Wedding Crashers

After fan-wanking myself into oblivion over "Pan's Labyrinth", I figured it was time to relax, sit back and enjoy a comedy and possibly rip it to shreds. Praise the Lord then that "Wedding Crashers" came into my possession...

Wedding Crashers (2005)

Remember a time when comedies were made by people other than Judd Apatow and his seemingly endless string of financially successful yet mostly unfunny films? Yeah, me too. Believe it or not, "Wedding Crashers" has no involvement from Apatow at all. Thank God, now we'll have good scripted jokes rather than two hours of unfunny improv. Right? Well, yes and no...

"Tattoo on the lower back? Might as well be a bullseye."

The story follows John Beckwith (Owen Wilson) and Jeremy Grey (Vince Vaughn), two business men who have a unique way of scoring with the ladies- crashing weddings. After successfully crashing a few weddings, John falls for Claire Cleary (Rachel McAdams) and persues her ignoring the "get in, get out" rule of wedding crashing. Fuck it, that's all I can be arsed to type. The film's as predictable as the changing of day into night. Nearly every (figurative) corner the film turns there's another hackneyed character or plot device ready and waiting. Example? Remember the "old lady who says inappropriate things" gag? Yeah, that's in here. The "character who seems quiet and sweet but then turns out to be a sex mad nutter"? In here too. In terms of acting, Wilson and Vaughn are just playing the same characters they've always played. I'd say they've got nice chemistry and play off each other well, but that's mainly down to the fact that they know each other in real life. "Wedding Crashers" is just a paycheque to them, you can tell. Neither are particularly funny, which is a shame as both are highly capable comedic actors. I expected more of Christopher Walken too- although I'm not sure why.

I hate to drag out me ol' stuck record, but this film should be funnier. I swear, I have not seen a comedy in four or five years that has made the most of the situations and actors' talents. I think the last films to do that to my satisfaction was "The 40 Year Old Virgin" and "Borat" both of which I found to be incredibly funny. Judge me if you want. I reckon that the reason that very funny comedies aren't being made anymore is due to the fact that they are churned out with startling regularity without care or attention.

Apart from the lame "seen it all before" jokes, there are some genuinely funny lines and situations. I thought the montage of the different crashed weddings and the lies they told to get in was great. I also liked the secretive-handjob-under-the-table scene with Vaughn pulling out some funny gurns from his bag o' tricks. Special mention for Will Ferrell's funny cameo too.

"Yeah? Well, the 'proper' girl in the hat just eye-fucked the shit out of me."

All in all, "Wedding Crashers" is a functional comedy. It's the "White Lightning" of ciders- cheap, but gets the job done. I get the feeling that if it had stuck with its quite risque guns, it could have been a much better film but it ends up a predictable, unremarkable comedy.That's all I can say, really. I kinda wish it was terrible because then I could call it "crashingly boring" or something, but it isn't. It's a solid three stars from me.

Pan's Labyrinth

I don't know what's wrong with me,but I haven't wanted to see people getting shot and dying as much lately. Whilst I call the doctor and check to see if I haven't turned into a woman, here are my thoughts on Guillermo Del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth".

Pan's Labyrinth (2006)

Whilst rewatching "Pan's Labyrinth" in preparation for this review, a horrible thought occurred- "This is going to be a bitch to review." Why? Well, I'm not entirely sure. It's a fantastically well made film and more imaginative than 10 of your Harry Potters or Spiderwick Chronicles. However, it's pretty complex as well- with layers and layers differing elements all rolled into one. It's tempting to say "It's good- see it" and dust my hands and congratulate myself (that sounded cleaner in my head) ,but maybe I'm getting ahead of myself...

"Mercedes, do you believe in fairies?"

The story follows Ofelia (Ivana Baquero), a little girl obsessed with fairy tales who travels with her pregnant mother to live with her stepfather, the ruthless head of the Spanish army, Captain Vidal (Sergi López). Obviously, children and fantasy worlds go together like religion and lies but Del Toro tells it in such an original way you forget all about anything that's gone before. It's so good. The acting is all fine and dandy, but a special mention has to go to Doug Jones as the faun (not the titular Pan, as many people think) and the fucking terrifying Pale Man. He adds subtle nuances and movements to every character he plays. He's brilliant.

So, favourite scenes? Too many to go into detail here, but I have to mention the Pale Man scene. It is probably the single most tension filled scene ever. I don't say that lightly either. It's amazing. If you don't even shudder when the Pale Man starts to move, you're not human. Seriously, check your circuits, cyborg. Like all Del Toro films, the design is spectacular. It's dark, twisted and yes, magical.

I'm not entirely convinced of the whole "adult fairytale" thing. The film can be really brutal at times and it can be quite jarring. I don't have a problem with violence or brutality (in films, anyway) but I really think that without it, this film would be perfect for children. Children love dark and twisted (why do you think Roald Dahl is still popular?) and as I said before, it's a fantastic film. I want to sit down some kids in front of "Pan's Labyrinth" and say "See? This is a good film, now take your DVD of "Space Chimps" and fuck off!" So, kids can fuck off and so can those people who avoid films because they're subtitled. Ah yes, those fuckspuds who say things like "I want to watch my films, not read them!" and other equally flawed arguments. You know who you are- and guess what? I know who you are...and I'm coming to get you. The Spanish language adds a great lyrical quality to the film.

"Hello. I am Princess Moanna- and I am not afraid of you."

I can't really think of anything else to say about "Pan's Labyrinth". It's a spectacular, enthralling film that reminded me why I like films. If you haven't seen it, shame on you.

Son of Rambow

Seems I'm on a bit of a Britflick roll at the moment. Fair enough, this is only the second in a row and I'm not going to review another one after, but ignore that and we'll all be better for it.

Son of Rambow (2008)

What is it about films not living up to their premises? "Jumper" had an awesome teleportation gimmick but somehow made it boring. Also...other films have been released that support my point. My main argument is that whilst not "Jumper" or other films bad, "Son of Rambow" does disappoint a little.

"Skills on toast"

The story follows two schoolboys, Will Proudfoot (Bill Milner) and Lee Carter (Will Poulter), from completely different backgrounds who get inspired to make a home movie after watching "First Blood" on pirated video. As I mentioned above, the premise is great- but the execution is only semi-great. It's not through bad acting or anything as the two child leads are fantastic. So good in fact, it makes me a bit jealous that I wasn't a good actor. Goddamn their talented ways!

Just for once I'd like to see some screwed up kids on screen where the parents and family aren't to blame. Sure, bad parentage can turn a child into a jerk, but sometimes kids can just be twatjockeys for the hell of it. I've met the parents of some right dickheads in my time and they seem perfectly nice. With that ramble over, I'll try and get back to the original point. Will is shy and retreating because of his heavily religious mother and deceased father. Lee plays up at school and is always in some sort of trouble because of an absent mother and an arsehole older brother. It's tired and predictable, which is a shame because the film nails other realistic aspects and tweaks the right nostalgia knobs (fnarr, fnarr) Well, that is to say the realism is present through most of the film but then it does something massively cartoonish and slapstick. The tone is all over the place. This isn't really a bad thing, but I get the feeling that if it settled on one tone it'd make easier viewing.

I love the idea of a sheltered child's first real contact with television being "First Blood". I remember seeing "First Blood" when I was a couple of years older than Will and being blown away by Stallone's killing machine. See? That's what "Son of Rambow" does very well- make you all nostalgic and misty-eyed. I mean, the film is set three years before I was born and I'm still remeniscing about all things kid-ular. I really like the daydream sequences that look like a hyperactive 7 year old has scribbled over the screen in coloured crayons. The character of French exchange student, Didier (Jules Sitruk) is funny, but not as funny as the film thinks he is. I liked the little twist at the end for Didier as it added some genuine empathy for the character. Plus, Jessica Hynes (née Stevenson- you know- Daisy in "Spaced") is in it too and that's always nice. Same goes for a quick Adam Buxton cameo as a teacher with an entirely rational fear of airborne canines.

The words "should be funnier" kept going round and round in my mind when watching it. I couldn't help but feel that if some big, decent jokes were sprinkled liberally throughout the script, the film would improve greatly. It is quite funny, don't get me wrong- but it's not in a laugh out loud way (or "LOL" way if you are 14 and leave retarded comments on YouTube)

"Au revoir...Angleterre"

"Son of Rambow" is good. However, I do think that there should be more humour in it and just by adding that little bit more it could be amazing. Having said all that, it's a touching, sweet film that will tap into your inner child if you let it.

Slumdog Millionaire

I'm not all about action/comedy. Fair enough, if you peruse the ever-growing catalogue of films on here, you won't find much to prove otherwise but shut up, I'm trying to look more intelligent. Point being, it's time to review "Slumdog Squarepants Millionaire":

Slumdog Millionaire (2009)

"Slumdog Millionaire" is a tough sell to people who aren't "up" on film news/award nominations. You find yourself in the awkward position of trying to describe the premise whilst simultaneously trying to make it sound interesting. You end up saying something like "Well, it's about this kid from the Mumbai slums who goes on the Indian version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" and wins big, before being accused of cheating" It's normally right around the point that you finish saying the game show title that you feel like a complete tithead. Does this mean that in 2012 we're going to have a heartwarming story based around "The Weakest Link"? A taut action thriller based on "Deal or No Deal"? Where do you draw the line?

"When somebody asks me a question, I tell them the answer."

As aforementioned, the story focuses on Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) a chai wallah (basically, "tea boy") for a telemarketing company in Mumbai who ends up facing Prem Kumar (Anil Kapoor) the Indian equivalent of Chris Tarrant in the "...Millionaire" hotseat. Jamal is accused of foul play and he is taken in for questioning. He then begins to recount just how a simple "slumdog" could know all the answers. The story is fantastic. Before seeing it I wasn't convinced that the "...Millionaire" game show idea would organically blend with the story, but I was wrong. It acts as the perfect framing device for Jamal's flashbacks over his eventful and often tragic life. Dev Patel is no longer just "that kid from Skins" to me, he's an accomplished and gifted young actor who I hope has a great career ahead of him. Frieda Pinto (who plays love interest, Latika) is also one of the most beautiful and talented people you'll see on screen this year.

Before going into the cinema, I clocked the poster advertising it, boldy proclaiming it is "the feel-good film of the decade". I disrespectfully disagree (considering it's from "News of the World") . It really isn't. There are some genuinely horrible and harrowing moments in this film. Without giving too much away, when Jamal nearly loses his sight, I was on the edge of my seat, praying that what I thought was going to transpire, didn't transpire. If that's slightly confusing I apologise, but I want you to go into this film spoiler-free, because I know it's one of those films that is best when you have no idea what is going on at times. I didn't even see the trailer for this film but that was more to do with luck rather than me strapping on my anti-spoiler suit. Going back to the poster, why does it look like the poster from "Wimbledon"? If you go in expecting some kind of romcom with an Indian twist, you're going to be disappointed, let me tell you. It's so much better than that.

Favourite scenes? Erm... it's hard to say in a film like this as I liked them all. There wasn't a scene out of place or that didn't add to the plot in some way. It's masterfully done by consistently overlooked director Danny Boyle, who makes you proud to be British. Some of the aerial shots of the slums coupled with the images of the dump that the children are working in will be burned on my brain for a long time to come.

"I thought we'd be together only in death."

I've heard some complaints about the fact that the film isn't realistic, with those insufferable pseudo-intellectuals telling you that it couldn't happen. Ironically, in their effort to try and make themselves look intelligent, they've missed the entire point of the film and made themselves look like a fucking idiot. As far as I understand it, it's a modern parable- a fairytale that literally interprets the phrase "rags to riches" and gives us one of the most unique, brutal, harrowing, heart-warming, funny films I have seen and probably will see in a long, long time.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Predictably, it's Golden Army time. I want you to know it was very hard for me to avoid all the Hell, fire and devil puns last time and it will be doubly hard this time. Just so you appreciate what I do for you people...

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

I had a horrible feeling that "Hellboy II" was going to suck Satan's willy. Having been made a fan of the whole Hellboy mythos by the first film and despite my excitement at the news a sequel was going to be released, I had that horrible niggling doubt that it would try and be *shudder* bigger and better. After all, we are all aware of the fact that no matter how good the first film is, there is always room for someone to balls it up.

"Sit down. Proud, empty, hollow things that you are! Let this remind you why you once feared the dark."

The story follows Hellboy (Ron Perlman) who is struggling in his relationship with Liz (Selma Blair). Amid the domestic troubles, an evil prince- Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) plans to awaken "70 times 70" massive, mechanical soldiers known as the Golden Army to get back at humanity. Once again, it's a decent story with enough depth and opportunity for decent scenes and exchanges. Again, Perlman is great as Hellboy, enough said. This time round, I have a slight problem with Abe Sapien (Doug Jones). I still love the character, but in this film he's not voiced by David Hyde Pierce, but Jones as well. They have similar voices, but I can't help but feel that Abe would be even better with Niles Crane's distinctive voice. All this is not to discredit Jones, who does a fantastic job embodying not only Abe Sapien but the characters of the Chamberlain and the terrifying yet oddly beautiful Angel of Death. I thought Goss' villain was very good and I was able to look past the fact that he was British because he was so badass. My dislike of voices seemed to be the theme of this film as I loved BPRD newcomer Johann Krauss but I hated the stupid stereotypical German accent Seth "Family Guy" MacFarlane gave him.

The thing that first struck me about the film is its design. Normally I couldn't give two fucks about design except in films like the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, but "Hellboy II" demanded my attention. It's jaw-droppingly beautiful. It's not just the sets and locales either. The characters are remarkably well-designed-to get an idea of what I mean, check out the design on a creature called The Tooth Fairy -kind of cute, eh? Wait 'till you see what it can do to a person. There's a troll marketplace scene where I wished I had more than two eyes to take in everything that was happening. I think I even saw one creature carrying round a giant set of dentures, I kid you not.

There are some great scenes too. There is a fantastic flashback where Professor Broom (John Hurt) is telling the young and ridiculously toothed Hellboy the story of the Golden Army in the form of crude wooden dolls. It's fantastically done and really draws you in. My favourite (non action) scene is the drunken sing-along to Barry Manilow's "Can't Smile Without You". It's genuinely funny and nice to see a change of pace amidst all the prophecy talk and such. The scene where Hellboy (Invisotexted) kills the Forest God is achingly beautiful and surprisingly sad at the same time.

There are some bad points too. I didn't like the sloppy way they dealt with the character of Myers not appearing in this film as I really liked him in the first one. The film also seems to be ripping off "Men in Black" in places, especially the first walkthrough of BPRD headquarters with all sorts of weird demon stuff going on in the background. I felt that after "bigging up" the supposedly invincible and unstoppable Golden Army they were dealt with pretty quickly. In terms of nit-picks, why wasn't Liz's fire blue like in the first film? I thought it was a nice original twist on the whole fire thing in the original, but now she looks like a Human Torch wannabe.

"I'm not a baby. I'm a tumour"

In broad terms "Hellboy II" is pretty much an amalgam of "Blade II" and "Pan's Labyrinth"- and yes, that is a recommendation. See it and then be pleased that the man who directed this is working on the forthcoming film adaptation of "The Hobbit". Permission to be excited granted.

Hellboy

After a week or so off, I figured I should try and catch up on my reviewing by taking a look at the two "Hellboy" films. First up, the obligatory origin story:

Hellboy (2004)

Just because I'm a bit of a geek, people expect me to have heard of every single comic book commodity out there. Well, I have no shame in admitting that I had never heard of the "Hellboy" series before the 2004 film. As far as I can gather, it's a bit of a "cult" title anyway, rather than the super-famous ones I know and have read.

"If there's trouble, all us freaks have is each other."

The basic story starts in 1944, during the last part of World War II, where the Nazis have turned to black magic to try and enslave the World. The Nazis enlist the help of Grigori Rasputin (Karel Roden) who opens a portal to another dimension. Fighting ensues and the portal is closed, but an ape-like devil boy is left in our World. He is adopted by Professor Broom (John Hurt) and becomes the centre of the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defence (BPRD) along with Abe Sapien (Doug Jones/ David Hyde-Pierce) and later, Liz Sherman (Selma Blair). We flash to present day and follow Agent Myers (Rupert Evans) as he is assigned to the Bureau. However, those pesky Nazis and seemingly unkillable Russians are at it again and it's up to Hellboy (Ron Perlman) and the rest of the BPRD to stop them. As stories go, I liked it. It's got a dash of X-Men here (mutants/ "freaks" sticking together) and a bit of supernatural/ religious stuff there all add up to an interesting story. As a comic book fan in general, this is the sort of thing I love reading and subsequently watching. It's good.

I love Ron Perlman as Hellboy. As I've said, I never read the comics so I have no real clue as to how faithful he is to the character, although the general consensus from Hellboy fans is that he does a good job. Perlman just IS Hellboy. He's a joy to watch, quipping sardonic one-liners in between puffing on cigars and shooting guns the size of a toddler. I really liked Abe Sapien too, with the combined efforts of Doug Jones and David Hyde Pierce bringing the fantastic fish creature to life. The one character that stood above everyone else in my opinion was Karl Ruprecht Kroenen (Ladislav Beran) a double knife wielding, gas mask wearing, surgery addicted Nazi assassin, who is so damn cool, the word "badass" fails to do justice to him. I mean, just look at him! The look of this film is amazing. Everything is just so damn stylised. I really am becoming a massive fan of director Guillermo Del Toro, mainly because he's so visually driven. When watching this film, it's easy to see where the kernel for "Pan's Labyrinth" came from.

In terms of scenes, there are some highly enjoyable ones throughout. I love the scene where a jealous Hellboy spies on Liz and Myers out for coffee. I don't know why, but the thought of a childish muscley devil really makes me chuckle. Whilst not so much a scene, I really like the little moment where the usually antagonistic director of the BPRD, Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor) teaches Hellboy to light his cigars with a wooden match instead of a lighter. It's a nice, understated moment that really stood out for me. I'm a big fan of the subway fight between Hellboy and Sammael demon too. My main problem with the film is the choice of villain. While Rasputin is fine, I'm not a fan of the tentacle-y Sammael hellhounds. They just don't work for me. The final fight in this (surprisingly long) film is just Hellboy vs a feckin' massive CGI tentacle monster- which is a bit underwhelming. They really should have made more use of Kroenen.

"Unique. That is a word you will hear frequently around here."

Anyway, all in all "Hellboy" is an above average film. It's got a great balance of action, horror and humour to appeal to most people. Definitely worth checking out.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

With this review, I've pretty much reviewed the entirety of Summer 2008 with the exception of "Hancock" and all the films I didn't see. With that completely pointless sentence, it's time to review "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

I know I normally say how much I looked forward to a film prior to its release, but I can honestly say that I wasn't looking forward to "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (hereby referred to as "KOTCS"). To me, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is as close to perfection as a film can get, "Temple of Doom" is O.K. but nothing special and "Last Crusade" pulled the series back with the duo of Indy and his father. It seemed like "KOTCS" was simply a cash-in and would do nothing to further the story of Henry Jones Jr. (or Indiana to you and me) I think it was morbid curiosity that finally got me to go and see the film in the end. Anyway...

"You know, for an old man you ain't bad in a fight. What are you, like 80?"

The plot follows a much older Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) as he is captured and taken to Area 51 with his accomplice Mac (Ray Winstone). It is here that Dr. Jones meets severely-fringed Communist Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) who forces Indy to find a certain artefact captured from Roswell, New Mexico. As the story progresses, Indy also comes into contact with Mutt (Shia LaBeouf), a greaser who needs his help to find his kidnapped mother. As plots go, it's not the best. For example, the MacGuffin in this film, the titular crystal skull, is a bit rubbish- not to mention massive. I know the size of an object seems like an odd thing to complain about, but it's a constant distraction to have one of the characters on-screen hulking this huge crystal lump about. Imagine if the MacGuffin was a plot-important wardrobe or oven that the characters have to carry everywhere and you'll get my meaning. Harrison Ford is still good as Indy. Like everyone, I had concerns that he was too old for the role- but I think he answered his critics by showing them that even though he's in his mid-sixties, he can still whip-crack with the best of 'em. I quite liked Shia LaBeouf too. He's a great actor and holds his own in scenes with veteran actors like Ford and John Hurt. The only person who annoyed me a bit was Karen Allen's return as Marion Ravenwood from "Raiders..." However, I think this is due to sloppy writing rather than bad acting on her part.

The one thing that was ringing in my ears throughout the film was Spielberg's promise that he was taking it "back to basics" and limiting computer generated effects in favour of old-school practical stunts. My heart sank literally two minutes in when the Paramount logo dissolved into a dirtmound and a shitty CGI prairie dog. I swear that this film was preoccupied with CGI beasties. We have poorly rendered versions of prairie dogs, scorpions, ants and monkeys throughout the film. I don't know whether Lucas and Spielberg were just joking about or not but it's fucking stupid. I can understand the use of CGI for explosions or to augment stunts, but to waste it on superfluous crap like unimportant prairie dogs is silly and a waste of money. I also have a problem with the title itself. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is way too long and unmemorable. What annoys me is that in the build up to this film being made, far superior titles like "Indiana Jones and the City of Gods" and "Indiana Jones and the Destroyer of Worlds" were considered and registered to throw the ravenous Internet fanboys off the scent. Why this film isn't "...City of Gods" I'll never know.

In terms of scenes, let's get the bad out of the way first. The infamous "nuking the fridge" scene was a bit too silly for my liking, but not as bad as the Internet would have you believe. When Mutt swings on vines surrounded by CGI monkeys, I had a horrible feeling that as bad as that was, the worst was yet to come. As usual, I was proved right when that ending reared it's ugly head. I'm sure you've heard about it but just in case, I'll Invisotext the next bit (highlight to read)

I'm not against the idea of aliens in an Indiana Jones film. Funnily enough, if you think about it, "KOTCS" is probably the most realistic of the Indy films, considering "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" are all about the infinite power of God and "Temple of Doom" is about magic stones or some shit. I think the whole "B" movie feel suited the film well, considering it's set in the late Fifties. However, I do have a problem with how sloppily the alien thing was handled. At no point in an Indiana Jones film do I want to see a fully-fledged CGI alien that looks like something from "South Park".

The main thing that bugged me was driven home when Mac says the line "This is very dangerous" mid-car chase. That's the thing though. It isn't. There is no peril whatsoever in this film. I don't know whether it's the overuse of CGI or what, but I never believed for a second that our hero and his cohorts were in any danger at all. This is a massive failing as an Indy film without peril is like an Adam Sandler film without long stretches of tedium-unthinkable.

"What exactly am I being accused of, other than surviving a nuclear explosion?"

Having said all that I still enjoyed "KOTCS". It's fun and there are some great scenes such as the opening warehouse chase and the Peruvian graveyard sequence that kept me entertained. I didn't want to be merely entertained, though- I wanted to be thrilled by my first experience of seeing Indiana Jones on the big screen. Now the disappointment has died down and I've watched it on a considerably smaller screen I can confidently say this film deserves three stars.

Pineapple Express

I've been promising a "Pineapple Express" review since last year and today I can finally deliver on that promise. Is it worth the wait? Find out thusly...

Pineapple Express (2008)

As some of you know, I didn't get to see this film in the cinema, thanks to car troubles and the like. In the time between its cinema and DVD releases I've had at least 20 people ask me if I've seen "Pineapple Express". Until today, the answer was "No" and "Fuck off", now I can proudly say I have indeed seen it and offer some thoughts on it. I suppose the main question is "Was it worth the wait?". I'll try and answer the best I can.

"You're in the jungle now, baby!"

The story follows stoner Dale Denton (Seth Rogen, in his 500th film of 2008) who witnesses a murder. Panicked, he goes to his dealer, Saul (James Franco) and the pair end up going on the run. I actually liked the story, as I thought the idea of two stoners caught up in a highly dangerous and action-packed adventure was a good one. Of course, the "stoner film" isn't a new idea as they were born in the late Seventies with Cheech and Chong's "Up in Smoke".More recent attempts to revive the genre include the god-awful "Harold and Kumar" films. So now it's up to the Apatow team to have a go at flogging an expired equine. My one problem with the "stoner" genre is that because I'm not one, it seems like a lot of the jokes go over my head. It all feels like an in-joke that I'm not part of. However, "Pineapple Express" has enough accessible humour for that exclusion to not be a problem.

It's safe to say I'm not the biggest Seth Rogen fan in the World. It's not that I don't like the guy, it's just that he plays the same frickin' character no matter what he's in with only minor details changed. Having said that, Rogen's character in "Knocked Up" and his character here are pratically the same, the only real difference being what their job is. So, 10 minutes into "Pineapple Express", I wasn't feeling it. It was just Rogen doing his Rogen stuff. However, all my cynicism faded away when we met James Franco's character, Saul, who in my mind is one of the funniest comedy characters in a long time. He's your average stoner with a heart of gold, who reveals the only reason he got into dealing is to pay for his grandmother's retirement home, all together now- Aww! The main surprise of the film is surely the fact that James Franco is a natural comedian as he's mostly known for scowling his way through the "Spider-Man" trilogy as Harry Osborn. I'm sure Saul will be his springboard onto more comedic roles. I also really liked the character of Red (Danny McBride), an odd character with a Wile E. Coyote- like ability to withstand huge amount of punishment. The action is suprisingly good too, with an apartment fight, an accomplished car chase and a climactic shoot-out all thrown into the mix.

The main question of any comedy is "Is it funny?" and yes, it is. There are some great lines and scenes throughout. Some personal favourites include the scene in the woods and the fight at Red's house, which is not only brilliantly choreographed but hilarious too. I also laughed an embarrassing amount at the scene where Dale and Saul are selling the titular drug to a bunch of schoolchildren -as politically incorrect as it is funny. However, there are some really unfunny moments too. One instance that springs to mind is the bit when Saul smashes a coffee pot into a hitman's face. The following shot shows the hitman on the floor, with his hands covering his face, bleeding and sobbing. I'm sorry- but that's not funny in the slightest. I don't mind people getting hit upside the head with bongs or fire extinguishers, but when you show the consequences of them in a supposedly funny film, it takes you right out of it.

"What’s down there, a fucking Rancor?"

Overall, "Pineapple Express" is a good film. I do get the feeling (as I do with most comedies these days) that it's not as funny as it should be, which is surely a big failing for a comedy film. Thing is, the film has enough funny lines, action sequences and Saul to make even the most miserable git crack a smile. So, I give it a good, solid three stars with a sidenote that you should add an extra star if you're a stoner.

The Matrix Revolutions

Right, time to round off the reviews of "The Matrix" with my perspective on "The Matrix Revolutions". Surely it can't be worse than "Reloaded" was? Right? Er...

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

I'm starting to like sequels less and less. For every "Dark Knight", there are about fifty "At World's End"s. Unfortunately, "Revolutions" is the from the latter category. Actually, it's scarily like "At World's End" in a number of ways.

"Everything that has a beginning has an end. I see the end coming, I see the darkness spreading. I see death."

The plot follows on directly where "Reloaded" left off. Neo (Keanu Reeves) is seemingly in a coma after stopping Sentinels with his mind in the Real World- however, we learn that he is actually stuck in limbo between the Matrix and the Real World. Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) continues to replicate himself in the Matrix and has managed to infiltrate Zion too, in the form of Bane (Ian Bliss) who is also in a coma. The machines are still tunnelling down towards Zion and the humans are preparing for war. Add in a crisis of faith for Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) and a hojillion other characters, some introduced in "Reloaded" and others not and you've got a bit of a mess on your hands. The actor comments are exactly the same as in my "Reloaded" review- nothing much changes, except that Reeves has now perfected the act of listening to a long, technical speech, pausing and then asking a simple question like "Why?" or "Where?". The only new people of note are Ian Bliss, who does a brilliant Hugo Weaving impression and Mary Alice- the new Oracle, replacing Gloria Foster who tragically died before filming was completed. However, whilst the Foster's Oracle gave off that friendly grandmother vibe, Alice's Oracle seems the type of grandmother to tell you to sit up straight and chastise you for not calling more often. Odd point, I know.

"Revolutions" is more action-orientated than "Reloaded", however it seems in the rush to give you more bang for your buck, the Wachowskis have started to repeat themselves. The gun battle in the fetish club plays out like an uninspired lobby rip-off from "The Matrix", the only difference being that the bad guys fight on the ceiling. I really dislike the final Smith/Neo fight too, where it turns into a sort of "Dragonball Z" type thing where people can fly and mere punches send massive shockwaves out. It's all a bit too silly. I'm fine with the suspension of disbelief but when two characters who were so grounded in the first one, are flying and knocking the crap out of each other whilst it rains like an afternoon in Cardiff, I start to lose it. The real world fight between Neo and Bane/Smith earlier in the film is much better and shows up the finale for what it is - an overindulgent SFX mess.

"It was, after all, it was your life that taught me the purpose of all life. The purpose of life is to end."

To be honest, I don't like a lot of "Revolutions". It just ends up being just another sci-fi film with unintentionally funny, repetitive dialogue, instead of this epic trilogy that was promised circa 2002. The one thing I hate about the sequels is the mythical/psychological/technological crap that both films are laden down with. Yes, "The Matrix" had these things too, what with introducing place names like "Zion" and character names like "Morpheus"- the difference is that in "The Matrix", it was there if you wanted to find it, whereas in both "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" - the Wachowskis try and cram all this stuff down your throat, making you feel overwhelmed and them look pretentious and twattish. Sorry Wachowskis, but you lost me at "systemic anomaly".

The Matrix Reloaded

Predictably, it's time to review the second film in "The Matrix" trilogy. Let's reload before the revolutions begin...

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

After having my brain and face melted by the awesomeness of "The Matrix", you could imagine how I felt when they announced they were filming two sequels back-to-back. I was so damn excited. Not only would there be more amazing fights and effects, but I was old enough to see them in the cinema! I felt like the luckiest person ever. Then I actually saw "...Reloaded". I think that something snapped in my brain, because I was massively disappointed, but somehow convinced myself it was the best film ever. Well, not any more! Today I break my silence, today I stand up tall, today I honestly convey what I think of "The Matrix Reloaded"!

"We are here because of you, Mr Anderson. We're here to take from you what you tried to take from us."

It's funny how "The Matrix" series and the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series mirror each other. You get the sleeper hit of the first one, which becomes ridiculously popular on Video/DVD. Then some odious film fucks decide that they don't have enough mountains of Coke at their parties so they commission sequels to be filmed back-to-back. The second one is ridiculously complicated and sours hopes for the third one. The third one is released and somehow manages to fall below even the lowest expectations of the World-weary audience. What's that? A plot summary? Good luck. The film is way too convoluted. Basically, Neo (Keanu Reeves) is the One and can shape everything in the Matrix (i.e. the World we live in) to his will. He can defeat Agents, fly, but somehow still can't act. Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) is also still inexplicably in love with him. Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) is somehow back and can now replicate himself. Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) is also in the mix somewhere.

I think the key word to describe "Reloaded" is "overambitious". There are some truly great ideas here, but they are dealt with in a sloppy way. A prime example of this was the much hyped "Burly Brawl" in which Neo takes on hundreds of Agent Smiths. It's a fantastic concept, but there were limits to the technology and the fight goes from an ingenious scrap between 10 Smiths and Neo, to a video game cutscene featuring a block of pixels vaguely resembling Keanu Reeves. Six years on, I'm still sure that it couldn't be pulled off convincingly with today's technology. It's a case of big idea, limited means.

One of the biggest mistakes "Reloaded" makes is that we spend too much time in "the real World", i.e. a scummy, muddy cave city called Zion where they have sweaty slow-motion raves to shitty music. It's really boring. When we were in the real World in "The Matrix", it was passable because the characters were interesting enough to make us want to know more about them. Thing is, they pretty much killed all the interesting characters in the first one, so that sucks balls. Speaking of which- a Trinity/Neo sex scene? Who's bright idea was that? It would be O.K. if it wasn't so embarrassingly done. I know the scene is there to prove to us that Trinity and Neo are a loving couple- and that's fine. However, the way it's done comes across as one of those foreign "art" films where they all get naked and shag in low-level lighting to odd music. (Sigh)

A lot that the scenes I like in "Reloaded" are often the lower-key ones. I liked seeing the Oracle (Gloria Foster) again, eventhough her lines are nowhere near as good as they were in the first one. I also liked the one-on-one fight between Neo and Seraph (Collin Chou). In fact, the thing I liked most about the huge freeway sequence was the Morpheus/Agent fight on top of a truck. It's very well done. Clearly a lot of work (and money) went into the freeway sequence. It's huge in scale. However, it says a lot that my favourite bit wasn't any of the car flipping or the bike racing, but some good old fashioned fisticuffs on top of a truck. Maybe they should have concentrated on that rather than all this superfluous stuff. Talking of superfluous, the Twins- why were they in it? Completely wasted potential as I liked their unique gimmick of becoming all transparent and ghost-like at will. They were British though, so they reminded me Hollywood can go fuck itself.

"Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without."

I can't review this film without talking about the infamous "Architect" scene. What the fuck is Colonel Sanders on about? I'm not stupid but I found myself getting lost in the sea of elongated words and mini T.V. Neos. Much like the rest of the film it's abstruse (see what happens when you use words that people don't generally know? You're taken right out of it...)

"Reloaded" was never going to live up to being a worthy successor to "The Matrix". It just couldn't have the impact that the first film had. It sacrifices the human element for action and then expects you to pay attention when it's talking about all its religious/mythological bullshit parallels. I therefore give it an average 3 stars. Ergo! Vis-a-vis! Concordantly!

The Matrix

Happy new year to you all. I realise that I've been slacking off lately, what with no updates in over a week. This is disgraceful and I shall correct this by reviewing "The Matrix" trilogy. Let's start with the first film in the series, shall we?

The Matrix (1999)

1999 was an odd year. It was a year where fear of "The Millennium Bug" was a genuine concern and not just a laughable notion. It was also the year that Benjamin Jack Browne III Esq. turned 13 and his outlook and life and films was starting to change. I was bought "The Matrix" on video for my birthday and it blew my mind. As soon as I finished watching it, my friend and I rewound it and watched it again. It is hard to describe how taken with this film I was, but let's just say I was trying to bend spoons for the next few months.

"What is the Matrix?"

The story follows Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves) aka the computer hacker "Neo"- a man obsessed with finding the mysterious individual known as Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne). Also Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) and Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) are in it. To be honest, I think nearly everyone has seen this film, so I won't bother with a redundant plot summary. I'm tempted to use the phrase "modern classic", but since this film is almost 10 (!) years old now, maybe it has moved in purely "classic" status. The concept is amazing. I mean, we've all questioned the nature of our reality- it's a human trait. Films have explored this idea too, but I think that "The Matrix" is one of the only ones to have done it successfully (the only other one that comes to mind is "The Truman Show"). In terms of acting, Keanu Reeves can't. We know this to be true and yet his lack of skill in the field of thespianism doesn't annoy me in this film. I'm not sure if it's because he's not given much to do or what, but I can completely look past all his flaws and just watch the story unfold. You just know a film is good when it's possible to overlook a bad actor, let alone a bad lead actor. Everyone else is great, but the stand out performance by far is Weaving's Agent Smith. He's got an amazing drawl - "Mr. Aaaaanderson..." and he's a bastard to boot. Brilliant stuff.

I have a vivid memory of the beginning of "The Matrix". When Trinity jumped, hung in mid-air for a second as the camera panned round and then delivered a massive kick to two policemen, my jaw hit the floor and I uttered a very soft but assured "Holy fuck!" Evidently, many filmmakers felt the same as ,arguably, a new way of big-budget filmmaking had just been born. As I was watching through the film recently, I kept forgetting how many good bits there were, be it a line of dialogue or a frackin' awesome fight scene. The one thing that bugged me about it wasn't really the film's fault. Unfortunately, the film seems like a parody of itself at times- what with "Bullet Time" and Matrix parodies cropping up in everything in the early Noughties. It hasn't stopped either- what with shitty daytime T.V. ads even going as far as to rip off the "Guns...lots of guns" scene- proof here. Yes, thank you so much you advert bastards, when I'm watching a film I clearly want to be reminded of your shitty comparison rip-off crap halfway through (!) Wankers.

Favourite scenes of mine include the famous lobby sequence in which Neo and Trinity turn a shiny marble Government lobby into dust and debris with the aid of several thousand bullets and some flashy wire-fu moves. I love the subway showdown between Neo and Smith too. The brutality and "down and dirty" nature of it really appeals to me. You feel every punch and kick- it's great.

"I know kung fu"

I'm running out of things to say. Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), you've probably seen "The Matrix" and probably know every line and occurance like I do. I'm so glad that almost ten years on, I still think it's a fantastic film. Let's hope it still holds up in another ten.