Wayne's World 2

Opening paragraph. Possible clever wordplay. Unnecessary mention of the film I'm going to review as the title is both above and below this very writing...

Wayne's World 2 (1993)

The one golden rule of Hollywood (apart from it not being who you know, but who you blow) is that if it makes money, there's bound to be a sequel. I know you people and what jerks you are so I'm guessing you've thought of about 10 different one-off films that made a shit-tonne of cash. Well...shut up.

"Oh! Come on! Do you think I'm a gulla-bull? Or even a gulla-calf?"

This sequel picks up where the first "Wayne's World" left off, except now Wayne (Myers) and Garth (Carvey) have now decided to stage a rock festival. Cue lots of daft lines and celebrity cameos. Much like the first one, the plot is hardly the main focus of the film. Thing is, I enjoyed this one a lot more than the first one. Apparently, general consensus states that it's the other way round, but then again, people voted for Hitler in their thousands (IMPORTANT NOTE: The author of this did not just compare something as trivial as a disagreement over a film sequel to the atrocities of the Second World War and the Holocaust- it's all in your head.)

It's odd that I should like it more than the original as it's pretty much the same. We have the same catchphrases, same use of the "Mission: Impossible" theme and the same multiple endings gag. Somewhere in my head, Sensible Ben (note the capital letters) was getting exasperated at an all-too predictable Village People YMCA joke, but for some reason I wasn't listening to him and still laughed at the pretty colours and the synchronised dancing. I'm pretty sure these films have a direct feed into my inner idiot.

"Yes, I have a question. When did you turn into a nutbar?"

That's about all I can say about it because it's basically the first one with added bells and whistles. I reckon if you read the above and combine it with the non- scene specific comments I said about the original, you've got a pretty definitive review of the "Wayne's World" series. Yes, it's very stupid and I'm very lazy- but you love me for it.

Wayne's World

I'm not sure why, but I fancied watching some early 90's catchphrase-driven comedy. What better than "Wayne's World"? Schwing!

Wayne's World (1992)

It's films like this that make me realise how stupid I was as a kid. I remember thinking "Schwing!" was the funniest phrase I'd ever heard and parroting it for a good many months. I got beaten up a lot as a child.

"We're not worthy! We're not worthy!"

The story follows two slackers Wayne (Mike Myers) and Garth (Dana Carvey) and their hosting of a low-budget public access cable show. Things change when a big time producer (Rob Lowe) tries to change the show for a bigger audience. It's a surprisingly sharp script considering all people seem to remember about this film are the outdated catchphrases.

It's nice to see Myers in a pre-"Love Guru" capacity and remember that he was funny at some point. You'll be pleased to know that the "Bohemian Rhapsody" scene in the car still holds up. I think I probably got more out of this now than I did as a kid. There are some great lines such as: "Wayne, did you ever find Bugs Bunny attractive when he put on a dress and became a girl bunny?" as well as some great parodies that I didn't get in my ankle-biter days, such as the "Terminator 2" scene. Plus, having Alice Cooper show a great historical knowledge of Milwaukee is genius.

It's not all great though, the worn out catchphrases get grating very quickly and some of the references such as the "Laverne and Shirley" scene whizzed past my head faster that I could say "inferior American culture"(I realise the contradiction in terms here by actually knowing what they were alluding to, but I didn't know before and I looked it up on the Internet, OK?)

"I once thought I had mono for an entire year. It turned out I was just really bored."

I know I shouldn't like this film. It's stupid, silly and virtually plotless. However, I found myself actually enjoying it. Damn my feeble brain!

Jumper

Since I'm at a bit of a loss in terms of reviewing stuff I decided to close my eyes and pick a film from my collection at random. After three or four tries (I kept landing on stuff I'd already reviewed) I landed on "Jumper"- a film strangely not about fashionable knitwear.

Jumper (2008)

The idea of teleportation has always intrigued me. I mean, who wouldn't want to just picture a place and instantly be there? I'm not sure if it's because I'm criminally lazy or some other factor, but instant travel appeals to me. I'm surprised that more films don't feature teleportation - I mean we have Nightcrawler in "X-Men 2" but that's about it.

"Only God should have this power."

The story concerns David Rice (Hayden Christensen) and his ability to teleport or "jump" to anywhere he wants to go. Everything seems to be going fine until he meets the unfortunately named Roland (Samuel L. Jackson) who is a member of the Paladins, a group of people who believe that Jumpers are ungodly and must be stopped. Along the way, we are introduced to the love interest Millie (Rachel Bilson) and fellow Jumper, Griffin (Jamie Bell). So in summary, we have Mannequin Skywalker, the afroed hitman from "Pulp Fiction", some unmemorable actress and Billy Elliot. Should be fun, eh? Well, not really.

I wasn't expecting much from "Jumper" because of the type of film it is. It's an attempt to freshen the tired action/adventure genre with a new twist. I expected some cool effects and some decent action sequences. Trouble is, I didn't really get either. Well, the effects are nice enough but there's not one decent fight in the whole damn thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not all about action- I welcome meaningful dialogue and exposition in any film, but "Jumper" doesn't even have that- it just goes on and on with dull dialogue and poor interaction in the place of explosions and fighting. To be honest I started to lose interest quite early on.

When we finally get to the action-y parts, it doesn't seem like the whole "jumping" gimmick was used to full effect. What I don't get is how Doug Liman, the director, could have also directed "The Bourne Identity" which has some very imaginative action sequences. I expected the fights to be awesome and disorientating as our hero jumps from place to place, kicking arse. It never happens though. It's a damn shame. Surely if the action is underwhelming, the characters must be well fleshed out? No. Like Hell they are.

Hayden Christensen isn't exactly Mr. Charisma, so why play him off as an international playboy? It just doesn't fit! I'm sure Samuel L. Jackson would have been good if it wasn't painfully obvious he was just in it for the paycheque. Rachel Bilson is forgettable too, which makes the three main players in this seem really watered down and inconsequential. The only interesting character is Jamie Bell's Griffin, who at least does something during the film, whether it dropping a Paladin in shark-infested waters or lobbing a double-decker bus at Samuel L. Jackson's head.

"Paladins kill Jumpers, I kill Paladins. Class dismissed"

All in all, "Jumper" is disappointing. I got the feeling that so much more could have been done with the premise that what was up there on the screen. It's crushingly average. The only thing that saves it from being a "10,000 B.C." type disaster is Jamie Bell who somehow manages to inject some life into proceedings.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

To add more variety to the growing catalogue of reviews here, I decided to look over a certain barber's tale and post up my thoughts. After all, the only other musical I've reviewed is "Mamma Mia!". Oh dear. Anyway:

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

I'm not a fan of musicals and I'm eternally annoyed by Tim Burton. I was pumped up, hate-filled and ready to rant about it afterwards when I saw it. But damn it all if I didn't get sucked in and caught up in the plot. You win this round, Mr. Burton!

"You're in a merry mood today, Mr. Todd..."

The film is the story of Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp), a wronged man who returns to London after exile and is hungry for revenge. He assumes the name of Sweeney Todd and opens a barber shop above Mrs. Lovett's (Helena Bonham-Carter) pie shop. It's all marvellously macabre. It's dark, dingy and so damn gothic it makes you want to forsake the sunlight and paint your face white. I like the whole washed-out look of the film. You can say what you want about Burton, but at least his films are visually interesting. "Sweeney Todd..." is the pinnacle of this in my opinion. It just looks beautiful.

The casting of this film seems to be spot on. Depp, although occasionally slipping back into Jack Sparrow, is pretty damn good as Todd. He actually makes a serial killer likable and sympathetic- a hard task, I'm sure you'll agree. I really liked Helena Bonham-Carter as Mrs. Lovett too. She treads the line between scary and sexy very carefully and it works. I have a saying: "If you can cast Alan Rickman as a villain- do it". Luckily, Burton thought along the same lines and cast him as the odius Judge Turpin- the main focus of Todd's revenge plan. Special mention to Sacha Baron Cohen too with his fantastic Adolfo Pirelli.

What I really loved about this film was that it doesn't pull any punches. It's very, very gory. I'm not really a fan of gore but at least it suits the film. I hate films that seem to be holding back just to get the money-making PG-13 certificate- there's no artistic reason for it, it's sheer greed. Thankfully, "Sweeney Todd..." stays true to its grisly roots and has spilt claret by the bucketful.

"There was a barber and his wife, and she was beautiful/A foolish barber and his wife."

So with some fantastic songs, great acting and casting and a genuinely interesting visual take on proceedings, I can't help but give "Sweeney Todd..." full marks. It's brilliant.

10,000 B.C.

Why do I do it to myself? I rent a film which I know is going to be mediocre at best and then am depressed and angry when the film turns out to be a big ol' pile of balls. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment. Anyway, on with the review:

10,000 B.C. (2008)

I've got to admit, for all their respective flaws- I like Emmerich's previous films such as "Independence Day", "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Godzilla". I know they're not exactly brilliant, but I just can't hate them. Believe me, I've tried.

"A good man draws a circle around himself and cares for those within. His woman, his children."

There is no use trying to explain the plot. It's pretty much non-existant. All you need to know is that everyone in the Ice Age had wicked cool dreads and spoke with accents of varying hilarity. I couldn't believe how slow the film was to get going. Surely in a brainless, action sequence driven film you start with an action sequence? Mr. Emmerich doesn't seem to think so and we get feckin' long scenes narrated by Omar Sharif. Bad Roland! Only good films should have exposition!

I think that Emmerich shot himself in the foot by setting this film way, way in the past. He's known for blowing the living fuck out of famous American landmarks. How can you do this when there are no buildings around for aliens to nuke? But then again, nothing in this film makes sense. It has about as much historical accuracy as your drunkard uncle telling a war story, for one. I'm no history boffin but I know that there were no fucking boats around at this time- same goes for pyramids.

The fact that "10,000 B.C." rips off every successful fantasy film ever doesn't help it either. The "Lord of the Rings" films and "300" are primarily stolen from throughout the film's runtime. Maybe it was thought that by borrowing from better films, some of the greatness would be reflected in their flick. It isn't- it's flat-out burglary. It's a sneaky weasel of a film.

"Do not eat me when I save your life!"

"10,000 B.C." is a mess. It felt more like an endurance test than an enjoyable experience. If you're desperate for a prehistoric action hit- just watch "The Flintstones" on one T.V. and any Michael Bay actioner on the other. I guarantee you'll get more historical accuracy and a sense of a plot that way. Feckin' dire.

Con Air

After the bittersweet experience of revisiting the "Spider-Man" trilogy, I needed something to take my mind off things. What better than a brainless Bruckheimer flick starring Nic Cage?

Con Air (1997)

These days action films are generally regarded as "trash"- the type of films aimed at chavs and the fathers of chavs. However, the people who dismiss action are normally pretentious wankers who don't have anything better to do. Y'know- the type of people you want to punch in the face repeatedly for being so up their own arses.

"Beautiful? Sunsets are beautiful, newborn babies are beautiful. This... this is fucking spectacular!"

The film starts with Army Ranger Cameron Poe (Nicolas Cage) getting locked up for manslaughter. We get a short montage involving Poe working out and corresponding with his young daughter. Yes, it's that sort of film. Suddenly, it's seven years later and Poe is being released. He's catching a flight home with the World's most psychotic criminals. Nothing could possibly go wrong, right? Inevitably, the criminals seize control and it's up to our ridiculously wigged hero to save the day. I get the feeling that this film would be one big sandwich of average if it weren't for John Malkovich and Steve Buscemi. Actually-that's a bit unfair as the constantly underrated John Cusack is fantastic as the verbose Vince Larkin.

They say that a film is nothing without a decent villain. You know what? They- whoever "they" may be are right. I mean, would "Star Wars" have been as awesome as it is without Darth Vader? Would "The Dark Knight" have been as awesome without the Joker? Definitely not. "Con Air" has two great villains in the forms of Cyrus The Virus and Garland Greene (played by Malkovich and Buscemi respectively). Whilst I'm not saying that they're on the same as the Sith Lord or the Clown Prince of Crime, they are memorable enough to actually add some "oomph" to proceedings.

Let's just get this out of the way. "Con Air" is dumber than a bag of hammers. The refreshing thing is that it's fully aware of this. You only have to look at the slow motion shot of Nic Cage running away from a feckin' huge explosion to know this. It's nice to see a film do this without slipping into parody. There are silly bits too- the slow motion (noticing a trend here?) shot of Poe getting off the bus and flinging back his long hair whilst smiling looks like its been stolen from the L'Oreal ad agency. Plus, Cyrus' death (I suppose this is a spoiler, but if you can't figure out that the bad guy dies in this sort of film you need serious help) is ridiculously over-the-top, even for a Hollywood boomfest.

"["Sweet Home Alabama" plays in background]
Define irony. Bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash"

So all in all, "Con Air" is really enjoyable. It's got some great action, funny lines and is probably the genesis of the Nicolas Cage silly wig era. It's the perfect popcorn flick, simple as that. Take that, you pretentious bastards!

Spider-Man 3

Before we start, I'll admit that I've demonised this film over the past year or so. I'm going to try and explain why as best I can whilst reviewing it, so buckle up. It's going to be a long (and I do mean long) and bumpy ride.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Internet hype is a dangerous thing. In the weeks leading up to the film's release, I was trawling the Internet for any Spidey 3 information I could find (Christ, I need a girlfriend). I'm admitting this because "Spider-Man 3" was the film that made me swear I'd never get caught up in the hype machine again. As a film fan, it hurt, as a Spidey fan, it doubly hurt and as a hyped up Spidey film fan, it was a kick to the balls with Rosa Klebb's shoe from "From Russia With Love", tipped with an STD.

"This man killed my uncle, and he's still out there!"

The plot? Okay, I'll try my best. After Peter (Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) got it together at the end of Spidey 2, things are going well. M.J. is in a Broadway musical and Spider-Man is getting the recognition he deserves from the New York City public. The shit hits the (Spider) fan when M.J. is sacked, Harry Osborn (James Franco) takes some of ol' Normie's home-style insanity gas and Peter finds out that newcomer Flint Marko (Thomas Haden-Church) was actually the guy who killed his Uncle Ben instead of the crook in the first film. Bung in rival photographer Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) too and I'm about quarter of the way through explaining. That's one of the major problems- it's too damn convoluted for its own good. We have no less than three villains in this film and of those three, two get a fairly decent amount of screentime.

Another problem is making Flint Marko (who becomes the Sandman) Uncle Ben's killer. This seems to be an attempt to add an emotional punch to a new character. It doesn't work. What we actually get is "Jurassic Park III" syndrome where an expansion of the original story actually harms it, rather than enhances it. It wasn't that way in the comics, so why do it here? Plus, the whole point of the origin of Spider-Man was that it was just a random crook. Tim Burton's "Batman" did this too, making the Joker the murderer of Wayne's parents- it didn't work then and twenty years on it still doesn't work. So, I beg you Hollywood, for the last time- stop fucking with the source material!

"Spider-Man 3" also suffers from Too Many Villains syndrome. With Harry turning into the New Goblin, the newly created Sandman causing trouble as well as obvious afterthought Venom showing up, the film seems to be constantly playing catch-up with itself, like it's spinning too many plates at once. With multiple plate-spinning, you're always going to have the problem of concentrating on one whilst two others topple and crash to the ground. At the risk of straining this similie any more, let me explain with an example. Venom is just wrong. He's clearly only in this film because of studio pressure to shift more Spidey toys. I loved the character of Venom in the comics and cartoon. He was the anti-Spidey, what would have happened if Peter had decided to turn to evil instead of good. In this film, he's played by Eric Forman from "That '70s Show". Okay, slightly unfair as Topher Grace is a great actor and he's weighed down with clunky dialogue and, for some reason, fucking stupid fangs.

There are just so many problems with this film. What is baffling however, is how Raimi, who directed "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man 2", films which subverted nearly all of the traps comic book films fall into, directed "Spider-Man 3" which categorically falls into every single one. There are stupid moments that range from unintentionally funny (the comedy "twang!" sound when Harry is clotheslined off his board) to the blood-boilingly annoying (that supposedly British reporter whose every line makes me wants to jam rusty steak knives into my ankle). The music is jarring too, with the absence of Danny Elfman being felt heavily. Plus, the ending is very weak with everyone sobbing and blubbering like clinically depressed walruses.

"Look, I want to kill the spider, you wanna kill the spider. Together, he doesn't stand a chance. Interested?"

Despite the amount of acidic bile that is festering above, there are things to like about the film too. The fights are very well done, the Sandman effects impressive and it has the funniest Bruce Campbell cameo yet. On this occasion, the bad outweighs the good and what we're left with is a dull thud rather than a triumphant ending to the trilogy. Let's hope "Spider-Man 4" learns its lessons from this.

Spider-Man 2

It's time for me to review the superhero sequel. Does he continue to do what a spider can? Or does he get washed down the plughole? Well, assuming you can't see my rating at the bottom, let's find out...

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

As great as 2002's "Spider-Man" was, I always had the feeling that it was let down by the fact that its villain had his face hidden most of the time. Plus, he was kinda cheesy, I admit. Thank Stan Lee then, for the character of Dr. Otto Octavius or "Doc Ock" as he's colloquially known.

"No, Uncle Ben. I'm just Peter Parker. I'm Spider-Man... no more."

The basic story follows directly on from "Spider-Man". Harry (James Franco) wants revenge, blaming Spidey for his father's death, M.J.'s (Kirsten Dunst) unrequited love for Peter (Tobey Maguire) starts to dwindle and Peter is finding it harder and harder to balance his normal life and his crime fighting life. Throw a great villain into the mix (Alfred Molina) and you've got a super sequel on your hands. It does everything a sequel should do- it continues the characters' stories without diminishing the work the original has done whilst also taking it to darker places- and oh boy, does it get dark.

Peter is basically tortured throughout the film. Mary-Jane has moved on, Harry resents him for not telling him who Spider-Man is and to top it off, he's losing his powers. Plus, there's a mad scientist tear-assing around town who only Spidey can stop. (Sigh) It makes me depressed just watching it.

"The power of the sun-in the palm of my hand!"

There are two scenes that really typify this film for me. The first is the operation scene where Doc Ock (or rather his metal tentacles) wipe out an entire room of surgeons attempting to remove them. It's damn disturbing and brilliant at the same time. Only the director of "The Evil Dead" could pull off such a scene in a mainstream film so effortlessly (there's even a cheeky reference to "Evil Dead II"). The second scene is the train fight where Spidey and Ock duke it out on, in and on the side of a speeding train. I really like the way a frustrated Ock grabs to innocent passengers and lobs them away carelessly. Such a bastardly thing to do- I love it!

Then there's another fantastic Jameson scene and another hilarious Bruce Campbell cameo. The music is even better than that of the first too, with Danny Elfman adding a more complex, accomplished sound to the familiar Spidey themes. "Spider-Man 2" just does everything right. It's the perfect sequel and definitely the best Marvel superhero film. As for all time best superhero film? It's a tie between this and "The Dark Knight"* Yeah, it's that good.

*Review coming soon!

Spider-Man

Six whole days without an update? That's a lifetime in internet terms! Better make it up to you then. Join me on a web-slinging journey through the "Spider-Man" trilogy. First up- er..."Spider-Man"

Spider-Man (2002)

I've made no secret that I'm a Spidey fan. I've read the comics since I was an ankle-biter and watched the Saturday morning cartoon religiously. Debatably, I've grown up since then but a love of the adventures of Peter Parker and his arachnid alter-ego has stayed with me.

"Who am I? You sure you want to know? The story of my life is not for the faint of heart..."

The basic plot follows the life of high-school science geek Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire). During a school trip to a genetics lab, Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider (as opposed to the radioactive spider from the comics) and gains superpowers. I can't really say anything against the plot, as silly as it may be, because it's part of my childhood. It's as classic as they come in my book.

I never really bought Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/ Spider-Man in the first film. He just seemed miscast against the brilliant Willem Dafoe (playing Norman Osborn/ The Green Goblin) and the passable Kirsten Dunst (Mary-Jane Watson). Maybe this is what the director was going for however, a type of misfit. That's not to say I have a problem with Maguire, he just wasn't Parker in my eyes. You can't mention good casting without mentioning J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. It was like the character burst out of the comic pages and onto the big screen. Fantastic.

"Spider-Man" in general is a great film. It stays faithful to the comics whilst taking certain artistic liberties with the comic. I always wondered why they chose the Green Goblin as the main villain though. As a character, he's probably one of the hardest of the Spidey villains to make believable, but I suppose the mask and suit work well enough, the only downside being that you can't really see Dafoe emoting behind the permanent sneer of the mask. Still, the glider is cool.

There are some great scenes too. I really like Osborn hearing the Goblin's laughter for the first time and vainly searching for it, only to be confronted by his own reflection. Creepy. I also love the montage of Peter designing the Spider-Man suit. I was glad to see that even with big Hollywood money and production values, Raimi was able to keep his trademark visual twists and turns. I was surprised at how violent the ending was too. You feel every punch and kick delivered to poor Peter. The image of the torn mask revealing both sides of Peter Parker is great too. Subtlety is always welcome.

" Can Spider-Man come out to play?"

So that's it. It's a great film. It's not as amazing as I thought it was when I first saw it in 2002, but it still holds up. Good stuff.

I Am Legend

After watching the crapfest that was "One Missed Call", it was decided that "I Am Legend" was the mouthwash needed to cleanse away the remnants of the shit sundae we had just consumed. Here we go then...

I Am Legend (2007)

As I mentioned in my "I, Robot" review, I'll watch Will Smith in anything and "I Am Legend" is no exception. In fact, it may be useful to keep "I, Robot" in mind for this review as there are some similarities (Other than both titles beginning with "I")

"My name is Robert Neville. I am a survivor living in New York City"

The basic plot follows Robert Neville (Smith), who is the lone survivor of a virus which wiped out the human race. He's not quite alone however, as there are thousands of vampiric creatures called "Dark Seekers" who come out at night in search of blood. Dr. Neville is also trying to work on a cure for the mutation in his lab at home, using captured "Dark Seekers" as test subjects. Er... and that's it for a good long while. He also has a dog named Sam who sweeps the Greatest Movie and T.V. Canine Awards (or the "Barkies" as they're also known). I really liked the feeling of isolation the film gives us. The huge, sprawling and incredibly noisy New York City is silenced and been taken back by nature. It's eerie and beautiful in equal measures. I like the fact Neville talks to mannequins and Sam throughout. It's a nice touch and a surprising insight into human behaviour as after thinking about what I'd do in the same situation, I'm sure I would be doing something similar if only to stave off insanity for another day.

So, time to check your play-at-home "I, Robot" checklist. So far we should have one tick next to "Man who is separated from society somehow". Done? Back to the review...

All goes well until about three quarters of the way through when the film decides that it should abandon all the well-crafted tension and melancholy it has built up and go for an all out action-y ending. If I was to pinpoint the moment where the film begins to soil itself it's when he meets Anna and Ethan. Yes, it seems Will Smith has some kind of "minimum number of lines" clause in his contract 'cos that's all the other people seem to be introduced for- as dialogue trampolines. (i.e. for Smith to bounce lines off, not to jump up and down on them- this was apparently too much to hope for.)

"Nothin' happened the way it was supposed to happen."

Back to the "I, Robot" checklist. Annoying kid? Check. Annoying woman? Check. All subtlety thrown out the window to appeal to the popcorn-munching 'tards out there? Double check.

The ending. Well, it's an ending, I suppose. If I hadn't read the book, I'd have probably liked it, but as I have, the ending angered me. Why? Well, it misses the entire point of the book and therefore we are cheated out of the real explanation of the title "I Am Legend". Let me elaborate. In the book, Neville realises that these Dark Seekers are the new human race and that after all his failed tests and experiments (which resulted in Dark Seeker fatalities) he is now a myth to them, a sort of "boogeyman" who captures and kills them. He is sentenced to execution (the beings in the book are capable of speech and are intelligent unlike the snarling, roaring beasties in the film) and the book ends on a very sombre note. In the film, he finds a cure and dies protecting it by blowing himself up in a huge fireball, taking the Dark Seekers with him. The film's explanation of the title is that Neville died to enable his annoying sidekicks to escape and spread the cure. Therefore, they are "his legend". So Neville went out in a blaze of glory and is now legendary because of it. Gawd Bless Americuh!

Luckily, there is an alternate ending on the Blu-ray which is more like the book's ending, but unfortunately it feels like too little, too late. The damage has been done.

Finally we return to the "I, Robot" checklist. Add a tick to "Wasted potential" and "Maltreatment of the source novel" and you're done. Congratulations. That was completely pointless.

I'm going to give "I Am Legend" a four star rating despite the crappy third act. This is because it has a great concept, some really affecting scenes and (although ignored in the latter part of the film) a fantastic undercurrent of tension and malice which you just don't see these days.

One Missed Call

Against my better judgement, I sat down to watch this film with some mates (the better judgement was about the choice of film, not the mates. Although...)I feel like I should let you know that the Horror genre isn't exactly my favourite of all the genres out there. I'm not sure why, but I am seldom scared by them - and if you can't be scared by a horror film, what's the point? It's like not laughing at a comedy.There are good horror flicks out there though, I was impressed by "The Descent" and I recently was seen wetting my pants whilst watching "[Rec]". However, "One Missed Call" isn't one of these few, exceptional films.

One Missed Call (2008)

Horror and I have never got on. I think it was when I watched and was subsequently scared shitless by "The Exorcist" when I was about 11 that the change happened. I remember watching the original "Halloween" a few years later and finding it stupid whereas my friends were terrified. As far as I was concerned horror could suck my balls. That was until tonight when "One Missed Call" completely changed... nothing. It's awful. Just really, really bad.

"That's not my ringtone..."

The basic plot is that people start getting answerphone messages (from their future selves) which include the day, date and time of their deaths. It's a passable idea, but it's executed very, very poorly. As for criticising the rest of the film, where to begin? It basically reads like a rip-off catalogue from every successful horror film in recent years. For example, there's a heavy influence from "The Ring" (or "Ringu" originally if you're being pedantic) with a bit of "Final Destination" thrown in. There's a scene where a corpse slowly comes back to life whilst our heroine, Beth (Shannyn Sossamon) is inside some air ducts. To me, it seemed like a bit of a rip-off of the vastly superior scene in "Pan's Labyrinth" where Ofelia meets the Pale Man. That's the thing though, even if the similarity wasn't intentional you get the feeling that everything you see in this film has been done somewhere else and also been done better.

"Now this will only hurt a little..."

You know a horror film is bad when it crosses the state line into Unintentional Comedy Valley. An example? How about a scene concerning the exorcism of a mobile phone? Not convinced? How about after dragging a poor woman to her watery grave in a backyard pond, some ghostly hands shoot up to grab the family cat too? It's ridiculous to the point of being farcical. The only good point in the film for me was the lovely Shannyn Sossamon who, whilst not being given the greatest material, seems to be the only one who can actually act in this damn mess.

So there you have it a nice, short review for a horrible, overlong film. Sorry, Shannyn!

The Longest Yard

I know what you're thinking-"Where the flying hell are The Godfather reviews?". Well, I'm actually taking my time with them for one very good reason. I want to do them justice. Not because they're all good ('cos they're not) but because they have a combined running time of 9+ hours and I don't want to miss out something important. Either that or "Jurassic Park III" broke my spirit. Anyway- "The Longest Yard".

The Longest Yard (2005)

I'm a firm believer in the theory that you can tell a lot about a film merely by the cast list. "The Longest Yard" has Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Nelly and about 3 or 4 professional wrestlers in it. Make of that what you will. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the biggest Adam Sandler fan. It's not because he isn't funny- 'cos he can be, it's because he seems to "phone it in" a lot of the time. "The Longest Yard" is a prime example of this. So much so in fact, that after watching this film and then trying to remember something memorable he did, I couldn't think of anything. Surely it's not too much to expect something memorable from the lead actor?

"Now, listen here, Mr. Frodo, don't get short with me."

The basic plot follows disgraced American football player Paul Crewe (Sandler) after he is jailed for three years. It turns out that the Warden (James Cromwell) is organising a football game between the guards and the cons and wants Crewe to be the new quarterback. It's basically the same plot as the original 1974 film "The Longest Yard" (known as "Mean Machine" over in good ol' Blighty, which in turn was remade with a British angle in 2001 starring (sigh) Vinnie Jones).

I kept getting the feeling that to appreciate this film, I needed to be about 12 years old and high on sugar. After all, it has a funky hip-hop soundtrack, Nelly, Adam Sandler (who I gather is a "comedy genius" to the under-15s), violence, gay jokes and a fuckload of WWE wrestlers. Bargain. The thing that really got to me is I know that the two leads can do better. As I've said before, Sandler can be funny as can Chris Rock. However, in this film they both seem "watered down" to appease the PG-13 certificate. How I fucking hate that certificate.

"I'm glad you're back, now I don't have to stab you"

Having never seen the original, I can't comment on the widely held view that this film doesn't have enough dark humour to be a proper remake. However, I can comment on the tone of the film which seems to be all over the place. We have the usual juvenile Sandler humour (gay jokes and slapstick physical humour) mixed with darker instances (such as savage beatings and the death of a major character). My main criticism of this film is that it doesn't seem to know who it's aiming at. I've said this before, but it seems to me that a lot of films have this trouble. My guess is they're shooting to appeal to everyone (y'know, to make more money) and failing. Having said all that, it is entertaining and never outstays its welcome. Whilst it won't set your world on fire, I can think of worse ways to waste an hour or so.

Jurassic Park III

It's time for me to finish the "Jurassic Park" arc (Jurassic Arc?) with my review of the threequel mystifyingly not called "The Shittening: Jurassic Park". You may want to put the young'uns to bed- this isn't going to be pretty.

Jurassic Park III (2001)

After "Jurassic Park", I thought I would never be unafraid of dinosaurs. After "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" I mentally slapped my younger self for being so naïve but conceded that at least I'd never get bored of them. Guess what happened after "Jurassic Park III"...

"I read both of your books. I liked the first one more. Before you were on the island. You liked dinosaurs back then."

The film kicks off with two people- a man and a boy, parasailing over Isla Sorna or "Site B". Surprise, surprise, something goes wrong and both people go missing. We are reunited with Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) from the first film, who is shanghaied into rescuing the two missing persons. To be honest, the plot was constantly put on the back-burner in my mind under the constantly repeated thought of "Is this what they're calling Jurassic Park these days?"

The plot in general is absolute balls. At least with "The Lost World" it pretended that the plot was something more than just an excuse for the dino money shots (I double dare you to Image Search that...). What makes it worse is that they bring Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler (Laura Dern) in again from the original "Jurassic Park". However, instead of adding to this film, it detracts from the original as we learn that Sattler and Grant broke up and Sattler has a family of her own. This is so irritating as surely the Jurassic Park experience taught the character of Dr. Grant to be good with kids and turned him into a willing father (two things he was against at the start of the film and the source of a possible future rift between the two characters). This is the equivalent of creating something everyone loves, then putting out a piss-poor imitation of it and burning the original. So, so irritating.

The film in general feels like it was just cobbled together from the deleted scenes of the first two films. Funny, as when I was watching the extra features on the DVD (vainly searching for some kind of apology) they mentioned that many of the action sequences were ideas they had for "The Lost World" It shows too. Yes, the Pteranodons were O.K. but they should have been in "The Lost World" and then forgotten about. Talking of dinosaurs- the Spinosaurus. Who's smart idea was that? It is presented as the new king of the dinosaurs and is meant to be scarier than the T.Rex. In fact, just in case we were fucking morons (which is a safe bet thinking about it, 'cos after all people were paying money to see another Jurassic Park film after "The Lost World"...) there's a scene where Spiney takes on Rexy in the biggest Dino Douchebag contest and wins. Sorry, but why kill the anti-hero merely for some new pretender to step up? It's stupid beyond belief.

"On this island there is no such thing as safe."

In fact, messing with the dinosaurs seems to be the theme of this film. The T.Rex is castrated and the raptors look like they're turning tricks to make some extra money on the side. Want proof? Okay:

Above: A Velociraptor from "Jurassic Park"


Above: Some Velocirhookers from "Jurassic Park III"

See?

Even without the "Jurassic Park" moniker this would have been a bad film. The fact that the Jurassic Park name is right there in the title is an even harder kick to the groin. Apparently, the Jurassic Park team have never heard of the phrase "flogging a dead horse" and a fourth installment is in production for 2010. (Sigh) Anyway, since "Jurassic Park III" is more dino-shite than dynamite (please excuse) it gets a lowly:

The Lost World: Jurassic Park

With no time to pause for breath, it's sequel time. Therefore, I humbly present my findings on a film mystifyingly not named "Jurassic Park II" but "The Lost World: Jurassic Park"

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

I always thought that "Jurassic Park" showed just enough of the dinosaurs to keep them suitably fresh and scary/awe-inspiring. Any longer and I feel that the film wouldn't have been as good as it was. Imagine my thought process going in to see "The Lost World: Jurassic Park". In fact, you don't have to imagine- here it is:

1) Why the hell isn't it called "Jurassic Park II"? Especially when it has feck all to do with the Arthur Conan Doyle book. I know the book sequel was called "The Lost World", but if you have to segue that in there why not call it "Jurassic Park II: The Lost World"?

2) I bet they'll amp up the dino-action in a vain attempt to out-do the first one.

3) Goddamn my brain is nerdy. Is this why I suffer from crippling loneliness and girls shriek and run away from me?

The basic plot is that after the events of the first film and the park being abandoned, it comes to light that there is another island where the dinosaurs run free- "Site B". Blah, blah, blah evil nephew of the ailing John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) takes over the business and for some reason wants to take the dinosaurs from Site B and open up a Jurassic Park in San Diego, of all places. I honestly felt a bit insulted as the subtlety and (for lack of a better word) grace the first film won me over with were slapped out of my mouth with the glove of cashing-in. I don't mind sequels at all, some of them rock the shit. But in the case of "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" all the dino stomping in the World couldn't have taken away the nagging feeling that this was anything more than a wallet raping.

"Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming."

If I sound more hurt and sarcastic than normal, it's 'cos I am. The one thing that really gets to me (apart from all the other things that really get to me) is when bad sequels are made to great films and somehow the stink of the newer bastard filmic child manages to tarnish the original. I'm sure by the time you've finished reading this sentence you'll have been able to think of at least 5 instances of this.

I can't think of a nicer way to phrase this question but when did Spielberg lose his balls? (I'm not talking about his actual testicles as I've been informed by CelebNadNews.com that they're fine...) I'm talking about his guts that he displayed in "Jaws" and the like. For instance, in "Jaws" a small boy gets mercilessly munched by the shark, whereas in this film- a girl of a similar age is set upon by small dinosaurs. We assume she's a goner as the camera cuts away but we are needlessly told later she's fine. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see children hurt or killed on screen, but if you do want to make a point, don't wimp out at the last minute. At least the boy's death in "Jaws" actually meant something and drove the plot.

"Taking dinosaurs off this island is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas-and I'm gonna be there when you learn that."

There are many silly moments in the film too. The one that instantly comes to mind is Ian Malcolm's (Jeff Goldblum) gymnastic daughter swinging off poles and kung-fu kicking a raptor out of a window onto a spike. Sorry- are these the same raptors that took down an experienced game warden in the first film and an entire field of "redshirts" (Star Trek analogy- look it up) in this film? Surely the best thing to do would be to have the impaled raptor to realise he's actually got balls and savage the little, flippy kid to death.

There are some good moments in the film though. I liked the tension-filled scene where a trailer is hanging over the edge of a cliff (the slow cracking of the glass is great). As cheesy as it is, I also liked the T.Rex running amok in San Diego. However, these moments are few and far between. I can't really say it's a shame though as I was pretty sure a sequel to "Jurassic Park" wouldn't work from the beginning. I'm not playing a game of "I was right" or anything though. Really. But if we were, I so fucking am.

Jurassic Park

I would like you to consider this review to be the tell-tale drip of water that emerges through the dam wall before the whole thing comes crashing down. What I mean by this is that a fuckmothering ton of reviews are coming your way. I would also like to dedicate this review to Michael Crichton, author of the original novel who died recently after a long battle with cancer. Rest in peace, Mr. Crichton.

Jurassic Park (1993)

"Jurassic Park" was released at the perfect time for me. I was about 7 when it first came out and at the time I was obsessed with dinosaurs. I knew all the names and had plastic models which I played with a lot of the time on my own (I don't remember any friends, seems I was a lonely child...) I had heard of this film called "Jurassic Park" and begged my parents to take me to see it. However, my parents deemed it too scary and I had to wait until over a year later to watch it on VHS.

"What've they got in there, King Kong?"

The basic story is so famous I don't think you need me to recap it. Anyway, I've always loved the plot. I'm a big fan of the ol' "Frankenstein" man meddling with science idea. The same goes for the "theme park gone awry" idea that seems to be a favourite of Crichton's.

The special effects were groundbreaking, no doubt about it. The good news is, they still hold up today, although thanks to advances in technology, they aren't quite as awe-inspiring as they once were. Despite this, you can't help but break out into a grin as Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Sattler (Laura Dern) first encounter the Brachiosaurus. It's one of those moments in a film where you just know it has gone from merely entertaining to potentially classic.

Even though I've seen the film many, many times before I still jumped at the jumpy parts, mostly the ones involving the raptors. I think the raptors are incredibly well done in this film. They're fast, scary and deadly- they're like the Jurassic answer to a ninja- and everyone knows you don't fuck with a ninja. It's also nice to see Spielberg go back to his "Jaws" roots with this film as some of the "extended dread" sequences i.e. the T.Rex's escape bit are fantastically realised. It's hard not to feel a little apprehensive when the goat in the T.Rex's pen has mysteriously gone missing.

"The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me."

I really could go on and on about this film. It's brilliant and to me defines the term "blockbuster". Before I go on to my inevitable conclusion (if you don't know what it's going to be by now, you probably have trouble figuring out how doors work) I just want to mention John Williams' music. For me, the main themes he did for this film are not just great examples of the man's work but some of the greatest movie musical pieces ever. The graceful, majestic theme in particular is so damn beautiful and moving I honestly think I could never get tired of it.

Anyway, "Jurassic Park" gets a full:

I, Robot

It's time for another film review. Blah, blah, blah...opening paragraph.... So, "I, Robot" then:

I, Robot (2004)

I will pretty much watch Will Smith in anything these days. I think the guy's a great actor and has a natural comedic timing too. I remember seeing "I, Robot" when it was released on DVD and thinking that it was a fantastic film. I was impressed by the visuals, the humour and the cast. However, years have passed since then and I have been battered by the sands of cynicism and age.

"What makes your robots so much goddamn better than human beings?"

The basic plot follows the story of future cop Del Spooner (Will Smith) and his paranoia about robots (which are now commonplace). It's your standard conspiracy type film, really- just with a future setting. The thing that irritates me about the film as a whole is that it doesn't seem to know who its target audience are. I'll elaborate. The plot believes it is smarter than it is. So much so that when Dr. Calvin (Bridget Moynahan) says something supposedly clever, Spooner has to ask for a simple translation. This is clearly for all the slow-witted numbskulls out there who are just watching for all the pretty colours and loud bangs. It gets really annoying after a while. In fact, the whole film doesn't seem to "gel" together all the different elements at all, giving the film a sort of disjointed effect. On one hand we have a big budget sci-fi actioner starring Will Smith and on the other hand we have a slow burning story about conspiracies and the human condition.


Next we have the infamous product placement. I don't mind it per se but when films do it- whatever pays the bills an' all that, but when it's this obvious it grates. "Converse All-Stars Vintage 2004" is actually a line of dialogue. Shameless. I counted how many references there were to the shoes (i.e. every gratuitous shot, every line of dialogue etc) and there are 6. This works out at an average reference every 19.1 minutes. It is literally like watching a film and having some twat yell "BUY CONVERSE SHOES NOW!!" every 20 minutes or so.

"Thank you... you said someone, not something"

Don't get me wrong though, I actually like this film. This isn't me picking on bad parts of a bad film, this is me picking on bad parts that stop a good film from being great. The action is top-notch and I like the interplay between Spooner and Calvin. I love the character of Sonny most of all. Played by Alan "Some kind of God" Tudyk, he's the main reason why I believe this film was capable of true greatness. He is just genuinely likeable. His lines give us a glimpse of the subtlety and insight mostly missing from the film.

So, "I, Robot" gets a solid:

Meet the Spartans

I've had some very positive feedback on this site so far, which is nice. However, the one criticism of it is that I've been too positive i.e. only reviewing good films. I hold my hands up to this, I have. I realise that if I want to be taken seriously I have to give something a certificate in shittiness. Well, here goes:

Meet The Spartans (2008)

I remember a time when there were such things as good parodies. "Airplane!" and "The Naked Gun" are both great. Hell, even "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery" was pretty good. This film isn't. It is so awful I think I may have dropped a couple of points I.Q. wise.

"Stop kicking people into the pit of death! Honestly!"

I know it's not exactly hard to rag on a film like this. The thing that gets to me, apart from it being as funny as a kitten with cancer, is that it believes that it's funny. I cannot express how fucking infuriating that is. I watched the film online for free and I still feel cheated .The other thing that pisses me off is that it made $84,558,676 worldwide at the Box Office. 84 million Dollars?! FUCK OFF. That statistic depresses me beyond belief.

I am being completely honest when I say that whilst watching this I had to stop myself from closing the window and getting on with something less painful many times over. Yes, we get it. "300" was pretty homoerotic. Yes, Lindsay Lohan has been in rehab a couple of times. Yes, Paris Hilton is dumb. These are things we know and have known for a long time. I think I object to the fact that the film treats you like a moron from the off. So far as to have all the other characters announce the "celebrity" who is being portrayed- "Paris Hilton?!" etc.

Thing is, even the parodying is lazy. Parody as a genre already teeters on the edge of Cheapknockoffsville just to make a quick buck. However, when someone literally trips over a "Transformer Cube" you know that you're in trouble. The film made it personal when it lazily chucked out a "Casino Royale" torture scene parody. Oh, and that Britney Spears bit where she's kicked down the pit? Tasteless. I'm not a huge Britney fan, but c'mon- the woman clearly has mental health issues. At the risk of sounding Chris Crocker-like (yes, that also makes an appearance) leave her alone.

"I'm a Hilton, I don't bow... but I do bend over. "

Thing is, the idea itself isn't all bad. Well, I wouldn't have given it the "300" setting, but it is important to realise that films today tend to take themselves very seriously, even the ones with ridiculous elements (I'm looking at you "The Dark Knight"). Parody when done well is one of the greatest forms of comedy in my opinion. It's witty and cutting when done properly. This is just a lazy piece of shit thrown together with as many pop culture references as they can fit in. Even when they do reference, that's as far as it goes- no in depth humourous observations or anything.

Crap like this shows no sign of slowing down either. They are ridiculously cheap to make and always have a huge turnover at the cinema. I mean "Disaster Movie" was recently released and I'm sure there will be another one along soon. They make rubbish like this and there's still no sequel to the godly "Serenity"-there is no justice in the World. Still, if you want a "Disaster Movie" review, you know what to do.

A rating? I'm going to have to give it nothing, nada, zilch. It simply doesn't deserve one.