12 Monkeys (1995)

"Look at them. They're just asking for it. 

Maybe the human race deserves to be wiped out."

Apocalypse? Time travel? Insanity? Brad Pitt?
You had me at hello.

A convict is sent back in time from a post-apocalyptic future to try and locate the source of the man-made virus that wiped out nearly all of humanity.

'12 Monkeys' had been sitting on my list of films to watch for years and I finally got round to seeing it for the first time recently.

Not being a massive fan of Terry Gilliam's films ('Brazil', 'The Fisher King' and 'The Brothers Grimm') I was a little hesitant at first but I'd only heard good things about this classic film.

After seeing '12 Monkeys' I'm so sad that I hadn't watched it sooner.

What I loved from the very beginning of '12 Monkeys' was the futuristic and the, literally, insane world that it creates around Bruce Willis' character James Cole. You're given so much information in such a short time but you really understand the visual language of the world from the first scenes. You're thrown into a situation that is unfamiliar and you have to grasp onto James Cole before you're thrown into another time period. The style is very reminiscent of French films like 'The City of Lost Children' and every detail from the costumes to the sets give you clues and information. This all culminates to create a rich tapestry for you to engross yourself in.

There is a lot of tension in the film but not in a traditional sense, you never quite know where the film is going and that is where the tension comes. We already know that there's been a worldwide disaster but it's very vague as we are following the plot from James Cole's point of view. We are fed information from the past, the present and the future which is scattered throughout the film and it's enjoyable to piece together as the film progresses.

The idea of sending a human back in time to save the world isn't a particularly new idea but it is the way it's presented in '12 Monkeys' that makes it so unusual. In the totally unbelievable world that the film is set, it manages to somehow make everything believable in a way. It isn't particularly interested in the mechanics of time travel but more about the implications and possibilities that it could hold, despite the unpredictability of the machine itself. 

Ambiguity is a defining factor in '12 Monkeys' and it does leave you to ponder the ending (and some of the details of the film) after the credits roll. There is enough information in the film for you to make up your own mind but there's always room for discussion, which is how a film like this should leave you.

It's no doubt an intricate plot and I think it would merit a second viewing.  

Bruce Willis, who was already well known for his action roles in the mid 90's, changes things up and delivers a mature and interesting performance where he toes the line between reality and insanity. You're kept on your toes with whether or not James Cole is actually from the future or if he has just lost his mind. He becomes more and more unstable as the film goes on and I love it when a film can keep you guessing. It constantly has you questioning little details and probing for more information.

Brad Pitt definitely steals every scene he's in as the totally mad Jeffrey Goines. He's hilariously delirious and plays a vital role in the film despite his initial circumstances. You genuinely want to know more about his character. He plays off Bruce Willis perfectly and brings believability to the character. It can so easily fall into farce when playing a madman and become ridiculous but Pitt balances it and reels it in when he needs to. You can see elements of his character from 'Fight Club' in Jeffrey and it's fun to watch him on screen.

There are definitely a lot of references to classic movies with the futuristic scenes and it's easy to see where they found their inspiration. I was hugely impressed by the little homage to Hitchcock that is prominent near the end of the film with some clever references to 'Vertigo'. I'm not normally a fan of Terry Gilliam but I thought he did a fantastic job balancing the story and the characters with the ideology and concepts of the film. 

If I had to criticise the film then I'd have to say that the romance that "blossoms" between James Cole and Madeleine Stowe's character - Kathryn Raillyis a little forced but it's a small complaint in what is, ultimately, a pretty great movie.
You'll always be able to pick small plot holes in time travel movies with the nature of time travel itself. Timelines become a little muddy and there will always be a slight crossover at points but that's nigh impossible to avoid.

Overall, if you haven't seen '12 Monkeys' then get yourself a copy and enjoy this wacky and complex movie that'll entertain and challenge you. It is a unique, complex, fun and twisted story about the past, the present and the future with a message. It's got some awesome performances with a great story so what more could you ask for?

"...and if you forget one thing, I will have you shaved, sterilized, and destroyed!"

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

"If I'm gonna die, 

I'm gonna die historic on a fury road!"

It's like the film 'Waterworld'... But on land.

In a post apocalyptic world where mankind has gone totally insane, two rebels on the run may be the only ones able to restore order.

Having never seen the original 'Mad Max' films, I went into 'Mad Max: Fury Road' relatively blind to what had come before. I had been subjected to the two thousand different trailers that had been circulated in the run up to the release but, despite this, I was still reasonably excited to see what most were hailing as a modern day masterpiece. 

I am a huge fan of Tom Hardy and I knew that Charlize Theron has some serious acting chops. Admittedly I hadn't seen any films from George Miller other than 'Babe: Pig in the City' so I didn't really know what to expect...

Make no mistake, this film is wild. 

Straight from the start, you are thrown into a world of insanity, cars and violence. 

What I really enjoyed was the opening. It set the tone, the style and the pace which was exciting and exhilarating. It unapologetically hurls you into Max's world without hesitation and you have to find your feet in a world that has, ultimately, lost it's mind. 

It is fast paced, action packed and full of grit. 

There isn't much plot in 'Mad Max: Fury Road' but for the beginning you don't really care that much. There are enough fast cars and interesting concepts to keep you entertained and curious. However, this fast becomes a problem. We have a mission from a 'Grand Theft Auto' game where the characters have to protect the stolen "cargo" and outrun the bad guys who want it back. Essentially this is what the film is, no more, no less. Pretty quickly the fast pace and action become repetitive and the character development is minimal because we spend so much time on the action and spectacle. 

With a massive 120 minute run time of pure action and very little emotion or character, it starts to get a little... boring?

If the film had managed to find a balance of the fantastical action with some really great story then it would have been just unbelievable.

I was in awe of the spectacle and swept away in the excitement of the opening but I was waiting and waiting for the actual story to kick in, or at least a little more character. I'm all up for a simple premise that can deliver but with the two hour run time it just becomes a little self indulgent on George Miller's part. If it had been closer to maybe 60 minutes or even 80 then I think that it would have been a whirlwind of a movie that gets in and gets out before you even know what hit you. 

Mad Max himself is about the 4th most interesting character in the film. Max seems along for the ride for the most part with Furiosa taking the helm of this battle against the tyrant Immortan Joe, played by Hugh Keays-Byrne who, after a little research, I found out is actually in the original 'Mad Max' films. The film definitely centres more on Charlize Theron's character Imperator Furiosa, who is more developed and definitely more interesting to watch. It was refreshing to see a strong female lead who takes charge and uses her initiative in the plot, she's unfortunately alongside some other pathetically weak females but we'll let that slide. 

She kicks more ass with one hand than most men do with two!

I was interested in the idea that a world plunged into chaos would drive humanity insane. If all modern ideals and laws are thrown out of the window then the world would be in a state of chaos. Max says that in the beginning and it was interesting seeing everyone who has lost their mind in their own way. Is Max really the mad one? Or is it the world?

I thought the art department, costumes and cinematography stole the show in this one. It features some spectacular concepts with beautifully dark and apocalyptic designs that totally pull you into the world. It has depth and detail that create a world that you believe is a living and breathing thing rather than just within the confines of the run-time of the film. It doesn't have a beginning or an end, you just happen to be thrown into the world and taken out of it again. This is rare in a lot of modern films and when it's done right, it takes you away and engrosses you.

Tom Hardy is fine as Mad Max but, having never seen the original films, I felt he was a little characterless... I feel that this may have been remedied if I'd seen the original films but c'est la vie.

I revelled in the practical effects of 'Mad Max: Fury Road' and was impressed when the CGI was only used when it was absolutely necessary. The stunts you see in the film are breathtaking, especially when you know that they are actually being done in camera. It brings home the reality of the action and raises the stakes. You genuinely feel that the characters are in trouble, whether you care that they are in trouble or not is a different matter but you feel that they are in danger nonetheless. 

Therein lies the problem. There's not one point in the film where I genuinely felt a connection to the characters or cared when they were in danger. You can throw all the emotional music at a scene that you like but if you don't care for the characters then it's not going to move you.

Overall, 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is a technical achievement in filmmaking but I wouldn't say that it was a masterpiece. It's not as original as it tries to be but makes up for that in spectacular spectacle and action. 

If you are wanting two hours of non-stop action then 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is definitely the film for you. However, if you are looking for anything more then I think you'll be disappointed.

An enjoyable watch with some gritty action that will keep you entertained for the most part.

Big Game (2015)

“Find the president. Bring him home.”

A film aimed at young teenage boys pumped full of sugar.

A young Finnish teenager, on a hunting mission, finds the president of the United States after his plane was shot down by terrorists. 

I went into ‘Big Game’ totally blind as I hadn’t seen a trailer or even a poster. It's interesting to do this now and again because you never really know what you might stumble across. I've found some of my favourite films of last year by doing this but you do have to take the gamble that the film you're about to see could be terrible.

'Big Game' was somewhere in between... Maybe leaning slightly more towards the latter.

'Big Game’ stars a young unknown actor Omni Tommila, who I’ve only ever seen in ‘Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale’ and Samuel L. Jackson, who seems to be doing every single role that is offered to him recently.

Straight from the get go, I was intrigued by this film. As part of tradition, young Oskari has to set off on a hunting mission in the forest to prove his maturity to his kinsfolk. He’s not a natural hunter and is overshadowed by his father. This is an interesting and relatively relatable character who is struggling with who he is and who he is expected to be. 

However, my intrigue was quickly shattered and replaced by scepticism and a critical eye. Samuel L. Jackson is the president (let that sink in) and, after his plane is destroyed by some very pantomime terrorists, he is found by Oskari and must survive. 

‘Big Game' is extremely cheesy…

There are cringe worthy one liners, over the top action sequences and bucketloads of clichés. 

I don’t mind cheesy dialogue or some bad clichés when they are in the right context.

My main problem with the film was that it didn’t know what it was and therefore tried to cover all bases with the audience. 

It had too much adult content to be kids film but was way too childish to be a film for adults. 

It had cheesy and hammy acting with some over the top action, which can be a lot of fun in a kids film, but at the same time it had some really adult violence and plot points that really confuse the tone of the film. It is rated as a 12A and there were some younger children in the cinema that really shouldn’t have been watching some parts of the film. If it had picked one side or the other then it would have worked so much better, unfortunately it ends up just being confusing and just... cheesy. 

The humour in the film was unexpected and I found myself laughing quite a lot at the jokes but this was unfortunately balanced by my laughter at the film that was rapidly free-falling into farce. The “terrorists" in the film are so two dimensional and pantomime it’s laughable and some of the dialogue is so clunky that I wondered if it was actually written by the 12 year olds that the film is aimed at. No amount of Sam Jackson will solve that. 

What I did enjoy was the fact that Samuel L. Jackson still managed to get a “motherfucker” in there, I was waiting for it all movie and was thrilled when he got to say it. A small consolation in what is a pretty bad movie overall.

I thought Omni Tommila was the glue that held the film together and he actually outshone most of the more mature american actors. His character was defined and he had a clear arch and goal to accomplish. His chemistry with Samuel L. Jackson was also really believable, which is something that is hard to fake. His transformation from innocence was enjoyable to watch, despite the rest of the questionable film going on around him. 

What has to be said about 'Big Game' is that the locations they used in Finland are beautiful. Reminiscent of 'The Lord of the Rings' or 'Braveheart', the scenery and location becomes a character in itself and each scene captures another gorgeous part of the land that young Oskari is trying to survive in. The cinematography helps a lot too, it has energy and excitement which pulls you into the action and allows you to take in the spectacle of the landscapes.

'Big Game' does a tremendous job of promoting Finland and it's people, it portrays them as being strong and full of values. I find it strange that it has made its way all the way across here with the way the Americans are portrayed in it but I think there's enough Samuel L. Jacksonness in there to make them forget that it's not very flattering... 

For me, it felt like a 90's action blockbuster but without the nostalgic feeling to go with it. It wasn't quite a homage or a tribute to these movies as it did seem to want to take itself seriously but at the same time it obviously had some fun with what it was doing? This brings us back to the confusion of the film. I have a feeling it was meant to be a little more serious than it was but comes across as over-acted and cheesy so they just ran with it.

Granted, some of the action set pieces were enjoyable but it was mostly the humour of the film that saved it. 

Honestly, I think it was an attempt at doing a Matthew Vaughn film like 'Kick-Ass' and "Kinsmen: The Secret Service'. Vaughn manages to balance pantomime and comedy with some serious action and violence, however the difference is that Vaughn does it better and he knows the audience well. 

All of this being said, if you are to look at it from a young teenagers perspective then I think it definitely works a bit better. They wouldn't be as familiar with the clichés, the action is big enough to satisfy the spectacle quota of an action film and cheesy scenes don't seem as bad when you're a young kid. I was half expecting some hormonal titillation and more swearing but it was relatively reserved on that front. It'll fulfil the action quota and has a character that they can relate to as the young teenager is the hero of the film alongside some incapable adults. 

Overall, I think that young boys from ages 12 - 14 will absolutely love and enjoy this film but it will probably be lost on most of the audience. It's enjoyable from a silly and cheesy action flick point of view but the sobering fact is that if you actually look at it for what it is then it really falls short of the mark. 
There were some big names in this film but I imagine these names were purely to draw a western audience. The story is full of the biggest clichés in action films you can imagine with some “plot twists” that can be spotted a mile off.

Unfriended (2015)

"Online, your memories live forever... 

but so do your mistakes."

That's it... my faith in modern horror has officially been destroyed.

After their Skype session is hacked into, a group of friends are haunted by their dead friend's online account.

Do I even have to do a review after reading the premise of the film?

Okay, let's make this quick.

'Unfriended' was a horror that I had no interest in seeing, however, after some surprisingly good reviews, I thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.

This film is a mistake. Pure and simple. 

'Unfriended' is based around the suicide of Laura Barns, a high school girl who was cyber bullied in school and took her own life as a result. On the anniversary of her death, this clichéd group of misfit friends are Skyping when a mysterious account, claiming to be the dead Laura Barns, begins to hassle and threaten them.

The film explores a new way of telling a story as the entire film is set on the desktop of Blaire Lily, a young virgin (who promises that she'll go all the way on prom)... 

Not only do we have the virgin but we have the jock, the slut, the stoner and the boyfriend...

That's literally the list of characters. 

Not even in an ironic kind of way.

What really bothered me about the style of the narrative was it's inconsistency and it's use of convenient plot devices when telling the story. 

If we are meant to be watching the events play out from a desktop then why is there obvious and creepy ambient music with loud crashes when there's a cheap jump scare? It's like playing out 'Paranormal Activity' with a full orchestral score going on in the living room downstairs, conceptually it doesn't fit with what it's trying to accomplish.

The internet connection, that is conveniently lost when the plot needs it, is a pain to watch as the screen flickers and starts and stops. It'll give you a headache as it tries to create tension by cutting the signal and then quickly cutting in with a loud crash and a scream.

Blaire constantly types things then deletes it (so we know what she's thinking) and doesn't act like a real girl would. The things she says and does just aren't natural to the situation, even before the horror starts. She's a contrived character from the beginning and when you combine that with her "friends" (who all would never be friends in the first place), you get an annoying group of stereotypes that you'll be happy to see die.

If you are to strip the unusual narrative style out of the equation and look at the plot itself, then it's an abysmal attempt at a horror film. Not only do we have some extremely clichéd characters but they are not likeable at all. By the end of the film you are hoping that they are all going to get knocked off by this anonymous hacker. It's a sorry state of affairs when you are actually cheering the killer on and hoping that they'll all die. Not in a fun way, like you would with some cheap slasher flicks, but more so you can leave the cinema and get back to your life. 

The tension and "scares" in the film soon get old and predictable. Cheap attempts at jump scares begin to get on your nerves and the death scenes are laughable... Literally. 

The entire audience was in fits of laughter as the film went on and I don't think anyone was taking it seriously. 

It tries to be modern and up to date but ends up looking severely out of touch.

When huge story issues arise, the film consciously and obviously tries to cover the gaping plot holes with silly excuses that just end up making you question the entire integrity of the film.

The film was so focused on whether or not it could tell the story in this way rather than if it should. I don't consider it to be a "game changer" in horror like 'The Blair Witch Project' was and I don't think it'll ever be done again in the future. I commend them for trying but this was an absolute misfire. It was an interesting concept for a narrative tool but was obviously rushed so that it was the first to make it before someone else had the idea.

It had shallow and irritating characters, a boring and clichéd plot, terrible tension, zero horror and is predictable right up to the end, despite it's pathetic attempt at having some "plot twists". You can call it straight from the get go. 

It's definitely not scary and is, quite frankly, one of the worst horror films I've seen in a while.

Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.