The_Celluloid_Sage Reviews

The Bay (II) (2012)

Ultimately falls flat...

[5/10 · 6 April 2020]

In the sleepy town of Claridge, Maryland on the Chesapeake Bay, their annual forth of July celebrations and crab festival are underway. Only people are becoming ill, very, very ill. Local news reports on this illnesses and theorises the possibility of there being something in the water infecting these people. Panic soon starts to set in. The news reports on the mass killing of birds and fish in the area.

The local authorities shut the town down and start to confiscate any and all footage that the local media may have taken in what appears to be some kind of cover-up. One person hoever managed to evade the authorities and kept copies of what she documented and found on that fateful day in 2009 in the hopes that one day the truth would come to light. We see her on a webcam and she begins to tell the previously unknown story.

Ok, so what we have here is a kind found footage, documentary type and style of film. It certainly plays more like a cross between events happening as we see them, interspliced with old documentary sections. It is in the found footage genre and I was very tempted to give this one a miss because of that fact before seeing Levinson's (Sphere, Rain Man, Toys) name attached as the director.

While this is nothing spectacular, I'm glad I gave it a chance. Levinson is an accomplished director and knows his craft. while he may have dropped off the boil and off Hollywood's radar of late, as the saying goes, form is temporary etc. Levinson directs this one tightly with a lot of attention to detail and this shows in the final product.

The film meanders slightly in the first fifteen minutes or so but you quickly get the gist of what is, and has been going on in the town of Claridge. We not only have footage from within the town itself, but also documentary style footage of researchers testing the effects of pollution in the local water and recording their findings. Some shaky cam is also in use at times but it is thankfully kept to a minimum.

There is a particular piece of daliague between two inept police officers which i personally found amusing from a cultural point of view, but it's one of few highlights in a rather underwhelming script. Perhaps Levinson should have just written the script himself and had done with it. I'm sure it would have been better than what he eventually worked with.

On that point, interestingly, Levinson was actually asked to do an documentary regarding the Chesapeake bay. After watching a different documentary regarding pollution in the area, while interested he turned it down citing a lack of probable interest. This film stems from that and the story is his own little twisted take on the area.

Overall, acting is about where you would expect it to be from the cast, with no one really standing out. Photography, lighting and audio (my biggest usual bugbear) are all much like the acting. On point but nothing to make you sit up and take notice. if you are a fan of the found footage genre, definitely make sure you catch this little title. If you're not, give it a try as it really is perhaps one of the best around.

The Sage's Rating: 5/10

Late Shift (I) (2016)

Very different and interesting. Pleasently surprised.

[7/10 · 6 April 2020]

For those of you that are aware of this you might be wondering why I'm reviewing this here. Back in the nineties FMB games were all the rage, despite many of them not exactly being all that good. Terrible resolution and mostly of dubious quality. Some of them were fun though and added a different and new slant to the gaming industry and experience. Over the last few years interactive video games have made a little bit of a resurgence and this must be up there with the very best of them. A video game this is most certainly not though.

Dubbed as an interactive film, this little swiss produced feature is at its heart a full feature film. The only 'game' elements that exist are you making choices for Matt (Sowerbutts) as you follow him during perhaps the worst night of his young life. This is done very well though, with no break in the film or action. Any of you familiar with quick time events in video games will be used to the decisions that appear and subsequently need clicking. There is a timer bar on these so one must think quickly before the decision is lost (and presumably defaults to a cannon decision).

So to the actual story. The film opens to beautiful and atmospheric overhead shots of London at night. Matt is a student studying mathematics and we join the film as we see Matt making his way to what we find out is his evening part-time job. He works in a secure underground parking complex where he wearily and sadly comments that the array of expensive machinary on show are the only meaningful relationships he has ever had. After a brief conversation with a patron and his date Matt settles down to read his study material over what will be his late shift.

The patron's date arrives at Matt's little guard hut and after some eye batting and cute smiling says she needs the keys to the car. This is where the start of the decision making takes place proper. A I will say no more as the actual real plot of the story then quickly unfolds. Needless to say (presumably regardless of which decisions you make), Matt's night quickly heads south at an alarming rate as he is shot at, threatened and ends up as part of a hesist on an auction house. Things could definitely have gone better for him.

So why the review? Well, this interactive movie (and there is not that much interaction in all honesty) is pretty much all film. Again, any interaction is soley reduced to making a yes or no decision etc. As a film though, well this is pretty good and if we go by other recent british crime thrillers (notably with Danny dyer in them) then this is far above them all as a gritty crime drama. While there are a couple of jarring plot contrivances and script errors overall this is a good production, though I appreciate some of those may have something to do with the multiple choice aspect.

Writer and director Weber is not known to me for anything else so this makes this feature all the more impressive. Funded by a fund for cultural projects as well as a Swiss televeision network helped Weber get the project going though this mostly privately funded. As mentioned before this all very impressive given the experience and budget. Cinematography is fantastic and London looks absolutely gorgeous in the night scenes, from bustling areas to the lesser known back alleys and other districs. Likewise direction is sharp and you are never in doubt as to what is happening or why.

My only complaint (as is usually the case) is the audio. The soundtrack is is reasonably good and fits the overall theme of the movie but in far too many places it drowns out the audio. As is usual with a 'video game' you get the option of subtitles. I usually choose not to have these hsowing but within ten minutes decided it would perhaps be wise to use them. Your mileage may vary here depending on system setup and whether you use headphones or not. But be warned, it is an issue in places. That is though perhaps a minor annoyance in an otherwise good production.

As previously mentioned, the script does suffer in places but is otherwise acceptable and all the cast do their best with what they have. Barring a couple of characters I would say the cast do an excellent job and as television regulars I'm sure they adapted to this production well. An interactive 'movie' that seamlessly merges the decision making you choose for Matt into what you are watching. If when watching a film you always wanted the hero to go left instead of right, fight instead of run, then give this one a try, I think you might be pleasently surprised.



The Sage's Rating: 7/10

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

Solid, but not as good as the first

[7/10 · 6 April 2020]

James Gunn once helms the Guardians of the Galaxy's ship as well as once again writing the screenplay. After the success of the first film one might be forgiven that this was a good move. I would have agreed, except that for a variety of reasons the magic is slightly missing in this sequel which just doesn't quite manage to lift itself up to the lofty heights of it's predecessor or some other Marvel films.

The outline here is a lot more insipid and story-driven that the first offering we got from Gunn and for that I feel it does suffer for it. We once again start in eighties (nineteen-eighty to be precise) where we see a very young Kurt Russell with Meredith (as we know to be Peter's mother). He takes her to look at an unusual flower he has planted in the woods telling her of stories and dreams for the future.

Thirty-four years later (and set six months after the first film) our merry band of misfit hero's are battling an interdimensional 'beast' while baby Groot dances to Mr Blue Sky by the wonderful Jeff Lynne (ELO), completely oblivious to the fight. They are there to collect an important object in order to see justice done (and collect a lot of booty in the process).

Unfortunately the loveable rogue raccoon Rocket just can't help himself or his sticky fingers. This (unfortunately for our guardians) leads to the Golden High Priestess Ayesha of the Sovereign launching a full scale assault against them, forcing them to crash land on another planet. This is where we meet Ego (Russell) as he lands to rescue them having been searching for Peter for years.

Meanwhile the Ravagers are at a stip bar (with Howard the Duck in a ridiculous scene) and yes I did just say that, where Yondu is having issues with another Ravager leader (Stallone). Fortune favours the brave though as they say and the Golden Priestess offeres Yondu some redemption by hiring him and his own equal band of misfits to hunt down the Guardians.

Those are all really just side issues though. Unfortunately the film dwells on nothingness for far too long and takes an age (almost ninety minutes) to get to the actual main plot. Everything leading up to that is filler (very good filler mind at times) but filler nontheless. Onve this main story starts the film really does slow down to a snails pace and I feel that this is where it starts to go wrong. For ninety minutes you have a film very similar to the first. Then it all gets a little sidetracked and wayward.

We get to meet Peter's father who is millions of years old and birthed from the stars and cosmos itself. He also created his own planet and...well...is also a little crazy. I guess loneliness can do that if you're an ego-maniacal space God intent on universal control. Regardless, the visual aspects of the second part of the film are very impressive but the story does drag. Russell is also not at his best and does his best Jeff Bridges impression, funny how similar those two have become in their acting over the last few years. In fact, his character is just not that interesting despite the fact he should be.

Once again everyones acting is excellent here and certainly in the earlier parts of the film the laughs run freely. The entire scene where Groot helps Yondu is just pure comedy gold and Rocket still has an unnerving fascination for wanting other peoples mechanical body parts. As impressive as he was in the first, Drax has definitely grown as a character and is also brilliant, finding humour in many things with his raucous laughter.

We also get to see much more of Gamora's sister Nebula this time too and the film does benefit from having her presence. certainly an excellent and interesting character and I'm glad she got more screen time compared to the first film. Pom Klementieff does a good job asa a naive empath though she is not really around enough to make a lasting impression. Likewise the classy Laura Haddock has a little more to do this time as Meredith, though her talents are wasted for the role.

Just like in the first film, everything looks fantastic and there is some beautiful visual effects to go along with the fantastic soundtrack which has perfect song placement. The highlight of the entire film though has to be baby Groot, he is so adorable and even more fun this time around. With the best credits sequence of any film yet in the universe this is not a bad offering but does fail to meet its expectations. Just be sure to remember your metaphors.

The Sage's Rating: 7/10

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Great all round fun...one of the better MCU entries

[8/10 · 6 April 2020]

Guardians of the Galaxy took us somewhat of a sideways step within the MCU from what had come before but in doing so, did open up more plot points and give us a little more information on Thanos, the kree and perhaps more importantly, the all important infinity stones which are essentially the foundations of the universe and it's unfolding story. We will see much more of them in future films as they pretty much hold the key to most things.

James Gunn brings us a fantastic vision of the rag-tag bunch of mercenaries, criminals and other assorted beings from the comic book series. A prolific and good writer in the past but as a director he had not really done very much worth noting before this. We need'nt have feared though as this is definitely one of the better films set within the cinematic universe that Marvel has weaved.

We open to the late eighties, a young Peter is at the hospital listening to a cassette while his mother lies ill in a hospital bed. Dying she hands Peter a present but he is unable to cope with his grief as his mother passes. Distraught, Peter runs off into the fog of the night, only for lights to appear all around him.

Twenty-six years later Peter Quill (a perfectly cast Chris Pratt), now a mercenary outlaw, lands on an abandoned planet and starting his walkman, dances and sings through an old temple while looking for an important artifact. Unfortunately, he is not alone in looking for this object. From here the action never really lets up and takes you on a rollercoaster ride of excitement.

We are then slowly introduced to the rest of our main players. Mainly Rocket (voiced by Cooper), Groot (brilliantly done by Diesel given he has just three words of dialogue) and Gamora (Zaldana). Rocket and groot are great and provide the majority of the comedy. Tcene where they try to capture Quill along with Gamaro (who is also after Quill) is very well choregraphed and extremely funny. In trying to capture him, they unfortunately all end up in a prison facility (where Drax is also), so Quill, Gamora, Rocket Groot and Drax band together to escape and ultimately become the Guardians of the Galaxy.

The cast here is mostly excellent, even those with very little to do. Lee Pace (in a 180 from playing Thranduil in the Hobbit Trilogy) is excellent as Ronan the Accuser and Michael Rooker is just awesome as the crazy Yondu Udonta, the leader of a Ravager faction (who are equally as mad). Benicio del Toro returns as the Space Liberaci (or the collector as first seen in Thor: Dark world). GIllan is also excellent as Thanos' daughter Nebula and to my mind, it was a shame not see more of her character.

Which leads us to Rocket and Groot. Rocket is a mad raccoon and definitely has all the best one-liners. His character is awesome and is wonderfully brought to life both the special effect team and by Cooper's voice acting. Last but not least, Groot is just gorgeous and very scary at times, wonderfully funny and brilliantly voiced by vin diesel. I really don;t think the film would have been the same without him and he even has a genuinly tear jerking moment. I am Groot indeed. Very easy to see why everyone fell in love with him.

Guardians also gives us our first proper look at the Kree's (or second, if you pay attention to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) and it will be interesting to see how they feature later on in the overarching story. Josh Brolin also makes his first appearance (uncredited) as Thanos as we also get to see a little of him and his possible agenda as he certainly is an interesting and powerful character within the universe.

Special effects here are absolutely sopt on and top-notch and really are believable with nothing looking odd or out of place. Likewise, the soundtrack is to die for (if you're a seventies or eighties kid at least anyway) and the film closes with a completely and utterly bizarre post credits scene. A good film to me should transport you within it so you forget you're actually watching a film. Guardians of the Galaxy does that so well that it's runtime seems over almost immediately after you hit play. Great film.



The Sage's Rating: 8/10

Dorian Gray (2009)

Very average and disappointing

[5/10 · 6 April 2020]

With a heavy sigh I'm really not sure where to start with this poor adaptation of a most excellent literary work. Adaptation, nased upon, inspired by, none of these really do justice to this feature as no ne of them even come close to being the correct term. Do screenwriters even read their source material anymore? it does beg the question and make one wonder that not only have they not read said source material, but they have never even heard of it before. Once again we have a disastrously bad literary to film mess.

Dorian Grey is the rather simple story of a Lord who has come of age and the fortune and wealth that entails. Dorian (a very dull Barnes) falls into a partying and flamboyant crowd, the likes of which Lord Henry wotton (Firth, not at his steller best) is a member of. Lord wotton talks the talk but does not walk the walk very much. Smitten with the words and stories of his friend, the young Dorian embraces this ideaology and unwittingly strikes a deal with the devil himself. For every sin and transgression, the portrait of Dorian painted by Basil (Chaplin) takes the age and scars while Dorian retains his youthful appearance.

Quite a good story if not a ested formula from Wilde would you not agree? Many many otthers also agree (inclusing the filmmakers unfortunately) so how di this become such the mess it did? Well first I think we need to take a long hard look at Toby Finlay. The script is a mess, new characters are added and very quickly Wilde's original story goes out of the window and swims down the Thames, to be replaced with a convulated mess of a script that surely must still make Wilde turn in his grave. You have the perfect material to work from, so why completely change it into a uncomprehendable mess so different from what you are working from?

Secondly we have a director hardly swimming with hits on his resume (though I appreciate that does not always matter) and working alongside the aformentioned screenplay, ended up giving us a film that in all honesty is rather quite dull and uninteresting. Some of the scenes of the more depraved areas of London are quite well shot in their gloomy state and overall the film is quite nice and suitably gothic looking and atmospheric. Other than that though, there is really not much there at all to hold your interest. we just go from one hednictic scene to the next with Barnes almost sleepwalking his way through his lines.

And that leads to perhaps the next critique, in that the majority of the acting is also so dull and wooden, and yes, even from Firth. He must be one of the major pulls to this production but even he struggles with what he is being given to work with. and that says something from someone of his quality. By the time we actually get to the important parts of the film where someone like Firth could get his teeth into his role, it's all far too late for anyone to actually care about. No one really does enough for you to care about them. All down to direction or script or was everyone just up for the paycheck?

While photography and overall production values are reasonable there really isn't much else going for this other than the costumes. The costume department excelled themselves and that is pretty much the only positive and highlight I can say about this. A cheap looking film that looks like it should be a daytime television production, complete with cheap tittilation to try and keep people interested. There wasn't much of it in the book, more suggestion but here it takes center stage over well, everything else really. Shallow, little real content and another unfortunate case of gloss over substance.

if you are a fan of the novel or of Wilde himself then I would recommend staying away from this, a long way away. For anyone else if you really are desperate enough tow atch something on a dreary Wednesday night then I guess you could do much much worse (we have reviewed worse). Ultimately a dull story, uninspired characters, no depth and without the meaning of Wilde's story, this really is one you should probably avoid regardless unless you happen to be a major fan of any of the cast. For a drama come thriller, in the end it missed both of those and just left us with a bit of a tepid affair.



The Sage's Rating: 5/10

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Solid but predictable

[8/10 · 6 April 2020]

Joss Wheden returns to helm the second Avengers film within the cinematic universe. As I said in my review for The Avengers, you always know what you are going to get from Wheden and he very rarely fails to deliver. Once again as director (and writer), he delivers a top-notch action film with an ensemble cast of hero's and weaves everything together masterfully.

Age of Ultron opens to the Avengers fighting off waves of Hydra forces on route to a secret research base (which we saw in The winter Soldier) and where the Maximoff twins are located. This is also (as we know from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) where Hydra have been keeping Loki's sceptre and using it to conduct experiments on volunteers in order to try and replicate the abilities that the Inhumans possess to further goal for world domination and to finish the Avengers.

Strucker, one of the new heads of Hydra wishes to use the twins abilities to defend the facility but others are not so sure they are ready. Once inside Stark gets to downloading information from Hydra's computer systems but Wanda (well played from Olsen) manages to warp his mind (in a first proper glimpse into her powers) which gives him visions of the Avengers all dead in a pile on a futuristic battlefield. With Strucker and the twins escaping the Avengers return with the sceptre for further anylysis before Thor finds a safe haven for the weapon.

We then discover that Stark is planning on building a shield around the Earth (Ultron) and after studying the sceptre with Banner (an excellent Ruffalo again) believes the power of the crystal within the sceptre can be harnassed and starts to try to integrate Jarvis with it in order to create the ultimate protection system for the planet. Unfortunately for Stark (and everyone else) this leads to a rather unexpected result.

This unexpected result forms the basis for the film which could quite easily have been split into two films if they decided to go down that route and follow the comic stroyline more closely. As it is we only really get a glimpse of what went on there and instead Ultron feels rather largely wasted. They could have done so much more with the character then ultimately just end up having him as the token bad guy within a standard films run-time. Regardless, he is well done and Spader must be credited with bringing him to life and giving him some degree of personality.

To the rest of the film, I guess we should start with the maximoff twins. We finally get our real first look at Wanda and Pietro Maximoff (Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver) and what unique powers they have along with a little more back story for them both. Unfortunately what isn't clear is exactly how and where they came from. This is due to immeasurable red tape regarding licensing and Fox having the right for the X-Men (for anyone who does not know the real back-story then the internet is your friend). There are numerous hints and clues dropped though that their powers did not come from the sceptre and experiments alone and they they may in fact have been dormant within them.

Hopefully we now have the possibility (now Disney have aquired Fox and got the x-men franchise back) that Marvel can blend the two back-stories together and we will get some their father within the MCU (as well as others) so one can only hope there. I'm certain Kevin Feige can do it better than Fox could have ever dreamed of. Regardless, Elizibeth Olsen (thankfully the decent normal, non crazy sister) is excellent in the role and I also think has the looks to pull off the characters birth heritage. A lot was made of not casting an Eastern European for the role and I feel Marvel got this just right with Olsen as she is an excellent choice to play Wanda.

As for action scenes, we're talking Whedon's Avengers, so epic destruction on a truly epic scale wherever they go is the order of the day. The special effects at the beginning looked a little off but from then on they are excellent. Ending action/fight scene is truly stunning and far better than in the first Avengers film. ILM did a fantastic job here as they usually do when given a big budget and everything (barring the start as said) looks like it should be there and not digitally thrown in. Top marks indeed to all involved in that side of the production.

Direction is also excellent (as one would expect from Whedon) and the script also on point and very well written. This one doesn't contain quite the amount of himour and one-liners as seen in previous films, but hat there is, is very well written and acted and spoken by the cast. The Captain's hero speech is excellent and has lots of feels and Clint's to Wanda is also very well done. And the whole scene with Stan Lee's obligatory cameo has to be his best yet and is a absolute delight. We also get some lovely moments between The Hulk and Black Widow as we get to see more of their developing relationship.

For the rest of the cast, everyone is excellent once again. It's great to finally see Paul Bettany (Jarvis) rather than just hear him and we again get small cameo's from Samuel Jackson as Fury, Mackie as Falcon, Smulder as Maria Hill along with a minor appearance from Atwell as Agent Peggy Carter. Don Cheadle represies his character as Rhodes with War Machine though he doesn't have a great deal of screen time this time around but it does keep a nice continuation of characters that keep appearing.

We also get to learn and see a lot more regarding Clint Barton's character and that whole segment adds a nice feel to a movie that at the time needs to just reflect. We also get some more insight into Natasha's background also to show us how she became the person she is. And last but not least (in a film that tends to throw a litte of everything at you) we get to learn and see some more infinity stone goodness along with a little more Josh Brolin for good measure to lead us into future events. An all round excellent film that just falls short in my opinion of the first Avengers movie but that is head and shoulders above the rest of the Marvel offerings. As they say, everything is better with friends.



The Sage's Rating: 8/10

Ant-Man (2015)

Fun and silly...if not flawed

[7/10 · 6 April 2020]

We open almost twenty years before the first Iron Man in Nineteen eighty-nine. Dr. Hank Pym (a brilliant Douglas) is meeting with S.H.I.E.L.D's head of defence Mitchel Carson (a rather slimy Martin Donovan), along with Howard Stark and Peggy Carter. Pym has discovered that S.H.I.E.L.D. are trying to replicate a very special and powerful formula of his for their own use and he vows they will never get their hands on it.

After skipping back to the present time, Scott Lang (Paul Rudd, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Perks of Being a Wallflower) is leaving prison (see the WHiH Exclusives regarding that) and is picked up by his old friend Luis (a wonderful Peña). Determined to now go straight and confident of landing a job with his Masters in engineering, Scott ends up working at a fast food joint in which he promptly gets fired due to his past transgressions.

Unfortunatly for scott he ends up back with Luis and his associates who want him to join up for a job cracking a safe, which they learned about from brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate. Meanwhile Hank Pym has been invited to Futures Lab at Cross Technologies for a presentation regarding a tiny super soldier headed up by Darren Cross, the former protege and student of Hank's. Darren is making huge strides in replicating Hank's formula is ready to sell it to the highest bidder (yup you guessed it, HYDRA).

Now for myself this was an unusual Marvel superhero film. It never really feels like a superhero film and nor does it ever really feel like a Marvel film either. What it does feel like though is a typical Edgar Wright production and the whole film plays out more as a Wright comedy than a Marvel film. All it needed was Pegg and Frost to pop up and everything would have complete in the world. In all seriousness though, I'm very surprised neither were shoehorned in somewhere for a quick cameo (or I missed them).

The plot line is a little convulated and uneccessary but it flows along nicely without any awkward moments and there is never really a moment where the film drags, though the start of the film left a lot to be desired and could have been stronger. The script is actually half-decent and fits the whole vibe of the film, though the comedy and one-liners are typical Wright, so if you are a fan of his you will know what to expect.

Cast wise, everyone is pretty good here. Michael Douglas is excellent as one would expect but I really wasn't feeling Evangeline Lilly at all. She was much better in The Hobbit films. Paul Rudd, while never a favourite of mine is largely excellent and from what little I know, seems to fill the boots of the character very well. The three wombats (as Pym despairingly refers to them) provide the majority of the laughs with most of those coming from Peña.

The special effects are pretty good and while there is nothing particularly outstanding happens in terms of explosive set-pieces, the miniature (or enlarged, depending how you see it) action scenes are pretty well filmed and do add a great sense of scale. There is a little too much blur in some of the sequences but it does not put you off visually too much. Likewise the soundtrack is also good and fades nicely into the background without being in your face (ala Iron Man).

Overall Ant-Man is a fun film (if not a stellar character in Marvel's line up), and it is certainly helped along by great casting and Wrights script. Direction is adequate from (once again for Marvel) a primary television director. I didn't expect to enjoy this one as much as I did and while again the character is rather weak (from an interest point of view) this film does make the most of his rather modest attributes. A middle of the range movie for the cinematic universe.

The Sage's Rating: 7/10

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Another let down if not action-packed

[6/10 · 6 April 2020]

After the success of Winter Soldier, the Russo brothers return for the third installment of captain America's adventures. Only this time they didn't quite seem to have their finger on the pulse in my opinion. Let us hope they get their act together quickly for the next Avengers film as Whedon will be sorely missed in the directors chair.

The writing duo of Markus and McFeely also return having written the two previous films and that could been seen as good or both depending on you look at it. You're mileage will vary here but for me the writing on show here is on a par with The First Avenger and nowhere near the quality of The Winter Soldier. As with the russo's, let's hope they also pull their finger out for the next Avengers film but right now, I'm not entirely optimistic about it.

So onto The Winter Soldier: Part 2, we open to the frozen plains of Siberia and see a little more a secret facility used after the war. We see Bucky (Stan reprising his role) locked into a mechanical contraption where we (now already know) he was brainwashed. A red book with a star on the cover is being used to give him trigger keywords and phrases in order to indoctrinate him for his next mission.

Back into the real world of the present day, our hero Steve Rogers (Evans) is communicating with Romanoff (Johansson), Wanda (olsen) and Falcon (Mackie). The Institute for infectios disieses is being targeted and stormed by soldiers who are after a bological weapon. Steve and his team jump into action and unfortunately innocents are killed by Wanda which causes worldwide conflict regarding the actions of the Avengers and whether or not they should be held liable for damages.

The United nations come up with the Sokovia Accord (basically a hero registration act to be finalised in Vienna, based upon the destruction in Age of Ultron) which will basically be a ruling body for the Avengers. Naturally this doesn't sit exactly well with some of them causing internal conflicts and a rift within the group, fracturing them to the point of disaster. Stark is all for signing while Rogers wants nothing to do with it. Unfortunately an act of terrorism on the UN building sends things sprialling out of control.

And that is the crux of the movie moving forwards as we deal with two teams of Avengers (those for and against the Accord) with a major side story involving Rogers and Bucky. I personally found Rogers going completely rogue to save a brainwashed bucky was a little silly and just not something I can see him doing even for a friend (who tried to kill him remember) and this really should have been called The Winter Soldier 2 rather than Civil War as that is what the film really comes across as. It's a strange mish-mash of a direct sequel to both Ultron and Winter Soldier. Great for continuity I guess but not so great as a film in its own right.

Having already mentioned the screenplay and having touched upon the direction, this really is a let down when compared to the films it is trying to continue with. Effects and photography are not bad (this is Marvel after all) but there is nothing really special to get excited about or thrill you. In fact with regards to those, the blurry close up cam is very annoying this time around especially during fight scenes but thankfully it does improve somewhat towards the middle before becoming annoying again. And bearing in mind there is only really two big set-piece action scenes, this does detract from viewing enjoyment.

Running with the Winter Solder: Part 2 theme, the whole controlling bucky to wreak havoc and chaos has also been done to death in The Winter Soldier, why go over it again as it really wasn't needed. Simple convenient plot point to me to move the story forward with a 'villian' who really doesn't have enough screen presence and how he 'orchestrates' his whole master plan of destroying those who destroyed what he held dear himself is rather laughable really and quite feeble storytelling. It could have been done so much better, or better yet, a completely different storyline would have helped.

If you have been watching the WHiH webisodes then you know about General Ross (William Hurt) becoming the Secretary of State and he makes a brief appearance purely for continuities sake. We also get our first appearances of Black Panther (good casting with Boseman) and more information regarding Wakanda, as well as Peter as Spider-Man to lead to future films and stories. Ant-Man, Paul bettany as Vision along with Cheadle and Renner (as War Machine and Hawkeye respectively) also make appearances and we finally say goodbye to legendary Agent Peggy Carter.

We get more hints that Black Widow may actually know Bucky (which may or may not lead into the stoyline regarding the long rumoured Black Widow solo film) and the only other real talking point is the teams. Interesting personally because as much as love Iron Man and Black Widow, Rogers has been growing on me (prior to this film at least), plus he has Scarlet Witch, so it's a tick for team America here for this critic. Though in the reality of the universe, it should be such a one-sided fight that it isn't even funny. Team Iron wins every damn day. Film wise, it is an excellently directed and choreographed fight scene with some nice comedy thrown in.

As for that Marvel trademark wit, it is largely missing here and only really starts with the introduction of our favourite web-slinger. Most of the comedy revolves him along with Ant-Man (who isn't around that much at all either). In the end unfortunately this is a little like a very dull Avengers film with all the good key elements of Joss whedon missing. Not a bad film by any stretch but certainly not up to Marvel's, or the previous Captain America films standards.

The Sage's Rating: 6/10

Secuestro (2016)

Interesting and worth checking out but nothing revolutionary

[6/10 · 6 April 2020]

Boy Missing is a curious little low budget (comparatively) film from Spain containing a mute boy, an over-zealous mother, revenge, blackmail, murder, lies, deceit and intrigue than you can shake a stick at.

We open to a shot of a young boy (Domènech) walking along a dusty road. Shirt torn, pulled out from his pants and covered in blood. A passing car stops and next we see him at the hospital while two police officers question a nurse as the boy refuses to talk. The boys mother (well acted by Portillo), a well know defense attorney (after successfuly defending a client of serious embezzlement charges) arrives and explains to the police that he deaf and mute.

After the police identify a possible suspect but later release him, Patricia (Portillo) is incensed at the police's ineptitude. She contacts her sons father and this begins a series of disastrous events that lead to more and more complicated and unexpected consequences. Her actions to these events just lead to further consequences.

This film does highlight some ifficult social issues and I felt that the interaction between mother and son was very well done. it is also a thought provoking film which is also dealing with the consequences of our actions, whether thought out or acting impulsively and how we deal with said consequences. At it's core this is quite a simple story that around half way through the film becomes more and more convuluted and messy as the script starts to head in multiple directions.

There are numerous twists and turns but unfortunately some serious flaws do let the film down somewhat. Despite that, Spain is pushing out some half-decent stuff of late, especially in this genre and this one is no exception. Add in a very unusual ending (which is refreshing from the cookie cutter stuff coming out of Hollywood of late) and all in all this is something a little different that certainly holds your interest.

The acting is above average by all those that matter, especially from Portillo who plays her part brilliantly and while it does admittedly get messy near the end, the script is also reasonable. All other aspects of this low budget film are also reasonable with nothing really needing pointing out or requiring criticism. if you're looking for an entertaining, intriguing thriller type, you could do much worse than giving this a try.

The Sage's Rating: 6/10

The Hatching (2014)

Fun but avaerage Brit creature-feature comedy

[5/10 · 6 April 2020]

The tagline for this film is 'Does for the moors what "Jaws" did for beaches', and well, it doesn't exactly do that (American Werewolf in London holds that title) but this curious little Brit comedy-horror does just about work, just, though it does fall fairly flat in a few places.

In late 2013, early 2014 production on this title was supposedly pretty much wrapped up. For whatever reason it did not release until almost 3 years later. Directed by first time feature director Michael anderson who before this, had only directed a couple of shorts. Interestingly, he he had worked on American Werewolf as a clapper loader along with a few other films in the eighties, as well as being a cinematographer on a couple of things in the nineties.

Add in (with the aformentioned Anderson) a TV series regular in Potts (Primeval), Aikman (Freight) who is perhaps more known for her video game voice artist work than her on-screen credits and Turgoose (This Is England, Eden Lake) who is not exactly shall we say prolific, this all adds up to a curious film that could have been a major disaster. The script from Squire adds just enough wit to keep this rolling along, naturally helped by the recent successes of other similar films such as Shaun of the Dead which really helped revive this sub-genre.

Anyway, as to the actual storyline, Tim Webber (an adequate Potts) sneak out of boarding school one night on a dare to steal some crocoidile eggs from the local zoo. As you do one might say. Naturally, as any idiot could envisage, it all goes horribly wrong with Tim taking all the responsibility. Fifteen or so years later, Tim returns home after the death of his father and this is where the film begins in earnest.

Only our intrepid hero finds something a sinister lurking in the local moors and canals which is quitely and unassumingly dispatching with the local Somerset villagers. Nothing to worry about then I hear you say. Can Tim make amends for his actions fifteen years earlier? will Tim become just another statistic along with residents of this sleepy village? Do we even care? Well, given the raft of rubbish that is released yearly, especially VOD and straight to cable, this one is probably worth finding out, specially when you add in the rather off-beat serial killer sub-plot.

Is this a sensible film? For sure it is not. Monster feature, serial killer, comedy with a little horror mixed in, it is certainly all of those and more. A simple film made all the weirder by the plot and characters, and there are many weird characters. But it is all this and more that makes the film the curious little treasure it is. Am I biased with it being a British film? I'd like to think not, but certainly the humour is what I have grown up with and maybe that resonates a little more with myself than perhaps it would with others.

As has been mentioned, the script is fairly good and keeps the comedy elements nicely mingling with the more serious sections of the film, though some more character development would have been nice, or at least some of their motivations aside from our protagonist. Is the actual storyline a little silly? Hell yes it is, but that adds to it's charms. And tell me, when has any creature-feature ever had an oscar worthy plot? Does it steal elements from Lake Placed and such films like Alligator? Yes it does but this just keeps things refreshing and original enough to keep you entertained.

As for the bad, well the acting bar a couple of the main actors is nothing to get excited about, the special effects are not the greatest by any stretch of the imagination (neither is the creature either) and the film does suffer from some meandering moments. Perhaps it's biggest failing is the actual lack of creature action. But thinking on this for a moment, if you were to add up the screen time of a creature in a flick like this I really don't think it is low comparing to other films.

We all love a good dodgy B-movie creature feature, but why? The creature itself is hardly on screen. Now given the budget for this film was a rumoured one million, then I personally think they did fairly well with using that money. To sum up, there are far worse films for you to spend ninety minutes of your life watching and if you are a fan of either the creature-feature or Brit horror-comedy than you can certainly do worse.

The Sage's Rating: 5/10

Would You Rather (2012)

Would you rather...do anything else other than watch this? Watch for Sasha alone...no other reason

[5/10 · 6 April 2020]

This was a curious little film. The immediate draw was naturally Combs, but Sasha Grey in her first real feature film (after quitting the adult industry) also added to the intrigue. Brittany snow is a reasonable enough actress also as the lead of the film so it looked like it might be a hidden gem.

Iris (Snow) is struggling. Jobless and desperate, she is also looking after her sick brother (who needs a life-saving operation). Iris is at the end of her tether and unsure how to proceed. Upon speaking to her Doctor, she gets a chance meeting with the wealthy philanthropist Lambrick (downplayed here by Combs). He offers her a once in a lifetime opportunity to earn the money to pay for her brothers operation by competing in a special game.

Upon arriving back home, Iris, at a dead-end in both her life and situation makes the call and agrees. She arrives at Lambrick's mansion with numerous other guests. We quickly find out that Lambrick is a bit of a twisted pyscopath and the game in question is called Would You Rather. They are all explicitly told that no one is allowed to leave (though peple still try of course) until the game is complete. Lambrick's personal staff will shoot you if you do try to leave.

Would you rather is the only actual question of the game. Lambrick reveals that each participant will be asked, would you rather do one thing or the other. The downside to this twisted game is that your choices involve inflicting pain on yourself, or one of the other participents. And each round of the game gets progressively more dangerous. The winner will leave with the money and no questions will be asked by either party. Now while not hugely original, it's not a bad story.

Unfortunately, the suspense never really hits any great heights and most of the characters actions are obvious enough to see a mile away. The sets are reasonable given the budget but the script is lacking in my opinion. The acting from all involved is acceptable (even from Grey) but ultimately the film fails to deliver its intended shocks and thrills.



The Sage's Rating: 5/10

Who's Harry Crumb? (1989)

The names Crumb...Harry Crumb! Genius Candy comedy.

[7/10 · 6 April 2020]

The magical John Candy plays the titular character, the latest in a long and prestigious line of great detectives. Unfortunately (not for us though), the Crumb genius seems to have not been gifted to Harry as he is accident prone, clumsy, bumbling and incompetent to say the least. But is there more to Harry than meets than eye and is he truly worthy of the Crumb name?

We see Jennifer Downing (Renée Coleman) about to receive treatment at a luxurious health spa before she is abducted. Her parents go to a private detective agency where they consult with Crumb executive Eliot Draison (A brilliant Jones). Draison tells them he has just the man to help them and solve the case. We are then introduced to Harry Crumb himself who is in disguise while taking photographs of a couple enjoying a romantic get together which does not go altogether too well.

Soon enough Harry gets the call (he has his own little office in the middle of nowhere town) from his rather loud receptionist that he is wanted back at the head office. Happy to finally be recognised for his greatness, Harry heads off where after a disastrous meeting with Draison, he meets the Downing family. As you can imagine, much chaos and hilarity ensue as Harry, with help from Nikki (Smith) try to solve the case and find Jennifer.

Now this is a curious film. It was pretty much universally panned by both critics and reviewers alike upon release but I feel this particular film has a special place amongst not only Candy fans, but fans of eighties comedy. It is severely underrated and I think considering the awful Cannonball Fever and the widely known Uncle Buck were both released the same year, this film was always going to struggle to find a place and make its mark.

The direction by Flaherty is reasonable though he is more known for his writing (Billy Crystal, Tracy Ulman etc) and overall production values are good. With a pretty solid cast where everyone plays their parts well this is certainly an above average comedy and should be more widely known. If the idea of John Candy playing an incompetent detective in a variety of bad disguises sounds like your thing, I'm sure you'll find lots of laughs within this gem of a comedy.

The Sage's Rating: 7/10

White Coffin (2016)

de la Vega is sure one to watch in the future

[7/10 · 6 April 2020]

Daniel de la Vega is fast making a name himself and a good name it is too. Naturally due to this, he is also making a name for Argentinian films also and after now watching two of his features (Necrophobia being the first, review already here) I am becoming a real fan of his surreal and utterly bizarre style. Now admittedly this style may not to be everyone's taste but I would urge people to check them out nonetheless.

Virginia (Cardinali) and her daughter are traveling across the country in their car, playing a word game to help pass the time and alleviate the boredom of the journey. The car suffers a puncture near a deserted and very run down cemetery. Out of the blue a stranger appears and offers to help with warnings of not staying in the area too long. A recovery vehicle looms in the distance.

Once back on their way, Virginia stops to get petrol/gas and some lunch. She instructs her daughter to stay at the table while she makes a quick phone call outside (cliched I know). When she returns back to the table, her daughter is missing and a deadly and surreal game of cat and mouse starts to send Virginia deep down a rabbit hole she may never emerge from in order to save her daughter and possibly even herself.

More so than Necrophobia, this is a very messed up, disturbing and brutal film. The run-time helps here once again (del la Vega never seems to out stay his welcome) with its fast pace and frantic style never letting up. It will certainly take you on one unforgettable ride. Whether you actually understand the ride is entirely another matter altogether. Strange, confusing, full of 'what the hell' moments, it is certainly an interesting if not a flawed production.

The production values (as in Necrophobia) are high, lighting is good and the acting all round (especially from the main actors) are reasonable enough. Certainly better than some much bigger Hollywood efforts recently at least. Likewise, my biggest bugbear in film, the audio is excellent and you never find yourself struggling to hear what is being said or reaching for the remote. Being subtitled may help there naturally, but overall this film is excellent in that regard.

Once again the cinematography is excellent (this time by Alejandro Giuliani) and this seems to be part of de la Vega's style also. He has an eye for what he wants the viewer to see and seems to have a way with his photographers that they see his vision equally well. The score is wonderful and suits the film and setting perfectly without being in your face. Excellent work by all involved.

If you are looking for a bloody, brutal film, that will also most likely confuse the hell out of you and leave you scratching your head as the credits roll, this very well could be your thing. Beware though it pulls no punches in some of the imagery regarding harm to children at times so viewer discretion is highly advised there for the more sensitive of you. Highly recommended if you're looking for something decidedly different.

The Sage's Rating: 7/10

The Legend of the Wolf Woman (1976)

Low-budget, soft-core exploitation rubbish

[4/10 · 6 April 2020]

When is a werewolf film not a werewolf film? When it's a classic Italian seventies exploitation soft-core horror!

Now we have got that out of the way, our review. As a lover of all things horror, Italian, seventies and exploitation this film was a bit of a miss with us. A young woman (Borel, playing her part with plenty of enthusiasm) begins to have dreams about being linked to/being a werewolf, or part of a hundreds year old lycanthrope family and killing a man. Her sisters fiance (who looks surprisingly like the man in her dream) ends up getting the chow down on his neck from Borel.

Sent to an institution, things start to get messy (in more ways than one)....where Borel kills a patient, escapes...kills again...falls in love...is raped...and at this point the film tends to be all over the place.

Is this an exploitation revenge film...soft-core flick...horror...drama....I'm not personally sure but by the end of all this madness Borel is almost feral after living in the woods. All in all a bit of mess in my opinion, and certainly not one for 'werewolf' fans...as this is not your usual werewolf film for sure.

Italian, horror, nudity, gore, low-budget...one should know what to expect by now, and I'm sure had I been able to watch it when it was released my opinion and rating might have been different, but for now, this film misses the mark.

Admin Rating: 4/10

Warlords of the Deep (1978)

More McLure shlocky fun!

[5/10 · 6 April 2020]

Doug McClure returns as every female slaves dream hunk in yet more seventies z-movie fun. This time along he brings with him 'Carry On' luminary Peter Gilmore for the ride. We also get to see a younger John Ratzenberger (before his fame in Cheers). Even the lovely Cyd Charisse makes an appearance (though quite why she agreed to this rubbish is beyond me).

Out at sea a boat is carrying a unusual looking metal submersible pod. Professor Aitkin (bisset) and his son Charles (Gilmore) are looking for something but seem unwilling to let on what exactly. Greg Collinson (McClure) is the man who designed the pod and who will control it. He will be taking Charles down to do his research while they stay in contact with the professor up on deck. The captain of the boat, is naturally uneasy about the journey.

The next morning after much murmouring from the boats crew, Collinson and Charles are lowered into the sea to descend into the murky depths of the unknown. The pods spherical design with an open bottom trapping air inside enabling them to breath. But don't worry, good ole McClure has a back up if needed! They are soon attacked by an Anthiardopopous. You know you haven't lived until you've one, and when you have, you don't really want to anymore. Anyway, our intrepid adventurers soon come across a golden statue on the sea floor.

This is is when the trouble starts for Collinson, Charles and the rest of the crew. Now then, there is so much sillyness in this feature that it's difficult to keep a straight face for long. Regardless, The effects are actually half resonable in this one but the script, dialogue and acting all leaves much to be desired unfortunately. The sets and locations however are quite good and I love the futuristic, clean look they gave the inside of Atlantis.

There are also plenty of things to just question, then immediately forget and put down to movie magic, such as how does Atlantis get any sunlight? Why were the crew not drowned while being dragged to Atlantis by the octopus? Why did someone think this whole film would be a good idea? Lea Brodie as the token slave girl come buxom love interest does her best but she really doesn't have a great deal to do nor the screentime in which to do it. Certainly no Welch or Munro.

Overall this is not a bad little 'lost world' adventure flick with McClure but it's far away from being one of the better ones made in this decade. Good silly fun though for those who haven't seen these or those wanting some nostalgia to a time when we were all a little younger.

The Sage's Rating: 5/10

Vice (2015)

Oh Bruce, Bruce...oh Bruce...wtf....

[3/10 · 6 April 2020]

With a budget of only ten million, one wonders how much of that was swallowed up by Willis and his ridiculous fees (leaving very little for the actual film to be made). Someone really should tell him that his days are rapidly approaching. Ok, Roy (Thomas Jane) is a cop who dislikes the 'theme-park' attraction called Vice run by Julian (Willis).

Julian created a world where anyone can go and live out their fantasies with artificials, free of the law and repercussions. Unfortunately some of these people drag this fantasy into the real world and this is why Roy is determined to shut the place down. It also seems as though it's mainly men act out these fantasies against the female artificials. Not sure if there is some allegory there about society or not. Maybe that line of thinking is too intelligent for this film, who knows though?

Anyway, being based of Philip K Dick's novel, and this being a brainless cross of Westworld and Surrogates, we get a ghost in the machine, or more specifically, in Kelly (Childers). Kelly goes on the run...and runs, and runs, and runs....and is chased, and chased, and chased...through fake fog...and more fake fog...and you get the idea folks. The film is so slow-paced, despite it trying to excite with gun fights. Oh yes, the gun fights. I think all the bad guys are the same actors who play stormtroopers. Nuff said there.

The plot is dire, the action is no better and neither is the direction. Willis dials his lines in (as he usually does these days) and Jane just seems to sleepwalk through it the best he can. Childers is passable with what she is given to work with. The only redeeming features are that the photography and production values are actually half-decent, but even those can't help balance what is a pretty bad and dull film. One to pass, unless you like seeing Willis turn up purely for a paycheck.

The Sage's Rating: 3/10

Turn Left, Turn Right (2003)

Brilliant. what Serendipity should have been

[8/10 · 6 April 2020]

Based on an illustrated book, this is a charming little film about fate/destiny/serendipity/yuan-fen or whatever other term you wish to use. Kaneshiro is the main reason to catch this film. He once again elevates what would have otherwise been a very ordinary film. Leung also deserves credit here as I feel she is perfectly cast for her part. They are both very enjoyable. Liu (Kaneshiro) and Choi (Leung) are two average people trying to make their way in their world. Liu is a struggling musician while Choi is a professional translator hoping to do more poetry. Time and time again the two leads (who barely actually spend time together on screen) miss each other in the hustle and bustle of their lives.

Fate it seems is keeping them apart until the right moment, although we later find out they have met once before. They meet once again, and fate intervenes once more to keep them apart. Will they ever be together? I'll leave that for you to find out for yourselves. Amongst all this, we have two other completely crazy characters in Dr. Hu (played manically by Edmund Chen) and Ruby, a small take-out store owner (played with much gusto by Terri Kwan). These two provide the majority of the comedic elements of the film (or the annoyance) as the 'friends' who start to ingratiate themselves into their opposites lives. And then go out of their way to make sure our adoring destined couple do not meet.

The directing is good, some thoughtful dialogue and the cinematography is fantastic. A story about two umbrellas destined never to meet, or to be together. There is a lot of visual symbolism in the film, and I'm sure as with many Asian films, a lot of the cultural subtlety is lost on a Western audience. But this does not detract from the beauty of the film, nor its quality or message. This is nothing groundbreaking or new here, but it does tell its story in a compelling enough way to whisk you away and into their world for a short time and keep you guessing. If only Hollywood could make them like this. By the time it had finished, I came to the realisation that I'd pretty much been smiling all the way through it. You can't ask for much more.

Admin Rating: 8/10

Tumbling Doll of Flesh (1998)

Oh boy...as bad as they get

[1/10 · 6 April 2020]

I do actively seek out shock films, not sure if over the years I've just seen everything there is to see or not, and some may say that thrill-seekers etc will always move onto more extreme etc. This can be said about many things in life and while I accept in some cases this can be true, I believe it's a very small percentage and that the majority know right from wrong and have a firm grasp between fantasy and reality. What one may like watching has little to do with what they would personally do. It's a fictional piece at the end of the day and everyone should be allowed to watch what they want within the legal boundaries of things. What is perhaps more worrying, is that there is even a market for this low-budget rubbish.

Also known as: Psycho: The Snuff Reels, here we have a hardcore pseudo-snuff film from Japan. Now the first thing that hits you is the absurdity of the fact that it is pixelated (sure we're all aware of japan's laws by now). It kind of makes a mockery of what they were trying to achieve straight away. Now this may be terribly misogynistic of me, but the lead actress is not even worth watching this trash porn-horror for. The 'acting' is truly horrendous, even by low-budget porn standards. I think the acting in the Invoked was possibly better than this.

The plot is completely non-existent (though the basic plot is girl applies for porn job, eventually ends in her murder and dismemberment). There is a very long build-up....nothing much happens, lots of talking (and no subs for this, not that they are really needed anyway) and some very lame sex scenes. After approximately twenty-five minutes, the only interesting thing caught on camera in this reviewers opinion was a Mitsubishi GT in a car park.

After another lame sex scene the girl tries to leave and is promptly hit over the head with a baseball bat. Up to this point it is always incredibly boring. Some truly bad effects follow (along with more pixelation) and the actual 'snuff' takes place with other crazy/sick things. Now while the notion of what they are doing is horrific, unfortunately the effects don't match and are in most cases laughable. If this kind of thing interests you, stick to The Flowers of Flesh and Blood, it is much better filmed and the effects are far better. Save your time and forget this one.

The Sage's Rating: 1/10

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Still not overly impressing...

[7/10 · 6 April 2020]

Thor: The Dark World was the eighth film in the by now well established Marvel Universe along with being the second of the Thor movies. All the key players from the first film return (much like with the other MCU properties) and we pretty much get a similar film to the first, only with a much darker story and bigger and better set designs and scenes.

We start with another Hopkins monologue telling us about the events of the past and a mighty war that pitted the Asgardians (Led by Odin's father) against the Dark Elves, led by the evil Malekith (an excellent Eccleston). Malekith wished to send the nine realms back into eternal darkness using the destrcutive force of the Aether, a form of dark matter.

Malekith, realising his loss sacrifices his own people in an attempt to destroy the Asgardian army while running away to lick his wounds and lay dormant, biding his time. After their victory, the Asgardians buried the Aether deep underground where no one should or would ever find it. In the current time, Odin is listening to Loki's pleas (a wonderful Hiddleston) while Thor and his friends attempt to bring peace back to the realms.

The story and action here are much more quicker paced than in the first film. Much like with Iron Man, the second film, having done away introducing us to the main characters gets us straight into the meat and potato of the action. Action scenes are filmed here and the special effects are mostly excellent along with some beautiful photography.

Alan Taylor, who before this big budget feature mainly directed television episodes (with the odd made for television movie thrown in) certainly uppped his game and proved worthy of him being picked. The Dark World is quicker, tighter, faster and more action packed than it's predecessor by a mile. The screenplay is certainly not to Iron Man's standards but is acceptable enough.

As for the cast this time round, Hopkins does his best Shakespear once again, Hemsworth as Thor huffs and puffs adequately while still looking every inch the Norse God. Natalie Portman does her best damsel in distress while Hiddleston once again whines and spits his dummy out as (though his much better this time in my opinion).

I feel full credit should really go to Hiddleston as I literally cannot stand the character of Loki. In part I'm sure is due to Hiddleston's excellent acting and as said earlier, I feel his is much better in this than he was in the first film or the Avengers. The scene stealing award must go to Rene Russo though. Once again she is thoroughly excellent in a minor role and definitely has the best scene of anyone. Stellan Skarsgård is once again is his usual brilliant self and provides much of the films light relief and comedic moments along with Thor's one-liners and wit.

There isn't really much more can be said. Audio is also good and the soundtrack, while impressive is not in your face (ala Iron Man) and seamlessly blends into the background so you barely take any real notice of it. Certainly on a par with the first film and an improvement over Marvel's previous film in the franchise which was a little bit of a let down.

The Sage's Rating: 7/10

Thor (2011)

Gets better with subsequent viewings

[7/10 · 6 April 2020]

Kenneth Branagh (yes lovies, that Kenneth Branagh) brings us the fourth film to be released in the MCU with a slightly humerous script from Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Andromeda writers Miller and Stentz. This was a film that puzzled me when I first watched it as I really didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. Maybe the setting and the company at the time perhaps but I certainly found a new appreciation for this feature upon a subsequent viewing and found it much better than I originally thought.

We start in the desert of New Mexico as we follow a small group of people monitoring the skies during the night. Suddenly the heavens open and as they tray to hight-tail it out of the area, what appears to be a man comes crashing down to earth. We are then transported back to nine sixty-five A.D. and a monologue informs us of the past and the Gods who gave us their help before returning to their ever eternal Asgard and the peace they brought to all worlds.

Branagh was certainly an unusual pick to make this kind of film given his usual work but he really steps up to the plate and delivers us a good solid superhero film. The fantastical and mythology regarding Norse legends and their Gods perhaps suited him and along with the screenplay he did a good job of bringing Thor to the big screen and into the Marvel cinematic Universe. Branagh's style is actually perfectly suited to Thor's grandeur and own style as well as the old English that he so often uses.

This is pretty much both an origin film for Thor (a dashing Hemsworth and his brother Loki (Hiddleston) and a film to bring them into the universe in preperation for The Avengers. It works in both ways as we find out about them as children and screen time is split steadily between Earth and Asgard. While Thor amuses himself on earth we see Loki bargaining a deal with the frost giants of Jotunheim but the main problem here is that, while all this is going on the actual story is perhaps a little on the dull side.

Chris Hemsworth makes the film though without a doubt. he is every bit the image of the mighty Thor with his blue eyes and flowing golden locks. Arrogant, cocky and full of himself Hemsworth well and truly steals the show and that is a good thing, as without his presence, ability and charisma I fear this could have turned out to be another Incredible Hulk. As it was this proved another huge success for Marvel if not quite to the excellent standards of the first Iron Man film which still stands head and shoulders over the other released films.

Natalie Portman (in a more reserved role this time) and the ever wonderful Stellan Skarsgård add extra chops to this feature and while neither are terribly central to the film or its plot, both play their parts well and add extra quality to a film that would have missed their ability also. I do unfortunately have to say that Hopkins does play Hopkins rather than Odin and I personally think he has become far too samey in his performances of late. Likewise Hiddleston while also an excellent actor is not very imposing here and just seems far too whiney.

As is par for the course now, Agent Coulson pops up (which you should have guessed from Iron Man 2 (or the Marvel One-Shot) and we also get our first glimpse of Jeremy Renner as Clint Barton in a small cameo role (though uncredited), also in preperation for The Avengers. Idris Elba also crops up as Heimdall, the guardian of the Bifrost which allows the Asgardian Gods to traverse worlds. A small role perhaps but one he excels at and looks every bit the part.

Visually the film is highly impressive with its special effects and photography, especially the Jotunheim segments. The action scenes are all well choreographed and shot even if some of the close up action gets a little dizzying. A solid entry in the franchise with a likeable and humerous Thor but which also tells a deeper story within its action. I just wish we could drop the shoe-horned love interests as they really don't add a great deal to the stories we are being told. Recommended to even non superhero fans.

The Sage's Rating: 7/10

The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death (2014)

Pointless sequel from the American cash-cow machine

[4/10 · 6 April 2020]

The Woman in Black 2 starts off in London in Nineteen forty-one (forty years after the original film) inside a bomb shelter. Air raid sirens are ringing out and there is general unease and nervousness. Miss Parkins (Phoebe Fox) steps out into the streets of London and sees the devastation before her. Before much longer, Miss Parkins and Jean Hogg (a wasted McCrory) are boarding a train heading north with evacuee children. One such child is Edward, who has just been orphaned. Their destination? Cryphin Gifford, or more specifically Eel Marsh House.

On the train Miss Parkins meets Harry (Irvine) who is also traveling to the same destination. Once at Cryphin Gifford they board a bus to get through the village and on to the mansion. Just outside the village they suffer a puncture. Miss Parkins decides to look around (why?) this now abandoned and desolate village, but it would seem that maybe this ruined village is not completely uninhabited. Once at Eel Marsh House, while being shown around, one particular door is open that shouldn't be. That night after a bad dream, Miss Parkins head to the basement where she glimpses something...or someone.

Now I wasn't that impressed with the original film, only giving it a six, but there were certainly many positives to it. All the positives the original had, this film is missing. While The Woman in Black 2 is reasonably acted for the most part, there are no stand out performances. As for Helen McCrory, how do you go from Harry Potter and James Bond to this rubbish, surely she can't be that desperate for the work? But the quality of the acting (which isn't marvelous) is definitely the highlight of this piece of dressed up dross.

The script is truly awful and how the cast managed their lines I'll never know. Many people have complained about the lighting here but I personally didn't find too much fault with it. I think the film was supposed to be dark, but will admit that they perhaps went a little overboard with this. When it's black, it really is black and it is a struggle to make anything out on the screen. Add in very lame jump scares (which you can see coming), no real plot which is also incredibly predictable and the incredibly slow pace of the film, you can see the cheap intention. Even any special effects are down to a minimum.

You know, it's at times like these that I actually feel incredibly sorrowful regarding what happened to Hammer Films and the influence they had on many people. After being dead in the water for close on fifteen years, they were bought by an investment consortium, which only seven short years later they sold on to a another consortium. The original buyers never did anything with the brand name, where as at least the new owners are making films. Given the quality of those films, it's hard to say who the better owners really were.

Almost enough to make you a shed a tear sometimes and pray for that big lottery win so that she could be owned by someone who cares about the name and history, and isn't just after a quick and easy buck. While Hammer films were never terribly glitzy, or well made, or had the best scripts or even production values, they did had two key ingredients. Class actors and style. None of the recent offerings from the new company (won't dignify the new owners with stating it as the same company) have either except for one notable exception.

Not having style or solid dependable actors as well as none of the aforementioned does not instill confidence in the quality of their productions. Sad days indeed for a former powerhouse of the industry. After such useless offerings as the Let Me In remake and The Quiet Ones, The Woman in Black 2 is no better and possibly their worst film yet. It is a cheap lazy cash-grab which tries to ride the coat-tails of the moderately successful original. The likes of Cushing and Lee must be turning in their graves.

The Sage's Rating: 4/10

The Woman in Black (2012)

Meh...is ok....

[6/10 · 6 April 2020]

Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is a young London solicitor still mourning the loss of his wife. Despite this he is forced by his employer to travel to the remote Cryphin Gifford (in order to keep his job) and leave his son behind with a nanny in order to finalise paperwork on a property sale. The property in question is the isolated and deserted Eel Marsh House, the former home of one Mrs. Drablow.

On the long train journey, Kipps befriends Sam Daily (Hinds) a resident of the village and he offers Kipps a lift to the local inn and guesthouse. Once there, as is usually the case with remote out in the middle of nowhere villages, he is met with a decidedly frosty reception and told in no uncertain terms that there are no vacancies. The landlords wife then offers up the attic which he gratefully accepts. The next morning upon meeting with a local solicitor, Kipps is told to return to London. Something is definitely amiss around here.

We soon come to find out though that the house is haunted and that whenever someone spots the mysterious 'woman in black' a child in the village dies. Suffice to say you know what will be coming next. Now as ghost stories go, this is certainly above the norm but in itself there is nothing groundbreaking or new. What it does do though it does rather well. The suspense is good and the whole atmosphere is rather bleak and grim. This is also not a colourful film, instead oozing with dark shades and shadows. This does suit the mood and style of the film though.

There are a couple of twists here and there and the story overall is reasonably well written as a screenplay, though the reveal isn't really that surprising. The ending is somewhat open to interpretation and I like how this finished. The directing is adequate and the use of CGI appears to have been kept down to a minimum given the genre. The set designs and costumes are very impressive as is the actual location and everything looks as if it does actually belong in the film. I suppose the only real slight negative might be in Radcliffe himself.

I certainly commend him on his move to help friends and to concentrate more on indie projects and unusual films in an attempt to move away from Harry Potter. While I personally felt he was a little weak here (compared to his brilliant performance in Horns), his meek and mild manner did suit the character. Overall this is a reasonable film, but do not expect to be blown away. Slightly above average fair that probably would have been a big miss without Radcliffe's name attached to it.

The Sage's Rating: 6/10

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

Utter pretentious crap. Don't be fooled by the high praise here

[3/10 · 6 April 2020]

Production, costume and art director Eggers gets his first feature debut here. Personally from this unknown critic's point of view, he should stay away from the camera. But then given the huge profit this film rutned around, I guess we will be seeing much more from him as the average movie-goer seemed to lap this one up, despite it being very much mutton dressed as lamb in cinematic form.

In the early seventeenth century, we start with what appears to be some kind of trial which which our characters are trying to do something or have done something, nothing really is obvious. Naturally they lose whatever it is they are having a hearing about and our hapless family leave the small village in which they reside and go out on their own. They eventually end on a clearing at the edge of a large wood, whereby they promptly kneel and begin to pray.

The family starts a new life for themselves here with a small homestead like farm. Daily life is a routine for the family with the children do what they do as well as helping to tend to the many chores around the place. But the darkness of the wood is an ever-looming presence over their lives and as they will soon find out, can contain many an evil within. Looking after her newborn sibling, Thomasin (Taylor-Joy) momentarily looks away then realises that the baby is missing from right in front of her while the ominous dark wood and trees look on.

So let us start with the good. Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of this film is that it was nearly all shot with nothing but natural light. This does show in parts more than others but is impressive all the same and does add some level of authenticity. Along these lines, the costumes and sets are also quite good and the use of locations are shot well to match the rest of the film. Unfortunately though these are perhaps the only highlights.

Compared to the very soft audio in general, the score is very jarring and cold. Once again, a film (and or it's audio directors) fail to try and normalise the soundtrack resulting in lots of uneccessary volume changes with the remote. Again guys, this is basic film study stuff. While music and ambient audio is important, it does not need to drown out what people are saying, or need to blow peoples ear drums apart after they have been struggling to listen to a conversation due to more badly optmised audio.

While this film has been praised as a horror masterclass, I have to wonder what exactly they see in 'good' horror, as this feature is so incredibly dull it numbs the senses. I'm all for slow films with long build-ups but there needs to be much better acting and a script in order for this to actually work. The children have to be perhaps some of the annoying I have witnessed on screen, and as for the witch herself, well, given her whole three minutes of screen-time they should have considered calling this film The Woods instead.

With plenty of religious (most likely accurate the era and location) and sexual symbolism the film certainly tries to be a lot more intelligent than it actually is. I'm really struggling to see exactly what this film wanted to be or what tyhe directors vision was, or even for that matter what the point in making it all was. Simple folk being unbelievably stupid with a catastrophic mess of nonsense as an ending. I thy were thinking to maybe this thine film then perhaps thy probably should.

The Sage's Rating: 3/10

The Vikings (1958)

Odiiiiiiinnnnnnn....classic!

[7/10 · 6 April 2020]

The vikings may not be historically accurate or even accurate compared to the novel, but it is a grandiose epic featuring a stellar cast with some fantastically shot scenes. Despite the inaccuracy and miscasting it is still a fantastic film even by today's standards with people involved who had a love for their craft.

Einar (Douglas) and Eric (Curtis) are brothers that are unaware of their blood bond. Einar is a viking prince, son of Ragnar (Borgnine) while Eric is a slave, the result of Ragnar's previous pillaging of England. Aella (Thring) is wanting to unite the kingdoms and is promised to marry the Welsh princess Morgana (Leigh). Ragnar and Einar get wind of this and plan to kidnap the princess (of which both brothers then proceed to fall in love with her) in the name of Odin.

Douglas is at his best here and while perhaps too handsome to play the part, play the part incredibly well he does. Curtis (who was married to Leigh at the time) is also excellent as the royal born slave. Top acting honours in this film though have to go to Borgnine as the Viking chief. He is truly excellent and it is perhaps one of his best roles. Leigh is subdued I thought but then her part is relatively small, given the film is more about the brothers rivalry over her, rather than Morgana herself.

Directing is great, but then from Fleisher one would expect nothing else. The sets, locations and photography are nothing short of breathtaking. The final fight scene is one of the greatest duels ever committed to film between two of the biggest leading men around at the time. It is the stuff of dreams and the score for this scene only goes to highlight how epic it is, while unfortunately the rest of the score is not what it could have been. The script is also good, helped along by the performances of the main actors, though at times some of the dialogue does seem rather forced.

The final shot is pure cinematic gold and sums up everything about this epic. While maybe looking a little dated now, a lot of modern films fail to live up to the standards of some of the older films. Despite its many faults, this is still an excellent movie filmed on a grand scale and is well worth a watch if it has passed you by, especially if you are fan of the middle-ages or sword and shield type stuff.

The Sage's Rating: 7/10

The Scent of Green Papaya (1993)

The scent of how a good film should be made. America, take notes but please don't remake it.

[8/10 · 6 April 2020]

This is a truly beautiful film. Not only to look at but because of the central character. Tran Anh Hung really did create a wonderful piece of cinema here. It is a French film, produced and made in France, with a Vietnamese director and cast. What is perhaps more marvelous is that the whole thing was filmed on a sound stage. This work of art was nominated for the best foreign language film of the year but ultimately lost out to Belle Epoque (which is inferior to this in my opinion).

The film is a snapshot really of the life of Mui at ten years of age (impressively played by Man San Lu) and then at twenty years of age (Tran Anh Hung's wife Tran Nu Yên-Khê). The two actresses are simply brilliant in their portrayal, especially given the small amount of dialogue they are afforded. In fact, the whole film is very dialogue light. The rest of the cast are also fairly impressive, given that for most of them this was their first (and only in some cases) film.

The film starts in the early nineteen fifties as we see a ten year old Mui arriving at her new home. She is to be the new servant of the mistress of the house. Mui is full of wonder and curiosity regarding her surroundings, life and her new family. She marvels at the beauty of the world and everything within it. And this really is the crux of the film, seeing the beauty in the most simplistic of things that probably far too many of us leading different lives often miss on a daily basis.

The film is so beautifully shot and the cinematography is quite exquisite. Every shot is thoughtful and meaningful. Add to this the performance from the young Man San Lu and you have a visual feast for the eyes. Given how little dialogue is in this piece, then everything else has to be so much better to keep your attention, and it truly is. Tran Anh Hung captured a slice of life within a tropical Vietnam that is quite wonderful in both time periods. The sound editing is also equally brilliant.

Now this film is certainly not for everyone. There is very little dialogue, no action scenes, nothing really exciting happens. No real drama. But what it is, is a finely crafted story chronicling two time periods in a person's life and how they react and deal with that said life. Hard to imagine it could be as riveting to watch as it truly is. A beautiful (and beautifully shot) film that will certainly stay with you long after the credits have rolled.

The Sage's Rating: 8/10