The Dude, The Bad and The Fugly. 'Seventh Son'.

It starts off like a kids' version of 'Game Of Thrones' (deliberately so with a cameo from John Snow himself - Kit Harrington) and is pitched to a ridiculously apocalyptic level within the first ten minutes. It ends up as a bombardment of sound effects, CGI and nonsense.....just like every other kids film at the moment. It has nowhere to go, no rhythm, no build and although every element of the frame is filled with stuff happening it's all so repetitive and numbing and overblown that I just lost interest in it. Take any scene and you'd be hard pressed to know wether it was from the beginning, the middle, or the end. It's all the same. Overkill.

There was an outside chance I might have enjoyed it. There is some grimy production design that has you thinking that this could turn into a spaghetti western styled fantasy film. But there's no film grammar to hold it together so it just ends up looking like a particularly well rendered video game. It doesn't help that they seem to use the same lake/canyon location for....well, everything.

I have this theory that Jeff Bridges is never in a bad film. I'm now revisiting that theory. In this he's sort of playing it as Colonel Sanders with a voice like Father Abraham. No, I don't know why either. I suspect that he when he does the deep voice it was on the first few days of shooting and then when he does the mumbling voice it was when he'd given up on the script. Jeff Bridges, ladies and gentlemen. Jeff Bridges can't even save this.  Also, I'd actually prefer to believe that Julianne Moore was only in it for the money over what is probably the actual truth: evil queen is probably the only role offered to actresses of this calibre nowadays.

Our leading man is someone called Ben Barnes. A piece of felt has more of a dynamic.

The studio could have called this 'Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie - Part 14' and no-one would have batted an eyelid. That's essentially what this movie is to me. It doesn't even have Jeremy Irons camping it up. It makes me think 'Hansel and Gretel:Witch Hunters' was maybe not such bad film after all. It's that bad.

There's a loyal but ugly character in this who has tusks. He's called Tusk. That's the level of invention on display here. Yeah.

It's based on the The Last Apprentice series of books by Joseph Delany. There's about fifteen of those things. Ker-ching!! But I'd be surprised if anyone can muster the energy to be involved in a sequel to this. It's currently in cinemas - but will probably be in the DVD remainder bin by the end of the week.

Play Your Cards Right. Jason Statham in 'Wild Card'.

"You've got to know when to hold 'em,

Know when to fold 'em,

Know when to walk away

And know when to run."

                                                                                    

                                                                            -Kenny Rogers 'The Gambler'

Ostensibly it looks likes such a good hand to have been dealt: A William Goldman screenplay (read 'Adventures In The Screen Trade' now if you haven't already), an action director ('Con Air' , 'The Mechanic') who knows how to get a good "performance" out of Jason Statham and the man himself, Statham, willing to go the extra mile and deliver dialogue heavy scenes as much as blows to the face. Sadly, it's not a winning hand. There's something missing that's quite hard to pinpoint. Sadly it falls far short of being the 'Casino' or 'Leaving Las Vegas' of Jason Statham movies. Instead it's the 'Sin City 2' of Statham movies in that it promises to be an exciting reinvention of genre trappings but just tediously regurgitates them instead.

Ex British special forces (of course!) hard man Nick Wild (the name is in the title! geddit?) has a tortured past, a gambling problem and a strict moral code. He works as a sort of hired muscle chaperone in Vegas and gets drawn into trouble with the mob when a girl from his past calls on him for help. So far so every Jason Statham film. What sets it apart is the Vegas location and the writing which flirts with the idea of going down interesting Scorsese/Tarantino roads but pulls short. There is plenty of chat but not much that could be called memorable or quotable. There's a squirm-inducing torture scene but also some silly slow motion ultra-violence with credit cards and coins that wouldn't have looked out of place in an X-men film. There is character development, but nothing that takes us beyond the familiar; nothing that feels different enough to the hundreds of run of the mill trouble-with-the-mob stories already out there.

But it is a nuts and bolts Jason Statham chassis underneath it all and that's good enough for me. It's closer in tone to 'Hummingbird' than the usual 'Transporter', 'Crank', 'Expendables' model and possibly a little too straight-faced to be enjoyable. The strangest about it is that it is actually a re-make of an unremarkable Burt Reynolds vehicle from the mid eighties - also penned by Goldman and based on his own novel. Apart from heightened levels of bone crushing violence it doesn't feel like the script has moved on much at all and you wonder why the author is so drawn to the material.

Even so it is the first Statham movie in a good while and there's nothing wrong with it; just nothing to make it really stand out. I'll probably end up watching it every time it shows up on tv and that's generally the highest plaudit you can give this sort of film.

Whistle And I'll Come To You. 'It Follows'.

A startling opening scene, believable teens, shadows in the suburbs, sleazy synth score, gliding camera movements, precise placement within the frame, sex, death and a relentless threat that could be real or could be supernatural. No, I haven't been watching John Carpenter's 'Halloween' for the umpteenth time, I've been watching 'It Follows' and it ticked all the boxes for me; maybe found some new ones too.

It's not the ghost-train / roller-coaster ride that modern audiences demand. At its heart it is basically a modern reworking of M.R. James' 'Oh, Whistle And I'll Come To You, My Lad' and goes for a creepypasta / urban legend vibe; the sort of thing that when done well can really get under your skin. This is a slow-burning experience that puts pressure points on your most primal fears and feels like a lingering bad dream. Every scene, no matter how innocuous has a brooding latent threat to it. It takes real talent to create that sort of atmosphere and sustain it. It's what's been missing from the horror genre for a long time.

It helps that it is unusually well crafted from a technical standpoint. The camera moves like a dream -  raiding angles, compositions and blocking from disparate horror film influences and yet this is so much more than an exercise in slavish reproduction; it channels everything that works in the genre in order to tell a simple tale in the best possible way. Visually and aurally it is totally immersive and much closer in tone to arthouse cinema than those tired multiplex jump-scare thrills. In particular it reminded me of the very specific feel of films like 'The Virgin Suicides' or 'Kids' as well as the waking nightmare ambiance of David Lynch.

'It Follows'. It works.

Keeping The British End Up. 'Kingsman: The Secret Service'

Do they still make James Bond spoofs in 2015? Yes, they do -  and the good news is that 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' is full of all the delirious old school thrills and silliness that the Bond franchise will no longer go near. Unfortunately it is also politically and morally suspect and far too crude, too violent and too stupid for its own good. It's the show off, trouble-making kid in class. Amusing, but only for so long. I enjoyed it but couldn't really relax into enjoying it.

There's a scene at one point where Samuel L. Jackson's evil villain serves Colin Firth's James Bond/Harry Palmer hybrid a Big Mac on a silver platter. That sums up what this film is: a Big Mac. Tasty at the time but instantly disposable, strangely unsatisfying and prone to leaving you feeling dirty and ashamed of yourself afterwards.

By now you've probably heard about that "problematic" scene towards the end where a kidnapped princess offers to let our hero take her up the arse in return for rescuing her. It's not the only thing in the film that jars. There is a military assault scored to incongruous music (Dire Straits' 'Money For Nothing' ffs), a prolonged and somewhat sickening bloodbath in a church and the dodgiest of 'Pygmalion' subtexts: stick a suit on a chav and make him a man.  It's an ASBO of a movie; a 16 year old's wet dream. Worse still,  if this movie was a political party it would be UKIP: posh chaps in tailored suits, like a pint, save the world from an evil environmentalist (foreign, unmannered and black) and his conspiracy of self interested politicians. Thank goodness for these outsiders who have our best interests at heart, a firm patriarchal sense of order and who can rally the underclass youth to do their dirty work for them. It's a consumerist, conservative claptrap fantasy. But that's okay because it's all tongue in cheek isn't it?

The trouble with the Matthew Vaughn/Mark Millar/Jane Goldman team is that they just don't know where to draw the line. But then, I hated 'Kick Ass' from these same people and most folk love that movie - so I guess it's me that's out of step. If you enjoyed 'Kick Ass' you will fucking love this movie. If you are a teenage boy you will love this movie. If you think 'Moonraker' is the pinnacle of the Bond franchise then you will love this movie. If you like sickening levels of ultra-violence dropped nonchalantly into what is basically a Johnny English/Austin Powers movie then this will probably become your all time favourite film. If you can root for a hero called 'Eggsy' than this one is for you.

For me it's the cast that saves the whole thing from falling apart. Colin Firth's commitment to his role lends this some gravitas and it is clear that he is enjoying himself. Michael Caine delivers his best line in years. Samuel L. Jackson is on autopilot, gives his character an irritating lisp and yet still manages to be wonderful to watch.

I'm not sure about Taron Eggerton. I thought he was a little bit too stage school to pass as a convincing troublemaker but he does a good job with the role. It's a terrible character though. You'd think the point of this film would be to show that he makes a better spy than the toffs because of his background, his street smarts and determination. But no, he is basically chosen because of who is father was, seems as able as his competition from the outset and learns nothing on the journey other than to mimic his mentor. He starts off as a chav and ends up as a chav in an expensive suit who really loves him mum. Wonderful.

Oh, and it has some terrible CGI too.

But....but...it is undeniably entertaining for the most part. I just couldn't quite switch off my brain enough to cope with the blundering misjudgements of tone. But it's better than 'Kick Ass', I'll give it that.