The Matrix (1999)

Written and directed by the Wachowskis, this much hyped sci-fi thriller turns out to be a huge disappointment. It's dull and vacuous, as well as tonally all over the place. 

The dialogue is trite, preventing any development of the characters (weakly portrayed by Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne and Carrie-Anne Moss). There's an ugly aesthetic, too. The plot isn’t explained very well and there's not even much action – just a lot of “enigmatic” non-conversations that go nowhere. You get no sense whatsoever of the wider world or the notion that humanity is in peril. 

I really couldn’t see what all the fuss was about.

The Lake House (2006)

Romantic drama directed by Alejandro Agresti. It's a new version of the South Korean film Il Mare (2000).

Sandra Bullock is a doctor called Kate. Keanu Reeves is an architect called Alex. The pair fall in love. The problem is that Alex lives in 2004, while Kate lives in 2006.

They communicate through letters left in the mailbox of a lake house in Chicago, somehow bridging the two-year gap but without being able to meet.

Trying to work out the various time/space concepts made my head hurt. It’s great that the film makes you think, but this tends to be at the expense of the storytelling. I wanted to focus on the relationship between the couple, and not get bogged down by the dodgy science. Other films, such as Back to the Future, deal with the conceptual stuff much more neatly so that it can be moved out of the way and not distract from the plot.

Another flaw is that – by definition – too much of the film has to show the two characters alone, talking to themselves. The best moments are those rare occasions when we actually see the pair together – or nearly together.

I really enjoyed The Lake House despite the fact that it fundamentally doesn’t work. Thankfully, Bullock is great, whatever she’s in, and she raises an average drama to something well worth watching – as long as you don't ask any questions.

Something’s Gotta Give (2003)

Silly but amiable rom-com directed by Nancy Meyers. 

Harry Sanborn (Jack Nicholson) is a womaniser in his sixties who only dates women half his age. Then he meets his girlfriend’s mother, the successful playwright Erica Barry (Diane Keaton), and discovers a deeper connection that surprises him. 

Keanu Reeves is passable but underdeveloped as the doctor who also falls for Keaton. Frances McDormand is oddly underused as Keaton’s sister. And Amanda Peet is the weak link as Keaton’s daughter, with a narrative arc that’s all over the place. For example, she’s distraught to learn that her father (Paul Michael Glaser) intends to remarry, but then this is never mentioned again. Indeed, Glaser’s character seems to have been pretty much edited out of the film – or never written into it in the first place. 

In some ways it’s as formulaic as its title, with daft slapstick and several improbable moments. But Nicholson and Keaton are such pros at this kind of thing that they make the most of the flimsy material and it ends up being highly watchable.

Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

Directed by Stephen Frears, this is an adaptation of the 1985 play of the 1782 novel by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos set in pre-Revolution France. Glenn Close and John Malkovich play a pair of scheming socialites who use and abuse human relationships for their own sadistic ends, ultimately destroying the lives of everyone they meddle with.

The all-star cast includes Peter Capaldi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Keanu Reeves and Uma Thurman, but for various reasons, the film simply doesn’t work. The entire plot hinges on John Malkovich’a character being so charming and irresistible that Close, Pfeiffer and Thurman all want to throw themselves at him. But instead of charming, he’s quite incredibly creepy – in fact, downright repulsive. He’s supposedly full of passion, but his seductions seem clinical – almost a technical matter he has to apply himself to.

Another problem is that Close and Malkovich are almost cartoonish in their pantomime-villain love of cruelty. Maybe that works in a French novel written hundreds of years ago, but it seems overwrought and silly when brought to the screen in this way.

Malkovich’s character blackmails and manipulates people into sleeping with him in a way that is aggressively predatory. Could it have been made in the “Me Too” era? Certainly, it’s particularly uncomfortable to watch in a post-Weinstein context.

On the plus side, Glenn Close acts well. She’s given little depth (we could have done with some wider context of who she is and how she got there), but she does “evil villain” as well as anyone. Indeed, some of her facial expressions and mannerisms are spot-on for a nasty piece of work barely able to contain her delight at ruining others. But ultimately Dangerous Liaisons feels one-dimensional and oddly uninvolving. Even the victims of the arch-manipulators (such as the wronged lover played by Michelle Pfeiffer, who I generally always like) are difficult to care about.

Speed (1994)

Terrific action thriller. The concept is simple: a Los Angeles city bus is armed with a bomb that will detonate if the vehicle’s speed dips below 50 mph. Cute, funny Sandra Bullock is the passenger who becomes the heroic driver. Keanu Reeves is the cop jumping aboard the bus to save her and the other passengers while trying to defeat the crazed villain (Dennis Hopper). He’s helped by fellow cop Jeff Daniels, who is as reliably watchable as ever.

With exceptional pacing, the film ramps up the tension from the start and somehow sustains it for 111 minutes.

Some of the dialogue is weak, with a silly Bond-like quip about death that could have been skipped, but it doesn’t really matter. It’s so full-on in terms of excitement that you are swept away by the rush of energy. And the blossoming romance story is developed just enough to make you engage with the characters. It’s telling, though, that only Reeves is shown on the DVD cover, despite Bullock being every bit as integral to the film.