The behavior of Mark Lamphere, an architect, turns weird shortly after his honeymoon with Celia, who begins finding out that Mark has many secrets. This is the plot of The Secret Beyond the Door. It turns out he was married before, his wife died suspiciously and they have a son. Mark appears to be a bit crazy or possibly even a lot crazy and could be intending to murder Celia inside a room he keeps locked.

The director is Fritz Lang who is known for his noir films and he achieves an affective atmosphere of creepiness especially in the first half of the film. Michael Redgrave and Joan Bennett give good (if dated) performances and the film, as a whole, is unusual and intriguing. In spite of this, though, it doesn’t quite work as well as, say, most Hitchcock films and I think it might be because of the story. The main set-piece is a collection rooms belonging to the architect but, let’s face it, no-one ever in the world has ever had a collection of rooms. The whole thing gets a bit melodramatic and laughable. I suppose it’s a forerunner to the likes of Psycho or even Repulsion a few years later and it’s nowhere near as good as either of them. Still worth a look, though.

“I’m sorry we drank your dad.”

 Due Date was a big hit at the cinema although it got mixed to negative reviews. You can’t fail to see the similarity with Planes, Trains and Automobiles and I found myself comparing it to that other film all the way through. Is it any good? Mmmm… It’s not terrible. Is it as good as Planes, Trains and Automobiles ? Not a chance.

The reasons why this film is not very bad are; NUMBER 1: Robert Downey Junior; usually his mere presence in a film lifts it a couple of notches and the same is true here. He’s funny and convincing as the uptight traveller and easily gets our sympathy despite the fact that at one point he punches a ten year old kid in the stomach and at another point he spits in the face of a dog! NUMBER 2: a couple of the jokes are funny; watching Zach Galifianakis as Ethan Tremblay bouncing in the back of the pickup truck for one example, watching Downey Jr get beat up by a disabled person for another.

The reasons why this film is not very good are; NUMBER 1: It’s a massive rip off of Planes,Trains and Automobiles, no getting away from it, it just is. NUMBER 2: The characters and the relationship between them lack warmth and charm; it often just feels like two annoying guys going through annoying crap. NUMBER 3: There’s no pay off! No plot twist (no plot at all actually) or story resolution to make it worth us going on this hellish, only mildly amusing journey with the characters. NUMBER 4: It’s not funny enough; some of the jokes work, most don’t.

Generally this wasn’t a complete disaster but none of the reasons why it was just about bearable were to do with director Todd Phillips (The Hangover 1 and 2, Road Trip). In fact Due Date is actually more evidence to suggest that Phillips is a one-trick pony. And I’ve got to mention the Planes, Trains and Automobiles connection one last time… Why the hell would someone make a film with almost exactly the same plot as one made a few years back and do it much less well? Couldn’t anyone anywhere think of a different story or at least a different slant on the story?! Apparently not.

This isn’t an easy watch but is all the better for that, I reckon. If you sometimes get sick of watching endless formulaic films e.g. wacky comedy, rom com, shlock horror, earnest thriller etc and want to see a film where you genuinely don’t know what’s going to happen next, you might like this.

Tree of Life aims high in that it tries to tackle important questions about life such as whether we are completely at the mercy of nature or whether we can choose to act with ‘grace’. Brad Pitt‘s domineering father character represents the tough, sometimes cruel or violent force of nature; Jessica Chastain shows the opposing force of grace. Most of the film is about these characters and their three young sons. Those sequences are brilliantly played and filmed and really draw you in. There’s no melodrama, this is not a TV soap; most of the events are small and everyday but they ring true because of that. I’ve heard the film criticised for being slow but what do those critics want; a car chase, a bank heist, a sordid affair? It moves at a pace which feels true to life and actually, I never once found it to be slow.

Other segments of the film feature Sean Penn as the eldest son, now grown up. For me that’s the weaker point; I didn’t even twig that that’s who he was until the very end as he looks completely unlike the child actor. Also there’s a long sequence of apparently random shots of the natural world which is reminded me of scenes from 2001: A Space Odyssey. There’s even a scene with CGI dinosaurs; off the wall or what?! The aim of these scenes is to show the constant  tension between nature and grace. For me, the trick is to resist shouting ‘what the hell is this all about!’ and getting annoyed that those scenes seem to take us away from the main storyline. Just go with it; enjoy the beauty of them (they’re breathtaking!) and see if it makes sense at the end.

For my money writer/director Terrence Malick has done an amazing job and I just wish more films were this challenging and ambitious.   Other people will no doubt call it overblown and pretentious. They’re wrong. Sorry.

If I have to think of some criticism I’d have to say that I thought the emotional climax (where lots of characters meet up on a beach) was the least emotionally affecting scene of the film which slightly took the edge off the brilliance. Also, I wan’t quite sure if Malick was trying to say that acting with ‘grace’ is a good thing or whether it leads to our destruction (we see the dinosaurs wiped out and the earth destroyed shortly after acts of grace are carried out) but then I guess a writer of Malick’s quality isn’t really seeking to give pat answers but just to get us thinking about stuff.

Got to end on another positive; the acting is superb all round but the child actors are completely brilliant especially Hunter McCracken as young Jack. That alone is worth the ticket money, but there’s much more besides to make this a really great film. Unless a bank heist is more up your street.

First; all the good things about Bridesmaids (2011). It’s funny in parts. It’s a simple, unpretentious story about ordinary people. It manages to cover subjects which have been done to death but still raises a smile. The style is quite understated and so it doesn’t feel that it’s trying to be funny. It’s got Matt Lucas in it (briefly). The main actors don’t mind making themselves look bad and the film is funnier because of that.

Second; the bad things about Bridesmaids. It’s only mildly amusing. There’s not one thing her that you have seen six hundred times in other films. It’s slow and doesn’t build to much of a climax. The main character is often really irritating. It’s a bit of a rip off of Ben Stiller films; a female version. The main character keeps her bra on in sex scenes (see below)

To be fair this was never aimed at me so I shouldn’t be disappointed that it didn’t appeal to me. It did well critically and commercially so it seems to have hit the spot with a lot of people. It’s just not my kind of thing but I can’t criticise it for that. If you want mild, semi-gross-out humour about a group of women and their funny, bitchy, paranoid ways, with no strings attached and no brain work required you’ll probably love this.

The makers of Apollo 18 have claimed that they didn’t actually make this film… they found it! It is apparently, genuinely real footage. Documents such as the one above help to substantiate authenticity. It seems that the officially cancelled Apollo 18 mission was actually launched in December 1974 but never returned and, as a result, the United States has never launched another expedition to the Moon. The film is the lost footage of the Apollo 18 mission that was only recently discovered.

All this made me really really want to see this. I am actually a fan of what seems to be a new genre growing from the seeds of Blair Witch Project through Cloverfield and District 9 right up to Paranormal Activity. These films pretend to be utterly real, ie- they are footage found in cameras shot by people who have been involved in some kind of terrifying incident. All of the films I just mentioned have done this brilliantly, using the device to achieve amazing levels of suspense and real fear. I think that Apollo 18 may actually mark the beginning of the end for this once exciting genre.

This is not just the worst film I have ever seen of this genre it is actually one of the worst films I have ever seen of ANY genre. It fails on every level except cinematography (the moonscapes are stunning). What director Gonzalo López-Gallego has done is take this genre and make it cheesy. All of the actors are hamming it up like hell (what’s the point of filming in a documentary style and then having the actors play it like they’re doing Hammer House of Horror?) The bloke who plays the one who gets the thing inside him is the worst offender; my God he acts his little heart out. I can’t even be bothered looking up his name because he was just plain sh*t.

It’s not just the acting though. The script is saturated with cliches. At one point someone actually says “You go, leave me here!” and someone else replies “No-one is leaving anyone!” This is sloppy, moronic, derivative film making, Someone has thought ‘oh these fake documentary movies seem to make a load of cash for a tiny budget… how hard can it be?’ The answer is; VERY hard. This kind of film is one of the hardest to make. In all movies, suspension of disbelief is tricky but when you’re trying to persuade the audience that this is ACTUAL DISCOVERED FOOTAGE then the bar is set astonishingly high.

Apollo 18 doesn’t even get off the ground. It is totally bereft of any kind of suspense. The moment when I realised I was watching a monumental turkey was the very first instance of so-called suspense. An astronaut glimpses something ‘horrific’ in a crater. The genre dictates that any horrors are barely seen at all and even then the images should be kept obscure. Here we are shown a corpse in glorious detail followed by ten minutes of the actors acting out their cheesyversions of what SCARED looks like. Why don’t actors realise that in real life (this is supposed to be REAL LIFE FOOTAGE remember!) people don’t project their emotions like that; they actually tend to keep them in, try to smother them (which is far more interesting to watch).

I suppose my hatred of this film is so intense because my expectations were so high. It was the direct opposite of my Johnny English Reborn experience where my low expectations were unexpectedly exceeded. Appollo 18 could have been astronomical. But, due to laziness, lack of talent, greed, arrogance and stupidity it is a total space wreck.

Bullitt is regarded as a classic. Made in 1968 it stars Steve McQueen, Jacqueline Bisset and Robert Vaughn and was directed by Peter Yates. The story was adapted for the screen by Alan Trustman and Harry Kleiner based on the 1963 novel Mute Witness by Robert L. Fish, a pseudonym for Robert L. Pike. It’s basically a crime thriller centring on Frank Bullitt played by McQueen. I’m always a bit in awe of these legendary movies but I also try to see them objectively and not be swayed by all of that collective opinion weighing down on me. In this case I do agree that the film has some features that might qualify it as a classic. But not many.

Where I agree with the classic tag is in the direction. Peter Yates does an utterly stunning job. The film is atmospheric, edgy, quirky, and fascinating thanks to him. I include the famous car chase scene as a credit for the director. It truly is brilliant. I’m not a great fan of car chases for the sake of car chases but this one breaks the mould in that it feels very realistic; bits fall off cars, cars smash into things, engines scream… and it all takes place on the steep slopes of San Francisco. It really is good. Another scene which got my attention was where Bullitt chases after someone across a runway; great visual ideas.

Credit for Bullitt‘s success often goes, understandably, to Steve McQueen for his contribution. This is where I disagree with the awarding of the classic tag. What’s all this about him having a magnetic screen presence? He’s just dull. He has a range of two or three expressions and voices which he fits to every situation but this is not difficult because he only ever faces a limited range of situations in his films ie- rescuing someone, being a smart ass, chasing someone, or hitting someone. There was a documentary on my dvd of Bullitt which looked at the life and talent of McQueen; the man was a diva who tried to get all the best lines, hogged the camera, and treated people like crap. Of course, that wouldn’t matter one jot if his work was any good but, in this film at any rate, he’s average at best.

The script does nothing to elevate the film either. It makes no sense. The plot is incomprehensible. And big stretches of the thing are just plain slow. Personally I don’t mind slow. But in an action movie? In an action movie called Bullitt?! I’ve never heard of a slow bullet. If I was to give any credit at all to the acting I’d say that Robert Vaughn is completely brilliant as the slime ball lawyer type person. His scenes with McQueen are actually electric and it’s totally down to Vaughn, not AT ALL down to McQueen. And Jaqueline Bisset is great in an understated (and stunningly gorgeous, sorry!) way.

Basically, Bullitt is OK; has a few very good points and is well above the average crime caper. But caper it is, NOT classic. Just saying.

IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY REVIEW, TELL ME WHERE I GOT THIS SO COMPLETELY WRONG BY LEAVING A COMMENT.

The Adjustment Bureau was written and directed by George Nolfi and stars Matt Damon and Emily Blunt. In many ways it’s a good solid movie. I liked the fact that it tried to do something different and wasn’t just another straightforward crime thriller. Its tone is more like an old episode of The Twilight Zone or a Ray Bradbury story which, as far as I’m concerned, has got to be good. It had plenty of action, some romance, and a couple of laughs. Also, it raised a few more brain-taxing issues about free will, freedom and religion.

Unfortunately, the film doesn’t quite work. I’m not exactly sure why that is. Is it down to the slightly clunky performance from Matt Damon (not the most charismatic male lead in the world)? Is it the slightly boring characters; I never really gave a stuff for either protagonist because they were just both too dull! Is it the slightly clumsy script which maybe tells us a bit more than we needed to know about the mysterious bureau? Is it the slightly bland direction from Nolfi.  I don’t know if it’s any, all or none of these factors but the result was that I my sense of disbelief was not quite suspended enough to buy this.

I don’t want to give the impression that this is a terrible film because it’s not and I’m always excited when filmmakers take chances with their subject matter. But when you raise the bar like The Adjustment Bureau tried to do, you have to make sure you live up to the standards you set yourself. This nearly did.

Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reckons that 38% of 78 critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 4.7 out of 10. The website says the film is ‘ …arguably a marginal improvement on its mostly-forgotten predecessor… nonetheless remains mired in broad, tired spy spoofing that wastes Rowan Atkinson’s once considerable comedic talent’.  I completely agree with every part of that statement about Johnny English Reborn. However, here’s the problem…. I LAUGHED.

When Johnny takes a voice-changing drug and begins speaking like a woman I thought what a tired old gag… and then laughed. When Johnny’s chair rises and falls during a tense meeting I thought how may times I’d seen similar scenes before… and then I laughed. When Johnny attacks his boss’s elderly mother with a tea tray I thought how brainless and old hat… and then I laughed. Fact is, I laughed out loud at this film more than I’ve laughed at any film in a long time.

Let’s face it there’s no such thing as a new joke anyway, is there? So any movie that pretends it’s doing new gags is on a sticky wicket. There is nothing new under the sun. So therefore it’s all in the method; it’s all about HOW it’s done.  And thanks to Rowan Atkinson the jokes in this film (ancient though they are) are done pretty well. Much as I’d like to say I sat stony faced through this load of childish crap, I can’t escape the fact that I laughed so much I cried (and not out of pity). The best bits, I thought, were not the big set pieces like the helicopter scene or the big chase scenes (they were quite dull, to me) but the smaller touches where perhaps the pressure was off a bit and Atkinson was allowed to just do his daft mincing.

Oh yes and Rosumund Pike is in it. Boys, see bottom picture; WHOAH!. Girls, you have to make allowances for us sometimes. Comedy is such a subjective thing; I’m sure many of you will see Johnny English Reborn and wonder if I’ve lost all sense of quality control; probably fail to notice a single laugh in the whole thing. But it made me laugh. And I was sober, I promise.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a good, fast-moving, entertaining film and a worthy follow-up to the first one. Neither is great art exactly but they are both great fun. Making fun movies that keep you interested and engaged is quite an art actually; we know this because of the number of times we see stinkers.

Jude Law and the rest of the cast are all good but it’s Robert Downey Junior, of course, who again makes this such a successful movie. I know he’s only playing a part like everyone else but he has such a strong screen presence that it brings the whole thing to life. I’m not so sure about Jared Harris who makes his first appearance as Moriarty. I don’t expect the usual stereotyped Victorian villain exactly but I did expect someone with a charisma to match Downey’s. Harris wasn’t bad but wasn’t outstanding and reminded me of Richard Stilgoe’s less charismatic younger brother.

The film is specifically influenced by Conan Doyle’s work The Final Problem but it is an independent story rather than a strict adaptation. If you’ve read that story you’ll know that something momentous happens at Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland. The Falls appear in this film (CGI version which is about fifty times bigger than the actual Falls which are actually a series of waterfalls on the River Aar near Meiringen in Bern canton in central Switzerland. The story is engaging and pretty clever, I reckon, apart from one (quite crucial) bit which involves human cloning. Whenever anything to do with cloning or twins crops up in a plot it always, always, always, always feels stupid and contrived. It’s like when you find out that the murderer wasn’t the person you thought it was but actually the person’s long-lost twin brother. Big let down.

Guy Ritchie is directing again and he’s turning out to be great at these spectacular adventure romp type things. We get all the fighting and guns in slow motion again which very nearly ruins the whole thing. There’s even more about guns in this one than the last one! I’ve no problem with having millions of guns in a film but the whole point of Sherlock Holmes is that he sorts stuff out using brainpower mostly, not shooting people. Guy Ritchie loves that cockney gangster scene so we have to put up with it in EVERY film he makes. Can’t wait till he does his version of Jane Eyre where she packs a sawn off shooter in her bushel.

I’m being picky now, though. Generally it’s a really enjoyable film with loads of spills and thrills and even a few laughs. And if you don’t enjoy it Ritchie boy is gonna come round your gaff and put the frighteners on yer.