nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What have you watched recently? 3D!

johnny_ultimate

You people just keep on watching films, don't you?

We have reached the contractually-mandated 10,000 post limited in thread 2, so here's another one. It's like the first two, but with gimmicky 3D added and a no-name director taking over from the well-known one who directed the first two.

Here's the first thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055488699
And the second: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056732038

So... what have you watched recently?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

beauf wrote: »

Shōgun 1980 mini series

Based on 1975 novel by James Clavell, who was executive producer of mini series. People tend to remember it for the actor Richard Chamberlain.

Filmed on location entirely in Japan. About englishman stranded in Japan in 1600 his experiences and political intrigues in feudal Japan in the early 17th century.

Loved this at the time. Got it on Blu-ray it's in 4:3 and another very 80s production. If you can get past that it's very informative. Great cast and I would say decent acting for the period.

I've never read the book, but after watching this again I will.

8/10

I'd score it higher only some might not find it accessible and might not get past the 80s production.

Watched an episode or two of this a few months ago, but didn't get to the end. A lot of great qualities, but a little bit of a slog I thought.

Just finished watching Marco Polo from 1982 a mini series in a similar vein, which I thought was better. Dated a bit in places with Italian spaghetti western style directing in a lot of the shots that can often seem a bit forced, but as a spectacle, and following Marco Polo's journey is pretty spectacular and well worth a watch. Theres some scenes in locations just watching local culture for a few minutes, and I found myself getting really absorbed in them. Its pretty amazing these guys walked to China from the middle east, at a time when the Mongols were tearing up the world!

Dades

Liamalone wrote: »

Had the choice of these two tonight, went for Crawl unfortunately. All of us thought it was awful, comically so. Sometimes the alligators ripped folk to shreds, other times they seemed to have dentures on. Glad to see the end, which was a tad abrupt also.

Ha... to each their own! I did profess my leanings towards creature features, so inconsistency in alligator feeding behaviour doesn't register with me. SyFy channel is a regular in my house.

Tony EH

'Angel Heart'

Alan Parker's noirish, occult, tale set in 1950's New Orleans is a mixed bag for sure. One the one hand it's a fairly gripping suspense and on the other a laughable yarn who's climax is signposted from the very outset.

Everyone is having fun though and its obvious limitations aside, it's a joy to watch a pre-ugly mug Mickey Rourke inhabit the scruffy persona of Harry Angel as he's hired by the immediately sinister Louis Cyphre to investigate the whereabouts of a crooner called Johnny Favorite, because Cyphre is afraid that the contract he and had with the singer may longer be upheld.

The conclusion of 'Angel Heart' should be extremely clear to all, except the most clouded and innocent of minds. Perhaps being of such a nature would be a boon when watching the film, because when the journey stops at its inevitable last station, it's nothing but a let down.

'Angel Heart' is all about the journey though and in that regard there's a lot to be said for it. Aside from Rourke, everyone else jumps into their roles with great relish and Robert De Niro clearly enjoys his turn as Mr. Cyphre. Parker's direction is ok, but then it always is just ok. So, if you have ever seen any of his films, you'll know what to expect from that point of view.

'Angel Heart' is an odd film. Not awful, but not successful either and yet fully deserving of one's time if you're in the mood.

6.5/10

'The Shining'

Upon release, like John Carpenter's 1982 classic 'The Thing', Stanley Kubrick's 1980 foray into the horror genre met with very mixed critical reception indeed. But also like Carpenter's effort, it's subsequent reappraisal has seen it soar to the heights it fully deserved when it was originally shown in cinemas.

These days, 'The Shining' rightly holds its head up high and resides on many an aficionado's top horror movie list. A film of considered pacing and deliberate creepiness, Kubrick charges the film with an uncomfortable feel throughout, not just in the foreground, but also in the background as was befitting a man of his meticulous (and dare I say it somewhat autistic) nature. Nothing is on the screen by accident. Everything is placed and misplaced with purpose. That chair that goes missing during a single take...done on purpose. Jack's typewriter changing model between shots...done on purpose. Little Danny's Big Wheel trike making those on carpet/off carpet sounds as he traverses the Overlook Hotel...done on purpose. Never knowing whether what's happening is in Jack Torrance's head or whether it's real...done on purpose. That David Hicks hexagon carpet design...done on purpose. Every single item that makes it to the camera is as a result of Kubrick wanting it there. Everything is framed for a purpose. Everything is shot in the way he dictated it to be shot. Even the famous "All work and no play" manuscript was fully typed out across thousands of pages, across multiple languages.

In addition to Kubrick's hand, there's also a brilliant score by Wendy Carlos, which punctuates the scenery perfectly. Her crash/smash soundscapes capture the horror of the Wendy and Danny Torrance's ordeal as the Overlook Hotel slowly closes in around them. The vocal sections of her soundtrack complement Wendy Torrance's screams and hang in the air during the final act as if the ghosts of the Overlook are around every corner.

The script, which came in for much damnation from Stephen King - who wrote the original novel - veers away from from what King wrote and goes its own path. So much so as to be an entirely different tale. The essential plot is the alike, in which Jack Torrance is charged to act as a caretaker of a rural hotel where the winter months see the establishment abandoned and over the course of his and his family's stay, creepy events start to occur. King hated what Kubrick did with his story and especially despised Jack Nicholson and Shelly Duvall in the roles of Jack and Wendy Torrance. To be fair to King, he's not wrong. Nicholson and especially Duvall's characters are nothing like their written counterparts. But, instead they are their own creations and are just as compelling of not more so.

Shelly Duvall's limp, lank haired, but awfully good natured Wendy looks like a human skeleton that has had skin stretched too tight over its frame. We feel sorry for her when Jack berates her and he clearly hates her as much a Stephen King does. With her shaky collapse in the last reel, her character comes full circle and she is fascinating to watch. Remarkably, and unjustifiably, poor Shelly Duvall got nominated for a Razzie Award. But she is now considered one of the best victims in all of horror cinema.

Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Jack Torrance eschews any attempt at nuance from the get go in another deliberate move by Kubrick. He's a real piece of shit, who disregards his family and perhaps there was a bit of loathing from King, because he probably saw a lot of himself in both the literary and the cinematic Jack Torrance, with Nicholson's barely concealed malice for his family's welfare mirroring King's own familial problems due to his struggles with alcohol and other drug addictions.

Finally, Danny Lloyd plays a cute kid in the shape of Danny Torrance. A boy who has the supernatural ability to reach others through his mind and is susceptible to the Overlook's scary going's on before anyone else. This supernatural ability is shared by the cook at the hotel who explains to Danny and the audience what the ability is and gives it a name.

'The Shining' should be seen at least once by all fans of horror films and film in general and it's an eternal shame upon the forces of critical opinion pieces that they just didn't get what made the film so great in the first place. It's an absolute masterpiece of subtle, creepy, horror that would be lost on most film makers today. It's clever, without being knowing or pretentious. It's scary without resorting to boo! And it never feels bloated or in a rush to get to its money shots, so it's fully deserving of its rare 10/10 score.

10/10

'Dr. No'

James Bond's first dip into cinematic history and the start of a 50+ year career as the screens premier secret agent, 007, is a curiously quaint start to a long tenure. Made in 1962, the largely British production boasted high budgets, exotic locales, and plenty of action in an absurd plot (even for its day) based on the pulpy novels of Ian Flemming, who made a tidy living knocking out one ridiculous Bond adventure after another.

Sean Connery, who beat out Cary Grant and Richard Johnson for the title, is perfect as Bond and he is clearly loving the role that made his name at this point, which ceased to be the case some time around 1967 as he got increasingly desirous to get away from it. Connery's Bond is not the suave sophisticate that Roger Moore's was and is, instead, a more rough and tumble sort, who despite fitting well into a dinner jacket, seems to never be at home in it or with the company that goes along with such attire. Connery's Bond will coldly and causally dispatch his enemies, without the obligatory wisecrack (although they appeared in force by the time of 'Goldfinger') and he's much more of a serious businessman that his other famous 1970's successor, who's outings were always firmly in camp territory.

But, unfortunately, it's the story of 'Dr. No' that's the real let down here, which is unfortunate, because until the titular character makes his appearance, Bond's investigation is quite compelling. But, once we get to the the baddies secret underground base that's the location of his operation for world domination, the film fizzles out.

'Dr. No' is far from awful, but most of its pleasure is derived these days from seeing where Bond's movie history began and for someone who couldn't possibly call themselves a Bond fan, it was just about ok.

A final curious note, however, is that I saw that the mouth of Bernard Lee's "M" clearly state that Bond is in MI6 (British foreign intelligence), while the audio says MI7, which was a strange pause for me during the viewing.

5/10

'From Russia With Love'

Connery's second outing as Flemming's spy hero is an altogether more accomplished affair than the previous 'Dr. No' and features a far more grounded plot, even if Blofeld's ridiculous SPECTRE organisation makes an appearance as the primary antagonist. In this story, Bond is tasked with securing an Enigma-like device, called the Lektor, a cryptographic machine that is of great importance to British Intelligence. This device is to be handed to him by Tatiana Romanova (an awful Daniella Bianchi), who is a SMERSH agent recruited by Blofeld's No.3, Rosa Klebb (a great Lotte Lenya). Of course, Tatiana is unable to resist Bond's charms and falls head over heels for him and buggers up SPECTRE's plans.

'From Russia With Love' is often hailed as the best James Bond film, but I have to confess a wonder as to why it's held in such high esteem. Sure, it's better than 'Dr. No' and probably better, in many respects, than most of the other Connery Bond films, although 'Goldfinger' is the more enjoyable film, even if its story is more absurd. But, it's terribly tedious in many of its scenes, especially the gypsy section which has always been a crashing bore.

Where 'From Russia With Love' excels, though, is in its baddies. Aside from the already mentioned Rosa Klebb, Robert Shaw appears as Red Grant, who is generally considered to be one of the greatest Bond villains of all time and Shaw is perfect in the role, with the famous train scrap being one of the very best fight scenes in any Bond film.

Over all, it's worth a look, but like 'Dr. No' it's vintage can render it very old fashioned to modern tastes.

6/10

'Goldfinger'

Without a doubt the best of the early James Bond efforts, the third film, 'Goldfinger', is where all the familiar Bond tropes come together for the first time. All of the usual Bond things come into play, like the gadgets, the one liners, and the cool car - this time in the shape of the wonderful Aston Martin DB5 that regularly tops the greats list for Bond fans and car fans alike.

If Red Grant is James Bond's best hard man, then Auric Goldfinger is its best arch villain, played perfectly by the great German actor Gert Frobe. Goldfinger's preposterous plan is to set off an atomic device in Fort Knox and reduce America's gold bullion reserve to a heap of radioactive junk for 58 years, thus elevating his own reserves many times over and causing a certain amount of chaos in the west that will have him in good stead with the east. It's less ludicrous than a lot of Bond villain plans, but still laughable in its silliness, while never scuppering the whole endeavour.

Apart from Goldfinger and his crazy scheme, Bond also has to deal with another great Bond baddie, Oddjob, Goldfinger's mute Korean henchman who sports some killer headgear and a strength that would put every heavyweight to shame.

The obligatory Bond girl, if she can really be called that, comes in the shapely form of Honor Blackman, a sassy semi-villainess, who works for Goldfinger, while never seeming to be totally on his side. The smoky voiced Blackman is a smart foil for Connery's Bond, to whose charms she's "immune". For a short amount of time anyway.

'Goldfinger' plays out at a pleasing pace and its 1 hour 50 minute run time is never wasted. All the Bond elements come together in a pleasing fashion and they suit its 1960's period much better than in the later films, where they just come off as camp. But, even after 55 years, it's still very enjoyable.

7/10

'Midsommar'

Ari Aster is quickly making a name for himself as one to watch for genre fans and hot on the heels of 'Hereditary', he has followed up with 'Midsommar'. A film about some Americans who never saw 'Hostel' and really should have stayed at home, instead of going to attend a bizarre traditional pagan festival in rural Sweden.

Aster has obviously seen and is a great fan of 'The Wicker Man', as is clear from the many parallels between his film and the 1973 classic, which both feature naive protagonists who meet their fate at the hands of a group of weirdos who are visibly out of their time.

Like 'Hereditary', 'Midsommar' is a fine movie, but also like the 2018 film, it features a somewhat tired and played out genre antagonist that will be, at once familiar to fans of horror. But where Hereditary's coven stays relatively concealed for most of the film, Midsommar's equally hokey pagans show their hand far too quickly, as to kill the film's suspense to a large degree. But, this doesn't really matter, as the film plays out in an uneasy and skin crawling way, which is its main charm.

'Midsommar' isn't really scary or frightening, as some viewers may be expecting, but it does hold the attention very well despite those shortcomings. However, it's about 30 minutes too long and can come across as a bit indulgent. It has a few genuinely shocking moments, for sure, and some great gore effects, too, which should please the fans of the red stuff.

With two hits under his belt, fans of horror with certainly be keeping a keen eye on Aster's future efforts.

8/10

Liamalone

Dades wrote: »

F&F: Hobbs & Shaw.

Watched it last night. Great fun enjoyed it. The trailer suggested Idris Elba was some sort of superhero which put me right off, but the movie wasn't that. Popcorn nonsense with likeable leads.

Crawl
Loved this. I like a monster movie and I do love Kaya Scodelari. She is so good in anything. Smashing bit of action/tension. Alligators looked great. I don't know what the budget was compared to Avengers: Endgame... but this was better cinema for me.

Had the choice of these two tonight, went for Crawl unfortunately. All of us thought it was awful, comically so. Sometimes the alligators ripped folk to shreds, other times they seemed to have dentures on. Glad to see the end, which was a tad abrupt also.

Dades

F&F: Hobbs & Shaw.

Watched it last night. Great fun enjoyed it. The trailer suggested Idris Elba was some sort of superhero which put me right off, but the movie wasn't that. Popcorn nonsense with likeable leads.

Crawl
Loved this. I like a monster movie and I do love Kaya Scodelari. She is so good in anything. Smashing bit of action/tension. Alligators looked great. I don't know what the budget was compared to Avengers: Endgame... but this was better cinema for me.

beauf

Love rising sun as well.

I suppose it was the peak of Japanese economic power and through that cultural influences and people wanted to know more about Japan.

pixelburp

beauf wrote: »

Not posted a review before. Hope this is right.

Black Rain 1989

American action thriller film directed by Ridley Scott, starring Michael Douglas, Andy García, Ken Takakura, and Kate Capshaw. Two cops escort a member of the Yakuza back to Japan. He escapes, and the two officers find themselves dragged deeper into the underworld.

One of my favourite movies. More 80s than I had remembered. Every cliche in the book, yet stylish. Blade runner meets Miami vice and hill Street blues.

8/10

The 80s had that repeated trope of "the Japanese executives", didn't they? ^^ that film, Die Hard, Rising Sun, Robocop (3), etc. etc; why was that? I presume there was some element of it being "ripped from the headlines" in America at that time...

beauf

Shōgun 1980 mini series

Based on 1975 novel by James Clavell, who was executive producer of mini series. People tend to remember it for the actor Richard Chamberlain.

Filmed on location entirely in Japan. About englishman stranded in Japan in 1600 his experiences and political intrigues in feudal Japan in the early 17th century.

Loved this at the time. Got it on Blu-ray it's in 4:3 and another very 80s production. If you can get past that it's very informative. Great cast and I would say decent acting for the period.

I've never read the book, but after watching this again I will.

8/10

I'd score it higher only some might not find it accessible and might not get past the 80s production.

beauf

Not posted a review before. Hope this is right.

Black Rain 1989

American action thriller film directed by Ridley Scott, starring Michael Douglas, Andy García, Ken Takakura, and Kate Capshaw. Two cops escort a member of the Yakuza back to Japan. He escapes, and the two officers find themselves dragged deeper into the underworld.

One of my favourite movies. More 80s than I had remembered. Every cliche in the book, yet stylish. Blade runner meets Miami vice and hill Street blues.

8/10

El Duda

Now streaming on Amazon Prime...

Stan & Ollie – 7/10

An honest inspection into the latter stages of the great duo’s career, that avoids sensationalising their legend and instead opts to wallow in the melancholy of a bygone era. The performances and make-up are exceptional but if I had to pick an MVP, it would have to be John C. Reilly who brilliantly embodies Oliver Hardy. There is a lot more to making a biopic performance like this work than just conjuring up a passable impression. Both leads succeed in elevating the material and adding plenty of depth to two of our finest comedic icons.

The decision to focus on the latter stages of their career when their star wasn't burning as brightly is an interesting one and serves as a good antidote to the sycophancy that was displayed in Bohemian Rhapsody.

I would have preferred to see more recreations of some of their comedic set pieces as the door routine is timeless and easily the highlight of the movie. Nothing spectacular and not worthy of Oscar nominations (it got none) but still charming and enjoyable.

Tony EH

^
Some real blasts from the past there.

My old man used to love 'Rumpole of the Bailey'. Kid me thought he was mad.

Del.Monte

Three from YouTube:

"Dead Silence" (1997)
Starring James Garner. A bus-load of deaf schoolgirls are taken hostage by three escaped convicts....A poorly crafted production but it's always nice to see the late, great Jim Rockford. 3/10.

"Rumpole of the Bailey" aka "Rumpole and the Confession of Guilt" (1975)

Based on the writings of John Mortimer and starring Leo McKern.

I had forgotten just how superb this series was and I'm now going to re-watch the entire 44 episodes. 10/10.

"Callan" (1974)

Another forgotten gem. A spin off movie from the earlier TV series - and starring Edward Woodward and Eric Porter.

Callan is a disgraced British Secret Service operative brought back into the organisation for a specific hit which, if successful, will see him reinstated into his old job.

Plenty of action and no CGI. Again, I will probably re-watch the TV series as there's precious little worth watching on Netflix these days. 9/10

Nerdlingr

Yesterday.

Great premise but the film is absolute tosh. 4/10

barrymanilow

Sweet Country

Really liked this one , low budget western set in Australian Outback at the turn of the century.

Watch if you liked goldstone or samson and dalihla or rabbit proof fence.

Deals with the treatment of aboriginals in that era.

No big names , just earnest story telling and good cinematography.

Dades

Spiderman: Far From Home

I have had total superhero ennui for the last while, but this was the most caped fun in ages. Proper laugh out load bits, and a young, fresh likeable cast.

Tom Holland is so perfect in this role. The plot is, well, whatever, but who cares. It's fun, and the only stakes we care about are whether Peter can get with MJ. Everything else is incidental.

The Avengers are mostly gone (yay) but at least they've left us the fun one.

Fysh

You Might Be The Killer

One of the more fun self-aware and 80s-throwback-y horror films in recent years, this relies on Fran Kranz and Alyson Hannigan as much as it does on the script. It's very much about riffing on slasher movies and their clichés, but it's done in an entertaining way, doesn't get too bogged down in the trappings (unlike, say, Final Girls, which for me felt a bit too shackled by its reverence for ropey slasher films) and doesn't outstay its welcome. Definitely worth a watch.

Mum & Dad
A not entirely successful horror-comedy outing, I thought this was a bit unfocused. There were a couple of great Nicholas Cage moments, but at least as many bad-Cage moments, because his character is a secondary one who doesn't get enough focus for Cage to properly go bananas as he does in his best roles. So a lot of what we see here is just gurning Cage, not crying-and-screaming-in-his-underwear-while-necking-vodka-in-the-bathroom Cage. But then none of the characters are really developed much, because this isn't a film predicated on individual characters - it's essentially a horror comedy take on parents who resent the loss of freedom and added responsibility that parenthood has brought, and put the blame for this on their kids.

The last ten or fifteen minutes are pretty entertaining for reasons the trailer insisted on spoiling

Cage's parents coming round for dinner, hence having two sets of parents trying to murder their kids in the same family

But overall the story is too thin, fragmented and oddly paced to really hold up, and it doesn't so much conclude as just lurch to a halt after running out of ideas.

El Duda

Murder Party - 5/10

After seeing Blue Ruin, Green Room and Hold The Dark I decided to complete the Saulnier set and watch his first feature. This being the film that Saulnier jokingly said is the start if the 'Hapless protagonist trilogy'.

This is easily the weakest of his four films so far. It's very small in scale and low budget. It has a 'fresh out of film school' vibe and the script feels a little flat and empty at times.

The performances are good and there is plenty of splatter for gore fans. It always feels more comical than scary but there are wince inducing moments. Only 79mins long so doesn't overstay its welcome. If you're unfamiliar with Saulniers work i'd suggest skipping this and starting with Blue Ruin.

Jurgen The German

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I watched the original Godzilla film this afternoon.

It was a fascinating story, considering the context of Japan at the time. I'm not long back from a trip to Japan so I wanted to learn more about what is a big cultural reference point. The story is great when you think about what the country was recovering from at the time.

It's obviously aged pretty badly but there were some attack scenes that held up. I was amazed by the pace of the film, especially at the beginning. I wouldn't say it's a great film from a technical point of view but that's sixty-five years later. It would be a whole different story if I'd seen it at the time.

Criterion are releasing a boxset shortly of all the originals. I havnt seen any of them in over 25 years when channel 4 used to show them on friday nights.

Sleepy

Little Darlings (1980), a movie that couldn't possibly get made in the current climate about two 15 year old girls from opposite sides of the tracks who end up in a bet over which can lose her virginity first.

Starring Tatum O'Neal and Kristy McNichol and with early career performances from Matt Dillon and Cynthia Nixon, I really enjoyed this. It's one of the more authentic coming-of-age flicks I've seen in a while and, given my love of the genre, frankly I'm amazed I hadn't come across it before. The portrayal of the summer camp is fascinating in that what, through a modern lens, appears like jingoistic nationalism is being shown as happy, normal memories of childhood summers.

7/10 and worth tracking down.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I watched Lady Bird last night and I didn't really like it that much...
Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf are great in their roles but the whole thing felt very.... empty? I dunno. Not for me.

Sugarlumps

Predator Reboot - Travesty.

Dades

X Men: Dark Phoenix.

All a bit paint by numbers, save for the bizarre antagonists. I'm amazed all the big hitters signed up for this. Got through it but I'll never be inclined to watch it again.

Also saw Rocketman. Really enjoyed it. Like Elton's glasses it's possibly a bit rose-tinted, but it was a good watch. Really like Taron Egerton.

Decuc500

Like Father, Like Son

Working my way through the Hirokazu Kore-eda blu ray box set from Arrow Academy.

This 2013 film is another gem from Kore-eda. The story of two couples who learn after 6 years that their sons were switched at birth in the hospital could have been mawkish and sentimental in the hands of another director.

But it’s such an assured movie. Kore-eda brings his humanity and empathy.

It’s a tough subject but in the end an uplifting and beautiful film.

pixelburp

Men in Black: International (2019)

An utterly nondescript film, perfunctory in almost every facet of execution, yet missing anything of the oddball charm or imagination from the original MiB films. This was structured with all the care and attention of an assembly line, plot beats and tropes to match. Tessa Thomspon's character was woefully written, vacillating between starry-eyed newbie and know-it-all expert, the film forgetting to put any groundwork into either aspect; meanwhile, Chris Hemsworth floated around on autopilot, channeling a lukewarm Thor while presumably imagining what he'll buy with the fat cheque Sony wrote him. Not a terrible film, just a perfect example of a forgettable one - if anyone can remember watching it after the fact.

santana75

The Informer

Absolutley crackin' film. Dont know how this isnt doing really well because it deserves a lot of credit. Acting is superb, the script is tight and it zips along at a good clip. Saw IT chapter 2 the other night and that will earn a lot more at the box office than the informer, based on hype alone. But the informer is the vastly superior film. Go figure.

HalloweenJack

I watched the original Godzilla film this afternoon.

It was a fascinating story, considering the context of Japan at the time. I'm not long back from a trip to Japan so I wanted to learn more about what is a big cultural reference point. The story is great when you think about what the country was recovering from at the time.

It's obviously aged pretty badly but there were some attack scenes that held up. I was amazed by the pace of the film, especially at the beginning. I wouldn't say it's a great film from a technical point of view but that's sixty-five years later. It would be a whole different story if I'd seen it at the time.

[Deleted User]

Tony EH wrote: »

'48 Hrs.'

5/10

Booooo!

Tony EH

'48 Hrs.'

Classic, or "classic" 1982 action flick from Walter Hill, starring Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy (originally Clint Eastwood and Richard Pryor!) and filled with sexism, racism, violence and everything else you could possibly hope for from a cop film of the era.

The reality is, though, is that that's all it really has going for it. The script is rubbish and antagonists are incredibly one note, with a particularly ridiculous turn from James Remar. Everyone else is just background noise, including Frank McRae as a shouty black police Captain (ripped from 'Starsky and Hutch') and a bit - of totty - part from Annette O'Toole, whose entire existence is to give an extra layer to Nolte's gravel voiced stereotype.

The thin script sees Remar play a career criminal/cop killer (plus equally nefarious buddy, Sonny Lindham) busting out of jail and hardened cop (Nolte) has to use a con (Murphy) who knows Remar to hunt him down. The thing is, he only has his services for 48 hours. For what it's worth, it serves its purposes, but its entertainment value is largely drawn from the onscreen chemistry between Nolte and Murphy which, in fairness, were inspired choices. Although their characters, grizzled cop and smart mouthed con, were hardly ground breaking and neither was the racial buddy dynamic, which had been around since Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier. But, it's easy to see why this was Murphy's breakout picture and why he became a hot property in Hollywood during the rest of the decade.

It's sequel, 'Another 48 Hrs.' from 1990, largely repeats the frenemies angle, but replaces the cliched Hollywood crazy killers with a cliched Hollywood biker gang. Unlike the original film, which reaped in a very positive reaction from both critics and audiences, the sequel was largely panned. Although, it was largely the equal of its predecessor in some ways. Maybe critics and audiences were just sick of these types of films by its release date.

5/10

Sugarlumps

Black 47 - No positives, looked like it was filmed on a phone. Unable to hit the target from 5 feet. Suddenly taking dudes out from distance. Take away modern day guns, arm the world with these - just for kicks.

Creed 2 - Long winded, fast forward button got a work out. Stallone is in his 70's. Your not supposed to look like that.

Arghus

The Dead Don't Die - I was amazed to see this getting savaged when it was released. Jim Jarmusch? Zombies? Bill Murray, Adam Driver? How could they fuck that up? Surely, every film reviewer must be on crack, or something.

No. Every film reviewer is not on crack, or something. Well, not every single one at least. The Dead Don't Die is quite likely to absolutely bore the arse of 90% of people who watch it. But, yet, I don't know if that wasn't the whole point of it - and while I wouldn't actively recommend it to most people, because they will undoubtedly hate the film’s dry dreariness. I'm not fully convinced that the film is outright bad - in fact, it might actually be kind of good in its own daft way, even if that is mainly in retrospect, as opposed to when you are actually watching it.

The story is very straightforward. Zombies attack an archetypal - quite intentionally archetypal, everything is intentional in this film - American small town, characters react with predictably Jarmuschian levels of deadpan. Everything is very dry and very on-brand. The dialogue is stilted and the lame jokes in the script that don’t land the first time are repeated over and over again - and not to the point where the fact that they’re being endlessly repeated becomes the joke; they’re just repeated inertly, you get to luxuriate in their flatness.

You can never forget that you’re watching a movie that’s winking at you the whole time - and the film is profoundly meta to the point that you’re purposely alienated from any form of genuine investment in the action on-screen by the end of it. So, if people want to bash the movie for being a 100 minute short cure for long term insomnia, they are, in many ways, completely right. If you want to have a rollicking good time, look elsewhere.

But - and now I am going to sound like a complete film-wanker here - maybe, to get something out of it, it has to be appreciated for what it is.

I don’t believe that it was Jarmusch’s intention to to make a straightforwardly entertaining zombie movie and the air of detached flatness that presides over everything is really what the film is all about. He doesn’t care that you are bored - it’s all an exercise in deliberately on the nose social commentary, befitting the history of on the nose social commentary in the genre, which he’s aware of and references time and time again during the film.

The apathy and listlessness displayed by the characters in the film is allegorical for how, as he sees it, there’s nothing to do now to win out against the forces of mindless destruction except to struggle on in vain, until you’re eventually turned into walking worm-feed yourself. The world is fucked according to The Dead Don’t Die and even ironically arch Zombie movies won’t save us. The more I think about it, the more depressing the central message of the movie starts to feel.

I realise that I’m letting the film off the hook here - saying it’s boring and then praising it, kinda, for that. As a piece of entertainment, it really doesn’t work. But, I think it can be admired as being a personal and - once you get past all the surface level irony and meta mucking around - sincere attempt on Jarmusch’s part to use the medium of a silly zombie movie as a canvas to paint a picture about what he thinks of the present day and what ails us. And the prognosis is bleak.