No. 362 : We Are Your Friends (2015)

 

We Are Your Friends at the IMDb

Time for a bit of a rave now at the W Movie Blog as Zac Efron takes us on a whirlwind tour of a vapid DJ’s rise to stardom.

 

The film’s hero, Cole, is listed as 23 with the 28 year old Efron looking all of the five years older than he’s supposed to be. I guess it would look a bit sad if someone was nearly 30 and still struggling with ‘what will I do with my life’ type issues.

Cole is a DJ and looking for a big break. A chance encounter with a superstar DJ gives him some hope, but of course the famous DJ has a sexy girlfriend that Cole lusts over. Whilst trying to spin the wheels of steel, (he's actually more of a laptop man) Cole tries to arrange some DJing gigs with his friends and generally hangs around a lot. The gang do get a job at Jon Bernthal’s boiler shop property business, but our guys are better than that!

 

Are they though? They seem like a bunch of drug taking wasters! Cole gets offered a big gig but makes an arse of it by sleeping with the superstar DJ’s girlfriend and by calling him a has been. Later some more drug taking claims a victim and Cole re-evaluates his life choices – can he make the record that will seal his DJ credentials?

 

I must admit to quite enjoying this film despite it’s overly familiar premise and unlikeable cast of characters. For a start it’s always sunny and everyone is gorgeous, so there is that. The plot is so familiar you’ll think that you have seen this before, but given its box office, you likely haven’t. It does however ask little of the audience and it has a banging soundtrack, albeit one that relies of the euphoria burst style of music a little too often.

There were some decent touches such as Cole’s voice over animated description of how DJing works – and it’s not just sticking on a load of records people! There was also a fun sequence where Cole takes drugs, and the scene becomes slowly animated as he gets more and more mashed.

The subplot of the exploitative mortgage scheme didn’t go anywhere, and Jon Bernthal was largely wasted. It did teach the kids that capitalism is wrong however and they’d be better off in clubs and taking drugs.

 

Efron is good as Cole but he is a bit too old and I didn’t really buy his character who seemed like a sneaky and ungrateful wee shit. His epiphany at the end that his killer tune should be sounds from real life was a bit silly and I doubt many of the punters in the Glasgow Tunnel would have indulged his five-minute build up and the track which included sound bites from his pals.

All in all it was a vacuous and pointless exercise, but the kicking soundtrack and bikini clad ladies made it a passable experience – but only just!

Best Bit - Pool Party

W Score 13/23

No. 361 : Wake Up Dead Man (2025)

 

Wake Up Dead Man at the IMDb

 

This is the third film in the ‘Knives Out’ franchise, with the first reviewed in my Michael Shannon blog and the second’ Glass Onion’ not bothering the scorers. I have now watched them all, and although they qualify as decent entertainment, I doubt they could be seen as the event movies that Netflix seem to have them down as, or worth their $200m budget. In fairness that money is all on the screen, given Daniel Craig earned a reported $1m a minute for his less than one hour screen time.

Still, budgets aren’t all, and if you can get a fun murder mystery on screen who cares what it costs? Well, Netflix shareholders only, as my £6.99 subscription is the same whether I watch this or some 70’s sex farce from the UK.

Craig once again plays his flamboyant detective Benoit Blanc who, whilst presumably French, has a ridiculous and wavering accent and a dress code that Dick Emery would have issues with. Craig doesn’t appear for the first 30 minutes as the murder, with which the film is concerned, is played out. The narrative is that familiar style of someone writing a letter as we dissolve to the action. A young priest with a chequered past is sent to a new church to assist Josh Brolin who is as convincing as a priest as Kenneth Williams would have been as Dirty Harry. Brolin makes the younger cleric take his confession, which is mostly about him wanking a lot.

 

Brolin is assisted by church elder Glenn Close, and he has several parishioners to contend with including Andrew Scott, Thomas Hayden Church and Hawkeye off ‘The Avengers’. You can’t say the cast list isn’t stuffed, but it does seem like overkill to have so many familiar faces shoehorned in. You could argue it’s like a panto or old Agatha Christie film, but it does take you out of the action when Mila Kunis shows up as the cop and Jeffrey Wright as the Archbishop. I’m guessing there will be no prizes for the casting director here!

The victim is Brolin and the young priest is the prime suspect. For reasons unclear Blanc is in town and keen to solve the case with his customary and annoying arrogance. He asks the priest to write out everything he remembers and that takes us full circle to the letter writing opening.

There are a couple of decent twists and several unlikely ones. Various cast members get bumped off and a convoluted story about an $80m diamond is revealed – that’s so much money you could get nearly two Daniel Craig performances! Some of the twists are telegraphed like the impenetrable tomb which can be easily opened from the inside – remember that throwaway fact for later kids!

Overall, this was a decent offering, but it was probably my least favourite of the franchise. I think the re-treaded formula is wearing a bit thin, with the players and the murders laid out before the inevitable denouement where twist upon twist is unravelled before we learn the contrived truth.

 

The murder here seemed awfully unlikely and dependant on a lot of chance events falling into place. It plays out OK at the end, but in reality many of the moving parts would have derailed the intricate plan long before the murderer and fate of the diamond were decided – I managed to figure out both, and I’m a bit slow at this stuff!

The plot was thin for an over two hour run time, and I may have dozed off for five minutes in the middle – that was fine though, as everything is explained in minute detail at the end for the thick people and those who’d fallen into a turkey coma. These films are an ensemble piece, and it is always fun to see your favourite actors ham it up and play in the dress up box. That said, it is debateable whether this is worth a large chunk of your TV viewing allowance and if this was the end of the franchise, I doubt I’d notice or be upset.

W Rating 13/23 Best Bit : Confession Time

No. 360 : Where Eskimos Live (2002)

 

Where Eskimos Live at the IMDb

I picked this DVD up in a charity shop having never heard of it before. Well, its name starts with a ‘W’ so it must be decent! It does hold a reasonable 6.7/10 on IMDb, but I felt that was high and I’d be around half marks, if I was feeling generous.

Bob Hoskins stars as Sharkey, a tough as nails child trafficker who sports the worst accent since Sean Connery’s Egyptian in ‘Highlander’. The DVD box says Sharkey is English, but he has an Eastern European twang for some reason. I wonder if he was dubbed in post, as he doesn’t sound like the Bob we know and love.

Anyway, Sharkey has a fake UNICEF badge and backpack and is floating around Bosnia in 1995 looking to pick up some children. His motives aren’t immediately clear, but we know he has false credentials and is clearly up to something nefarious. It turns out it’s adoptions he’s facilitating but I think the subtext is far more noncey. He is pretty rubbish at his job, getting his papers and stuff taken off him on a regular basis. There is an air of lawlessness due to the war and  Sharkey is frankly underprepared.

He encounters Vlado who is part of a gang of orphans straight out of ‘Oliver Twist’. We know he’s a good guy as he befriends a Downs kid that the others shun. They have almost nothing, but they do have a nice light up globe on which Vlado points out Norway to his friend. ‘That’s where eskimos live’- he says. He may be nice but don’t have him as your phone a friend on ‘Millionaire’!

Vlado’s gang blow up a truck that contains a local Colonel’s daughter. He is rightfully pissed at this and vows to hunt down Bob and Vlado who have now joined forces. This minor peril is quickly dealt with, and the pair bond as they travel across the war-ravaged land with Bob getting some action along the way in a frankly strange sex scene.

The two eventually make it to Germany where Vlado is to be handed over to the gang leaders for a potential organ harvest. Will Bob take the money and walk away? What do you think?!

This was a decent effort, but the multi-nation production showed through, with a lot of dodgy accents and performances. The central relationship was poor with the kid playing Vlado being far too ‘stage school’ for my liking. There were scenes where he was screaming in delight and mugging away as Bob took polaroids that were just awful.

Bob didn’t convince either as a latter-day child catcher and his Road to Damascus style conversion didn’t ring true. He did give it his all however, especially by wearing a comedy style neck brace at the end, after he was beaten up with a trash can.

The story was pretty sleight too and I thought that the film must have been based on a true story, but no, this really was the best the scriptwriters could come up with.

To its credit the film did address some serious issues and the brutality and horrors of war, such as a big pile of corpses, was well done. Overall, the film lacked any tension or peril for me, with the cute kid and grumpy Bob not convincing to any degree, apart as a couple of actors cutting a pay cheque.

Not one that will live long in the memory and one that you will be able to find in my local charity shop sometime soon!

Best Bit - Bob's Full Bed

'W' Rating 10/23

No. 359 : Wild Men (2021)

 

Wild Men at the IMDb

 This subtitled Danish film was offered up to me on the BBC iPlayer and I was glad that I gave it a go. Most Scandinavian films involve murders and detective work in the dark, but this was mostly good fun and it had a strong heart.

The film opens with a large man dressed in animal skins attempting to shoot a goat with his homemade bow and arrow. He fails to nail his quarry and ends up having to settle for a toad instead, which causes him to be sick. He’s obviously a novice at the outdoor life and he soon heads to a petrol station/grocery store where his lack of money leads to him fighting with the staff and making off with a basket of shopping.

Meanwhile three more urban young men come a cropper when they hit an elk in the road and crash. There is seemingly only one survivor, and he staggers off with their large holdall of money. He soon stumbles into the path of our fur clad hero Martin, who manages to carry out some pretty decent first aid, including some stitches on a nasty leg gash.

Elsewhere the police are looking into Martin’s shop heist and into the crashed car, which now has no bodies, unless you count the elk hanging out of the front, which I do.

Two hapless policemen find the injured bagman but Martin decides to help his new friend and handcuffs the two cops together. The bagman, whose name is Musa, convinces Martin that they should head to an idyllic village where people live as Vikings did, off the land. As they set off on their quest a jaded police chief ramps up the investigation and Musa’s erstwhile colleagues set about recovering their cash. Who will achieve their goal? – and is it one that is worth having?

I quite enjoyed this film which was for the most part a gentle comedy, but one laced with a bit of gore, torture and some killings. The central theme was one of isolation and of people struggling with the modern world.

We didn’t get a lot of backstory to Martin’s plight but we know his life in the woods amounted to only ten days when we first encounter him. His seemingly long-suffering wife and his two daughters – and their rabbit! -set off from Denmark to find him in the Norwegian forests and, to be fair, she does a lot better than the cops!

The ‘tired of life’ policeman was a bit of a cliché but I liked his curmudgeonly attitude, and he got a fitting end, something akin to that of Mike in ‘Breaking Bad’. There was some commentary on immigration and the dilution of traditional values – some of it deliberate, such as the monetised Viking village and some of it less so with the drugs trade seemingly following the incomers. This slant was tempered by the Martin/Musa relationship which ended on a positive note.

I don’t think I learned much here – certainly nothing about surviving outdoors! – but it was a warm good-natured film that offered some social commentary and a few laughs along the way.

Best Bit - Viking Village Visit

W Rating 15/23

No. 358 : Windfall (2022)

 

Windfall at the IMDb

This film popped up on my Netflix offering and, despite never having heard of it, I thought I’d give it a go – well you are entitled to your once a year ‘W’ fix!

The film is pretty low key, set all in one house and garden over a couple of days. We open with a man approaching a sumptuous desert property eating an orange from the orchard along the way. There is no dialogue for the first seven minutes as he systematically goes through the house looking for things to steal. He chances upon a handgun, a wad of cash and a Rolex watch. So far so good and he’s ready to go.

 Fortunately for the film, the two homeowners arrive back and soon chance upon the hapless burglar. The next 80 minutes or so deal with the ensuing hostage situation and, as you’d expect, details slowly emerge about the relationships and the background to the situation. At an early stage the burglar leaves but on seeing a CCTV camera, which the owner had denied existed, he returns seeking a $500k payoff. The owner readily agrees, but the cash will take a day to assemble. To complicate matters further the Mexican gardener shows up and soon he’s a hostage too.

Will the cash appear and why has this specific target been chosen? Will the crumbling marital relationship survive the ordeal and who will reap the windfall of the title, if anyone?

 

This was an OK sort of film, but it was really slow and not a lot happened to cover even the lean run time we are given. None of the characters are afforded names which is always an annoying conceit for me – everyone is shouting ‘Babe’ or ‘You’ all the time! The burglar, named ‘Nobody’ in the credits, was played by Jason Segel who you’ll remember from ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’. This dramatic role highlights that comedy is his strength as I wasn’t buying his desperate hours, soul searching protagonist here. The homeowner is credited under ‘CEO’ and is played by Jesse Plemmons or Todd from ‘Breaking Bad’ as he’s more commonly known. I think he may have done a better turn as the burglar as he didn’t convince as the tech entrepreneur billionaire.

 

Filling out the cast as ’Wife’ was Lily Collins – she was forgettable too and did little with thin material. She gets a big finale that wasn’t earned, and I think that was the result of 90 minutes of the run time approaching with no cohesive or logical ending in sight.

 

The film did offer a bit of commentary on technology making people obsolete but to be honest my sympathies started with CEO and stayed there. ‘Nobody’ came across as entitled and unfocussed and although his randomness was a deliberate part of the character, he never came together as someone whom I cared about, feared or believed.

 

There are a couple of minor twists to keep you interested but it will be a passing, and soon to be forgotten, interest. I see the three principals all got producing credits along with the director and I’m sure a sunny shoot on the Netflix tab was fun for all concerned – just a shame the viewer wasn’t invited along for the ride!

Best Bit : The Gardener Does the Windows

'W' Rating 11/23

No. 357 : Wonka (2023)

 

Wonka at the IMDb

 

The original ‘Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’, is the same age as me, having been released in 1971, as was I. We have both endured well and become well established favourites, with Willy possibly having more memes than myself.

I aways liked the film and even had time for the Tim Burton remake, but I wasn’t in any rush to catch up on this prequel which I felt, based on the marketing, seemed a bit slight and sanitised compared to the original. I did however dive into the figurative chocolate river when it was offered up as Christmas viewing on Sky at a family gathering.

 

I sat through the whole thing and have to say it was better than I thought. Not great by any standard, but a mild distraction or passable confection, if you will.

 

The film opens with Wonka, already in his trademark hat, with a few coins to his name which he manages to piss away in the forgettable opening song. He gains lodgings at Olivia Colman’s guest house – huge mistake- and soon finds himself in indebted servitude with some fellow guests including Jim Carter out of ‘Drunk in Time’.

 

Wonka has ambitions to open a sweet shop but is thwarted at every turn by three chocolate factory owners played in part by Matt Lucas and Johnston off ‘Peep Show’ who is clearly trying to execute ‘Project Zeus’ on the unsuspecting townsfolk. They are aided by a bribeable police man who gets fatter in every scene he’s in due to his chocolate addiction.

 

There are a couple of side quests including the origins of Wonka’s sassy sidekick and a mysterious present gifted to Wonka by his now dead mother which he’s never been able to open. With this being a prequel, the end result is never really in doubt but there are a few decent moments to make the ride to the destination worthwhile.

 

I would say that the songs are instantly forgettable, which was a shame as I had higher hopes when I saw Neil Hannon of The Devine Comedy was the songwriter. I think the film suffered by including a couple of songs from the original which put the new ones in the shade.

 

I did like Hugh Grant’s turn as an Oompa Loompa although the CGI was his scenes was obvious and distracting. Indeed, the use of CGI in general was poor with Wonka firing chocolates and sweets out of his hat at every turn – I get that the film is a fantasy but it just looked fake and a pale shadow of the practical effects from its predecessor.

 

Timothee Chalamet was decent as Wonka, but he didn’t have much of a singing voice nor the presence of someone like Gene Wilder to make the role memorable. There were recognisable faces down the cast list which is always fun, and there were plenty of call backs and sight gags to keep you on your toes. I liked the suggestion of from where the golden tickets idea came from, and the scenes with the late mother were sweet. Pro-tip though – if your dying mother leaves you a gift, just open the bloody thing! Pay attention Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 1 – this applies to you too!

Wonka is a decent family offering but I’d be surprised if it has half the legs of its predecessor, although I can see further instalments coming in the franchise – hopefully ‘Grampa Joe: Dole Cheat’ is up next! 

 

Best Bit:  Opening the long-held gift

 

‘W’ Rating 14/23

No. 356 : Woman of the Hour (2023)

 

Woman of the Hour at the IMDb

Anna Kendrick stars and directs this film which, although based on a promising premise, was ultimately disappointing.

 

It’s the 1970s and Sheryl, played by Kenrick, is an aspiring actress. She fails to get any proper acting jobs but her agent promises her some exposure by casting her as the girl on a TV dating show.

As she goes about her business and prepares for the gig we also get regular vignettes of a photographer who is also a serial killer. He meets and enraptures various woman and takes them on photo shoots in the desert, before murdering them. These sequence were very matter of a fact and brutal and this caused my wife to bail out after 40 minutes. I can see why as the scenes were disturbing and the film as a whole can’t be seen as entertainment.

 

Still, I pushed onto the end and although it was decent, the film was unsatisfying and seemed somewhat embellished, which having read up on the details, appears to be the case.

 

The film is well realised with cheezy 70’s sets and costumes, so it is a bit jarring when Sheryl is full on ‘me too’ slagging off the idiotic men and suffering the host who mutters the ‘C’ word in her direction. I’m not saying it was right, but what we saw on screen didn’t ring true of the 1970’s that I remember.

 

The actual TV show begins about an hour into the film and Sheryl is described as ‘the Woman of the Hour’ which seems a bit of an unlikely way to justify the name of the film, which doesn’t make much sense anyway.

 

The show rumbles on with the sassy Sheryl going off script and coming up with her own complicated questions to flummox the dopey male suitors. I may be off target here, but I’m guessing a tightly scripted TV show wouldn’t tolerate such dalliances – ask me about my ‘Weakest Link’ experience!

 

The host, not unreasonably, gets irritated with Sheryl, but she finds an ally in the make up woman. Meanwhile an audience member recognises the murderer as a criminal and tries to get him arrested but is thwarted by idiot men, who seem over represented in this picture.

 

The serial killer demonstrates his wit and charm – as well as his backstabbing skills against his fellow bachelors - and wins the day and a date with Sheryl. Despite picking him Sheryl soon smells a rat and has a narrow escape after an awkward dinner. As a coda we see the killer's next attempt at a kidnap and murder before some captions tell us how things played out.

 

I think this story about a killer who happened to appear on a TV game show was a bit thin for a full feature. I feel sure that all of Sheryl’s ad-libbed questions and her after show date were all invented and I doubt the added tension of the person reporting the killer during the taping actually happened. As I mentioned this seemed like a jarring modern take on a 50-year-old incident and it didn’t ring true.

 

The direction by Kendrick was OK but some scenes lingered too long, and the pacing was poor. I also disliked the jump around timeline, with it often unclear where we were with the serial killer’s journey.

 

Overall it’s probably worth a look but ultimately it is a small piece of TV trivia stretched beyond breaking point to justify a full feature.

 

Best Bit: The closing scene with the girl acting for her life was well done

‘W’ Rating 12/23

No. 355 : Weird : The Al Yankovic Story (2022)

 

Weird : The Al Yankovic Story at the IMDb

This film was offered up to me by Amazon who are obviously aware of my dubious tastes. I am not immune to the acquired taste of Weird Al and I can honestly say that ‘Hardware Store’ is a rock solid classic.

I was a bit reticent about Daniel Radcliffe playing Al in this parody bio-pic though. I’ve never rated him as an actor and I’m sure all of his career stems from the fall out from his stint as Harry Potter. It must be easy to get a film green lit when you have such an established fan base behind your star. He also seems unlikeable as a person and regardless of your position on the debate I think his behaviour against JK Rowling, who effectively gave him his entire career, is indefensible.

 

Still, we all like a laugh so let’s have a look. The film lost points for me right away when it was clear that our old friends the non-linear narrative and the unreliable narrator were being employed. The film opens with Al being rushed to surgery but as so often happens the narration guides us back to the subject’s childhood. This sees a young Al being held back with his parents with his Dad assaulting a door to door accordion salesman. I appreciate that this was done for laughs but when the film is a biopic it annoys me when stuff gets totally made up. How can you trust anything that’s said going forwards?

 

The film doesn’t concern itself with accuracy however with Al’s affair with Madonna and his dealing with Pablo Escobar covered in detail. There were a few laughs as Al’s fledging career is helped by Rainn Wilson’s ‘Dr Dememto’. His parody and polka-based songs soon take off and there is a knowing nod to his niche popularity when a star-spangled pool party has all the celebs, such as Devine and Pee-Wee Herman fawning over Al.

 

The film was produced by ‘Funny or Die’ and they clearly used some of their influence to get a load of guest stars who showed up for a single scene such as Jack Black, Michael McKean and Conan O’Brien who managed a very poor impression of Andy Warhol. The pool party was the best scene and it went downhill from there. Basically, as soon as Evan Rachel Wood’s Madonna shows up you should bail out.

 

The film sees Al rise to greatness and then succumb to the temptations of stardom. He overcomes Michael Jackson parodying his song ‘Eat it’ with the inferior ‘Beat it’ and manages to reconcile with his father. Will All see a happy ending, or will it be one awards show too many?

 

This film was OK, but I thought Radcliffe was miscast. They clearly used Al for the songs and Potter’s buff body didn’t really suit the wimpy character he was playing. I could see the argument that the casting added to the self-serving bio-pic nature of the film but he just looked like a British guy in a wig.

 

The format and narrative of the film was a lot like ‘Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story’ and it was about as 20% as good as that stone cold classic. It also borrowed heavily from Howard Stern's 'Private Parts' and again it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as that wonderful film.

 

Al himself shows up as a music executive who turns himself down for a contract and it almost seemed that the whole film was nothing but wish fulfilment on the part of the Polka Prince. I would have preferred more laughs and less self-reverential stuff barely disguised as satire. It was fun for the many cameos, but I came away learning little about the subject and having had too few laughs to justify my 100-minute investment.

 

Best Bit: The pool party.

‘W’ Rating: 13/23

No. 354 : Who Is Erin Carter? (TV) (2023)

 

Who is Erin Carter at the IMDb

If you are going to give your TV series an interrogative title it would probably makes sense that you ensure that after enduring 7 episodes your audience is likely to give a shit; but I didn’t.

This by the numbers and cliché-ridden Netflix drama could be seen as a harmless pastime but the lazy writing and terrible acting made it feel like a complete waste of time.

The timeline of the series jumps around a bit but basically you have a woman living with her husband and child in Barcelona – but there are secrets! Things start to unravel when she stumbles upon a supermarket robbery and takes down one of the baddies who recognises her. We’re meant to be impressed by her fighting skills, but the bad guy goes down like he’s in the WWF and all our girl does is some high-level shoving. One robber escapes and Erin is worried her cover may be blown.

What cover you ask? Well, a long flashback shows her at police training college and quickly kicked out when she beats up an annoying fellow cadet. The predictable shady man from black ops invites her to join his division and within five minutes she’s infiltrated a gang and helping with a bullion robbery. You’d think someone with more that a week at training college would be a better option, but a quick training montage puts that concern to bed.

The robbery goes tits up with one woman bank robber seemingly getting killed leaving her annoying daughter at a loose end. Erin confirms her recruitment was a total arse up when she flees to Spain with the child and sets up a new life.

Unfortunately, the supermarket robbers, who wear the same animal masks as at the bullion robbery – they must have gotten a job lot, - know Erin was the rat in the crew and soon the mysterious ‘Mr Big’ is after her.

Fortunately, Erin has a gullible husband and a helper in the shape of Emilio, who is a cop and who is happy to get involved in Erin’s manipulative schemes. Elsewhere a local bitch is making Erin’s school teacher ambitions difficult, but fortunately local businessman Duggie Henshall is on hand to exert some influence. I don’t think Henshall ever got over being outsmarted by Supercrew in ‘Common as Muck’ as he’s absolutely dreadful here. He looks like someone reading lines in a language he doesn’t understand who’s also late for a dental appointment. It gets worse when you get the predictable big reveal!

The meagre plot is spread wafer thin over the 7 episodes with the annoying daughter’s visions and drawings of people in animal masks and her behavioural issues being a complete bore. You do get the lovely Susannah Fielding from ‘This Time’ – A-ha – but she is given precious little to do apart from being a busy body at Erin's school. 

The whole farrago is meant to be like a female Jason Bourne with our heroine displaying mad skills – in truth the fighting and action are very poor and lacks the visceral punch of those movies. There is one decent car crash, but you can tell the budget went on that as the flashback sequences in ‘England’ show a sun baked paradise where they forgot to put down road markings – a bit like Barcelona really!

Evan Amhad does OK in the lead with poor material, but she didn’t convince whatsoever as a pocket dynamo superspy with multiple layers and a complicated past. She is better than her husband Jordi however, who looks like he wandered onto set looking for a lost dog.

The whole production seems by the numbers with no doubt a Spanish language version shot at the same time. There are a lot of subtitled sequences and it looks like an international audience was the plan from the start. I’m sure this made fiscal sense for the bean counters at Netflix but the result is an unsatisfying offering that will doubtlessly play equally bad in all markets.

The finale was unsatisfying, not least because it suggests a sequel may be in the works. If you want a Lady Bourne straight from Wish.com this may be the offering that you seek, but otherwise I’d suggest the answer to the question posted by the title is ‘couldn’t care less’.

Best Bit: The police car chase was ridiculous but a good smash up at the end.

‘W’ Rating: 9/23

No. 353 : World Trade Center (2006)

World Trade Center (2006) at the IMDb

 

 * I watched this film and wrote a review for my new Michael Shannon Blog 'Michael Shannon and On and On' which will debut sometime soon. Check back here later and I'll link it when it goes live. It would be a disservice to my one follower to not add a review here on the W movies blog, so I have adapted it for this audience with the more Shannon-centric comments removed.

***************************************************************************

Five years after the devastating events of 9/11 director Oliver Stone assembled a star studded cast to try and tell some of the stories behind the disaster. It would be churlish to criticise it too much as it is well intentioned and celebrates worthy people, but you may find it a bit mawkish and sentimental.

The film centres on Nicholas Cage’s Port Authority cop John. After the attacks take place – mostly off camera; we see only a shadow of a hijacked plane – Cage is sent down to the site to assist in the rescue effort. He comes over as a bit cautious and fusses about looking for equipment as the towers burn and fall. I’m not sure what was being conveyed here – was he playing it safe and by the book or was he fearful of walking in to near certain death? His choices are quickly made for him however, when a tower collapses and he and his men dive into a lift entrance that quickly collapses. Most of the men are killed immediately, with another shooting himself in what I trust was a true incident, as it seemed a bit unconvincing in the film.

Cage and his colleague Michael Pena survive, but both are trapped by their legs. The remainder of the film documents their bid to survive as they comfort and cajole each other to stay awake and listen out for a rescue. As they do so we enter their minds and see flashbacks of better times. They also have visions of Jesus and imagined conversations with their wives. These scenes took me out of the moment somewhat and although they may be accurate to the men involved, it just seemed daft when a vision of Jesus came down to offer salvation. At least he brought a bottle of heavenly water with him.

Whilst our guys struggle with their predicament, the film intercuts with real life events, with stock footage from the day interwoven with scenes of the wives and family back home awaiting to hear of their men’s fate. The women in this film are poorly served with Pena’s partner, a pregnant Maggie Gyllenhaal, being annoying throughout and Cage’s Maria Bello having weird eyes. IMDb says her eyes were colourised for the film and it is poorly done and distracting.

We also get a couple of side stories with Michael Shannon's ex-marine accountant going back to the good fight and Frank Whaley's alcoholic character putting a plug in the jug so that he can offer medical assistance to the injured.

The trapped men are located and, after some digging and more bonding, both are eventually freed from their tomb. We then jump forward two years to see that they have done well in their rehabilitation with baby naming and marital difficulties seemingly resolved.

The films does well not to ponder on the political aspects of the events and focuses more on individual stories. This gives the production some heart, but it also makes it feel somewhat unsubstantial when it covers world changing events. The performances are mixed with a lot of shouting and screaming taking the place of real acting. Your sympathies lie with Cage and Pena from the start and the outcome was never really in doubt. The backstories and family dramas were decent but I didn’t like the wives much and some of the dialogue was too on the nose to be believable.

Overall I’d give the film a pass as it deals with tragic and emotional material well, but I never truly bought into the characters we were offered and their annoying families only served to distance me from the heart of the story. There was a lot to cover in a two hour film and I think ultimately it was a worthy but unsatisfying effort.

Best Bit : The building collapse was well realised and the sets were excellent.

'W' Rating 15/23

No. 352 : Willy's Wonderland (2021)

 

Willy's Wonderland at the IMDb

I found this soon to be cult classic on Amazon Prime and have to say that, despite myself, I actually quite enjoyed it. The film stars Nicholas Cage and appears to be from his ‘filmed in an afternoon to pay the tax bill’ phase. Its budget is listed as a lowly $5m and it was sponsored by the Malaysian film industry to the tune of 30%, which is confirmed by the credits list that suggest most of the post production was carried out overseas.

With a foreign backer to appease the film took the bold decision to have its star have literally no lines of dialogue whatsoever - I imagine that saved plenty on the dubbing costs alone. Apart from a few grunts Cage has nothing to say at all, and if the intention was ‘mysterious’ it came across as ‘constipated’.

Cage plays ’The Janitor’ a drifter, who for unexplained reasons, has a high end sports car. He drives through a small town when he hits a spike trap on the road causing a low end come to a stop - no budget for a big smash here. We quickly learn that this is small town movie cliché number one, with corrupt officials and police putting their well used plan into action. Cage doesn’t have the money for car repairs but a local businessman makes him a strange offer - clean up the abandoned fun house overnight and the $1000 repairs will be covered. Sounds like a good deal? HUGE mistake.

Whilst Cage gets his mops and brushes organised, we have a side plot with a bunch of high school kids who are plotting to burn down the titular fun house. These are your typical teen slasher fodder and I don’t think a single one registered with me. 

Despite having no lines, Cage does show character depth - he drinks a can of energy drink every hour and plays pinball, even when fighting off a hoard of rampaging animatronic characters. Yes, the fun house is inhabited by 8 mascots all of whom have murderous intent. In a large info dump from the sheriff, we learn that the fun house was owned and staffed by a bunch of child killers. When the game was up they carried out a ritual suicide which caused their spirits to inhabit the mechanical fun house hosts, like you do.

The robots were the best bit of the film with a good mix of creepy and exaggerated clown features with various animals and creatures depicted like a crocodile, woodland nymph and the titular Willy the stoat himself. As you’d expect the bad guys gamely line up for individual battle with Cage whilst their contemporaries take out the kids. We learn that the townsfolk lure in strangers to appease the bad guy spirits, lest they once again return to the town to seek their prey there. They should have called Cage in the first place, because as The Janitor, he quickly cleans house.

I was setting up to dislike this film. The opening has a lot of fast edits and has a washed out sepia tone. The gimmick of having Cage not speaking quickly wears thin and there are a lot of awkward scenes were a line of dialogue would move things on, whereas we get Cage looking awkwardly for a way out instead. His character and motivation are wafer thin but the fight scenes are decent and brutal with no time wasted with complicated explanations or justifications. The teens could have been wearing t-shirts marked ‘Fodder’ and their fates would have been no less obvious. Down the cast you’ll recognise no one apart from the lady sheriff who has a few decent credits, but was trying too hard to channel Darlene out of ‘Ozark’ to be effective here.

Overall this was a throwaway piece of nonsense that had just enough to keep me interested. The violence is fun and extreme and it demands nothing in terms of your attention or powers of deduction. The animatronics were well realised although it was clear that it was people in costumes for the fights and they weren’t as tough as invulnerable as the locals would have you believe. Guess you just need to hire the right janitor to take out the trash!

Best Bit : Need a new t-shirt

'W' Rating 15/23

No. 351 : Wrath of Man (2021)

 

Wrath of Man at the IMDb

I saw a trailer for a new Guy Ritchie film starring Jason Statham, Josh Hartnett and Eddie Marsan called ‘Operation Fortune’ that looked a lot of fun. I was surprised to see it pop up on Amazon Prime, but it turned out it wasn’t the fun caper film from the trailer but a heist movie involving the same people. It’s almost like they finished one film early and decided to bash out another seeing as they had all the crew assembled. If my assumption of this cookie cutter approach is correct, one film would have to be the poorer cousin; but which one is it? It’s this one!

Jason plays his usual character - bald and gruff ex-special forces with a mysterious past - who on this outing is called ‘H’ - they may have been trying for a Steps sub-plot, but it wasn’t really developed. The film opens with a heist which we see from the security van’s crew’s perspective. Something goes awry and we hear that two guards and a civilian have been shot from the police radios - remember that for later.

We then meet Jason who is applying for a job at the security firm three months later. He’s told of the previous robbery and is taken through his paces by ‘Bullet’, the senior guard at the firm. Jason barely scrapes a 70% pass mark at the evaluation, but we suspect that he has more in his locker. True to form his van is soon held up, but Jason shoots up all the bad guys without drawing sweat or changing his facial expression. Company rules say that any incident involving a fatality means those involved should get a desk job, but the boss tells flunky Eddie Marsan that Jason should be promoted instead - he does have top billing, after all.

Meanwhile we meet up with the troupe of bad guys run by ‘Burn Notice’s Jeffrey Donovan. He’s getting on a bit so he gets some help from Clint junior, Scott Eastwood. Scott has a bit of a cloudy eye, so we know from the start that he’s a total psychopath. The robbers are ex-military and are keen for a big score and target Jason’s depot on Black Friday when there will be $150 million cash on hand - haven’t these people heard of credit cards?

The narrative jumps back and forth in time with captions appearing regularly - at one point we are five months back and then it’s ‘3 weeks later’ from then or now? It does get a bit confusing. There are also chapter titles which define the 3 acts, which just come across as pretentious in a film with low aspirations, such as this. Just remember Jason has a soppy son he dotes on and that there’s a mole in the security network who is almost definitely the one you think it is from the start.

This was a half decent offering, and if you are of mind to stick on a mindless Jason Statham film you won’t be disappointed. This isn’t one of his light-hearted efforts where he drops a couple of zingers, this is the brow furrowed and no shit taken Jason with plenty of double taps and needless blood letting.

The non-linear narrative is easy enough to follow, mainly because every ‘twist’ was signposted brighter than a Christmas tree. We know Jason is on the path of vengeance - the title is your clue - and it didn’t take much mental agility to work our where he’d been wronged and who needed shooting to sort things out.

The characters are all wafer thin, but it did seem pointless to kill off virtually every one of them. I know it makes the baddie a bit more ‘boo hiss’ if he kills a few people we have investment in, but sadly the investment was nil, with the interest rate even lower.

Donovan had very little to do and it looked like a lot of the principals did their work in a few days when it suited their schedules. The film lacked any of the glamour or budget of what ‘Operation Fortune’ promises and clearly this effort will be seen as the runt of the litter. For a film like this to succeed you need to really care about the character and his motivation. Here Statham’s character didn’t make any sense, nor did his involvement in the initial heist. ‘We need you to tell us if the truck goes left or right’ says the mysterious overlord on the phone. Given the ambush was set up on the right it didn’t really matter what Statham called in, as that was their only chance of success anyway. Why Jason and his son stopped for a front row burrito was just illogical.

Anyway , slice and dice it anyway you like this was an unsatisfying revenge flick that had some decent gun play and a few familiar faces looking for an easy pay day. It was competently made but totally forgettable and a lesser Statham, if there is such a thing.

Best Bit : Jason drops his burritos ‘W’ Rating : 10/23

No.350 : Wildlife (2018)

Wildlife at the IMDb

It’s Montana in 1960 and all is not going well with Jake Gyllenhaal and Carey Mulligan’s marriage. They are Jerry and  Jeanette and they have a teenage  son Joe. Clearly the writer got stuck on the ’J’s page in his ’name your character’ book.

Wild forest fires are burning across the state meaning the air quality is poor and the kids are receiving fire training. Jerry works at a golf course but is quickly dismissed, with Joe present, for gambling with the guests. We learn he has trouble keeping jobs, meaning that the family is always on the move.

We see him with a couple of beers, so it’s clear he’s immediately become an inveterate drunk. He refuses menial jobs, meaning that Jeanette has to get a job teaching swimming and Joe one after school at a photography studio. He’s happy to do this as it means he doesn’t have to play football which he dislikes but his father expects.

Jerry has a few breakdowns and speeches Willy Loman style, and rashly accepts a dangerous, low paid, job putting out the fires. Jeanette is aghast at first but soon starts to act up and walking out with an older, wealthier man whom she met when she taught him to swim. She takes Joe to meet him and the boy sees him giving Mom a special goodnight kiss. He also sees his ass when he stops over one night.

Joe develops a friendship with a girl classmate, but when Jerry returns and Jeanette announces she’s leaving, he has to witness the final throes of their marriage. What can be salvaged from the wreckage? And will Joe be scarred by the messy break-up of his parents?

This film started out well and for the first half hour I was quite engaged. Gyllenhaal is always watchable and the film suffers when he exits stage left for the middle third. His struggles with authority and keeping a job were interesting and it’s a shame his character wasn’t developed more. Instead the main focus was on their son Joe who, although well played by  Ed Oxenbould (see The Visit), he was a bit dull. Part of his character was that he was a late developer, but he spent a lot of the film staring with a quivering bottom lip.

I think the idea was that he was powerless to intervene as his parents' marriage and, by proxy, his life disintegrated. The raging fires were a strong metaphor and it was no surprise when erstwhile fire-fighter Jerry became a crazy fire starter when trying to sort out his problems.

I didn’t buy into Jeanette’s character arc, who went from doting Mom to drunk floozy almost overnight. Of course she was responding to Jerry’s recklessness in taking the fire fighting job but it didn’t ring true that she’s have the ancient Warren in her bed, with her son in the house, mere days after Jerry left the scene. Mulligan was decent as Jeanette and carried the 60’s fashions well but she was poorly served by  lazy writing and unbelievable character developments.

The film has a kind of  coda at the end where Mom comes back for a visit and the family is briefly reunited. This didn’t really resolve any issues but at least they got the photo for the poster.

Overall this was a decent period examination of a failed marriage but it was ultimately unsatisfying and more than a little dull.

Best Bit : Dinner at Warren’s  ‘W’ Rating 12/23

 

 

No.349 : Welcome to Marwen (2018)

 

Welcome to Marwen at the IMDb

It’s strange how you don’t review any films about a person living a fantasy life and then two come along at once.  Our previous effort ‘Who You Think I Am’ concerned a woman inventing an online personality, this one is about a man who invents a whole world so that he can escape his demons.

I was surprised when this film was offered up on Netflix as I’d never heard of it before despite being a fan of its star, Steve Carell. It’s also directed by ‘Back to the Future’ helmer Robert Zemeckis so it seemed strange that it wasn’t better known, by me at least.

Having seen the film it’s easy to see why the film sunk without trace at the box office. There is a lot to like, but tonally it’s a mess and there are long scenes that are difficult to watch through embarrassment, awkwardness or just plain boredom.

The film is based on a true story of an artist named Mark who was severely beaten by a gang of yobbos who didn’t like his proclivity of wearing hi-heels. He loses his memory and ability to draw and relies on friends and a carer to get through the day. He also retreats into a fantasy world where he becomes his action figure ‘Hogie’ and fights the Nazis in his own model town of Marwen.

The film goes into complete ‘Toy Story’ mode to show Hogie’s adventures which mirror the events of Mark’s own life. His attackers are the Nazis and his troupe of lady resistance fighters are his friends and a favourite porn star.

Mark’s attackers are due to be sentenced and Mark has to speak at their sentencing hearing to ensure the impact they caused on his life is recognised and they receive the appropriate jail time. He also has an upcoming show for the photos he takes of his models, with both events adding to his stress. Things look up however  when a new neighbour, Nicol, moves in and takes an interest in Mark’s hobby.

Will he find peace and love and can Hogie defeat both the Nazis and the Belgian witch who haunts his endeavours?

This was a worthy film that showed the bravery of the main character in surmounting the obstacles placed before him. I can’t say I enjoyed it though. The narrative device of having the toys acting out World War 2 scenes that ran parallel with Mark’s own life was misjudged and took you in and out of the real story with monotonous regularity.

The animation was excellent, with the real cast being morphed into their action figure avatars. I liked how things like the buttons and  zips being too big for the tiny clothes were shown along with their articulated joints. The toys scenes went on too long for me, with a time travel episode lasting ten minutes during which my attention waned. I think you need to have either a kids’ film or a moving redemption drama - to have both squeezed into one film made it a hard watch.

Carell was good, not ‘Foxcatcher’ good, but he did well with difficult material. He must have thought another Oscar nomination was in the offing when he got the script for a brain damaged transvestite, but unfortunately his turn wasn’t enough to keep all the plates spinning. For your money you also get a single scene with ‘Russian carer’ Brienne of Tarth who was dreadful, and the chubby nurse off ‘Nurse Jackie’ who was the chubby friend.

There were good sequences in the film and it was a triumph of the human spirit that deserved to be told. Some scenes were very difficult to endure however, like when Mark had his breakdowns or proposed marriage and there was constant yelling and screaming to endure.

It must have been a hard film to market with the opening animated sequence having a couple of swears so that we knew that this wasn’t for the kids. I’m not sure who it was for really, as it covers a few genres but doesn’t really succeed in any.

A brave effort, but not something I’d recommend or consider as entertainment.

Best Bit :  Trial Speech ‘W’ Rating 10/23

No.348 : Who You Think I Am (2019)

Who You Think I Am at the IMDb

Juliette Binoche plays Claire in this French drama, a lady who is as nutty as squirrel shit.

We meet Claire as she is engaging with her new therapist. She’s frustrated that her former analyst has suffered a stroke meaning that she has to recap her story, the one that brought her under psychiatric care. This helps us as the story mostly unfolds in flashback, with it beginning as the 50 year old lecturer is having quite the jolly time with her younger boyfriend. He’s not too keen however and the relationship is clearly floundering. Claire lives alone, sharing custody of her two boys with her ex-husband who left her for a younger woman.

Claire starts to nosey through her boyfriend’s Facebook on the sly, having gained backdoor access by befriending some of his friends. She casually likes a few photos taken by one such friend and the two start to chat when he thanks her for her approval. Claire enjoys the flirty chat and starts to pose as ‘Clara’, using photos she finds on the net to promote her younger alter ego.

The online relationship starts to blossom and Claire barely notices when her boyfriend leaves her. She starts a Facebook page for Clara and uses her son’s old mobile for contact. Her new beau, Alex, is keen for a meet up but for obvious reasons Claire has to keep him at arms length. At one point the two almost meet when their GPS signals match up but Alex looks straight through Claire as he forlornly seeks out Clara.

Things start to get messy when Claire neglects her kids and starts to act out at work and in her car, egged on by her would be lover’s dirty talk. Eventually she runs out of excuses and tells Alex of her fictitious lover and their plans to move to Brazil. It looks like an innocent flirtation has resolved without issue - apart from her being a total timewaster - but why is she seeing a psychologist?

Things take a darker turn when her ex-boyfriend later tells her that Alex has killed himself over some woman he never met on Facebook. Claire is devastated but presents her doctor with a new book she has written that charts how the relationship could have worked out. We see this enacted in full as the pair enjoy a whirlwind romance - can we know what is real, what is imagined and what is the state of Claire’s mind?

I really enjoyed this film with its attractive cast, excellent direction and clever narrative. It could have been boring with a lot of the story relayed by phone calls and texts but it zipped along and kept me guessing. I enjoyed the French dialogue and feel that subtitles help you stay immersed in a film as you aren’t distracted by your phone and the like, as you need to keep reading what is on the screen.

Binoche is excellent as Claire - she is super sexy and a lot like Elaine out of ‘Seinfeld’. In some ways she was too pretty, as it would be a different film if she was a fatty with a bad complexion. As it was, Alex would have jumped at the chance of a date with Claire, had she come clean.

My guesses at the outcome were all undone by a few neat twists and, although we never doubted that Claire had issues, it was interesting to see her fantasy played out and her reactions to the twists she experienced herself.

Things like online romances and age gap relationships were explored in intimate detail and there was plenty of food for thought. The cast were all excellent and I think the story suited the Parisian location were romance and flirting seemed natural and cool - set this in Glasgow and it’s just a crazed stalker with a SIM card.

Overall an excellent and moving piece of work that has a lot to say about our society, addiction to mobile devices and the age old quest to be loved.

Get it on Netflix right now.

Best Bit : Who’s Phone is That Ringing? ‘W’ Rating : 20/23

No.347 : Wild Rose (2018)

Wild Rose at the IMDb

Off to the sunny climes of Glasgow now, as we witness one woman’s struggle to become a top country singer - don’t say ‘country & western’, that’s a no no.

The ‘Rose' of the title is Rose-Lynn a young Glasgow girl who, when the film starts, is being released from a one year sentence in prison that she received for smuggling drugs. She’s escorted out by Stevie the Bookie, and heads home on the bus as the opening credits roll, against an endless backdrop of country music. If you don’t like country music this is one to avoid, as it’s wall to wall.

She meets up with, and pumps, her old boyfriend before heading home to her mother's, Mrs Overall, who has been looking after her young children for her. She still harbours an ambition to be a country singer and heads back to reclaim her job at Glasgow’s Grand Old Opry. This goes poorly, partly because someone else has her job and partly due to Janie Godley being the barmaid.

Rose-Lynn has to wear a tag which inhibits her plans to be a club singer so she gets a job at a fancy house as a cleaner and befriends the  owner, Susannah. Susannah is a classy lady who married a boy made good from Clydebank. Despite her constant swearing she takes to Rose-Lynn despite the hammering her booze takes when she’s out.

Susannah’s connections in the media get Rose-Lynn a meeting with Radio 2’s Bob Harris who shows what a good DJ he is when he tries to act. He tells Rose-Lynn that she’ll need to write her own songs to be a success, but Rose-Lynn thinks if she can get to Nashville things will all be OK.

Things look up when she wins her appeal against being tagged and Susannah offers to sponsor her trip to the States. Trouble looms however as Susannah’s husband uncovers Rose-Lynn’s past and her ability to screw up every opportunity presented to her looms large. Can she get to Nashville and will this be the key to success that she imagines?

I quite liked this film but it suffered due to Rose-Lynn’s character. I get that she was meant to be a free spirit but her selfishness and rudeness throughout was a turn off for me. I know this was a path to her ultimate redemption but it was cringey to see all the people trying to help her only to be let down by Rose-Lynn’s tunnel vision ambition and lack of empathy. She was well played by Jessie Buckley, who certainly can sing, bit I had no investment in the character who was a serial waster.

It’s probably true that she was just immature but her realisation towards the end about what was important and what was her ultimate redemption seemed totally unearned.

The film was well made with the grimmer sides of Glasgow well realised, as were the more affluent. Mrs Overall did a passable Scottish accent and a few of the Glasgow characters, many of whom were never actors, added a bit of colour and realism.

The endless country ballads were a bit off-putting for me but if you like that sort of music, then is is one for you. The character’s miserable existence sprinkled with some hope for the future was like a 100 minute country song in itself and if that appeals then you, then you should fill your cowboy boots.

Best Bit : Opry Finale  ‘W’ Rating : 14/23

 

No.346 : Women’s Prison Massacre (1983)

 Women's Prison Massacre at the IMDb

The IMDb title page for this film gives it a possessive apostrophe but the poster and title card do not. The original intent may have been for it to be a plural and not a possessive, but it’s probably not important given that the likely viewers of this sleazy trash will be more concerned with the boob quotient rather than correct punctuation. Why can’t we have both though?

This Italian relic dates from 1983 and appears to be part of the ‘Black Emmanuelle’ franchise. This is not explicit however (unlike the film) as although we have the same actress and a character called Emmanuelle, there isn’t any continuity with the previous films…er, as I’ve been led to understand. Maybe they wanted this as a standalone epic or they couldn’t get the rights. Either way it is a terrible exploitation film with blood and boobs served up in equal measure.

The film opens with three ladies delivering monologues to an audience of prisoners. It’s not clear where we are but it looks like it’s meant to be Mexico given the policemen dress like ice cream salesmen. Anyway the play doesn’t go down well, with Emmanuelle getting particularly bad reviews from head bitch Albina, who is possibly so named as she’s a bit pale.

We learn that Emmanuelle has been falsely imprisoned by a corrupt DA who will stop at nothing to silence her. Meanwhile four notorious murders, Led by ‘Crazy Boy’ have been captured. The DA has the great plan to house them at the women’s prison before their executions. It’s not made clear, and it’s certainly not conveyed to the bad guys, but it seems like the DA hopes the baddies will kill Emmanuelle when they inevitably escape. This plan is very weak, mainly because our villains know nothing about it or have anything to gain from it.

The four worst criminals in the country are transported in a single van along some desert back roads. The guards manage to avoid a fake road block when the wise one catches the doppelgangers out, but after a low rent chase the baddies are out and our wise bearded friend is likely to be dead given he's taken a point blank shotgun blast he took to the chest.

Actually he miraculously survives, and our clichéd quartet of baddies, including a sadistic German one, pitch up at the prison and kill all the guards. The police hang back letting each of the men carry out their fantasies against the female prisoners - some of whom are willing, others less so.

Various atrocities take place including a game of Russian roulette, which sees a tin of tomato soup thrown in the lead baddie’s face, before our guys make their break for freedom. They want $5m and a car and are taking Emmanuelle and the lady governor as hostages. Can it end well? Doubtful, given the rest was a load of nonsense!

This was a really tacky film that for some reason Amazon Prime suggested I may be interested in. What a clever algorithm that has detected, through my viewing habits, that I like ‘W’ initialled films. 

You can’t slag this effort off too much, as it pretty much delivers what you’d expect given the title, cast and premise. Emmanuelle was strangely shy in the cut I saw, but the other inmates redressed the balance with several full on displays of love behind bars. The inflatable man wasn’t necessary however.

The dubbing was terrible as was the dialogue - maybe ‘I want to cut your nipples off’ was lost in translation. The plot was wafer thin, but even then it didn’t make sense. The whole plan seemed to be to get some men in a woman’s prison for an hour, have them behave badly, before a shoot out at the end. You can’t say they didn’t deliver on that.

If you seek this film out expecting trashy rubbish with a lot of blood and nudity you won't be disappointed. If you want anything else, then you will be.

Best Bit : Toilet Block Punishment ‘W’ Rating : 11/23

No.345 : We Belong Together (2018)

We Belong Together at the IMDb

Fatal Attraction rehash time now, as a recently sober college professor makes the mistake of falling for a student who happens to be a mentalist.

We meet our hero Thomas as he’s being awarded his 90 day chip at his AA meeting. We learn that his drinking caused him to separate from his wife and children but his new found sobriety has opened up the prospect of a reconciliation. He is allowed access to his kids and is slowly winning back his wife who has now moved in with her mother.

Trouble is just around the corner however in the shape of Tracy, a 26 year old stunner with a military background who has signed up for his classes. He finds her a job in a diner and is soon subject to some pretty full on flirting from his sexy student. An early chat is interrupted by his assistant but she is soon beaten up and chucked over a balcony by a mystery assailant - could it be our mad stalker?

Thomas tries to act all professional but quickly folds when Tracy shows him her bra. The pair then have a really tame sex montage with Tracy keeping the sheets tightly wrapped to her body. Maybe she has a big mole or they’re after a PG rating?

Anyway, Thomas tries to make inroads with his family whilst being increasingly alarmed by his new squeeze’s behaviour. Is she nuts and the killer or is that just what they want us to think? Details of a troubled past are sprinkled liberally about with her character not being developed as much as it is exploded like a Claymore mine. She undoes our man’s sobriety and gets off her meds - we know this isn’t going to end well. Well, it didn’t start well so that’s a fair assumption.

Given the title of the film it’s not hard to guess that we are dealing with an obsessive here - but is it the one we think or is she a victim herself of PTSD and of lazy writing? Dreya Michele wasn’t convincing in the lead and seemed a bit shy for a supposed sexual psycho predator. She is attractive but didn’t convince as a 26 year old - she was 33 at the time of filming. The levels of obsession and nuttiness were well done with every man no doubt flinching each time Thomas got a raft of increasingly manic voicemails.

Soon the ex-wife is injured in an off screen accident and in a coma - who could be causing all of this misfortune to the women in Thomas’ life? It can’t be that obvious, can it? Thomas tries to end the relationship and after an hour we hear the title of the film. How far will the obsession go and who will survive the fallout?

This was a decent offering but it was very by the numbers. From the off we knew the girlfriend was going to be crazy and she was. I was hoping for a bit of misdirection or even a small wrong foot but instead the film went from A to B to C without even a sideways glance.

I didn’t have much invested in the pissed up professor and his troubled times were more funny and inevitable than concerning. It was the standard ‘led by his dick’ male getting his comeuppance with little added in the way of colour or invention. As Thomas’ life fell apart we were meant to marvel at the elaborate scheming in play but it really was just a mad woman behaving badly before her inevitable demise so all the men can return to Tinder without worrying of the consequences. Apart from VD.

The film was 80 minutes and well enough made and paced that it never became an unwelcome distraction, but overall there isn’t anything you haven’t seen before and done better. The finale does leave open the possibility of a sequel so maybe don’t open that Bumble app just yet.

Best Bit : I’ve got a surprise for you! ‘W’ Rating 13/23

 

No.344 : West of Hell (2018)

West of Hell at the IMDb

 

All aboard Rick & Morty’s Story Train for this trip to Disappointment with stops at Nonsensical Parkway, Confusion Central and bypassing Narrative Structure and Illumination Broadway.

We set off on a midnight train to Atlanta. At first it seems like a regular train with a bunch of murderous and mysterious characters, but there is more afoot that initially meets the eye. The train carriages themselves are set up like well appointed drawing rooms so that’s probably your first clue that things are not what they seem - there are no discarded copies of ‘Metro’ lying around and Baz hasn’t tagged the entire carriage.

We meet Jericho, who in another life was ‘Candyman’. He’s an ex-slave on a mission to kill all former slave owners and their first born children. One such child who is on-board is Annie, who has engaged the bodyguard services of ex-civil war soldier Roland. Candyman and Ro-land come to blows early on, but retreat to different carriages when things don’t go to plan - bullets don’t seem to be working for some reason.

We meet some other passengers, such as one chap who has a penchant for strangling prostitutes and another lady who has her ex-slave employed as her maid. They all have a past to hide but secrets are slowly revealed when they are joined by a shape shifter. As you have probably guessed things moved away from a conventional western when this chap appears, and employs ropey special effects to become each of our character’s dark secret.

After their pasts are laid bare the gang decide that the train they are on is on its way to Hell. Is there anything they can do to save their souls? Well, Lance Henriksen is in the last carriage and given he’s the Devil there may be some deals to be done…

This wasn’t a terrible film but it doesn’t have much to recommend it either. The production values were pretty low despite a couple of familiar faces such as the ‘jump to conclusions’ guy out of ‘Office Space’ making a brief appearance complete with unconvincing diabolical laughter. The lighting was poor in places with it hard to make out the action, and one character, who has a bag over his head, is virtually unintelligible. 

From the start I thought the twist was that they were on the road (tracks) to Hell and this proved correct - to be fair they didn’t really dress it up as anything else, so it wasn’t even a surprise never mind a twist. Lance was a pretty laid back Devil and offered little in the way of menace. As is standard, he offered the characters deals to get out of their predicament - terrible, lop sided deals! We did get a chance to see some of our characters in flashback and were able to decide for ourselves who was worthy of the visit to the flames and who was a victim of circumstance. Some were evil and went down that path whilst others made noble sacrifices having come to terms with their crimes. There were no real surprises in anyone’s arc with redemption liberally sprinkled about whilst the real baddies got their just desserts.

There were a couple of decent ideas in play, but the film was limited by its scope and budget. The Devil must have better things to do with his time as did Lance who clearly only spared half a day for the production.

The film only lasts about 80 minutes and the story would have been better used as an episode of ‘The Twilight Zone’ or the like rather than a half baked full feature.

You will see a lot worse and there was enough to garner half marks although that hooded guy, whose dialogue I couldn’t make out a word of,  cost them a chunk on his own. Overall it’s not a train to catch but if you find yourself on-board, you may as well stay on for the predictable and undemanding conclusion.

Best Bit : What’s this noose doing here?  'W' Rating 12/23