic turn from Michael Caine, playing Jasper, a man who deals cannabis and tries to keep himself hidden away from the urban madness until the day when he hopes things start to get better.

If you think Children Of Men is just a dystopian thriller disconnected from the events of our daily lives then see how you feel during the scene in which the characters discuss how an upcoming major event could be manipulated and "improved" for the public by replacing the face of an immigrant with the face of someone white. Prescient sci-fi? This almost feels like a documentary nowadays.

9/10

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

Non-Stop (2014)

Stop me if you've heard this one before. Liam Neeson is a badass. He's a potential hero, but also very troubled. There's a plane full of people, with one of them being a nasty criminal type trying to grab a LOT of money. And he/she is not only trying to commit a major crime, he's also hoping to frame our hero for the job.

Yes, Non-Stop is a . . . . . non-stop selection of cliches and familiar action thriller movie moments. Which doesn't make it any less fun. A large part of the enjoyability is down to Neeson, who has been taking on this kind of role so often in recent years that he may well end up in The Expendables 10, whenever that comes along.

Things don't start off too well though. If you're not rolling your eyes when you watch Neeson use a toothbrush to stir his breakfast whiskey then you'll have a second chance to do so when he passes by a roster of usual suspects on his way to boarding his flight. There's also Julianne Moore, playing someone desperate to sit in a window seat. Everything is easily forgiven, however, as soon as Neeson gets some text messages telling him that he needs to get $150M in to a specific account or someone is going to die in 20 minutes. That starts a race against the clock, with Neeson growing increasingly desperate, and perhaps out of control, as he determines to catch his quarry.

Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (the man responsible for a couple of fun horror movies in the past decade or so - namely Orphan and House Of Wax), and written by Christopher Roach, John W. Richardson and Ryan Engle, Non-Stop is a film that probably shouldn't work. The fact that it does, and does so well, is testament to the zippy script and the fact that Collet-Serra directs with no small amount of style and inventiveness.

Neeson is as Neeson as ever. He's a brand by this point, but a bloody good one. If you're going to invest in a Nesson then treat yourself to the original and best. Acccept no substitute. Moore does well with a role that could have easily been completely thankless, and both Michelle Dockery and Lupita Nyong'o do well as two air stewardesses. The former has more to do, but it's nice to just see Nyong'o in a situation not half as harrowing as her most famous role to date. Scoot McNairy, Nate Parker, Corey Stoll, Omar Metwally and Quinn McColgan do a decent job with their roles, despite often being asked to act nervy, or aggressive, or whatever suits the mood of the crowd as they react to Neeson's actions.

This is not a film that will blow your mind, or change the face of cinema. It doesn't have to. Few films do. This simply takes some pleasing ingredients and throws them together to make something that stands up as a piece of superior blockbuster entertainment. Translation = it's not that hard to build a decent movie around Liam Neeson kicking ass.

7/10

http://www.amazon.com/Non-Stop-Blu-ray-DVD-DIGITAL-UltraViolet/dp/B00HLTD49C/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2_twi_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1419274222&sr=1-1&keywords=non-stop

Still Alice (2014)

Julianne Moore is Dr. Alice Howland, a linguistics professor who starts to worry when she realises that her ability to recall words seems to be diminishing. After a number of sessions with a doctor it becomes clear, although not quite believable, that she has early onset Alzheimer's disease. She has to break the news to her family, and also has to set in place a number of measures that will help her live a nirmal life for as long as possible.

This is standard stuff, very much TV-movie-of-the-week. The screenplay, by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland, is based on a novel by Lisa Genova, which at least makes everything more interesting and powerful by having Alice be a linguistics professor. She arguably knows the value of individual words more than most, highlighting the deterioration of her mental acuity in the first stages of her illness.

Glatzer and Westmoreland also direct the movie together. While they don't show themselves to be experts in the field, they're smart enough to cast well and intersperse the second half of the movie with some moving moments.

Moore is excellent in the main role, as you'd expect her to be. There are one or two moments in the first half of the movie that have her repeating herself from past performances, but it's when she starts to lose aspects of her main identity that she truly shows what she's capable of. It's not up there with her best performances, in my opinion. It's still very good stuff though. Alec Baldwin puts in another great supporting turn (he's never disappointing in those roles), and Kate Bosworth and Hunter Parrish are two of the three grown-up children who struggle as they see their mother losing her mind. But it's the third child I'm going to spend the most time discussing. She's an aspiring actress, and still finding her place in the big world before all of her hopes and dreams are dashed. Played by Kristen Stewart, she's the best of the supporting characters, and Stewart gives perhaps the best performance in the film. Often sidelined, and often treated as if she doesn't know her own mind, she can probably see the situation that her mother is going through from a much closer perspective than anyone else around her, leading her to be the most selfless and sympathetic of the group.

It's a shame that the film just isn't a bit better. I guess it's difficult to make a movie like this feel like anything more than a well-intentioned melodrama. The cast all try hard, but can only raise it up so far. It's worth your time, and those wanting some inoffensive drama will certainly enjoy it a bit more than I did. Ultimately, it's quite forgettable, which is a tragic irony.

6/10

You know how you can show your appreciation for bloggers? If you share and share then every additional reader helps. Connect through Google or Blogger or any way you can, and rest easy in the knowledge that you've made little ol' me a very happy man.

And/or you could also buy my e-book, that has almost every review I've written over the past 5 years. It's very reasonably priced for the sheer amount of content.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

Noir November: Cast A Deadly Spell (1991)

A noir set in a world full of magic, this TV movie allows viewers to enjoy a memorable adventure in the life of detective H. Philip Lovecraft (see what they did there?), a man tasked with recovering a stolen book that just happens to be the Necronomicon.

Fred Ward plays Lovecraft, and does well in the role. He's always ready with a dry, witty comeback and he can take whatever's thrown at him. Which is sometimes magical, despite his own rule of never using any. He's hired by Amos Hackshaw (David Warner) to find that big book, which leads him to a run-in with his ex-partner (Clancy Brown) and the lovely Connie Stone (Julianne Moore). Before you can say "The Maltese Cthulhu" it all starts to get twisty and dangerous.

Joseph Dougherty's script may not constantly reference the author that lends his name to the main character, but there are plenty of little touches that certainly give the man a tip of the hat. There's also a big finale that could have been ripped from any number of Lovecraft tales, which allows for some great tension and fun for fans.

Director Martin Campbell treats the standard detective story seriously enough, yet manages to keep things light and enjoyable with the numerous details that come together to create the world that the main characters inhabit. This is a world of lively gargoyles, drinks being poured by servers who can levitate items, people being marked for death by dangerous runes, and much more. While not exactly action-packed from start to finish, the film is paced nicely and contains at least three of four decent set-pieces.

Ward seems comfortable in his role, as if it's the kind of part he always wanted but somehow missed out on. Warner does his usual kind of thing, and it's what he does well. He's been around a while, and knows a thing or two about . . . . . . a thing or two. And Brown is a bit gruff and intimidating, which is what HE does well. The one drawback among the main leads is Julianne Moore, who just doesn't fit her role as well as anyone else. She seems strangely out of time, a bit too contemporary. I can't explain it any better than that. Perhaps it's the forced attempt to make her extra sexy at all times, which doesn't pay off at all during scenes that force her to pretend to be singing, or maybe it's just my eyesight. Alexandra Powers is suitably lovely, playing the virginal daughter of Warner's character, Raymond O'Connor is suitably unlovely as a henchman named Tugwell, and Arnetia Walker is a fun addition, playing a witch trying to look after our hero (even if he doesn't always pay his rent on time). Lee Tergesen has a couple of decent scenes, but his character is used for a surprise/twist that doesn't have any impact, thereby rendering it unsurprising.

While it never quite does enough to break out of the confines of the small screen, Cast A Deadly Spell does enough to make it well worth tracking down. The details throughout make it a relatively unique experience, ripe for (re)discovery. I could even say, perhaps in a whisper, that this could also be ripe for a remake.

7/10

The film is, at this time, available on YouTube. It deserves a disc release, but until now this video is one way to own it - http://www.amazon.com/Cast-Deadly-Spell-Fred-Ward/dp/6302233941/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1416849379&sr=1-1&keywords=cast+a+deadly+spell

Tales From The Darkside: The Movie (1990)

Coming along a few years after the TV show, Tales From The Darkside: The Movie is a fun anthology horror movie, full of familiar faces and some entertaining nastiness.

The wraparound segment itself is a lot of fun, as a wicked woman (Deborah Harry) sets out to prepare and cook a small boy (Matthew Lawrence). In an attempt to delay his transformation into a main course, the boy starts to entertain his captor with the tales.
First off, "Lot 249" is a great slice of macabre fun, based (loosely, I'm assuming) on a tale by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Steve Buscemi stars as a young man who has been wronged, but who has just taken receipt of a mummy that he thinks can help exact his revenge.
Then it's on to "Cat From Hell", a Stephen King tale (adapted into a screenplay by George A. Romero) about an old man (William Hickey) who hires a hitman (David Johansen) to kill a cat that he thinks is responsible for the death of his brother and sisters. Is the old man being paranoid, or is the cat really such a nasty piece of work?
The last tale, and a favourite for many viewers, is "Lover's Vow". Written by Michael McDowell, who also adapted the first tale from the source material, this sees James Remar playing a struggling artist who witnesses something unbelievable one night. It's a dangerous monster that allows him to live, only on the condition that he never tells anyone else of their encounter. Fortunately, Remar also meets the lovely Rae Dawn Chong on the same night. The two develop a relationship, but Remar wonders if he can break his silence to be fully honest with the woman he loves.
And then it's back to the wraparound story, of course, for a conclusion that allows viewers to see who will end up in that big oven.

Director John Harrison doesn't do too much wrong here, but he's helped immensely by three decent stories, a fun wraparound, and a collection of great actors in the main roles. As well as Steve Buscemi in the first tale, we also get Christian Slater and Julianne Moore. The second tale is mostly a two-hander, but I'm a big fan of William Hickey, especially when he's working in the horror genre, so that's not a problem. And Remar and Chong both work well in the last tale. Oh, I'd also better mention that Harry and Lawrence are a lot of fun in their scenes.

The script isn't the sharpest, but that's okay. Things work out, in this instance, thanks to the ability of the stars to carry the material, and the great punchlines for each segment. Everyone who has seen this movie remembers the third tale, yet the others are certainly above average for this kind of thing. "Cat From Hell" is the one I like least, and even that has a number of fun moments throughout, before it starts to tail off in the last few minutes (no pun intended).

There's plenty of dark humour, there's just enough gore to keep fans of the red stuff happy, and there are some enjoyable practical effects (some enjoyable for being good, and some enjoyable for being amusingly fake). It's also perfectly paced, coming in at about 90 minutes, therefore preventing any one tale from outstaying its welcome.

Despite my praise, this is far from the best anthology horror movie. It is, however, also far from the worst, and it's definitely worth your time.

7/10

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Don Jon (2013)

When a film is both written, and directed, by the lead actor then I'd say that it's acceptable to have some hesitation about just what you're letting yourself in for. Thankfully, when the main man is Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who seems to exude natural cool ever since he stopped being just the little guy in comedy roles, then that hesitation is unwarranted. It may be his feature directorial debut, but you wouldn't know it from the end result.

Don Jon isn't really what you might expect if you've already seen the trailer. Gordon-Levitt plays Jon, a man who can get with a different girl every night thanks to his charm and good looks. He's also addicted to porn. That becomes a problem when he falls for the gorgeous Barbara (Scarlett Johansson). Can he change his ways and become a better man?

Okay, by describing the movie in the way I have, I've just done it the same disservice as the trailer. So many people, myself included, thought that this was a movie about a man addicted to porn. That's part of it, but it's actually not the main part, even when it seems to be.

Don Jon is about sex and love. It's actually, underneath the porn clips and excessive masturbation, a standard rom-com for guys. Every box is ticked: family tensions, class issues, personal development, good friends, a need for guidance. As well as that standard stuff, the film looks at the hypocrisy of those who view good sex (or porn) as something sinful. Whether it's the church, doling out punishments that somehow don't seem to fit "the crime", or the whole environment surrounding the main character, bombarding him with advertising images that appeal to the part of him that leads to him turning on his computer and getting his computer to turn him on.

Gordon-Levitt is great in the lead role, all about the pleasures of the flesh with little seeming to go on in his mind. Some may find his performance irritating, but I warmed to him after the first few scenes. Johansson puts in a good performance. It's far from her best, although she's entirely believable as a damn sexy woman who makes a man want to change his ways for the better. Julianne Moore is another main character, despite not appearing until almost halfway through the movie. She's pretty good, but her performance feels a lot like a medley of her previous "greatest hits". Elsewhere, Tony Danza and Glenne Headly are wonderful as Jon's parents, Brie Larson plays a character who spends most of her time texting on her phone, but makes an impact with her one main moment of clarity, and Rob Brown and Jeremy Luke are lively and fun as friends of the main character, appropriately disappointed when he takes himself off the market and stops joining them for their big nights out.

It may be far from perfect, but Gordon-Levitt shows a lot of skill while wearing a number of different hats (and, dammit, I bet he could even do that literally - the man is just THAT cool). I've always tended to enjoy his acting performances, but now I will watch with interest to see what he decides to write and/or direct next. And I hope others do the same.

7/10

http://www.amazon.com/Don-Jon-Blu-ray-DVD-Digital/dp/B00FRILRYS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1409084862&sr=8-2&keywords=don+jon

You can help me to convince my loved ones that I don't spend all of my time online looking at porn by investing in my bargain movie guide. Ohhhhhhhhh yes.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

Carrie (2013)

"You will know her name" was the tagline used to advertise Carrie, which kind of highlights the whole problem with the film. Any horror fan already DOES know her name, from either the source novel (by Stephen King), or the original movie, or the belated sequel, or even the OTHER remake. Let's not mention the stage musical. Which means that Carrie is a film pushed/marketed towards younger viewers, or perhaps even non-horror fans.

It all starts off with a bit of unnecessary unpleasantness as we get to see Julianne Moore endure an unexpected home birth, welcoming Carrie White into the world. Moving forward many years, Carrie (Chloe Grace Moretz) is now in high school. She's not that popular, and it probably doesn't help that her mother is a strict religious zealot. Things come to a head when Carrie is surprised by her first period while showering. She has never been told about the changes that her body will go through. While needing help, and being terrified, the other girls simply taunt and humiliate her. As well as the usual changes that young women go through, Carrie also finds that she has a unique talent for telekinesis. Studying up on the subject, Carrie decides to develop her powers. Meanwhile, Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) is one of the few young women feeling bad for her part in mocking Carrie, and convinces her boyfriend, Tommy (Ansel Elgort), to take the poor lass to the prom. Mean Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday), however, plans to make sure that the night is memorable for all the wrong reasons.

While it felt redundant to surmise the plot in that previous paragraph, it seems most appropriate for this review. Because the main word to use in describing Carrie is redundant. Writers Lawrence D. Cohen and Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa bring nothing new to the table, because there's nothing else to be siphoned from the story. Director Kimberly Peirce then makes everything worse by throwing around a load of unnecessary, though not unexpected, CGI and by the poor choices that she makes with the direction given to the cast.

Oh, that cast. I actually feel quite sorry for most of the people involved here. One fantastic cameo from Hart Bochner aside, the cast all have the potential to be great in their roles, but are largely wasted by the script and inept direction. Doubleday wasn't great in the role of Chris, but Wilde and Elgort were both perfectly fine as the two youngsters trying to give Carrie one great night out. Greer comes out of it best, portraying a sympathetic P.E. teacher without overdoing it. The same can't be said of Moore and Moretz, unfortunately. The former pitches her performance in line with the original turn by Piper Laurie, so that's not so bad, but Moretz is asked to portray Carrie in full telekinetic mode as someone twitching their head around and making wiggly hand movements like someone overacting at a Harry Potter LARP event. She's great with the other aspects of the role, portraying the sweetness, shyness and general insecurities of the character with ease, but the last 20-30 minutes leave her flailing, literally.

Yet, as much as it angered and frustrated me, I still found enough individual moments in Carrie to stop me from completely hating it. I couldn't say that it ever even reached the level of average, but the cast helped it to stay away from the very bottom of the barrel. They just couldn't stop it from being so, and you have already guessed my next word, redundant.

3/10

http://www.amazon.com/Carrie-Blu-ray-DVD-Digital-UltraViolet/dp/B00GNAO796/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1404752854&sr=1-1&keywords=carrie