Movie review - "Ford versus Ferrari" (2019) ***

 Solid dad movie given intelligent treatment and first rate driving sequences. A bit annoying with its good ole boy hero and plucky millionaire underdogs, but it did happen, I guess.

Movie review - X-men#4 - "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (2009) **

 Wolverine gets his own movie - it skips over him fighting with his brother in World War Two, and then we go into a brand new team full of mutants including Deadpool, then by minute 18 he's out, and with a girlfriend. Nothing wrong with banging through story but I wonder if they do it too quickly.

It's the classic sort of movie which seems unsure of its core. Which is dumb the core is so obvious: it should be about Wolverine and his brother, and Wolverine and his girlfriend. But the actor who plays the girl isn't up to it, and the film seems unsure of itself - it smells of "hey lets put this in" so you've got a bit of Ryan Reynolds, then a bit of Will Am I, and a bit of Taylor Kisch (who comes in at the end, and a bit of the blob, a bit of all these other movies.

It's a great example of how you can go wrong if you don't focus on the core. This movie has a core but doesn't focus on it.

It feels like a patchwork quilt. Not good. There were added quips and bits like Wolverine throwing his cigar on some flame. It just got annoying.

Movie review - "Logan" (2017) ****1/2 (warning: spoilers)

Really good film. Tough, downbeat. You don't need huge special effects and huge casts to do a super hero movie just a lot of heart, and intelligence and good actors.

There's plenty of action - mostly fights with claws. The R rating means you get lots of claws ripping off people's head and blood and guts and brutal slogging it down.

It helps having genuine stakes - Wolverine is allowed to die; ditto Xavier.

A fine array of villains - Boyd Holbrook is a great arrogant prick, Richard E. Grant is very good as the doctor who thinks he's reasonable torturing and killing these kids, and Hugh Jackman gets to play his own nemesis. (Not to be a smarty but I always felt Tom Cruise should've done this in Mission Impossible 2).

The sympathetic support cast is good too - Stephen Merchant, the girl (reminiscent of the feral kid in Mad Max 2).

A lot of it does feel familiar - escaping to Canada, the girl, the feral kids who are out of Village of the Damned, the doco footage of the kids being too well shot. But so many great touches, like Wolverine being a limo driver (I never realised how humiliating that job is), all the fights, and that remarkable sequence where Wolverine comes across a nice family of blacks having trouble with nasty landlords and you think it's just pat the dog... but they're all wiped out

Movie review – “Knight and Day” (2011) **

Starts wonderfully, with Cameron Diaz hooking up with mystery man Tom Cruise on a plan – lots of playful banter, intrigue and star power. It started to lose its way around the time when they land and he puts Diaz in her house – when the tension should be increasing (eg she’s accused of the crime and goes on the run herself or something) or at least she should be having more genuine stakes, it slows down and has to start up again – then there’s another action sequence which is far too cartoony and CGI-like to be genuinely exciting.

 

The movie never recovers – the device of the scientist feels under-used, it’s too obvious that Peter Skaarsgaard is really a baddy (cf in Charade Walter Matthau was a lot more convincing). I get they were going for Charade but that whole film is about Audrey Hepburn’s husband being killed and her unknowingly be in possession of the money – you could have taken Cameron Diaz out of this movie and it still could have played out. 

 

Some fun moments (eg the reveal of Cruise's island), surprisingly chaste (why not have them have sex?), characters you think are going to be important aren't (eg the scientist, Cameron's ex), the head of the CIA is really dull.

Movie review – “3:10 to Yuma” (2007) ***

Entertaining remake which doesn’t quite get there but is worth watching. Russell Crowe is terrific in a marvellous role as the outlaw, a charming killer who is ruthless but has a soft side, and most of the tension in the film comes from guessing which way he’s going to turn. There’s also a shooting gallery plot with the gang escorting Crowe to justice being knocked off one by one. Christian Bale is good but perhaps a bit too intense to play the Everyman role – but I guess they didn’t want an Everyman (although isn’t that the point of the character – he’s the one you relate to?)

The supporting cast is very strong – the character of Bale’s son is irritating but he gets better and the actor playing him is fine; Peter Fonda is surprisingly good as a grizzled prick of a cop (it’s not surprising Fonda gives a good performance, just that he rarely plays this type of role); but all the actors put in good performances – it helps they are given a bit of light and shade to work with, no one is all good or all evil, motivations are clear and understandable.

 The sequence in the railroad area with Luke Wilson episode is a bridge too far, and the ending is confusing - I sort of get it, but its muddled. Ben Foster is excellent as the latest in a long line of subliminal gay cowboys.

Movie review - "I Walk the Line" (2005) ***

Solid, entertaining bio which I made the mistake seeing the day after I saw Ray on video - both have singers from poor backgrounds, both had brothers who died, both suffered drug addictions, both only found fame after finding their own voice, both rooted aroud on the road. This one is more of a love story, between Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon - the film could have started with their characters meeting or be told from her point of view. 

Phoenix impresses in the most flashy role; he really looks like Cash at times. Witherspoon is OK as the chirpy southern gal - we don't really get to know her as well. Some good scenes like the opening one at Folsom prison. Like all bios it includes a few "you're mad to try it" scenes.