What is it about buddie-action comedies that makes them so forgettable now days? I’m serious, I just saw The Hitman’s Bodyguard and I already can’t remember most of it. How is that managed with this cast? I don’t know, maybe it has something to do with it being directed by the man who gave us the worst Expendables film. Whatever the case, here we are.

The story to The Hitman’s Bodyguard is actually pretty hard to decipher. Not that it’s complicated, it’s just so bland and forgettable. It has something to do with Gary Oldman is an Eastern European dictator who is put on trial by the EU or UN or some other equivalent. But, not being able to find hard evidence, outside of bias witness accounts (like there’s any other form of witness account), the people need someone who has hard evidence against Oldman. Set in Samuel L Jackson, a hitman with a heart of gold. He needs to be taken from Manchester to Amsterdam. Set in Ryan Reynolds, a down on his luck bodyguard with only his dignity left to lose. From there on out we have our buddie-movie.

Let’s all be completely honest; the plot is nothing to write home about. Its only reason for being is to put Jackson and Reynolds together. That’s really what people are coming for; the on-screen duo, some laughs and some action. And, being fair to the film it does deliver what it promises. Jackson and Reynolds have great comedic chemistry, and when they’re both on-screen together the film comes alive. Jackson plays his part extremely well. I would say that this role was written for him, if we didn’t all know how true that is. Everything about this character screams Samuel L Jackson – from quick and philosophising remarks, to his usual parental intercourse catchphrase every three sentences. Reynolds, on the other hand, is a bit more conflicting. He’s hilarious, as Ryan Reynolds is, but he didn’t fit his character. Remember the character of Nicholas Angel from Hot Fuzz? That’s what this character basically is, an over-the-top by-the-book safety nut. But Reynolds plays it more like Deadpool – giving us the comebacks and remarks of Deadpool. Funny yes, but definitely not in character.

Other characters are Reynolds’ ex-fiancée, who was okay in the role but had no chemistry with anybody in the film. Salma Hayek plays Jackson’s wife, and she is easily the best part of the film. She plays this imprisoned woman who claims that she is innocent, as do many others – yet she is anything but. She was also used the appropriate amount throughout the film, as any more and she might have started to grate on our nerves a bit. Other than them there’s not really much point in going on. Pretty much everybody else is completely forgettable here. Even Gary Oldman, who I usual love, barely registered to me. His role could have gone to anyone and not a thing would be missed.

Outside of that, there’s not a massive amount to talk about. Mostly the film is just fine. The music is fine. The acting is fine. The use of locations and sets are fine. The humour is good, but that is mostly because of the actors they have playing these roles. The action is surprisingly strong too, and is certainly more violent than I was expecting. The 15 rating is definitely earned on this one.

The directing was very strange to me. Mostly the film was directed, you guessed it, fine. But, there were multiple shots throughout this film that were really bizarrely done. Remember those J.J. Abrams films and the use of lens-flairs? Well take that, but make it incompetently done. Sometimes the lighting was so over-exposed that it blinded the screen – but even when it didn’t, the over-exposure was really distracting. It looked like a bad phone-pic. And because of this, often in the film the screen felt blurred, sometimes really badly. It is possible that that last point was just my screening, but if it’s not then that is a really strange filming choice to have made. There was only one quicker way to draw me out of the film.

It’s time we talked about this film’s tone. Or lack thereof. The Hitman’s Bodyguard feels like three different films are competing to be viewed.

One is a tribute to the ‘90’s action comedies; such as ConAir, The Rock and Face/Off. The other is an unapologetic, bad taste comedy with dark humour and hilarious violent scenes; not too dissimilar from Peter Jackson’s early films like Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles and Brain Dead. And the final tone is a very dark political thriller, where people feel raw emotion for the dark moments in their lives. It is made even worse by the fact that we get all three of these tones together in the first three scenes of the film. I’m sorry, but I feel I have the right to complain when the first scene of this film has a man getting shot and is played for laughs – which then gets followed almost immediately with a scene where a man watches his wife and child get executed in front of him, and is left to live with that image. Truth be told, the film only really works when it plays by the rules of the bad taste comedy. To me, that pretty much proves what this film should have been all along.

The Hitman’s Bodyguard will entertain you if you know what you’re in for. It’s nothing special, but it’s not terrible either. It’s just mediocre. I guess I can recommend it, but not in the cinema. DVD or TV will do just fine. The tonal inconsistencies are unforgivable, but its biggest sin is that it’s just forgettable. Truth be told, I will have probably forgotten about it completely after the weekend.

You know what I find strange. A lot of people love shark movies. Even people who hate horror films tend to go crazy for shark films. I’ve never understood that; particularly because most of them kind of suck. We have the amazing Jaws and the good B-Movie thrill rides Deep Blue Sea and The Shallows, but other than that what do we have. There all pretty bad outside of that. Sure, we get interesting or entertaining bad – like Open Water or Bait 3D – but most overs are just terrible – like Shark Attack, Shark Night 3D and Jaws the Revenge.

The reason I bring this up is because I have still yet to understand the hype behind the new finned-fiend thriller, 47 Meters Down.

To be fair, we do have an interesting premise here. Two sisters on holiday in Mexico go cage diving with the great white sharks. But when the chain snaps, the two find themselves trapped at the bottom of the ocean – you know, I’ve forgotten the depth. A shame it’s not sign posted for us. The two are low on oxygen, the cage is a death-trap and any attempt to leave puts them in chewing range of the sharks. They must use their wits and ability to work as a team to reach the surface and avoid a toothy demise. It’s not bad at all really. There’s just one problem. This is meant to go on for 90 minutes.

This film was directed by Johannes Roberts. No, I had not heard of him before either. But I had to mention the fact, because the title to this film is not simply 47 Meters Down – no, it’s Johannes Roberts’ 47 Meters Down.

Clearly this man is proud of this film. And after doing some research I think I know why. It’s because every other film he has made before this got lower than the 5.0 mark or IMDb. That alone should give you an indication of what you are in for with this film.

The directing is extremely lacking, even if what was attempted is commendable. These actresses had to spend most of the film actually underwater. Just imagine the stress and strain that must have had on everyone involved. Also, coupled with the creative premise are some fairly effective moments. I did like the use of the ocean murk, hiding the sharks from view until you are in striking range. But what doesn’t help is the films awful cinematography and even worse editing. This isn’t like Taken 3, where you get twenty cuts when Neeson is jumping a fence. But no shot feels like it’s the correct length. It’s always either too long – some were so never ending that I almost felt like screaming “cut” at the screen – and others are too short that it’s impossible to tell what you were supposed to be looking at. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZS4bT2d2Cw

The opening sets the tone for this; there’s a shot that feels like it lasts and age where a woman is sitting on an inflatable chair in a pool, a glass of red wine in her hand. We know what’s going to happen, something’s going to make her drop it and the blue water shall run red. But when it finally happens, the shot changes to a less effective shot of the wine in the pool. We have the sisters argue for a minute, one leaves as her sister comments on how nice her ass is – and then we randomly cut back to the red water as the title comes up. It’s such a bizarre scene that perfectly demonstrates what the rest of the film is like. I guess in that regard it was effective then, so I could almost applaud that.

Our characters are played by Mandy Moore, the princess from Tangled, and Claire Holt, the barging-value Emma Roberts. Once the two of them reach the depth stated in the title they are serviceable. Nothing great but nothing terrible. Before then, and it is possible that blame belongs to the script or Johannes Roberts, but they were both awful. I remember thinking to myself, as I waited twenty minutes for the chain to snap, that if we didn’t see the sharks soon then I couldn’t guarantee that I wouldn’t shout at the screen to get a move on. Which does bring me onto a major problem with this film.

The concept is good, but Roberts seemingly cannot find a way to drag this story out to a feature length. Instead he just attempts to pad the film out with filler. It’s twenty minutes before the story really gets going (or feels it at any rate), but when we get there we’re just sat waiting for the sharks to attack while the film gets padded out with melodrama. We get the typical sibling rivalry plot line and how one sister is exciting and the other is boring and must learn to come out of her shell more. Normally this can drag out, but here we have only these two to follow, so between the shark moments the film really drags on. Especially when they are in the cage, as we are explicitly told that the sharks cannot get them in the cage. We therefore know the drill, and can therefore only feel any tension when they are outside of the cage. Although, to be fair they come out of that cage a stupid amount of times.

Even then though, the tension is just made because the only scares in this film are jump scares. I hate jump scares. I don’t find them scary. Startling, yes, but it doesn’t take a lot to startle me. I get startled when I’m reading in the garden and a cricket jumps on me – of course I’m going to jump when a really fake looking shark jumps out of nowhere and the musician suddenly leans on his keyboard. But the thing is, as soon as I have jumped then there is no tension left in the scene. It has blown its load and has nothing left to offer. Speaking of peaking early, depending on your mind-set the ending will completely lose you. Without wishing to spoil, not that I’d be spoiling much, the ending feels like a watered-down rip of the ending to The Descent.

But where The Decent leaves you with a foreboding feeling of dread and depression, fitting in perfectly with the tone of the film, 47 Meters Down feels like Roberts missed the point. It’s out of nowhere and is actually very predictable, thanks to how the dialogue before it hammers the point in.

47 Meters Down isn’t without its moments. It’s just mishandled. If this was done by someone like Jaume Collet-Serra (director of The Shallows) or Neil Marshall (The Decent), then maybe we would have something scary and entertaining. As is it’s not an awful film. I don’t feel angered by it, and I don’t feel like it’d make for an engaging rant. It’s mostly just dull. The occasional creepy image, or even the odd hilarious shot or dialogue aren’t enough to save this one from sinking. It’s definitely better than the likes of Sharknado and Shark Night 3D, but only see it if you are a huge fan of these films. Even then, wait for it on Netflix or Prime, don’t waste your money.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is a film based off of a comic, that is supposedly among the most influential sci-fi serials of all time.

I say supposedly because I’ve never read it myself. Truth be told, I didn’t even know of its existence until the trailers for this film popped out. But what drew me to this film was its director – Luc Besson. He’s had an interesting career, directing film’s like Leon, Nikita and probably most famously, The Fifth Element (which apparently owes a lot to the Valerian comics). Besson has constantly made, throughout his years of directing, films that are fun, energetic, completely stupid, yet of surprisingly good quality – except for Lucy. So, with the man who made what many consider to be one of the best sci-fi films ever returning to the genre, what has he got to offer us with his latest labour of love?

Valerian and his lovely partner Laureline are governmental agents for Alpha, the city that houses innumerable species from a thousand planets.

All within Alpha live in what comes close to harmony, with a very basic peace between all species. But when one race of aliens is almost entirely whipped out, and the survivors find themselves battling a faceless foe, it’s up to our dynamic duo to save the now endangered aliens; and bring an evil villain to justice. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (a mouthful is there ever was one) has the strange feeling of familiarity and unfamiliarity. Everything you see does feel new and like its own thing. Yet you know the beats to the plot and the characters, and even the scenarios have all been seen before. This is most likely due to the influence the comic has had on sci-fi in film and pop-culture. It does make you want to read the comic to see the origins of many ideas for yourself; which can only be a good thing. One of the only good things you will take from this film.

I may have just given away the quality of the film itself; but wait, for there is a twist in our tale! Valerian is bad. It’s a really bad, bordering awful movie. And I loved every second of it! This is my favourite kind of bad; it lacks quality but is so energetic and full of passion that it ultimately becomes pure entertainment. I have not laughed at a film so much this year. In fact, I actually had more fun with this film than a number of films I actually liked this year.

There are a lot of parallels that you can make between Valerian and The Fifth Element. Both of them are very effects heavy, extremely silly and camp and they are both made in fairly similar ways – from shots and editing, to similar scenes and basic direction. But, The Fifth Element is a much better film. It’s Shakespeare compared to Valerian. It’s better paced and the story is tighter focused. There was also more reliance on practical effects in Element. But, the big difference was its characters. The Fifth Element had a cast of very loveable characters – from the everyday man hero, to the bumbling comic-relief, to the overly melodramatic and overdressed villain. Valerian has a cast of characters who I love for a very different reason.

Take Valerian and Laureline for example. They are awful characters! We learn nothing about them. Their dialogue is awkward. Their romance is beyond forced. They don’t even come off as badasses really. But they are so bad that they actually come off as hilarious, especially when they aren’t meant to be. A lot of this does come down to the acting. Dane Dehaan and Cara Delevingne, who still come out of this film with more dignity than when they played super-villains, are our leads. Both are proven actors and can deliver good and charismatic performances. These were not those performances. Delevingne I sometimes bought, but overs she was either wooden in her delivery, or overplaying here expressions. Dehaan, however, was bordering embarrassingly bad; trying and failing to play the part like 1990’s Keanu Reeves. It was with him that most of my unintended entertainment took form. To be fair to both of them, when esteemed actors like John Goodman, Clive Owen and Ethan Hawke appear to be giving up on the script and their dignity then the blame isn’t totally on them. Still, I never got tired of any of them.

Meanwhile, the story is an almost complete bust. The film is made of great ideas, but mediocre scenes, and is over all unfocused and disjointed. There’s a lot of side-tracking here. I guarantee that the sentence to leave your mouth most throughout Valerian will be, “what does that have to do with anything?” It’s very much like a videogame. Where you need something, but you have to talk to that person, who will only help you if you do this for him. That happens a few too many times to go unnoticed in this film. It also has the issue of being a mystery, yet it’s obvious who the villain is from the get-go. And while you’re at it you’d be able to work out his plans as well.

Where Valerian shines, in an intentional way, is in its action, effects and designs and pure imagination.

I wouldn’t dare call Valerian a shallow product. Real effort and passion has been put into this. We may have seen it all before, but it feels fresh. The actual story of the City of a Thousand Planets is original and extremely inventive. Not to mention beautifully told. The action scenes are almost always spectacular. The choreography is good, but it’s the imagination that goes into them that makes them. Like the bit in the trailer, where he’s running through all these different environments, using a shield gun to make a path over an abyss. Effects-wise Valerian is a little too reliant on CGI, even in moments where I feel make-up or set work would have done just fine. But overall, I was impressed by them.

Valerian and the City of a thousand Planets is benefitted by good imagination and by not taking itself the least bit seriously. That point alone improves it over the likes of Jupiter Ascending and Gods of Egypt. It was made as a labour of love by a good director – one who just wanted his audience to have fun. I cannot vouch for the films quality, and I will say that I can understand why some people will call this film awful. But I found it almost unparalleled in terms of entertainment. If you go in with the right mind-set that is. Valerian is one of the best bad films I’ve seen in years and I would gladly buy the DVD when it comes out. It’s a hard one to judge. My only advice is to see it – in the cinemas or on Netflix months down the line – and come to your own conclusions. All I can say is I’m glad I saw it.

Love him or hate him, there’s no denying that Christopher Nolan is among the most influential and masterful directors of our time. Every single film he has made has been visually stunning, boasting inspired performances and pitch-perfect directing. It’s easy to see why so many love the man and his work. But, it’s also easy to see why some people are less than impressed with him, especially of late. All of his films tend to carry the same tone, dramatic feel and, to an extent, eerily similar stories and characters. Also, while the man is near flawless as a director, his scripts tend to suffer – either being overbearing or overly sympathetic. Personally, I’ve found Nolan’s career to be a mixed bag. The Dark Knight and Memento are among the best I’ve ever seen. Meanwhile, The other two Batman films he directed felt hollow to me, and Interstellar, to me, was nearly insufferable. But that didn’t stop me from looking forward to Nolan’s war epic, Dunkirk.

The film follows the Dunkirk evacuation in World War II. The Allied Forces (the British and French at this time), were surrounded at the northern coast of France and had to be evacuated at, where else, Dunkirk.

From the first second, we are thrown right into the middle of all this. Remember Saving Private Ryan and the D-Day beach opening? Well, imagine that was the whole film – with less blood and guts that is. We follow three men. A young soldier on the land. Mark Rylance in his little fishing boat on the sea. Tom Hardy fighting German fighters in the air. From those three we get our film. A film that doesn’t focus on the big picture of Dunkirk, just pieces of it. As we as an audience see this evacuation through the experiences of these three men.

It’s become cliché to say it now, but it’s true. Dunkirk is visually amazing! It feels real. It’s raw, pulls no punches and immerses you in the here-and-now of the war at hand. I have never been at war, and needless to say I wasn’t at the Dunkirk evacuation. But I could imagine this to be pretty accurate as to how these men felt. Around 300 thousand men on a beach, while the Germans bombarded them from the air. It’s very bleak colour-wise, most consisting of greys, browns and dark blues. But the sets look real enough to touch them. At times, you swear you could even smell the ocean. More impressive is the sound. The guns make the actual sounds of guns, not the Hollywood popping we’re used to. The planes are deafening. The music by Hans Zimmer is some of the best the man has made in years. It incorporates the sounds of objects with its score – such as the ticking of a clock or the growling of an engine. It’s just ingenious.

The acting is top-notch, and from some surprising cast members too. Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy and Kenneth Branagh are men we expect greatness from. But Harry Styles! God awful boy-band One Direction Harry Styles! Giving a great performance? Hard as it is to believe; but yes, he does exactly that. Most of the other actors in this film are not popular names, and I’d be lying if I Said that I knew who they were. But, given the chance, they have the talent to make themselves well-known household names.

Nolan directs the actors and the rest of the film exceptionally well. This is stressful to watch – and I mean that in a good way. It’s a film about the true event at Dunkirk.

If it’s not stressful, or at least tense, then something has gone wrong somewhere. It’s a very psychological film. So, even if the violence isn’t very graphic (at all really), you still feel every ounce of dead and fear these men are going through. Nolan also tells the story in a very unique way. For a moment I was confused by the film; in one scene it was night time, but then the following one it was day, but then it cut back to night in the next scene. It confused me until I realised that we were not receiving this story in chronological order. The beach takes place one weak from the ending. Rylance is one day from the ending. And Hardy is just one hour from it. It was a detail that I missed for a long time into the films hour-and-a-half runtime. Odd at first, but once I got used to it I realised that there was no other way to make this film.

Dunkirk may well be among my favourite films of the year so far, but it’s not perfect. There are some dialogue issues, particularly towards the end. I also don’t think the film has too much re-watch value. It’s essential viewing in my eyes, but it’s a bit too stressful and emotionally draining for a revisit anytime soon. But, while this didn’t bother me, I think what most people are going to take issue with is that we learn nothing about the characters in the film. Not a single thing. There’s no cliched “my wife is waiting at home, with our first baby who I’ll see soon because I’m two days from retirement” stuff. We don’t learn that this person was a teacher, or that one a store keeper. We don’t learn that one’s age. We don’t know if this man is a psychopath. We know nothing. But, neither did these men. Nobody knew anybody on this beach. This film sets itself out to capture the raw feeling of this war, and not knowing is a huge part of it. We may not know them, but they’re no less sympathetic for it. I have a feeling Nolan did this for the same reason he never shows us a German soldier (save a couple silhouettes in one scene). Because doing so would detract from the film at hand, and the horror in the moment.

Dunkirk is a film you need to see. If only once.

It’s among my favourite of Nolan’s films, and is by far his most original since Memento. Despite it’s hard-going nature, Dunkirk will also have you entertained come the end. In a year of many blockbuster disappointments, it’s refreshing to see a historical film (of all things) live up to its name and potential. Love Nolan or hate him, this is one that that should not be missed.

Spider-Man Homecoming is the sixth, yes sixth Spider-Man film – seventh if you include that little role he had in Captain America Civil War. Spider-Man, by Sam Raimi, is a good bit of fun. It’s silly, even stupid at times, and the dialogue and special effects are pretty terrible.

But with a good story, good performances, good directing and Willem Dafoe going completely over-the-top as the villain; it’s a very enjoyable superhero film. Spider-Man 2 is the best one; it’s still pretty silly at times and a little slow in places. But it’s one of the best superhero films ever made. Spider-Man 3, despite a strong opening act and some great moments, was a major let down that crashes and burns come the ending. The Amazing Spider-Man, by Marc Webb, is a film I don’t remember at all. Well, that shows how good that was then. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 I do remember…because it’s so eye-bleedingly terrible! So, with that history…what do you expect from another Spider-Man film.

Peter Parker has mercifully skipped the Uncle Ben side of things and is now just a kid in high-school. He has geeky friends. He has bullies. He’s got a major crush on a girl from school. He has clubs to go to. Oh, and he also has the ability to climb walls, kill people with one punch and shoot webs out of his wrists. Having briefly joined the Avengers he thinks it’s just a matter of time before he can become a full-time superhero. Sadly, not many of the Avengers think that’s what’s best for him. In fact, most just see him as a kid. But when an arms dealer, known as the Vulture, armed with high-tech weaponry threatens Peter’s life and city it’s up to him to bring him down.

And all that happens in this film is just typical of a Marvel film. In that, Spider-Man Homecoming is fun and entertaining, but doesn’t leave a lasting impression at all.

It’s colourful; but visually dull. The action is on a grand scale; but it lacks the visceral nature of the Raimi films. For example, the scene when he holds a splitting boat together. It’s cool to look at, and creative in execution. But it just feels like a set-piece for an action scene. It isn’t like the train scene in Spider-Man 2, where you actually feel that he could literally tear himself apart trying to save these people. The music, again like every other Marvel film since Avengers Assemble (maybe Guardians of the Galaxy if we include the songs) is just so bland, forgettable and plain bad that I couldn’t hum a single note to you. It, of course, feels like we’re just building up to a later film yet again as well. The humour, the characters, the visuals and effects, the whole thing is just typical of Marvel.

What it does do differently is the strange choice of making this a high-school film. It weirdly feels like a mixture of the original Spider-Man trilogy and something like Mean Girls or 10 Things I Hate About You. This could very well lead itself to good comedy and commentary. But there is one problem. These are not two films types that gel well together. Peter has a pretty annoying friend who’s meant to be the clingy loser kid in those teen films. That’s fine and he does get a few decent moments in. But when they mix it with the superhero side of things, the stuff this kid does goes beyond impulsive and stupid. He constantly nearly blows Peter’s cover. How am I supposed to find that charming or funny? Especially when there’s a high-stake villain out there? Don’t get me wrong, at times it does really work. It works when it demonstrates how Peter struggles living two lives, for example. But the tone is so jarred that until Tony Stark arrives, and gives that trailer speech of “If you’re nothing without the suit then you shouldn’t have it” (replacing the “with great power” speech), I was uninvested and getting bored.

But where this film does work is in the acting and the writing. There are some good “what if” scenarios in this film. What if Spider-Man is in a suburban area? I guess he has to run then. Little moments like that work for me. Tom Holland is back as Spider-Man and it is refreshing to see Spider-Man be played by someone of the right age. Holland does manage to be the best Spider-Man we’ve received yet. He makes a perfect Peter and Spider-Man, mixing the characters comedic side and hero side. He manages to carry the film very well. The other kids are good in their roles too. Their roles are just either minimal or undefined. The friend is just too annoying for me to give a pass though. Marisa Tomei is great as a younger Aunt May. Less the advice giver and more of the parent, which does work very well. Robert Downey Jr is in this too, but not for long. It’s too long to be a cameo but it’s not a major role either.

Now here is the rare thing with Marvel. The highlight of this film is the villain! I know, it only took them since Loki! The villain is Vulture, played by the one and only Michael Keaton.

And what a good villain he is. Not only does Keaton bring his usual charisma and intensity to the role, as well as his comedy. The character is so well written. From minute one you get his situation, you understand his reasons and you oddly relate to the guy. There are action moments where he’s just the monster of the moment, but for the most part he’s easily the second best villain the MCU ever had. Most actors in this film don’t feel exclusive to their roles. They are played well, but there are others who you could see playing those roles too. Not with Holland and certainly not with Keaton. Nobody could have done better than these two in this film.

It may seem like I’m being hard on Spider-Man Homecoming, and yes, I am. I don’t think this deserves the 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, just like Wonder Woman. On that note, I’ll just say I did like this a little more than Wonder Woman. Mostly because things actually happened to shape the characters. As I said, it’s just your typical Marvel film. It falls in the middle of the listings. I didn’t dislike Spider-Man Homecoming. There are parts I’m glad I’ve seen. But it’s just another superhero film in a depressingly long line of superhero films. It’s no Logan, but if you’re still entertained by these films then you’ll get what you want out of it.