Snatch (5 Stars)

• Franky Four Fingers arrives in London with a huge stolen diamond, intending to sell it to Doug the Head.
• Boris the Blade wants the diamond and arranges for Franky to be robbed.
• Turkish and Tommy are involved in the illegal boxing business, working for the vicious gangster Brick Top.
• Turkish's boxer gets into trouble, forcing him to find a replacement.
• He approaches Mickey, an Irish Traveller who agrees to fight for money.
• Mickey, however, has his own ideas about how the fight should go.
• Meanwhile, Boris's plans for the diamond become increasingly complicated.
• Sol, Vinny and Tyrone get involved in an attempt to steal the diamond for themselves.
• All the various schemes gradually begin to overlap, with the boxing match and the diamond at the centre of everything.
• By the time the dust settles, almost nobody has ended up with quite what they expected.

I usually complain when a film has a complicated plot, but "Snatch" is a wonderful exception. Everything is remarkably easy to understand while you're watching it. You know what everybody wants and you generally know what they're trying to do. It's only afterwards, when you try to explain the entire story to somebody else, that you realise just how complicated it actually is.

That is one of the film's greatest achievements. Guy Ritchie gives us a huge collection of characters and several apparently separate stories, but somehow never makes the film difficult to follow. Everyone is so distinctive that you quickly know who's who, and every new complication seems perfectly logical at the time.

It's also very funny, but I wouldn't call "Snatch" a comedy. There's a real sense of danger underneath the humour, particularly whenever Brick Top appears. These are not lovable rogues getting into amusing scrapes. They're criminals, and some of them are extremely unpleasant criminals.

The cast is superb. Jason Statham is the closest thing we have to a normal person in this collection of lunatics, while Alan Ford makes Brick Top genuinely intimidating. But Brad Pitt steals the film as Mickey. His performance is hilarious, unpredictable and completely different from anything else in the film.

And then there's the style. The editing is fast without making the story incomprehensible, the dialogue is packed with memorable lines and the whole thing has an energy that carries you through the increasingly tangled plot.

It's probably the best gangster film I've ever seen. And remarkably, despite its complicated plot, I never once felt lost.

The problem is that if somebody asked me to explain exactly what happens in Snatch, I'd have absolutely no idea where to start.

Success Rate:  + 6.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Broken Oath (4½ Stars)

After her father is murdered by a group of men and her mother is imprisoned, Liu Chieh Lien is born in prison and eventually sent to a Buddhist temple, where she's raised and taught martial arts. As a young woman she proves to be an exceptionally skilled fighter, but her violent nature eventually causes her to be expelled.

Learning the truth about her family's past, Chieh Lien sets out to find the men responsible and exact her revenge. Her quest soon draws her into a larger conflict involving rebels and government agents, but her main objective remains the same: to avenge her parents.

Angela Mao must be the most beautiful and talented actress who's ever lived.

Every Day's A Holiday (2 Stars)

Mae West is always worth watching, but unfortunately "Every Day's a Holiday" gives her very little to work with. The story of a wanted criminal getting involved in a mayoral election is extremely dull, and I found the film a struggle to sit through.

Go West, Young Man (4 Stars)

"Go West, Young Man" is a simple little comedy, but I enjoyed it more than the other Mae West films that I've seen so far. Mae plays Mavis Arden, a famous movie star whose Rolls-Royce breaks down during a publicity tour, leaving her stranded in the country and staying at a local boarding house. There she takes a fancy to Bud Norton, a handsome young mechanic and inventor played by Randolph Scott, whose ambition is to develop a device for synchronising sound and film. Mavis sets about trying to seduce him, while her press agent Morgan does his best to prevent her from causing another scandal. It's a fairly slight story, but the film moves along nicely and has enough comic situations and Mae West one-liners to keep it entertaining.

Gladys, one of the maids at the boarding house, is a huge fan of Mavis Arden and is thrilled to have her idol staying there. Gladys is played by Isabel Jewell, who I found gorgeous. Even in a relatively minor role she outshines Mae West whenever she's on screen. Mae, of course, has the bigger personality and the film is built around her, but Isabel has a natural screen presence that I found much more appealing. She made more than 60 films in her 40-year career, but always in supporting roles. It's a shame she never became a big star.

Carrie [2013 version] (5 Stars)

This is the fifth time I've watched the 2013 version of Carrie, which makes this review difficult. I said most of what I wanted to say about the film in my previous reviews, particularly in 2019. But having watched it again, there's one thing I want to emphasise.

I still think it's a very good film. In fact, I still prefer it to the 1976 version. Chloe Grace Moretz is excellent as Carrie and, for me, gives a better performance than Sissy Spacek. Julianne Moore's Margaret is even more deranged than Piper Laurie's version, and I like the way the new film gradually develops Carrie's telekinetic powers rather than suddenly revealing what she can do when the story reaches the prom.

The prom sequence itself is another improvement. It lasts longer, giving the film more time to build up to the inevitable disaster. I also prefer the way the film moves almost immediately from the destruction at the school to the aftermath at Carrie's home. The whole thing feels more continuous.

Nevertheless, I don't think the film needed to be made.

When a film is remade, I think there are two things it has to achieve. It has to be close enough to the original for us to recognise the story, but it also has to be different enough to justify making it again. There should be something new to say or a different way of telling the story.

Carrie 2013 doesn't fulfil that second condition.

It was described as a new adaptation of Stephen King's novel rather than a remake of the 1976 film. Technically, I suppose that's true. But having watched both films several times, I find that distinction difficult to accept. The 2013 film is remarkably close to the earlier one, right down to individual scenes and snippets of dialogue. It's been modernised, with smartphones and social media replacing the technology of the 1970's, but that isn't enough to make it feel like a genuinely new interpretation.

And that's what makes my opinion slightly contradictory. I think the 2013 Carrie is better than the 1976 Carrie, but I also think the remake was unnecessary.

There are certainly differences, and some of those differences are precisely why I prefer this version. Moretz is a superb Carrie, Moore gives Margaret an appropriately disturbing quality, Carrie's powers are better developed and the prom sequence is more substantial. Miss Desjardin is also more appealing in this version. I particularly like her wild dancing at the prom.

But when I watch it, I can't escape the feeling that I've seen it all before.

Perhaps that's inevitable when two films are based on the same novel. But there's a difference between telling the same story and making the same film. I would have liked the 2013 version to take King's novel and do something substantially different with it.

Nevertheless, after five viewings, I'm still very fond of it. The fact that I can complain about its lack of originality while giving it five stars tells you everything you need to know about how much I enjoy the film.

So many films, so little time.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Tragedy Girls (5 Stars)

Apparently "Tragedy Girls" is unoriginal. That's what critics wrote when it came out in 2017. It's supposedly just a knock-off of those 1990's teen slashers.

Well, yes. It does look remarkably like a 1990's teen slasher.

That's the point.

McKayla and Sadie are two teenage girls who're obsessed with social media, popularity and serial killers. When they get the opportunity to learn from a serial killer, they use him to improve their own murderous careers. Because apparently getting good grades and going to university isn't ambitious enough.

The clever thing is that the film doesn't tell the story from the point of view of the victims. McKayla and Sadie are the slashers. We follow their plans, their friendship, their arguments and their increasingly elaborate murders. We sympathise with the two girls, We want to see them get away with murder.

And they do.

Most slasher films have a Final Girl. Tragedy Girls has two Final Killers.

The film eventually builds towards a prom massacre in which 124 students are killed. That's quite a lot of dead teenagers, even by slasher standards. And while everyone else is having a terrible evening, McKayla and Sadie are having the time of their lives.

Then they escape.

It's a remarkably audacious reversal of the genre. The film takes virtually every familiar teen-slasher convention and uses it for the benefit of the people who would normally be trying to avoid it. The teenagers are there. The high school is there. The killer is there. The gruesome deaths are there. The prom is there. The social-media obsession is there.

It's just that we've somehow ended up supporting the wrong people.

And that's why I find the criticism that the film is "unoriginal" so strange. Of course it's copying the conventions of 1990's teen slashers. It's deliberately copying them. The originality comes from what it does with them. Rather than parodying the genre from the outside, it moves the protagonists to the other side of the knife.

It also works surprisingly well as a straight slasher. There are plenty of kills, the film has a good sense of pace and it uses music much more effectively than the recent Scream films. It doesn't have quite the soundtrack presence of Scream 1-3, but at least the film remembers that a slasher benefits from having some music.

And then there's that ending. McKayla and Sadie are heading off to college, ready to begin a new chapter. In other words, they're going to college to get an education in serial murder.

Unfortunately, that's where the story ends.

I was lucky enough to see "Tragedy Girls". It never really got the general cinema release it deserved. It went straight to video in most countries and only had a tiny theatrical release in the US. A sequel was clearly being contemplated, but it never happened.

Which is a genuine shame, because the college sequel could have been wonderful. Put these two completely amoral teenage serial killers into a new environment with hundreds of fresh victims and give them four years to work on their social-media strategy. What's the worst that could happen?

Quite a lot.

It's a brilliant film, in my opinion the best slasher film of the last 25 years.

And if you think it's just a knock-off of 1990's teen slashers, you should watch it again.

This time, pay attention.

Bruce Almighty (5 Stars)

I haven't seen "Bruce Almighty" for at least 16 years, so I was curious to see how it would hold up. The answer is very well indeed. In fact, I'd forgotten just how good it is.

It's a silly film. Very silly in places. Jim Carrey is given the powers of God and naturally proceeds to have enormous fun with them. There are plenty of ridiculous moments and more than once I found myself thinking, "That's silly." But then I realised that the silliness is part of the reason the film works so well. This isn't a film that takes its premise seriously, but it does take its characters seriously.

Bruce is a television reporter who's convinced that God has it in for him. When he's given God's powers, he initially uses them to improve his own life. Why wouldn't he? Then he realises that he should be helping others, so he starts to answer prayers. He soon discovers that being God is more complicated than he imagined. You can't simply make everybody happy, answer every prayer and solve all the world's problems.

That gives the film rather more substance than I remembered. Underneath the comedy there are some surprisingly serious questions about God, free will, prayer and what people actually expect from a higher power. Morgan Freeman is particularly good as God. He doesn't play him as some distant, solemn figure, but as a calm and slightly amused man who lets Bruce discover the answers for himself.

And then there's the love story. Bruce's relationship with Grace is not just an excuse to give the film a romantic subplot. It's an important part of his journey. Bruce spends so much time thinking about what he wants that he fails to appreciate what he already has. His newfound powers eventually teach him something that omnipotence can't give him.

Jim Carrey is perfectly cast, of course. This is the sort of role that allows him to be as manic and ridiculous as he wants, but he also manages to give Bruce enough warmth to make the more emotional scenes work. Jennifer Aniston is equally good as Grace, while Morgan Freeman looks as though he's having a great time being God.

What surprises me most is how well the whole thing hangs together. It's a comedy, a love story and a film that asks some genuinely interesting questions about God, all without becoming too heavy or losing its sense of fun.

It's also a film that doesn't deserve to be forgotten. I'd more or less forgotten it myself, which is why I'm glad I decided to watch it again after all these years. Sometimes a film can disappear into the past simply because there are so many others competing for our attention. "Bruce Almighty" deserves another look.

Life is too short for bad movies. Fortunately, this isn't one of them.

Success Rate:  + 4.0

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de