RIDE ALONG: A Review

Details

Director: Tim Story

Starring: Ice Cube, Kevin Hart, Tika Sumpter

Certificate: 12A

Runtime: 99 mins

Budget: $25,000,000 (estimated)

Review

Everything you need to know about Ride Along can be seen in the trailer. Ice Cube’s the hard-headed serious cop, and Kevin Hart’s his funny sidekick. Throw them into a comedy situation, see how it pans out, and then do it a few more times. Leave all of the character development stuff until the last ten minutes, during which time we’ll also set up a sequel so we can do it all over again. But this time, they’ll both be cops…

However Ride Along doesn't try to be something it’s not. What you see is what you get. And it’s that lack of expectation which leaves you thinking: ‘That was actually quite funny’. Mainly because it lets Kevin Hart be Kevin Hart, which subsequently makes the film half-decent. Hart hasn't had much screen time in recent years, but he has still been stealing scenes - Death at a Funeral, 40 Year Old Virgin, Scary Movie 4 (given, it wasn't the hardest job in the world to be the best thing in Scary Movie 4, but still…). Ride Along gives him reward for all that. Every joke is landed when he’s on screen, and he deflects the audience’s laughter away from how clumsy the action scenes really are.

Director Tim Story and the film’s five writers throw everything his way – from comedy pratfalls to rapid fire delivery, and he hits a home run every time. Should Ride Along 2 actually be given the go-ahead then it should feature 89 minutes of Hart, and just one minute of Ice Cube looking scornful and then saying ‘Damn!’.

But it’s Story giving him nothing to work with that lets him down. Ice Cube is basically playing a frown, which could quite possibly be bigger than Simon Cowell’s frown when he first laid eyes on Jedward. And the film’s big villain arrives so far along the line that he’s nothing more than an afterthought, a plot device to move us into the third act and the generic pay-off.

Verdict

By going in with little expectation looking for some cinematic junk food to fill a quiet evening in with your mates, Ride Along does the trick. Just don’t think it could be the next Bad Boys or Rush Hour…

Please feel free to comment below and let me know what you think of Ride Along!

A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD: A Review

Details

Director: John Moore

Starring: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney,

Certificate: 12A

Runtime: 98 mins

Budget: $92,000,000 (estimated)

Review

After refusing to watch this latest instalment in the Die Hard franchise at the cinema I reluctantly decided to sit down and give it a go. Needless to say, I wasn’t impressed.

This time, the film involves (the very aged) John McClane going on “vacation” to Russia to give his son Jack (Jai Courtney) a kick up the ass for going off the rails. McClane soon finds out that his son is in fact an undercover CIA operative looking to get hold of a very important and well sought after file (how original!). Naturally the McClanes team up and kill some bad guys, whilst discovering not all is as it seems.

The overall plot is pretty dire, and is nothing we haven’t seen before. McClane’s son Jack has clearly been thrown in to help inject some life into an ageing series, but instead just tops it with even more cheese. The film plays too much on the father-son bonding between the pair, which frankly could be something taken straight from a soap opera. The twist at the end is also very clunky and poorly written, offering little explanation and making you think “Well how the hell did that happen then?!”.

After seeing McClane taking down a helicopter with a car and having a one-on-one with a jet plane in Die Hard 4.0, I knew I had to take A Good Day to Die Hard with a pinch of salt. I handled everything quite well, including the 20 minute car chase at the beginning that changed camera shots so quickly I started to feel dizzy. But when it came to the helicopter scene, I just couldn’t hold back the laughter. Not because of the absurdity of the whole situation, but because of the kamikaze actions of the helicopter pilot. The helicopter runs out of bullets shooting the McClanes, so the only logical thing is to try and fly into them? Yeah right…

LEFT: Courtney stars as Jack McClane

RIGHT: Courtney stars as Varro in the Spartacus series

The acting isn’t bad, but it’s not exactly great either. Willis is a one-trick pony, and the 58-year old is now well past his prime. Nevertheless he still puts in a reasonable effort and saves this film from being a complete disaster. The script also doesn’t allow Willis to make McClane live up to his true potential, and the famous “yippee-ki-yay” line seems to be overshadowed with “I’m on vay-cation”. I personally didn’t like the idea of McClane having a son, regardless of who plays him. I don’t actually mind Jai Courtney as an actor, and I quite liked him as Varro in the TV series Spartacus: War of the Damned (yes, it really is him!). But Die Hard is all about John McClane vs. the bad guys, and having a sidekick takes away some of John’s badass hero status. I‘ve got a feeling Jack may become a franchise regular should a sequel be made – which now looks likely.

Verdict

This film should never have been made, and is simply another example of film-makers milking a franchise until every last drop of cash is squeezed out of it. The worst part is that there are already plans for a Die Hard 6, which will hopefully be the last in the series.

My advice to most is give this one a miss if you want a film to be the highlight of your evening. But now you know what to expect, there’s no harm in sitting down and giving it a go if you’re after non-stop action and cheap thrills. After all, it is John McClane…

Please feel free to comment below and let me know what you think of A Good Day to Die Hard!

WORLD WAR Z: A Review

Details

Director: Marc Forster

Starring: Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos, Daniella Kertesz  

Certificate: 15

Runtime: 116 mins

Budget: $200,000,000 (estimated)

Review

It’s the moment all zombie and action fans have been waiting for – the release of World War Z.

World War Z stars Brad Pitt as Gerry Lane, an ex-UN investigator who is called upon to uncover the mystery of how the zombie apocalypse started, and hopefully put an end to the global pandemic.

Straight from the start the movie doesn’t disappoint. Within minutes (after a brief introduction of the characters and the scenario) zombies are everywhere, causing mayhem and tearing people apart. Gerry and his family are naturally in the midst of things, and you get that rush whilst watching as if the undead were really chasing after you, just like in the opening scene of 28 Weeks Later when Robert Carlyle is running frantically from a fleet of the infected.

There are a number of other shots in the film that are visually impressive. However I can’t help but feel the best shots are the ones shown in the trailer, such as the undead trying to tower over the high walls surrounding Jerusalem or the explosive outbreak on a plane. Nevertheless the film doesn’t fall short in providing breath-taking pictures of hordes of  zombies; although at times I did crave more one-on-one close-ups with them, as the film does focus mainly on the zombies as a collective rather than individually.

UNDEAD MOUND: Zombies pile on top of each other in ant-like style

The Mail gave a bad review of WWZ, and criticised Pitt for labelling the movie as “original” and “genre-bending” saying it is nothing of the sort. The Mail pointed to the behaviour of the zombies as a sign of unoriginality as they are similar to those in Zack Snyder’s 2004 remake of Dawn Of The Dead. However I don’t think the fast-moving nature of the zombies is a bad aspect, in fact I think it’s what makes the film so bloody great. I love the energetic, aggressive nature of the zombies seen nowadays as opposed to the old fashioned ‘walkers’. They’re more exciting, and carry a much higher level of fear. WWZ adapts the speedy undead even further, making them more driven and sprightly. They almost tumble after their prey with ant-like behaviour. For me, 28 Days zombies will always be the best, but WWZ portrays them in a spectacular new light that is at times simply jaw-dropping.

Pitt’s performance is nothing less than what you would expect from the four-time Oscar nominee. I believe he was the perfect fit for the role, and as the film progresses you gain a real sense of attachment to him. Besides Pitt there is no one who really stood out. Not because they were bad, but because the focus is nearly wholly on Gerry throughout the film. Mireille Enos plays Gerry’s wife Karin, which before watching the film I did find odd. Normally you would expect Pitt to be paired with someone a little more flamboyant, but I think Enos’s role as Gerry’s wife is believable and I think she was a good choice for the role. I am a fan of TV series The Killing in which Enos plays the main character, and it is good to see her getting a chance with a blockbuster. Mathew Fox was billed to a fair degree in advertising material before the release of WWZ, which is strange considering his role in the film is minimal at best.  

LOOKING FOR ANSWERS: Pitt plays UN investigator Gerry

I found WWZ thoroughly entertaining throughout, yet there was one aspect I feel was slightly underwhelming. For me, WWZ was at its peak during the beginning and the middle of the film, and sort of teetered off in the final 3^rd. After the aeroplane scene, the non-stop chaos comes to a halt and the ending is somewhat of an anti-climax. The ending came as a bit of a surprise, and lacked the temperament and explosiveness of the rest of the film. It could have easily carried on for another half an hour, and explained the closing scenes in more detail. That said, I’m not saying the ending is bad, not at all. The ending would actually be fantastic if it was fitted somewhere in the middle of the film. It’s tense and gripping, but just lacks that knockout blow the film deserves.

Verdict

Despite some negative criticism, I thoroughly recommended WWZ for all you action-heads out there.  It’s fast, exhilarating and at times downright crazy! Yes there are some aspects of the film that could have been developed further, but that was always going to be the case when creating a 2-hour long film from such a complex book. Director Marc Forster does a great job in making you feel as though you are part of the action, and has you on the edge of your seat. This is definitely one to look out for…

Please feel free to comment below and let me know what you think of World War Z!

Sequel?!

Before the movie had even hit theatres here in the UK the word ‘sequel’ had been touted around the web, and there are positive talks of a possible trilogy provided all goes well…

Pitt told Yahoo Movies: “We got plenty of material to go on to do a second or third thing if this thing works”. He also told MovieWeb something similar, stating that: “There is enough [material] to mine from the book. We could barely get a fraction of the book in [the movie]. So we'll see. We'll see”.

Director Marc Forster also hinted at the possibility, provided the film does well at the box office: “"Let's see how this goes. We hope this movie goes well and we shall go from there”.

So there’s clearly a hint of something there for WWZ fans to get excited about!

SNITCH: A Review

Details

Director: Ric Roman Waugh
Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Jon Bernthal, Susan Sarandon, Barry Pepper
Certificate: 12A
Runtime: 112 mins
Budget: $15,000,000 (estimated)

Review

So the lead character’s the 6 ft 4 inch giant known as The Rock. Better prepare ourselves for another action packed cheesefest, right? Well actually, no...

As soon as the name ‘Dwayne Johnson’ is heard along with ‘new film’, nearly everyone gets an idea of what the movie is going to look like. But with Snitch, this preconceived idea couldn’t be more wrong. Ok, it’s not a movie about a lovable family dog that goes missing, but it’s certainly refreshing.

Johnson stars as John Matthews, a father who goes undercover for the DEA in order to free his son who was imprisoned after being set up in drug deal.

If Snitch followed the same pattern as Johnson’s other flicks, you would expect Matthews to be an expert in martial arts who sets out to kill anyone who stands in his way. However Snitch is different in that it plays on suspense and drama, and doesn’t soak the film in action.

Johnson’s portrayal of Matthews is solid. It’s not award-winning, but it’s good to see him in a different role and showing us that he’s not just a one trick pony. Matthews is a realistic family man in the sense that he is not a superhuman brawler. He shows fear and concern, and doesn’t through a punch throughout the whole film. His role is believable and engages the audience.

Other cast members worthy of note include Barry Pepper (Flags of Our Fathers, Saving Private Ryan, and The Green Mile) as Agent Cooper and John Bernthal (The Walking Dead) as Daniel James. The Emmy Award winning Pepper puts in another great performance and fails to disappoint yet again. John Bernthal stars in his first major production since The Walking Dead, and looks as though he’ll be sticking around. He plays a similar sketchy role to TWD’s Shane, but does so with more finesse.

The overall plot is reasonable enough, yet at times it felt rushed and too fast paced.  Matthews gets involved with the gangs at an unrealistic speed, and in no time he is working with the top drug cartel. The ending also shows glimpses of Johnson’s usual self as he fights off gangsters with a truck and a shotgun, but is nothing more than what you would expect from the WWE star.

The film as a whole is fairly predictable, but with this type of film it can only be expected. There are a few little surprises along the way, and the writers have done well to plug little plot holes with subtle explanations.

Verdict

Snitch is the perfect film for those lazy evenings when you just want to slob on the couch and be entertained.  If you’re looking for solid action then this is not for you. But if you’re looking for an easy watch with likeable characters and a good plot, then you might just have found your film. Snitch offers cheap thrills without the cost of overworked action scenes, and allows the audience to get involved with the characters. It’s nothing to get excited about, but is it's not one to dismiss.

Please feel free to comment below and let me know what you think of Snitch!

2013: Three Threequels To Look Out For

There’s no doubt 2012 was a great year for the film industry, with box office records being smashed. Skyfall became the highest grossing film of all time in the UK, after it raked in over £94.3 million in just 40 days of its release. It was also the first time four films (The Avengers, Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises, and The Hobbit) made over $1 billion, beating last year’s record of three. So what can we expect from 2013?

A couple of evenings ago I was scrolling through the list of films to be released this year, and there were so many films I wanted to see. The sci-fi genre looks especially tasty. However what really stood out was the amount of sequels there were lined up. Now what I could do is write a long list telling you what they are and what to expect, but I’m not going to do that. Instead, I’ve narrowed it down, and found three threequels that will get your mouth watering…

IRON MAN 3: 

Release date: April 25^th

Director: Shane Black

Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Guy Pearce, Gwyneth Paltrow, Rebecca Hall, Ben Kingsley, Don Cheadle, James Badge Dale, Stephanie Szostak

Plot: When Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has his world torn to pieces by an evil terrorist known as the Mandarin (Kingsley), Stark embarks on a harrowing quest to find out those responsible.

What to expect:  Judging by the trailer this is going to be big, and I mean BIG. This sequel looks as though it’s going to be darker and more sinister than the others, and with Shane Black taking over as director it will be interesting to see how he stamps his mark on the film. John Favreau directed the previous films and will stay involved by offering his support to Black, meaning Iron Man 3 will be an exciting blend of conventional and fresh ideas. This is definitely one to look out for.

THE HANGOVER PART III:

Release date:  May 24th

Director: Todd Phillips

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Ken Jeong, Justin Bartha, Heather Graham, Jamie Chung, Jeffrey Tambor, Mike Tyson, Mike Epps,

Plot: This time it's not about a wedding or a bachelor party - the Wolfpack go on a road trip instead. We all know something is bound to go wrong…

What to expect: The Hangover films are arguably one of the most talked about comedies since the first one hit theatres back in 2009. I am though hoping that the third instalment will prove to be slightly more original than the last, and with no bachelor or wedding this time around it does look promising. If The Hangover Part III shows a little more vitality and verve then this will surely be one the comedies of the year. Still, with Zach Galifianakis playing Alan, what’s not to love?

RIDDICK:

Release date: TBA

Director: David Twohy

Starring: Vin Diesel, Katee Sackhoff, Karl Urban, Nolan Gerard Funk, Jordi Mollà, Dave Batista, Keri Hilson

Plot: Riddick (Diesel) is betrayed and left for dead on a sun-scorched planet full of dangerous predators - where, naturally, he takes down the competition and arises even deadlier than before. Soon bounty hunters from all over the galaxy descend on Riddick, where they find themselves victims of his bigger plan for vengeance.

What to expect: It’s been a while since Riddick’s predecessors Pitch Black (2000) and The Chronicles of Riddick (2004) were released, so director David Twohy will have more on his tool belt this time around. The action scenes have been superb in the previous two films, and I expect Riddick will have more of the same. There are a fair few sci-fi films out this year, including the eagerly anticipated Star Trek Into Darkness, so Riddick will really have to pull out all the stops if it wants to stamp its mark on 2013.

Conclusion:

And there you have it, three tantalising threequels to add to your list of films to watch this year. I will be looking out for Riddick, as I’m a fan of the previous two films. But I think it’s safe to say nearly everyone’s eyes will be on Iron Man 3 and The Hangover Part III. Robert Downey Jr. is arguably the reason why the series so great. His acting abilities are first class, and his knack of delivering humour in a witty, intelligent manner is what makes him so remarkable. I particularly like him in the Sherlock Holmes films. The Hangover’s excellence is down to a number of characters. For me though, Alan is the reason why it is so funny, and is one of the main reasons I watch it. Without him, the series just wouldn’t be the same.

Thank you for reading, and feel free to comment below with the films you’re most looking forward to in 2013!

THE WALKING DEAD SEASON 3: Best and Worst Characters

After season 3 of AMC’s The Walking Dead came to an end just over a week ago, I thought I’d look back and share with you my five favourite, and five least favourite characters of the series.

BEST

I’ll start with my favourites, as it was undoubtedly the easiest list to come up with…

5. Tyreese and Sasha

Coming In at number five is Tyreese and Sasha. I decided to rank these two together as they always come as a pair. Although they only came in about halfway through the series, I think they’ve been a really good addition to the show. The chemistry the pair have together is fun to watch, and they can both put up a fight. They also have strong morals, and I hope we get to see more of them in season 4.

4. Andrea

Next up is Andrea. She really made herself one of the leading players over the last series, and deservedly so. Her storyline with The Governor and Woodberry was refreshing, and allowed the show to focus on more than just Rick and his group.

3. Merle

Number 3 is Merle. He’s not exactly someone you’d want living next door to you, but in my opinion he is one of the main reasons why season 3 was so great. He livened things up, and was so unpredictable. His fight/action scenes were arguably the best in the series too. I think Michael Rooker deserves real credit for his portrayal, as his acting his first-class.

2. Michonne

Finishing in 2^nd is Michonne. Dreadlocks, samurai swords, and pet walkers – what’s not to love? Intelligent and tough, you’re always hoping things turnout ok for her (and they rarely do!). She’s established herself as part of the group after forever trying to prove her worth, and I can’t wait to see what’s in store for her.

1. Daryl

And my absolute favourite has got to be Daryl. The death of Shane has meant Daryl stepping up as Rick’s right-hand man, and in doing so he has shown us what a valuable group member he really is. Without him the group would be seriously vulnerable, with Daryl’s crossbow, tracking and hunting abilities proving invaluable. His decisions are almost always right, and is someone you’d want by your side in a zombie apocalypse.

WORST

And now for the worst. Getting the top 2 was easy, but finding a top 5 did prove to be quite difficult. So here goes…

5. Hershel

Number 5 was the hardest position to fill, and I was torn between Hershel and Rick. But I’ve gone for Hershel. Yes he’s kind, caring, and honest, but let’s face it, he is boring. His main role is to comfort and support the group in times of need, and his veterinary skills have undoubtedly been useful. For these reasons I can see why he has yet to be killed off, but I feel his time might come when his daughters develop better medical abilities. I’m not rooting for his death, I’m just not bothered either way.

4. Beth

Coming in at number 4 is Beth – “Erm, who?!” I hear you say.  Just to let you know, she’s that young blonde one who’s been in nearly every episode and doesn’t leave the prison. It’s not that I dislike her, it’s just that she doesn’t do anything! It would be quite interesting to see how many words she spoke all season. That said, I’ve heard she is to have a more predominant role in the next series, so there’s maybe more to come.

3. Allen

My 3^rd most disliked character is Allen. He was part of Tyreese’s group, but swiftly sucked up to The Governor and nodded at his every command. You don’t see much of him during the show, but when you do he’s doing something irritating or treacherous. I was hoping Tyreese would drop him in the pit of zombies when he had the chance, but sadly no. Luckily The Governor eventually sorted this problem out.

2. Carl

My 2^nd most disliked character is Carl. He’s rash, reckless and always sulking. I know he had to kill his mother, but seeing him bad-tempered all the time is so annoying. I also don’t think he is portrayed very well by Chandler Riggs, which doesn’t do his character any favours. Let’s hope we see a change in behaviour next season, and maybe even a new actor playing him too (which sometimes happens when characters get older).

1. Glenn

For me, the absolute worst character of season 3 has got to be Glenn. He is constantly moaning and crying, and whining like a little b**ch. I didn’t mind him in past seasons; in fact I kind of liked him. But throughout the series I have hated watching him, and hate is a strong word. Before watching one of the episodes I saw someone write on Twitter that Glenn dies during the episode, but unfortunately it was merely a cruel joke.  If Glenn ever did die I doubt he would be missed by many.

Summary

And that concludes my list. Other characters I enjoyed were The Governor and his henchman Ceasar Martinez, who were both good additions to the show. I am gutted we lost Shane in the previous series, but the new characters have almost made up for this. I have high hopes for season 4 (which premières  in October 2013), and am looking forward to seeing what new characters are to be included, and which ones we will see more of.

I hope you've enjoyed reading, and please feel free to comment below and let me know your top 5s!

RED DAWN (2012): A Review

Red Dawn has received a remarkable amount of bad criticism, and my message to you is: “Don’t let it put you off”.

It’s certainly not worth a rating of just 13% from Rotten Tomatoes and a 1-star rating from the Guardian.

Yes, this new remake is cheesy, unrealistic, and at times downright absurd. But what else would you expect from a movie about a group of American teenagers who try and defend their hometown from a North Korean invasion? It literally has ‘cheese’ stamped all over it.

Expecting any less is like watching P.S I Love You in the belief that it’s going to be full of Green Street-like violence.

I’m not saying that Red Dawn is the action movie of the year, not by any means. All I’m saying is don’t dismiss this movie based on all of the negative reviews, make up your own conclusion.

But just in case you do need a bit of guidance, let me share with you my experience of Red Dawn.

I’ll start with the positives, the first being Chris Hemsworth (right). He plays Jed Eckert, an off duty marine who not only leads the group, but teaches them how to fight. I like Hemsworth in nearly every film he’s been in (particularly Thor and The Avengers), and his acting is first class yet again. He plays the hard-hitting marine with real conviction, and is without a doubt the highlight of the movie.

I also like Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Supernatural, The Possession) as Tanner, and Brett Cullen as Jed’s father, Tom Eckert. Both play strong, respectable characters.

However, there are a number of characters that are not necessarily likeable. This is mainly down to the fact that there isn’t much character building within the film except from between the leading few. That said Jed’s naïve and reckless brother Matt Eckert (Josh Peck), isn’t exactly one of my favourites either. Throughout the film his impulsive, inconsiderate behaviour is so frustrating and irritating, which isn’t thrown a lifeline from Peck’s acting. Yes, Peck was lovable and fun as Josh Nichols in Drake and Josh, but I don’t think he has the ability to perform at this level. I also couldn’t help notice him constantly pulling an obscure smirk, which was very unusual during sad situations.

The action scenes are definitely over-the-top and laughable at times, but no more so than Die Hard or The Expendables. There are explosions from start to finish, and teenagers firing guns better than military professionals, but that’s the whole point of it.

I read a review on IMDB saying that Red Dawn was: “A complete waste of time unless you are a male in his early teens”. This film is geared towards young males, but I think anyone who is laidback and after cheap thrills could enjoy this movie. I definitely wouldn't call it a waste of time. I don’t recommend going to see it at the cinema, but it’s fun, action packed and worth turning to if seen on TV.

Additional info:

Although a remake of the 1984 film of the same name, Red Dawn holds striking similarities to an Australian film called Tomorrow, When The War Began which was released in 2010. Both have an almost identical storyline, but TWTWB had a significantly lower budget (an estimated 25m AUD compared to Red Dawns 65m USD) and still received better reviews, with Rotten Tomatoes rating it at 64%. 

IN THE FLESH: A Review

There is nothing I love to watch more than flesh eating, muscle tearing zombies.

So when I heard that a new three-part zombie drama was starting on BBC Three, I just had to have a look.

But In The Flesh is a little different to your average brain biting flick.

Set four years after the outbreak, In The Flesh follows the life of zombie teenager Kieran Walker (Luke Newberry), who is treated, rehabilitated and then released back into society, along with many others. This causes uproar within Kieran’s local community, and a number of villagers set out to rid society of the “rotters”.

What I like about In The Flesh is that it’s creative and unique, and injects fresh air into the undead realm. It’s also produced in such a way that it appeals to a wide audience, with its drama meets zombie approach. It focuses on the relationships between characters, whilst also including spells of gory action.

Admittedly though, as boyish as it sounds, part of me is hoping that the “rotters” will turn evil again and we will get to witness a zombie apocalypse. I doubt it will take this approach, but I wouldn't rule it out. After getting a brief glimpse at next week’s episode, it does seem like things will start to heat up.

Overall, I’d say In The Flesh is worth a watch. I doubt I’d see out a whole series consisting of 20+ episodes, but as it’s only a three-part drama, there’s no harm in seeing how it ends. It does, after all, fall under the ‘zombie’ subcategory!

You can watch In The Flesh on Sundays at 10pm on BBC Three, or catch up here on iPlayer.

VIKINGS: A Review

Game of Thrones returns to our screens on March 31^st for the season 3 première, and it can’t come quick enough!

But if you find yourself bursting with anticipation, fear not, there may be something to ease you through this month’s wait - Vikings.

Hitting US screens every Sunday night on the History channel (meaning Monday in the UK with a little help from the web), Vikings is centred around the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok (Travis Fimmel) who wants to sail to unknown lands against the wishes of his Viking ruler, Jarl Haraldson (Gabriel Byrne) . Without giving too much away, I think we all know what he tries to do next…

Before watching the first episode, ‘Rites of Passage’, I was a little sceptical, thinking to myself: “This is either going to be really good, or really bad”.

But after watching it, I found myself wanting more, not because it was so great, but because in just 40 minutes it was hard to gauge a solid opinion. Perhaps a double-bill would have been more persuasive.

That said, from what I saw the show does have potential.

The acting is first-class and not cheesy as some might think.  Travis Fimmel was excellent in The Baytown Outlaws, and he plays Ragnar with real conviction. The well respected Gabriel Byrne (The Usual Suspects, Stigmata, End of Days) unsurprisingly plays a great villain, and it is also worth noting Swedish actor Gustaf Skarsgård's performance as Ragnar’s eccentric friend Floki. 

What I also like is that all of the main characters are likeable yet tough. Even Ragnar’s wife Lagertha (Katheryn Winnick) can put up a fight, never mind his bullish brother Rollo (Clive Standen). This allows the audience to really engage with the characters, and is one aspect of the show which really stood out to me; it’s not always the plot which makes the series, but the characters.

When it comes to the cinematography, it isn't as visually stunning as Game of Thrones at this stage, but it is still well executed. The action scenes are violent, brutal and gory, and wouldn't seem out of place in the Spartacus series. There are also some fantastic shots of the Irish landscape.

Overall Vikings is well worth a watch, and from the looks of things, it’s only going to get better. 

So if you’ve got a spare hour, why not give it a go? You’ve got nothing to lose… except a few bags of crisps and a couple bars of chocolate!