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. 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.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.343 : What We Wanted (2020)

 

What We Wanted at the IMDb

Time for another session of Alan Partridge’s ‘Problem People’ as we spend 90 minutes in the company of Austrian couple Alice and Niklas. As we meet them they are receiving bad news from their fertility clinic. Their fourth and final state sponsored session of treatment has failed and they have to face the prospect of remaining childless.

Their therapist suggests a trip away to recharge their batteries and so they set off for Sardinia, despite being in the midst of a large building project at their home. Their prickly chat over directions suggest all is not well and their fully loaded credit cards imply they have money issues also.

They arrive at the Italian resort, but their quiet time is quickly interrupted by an Irish family and their screaming daughter and emo son. They try to move apartments but politeness means they stay and slowly get to know their neighbours - and experience the highs and lows of having children.

The young daughter speaks stark truths through her innocence and the son’s issues make our couple wonder if kids are worth the trouble. The Irish man isn’t shy about flaunting his wealth and his younger wife spouts a lot of horoscope nonsense which hits surprisingly close to home.

All the while our couples’ relationship is crumbling and home truths and long buried resentments are aired in private and soon in public. Will a potential tragedy show them the error of their ways or are they conditioned to accept their miserable and emotion free existence?

This film wasn’t as grim as my summary suggests, but it’s certainly one to watch with your partner unless you want to be examined over every remark and action in your last 20 years. The lead couple are good independently of each other but I didn’t think they were a great match. They were like an Austrian (actually German) Tilda Swinton and Mark Ruffalo and they didn’t seem to have much of a spark. I guess that was the point given their floundering relationship, with the partnership seeming somewhat uneven.

Small snippets of their past are peppered throughout and although the big revelation wasn’t a total surprise, at least it had been earned given what had gone before. The little girl, Denise, was a real cutie and she was a good device for getting to the heart of things that the adults would skip around. The sub plot with the overbearing Dad and emo son was less well developed and the impact of the big finale was a bit underwhelming.

It was nice to spend 90 minutes in sunny Italy in the company of some good looking people - it was just a pity they were all a bit needy and didn’t leave their troubles at home. There was a lot of metaphor and symbolism flying around and I’m sure a lot of big points were being made, but for the most part it did look a lot like privileged people having a hard time of their own making.

Best Bit : Pool Night  ‘W’ Rating : 15/23

No.339 : Wildling (2018)

 

Wildling at the IMDb

Here’s a film that flirts with a few genres but ultimately is a bit unsatisfying and undefined.

Tiny tot Anna lives in a cabin in the woods. ‘Daddy’ brings her food but she’s not allowed to leave lest ‘the wildlings’ get her. They are described as children eating savages and Anna has to make do with peeking out her window throughout her childhood. As she enters puberty and has her first period ‘Daddy’ starts to give her injections that make her sick. Eventually she begs to be allowed to go to ‘the better place’ and ‘Daddy brings in his gun. He’s not up to the task and decides to shoot his own head off instead.

The now teen Anna is discovered and coaxed back to civilisation by Liv Tyler’s policewoman character, who’s more of a social worker than a cop. Strangely the social services let Liv take Anna home where she meets Liv’s brother, Ray.

The film then shifts from what appeared to be a kidnap and abuse story to one of someone trying to integrate into society having never experienced it before - a bit like ‘Encino Man’. We get the usual bitchy girls and school bullies and soon Anna blossoms and goes to a cool party with Ray where she gets a bit of kissy face - but wait! Her teeth start falling out and when she runs off to the woods she rips the throat out of a would be rapist.

It’s soon clear that we are in the realms of the supernatural with Anna being one of the wildlings that she was once taught to fear. As she slowly transforms she has to deal with hunters, her admirer and ‘Daddy’ who it turns out is as good at suicide as he was at parenting.

I liked the first hour of this film but it lost it’s way in a haze of ropey CGI effects and confused character development. It reminded me of the TV show ‘Grimm’ with supernatural goings on running parallel with everyday life. The town has a man with a wolf’s head hat walking about with no issues as well as a well armed posse of wildling hunters who seem to have a free rein to shoot up and burn anything they like. No wonder as sheriff Liv Tyler is as effective as an umbrella in a hurricane.

Bel Powley was pretty good in the main role of Anna, with her bulbous eyes and bewildered looks selling the character’s introduction into the real world. She was let down with the transformation effects which gave her a hairy back and a bad manicure. Later on she went full wolf, and it looked more animated than Wile E Coyote.

There were probably three films boiled into one here, with the first of the locked up girl being the most interesting although somewhat reminiscent of ‘Room’. Later on the high school element was a bit overly familiar with the transformation and hunt portion being faintly daft.

All in all it was a decent and entertaining offering with a few wrong foots sprinkled about to keep you guessing.

Best Bit : Opening 20 minutes ‘W’ Rating 14/23

No.337 : Wheels of Fortune (2020)

 

Wheels of Fortune at the IMDb

Badger out of ‘Breaking Bad’ stars in this redneck inheritance comedy which registered a single smile with this viewer. We open with Jeff Fahey, who we liked in ‘Machete’, out for a sky dive. His chute and backup fail but he is saved by a friend who  grabs him and eases him back towards Earth. Sadly the rescuer’s parachute is cut by a drone, but at least he softens Jeff’s landing. It’s not Jeff’s day however as he is then hit by a truck and seemingly fatally injured.

He runs a large company and his grasping children arrive at his bedside to hear who will inherit the business. Instead they are told of his long lost son Bo (Badger) who was the product of him slumming it some years ago. Bo is a mechanic for a tractor pull champion and he still laments the day when the lack of a clutch cable meant he couldn’t win the big race as a child, sending him on a losing spiral that has persisted ever since.

His fortunes look up however when Jeff, who has died off-screen, sends his lawyer to Bo to offer a challenge, the like that is only ever heard of in movies. The challenge is that if Bo can get a podium finish in four races over the next month he will inherit something that isn’t really specified. He isn’t keen at first, but the offer of $100 a day expenses for him, his idiot friend Noodle, and the love interest Mandy seals the deal.

The film then takes many predictable turns with the conniving relatives trying to stop Bo’s progress, him becoming an ‘internet sensation’ and of course him losing sight of what’s really important. With three podium finishes in the bag it all comes down to the monster truck racing - can Bo win the challenge? And what inevitable surprises lies in wait?

This was an awful Netflix find that has very little to recommend it. It was like a mash up between ‘Brewster’s Millions’ and ‘Run Ronnie Run’ but not nearly as enjoyable as either. It was a comedy, so the ridiculous premise can be excused to some degree, but how does a guy who dies unexpectedly manage to have an elaborate plan all set up, including a message dispensing suitcase and a schedule set up that begins the day of his untimely demise? That’s your clue actually; I just wonder if in real life the lawyers would tell him to piss off with the relatives getting him declared mental from the off.

Badger is kinda likable in the lead but his shtick runs thin early on and he doesn’t have what it takes to hold the whole thing together. The conniving relatives weren’t menacing at all and their characters were underwritten. I did like love interest Mandy, but she could have done without the inflated lips.

The only chuckle raised with me was the wise ticket collector who got the sack for dispensing sage advice. Other than that it was a dull ride though various motor sports with real footage inter-cut with our hero doing the ‘driving’.

The redneck humour offered no laughs with exchanges like ‘It’s a retinal scan’ / ‘You’re not sticking that up my butt’ being the standard on offer. If you are on your third bottle of wine you may snigger at the man being trapped in a porta-potty, but this was low brow fare that won’t last ten minutes in the memory.

Best Bit : ‘You're fired’  ‘W’ Rating 7/23

No.327 : When We First Met (2018)

 

When We First Met at the IMDb

Watching this film you may get the feeling that it’s Groundhog Day, not because it's is a funny and well crafted piece of original entertainment, but because it rehashes large portions of the Bill Murray classic. That’s not to say it just rips off ‘Groundhog day’ - it also rips off ‘Big’ and ‘Back to the Future’ too.

Still these films are all 30+ years old so let’s see if this modern take adds anything to the overly familiar genre. Adam Devine, who you’ll know from the ‘Pitch Perfect’ films as well as ‘Why Him?’ stars as Noah, a jazz bar pianist, who is attending the engagement party of Avery and Ethan. He remembers that three years ago he met Avery at a Halloween party and fell for her. He wasn’t able to seal the deal however, and the next day Avery met Ethan and his chance was lost.

He gets drunk and gets a ride home from Avery’s photographer flatmate, Carrie. The pair stop off at Noah’s jazz bar and he forlornly wishes in the antique photo booth that he had the chance to do things differently. Happily the photo booth seems to have been made by the same people who made Tom Hanks’ ‘Zoltar’ machine and Noah wakes up three years earlier on the day of the fateful Halloween party.

He spends a lot of time coming to terms with his situation but eventually chooses a different costume and approach towards Avery to get out of the friend zone and into the loving relationship he thinks is his destiny. As you will probably guess things don’t go to plan and after the party he wakes up in a now changed present to see where he is and what kind of relationship he has with the elusive Avery. As the present days flounder he retreats back to the photo booth to try again...and again.

Sometimes he’s rich and discontented - others see him branded a stalker, or with Avery but with her not loving him. Will his repeated trips back in forth in time lead to the problem being fixed or does his true route to happiness lie in a different direction?

This Netflix film was OK as a Sunday afternoon distraction but it offered nothing new and the outcome was no real surprise. The whole film was essentially that scene in ‘Groundhog Day’ where Bill Murray tries to fast forward his romance plans by remembering lots of details about Andie Macdowell’s life and creeping her out. No self respecting film will ever let the hero profit with such knowledge and, as ever, they demand that their character learn, grow and accept some truths before he can move on.

Of course there was no reason given for the magic in play and that’s fair enough, but acceptance came easy to Noah and at no point did he try to but Facebook shares or bet Leicester to win the league. Still, it said fantasy on the tin and that’s what you get.

I liked that they didn’t make the love rival an asshole, with Noah coming off the worst due to his manipulative machinations. The same scenes played out several times and it would have been good to have seen them from different perspectives, as it did come across as a bit dull and lazy.

There were no laughs or surprises, but the young and good looking cast seemed to be having fun and, if you don’t demand too much, you may get a slice for yourself.

Best Bit : Oh I’m Fat Now  ‘W’ Rating 14/23

No.320 : What About Dick? (2012)

What About Dick? at the IMDb

I chanced upon this one on Netflix and thought I’d unearthed a gem given the stellar cast, but alas it was a rough in the rough.

The film is a live performance in the style of a 1940’s radio play complete with a man making all the special effects noises. A partisan L.A. audience laps it up but I didn’t laugh at all, at the puerile humour which is usually my thing.

Eric Idle wrote and starred in the film and plays a piano which charts the decline of the British Empire. He’s not a piano, but wears a piano key tie so that we remember he is the constant who relates and narrates the story whilst the cast ham it up as various characters.

The plot is wafer thin and serves only to get a few songs in as well as barrels of innuendo and funny voices. Tracey Ullman was probably the best value doing good voice work and clearly getting into the spirit of things. You also get Jane Leeves and Big Suze as a pair of sisters and Russell Brand as the titular Dick who manages to make the part his own, in his usual style.

You also get Eddie Izzard as an Indian manufacturer of rubber dildos and Billy Connolly as a police inspector cum private eye who has a lisping voice that he at least finds very funny. You also get Tim Curry and Jim Piddock who mostly just do funny voices and patch the whole thing together.

A couple of the songs were decent but the whole thing just seemed awfully lazy with characters called ‘Bastard’ and Dickhead’ for example. There were also old jokes on parade with the Indian Regiment called ‘The First Foot & Mouth’ © ‘Carry on up the Khyber’ and someone saying ‘I opened the door in my pyjamas - why was there a door in my pyjamas?’ - yawn.

The runtime of 80 minutes may seem short but it does drag on once you get an idea of the humour and writing on show. It’s a great cast who are clearly enjoying themselves; it’s just a shame they didn’t invite the viewer along.

Brand and Connolly were unintelligible in places and you have to wonder what the American audience made of them. Funny eccentrics I guess, but I was cringing at the mirth free and faintly embarrassing wacky antics on show.

It may have been a good night out after a few beers but as a Netflix offering it fell flat with a lot of the seemingly period humour already dated - Berlesconi ‘bunga bunga’ references anyone? Actually it would probably have been painful to see live as a lot of transitions were added in to show flashbacks as well as caption cards, which suggested the whole thing was edited down to afford the audience at home a small measure of mercy.

For me this was a self indulgent and unfunny mess that offered no laughs, but if you want to see some of your favourite comedians ham it up, fill your boots. You’ll just never convince me that saying ‘dick’ as a euphemism for ‘penis’ 200 times qualifies as entertainment.

Best Bit : Not Russell Brand’s Dick ‘W’ Rating  8/23

No.307 : White Chamber (2018)

White Chamber at the IMDb

Britain is in chaos and nationalism is on the rise! No, it’s not a documentary but a film set sometime “Soon”. The film starts with some ponderous narration with a chap waving a flag on top of Glastonbury Tor. There has been a civil war with a totalitarian government squaring up against a rebellion led by the UK Liberation army.

We then cut to a bright white box and realise that the budget has been spent on that big flag the bloke was waving. A woman wakes up in said box and starts conversing with a distorted voice - ‘where am I?’ ‘who are you?’ ‘can I get my money back?’. After some cruel treatment via the box’s handy hot and cold floor, the true horror slowly dawns on us - will the whole film just be a woman yelling at a wall?

Happily not, after a while a face appears in the wall and it’s that bloke in the black robes off the ‘Mummy’ films. The woman claims to be a new start called Ruth but our man keeps pressing for more details about the operation and her role in the shady experiments he knows that goes on there.

Eventually the chamber opens up and another compartment is revealed to contain a woman with a pretty bad chemical peel. The two fight and Ruth gives her the finger so to speak. We then dissolve to a ‘5 Day’s earlier’ caption and we realise it’s our old favourite, the non-linear narrative.

We meet our woman greeting a new recruit called Ruth - blatant identity theft right there! The man behind the voice (or at least someone who looks like him) is now in the chamber and our woman is the head scientist. It turns out interrogation isn’t their goal but to test new amphetamines that can enhance the abilities of soldiers. We get a bit more back story from an old bloke who looks like Bill Nighy and her off the coffee adverts from the 80’s.

Who will triumph in this battle of wits? Who are ‘the good guys’? and can I have my 90 minutes back please?

This was an OK film but it’s limited scope and in your face politics had me against it from near the start. The main female character played by Shauna Macdonald wasn’t likeable at all, even in the opening section where we were meant to be on her side. Later, when she was revealed to be the evil scientist, albeit one with some heartache, I still wasn’t convinced ,and she was more irritating than scary or despicable.

Coffee woman and the new start didn’t have a lot to do with the later failing to convince in her Road to Damascus type conversion. The guy off the Mummy films was OK but a bit preachy and overly manic when hepped up on goofballs.

The politics were terribly in your face - literally, with one scene having the character telling you how crappy the country is straight to camera, before cutting to another for a reaction shot. Subtle this was not.

To be fair the film did manage to keep my interest, but given we knew after 20 minutes that the roles would be reversed the tension gained was allowed to dissipate. The film did look cheap with most of the action happening in some corridors. It looked like they had broken into an office block for the shoot but couldn’t access the rooms, only the stairs and landings. In places it was almost like a film school project with ropey dialogue delivered in a flat, unbelievable manner by unconvincing actors.

It’s better than being locked in a white box - but only just.

Best Bit : Finger Buffet  ‘W’ Rating : 11/23

No.296 : Wounds (2019)

Wounds at the IMDb

I never seek out psychological horror movies as I like a bit more show than tell. A hoard of zombies running around whilst on fire is always more entertaining than someone suffering some inner torment. Still, Netflix offered this one up and rather than scroll through any more options, I thought I’d give it a go. It was actually quite good and certainly better than the 4/10 it had garnered on IMDb.

That’s not to say it’s not without its flaws, and if you asked me to nail down exactly went on, I’d be struggling. I’m sure that was the intent; have a discussion and a think about it - not everything in life arrives on a plate.

The always watchable Armie Hammer stars as a New Orleans barman who works in a rundown booze shop, complete with cockroaches and colourful customers. Naked patrons drink for free, but alas the only person taking up the offer is a massive lady who plays pool.

The bar goes from empty to manic in moments as a fight breaks out leaving one drunk local with a huge wound on his cheek. The rest of the customers clear out, including a table full of college kids. When clearing up Armie finds a phone and heads home to his partner, her out of ‘50 Shades’. He manages to crack the phone and immediately gets messages begging for help. He assumes it’s a prank but when he investigates further the next day, he finds photos of bloody murders.

He goes on his errands and looks in on the slashed customer who refuses treatment despite the wound looking infected. He also notices that he’s being tailed and when he checks the phone it turns into a big bug so he lobs it out of the window, where it’s retrieved by his stalkers. The police, understandably, can’t do much but 50 Shades is doing her own research. She gets transfixed by a big black hole on the internet (a familiar tale) and researches a book called ‘The Translation of Wounds’ that details creepy rites and portals.

The couple fall out after Armie tries it on with an old flame and accuses 50 Shades of having an affair. He tries to secure a bed at his wounded friend’s place whose cockroach problem is getting worse - but not to worry, the friend has a new phone and a present awaits!

I enjoyed the first hour of this film but it tapered off at the end as Armie started to be overtaken by his demons and the story unfolded. There was no identifiable bad guy with the college kids only being seen at the start. I get that they opened the portal and the evil within was looking for a new host, but against the grubby New Orleans background it all seemed a bit fantastical and unlikely.

The opening scenes in the bar were enjoyable with the build up to the melee well done, as each participant was introduced. Armie and his partner didn’t seem a good match and their constant bickering was a pain. I did like the feel of malaise that permeated throughout, with the odd cockroach soon growing to a full on infestation - and more.

The idea of college kids raising an evil spirit was as old as the hills but at least they changed the formula somewhat with a kind-hearted bar tender getting dragged in due to his good deed.

The end scene was disturbing and although what went on was open to interpretation, I don’t think Armie is going to make happy hour. Decent entertainment was had, but if this were a bit clearer and not so contrived I think this could have been a winner.

Best Bit : Bit of a Bug Problem ‘W’ Rating 16/23

No.294 : Wishmaster (1997)

Wishmaster at the IMDb

‘W’ Movie royalty now as we look at the first of this franchise that spawned three sequels, all full of ‘W’ goodness. The no sequels policy remains however, so this is your only chance to have your wish of a great review realised - and dashed.

This popped up as a recommended offering on Netflix - the algorithm clearly has my number as it was exactly the kind of schlocky horror nonsense that I lap up.

We open in 12th century Persia with a voice over, and a day out for the special effects department. There is a lot of waffle about the granting of wishes and the demons that are being set free. Meanwhile someone is crafting a large opal - looks like a ruby to me. After lots of moulding and baking the jewel is revealed - already fully cut. Well it is magic. The carnage going on outside ends as the evil Djinn (basically a Genie) is trapped within the gem stone. There were a few decent kills in this sequence, and I liked the stop motion skeleton pushing its way out of a body the most.

We cut to the present day and Freddie Kruger, in the shape of a rich antiquities buyer, is awaiting the delivery of his new statue down by the docks. That’s his story and he’s sticking to it. The Irish crane operator takes a drink and when a demonic voice gives him a fright he drops the box onto Freddie’s hapless assistant. In the debris the gem stone from the last paragraph spills out and is grabbed by a longshoreman who sells it to a pawnbroker.

Everyone is taken with the stone initially, but less so when it explodes during analysis and frees the evil Wishmaster. Our heroine, Alex, has been researching the stone and catches the attention of the wish offering miscreant. For reasons that are inexplicable, apart from driving the plot, the Wishmaster can offer up single wishes to people to charge up his powers. Once he has enough of these he then needs to have his target, Alex, ask for three wishes and on granting the third he can rule the world or something. No idea who made up these rules.

We get a good half hour of the Wishmaster offering up wishes - but beware! He’s a real bastard. One lady wishes to be beautiful forever and gets turned into a mannequin whilst another asks for a million bucks before it cuts to his mother buying life insurance just before dying in a plane crash. The point is clear - be sure of your wording and don’t get suckered because this guy basically does what he likes under the pretence of granting wishes.

In his human form the Wishmaster tracks Alex to a society party - will she ask the required number of wishes? and how will she turn the tables on the bad guy, as we know she surely will?

This film was a lot of fun and didn’t take itself seriously in the slightest. The effects varied in quality from the Wishmaster’s rubber face to some pretty impressive statues that came to life. The violence was so over the top you’d do well to be scared or shocked, and it was basically played for laughs with the demonic Wishmaster offering zingers at every turn.

Some of the wordplay was well done, with the Wishmaster’s interpretations being somewhat broad - Candyman said he’d like to escape from his job and got stuck in a big tank of water Houdini style - you didn’t ask for that! - get your money back!

Tammy Lauren was a bit wooden in the lead, but to be fair her job was simply to direct us from one special effect to another. The film was produced by Wes Craven and you could see the influence of his ‘Freddie’ films throughout - dark laughs and grisly kills galore.

I doubt I’ll look up the sequels but this one was great fun and well worth a look if you like your wordplay garnished with buckets of gore.

Best Bit : Liven up this party!  ‘W’ Rating  18/23

No.277 : Wine Country (2019)

Wine Country at the IMDb

Who fancies a trip to wine country to meet women with issues and more baggage than an airport carousel? Me neither, but you can’t always get what you want.

Amy Poehler writes, stars and directs and she should be thoroughly ashamed for this risible effort. The plot, as it is, involves six 50 something woman who met as waitresses in Chicago and are now embarking on a trip to the Napa Valley to celebrate one of their half centuries.

The group are your expected ragtag of pushy, dominated, frustrated, worried, disillusioned - basically everything that will attract a scintilla of empathy from the audience. Not this viewer - they all came across as a right pain in the arse to me.

They rent a large house off a disinterested Tina Fey whose character isn’t so much underdeveloped as non-existent. They have her dressed like MacGruber throughout - I have no idea if this was a deliberate Saturday Night Live homage. Poehler plays Abby who is the organised and pushy one of the group. She’s always bossing everyone about and is super confident so it’s no surprise that she is hiding some issues.

She has to wait her turn though, as another has designs on a younger lady artist, another is mousy and hates her husband, another is too focused on her job and yet another is awaiting cancer test results.

Slowly over the weekend the girls have madcap adventures such as getting pissed at a winery and annoying people, and shagging the help in the shape of an ‘I’m doing it for the money’ Jason Schwartzman.

After a few emotional moments the girls’ issues all come to the fore - will they fall out or be stronger for the experience? Seriously, have a guess!

This was a gawd awful waste of time, apart for the cast who all seemed to have a right old laugh getting drunk in the lovely Californian wine region.

My main issue is that all the women were a nightmare. Not quirky or sassy just the sort of people you’d leave a pub for if they showed up. The bonding was so on the nose its bouquet would make you retch as they all learn and grow and elicit cries of ‘You go girls’ from the target demographic of lonely people on their third bottle.

There were no laughs to speak of, unless you enjoy stuntmen in unconvincing wigs rolling down a hill for five minutes. Every revelation was flagged from a mile away with the false fronts being cast aside for a bit of truth and then redemption. I’ve not felt this nauseous since that bottle of £1.99 Kwik Save Chardonnay.

One to miss unless you want some quality female bonding with a bunch of women you’d cross the street to avoid.

Best Bit : Get back to you on that. 'W' Rating 5/23

No.273 : War Machine (2017)

War Machine at the IMDb

If you pump ‘War Machine’ into Google Images the first hits are all for the Iron Man War Machine armour. This isn’t that. And that’s a pity as it would doubtlessly be more fun than this Brad Pitt vehicle. The film isn’t bad as such, just a bit preachy and it doesn’t really go anywhere.

Pitt plays fictitious general Glen McMahon who has been put in charge of the long running Afghan war. Not being too well schooled on the subject I thought this was a bio-pic but it looks like they made a guy up so the real guy couldn’t object.  Given they had gone to the effort to create a character it’s strange they went with one who didn’t do much or have much of a personality, apart from swearing and twitching a lot.

We meet Glen as he takes office and we are introduced to his local inner circle of troops and specialists. He thinks the war in Afghanistan can be won despite the many obstacles in his path not least political indifference and a not fit for purpose U.N. mandate.

Things start out positively but soon grind to a halt when President Obama avoids Glen’s bids for ‘face time’ and the troops of other nations are less keen to get on board. To mix things up Glen leaks his own report of how things could be done better and agrees to be shadowed by a reporter from ‘Rolling Stone’ who wants to profile him.

Glens plan to get more troops in the field to win the war gets a lukewarm reaction and he has to head to Europe to secure more support from his allies there. Can the war be won or will Glen’s dreams of victory and his own place in history be scuppered by some loose lips and Tilda Swinton doing a dodgy German accent?

This was a decent effort but it really wasn’t worth the two hours that I invested in it. Pitt is adequate but his heavy accent is distracting and it wanders all over the film. His character’s motivations aren’t clear and although he is portrayed as good man with the well being of his troops at his heart he also comes across as rash and gung ho.

Obama, who is only seen fleetingly, and Washington lackey Alan Ruck are seen as nay saying liberals but at the end of the day they are shown to be correct with Glen showing serious a lack of judgement on several fronts. If this was a bio-pic it could be forgiven for showing reality, but as it was in part a work of fiction you‘d have thought they would have made the character more defined.

They did juxtapose Glen’s political manoeuvring with scenes of the troops of the ground facing the hazards of dealing with an insurgent force. I wasn’t convinced by the troops’ gun drills or tactics and for the most part they looked liked actors playing dress up, which they were. The pivotal action that saw some dead civilians was decently done but with too much hand wringing at the end.

I guess part of the character they were showing was that whilst having strong convictions Glen didn’t have the strength to see them through. His dreams of being on the cover of ‘Rolling Stone’ betrayed his vanity and became his eventual undoing. As it was, Tilda’s character profile was correct and Glen was left on the lecture circuit with his work turned over to Russell Crowe to complete, or at least drag out a bit further.

On the whole was unsatisfying and uneven - basically he came, he saw, and that’s about it.

THE Tag Line - War Machine - What is it good for? About 6/10. 14/23



.

No.269 : Wheelman (2017)

Wheelman at the IMDb

Following our last offering of ‘Win it All’ this is the second in our double bill of cheap Netflix films starring and produced by actors you’ve never heard of. Can’t say we’re not niche here at The ‘W’ Movie blog!

The double threat here is Frank Grillo who looks like a slightly less McDreamy Patrick Dempsey. At least he’s better for you than Frank Friedo. This film focuses almost entirely on the single character of ‘Wheelman’ and you’d better take to him fast as you’ve got 80 minutes in his passenger seat coming your way! I found him annoying and shouty with too many swears and not enough empathy, so it was a tough ride for me!

We open with a dull five minute scene as Wheelman gets his hot car for a job. The camera stays in the car as Wheelman gets out and talks money and then goes for a spin. It feels like the film is struggling to get out of first gear? Nervous anticipation or just a bit of dull padding - you decide.

Wheelman soon picks up his two passengers one of whom was Nucky’s brother in ‘Boardwalk Empire’. He’s not much for the chat which is fair enough when you’re off to visit a bank full of customers in the middle of the night with your sawn off deposit slip.

Wheelman hasn’t heard of CCTV or the tracing of mobile phones so he rolls up outside the bank without a mask and takes calls whilst the robbers do their thing. He gets a mysterious call from ‘Out of Area’ who tells him he’s going to be shot after the job. He’s a trusting soul and takes off with the money in the boot leaving the robbers behind.

What follows is a long round of calls as Wheelman talks to Clay- his fixer, his annoying daughter, his annoying wife and the ever present Out of area. There are too many double crosses to go into but eventually Wheelman has the chance to swap the money for his ex-wife and freedom from his debt to the gang bosses he works for. While he wheelspin into the sunset a freeman or will he regret freeing the ex-wife?

This was a pretty dull affair that had lost my interest after an hour. It mined a familiar seam of getaway driver movies but was nowhere near as good as ‘The Driver’ or even ‘Baby Driver’. My main issue was I didn’t care about Wheelman or his motivations. He’s clearly underworld scum so who cares if he gets double crossed? It was hard to track who could be trusted and although that’s the intention it just comes across as a bit of a mess with no cohesive narrative.

The film reminded me a lot of ‘Locke’ with endless phone calls queuing up to keep our man occupied. His catchphrase ‘Shut the fuck up’ was spouted endlessly and I was hoping that Wheelman would take his own advice.

Some of the gun play was decent and there was a good motorbike crash, but apart from that it was just a ‘who’s screwing who?’ set up with the viewer having no investment in the outcome.
Towards the end the daughter showed up and it was interesting that we took her perspective for a few minutes whilst Wheelman went off to do the drop. I say ‘interesting’ but the handover was being built up for ages and then it happened largely off screen.

It seems like Netflix have a bag of money for any aspiring actor/producer with a cheap, contemporary set feature in mind. This may be worthy but I think I’ll be looking for something with a bit more substance going forward. That and frat house sex comedies.

Best Bit : Ooow that’s gotta hurt! ’W’ Rating 12/23

No.268 : Win it All (2017)

Win It All at the IMDb

Eddie Garret is a gambler, and not a very good one, in this Netflix film.

We see him losing his cash in a low rent poker game in the back of a Chinese restaurant leaving him so broke he has to cadge his breakfast from the local shopkeeper. It’s clear that this is not an unusual event.

It makes it back to his modest apartment and is met by a criminal acquaintance who has let himself in. He has a proposal for Eddie : watch a holdall for him for the six months that he’ll be in prison for and, when he gets out, Eddie will trouser $10k. This seems a mental thing for the friend to ask given Eddie’s gambling addiction is well known, but we need a plot so let’s go with it.

Eddie doesn’t immediately rifle the bag to see what’s in it but after a bit of deliberation he dives in and it’s no surprise to anyone apart from Eddie that it’s full of cash. The amount isn’t spoken but it’s about $100k. It also contains some pretty nasty kidnap tools but that aspect is brushed aside as are any moral questions, never mind the legal ones, about being caught with a bag of contraband.

You can probably guess the rest. Eddie thinks he can dip into the cash and make a profit before returning the stake money ahead of the felon getting out of jail. Initially things go well with Eddie winning $2k which he immediately invests in a night down the pub with his pals. He meets meet Mexican lovely Eva who gives him a sight of what a better life could look like. Before he invests in that there’s more reckless gambling to do and Eddie finds himself $27k in the hole.

With a rare bit of clarity Eddie decides to get his life in order and takes a job with his brother’s landscaping company. The deal is that if Eddie can work for 6 months with no gambling, his debts will be paid. It goes well for a while but when the gangster calls and advises he has been freed early, Eddie has to make some decisions - stick, twist or run away?

This was a decent Netflix offering, starring, written and produced by Jake Johnston. I didn’t know him but he has a decent CV of mainly small roles on TV. Obviously if you make a cheap Netflix film it’s a good chance to show your leading man chops. He does well with a slightly tiresome character who keeps making the same mistakes. It’s hard to root for him when he keeps pissing his cash away but his quest for redemption is well realised and although a bit easy, it’s a fun ride. He’s a bit like a less buff Ant Middleton and is likeable in a ‘glad he’s not my friend’ kind of way.

It must have been a deliberate choice not to show any of the poker hands with only the bets being announced. This is probably so that non-gambling types don’t feel excluded but how many of them are watching a gambling film? It would have been good if the reality of poker was shown, with two deuces beating an Ace high rather that the full house beating the flush that poker films usually show, but it probably helps the editing if we don’t see the cards on the table.

The love interest was well played by Aislinn Derbez and she must have had good chat as our man had to wait weeks before sealing the deal!

I liked the captions showing the money ups and downs but they didn’t appear after every win or set back which grated a little. The supports were good  with the brother and the gamblers’ anonymous sponsor both being in the ‘I know his face’ category. The sponsor was the worst ever, suggesting a game our man could play in when the money started to run dry.

The film has a ‘cinema verite’ style which is probably meant to look gritty and realistic but it just looked like they were filming some scenes in a boat as the characters bobbled about on the screen. It was obviously low budget but how much is a tripod?

The running time was less than 90 minutes - even if you include the mid credits sequence- so it doesn’t outstay its welcome. Some of the gambling behaviours were well observed and it was a million miles for the glitz of Vegas or even The House.

Best Bit : We’ve got an hour… W Rating 16/23