My Bottom 5 Films Of 2014 (so far...)

5. 300: Rise Of An Empire: I'm glad that Frank Miller is out there making comics, as his unabashed right-wing perspective, whilst not something I agree with ideologically, does at least provide some interesting contrast with his contemporaries (he sort of reminds me of screenwriter/director John Milius in that way) but I didn't care for the brainless posturing, vapid stylisation and rather unsettling undertones in the first 300 (2005) and whilst this is less likely to cause offence, in its place is a film that's just as devil-may-cas with history and loves to throw about CG blood (one of my biggest pet peeves) in an absolutely soulless and forgettable sequel.

Also, this film has what I think will still be seen as one of the worst sex scenes in film history.

4. Sabotage: Again, I actually rather like Arnold Schwarzenegger; or perhaps it's more accurate to say I like the pun-tossing action movie archetype of his prime but he's not the central problem with Sabotage. The problem is setting up a plot where several main characters get bumped off in variously nasty ways and...you don't care. The reason is because there's not much difference in personality amidst this motley crew of DEA agents and they all have a nasty streak of cruel brutality to them. One of those occasional action movies where the good guys are too unlikeable even to be anti-heroes. Instead you get a film filled with gratuitous violence leaving you with no subsequent feelings except for a bitter after-taste.

3. Stalingrad

Okay, looking at this list I may have a particular dislike for action movies that come off as just a little too confrontational. This film was a hit in its native Russia before getting a brief IMAX release in the UK. Concerning the actions of a small band of Soviet soldiers holding out on a siege in World War II, Stalingrad is a display of unnerving militaristic sabre-rattling amidst a sea of over-abundant CGI and endless slow motion sequences (if all the film played at a normal speed, it would probably be half as long) that suck the film dry of any tension and desolate drama that this sort of story is begging for. 

2. Tarzan

Umpteenth screen outing for the man raised by apes and whilst it's a lot more innocent than the earlier entries, it lacks any of their visual style with astoundingly outdated visuals, not unlike an early PS2 game cutscene, an outlandish Avatar (2009)-esque subplot and both the dialogue and delivery of the dialogue is dull and poor. It's remarkable hat this film got as wide a release as it has, but sometimes these things happen.

1. A (New York) Winter's Tale

Some films bomb at the box office. That's just what happens and it should never be seen as a sign that that means the film is intrinsically bad. Plenty of great movies never made a profit in their original theatrical runs. But there's no salvaging this turkey. You feel that it has its heart in the right place, but unfortunately that metaphorical place is also flooding with treacle. In adapting the novel to the big screen, no concession has been made to amending details for modern audiences as opposed to when the book was published, some years ago (and so we have a woman well past 100 who is extremely active and running a major Mew York newspaper...what?) and with some bewildering performances from all but Will Smith who you feel is a little embarrassed about the whole thing.

Still, it has Colin Farrell race around New York City on a flying horse. The silliness of that alone is close to a recommendation.

A Million Ways To Die In The West (2014, Dir. Seth MacFarlane, USA) (Cert: 15/R) ***

Starring: Seth MacFarlane, Charlize Theron, Amanda Seyfried

Sheep farmer Albert Stark (MacFarlane) lives in constant fear of the dangers in the Old West. Having been dumped by his girlfriend Louise (Seyfried) after chickening out on a duel, he finds new companionship in a new girl in town, Anna (Theron). Little does Albert know that Anna is the wife of the deadliest man in the territory, Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson).

I think it's fair to say that no-one can accuse Seth MacFarlane of spreading himself too thin. This is his second theatrical feature in the director's chair in which he also has the lead role, produces and writes (not just the screenplay, he's penned a novelisation which will be his first book). You almost expect him to sing a theme song over the opening credits (and don't think he wouldn't). This is nothing new. Having made his name with Family Guy on TV (which he created and he also voices a number of characters in it) MacFarlane broke into directing feature films with Ted (2012), again also writing, producing and sharing top billing with Mark Wahlberg.

Ted was in many ways typical of MacFarlane's style. Shock comedy but with a somewhat old-fashioned sensibility glossed over it. A Million Ways To Die In The West, whilst still carrying some of MacFarlane's trademarks (chances are anyone watching the film will think at least one joke is offensive) the film is very much entrenched in staying true to the western as a genre. The opening titles alone recall the 50's westerns of John Ford and Howard Hawks, even if the title recalls the later and more violent Westerns of Sergio Leone and Sam Peckinpah. 

Of course, a similar pastiche had already been done in Blazing Saddles (1974) and rather than try and go for another Blazing Saddles, Seth MacFarlane has, very wisely, gone for something different. It isn't as funny as Blazing Saddles and of course it's not as funny or offensive (it's hard to imagine anyone making Blazing Saddles today for that reason) but it surprisingly succeeds in being more authentic as a western...mostly.

MacFarlane hasn't just stumbled into the position of director because there is skill in his work. It's unrefined, but there is ability. His bread and butter may be his comedy, but when he focuses on the film's backdrop as a Western, that's when the film is at its best. In no small part, this is also thanks to Liam Neeson. A man who made his name playing revolutionaries and historical figures, moved onto sage mentors and more recently as grizzled ageing action heroes, Neeson is here as the villain of the piece and owns the screen whenever he is on. 

As a hero, MacFarlane is the nice guy but not very well defined beyond a slight amount of cowardice. Kudos  to Neil Patrick Harris who is clearly having the time of his life as MacFarlane's proudly moustachioed love rival. On the female side of things, Charlize Theron, Amanda Seyfried and Sarah Silverman do okay but all three have been given much better work in the past.

But for all that the film throws itself between comedy and western, it never settles nicely between the two and nor does the plot move very well. It's a long time between the threat being established and actually put into action and some gags also take far too long to execute. The humour also relies way too much on anachronisms and you constantly feel as if MacFarlane's Albert Stark will reveal himself as a time traveller from the 21st century (on that note, there is a brief cameo during the movie that will make fans of a certain film trilogy squeal with glee). The difficulties of MacFarlane repeating himself are averted here and this is a fairly good film, even if it is short on belly laughs. Fans of his work will be entertained even if some of the unconverted may feel a little alienated (or just disgusted) by the antics.

Maleficent (3D) (2014, Dir. Robert Stromberg, USA) (Cert: PG/PG) ***

Starring: Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Sharlto Copley

Once upon a time, a young fairy known as Maleficent (Jolie, Isabelle Molly, Ella Purnell) fell in love with a human boy named Stefan (Jackson Bews, Copley, Michael Higgins). Desiring to be king, Stefan severed Maleficent's wings for the honour and Maleficent's bitterness motivated her to curse Stefan's daughter, Aurora (Charlotte Chatton, Fanning, Vivienne Jolie-Pitt, Eleanor Worthington-Cox) but Aurora grew, Maleficent began to change.

Despite their status as one of the giant corporations for family entertainment, Disney have never really been ones to stick in one place too long and have always tried to venture somewhere unusual; a tendency going as far back as their 1940 experiment with music and animation, Fantasia. Maleficent sees Disney push themselves once more into unfamiliar territory, doing a live-action retelling of their own Sleeping Beauty (1959), moving the story into darker directions.

To look at the promotion going into Maleficent, the change is clear. Angelina Jolie's menacing stare from the posters, Lana Del Rey's equally unsettling take on Sleeping Beauty's song, Once Upon A Dream, the promotion looks like some strange combination of Sleeping Beauty, Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings trilogy (2001 - 2003) and Neil Jordan's The Company Of Wolves (1984). The film itself is still significantly darker than Disney's usual fare, but far from the almost horror film notions the trailers and posters conjure up.

In truth, the film is lighter than most will expect and whilst not a bad movie by any means, the realisation that the film isn't as radical as it first appeared underlines that the film is in many ways, fairly ordinary. Recent movies such as Oz The Great And Powerful (2013) and Snow White And The Huntsman (2012) have gone to similar places, after all and even Disney themselves have made films that are at least slightly darker than their usual output, such as the superior Hunchback Of Notre Dame (1996). 

But that's not say that the film isn't worth watching and enjoying. In a genre and from a studio that isn't known for moral ambiguity, Maleficent provides a great performance for Angelina Jolie. There's absolutely no doubt that this is her film to shine in and her performance as the titular lead is mostly pitch-perfect. Elle Fanning does well as Princess Aurora but she's a princess from a pre-existing story in which actually doesn't actually very much or have much in the way of interesting character as a result. In this take on the story, she still comes off as a kind of princess that Disney had seemingly shrugged off years ago, only bringing them out with parodies of those characters, like Jezelle in Enchanted (2005). Sharlto Copley's King Stefan is worth a watch and the three pixies who work to look after Aurora (played by Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple) provide some decent comic relief.

The design of the film is really nothing new in terms of these darker takes on fairy tales and the 3D effects are pretty much unnoticeable. It's different but only because it's different for Disney. Maleficent is a good film if you like Disney's usual output and are a fan of the old Sleeping Beauty story. If you want to see Disney tackle their image and mould it more towards the horror genre, then you'll probably have to wait a while longer.

Blended (2014, Dir. Frank Coraci, USA) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) **

Starring: Adam Sandler, Drew Barrymore, Bella Thorne

After a disastrous first date, single parents Jim (Sandler) and  Lauren (Barrymore) walk away with bad opinions of one another and no intention to meet ever again. Jim's boss (Dan Patrick) also happens to be in a relationship with Lauren's friend (Wendi McLendon-Covey) but when they break up, there's a romantic trip to Africa going spare and both Jim and Lauren cross paths again on a different continent with their families in tow.

In this life, there are only three things that are certain. Death, taxes and that a sizeable amount of the population don't like Adam Sandler movies. Obviously, enough people do that there seems to be a continuing market for his work (specifically, his low-brow but slightly schmaltzy schtick) but for every fan there are probably two haters. Sandler has shown good work in the past, even in his standard comic performances. Even a large number of his detractors like The Wedding Singer (1998) and there is enjoyment to be found in Fifty First Dates (2004) and in those two, there's a unifying factor. Pairing up Adam Sandler with Drew Barrymore. Ten years since they last shared billing with each other and the results are...not good.

Of course, it's not that Barrymore and Sandler don't at least have some chemistry. They don't set the screen ablaze with passion but they work well together. The problem is that the material is so poor. The sheer quantity of jokes about masturbation and big breasts are too manifest for even the most hormonally-frustrated of teenage boys. There are also jokes that simply don't make much sense. There's a recurring thread of gags relating to how unattractive both Drew Barrymore and Bella Thorne are before they're both glamourised over the course of the plot and seen as much more beautiful (Barrymore changes her clothes, Thorne has her hair re-styled. The "ugly duckling" characters in Hollywood movies usually don't work as unattractive. This is just particularly egregious).

Topping this off is a somewhat embarrassing portrayal of Africa. The gentle nature of the film helps ease its portrayal of the continent as racist, but this is basically every stereotype of Africa that you could cram into a film without being blatantly offensive. Note I haven't mentioned a country yet. It seems to be South Africa (it was where the film was shot, its set at Sun City, which shares its name with a well-known South African resort South African cricketer Dale Steyn makes a cameo) but comes off as part of the lazy assumption that Africa is a small number of stock ideas that could apply to any random place on a map of the continent, since no single nation is ever named.

After a solid block of toothless stereotypes Africa, the film's final act falls more towards schmaltz and plays for far too long. It's a good chance to show the cast have talent as performers and they do (Terry Crews, who appears throughout as an African club singer is surprisingly one of the few off of his game in this regard) but it's dragged with too many late plot twists that simply seemed to be endless padding for a film which felt too long to begin with.

Blended may not be the most cringe-inducingly bad effort of Sandler's career, but it definitely makes for uncomfortable viewing at times. A running-gag of one of the kids bumping his head against the wall as he sleeps and Barrymore carries him to bed is not funny in the slightest and just comes off as horrifically painful in both senses of the word. Adam Sandler has shown that he has talent and is definitely a likeable guy but it would be nice to see Sandler stop wasting some of that talent in his umpteenth film of this ilk and try to find something more substantive. 

Postman Pat: The Movie (2014, Dir. Mike Disa, UK) (Cert: U/TBC) ***

Starring: Steven Mangan, Peter Woodward, David Tennant

Pat (Ronan Keating, Mangan) serves as the postman for the village of Greendale and is popular with all the locals because of his cheery and friendly personality. When a talent competition comes to Greendale, Pat decides to enter and win a trip to Italy for his wife (Susan Duerdan) and revealing a talent for singing. As Pat advances in the competition, a new kind of robot postman takes his (and several other postmen's) place delivering letters and causing chaos.

It's easy to knock this film adaptation of Postman Pat, the creation of John Cunliffe and an on-off figure for British children since the beginning of the 90's. The idea of a film taking what was usually a show with a simple premise (Pat delivering letters around Greendale and helping people out) and shoving in a plot about a talent competition seems cringe-worthingly poor and yet, for that being a part of it, the film actually comes out okay.

We've had almost twenty years behind us now of computer animated films and still the Americans have a tendency to lead the way, with contributions from other nations seeming rather lacking. The aesthetic of Postman Pat was always simple but here the designs are not so much ugly as they are blocky and dull. Steven Mangan's performance as Pat is similarly bland, in no small part due to the fact that Pat's a thoroughly nice person. For a gentle and short TV show, that's fine but it very quickly shows how dull such a person can be, leading a feature-length movie with a more outlandish setting.

That being said, David Tennant puts forward some great work. It's not his best, especially given he's one of Britain's greatest modern actors but even though its animated you still feel like Tennant could find a way of chewing through the CG scenery. Jim Broadbent also does a good job as Pat's cheerful boss and Ronan Keating is bizarrely the singing voice of both Pat and, in a cameo, himself.

In a surprising twist perhaps the best, or at least most entertaining, performance comes from Robin Atkin Downes as Simon Cowbell. Parodies of Simon Cowell have been tired for years and whilst this obviously no innovative take on Cowell, the surprisingly acerbic tone of the portrayal provides some relief for the grown-ups as do the other occasional asides to the audience which (along with the genuinely rather terrifying Patbot robots that seemed to have been dragged straight out of the fabled Uncanny Valley) means that this might not be a hit for kids and it won't really appease many adults, but it won't offend any either. It's fairly fun, even if that's all it is.

X-Men: Days Of Future Past (3D) (2014, Dir. Bryan Singer, USA/UK) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ***

 X-Men: Days Of Future Past (3D) (2014, Dir. Bryan Singer, USA/UK) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ***

Starring: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence

Machines known as Sentinels stalk the land, looking to kill off those rare humans with a mutant gene. With the Sentinels now reaching Moscow, a band of mutants, the X-Men (as well as their nemesis Magneto (Michael Fassbender, Sir Ian McKellen) are holding off their advance. With the help of a mutant named Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page), Wolverine (Jackman) psychically goes back in time to the 1970's so that an earlier generation of the mutants can stop the Sentinels before it's too late.

X-Men: Days Of Future Past is a curious concoction. Technically a follow-up, to the 2011 prequel, X-Men: First Class and at the same time tying that up with the other numerous films from film end of the X-Men franchise, especially the initial three films made between 2000 and 2006 and bringing back into the fold director Bryan Singer, director of the first two X-Men films. The 2000 film, X-Men was very significant in that it was basically the spark that ignited the still burning interest in superhero movies. A film subgenre that could've been easily, and unfairly, written off as dumb cookie-cutter generic rubbish this crop of superhero movies have  often shown startling ambition and depth, perhaps best demonstrated by Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy (2005 - 2012). X-Men: Days Of Future Past is definitely ambitious, for which it should be commended. It is not flawless.

Whilst First Class was a superhero movie that took place within the period of the Cuban Missile Crisis, much of Days Of Future Past takes place amidst the final days of an alternate Vietnam War (ending two years, and one president, earlier in this universe than it did in reality) but unlike First Class, we get less of an origins story and more of a time-travelling tale. Time-travel in fiction is often interesting but is also a trouble area in that it's difficult to make it unique in how it's demonstrated. In this case, using a form of psychic projection, it's handled pretty well and also allows the audience to experience two different stories, set across two time periods, in conjunction with one another.

There's a lack of balance in how this is executed. Our initial storyline, set in the future, allows for a reintroduction of the old X-Men cast and plays as an ensemble, whereas the flash-backs are experienced largely through  Hugh Jackman playing Wolverine. This is really Wolverine's film. He is literally inactive for most of the plot in the future but a fully active participant in the past, which plays also as a group in that we have other major characters (James McAvoy as Charles Xavier, Michael Fassbender as Magneto, Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique) but it is largely through Wolverine's perspective. The way it's handled in terms of the 70's is fairly effective. We do get insights into the characters of Charles and Mystique and it builds in character development. 

The ball seems to have been dropped for Magneto, however. One of the best things about First Class was how it portrayed a nuanced relationship between Magneto and Xavier, largely though Magneto's complex character. Here, there's less of a case for this. Locked up underneath the Pentagon for supposedly assassinating President Kennedy with his magnetic powers, you don't get a sense of a changed man from the end of the last film nor does he seem any more embittered despite the circumstances. In fact, part of me feels that Ian McKellen's shorter performance as Magneto's older self is stronger in terms of characterisation.

As for the future-set sequences, these provide us with appearances of some of the figures from the older X-Men films. Of course, there's Sir Ian McKellen as Magneto, Patrick Stewart as Xavier and Halle Berry as Storm to name the most prominent whilst also introducing the likes of Ellen Page's Kitty Pryde, Bingbing Fan as Blink and  Booboo Stewart as Warpath but aside from action sequences there's not much else for for them to do. From the start they're fighting and continue fighting until the final minutes of the film. Perhaps a longer run-time (even if the film is well in excess of two hours) or  stricter editing and control of the story could've created more opportunity explore these characters (yes, Storm has already been in previous films, but Halle Berry gets little more than a single line of dialogue in the whole film) (due to pregnancy, much of Berry's planned screen time was cut from the film - Ed) and give them a more interesting dynamic.

In terms of technique, this is an impressive film. The 3D isn't an essential part of the experience, but there's a stereoscopic depth lacking in most 3D films and there are some very interesting and visually unusual sequences (in particular, Mystique being revealed on the streets of Washington D.C, all played out in the style of grainy Super-8 footage). I feel as if Days Of Future Past should've had more and would've been a better film to deal in either two separate films or as one sprawling three-hour-plus epic. In squeezing this film into a box, some of the character seems to have leaked out. I'll probably revisit this film someday and my views may soften, but as for right now, Days Of Future Past is impressive but it's no masterpiece.

Godzilla (3D) (2014, Dir. Gareth Edwards, USA/Japan) (Cert: 12a/PG-13) ****

Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Bryan Cranston, Ken Watanabe

In 1999, shortly following an extraordinary skeleton finding in the Philippines, a nuclear power plant in Japan is destroyed under strange circumstances. Joe Brody (Cranston) an American expatriate who worked at the plant and suffered tragedy on that day has spent fifteen years looking for the truth and when his now-grown son Ford (CJ Adams, Taylor-Johnson) arrives back in Japan, the two go on a search to find out what exactly happened and witness the unleashing of a tremendous beast.

Sixty years have passed since the atomic giant reptile known to the world as Godzilla (or to his homeland in Japan, Gojira) tore his way in. At first in a sombre mirror on Japan's war and environmental tragedies only for him to morph into a figure of fun and even, at times, a hero in later sequels and spin-offs. In 1998, Roland Emmerich brought Godzilla stateside and didn't really succeed. This time, Godzilla gets another Hollywood treatment, chiming (largely) with the original's dark tone and providing a rather satisfying slab of monster mayhem.

Whilst the film is a Japanese co-production, Godzilla has lost most elements that would make it seem very tied to Japan. Yes, a significant part of the story takes place there and we have one major Japanese character (Ken Watanabe's Serizawa. Also the only character, or really a rough approximation thereof, to be in both this film and the 1954 original) but the story is undoubtedly Americanised. That isn't exactly a bad thing. The original Godzilla is tied into Japan's experiences with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the fire bombings of Tokyo, the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, the a-bomb tests off of the Japanese coast, the related radiation of Lucky Dragon 5 and Japan facing a very different future. A lot of comparative elements.

For this film's slant towards America, we get a lot of comparisons with 9/11. The crumbling buildings, a major city covered in dust and chaos and in quieter moments, Bryan Cranston's actions and speeches seem closer to a conspiracy theorist (especially from the 9/11 "Truther" movement) whilst there are still   points that resonate with contemporary points in Japan, such as the opening sequence bringing to mind the Fukushima nuclear power incident (actually, that element of the story was decided upon before the actual event, so it's at least partially coincidental). Still, it's mostly Godzilla romping around Las Vegas and San Francisco rather than Tokyo.

This is by no means the first Hollywood science-fiction blockbuster to tackle themes related to 9/11. Spielberg did it in War Of The Worlds (2005) and J.J Abrams did it in Cloverfield (2008) to name just two examples. Also, akin to Godzilla, both films were heavily informed by earlier films. War Of The Worlds is hugely influenced by other adaptations of the HG Welles story, especially the film adaptation from 1953 and Cloverfield is very much like Godzilla and a number of other sci-fi films in a crazy mish-mash, with one of its most notable sequences referencing the famous poster of Escape From New York (1981). Even this new  Godzilla looks beyond the Godzilla series and 9/11 for other influences. Surely, the main characters being named "Brody" is intentionally acknowledging the Jaws franchise (1975 - 89) with even having some similar traits.

So, what of the Brodys? It's no shock that the film's promotional material has capitalised on Bryan Cranston. Now at a time in his life and career most actors would be slowing down, his success with the TV show Breaking Bad has made him more successful and well-known now more than ever. He's a great actor and not always one for understatement. His style is intense but what could be laughable in the hands of a lesser is actually interesting and impressively emotive. Sadly, this does leave Aaron Taylor-Johnson seeming dull by comparison. Perhaps best known for his role in the Kick-Ass films (2009 - 13) as a dorky kid who becomes a self-made "superhero" vigilante, his role here as the standard soldier, husband and father comes off as generic. A fault that probably lies more with the writing than the performance. Filling out the main cast are Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, Elizabeth Olsen in roles that all also shrink into the background. Overall, this Cranston's show.

Of course, the film's prime focus is as a noisy sci-fi action blockbuster and on that score, the film succeeds brilliantly. Of course, we get to hear THAT Godzilla roar and it sounds fantastic, rivalling if not surpassing the brilliant sound design of Jurassic Park (1993). Buildings crumble and shake to the ground in both a faithful homage and suitable updating of classic kaiju, in the vein of last year's Pacific Rim.

 As you might expect the film is very strong on a technical level, with some truly extraordinary production design. The cities look real and look like they've gone through some realistic destruction and the film has an extraordinary depth (not in the 3D sense, the 3D is once again, superfluous) and the film feels as big as it should. Ultimately, Godzilla os not perfect and lacks some of the original's dramatic punch but for sheer scale and dynamism alone, it doesn't get much better.

SNEAK PREVIEW: Cheap Thrills (2013, Dir. L.D Katz, USA) (Cert: 15/NR)

Starring: Pat Healy, Ethan Embry, Dave Koechner

Facing both eviction and unemployment, mechanic Craig (Healy) slumps off to a bar to drown his sorrows where he bumps into his old high school friend Vince (Embry). As the night goes on, Craig and Vince begin to party with the very wealthy Colin (Koechner) and is much younger wife, Violet (Sara Paxton). Through the night, Colin keeps daring Craig and Vince to commit various stunts and pranks for more and more money, only for the stakes to get dangerously higher each time.

An independent violent thriller with an ear towards very dark comedy, Cheap Thrills is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but for some people's taste, it has something to offer. It's easy to read this film at first glance as first and foremost a comedy. An assumption probably aided by the highest-profile piece of casting in Dave Koechner, best known as Camp Kind in the Anchorman movies (2005 - 2013. Koechner's performance definitely leans on comedy, though with less of an emphasis on Champ's "good ol' boy" schtick, and in a (slightly) more straight-laced performance. 

However, Cheap Thrills is an extremely dark film for its comedic trappings. Given a 15 certificate ahead of its main UK release, this film really pushes that certificate. The sex is there but restrained (a strip club is seen, but only with women in lingerie, there's also a sex scene but pretty much done fully-clothed) but the violence is often brutal and the overall atmosphere is surprisingly dark. The film's use of the house party gone wrong and themes of class exploitation lending vague (possibly coincidental) comparisons to controversial video nasty, House On The Edge Of The Park (1980).

As far as our leads go, Pat Healy and Ethan Embry give adequate performances, even if their characters tend to only go though the same emotional reactions time and time again. Healy plays the nine to five punch clock working man with ambitions that never quite worked out, whilst Embry plays the teen rebel who never quite grew up. Two well-defined characters but not wholly original whilst Sara Paxton's performance as Koechner's girlfriend, a spaced-out aspiring (and seemingly pretty poor) musician is intriguingly played but also lacks depth. Still, an audience wanting to see Cheap Thrills is probably there to watch just that, and not be too bothered by character development and as a slice of small, gritty entertainment, Cheap Thrills does get the job done.

Cheap Thrills will be released in the UK on the 6th of June.