Bolt

Well, shit-nearly forgot about this film after I kept pushing it back for certain films starring a blue glowy superhero guy with his celestial bits out and a drunkard down-and-out superhero. So now for something completely different- a film about a dog with superpowers. Yes.

Bolt (2008)

What is it about Pixar? They can take a big, manly man like me and over the course of a surprisingly good and magical film change him into a horrible, girly wreck who uses words like "cute" to describe the film with no hint of irony. Well, unfortunately Pixar had very little to do with this film- although head honcho John Lasseter was drafted in for a few pointers.

"You're beyond awesome! You're... be-awesome!"

A girl named Penny (Miley Cyrus) and her dog Bolt (John Travolta) star on a hit television series called appropriately enough,"Bolt" in which the titular character has various superpowers and must constantly thwart the evil plans of the nefarious Doctor Calico (Malcolm McDowell). Due to a crazy producer, Bolt has lived his entire life on a soundstage and believes he really is his fictional counterpart and possesses superpowers. After filming completes for one episode, Bolt escapes from his on-set trailer mistakenly believing Penny has been kidnapped by the television villain. The story is pretty good. It's the standard "believe in yourself" malarkey, but as it's Disney, it's forgivable. After all, if the Mouse House can't pump cheesy morals and ideals into impressionable children, who can? It plays out like a kid-friendly version of "The Truman Show", which is by no means a bad thing. As with most animated films these days, the voice acting is top-notch too.

Truth be told, I enjoyed "Bolt", but I kept getting the feeling that with a little Pixar magic it could have been truly great. There are some great ideas here, such as the delusional Bolt believing that his powers aren't working due to Styrofoam peanuts in a Superman/Kryptonite type way. However, the best part of "Bolt" is the superfan hamster Rhino (Mark Walton) who is a clear frontrunner for my "Talking Animated Rodent of the Year" award. I felt that Mittens (Susie Essman) was a bit underused and her story of human neglect was just a rehash of Jessie's tale of woe in "Toy Story 2" Still, it's not as if Disney can be accused of repetition and recycling is it?

"How do you say "No way I'm doing this" in crazy?"

I was lucky enough to see "Bolt" in 3D and I suggest you do too. The days of the ridiculous red and blue lens glasses are gone and a new era of black-tinted ridiculous glasses has begun! What i liked about the 3D presentation of "Bolt" was the fact that it wasn't all "things poking out of the screen at you" and added some genuine (well, as genuine as an optical illusion can be) depth to the film, in both senses of the word. So, last words. Go and see "Bolt". It's not the best animated flick ever, but it's damn enjoyable nonetheless. Be aware though, you will have to sit through the awful "Cars" short "Tokyo Mater" beforehand though- that's 10 minutes of my life I won't get back...

Watchmen

All the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Review Watchmen!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No."
...
...
...

Oh, alright then.

Watchmen (2009)

You've got to hand it to director Zack Snyder. Dude got some balls. Both in a testicular sense and the fact that he decided to take on a supposedly "unfilmable" comic held in ridiculously high regard and make a big Hollywood production out of it. Whether this was a good idea or not is up for debate.

"Rorschach's Journal: October 12th 1985. Tonight, a comedian died in New York."

Set in an alternate 1985, a retired superhero called The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is thrown out of a high-rise apartment window to his death. Fearing some kind of secret plot to bump off other costumed heroes, a vigilante known as Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) starts to investigate. Okay, the plot summary sounds about as hackneyed as you can get, but that's my fault rather than the film's. The plot is multi-threaded and dense, just like the comic. Honestly, the plot is amazing. I liked the casting choices too, so no disappointments on that front.

The film sticks amazingly close to the comic. Nearly every single panel is recreated and every line of dialogue is present here. It's very clear that Snyder loves the source material, which is admirable. However, I think he gets a little too overexcited at prospect of directing something which means so much to him. "Watchmen" has always been a reflection of popular culture and the film is no different. However, where the comic was subtle, the film is smack-in-the-face obvious- which is a shame. Snyder's use of music too, irked me a little. Did we really need Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" playing over Dr. Manhattan stomping his way through Vietnam? This film is no "Apocalypse Now" and to have that piece of music over that setting seemed way too clichéd for my liking. Most of the songs seem very out of place due to the fact that they're so recognisable. I understand that Snyder wants to give us an aural sense of popular culture too, but he could have been less heavy-handed with the whole thing, without seemingly crowbarring them into the start of nearly every scene.

The slow-motion thing annoyed me too. It is a stylish tool when used sparingly, but Snyder uses it all the damn time. It like when you're playing "Mortal Kombat","Street Fighter" and the like with your mate and he keeps using the same fucking move that wipes you out over and over again. At first, you're slightly taken aback and almost congratulatory, but by the fifth time you want to reach across and punch him in his stupid face. Whilst I'm not threatening physical violence against Mr. Snyder, I do wish that he could have kept his finger off the slo-mo button for a least a while. In terms of specifics, the Rorschach apartment scene was odd. Mainly because it's pretty much a carbon copy of Marv's apartment escape scene in "Sin City". Fan favourite character gets framed for murder, keeps cops at bay with bad-assery and eventually jumps out of a window. I swear even some of the shots are the same. I'm not sure whether "Sin City" was referencing the "Watchmen" graphic novel with Marv's scene or what, but the similarities are pretty clear.

However, all the above are minor niggles when compared to the following point. I don't think "Watchmen" works as a film. As a comic book, it acts as part parody, part political story filled with layers upon layers of meaning and satire. However, as a film, the very act of not reading it takes you away from the way it's meant to be experienced. It's like if a parody film like "Airplane!" or "The Naked Gun" were faithfully turned into graphic novels with every frame and every line of dialogue present. They'd still be funny, but you're missing an important part of the parody itself. In simple terms, for a parody comic to fully work as a parody, you need to be able to turn the pages and read it as one. When translated to film, this is obviously lost.

"You people don't understand. I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with ME!"

I've been really indecisive over what to give "Watchmen". I enjoyed it but I get the feeling I would have been lost if I hadn't read the comic first. My advice is to read the brilliant source material before going to see the film. At least that way the film acts as a companion piece to the comic, rather than the other way round. I'm going to give it four stars, but definitely knock off a star or two if you haven't read the comic.

Reign of Fire

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the magic you feel in the air is completely intentional. Things are different. This is because I am going to embark on my first (and thus far only) requested review. So, let's go down, down, down into "Reign of Fire". (I know it's "Ring of Fire" you pedants...)

Reign of Fire (2002)

As I was handed this film with an assurance that it was "the worst film (they've) ever seen" I had an image in my mind. I imagined that I was Rocky Balboa (not the first time I've imagined that) and this film was that piece of meat in the freezer:

Artist's impression

However, this was not to be the case. Don't get me wrong- it's bad. But it's so damn bad it's hard to get worked up about it. It's like if your toilet clogs up and sewage water goes everywhere. You don't really get angry, you just get depressed and call a plumber.

"Only one thing worse than a dragon... Americans."

In the mystical, futuristic year of 2008 (!), a huge, hibernating dragon is found during London Underground construction. Dragon gets understandably pissed off and the only survivor is a young boy called Quinn, who loses his mother in the tragedy. Flash forward years later and we catch up with a ripped, bearded Quinn (Christian Bale) who is in charge of one of the only surviving human colonies left, due to the fact that most of the human race have been wiped out by the dragons. As the plot progresses we are introduced to bald, bearded Denton Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey) and non bald, non bearded helicopter pilot Alex (Izabella Scorupco). I like some the ideas on display here, but they're so badly done someone needs to be smacked upside the head with the shovel of good filmmaking. Christian Bale is pretty bland through most of the film, believing that a raspy voice and glottal stops can suffice in place of actual acting. Izabella Scorupco seems lost throughout, however when you cast a Polish/Swedish actress in an shitty American film set in Britain, it's inevitable. Matthew McConaughey seems to be the only one having some fun, riding tanks with the gun phallically between his legs and so on. However, this slight injection of life is soon quashed when Van Zan decides to get all moral on us.

Before I go on any further, tear your eyes away from my poorly Photoshopped Stallone impersonation and look at the poster. Done? Good. None of that happens in the film. There is no torching of Big Ben, no all-out war between Apache helicopters and a metric fuckton of dragons, no nothing. All of that interesting stuff is skipped over in the credits, with newspaper articles and photographs showing the carnage. Why the fuck is this film not about the destruction of London and other famous cities? Surely that would have made a more interesting film? I understand that budgetry concerns could have been an issue, but if that's the case, why bother making the film at all? I don't want a film about some dumb future where everyone is dirty and can't act. I want what is promised on the poster!

Right, so since this is a film about dragons, the dragons must be able to stand up on their own and be a tangible threat, right? Well, yes and no. The dragon designs are really good, with some clear thought going in to creating the fire-breathing beasts. The CGI is surprisingly good too, still holding up seven years later. Trouble is, the film can't wait to show you them, with a mere 10 minutes going by before you see one. Listen film, I want to be teased. I want to be desperate to see the creatures before you grant me my wish. "Jurassic Park" is a masterclass in this. It's got to be a good 40 minutes or so before you see a fully fledged dinosaur and the film is all the better for it. To put it bluntly (not to mention vulgarly), the film blows its load way too soon.

"Look out that window, Eden isn't burning- it's burnt."

"Reign of Fire" is simply a bad film, or just a bad, simple film depending on your viewpoint. I'm not opposed to brainless carnagefests, but when they're this poorly acted and written, they're not worth my time.

P.S. Thanks to Lily for the request.

The Brothers Grimm

With a seemingly endless list of films to catch up on, it's time to review a film starring the Joker and Jason Bourne. Fuck yes.

The Brothers Grimm (2005)

Terry Gilliam is overrated. There- I said it. Too many Python fans and pretentious ponces have elevated Sir Terry of Gilliam to a near-diety level. He's good, but not that good. Plus, I don't connect with his style. "Brazil" was good,"Twelve Monkeys" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" were brilliant, but I just don't get it. Anyway, "The Brothers Grimm" is widely considered to be the least Gilliamesque of his films- and this is probably why I like it.

"Well, the music seems to have turned horribly French..."

Instead of the famous fraternal authors we know them as, it turns out that the Brothers Grimm, Wilhelm or "Will" (Matt Damon) and Jakob or "Jake" (Heath Ledger) are actually con artists, travelling from town to town exploiting local superstitions in order to earn a living. However, when little girls start going missing in the town of Marbaden, Wilhelm and Jakob are roped in to try and solve the mystery.

All in all, I liked the story. What particularly impressed me was the way that many of the Grimms' fairytales were interwoven into the main plot. You don't have to look very far for a reference to Red Riding Hood here, or Hansel and Gretel there. It's very cleverly done and adds a nice new level to proceedings. In terms of actors, both Matt Damon and Heath Ledger are great. I didn't expect such good chemistry between the two and was pleasantly surprised when they started playing off each other so well. Lena Headey was also pretty good as Angelika, although the strength her character was given was pushed aside near the end to make her the standard damsel in distress. Jonathan Pryce was pretty poor as the French General Vavarin Delatombe, but I get the feeling this is down to poor writing rather than acting on Pryce's part. Actually, everyone is OK except for Peter Stormare's painfully unfunny Cavaldi, who doesn't do much in any scene except for speak in a ridiculous Italian accent and annoy the living fuck out of me.

There's a great darkness to the whole film that's really apt considering the Brothers Grimm's tales. There's a scene where a child gets swallowed by a horse, but not before becoming trapped in a huge spider web emanating from the proverbial horse's mouth. "Fucking disturbing" doesn't seem to quite cover it. If you can look past some ropey CGI effects there's some fantastic imagination on display here.

The film in general feels very disjointed as we constantly switch from one location to another without having time to slow down and get to know the characters a bit better. Well, all the characters except Cavaldi anyway. We end up in the forest about seven or eight times during the runtime, when twice would have sufficed. By the time Will and Jake were trying to stop the evil queen, I was praying for a change of locale. Talking of the evil queen, Monica Bellucci was both beautiful and scary in the relatively small role, giving the villainess a much-needed oomph.

"All I wanted was a little order. A slice of quiche would be nice."

As I said, I enjoyed "The Brothers Grimm". Yes, it's a flawed film with all the hallmarks of studio pressure rather than giving the director room to breathe, but it's fun. It won't set your world on fire but if you want a darkly funny, twisted fairytale film look no further.

Hancock

I've just pushed everything back on my list of films to review to post my thoughts on superhero-flick-with-a-difference, "Hancock". Why? Well, let's just say I have a few issues with it...

Hancock (2008)

Development Hell is, appropriately enough, a tough place for films to excape from. Countless directors and writers are brought on to try and bring a supposedly doomed project to the big screen. If and when said project does eventually see the light of day, it's a huge conglomeration of ideas and concepts from all the different script treatments it recieved. Nothing exemplifies this more than "Hancock".

"Woman: I can smell alcohol on your breath!
Hancock: That's cause I've been drinking bitch!"

Down-and-out superhero Hancock (Will Smith) is despised by the public. When he saves struggling P.R. man Ray's (Jason Bateman) life, Ray decides to try and turn Hancock's bad public image around. However, Ray's wife, Mary (Charlize Theron) doesn't want Ray to get to involved with the wino superhero. Let's get this straight. I love the idea of a bad superhero. I'm a bit sick of nobodies getting superpowers and then fighting on the side of all that is good and just. In my humble opinion, most people are jerks and if they were bestowed with superhuman abilities the only thing that would change is that they would become super-powered jerks. Hancock is just that, a super-powered jerk.

I think the main problem with this is the casting of Will Smith. Whoa- now before people start spamming my inbox with e-mails of defence about the World's Most Likeable Actor™, let me qualify that statement. I really like Will Smith, but when he is cast in a film these days, it means one of two things. One, it's a serious, possible award-baiting film or two, it's a family friendly flick which will rake in millions. "Hancock" shouldn't be either, but it plays out like a mix between the two. Will Smith is so damn bankable that films are changed around him. "Hancock" should be an edgier film. To be fair, there are remnants of some dark humour here- but not nearly enough for my liking.

The film started promisingly. Drunken flying and collateral damage were all present and I was on board. However, something happens halfway through (although I probably shouldn't tiptoe around it since it's on the fucking U.S. DVD cover ) and the film falls apart. It gets too hung up on trying to add drama to a ridiculous story to actually have fun with the whole "Hancock going straight" thing. I felt a bit betrayed as the trailer made me expect a decent, consistent superhero comedy rather than a patchy, occasionally funny film with an overly soap-opera dramatic third act.

"(To an overweight man) Okay. Well, you should sue McDonald's, 'cause they fucked you up."

There is a lot to like about "Hancock". Will Smith is as good as ever and a Jason Bateman appearance is always welcome in my book. It's got some funny jokes and the like, but I think it could have been so much more with a different lead actor and the cajones to stick with some of the more adult elements some of the original scripts promised.

Hot Rod

I have not been able to get the song "Jizz in My Pants" out of my head lately. Yeah, it's pretty funny for the first few times. I have a mate who is a bigger fan of the song and recommended the film "Hot Rod" written by and starring the same guys. However, he won't be my friend much longer if he keeps passing on shite like this...

Hot Rod (2007)

I originally liked the look of this film. I figured that it might be kind of sleeper hit- one of those film that you can't believe people have never seen and take great pleasure in showing people the error of their ways. It's not and it ironically makes a mockery of the comedy genre, but not in a good way.

"You're wrong, Frank. I'm not a kid, I'm a man. I am gonna get you better, and then I'm gonna beat you to death!"

Rod (Andy Samberg) wants to be a legendary stuntman and win the respect of his grouchy stepdad Frank (Ian McShane). When it’s revealed that Frank needs a heart transplant, Rod pledges to jump his bike over 15 buses - one more than even Evel Knievel managed - to raise the funds. It's the standard "raise money for good cause" plot that's trotted out again and again. I liked the idea that Rod only wants to get Frank better to fight him, but it's done in a really lazy way. The film wants to be "Napoleon Dynamite" so badly that it gets hung up on supposedly quirky lines and characters instead of focusing on trying to bring something new to the tired, hackneyed plot. I really liked Ian McShane, but only because he's Ian McShane, rather than what he brings to the role of Frank. Isla Fisher was good too, but she's capable of better.

The film plays out like an unfunny Saturday Night Live sketch, which is fitting as that's where they're from. I'm not sure if you have to be American to find "Hot Rod" funny, but I think it probably helps. Just like I think I'd have found "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" funnier if I was Black and American. It's just really, really boring.

I quite liked the dancing/training montage scene in the woods and the ridiculously long tumble Rod takes down a bank, but that's about it. Every single time I thought the film was going to do something funny it spoiled it. A good example of this is this scene where Rod and his friends start preparing for the big jump. Slow-motion walking to 80's cheese fest "You're the Voice" by John Farnham is funny, the crowd singing along is funnier, but then it decending into a riot isn't. I can see why it would be funnier to the ADD crowd, but considering I'd stuck with this shit-fest for that damn long, I wanted one decent, unspoiled joke and it couldn't give it to me. The scene that highlights just how desperate the film is for laughs is the "Cool Beans" scene. I promise you- that video is not a remix- that's how it appears in the film. Shocking, huh?

"Please believe, I do my laundry with no pants on!"

I didn't enjoy "Hot Rod" at all. I got bored of waiting for the jokes to arrive and they never did. Run, don't walk, away from this stinker.