Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

If I know my audience (and I don't want to) you're all desperate to see the new Potter flick and refuse to go until I tell you whether it's good or not. You silly, loveable sheep. Well, it seemed cruel to keep people waiting any longer, so here are my thoughts on Harry Potter and the Ridiculously Long Title: Part 57.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

I can't believe we've nearly reached the end of the Harry Potter series. In filmic terms, this decade has belonged to J.K. Rowling's speccy wizard and it'll be strange to not have an HP film to look forward to after Deathly Hallows Part 2 opens in July. Still, enough pondering an' shit. I've got a film to review.

"Well, well, well, look what we have here! It's Harry Potter. He's all bright and shiny and new again- just in time for the Dark Lord."

Deathly Hallows Part 1 again follows the trials and tribulations of Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) and best friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) as they battle against the evil, snake-faced Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and his Death Eaters. The film is turgid with plot, both as a stand alone film and as a continuation of what's gone before. Much like Half-Blood Prince, the film expects you to know what has happened in previous installments and who every single character is. This is fine for die-hard fans, but everyone else may get a little lost. It's a shame too, as I would enjoy the ride up until Thingy from Wotsit came up and my brain would go into IMDB mode, trying to remember who they were instead of what was actually happening.  My usual actor comments would take up the rest of this review considering the sheer Brit thespian power on display, so I'll just say that Daniel Radcliffe didn't annoy me as much in this one. Of the new additions though, Bill Nighy pops up and basically plays Bill Nighy, but asks us to call him Rufus Scrimgeour. Rhys Ifans also makes a welcome appearance as Luna Lovegood's father, Xenophilius.

The one thing you'll hear about this film more than anything else is how "dark" it is. I hate to add my voice to the mooing masses, but they're right. Shit gets dark. The Potter films have always had a macabre edge to them, but this was normally balanced out by classroom shenanigans and general magical mirth at Hogwarts. Deathly Hallows moves away from this, and indeed Hogwarts, leaving the fortified castle walls behind and opting instead for increasingly cold-looking forests. Our trio are constantly on the run and there's little time for arsing about with chocolate frogs this time round. A comparison to a film like The Bourne Supremacy may not be as ridiculous as it may first seem. I would talk about certain departures, but won't just in case I get hit with the "you ruined the film for me" brick again. Suffice to say, the girlier members of the audience may have to choke back a few sobs.

In terms of specifics, there's a lot to like here. The scene that left the most impact on me was the beautiful animated sequence that tells the story of the Deathly Hallows. The shadow marionette visuals coupled with the downright creepy story work fantastically well. The opening action sequence is good too, if only for the novelty of seeing cars getting flipped Hollywood style in a Harry Potter film. The brief but effective fight in a greasy spoon was also great. In terms of sheer oddery though, the dance Harry and Hermione share to Nick Cave's "O Children" takes some beating. It's not bad, it just feels out of place. As I said, there aren't many lighter moments but if the sight of seven Harry Potters ( including one in a bra) doesn't raise a smile, I don't know what to suggest.

"If Voldemort's really taken over the Ministry, none of the old places are safe."

I enjoyed the hell out of Deathly Hallows. Whilst I do feel that the sheer amount of plot is starting to drag the series down, it remains entertaining.You may now go and see it. You even have my permission to start getting excited about Part 2. Jesus, I'm fantastic to you lot.

Jackass 3D

Yes, a review of something which is still in cinemas. It feels like a revelation to me too. Without further ado, here's my Jackass 3D review presented in eye and wallet-friendly 2D.

Jackass 3D (2010)

 I'm sick of hearing myself talking about 3D. I trot out the same points so often it's become second nature to complain about the elevated prices and general crapness of it all. However, I was excited when I heard about Jackass 3D. Why? Well, 3D is a gimmick, not a new and exciting filmmaking technique and it should be treated as such. The Jackass films aren't really films per se, just feature length opportunities to see grown men injuring themselves. A marriage between the two made sense to me. Plus, I was certain I'd see things done with 3D that I wouldn't see (or want to see, for that matter) anywhere else.

"Hello, I'm Johnny Knoxville. Welcome to Jackass!"

Well, there's no plot really, but it'll be a familiar set up to anyone who has caught any of the anarchic TV show or two previous films. Basically, it's a bunch of man-children running about playing pranks, doing stunts and injuring themselves and others on a very regular basis. There's something really pure about the slapstick stuff on display here. The ideas behind the pain are often just shy of ingenious and the anticipation before a prank/stunt is often just as funny as the pay-off. The "High Five"skit is a great example of this. The 3D itself is good, but not really needed. Both the intro and ending are 3D eye-candy but most of the rest would work just as well in normal-o-vision. Having said that, this is probably the only 3D title that will ever contain people vomiting, shitting and pissing in three dimensions.

You can't really analyse Jackass. You either find it funny or you don't. Luckily, I do find it funny and laughed throughout. My face hurt by the time we left the cinema. Every so often I keep remembering certain skits and smiling to myself. One of my favourites was "Electric Avenue"- a small corridor filled with a live tasers and spinning cattle prods, in which the Jackasses have to run the electric gauntlet dressed in prison outfits, all set to that Eddie Grant song that Currys ruined. Even when the skits sometimes look a bit laugh-free like "Ram Jam"- where Steve-O and Ryan Dunn, dressed in marching band attire, attempt to pacify a ram by playing some brass instruments, they can still turn out to be great.

Jackass isn't all about the slapstick buffoonery though. Chances are that you'll spend as much time gagging as you will giggling. The "Sweat Suit Cocktail" bit made me gag several times between guffaws- same goes for the fantastic "Poo Cocktail Supreme", which whilst disgusting, is definitely one of the film's highlights. I get the feeling that people unintiated to the whole Jackass thing may find the stunts amusing, but will draw the line at fecal matter. However, Jackass has been around for about a decade now, so I suppose most people will know what to expect.

"Oh God, why do I have to be Steve-O?"

So, Jackass 3D is very good. It would have worked in 2D, but the 3D does add a welcome additional layer of ridiculousness. When it comes down to it, I laughed much more watching Jackass 3D than I have at any recent comedy film. However, as good as it is, it still wasn't worth £9.35 per ticket (£10.35 if you didn't bring your own pair of 3D specs). Still, it's one of the only 3D films I'd recommend that you see, which marks it out from the rest of the pack.

[Rec] 2

Yeah. a horror review on Halloween. It just feels right to watch scary films around Halloween, even if you're a bit of a horror fugitive like me. I get caught up in the tradition of it all. It's the same reason I always seek out The Nightmare Before Christmas in late December and watch The Pancake That Saved The Entire Fucking World on Shrove Tuesday.

[Rec] 2 (2009)

 To date, the original [Rec] is one of the only films that properly chilled me. Its combination of claustrophobic settings, tense atmosphere and effective scares marked it out from the rest of the rabble that make up the oversubscribed horror genre. Since 2007, things have changed. [Rec] was given the standard Hollywood remake treatment in the form of the very similar, but not as good Quarantine. In 2010, we're now staring down the barrel of a fully-fledged [Rec] franchise, with [Rec] 2 being the second in a proposed set of 4 films. There's a lot to fuck up between now and then, but if [Rec] 2 is anything to go by, we could have a semi-decent horror franchise going here.

"¿Dónde están mis guantes de jardinería?"*

[Rec] 2 follows a growing tradition of sequels that start mere minutes after the previous film ended. This time, we follow Dr.Owen (Jonathan Mellor) and a three-man SWAT team around the quarantined building, searching for the antidote to the outbreak. The story is actually pretty decent, retaining the oppressive suffocating feeling that made the first film work. I wasn't impressed when the SWAT team went into the building armed with the type of firepower that could rip a buffalo in half, but to the film's credit, it ups the ante and action whilst retaining some sense of danger and/or fear. The film veers dangerously close to turning into just another guns 'n zoms flick at times, but never quite tips the balance. I actually found the teenagers' thread to be more fear-inducing than that of the tooled-up professional hardmen. Having said that, for professionals, they were about as effective as the scared, unarmed teens against the infected. I think it's because of this that I sided with the kids over the inept guffmonkeys that were the Spanish SWAT.

So, is it scary? Well, it definitely has its moments, but inevitably things aren't as fresh as in [Rec]. The infected have lost their lustre a bit and so [Rec] 2 tries to change things up a bit with all manner of abominations unto the Lord's name. It's progression, but in the most conventional way possible- something which I would have thought way beneath the makers of the original. It's disappointing to see the wheels fall off [Rec]'s sense of realism. It's interesting to note that there are less of the short, sharp shocks that there were in [Rec]. [Rec] 2 has more of a prolonged horror and gross-out kinda vibe to it, which is more hit-and-miss than the almost unbearable tension ratcheting of the first. It's hard to imagine the (admittedly funny, but slightly out of place) firework bit in the original, for one. The film also borrows heavily from The Exorcist to a distracting degree. I mean, if you're going to go for a possession-tinged story, for fuck's sake don't rip off the mack daddy of all crucifix'em ups. You're only going to look inferior by comparison.

"¡Dios mío! Usted tiene la cara de lechuza!"*

However, despite these problems [Rec] 2 is an entertaining film. I'd say it's a worthy sequel, but only just. The cracks are starting to show and the concept is starting to smell a bit, but the ending gave me hope that this will be resolved in the third 'un.

*Yeah, couldn't find any quotes since the film's in fuggin' Spanish so I made some up. Google them if you like jokes with disappointing pay-offs.

The Other Guys

Since I single-handedly failed to review all of this year's blockbusters, I decided that instead of trying to catch up on all of them, I'd pick and choose a select few to talk about. One of those is entitled The Other Guys and stars Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg. Let's talk about it, shall we?

The Other Guys (2010)

Even before I sat down to watch The Other Guys, I'd felt like I'd seen it before. The buddy-cop dynamic has been exploited in almost every single way ranging from the time-tested formula of a chalk and cheese pairing (Riggs and Murtaugh from the Lethal Weapon series spring to mind), to the 80's anomaly of teaming Tom Hanks with a big, slobbering dog (Google it if you simply need to find out). Plus, what I suspected to be the funniest moments were already in the trailer, negating any surprise and/or laughs and thoroughly undermining the entire point of trailers. 

"You have the right to remain silent... but I want to hear you scream!"

The basic story is that Det. Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell) and Det. Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg) are "the other guys" behind the superstar cop team of Danson (Dwayne Johnson) and Highsmith (Samuel L. Jackson). Whilst Danson and Highsmith are off doing exciting, death-defying stuff, Gamble and Hoitz are doing their tedious paperwork. However, when The Rock and Mace Windu inexplicably jump off a roof to their deaths, it's Gamble and Hoitz who step up to the challenge of filling their shoes. The plot smacks of pure functionality. It's not here to do something clever or intriguing, it's here to give us big action sequences and chances to see our two leads bicker with each other. Will Ferrell is on automatic pilot through most of the runtime, although I do find the guy funny when he's being earnest and there were a few moments that made me smile. The funnier of the two is Mark Wahlberg, who I'll maintain is a better comedian than he is a serious actor, but again it was only his past glory as the foul-mouthed Dignan from The Departed that made me smile occasionally.

The "corporate corruption" angle, mostly brought in by Steve Coogan's oily, rich Brit Sir David Ershon is ridiculous, especially considering that the film seems to want you to take that aspect seriously- as proven by a helpful and not-at-all out of place series of diagrams explaining big business corruption that plays through the end credits. Fun With Dick and Jane tried to pull a similar trick and when was the last time you heard about that film being talked about on the street? Although, at least it was more justified than it is in The Other Guys, as the plot had vague things to do with the collapse of Enron n' shit like that.

I wanted some decent jokes out of The Other Guys. but it ultimately failed to deliver. If you like comedy as broad as it comes, then look no further than The Other Guys. It's like every joke is designed to be funny to a 12 year old boy with no thought for anyone else. Most of the time, the film just falls back on popular culture references to pad out the weak-as-fuck plot. Haven't heard enough Star Wars references yet, despite the fact that it seems every fucking TV show and film has to mention Lucas' accidental genius trilogy by law? The Other Guys has one. Want to hear the name of a popular video game series used as a punchline? The Other Guys will mention Grand Theft Auto. The absolute pinnacle of this pile of poo though, is the fact that Michael Keaton's character, supposedly unwittingly, keeps quoting TLC song titles. Jesus, modern comedy is so fucking lazy all you have to do to get a laugh is mention something that people remember and they'll bark and clap like over-enthusiastic seals.

"If we were in the wild, I would attack you. Even if you weren't in my food chain, I would go out of my way to attack you. If I were a lion and you were a tuna, I would swim out in the middle of the ocean and freakin' eat you!"

The Other Guys is a tough one. I didn't find it funny as such, but I was kept entertained until the patronising pie charts n' piss at the end. I suppose The Other Guys is a safe film- some toss that's thrown together with a surprisingly good cast just to keep the big movie bean-counters happy. If you can sit there and enjoy a film that doesn't even pretend to be about anything else but making your stylish wallet/purse that little bit lighter, then by all means see it. If not, join me and we'll gather outside the studios and picket. All together now- "MUST TRY HARDER! MUST TRY HARDER!"

Resident Evil: Afterlife

Yes, I've been gone for quite a while and as a result, this blog has been quieter than a church mouse graveyard. Still, I've seen a lot of films and will try my best to remember and catalogue them on this here site. To ease me back into the process, I'm reviewing Resident Evil: Afterlife- the latest in the increasingly ludicrous zombie killin' franchise released in shameless 3D.

Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)

I don't often find myself wishing I was on a film set. I mean, it's basically standing around for hours watching the same lines of dialogue being delivered over and over again. Unless it's an action sequence in which case, you're standing around for hours before some incredibly loud explosions go off, deafening the runners sent to get some chai latte or some similar pricey horsepiss. My rapidly disappearing point being, I wish I had been on the set of Afterlife, 'cos if I had, there would be a much better film in the can and a disturbing, localised increase in vicious hand-to-desk staplings.

"My name is Alice. I had worked for the Umbrella Corporation. Five years ago, the T-Virus escaped, and everybody died. Trouble was... they didn't stay dead."

The plot is both simplistic and barely there, which makes for tough summarising. Alice (Milla Jovovich) and Claire (Ali Larter) continue their battle against the all-powerful Umbrella Corporation, headed by Dagenham's third best David Bowie impersonator, Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts). Along the way, fan-favourite character and Claire's brother, Chris Redfield (Wentworth Miller) joins the fray. From the off, it's clear what Afterlife's intentions are: to pack as many gun fights in the running time as possible, whilst occasionally reminding you why you have those retarded glasses on your face by having something pop out at you. Many people would blame the lack of plot and the abundance of stock characters and phrases on the source material- the long running video game series, but this isn't entirely fair. Whilst there is more fan service in this film than any other, the film ignores all of the good points of the games and makes up some new story full of everything we've seen 100 times before and stopped caring about by the 5th time. The Matrix was 11 fucking years ago, do we really need another lobby type scene? Or how about another falling and shooting slo-mo scene, like the one in The Matrix: Reloaded, proudly touted on the above poster? This is just rehashing to make a quick buck.

I initially approached Afterlife with guarded enthusiasm. After all, I'm always banging on about action like it pays my rent and keeps me warm at night. As as rule of thumb, if shit gets blown up, I'm smiling. However, when Jovotits started decimating everything with a literal glare about 5 minutes into the film, my smile faded and was replaced with some kind of frustrated gurn. It was too damn juvenile. I didn't want to see bullets flying towards me in stupid 3D, I didn't want to see Jovovadge flipping around in slo-mo like her spine had been swapped for a Slinky. What Afterlife fails to grasp is that you can't just build a film around what you think looks cool.

Afterlife is a gimmick film. "Nuthin' wrong with that.", you may grunt, but Afterlife doesn't even play to what few strengths it has. Surely in a zombie franchise, you'd expect some zombies. And they are present. For a bit, anyway. After an admittedly impressive bird's eye view of the now completely fucked Los Angeles, teeming with the undead, we barely see them again. It's idiotic. We don't even get a 3D shot of a zombie with arms reaching out from the screen- something which I was sure was a dead cert. The film instead focuses on the boring, sub-standard Wesker- who reminded me of Seann William-Scott doing an Agent Smith impression and the Nemesis monster- a big, lumbering prick with a sack on his head. 'Nuff said.

"I'm what you used to be... only better."

So, Afterlife is rubbish. As both a fan of action films and of the Resident Evil games, I was disappointed on both counts. I'd be fine if it was considered a misstep and the inevitable sequel was stripped back down to the basics, but it's already the most profitable of the franchise so it's only going to get shittier from here. Join me and bail out of this franchise now before those pesky women and children get there first. It's the only sane way.

The Crazies

After standing around in a field with literally thousands of unwashed people listening to music at a sternum-punching volume, things tend to get forgotten. Having now returned to the real world and recovered, it's time to return to what I do adequately- review films. As it happens, I have seen a film. And here is my review:

The Crazies (2010)

Aside from the casual misogyny, liberal use of words that would make my grandmother disown me and general shittiness, one of the main things this blog could be criticised for is the lack of horror reviews. I'll admit this now, I don't really see eye-to-eye with horror as a genre. It either fails to penetrate the ever-thickening bubble of numbness I imagine myself to be in or it scares the shit out of me and I never want to watch it again for fear of ruining all my good underwear. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed horror films, it's just that in entertainment terms, I find the horror genre to be patchier than a Hiroshima lawn. Anyway, bear with me whilst I inexpertly stab at The Crazies.

"Don't ask me why I can't leave without my wife and I won't ask you why you can."

The Crazies is a remake of the 1973 film of the same name. The super-shiny modern version concerns small hick town Sheriff David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant) as he and his wife, Judy (Radha Mitchell) become embroiled in a town-wide spread of a dangerous virus that causes people to go batshit crazy and homicidal. The plot is your standard zombie plot, i.e. some epidemic breaks and everyone but the most conventionally attractive turn into slavering monsters. Still, it's fun enough to not be a problem. Timothy Olyphant played himself again, with a dodgy moustache. Olyphant's an interesting actor, because I can never nail down if he can actually act or not. He's been great in some things (Deadwood springs to mind), but usually he brings a conflicting on-the-fence type of performance to the table that flits between good and wooden. The Crazies is a good example of this. The standout for me was Dutton's deputy, Russell Clank (Joe Anderson) who lights a fire under the film's arse when our heroes aren't being attacked.

The film is basically a zombie film without the zombies, if that makes sense. All the hallmarks of a modern zombie tale are present- George A. Romero's involved, it's a bit shit etc...but there's a clear distinction between the mentalists depicted here and the living impaired. A distinction I enjoyed. There's been a zombie overkill in pretty much every form of media these past few years and be they the slow, shuffling type or the fast, rip-your-face-off type, I'm starting to grow weary of them. The titular "crazies" are like normal people except totally driven by rage. They can also use weapons, an ability which allows ample gore to be shown, as exemplified in one fork-happy scene. There's a great scene in a morgue too, which almost definitely references Goldfinger at one point.

The Crazies starts to lose its way when the military show up. I've seen countless films where the military barrel in and act like macho pricks to the detriment of doing anything helpful, so when the film started to focus on them rather than the crazies, I began to zone out. The film's called The Crazies, not The Army Douches, so hows about you pan left to where those crazy people are doing something violent and interesting? The scares weren't that great either. They came in two flavours- standard jump scare, coupled with screech of music or prolonged scare in which something gore-tastic happens. You won't find any innovative horror here. The ending as well was pretty weak and had shades of a certain archaeologist's lowest ebb. Even after all the weird goings-on, it still felt like a step too far, cutting the wires that were suspending my disbelief and sending it crashing to the ground. It's not horrible, but I felt it deserved better.

"Boo-fucking-yah!"

So, yes. The Crazies was alright. It hasn't changed my black or white outlook on horror, but it has made me consider giving the genre another chance as I accidentally enjoyed it. It's a perfect rental if you fancy something a bit scary and Blockbuster have run out of all the good films. Tentatively recommended.

Toy Story 3

I tells ya, you wait for one bound-to-be-good summer film and then two turn up at once! Well, before I deal with the inevitable post-blockbuster blues, let me just post up my thoughts on Toy Story 3 - the film I've been waiting 11 long years for.

Toy Story 3 (2010)

If anything has proven the worth of a good idea, it's the Toy Story series. After 1995, CGI caught on like crabs in a brothel and soon everyone and their dog were pumping out CG films like there was no tomorrow. In 1999, the king of computer animation returned and showed the pretenders how it's done, by delivering a sequel (arguably) on par with the original. So, expectations are understandably high for this threequel.

"You've got a playdate with destiny!"

Toy Story 3 is set nine years after the events of Toy Story 2. We catch up with a 17 year old Andy (John Morris) as he prepares to leave for college. After a mix-up, Woody (Tom Hanks), Buzz (Tim Allen) and co. find themselves donated to Sunnyside Daycare Centre- a place full of hyperactive, loud and rough toddlers by day and run dictatorially by the strawberry-scented Lotso Huggin' Bear (Ned Beatty) by night. When they find out Andy is looking for them, the gang decide to escape Sunnyside to finally return home. In my opinion, they couldn't have chosen a better plot for the final Toy Story film. It seems like a natural progression to have the toys become obsolete and allows for many funny and touching moments. It almost seems trivial to mention that all the voice acting is fantastic, but I will because I like the clackety sound my keyboard makes when I type. Of the new additions though, Michael Keaton's Ken and Timothy Dalton's Mr.Pricklepants are the standouts. Both of which made me chuckle an embarrassing amount for a 23 year old male.

After the exceptional Pixar short Day and Night, the film opens with a fantastic action sequence involving a speeding train, a porcine spaceship and a bomb full of monkeys. It was funny, clever and everything I've come to expect from the Toy Story franchise. However, my smile soon faded as Woody and the gang hatch a plan involving a mobile phone just to get Andy to reach into the dusty toybox they're stored in and pay them some attention. It's really touching and the first of many emotional gut punches to come. The film doesn't get hung up on trying to tug on the heartstrings, but a lot of scenes have an emotional resonance not really found in the first two. There is one scene where (invisotexted- trust me, you don't want this spoiled) Woody and the gang find themselves facing their doom in an incinerator with no means of escape. Believing they're done for, the gang resolutely and grimly hold hands and prepare themselves for a fiery end. It's this level of poignancy and maturity that proves why Pixar are held in such high regard.

I realise I may have made Toy Story 3 sound as upbeat as a Schindler's List remake starring terminally ill puppies. It really isn't. The jokes come thick and fast and there's plenty of fun to be had throughout. I've always loved it when the toys plan some sort of crazy scheme, so imagine my delight when it all goes a bit prison breakout halfway through. It's a joy to watch the elements of the escape plan come together, especially when it culminates in a fantastic Potato Head moment. My heart sank when they did the same old "delusional Buzz" bit from the first two, but it eventually won (or should that be Juan?) me over. Oh, and the cymbal-banging monkey has now replaced that giant mutant crab in my recurring nightmare. He's fucking terrifying.

"C'mon. Let's go see how much we're going for on eBay..."

All stories, no matter how good, have to come to an end and Toy Story 3 is a fitting final chapter. If you don't even feel a pang of sadness when the credits start to roll, you're beyond help. I could hear people sobbing ten minutes before the end and it only escalated from there. My only problem with it was that it was in 3D, but not much can really been done about that as long as studios continue to dangle super-shiny 3D in front of the flock of magpies we know as the general public. Still, it's a great film and rather than merely suggest you watch it, I shall command you to. It needs to be seen. Make it so.

Inception

Well, everybody's bloody talking about it. I suppose I'd better review it like the good little sheep I am. Of course, I merely wrote that to cover up the fact I have been literally counting down the days until Inception came out. But that pretence has now been shattered thanks to the preceding sentence and this sentence confirming it. Foiled again by my love of the neater looking six line paragraph...

Inception (2010)

Dark Knight, Dark Knight, Dark Knight. I really love The Dark Knight. There. Now that's out of the way I can get on with actually reviewing Inception without any fear of my bat-love taking over and turning this review into another bat-wanking sesh. They're different beasts anyhow. Any comparison would be a bit of a moot point and take up valuable reviewing space. Speaking of which, any real discussion of Inception could be considered spoiler material and I'm not going to invisotext the entire review, so proceed with caution. I'm not going to spoil the big stuff though, so no worries there.

"You're asking me for inception. I hope you do understand the gravity of that request."

The film centres around the concept of being able to steal ideas and secrets from a person's subconscious dreams. Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio, looking like a shoo-in for any possible Christopher Nolan biopic) is a skilled Extractor, a man who does just that. However, when Cobb is approached by businessman Saito (Ken Wantanabe) about inception- the supposedly impossible process in which ideas are planted on a subconscious level, Cobb is forced to consider as if he succeeds, he can be reunited with his estranged children. The plot is actually deceptively simple, but undeniably great. Leonardo DiCaprio is annoyingly good as usual and has great support from a stellar cast including Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page and Michael Caine.

If I had to glibly label Inception, I'd say it was like a heist film set in somebody's brain. All the hallmarks of a heist movie are here- an eclectic bunch of people all with vastly different skills and personalities attempt the biggest job they've ever done so as to quit the heisting business. There are times where Inception does veer dangerously close to Clichésville, but Nolan keeps it on the ol' straight and narrow. The characters are interesting enough to keep them from being cardboard cut-outs, merely used for the occasional supposedly funny line or to demonstrate some plot convienient ability. My only real qualm was with Ellen Page's character who seemed to exist purely to have the plot explained to her (and therefore, us). However, it's a small gripe and pretty essential to a complex story such as this.

Once I heard Nolan banging on about Inception being a "contemporary sci-fi action thriller set within the architecture of the mind." my eyes rolled. It sounded like the sort of bullshit idea a fresh graduate from film school would have. However, in practice it's spellbinding. The central idea of dreams and dreams within dreams is a fascinating one. I loved the effect of certain stimuli on the dreamer's world. For instance, when we enter Yusuf''s (Dileep Rao) dream, it's raining because he has a full bladder. The attention to detail is remarkable.

The effects are genuinely amazing. There were certain physics-defying parts which had me wondering how in Satan's glorious name they pulled them off as I left the cinema, scratching my head in an unbecoming, ape-like manner. Inception is one of the few contemporary films where it seems like the effects are there to help the story, not to show off what an entire army of nerds can do with the latest computer technology. Inception isn't a completely flawless film though. There's a definite lull, funnily enough during a big action sequence, in the third act. I'm not sure why, but I think it's due to the fact that after seeing folding cities and the like, a normal run-and-gun sequence seems a bit conventional. If the scene was in any other action film it'd be the highlight, but in Inception it seems a bit unimaginative compared to some of the crazy shit seen leading up to it.

"Dreams feel real while we're in them. It's only when we wake up that we realise something was actually strange."

Inception is fantastic. It's a mindfuck of a film, but in a good way. I get the feeling Inception is going to be one of those films that inspires a whole new wave of filmmakers. It's basically The Matrix for the iPad generation. See it on the biggest screen you can find. You won't regret it.

The Princess and the Frog

Y'know what? I don't think I've reviewed a traditional Disney non-CGI film on this blog. Whilst I'm sure the reaction to this will be a huge, resounding "So fucking what?!", I personally believe this to be a massive oversight. Allow me to set things right with a review of Disney's recent return to classical animation, The Princess and the Frog. And watch your language.

The Princess and the Frog (2009)

In 2004, Disney announced that their animated cow fuckburger of a film, Home on the Range, would be the last traditionally animated flick the House o' Mouse would put out. I'm sure that a lot of children, both inner and actual, were pretty gutted by this decision. Five years later, after Disney realised that maybe CGI couldn't cure cancer, they released The Princess and the Frog- a grovelling repentance if ever I saw one.

"Friends, I know I'm in hock to y'all pretty deep already, but it seems our little froggy prince lost his way. And I need your generous assistance getting him back."

The film follows the life of hard-working New Orleans waitress Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) who dreams of having her own restaurant. However, after a fateful kiss with a recently frogified human prince, Prince Naveen, (Bruno Campos), Tiana finds herself turned into a frog as well and the two must try and find a way to be human again, all the time avoiding evil Voodoo shadowman, Dr. Facilier (Keith David). The plot itself is your classic Disney escapade, borrowing elements from The Brothers Grimm's The Frog Prince as well as the much more recent novel, The Frog Princess. The voice cast are fantastic without exception, as you would expect from a highly polished production such as this. The songs are also a return to form, with some really memorable toe-tappin' numbers. The characters are well rounded too. Our heroine is spunky and hard-working and the supposed Prince Charming is actually a bit of a spoiled, cretinous dick with no real world skills. It's an interesting subversion and definitely a welcome one.

So, let's get the main talking points out of the way. Yes, the main character is African American. Yes, this is a return to beautiful, traditional cell animation. Thing is, I'm not tripping over myself to congratulate Disney. It all smacks of the whole "New Coke" fiasco back in the 80s. It's a handy allegory as just like Coke, Disney felt it knew what the public wanted and got it wrong (excluding the Pixar films) with output like Chicken Little. Now they've returned with their tail between their legs and expect everyone to start frosting their underwear over the fact that they're back to where they were in 2004. The whole "racial" issue is bullshit as well. It's fantastic to not have a typical Caucasian lead, but it was made in 2009- this should have happened back in the '70s or the '80s at the latest. It just seems so backward that it took this long.

The surrounding issues aside, the actual film is very good. The characters are funny and likeable, the musical numbers are fantastic, especially Dr. Facilier's Friends on the Other Side piece, which is coupled with some truly amazing and surprisingly creepy animation. It's definitely in the top five Disney villain songs of all time. In terms of scene-stealing though, it has to be the Cajun firefly Ray, who gets a lot of the best lines and has a great love story arc involving Evangeline, a suspiciously absent firefly. The conclusion of which is just the right amount of sweet without tipping over into vomit-inducing, saccharine territory. Talking of conclusions, (Invisotexted- highlight to read) Dr. Facilier's death is easily one of the scariest demises ever in a Disney film, second only to Frollo's terrifying end in The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

"There is no way I'm kissing a frog and eating a bug in the same day."

So, The Princess and the Frog. To be honest, it's tough to really criticise because it's a solid Disney film. They're a genre of their own and The Princess and the Frog fits snugly into it. It's not one of the all-time greats like The Lion King, but it's in the upper echelon of the Disney ranks. A word of warning though- it may be a bit too scary for the young'uns in places and from a purely financial standpoint, the years of therapy will cost significantly more than the £6.99 impulse buy in Morrisons. Still, the film is ridiculously entertaining and certainly worthy of a viewing.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

Yeah, yeah- I know. But like it or not, the Twilight films are significant when viewed from a popular culture standpoint. The Popcorn Bucket wouldn't be the young, thrusting blog it is without some kind of comment on the newest film, Eclipse. So, let the commenting begin!

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

Oh God. Since accidentally saying that previous installment New Moon was "an enjoyable film", I've had to face some odd looks since. Thing is, I can't really get on Twilight's case. Maybe it's because I grew up watching things like Rocky, but I always side with the underdog. It's the cool thing to have a pop at Twilight and to be honest I can't see what the big deal is. I'm by no stretch of the imagination a "Twihard" or even a fan of the series, but criticising Twilight for its presentation of romance is like calling out a My Little Pony for not being a proper representation of a horse. And just like those horrible, malformed pieces of the 80s, going apeshit for all things Twilight is a stage girls will go through and will hopefully grow out of. Just let them have their fun now and then remind them of their Edward/Jacob fantasies in twenty years' time.

"I know the consequences of the choice you're making."

Eclipse picks up where New Moon left off. Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson, looking increasingly like a discarded pair of comedy eyebrows stapled to a piss-soaked hay bale) is still madly in love with Jane Everygirl character, Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and has asked her to marry him. However, Bella still has feelings for werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner). Outside of the angsty love triangle, a war is brewing as Victoria (Bryce Dallas-Howard) is creating an army of vampires to kill Bella. This forces an uneasy alliance between the vampires and werewolves who will have to work together to keep Bella safe. The plot is pretty poor, with the feeling that this is merely a continuation of the story, rather than an evolution. Both R-Pattz and K-Stew still can't act, which will only become a bigger problem as the story presumably gets more epic. Eclipse is an odd entry to the series as it doesn't really go anywhere. The main three characters are still in the same situation they were at the start of the film and it's hard to not feel that Eclipse is merely filler until the concluding two parts of Breaking Dawn arrive to rake in the last of the obscene piles of teen money.

Eclipse feels like a return to bad habits, undoing some of the good that New Moon did. Once again, we're landlocked in Forks, Washington and so the film just stagnates whilst everyone agrees they love Bella and need to protect her. At least New Moon went to Italy. The writing hasn't got any better either, with embarrassingly shit lines prevalent throughout. The film aims to provide most of the entertainment in the form of Edward and Jacob squabbling over Bella, which happens again. And again. And again. I quickly got bored watching ol' Pecs and Lenses clash over who was more forgiving of Bella's inhumanly large chin. There is a bit of enjoyment to be had when Edward and Jacob are talking over a sleeping Bella and Cullen grumbles the soon-to-be oft quoted line: "If we weren't natural enemies, I might actually like you".

I liked the armies element to Eclipse. It reminded me a bit of the last two X-Men films what with the uneasy alliance and superpowered battles. Trouble is, the CGI wolves haven't really been improved and still have no weight to them. They just look odd. However, the actual action isn't bad and is surprisingly sever-happy. As I said in my Twilight review- yes, I realise this seems like me being terribly blokey and grunting about all the violence, but these scenes are the only fucking break from the incessant blathering scenes which all basically boil down to this:

BELLA: Oh Edward, I love you so. Totally do me.

EDWARD: No, not until we're married. I totally want to though.

JACOB: I'll do you, Bella! I totally love you.

BELLA: I totally love you too, Jacob. But I also love Edward. Oh Edward, I love you so...

And it goes on like that ad infi-shite-um. The fact that the characters can't talk about the past without giving us a rubbish flashback sequence also really started to irk me. Maybe they could have saved some money by not showing us some sort of odd period drama and shifting the funds into the CGI wolves account, since the wolves are actually integral to the story.

"This wasn't a choice between you and Jacob. It was a choice between who I am and who I should be."

You may pick up on the fact that I said that I'm not part of the "cool to hate Twilight" crowd, but have spent nearly all of this review slagging Eclipse off. Well, Eclipse has made it a lot harder to defend the Twilight series. After New Moon actually did something with the formula the first film laid down, Eclipse is more like a long trailer for the final two instalments, content with just existing until it all kicks off. So, predictably I didn't rate it much, but I get the feeling that even the most hardcore Twilight fan will walk away from this one feeling slightly disappointed.

Where The Wild Things Are

I've seen quite a few films lately so I'll be updating this blog throughout the next week or so. Anyway, here's the first of about 8 incoming reviews, my thoughts on Where The Wild Things Are.

Where The Wild Things Are (2009)

If there's anything harder than successfully adapting a book for the big screen, it's adapting a well-loved children's book for the big screen. This is because by the time the film version comes out, the children who obsessed over the lovely likkle words and pictures have grown into cantankerous adult bastards who will accuse the director/actors/whoever of "raping their childhood" if even the slightest thing is amiss. Feel sorry then, for Where The Wild Things Are, an attempt to bring the modern children's classic book to life via technical wizardry. You've got to admire the cajones of anyone who takes on the task of stretching a sparsely worded (there are a total of nine sentences in the whole book) children's masterpiece into a feature length film...

"You're the king, and look at me -I'm big! How can guys like us worry about a tiny little thing like the Sun, hmm?"

As I mentioned above, the film is based on the Maurice Sendak's book of the same name. Whilst the film messes about with some of the book's key bits (the transforming bed and sea monster encounter scenes are not present) the basic story is the same. Max (Max Records) is a badly behaved little squit who argues with his mother (Catherine Keener) and can't relate to his older sister. After an almighty fight that culminates in him biting his mother, Max runs away to a fantasy land to escape reality. It is here he meets the Wild Things- a group of big, lumbering monsters who like to play rough. The plot is great and surprisingly multi-layered. As with the book, the Wild Things are open to all sorts of psychological interpretations which sets it aparts from your standard kiddie flicks. I thought Max Records (!) was fantastic as the screwed-up kid Max and managed to not annoy me. James Gandolfini was also great as lead Wild Thing Carol, although it was slightly odd hearing Tony Soprano's voice coming out of this. Paul Dano also makes an uncharacteristic appearance as a whiny bitch, further cementing him as the go-to guy for all your whinging needs, be it in the guise of a monster or not. He's still good though.

The first thing you'll notice is how good this film looks and sounds. Director Spike Jonze really put great effort into bringing the essence of Sendak's pictures into a fully realised film and it shows. Some of the shots are truly beautiful and could have easily appeared in the original book. The decision to score the film with cooler-than-thou indie tracks also works surprisingly well. The Wild Things themselves are great, although on first sight they look scarily like massive Ewoks, however once the film settled down and I stopped shuddering, the combination of costumes, puppetry and CGI that brought Carol and co. to life really started to work.

The film is undeniably sweet at times. The scene where Max and the Wild Things all sleep together in a big, warm pile had me cooing like a concussed grandmother. There's also something strangely powerful about the simplistic speech the Wild Things communicate in coupled with Max's childhood innocence. There's a bit where Wild Thing Douglas (Chris Cooper) asks whether Max will "keep out the sadness" to which Max replies: "I have a sadness shield that keeps out all the sadness, and it's big enough for all of us." I don't know whether I was feeling extra girly that day or what, but I got a lump in my throat from that.

It's not all sunshine and lollipops though, as there's an element of darkness to it all that pops up every now and again to combat the syrupy sweet moments. For instance, when Max first encounters the Wild Things he quickly glances a pile of human bones strewn on the woodland floor. There's also a scene where Max tells a chronically depressing vampire story about rejection and abandonment to his mother. These may not sound like much, but these little touches add the necessary shadow to this well-rounded film.

"Who threw Richard?"

I've come to the conclusion that Where The Wild Things Are isn't a kids' film. Its nowhere near bombastic enough to keep your average ADD ankle-biter entertained. The visuals and the lack of the Baha Men on the soundtrack would also suggest a more mature target audience. It won't be for everyone though, as the film does drag in places and uses some cheap emotional tricks to try and get the poncier members of the audience to shed a few tears, but I was quite charmed by it all. It's not perfect, but it's got a lot of heart and a surprising amount of brains.

Kidulthood

I've been sat here for 15 minutes trying to think of something to say in the preamble. I was going to replace the previous sentence when I thought of a better one, but it's so delightfully meta I'm going to keep it in. Anyway, here's a review of Kidulthood, you pussyoles.

Kidulthood (2006)

"Bloody kids". "Not like it was in my day". "What kids today need is a good world war to thin out their numbers..." and so on. There have been numerous films to try and present contemporary teen life to the masses and hopefully create more understanding between the generations. Kidulthood aims to be Britain's answer to a Larry Clark-esque exposé. Key word there is "aims".

"Wife? I thought you were a battyman."

Kidulthood mainly focuses on a few pupils at a London comprehensive. After a girl commits suicide due to incessant bullying, the pupils are given a day off and Kidulthood follows a day in the life of Trevor aka "Trife" (Aml Ameen) and Alisa (Red Madrell) as they deal with their friends, family, drugs, sex and local bully Sam (Noel Clarke). It's clear from the off that Kidulthood is going to be an "issues film". We've got teen suicide, bullying, drug use, gun crime, theft and all sorts of other hot topics presented to us in the opening 15 minutes or so. Thing is, Kidulthood keeps piling on all these issues to the point where the reality the film seems so desperate to convey is distorted and undermined. The lead actors are all decent, with the possible exception of Mickey off Doctor Who, who spends most of the film scowling like he's trying to frown his own nose off his face.

I can appreciate what Kidulthood is trying to do and to be fair, it does touch on important talking points, but there is a real sloppiness in the execution. The group seem to be merely ferried from one issue to another without any time spent on making the characters actually likeable or relatable. Trife and Alisa are our main power couple and most of the time the film keeps the focus on them, but I would struggle to tell you what their personalities were like. As a result, when things happened to them, I didn't really care enough to be shocked/appalled/whatever. Issues are fine, but if we get no real sense of the impact of it all, what was the point in raising them to begin with?

I also disagree with the quotation up on that them thar poster for the film. Kidulthood doesn't really kick the door "off its hinges". If anything, Kidulthood wanders up to your front door, knocks loudly a couple of times, pushes some pamphlets about teen pregnancy through the letterbox and ambles off. It just didn't have any real shock value for me. That's not to say it was all comfortable viewing. The scene where (invisotexted) Trife slices a man's face and the fact that nearly all the girls are used like punching bags you can put your knob in are disturbing but won't stay with you like this sort of film should.

"I want you to carve a "c" from the corner of him eye to the corner of him mouth."

So Kidulthood. It's entertaining enough, but its delusions of lifting the curtain on teen life soured it for me. It may shock parents and the older generations, but I'm not sure. Chances are that Kidulthood is just a confirmation of their fears. An incorrect confirmation at that. This isn't real life. It's real life as cobbled together through Daily Mail headlines. Which, I think you'll agree- is a terrifying notion.

Chloe

After the Fantastic Four films, I was feeling in the mood for a different kind of movie. Preferably without Jessica Alba. So, I watched Chloe. I don't know what it is, but after watching Bully, I'm cautiously seeking out angst and tension. Perhaps I'm just indulging my inner whinging teen.

Chloe (2009)

The first thing I heard about Chloe was that the young, toothy one from Mamma Mia! was doing her first "serious role" after famously lezzing off with Megan Fox in Jennifer's Body. I intially balked at the idea of Miss Seyfried comfortably holding her own with veterans like Neeson and Moore, but because both time and this blog have proven that I'm a bit of a knee-jerk reactionary prick, I decided I'd give the film a go. Also I heard it has a lot of nudity in it.

"My husband's cheating on me. At least, I think he is."

Chloe is a remake of the French film Nathalie... and has the same basic story. Chloe tells the story of Dr. Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) who starts to suspect her lecturer husband, David (Liam Neeson) of cheating on her. After a while, Catherine's suspicions get the better of her and she hires the titular (in all possible senses of the word) Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), an escort, to tempt her husband to see if his eyes (and other parts of his anatomy) are indeed a' wanderin'. The story itself is sound and often quite gripping, but it ultimately falls apart in the third act, undoing any atmosphere the first two acts created. Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson are both good, but neither of them put in a career-defining performance. However, I truly think Amanda Seyfried is great in this. I'd previously written her off as sappy rom-com fodder, due to her being in mawkish toss like Dear John, but she puts in a solid performance tinged with an unsettling creepiness.

In my admittedly limited opinion, America can't do mainstream eroticism well. The term "erotic thriller" personally conjures up terrifying images of Mickey Rourke's leering face in Nine 1/2 Weeks or Willem Dafoe trying to burn some acting out of Madonna with candle wax in Body of Evidence. Whilst Chloe is definitely better than those thudding anti-boners, it does suffer some of the same problems. Part of Catherine's anxiety is her waning confidence in her ageing body, not being able to turn her husband's head like she once did. However, Catherine is played by Julianne Moore-a glamourous Hollywood mainstay who has a body most women would kill their beloved household pets for. It undermines the very point the film is trying to make which results in a confused overall message.

There are some genuinely surprising twists in the tale, but a lot of the main plot points are concluded very predictably. As I said, the third act collapses under its own weight and left me feeling quite cold. It's a shame as the film does have some decent moments up until then. There's a fantastic scene where Catherine asks Chloe how she deals with her less attractive clients and she simply replies that she just tries to "find something to love". The main mystery of Chloe the film and Chloe the character is her motivation. Sometimes it seems it's the money driving her, other times it seems that Chloe is just a sensitive young woman who has a gift for ignoring peoples' defects and focusing on one small, loveable detail. Later on in the film, when Catherine bluntly states to Chloe that their "business transaction, which is what this was, is over! ".The hurt which is evident on Chloe's face is palpable and empathy is immediate. Atom Egoyan keeps us guessing what Chloe's all about throughout, which is admirable in an age where most people seem to want their films to have 2 dimensional characters and all loose plot threads tied off.

"I guess I've always been good with words."

So, Chloe. It's a well-acted character piece let down by a trip to Ridiculous Plot Advancement Land two-thirds of the way in. It's too psychodramatic at times, but there's some decent dialogue and ideas here that balance it out. However, I can't help but feel the whole film isn't nearly as important as it believes it is and as a result it's more of an anxious gasp of a film than the sustained, steamy web of intrigue it would like to think of itself as.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

Yep, changing up the ol' formula by reviewing a sequel just after reviewing the original. I swear to God, these ideas just come to me...

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Well, despite what the large text above the poster and the small text actually on the poster say, the film is officially called 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer. This may have been to prevent the inevitable "not-so-fantastic four" jokes after the slice of average that was the first one, but whatever, it's stupid. So, in a stunning act of internet vigilantism, I have called the film by what it should have been called. It may sound silly to you, but fuck it- it's not actually going to make the film better or anything...

"All that you know is at an end."

The story is as follows: Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) and Sue Storm (Jessica Alba) are struggling to balance their new-found celebrity status and their personal life, trying to tie the knot for the fourth time without any interruptions. Ben Grimm aka The Thing (Michael Chiklis) is still with his blind girlfriend Alicia and Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) is still living the life of a playboy. However, when a strange cosmic being nicknamed The Silver Surfer (voiced by Laurence Fishburne) starts fucking up the weather and heralding the end of the World, the Four step in to prove that they deserve their "fantastic" prefix. To be honest, the plot isn't great. Instead of focusing on a new baddie for the Four to square off against, they have a sort-of baddie in the form of The Silver Surfer, a huge destructive force in the form of the (thankfully not pink) transplanetary ponce Galactus and (sigh) Dr. Doom from the first one. It's just needlessly clogged. The whole wedding drama element proved that I can find even superpowered nuptials boring. My notes on the casting still ring true, although this time round they somehow managed to make Jessica Alba look like she belongs in White Chicks. The only notable addition is the Silver Surfer himself, who is brilliantly realised by Doug Jones's physicality and Laurence Fishburne's booming voice.

There's something about Rise of the Silver Surfer I just don't like. I think it's mainly to do with the fact it isn't as fun as the first. The few things they got right in Fantastic Four are changed for the sequel. This is particularly true in the case of Johnny Storm, whose lines are nowhere near as good as in the first one and veers into annoying comic relief territory. They also tack on some bullshit "settling down" notion for Johnny to deal with which makes things needlessly stodgy. The power switching thing is also rubbish and you'd have to be thicker than a walrus casserole to not guess how it's all resolved.

Another thing that shreds my petunias is the fact that they make Sue the "emotional heart" of the film, with the majority of scenes not containing shit blowing up dedicated to Alba doing her best acting face whilst interacting with the Silver Surfer. It's the same thing X-Men: The Last Stand did, and we all know how that turned out. It's very patronising to make the only female in a group deal with all the emotional stuff. You'd have thought both Marvel and Fox would have wanted to stay as far away from the piece of X-Shite as possible.

"You know, you don't look completely ridiculous in that dress."

Rise of the Silver Surfer isn't all bad. The action is alright and there are snatches of enjoyment to be had here and there (The London Eye sequence is entertaining despite some ropey CGI) but there's a feeling of wasted potential that brought the whole thing down for me. A sequel was a chance to fix the faults of the first and capitalise on its successes, but all it does is make new mistakes in addition to the old ones. In summary, if the first film was an average, but perfectly nice cheese sandwich, Rise of the Silver Surfer's sandwich looks very much like the first but when you take a bite, you realise the cheese has been replaced by your own hand.

Fantastic Four

I was genuinely surprised to find that I hadn't reviewed the Fantastic Four films. Here was me thinking I had the Marvelverse covered and I haven't even reviewed the lesser known Marvel properties like Daredevil. Still, this changes now with a review of 2005's Fantastic Four (the less said about 1994's The Fantastic Four the better). I never want to see the words "fantastic" and "four" ever again.

Fantastic Four (2005)

The early 2000s were pretty good to a nerd like me. After X-Men came out and Spider-Man made huge money at the box office, comic book rights were hastily bought and shoved into production with varying degrees of success. At the time, Fantastic Four was the latest in a long line of superflicks trying to get a sneaky piece of the ludicrous money pie cooling on the windowsill of Hollywood...

...That's the first time I've made myself vomit from my own metaphorical shittery.

"You don't want to walk around on fire for the rest of your life, do you?"

After a space mission goes awry, scientists Dr. Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) and Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) are hit by radiation causing them to gain superhuman abilities. However, the stupidly named Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon) has super-beef with Richards and will stop at nothing to end the Four. The plot is that superhero plot. Average people encounter some kind of radiation and it enables them to so impossible things. It's like Spider-Man in space with a vague "space storm" taking the part of the spider*.

Rarely does a film get the casting this wrong. Ioan Gruffudd is a baffling choice for Reed Richards. He's a good actor, but hardly suited to the role of a middle-aged, all-American genius scientist. In a similar vein, why the hell cast the naturally dark haired, dark complexioned Jessica Alba as blonde haired, blue eyed Sue Storm? It is certainly not due to her acting abilities, so if we're going purely on looks and how good the actress looks in a skintight jumpsuit, surely someone like Scarlett Johansson would have been a better bet? Michael Chiklis is pretty good as The Thing, but all that's really required in the role is a gruff voice and a tolerance for sitting in the make-up chair for hours on end. Chris Evans is really entertaining as The Human Torch, sticking fairly close to the comics in terms of Johnny Storm's personality. Oh- Julian McMahon is also fucking terrible as Dr. Doom- I've seen scarier bowls of cereal.

As I said way back when in my Push review, I'm sick of people gaining powers and not enjoying them. It's refreshing to see the Johnny Storm character actually have fun with his burgeoning fire powers. It could be said that the film itself tries to have more fun with the notion of superpowers than your average superhuman whinge-'em-up. OK, three of the Four treat the powers as a burden, but in no other superhero film would you get a musical montage halfway through where a character uses his powers to remedy the dreaded "no bog roll" situation whilst in lavatorium (Yes, I know that's not a) a common euphemisim or b) real Latin- so shut up.) Fantastic Four is all about the lighter side of the superhero spectrum in which it has little company- well, excluding the sequel anyway. It's nice to see a comic based film without cripplingly depressing stretches. The post extreme biking scene where the Four clash publicly over Johnny's childish attention-seeking is particularly great and contains the brilliant Thing-directed line below:

"You think that's funny, Pebbles?"

Fantastic Four is a fun but flawed film. There's some decent action and enjoyment to be found in the interactions between the Thing and Johnny Storm, but it's just too average as a whole to be anything more than a throwaway popcorn flick. As I said, I like it for its levity in a genre swamped with gritty hyper-reality, but is by no means an essential watch.

*Speaking of Spider-Man, keep it in mind whilst watching this. The boardroom scenes completely rip off the first Spidey film. Shameless thievery.

Bully

In an effort to once again prove to readers of this blog that I'm not just a blockbuster dullard who watches stuff like Transformers on a loop, pausing every 20 minutes to bash one out to either Megan Fox's physique or Optimus Prime's perfectly rendered face, I watched Bully- a film with no robots, no tie-in video game, but acres of gratuitous naked teen flesh and shocking violence. I can only pray that a video game is in the works.

Bully (2001)

"Angst" is an annoyingly misused word. Chances are you've heard of "teen angst" thanks to overhyped toss like Skins and the like. It's all very patronising. It's all so middle-aged bankers can neatly label the odd behaviour of their skull-fucked teens and get on with their boring lives. Bully redefines angst and unease and conveys it so damn well, it'll leave your mind reeling for longer than you'd like to admit.

"I've got to ask you something, Marty. Why do you let Bobby treat you the way he does?"

Bully tells the story of Marty (Brad Renfro) and his gang of waster friends who are driven to the point of desperation due to the actions of a bullying, fucked-up, A-grade wanker by the name of Bobby Kent (Nick Stahl). After some pushing by his girlfriend Lisa (Rachel Miner), Marty decides that Bobby needs to be forcibly removed from this mortal coil. The plot is gripping from the off, especially so as it is based on a true story. It's a genuinely chilling thought that the things that transpire in this film actually happened- something which works to the film's credit. The leads are brilliant without any real exception, although Michael Pitt's stoner Donny did grate slightly- a small annoyance counteracted by the fact that he has nearly all the best lines.

The central tragedy of Bully is that these kids are dealing with shit way above their comprehension. When the idea of killing Bobby first comes up, it's said in a flippant, jokey-type way and their plan never really evolves past that. We identify with the motivation, but know deep down the gang are too youthfully stupid to carry it out properly. This is typified when they hire a "hitman" (Leo Fitzpatrick) on some vague recollection he has ties with the Mafia. Once (invisotexted) Bobby has bought the farm, it's pretty heartbreaking to see the strong group break down due to guilt and fear and start blaming each other.

Bully is a tough, but rewarding watch. Some of the scenes are almost unbearably unpleasant to view but stick it out, oh fictional fan of my reviews- you'll thank me eventually. One scene in particular where our clueless crusaders put their macabre plan into action is so fucking tense, I had to talk myself down from leaping out of the nearest window just to escape the gritty harshness on screen. Bully is also fantastically shot, with director Larry Clark's love of the teenage form on full display. It's all shot in such a way that you as the viewer feel like an intruder on these kids' lives, rather than just a casual observer.

"Are there any alligators in there?"

So yes, Bully is a superb film. It's a fantastic insight into the extremes of human behaviour packaged up as a powerful 113 minute punch. It's certainly not the sort of film you put on after a long, shit day to forget all your troubles as more often than not, Bully is about as cheery as a mass kitten burial. However, you should make time to watch it. It's brilliantly affecting and affectingly brilliant.

Gran Torino

I genuinely can't think of anything to put here, so I'm just going to witter on for a few lines. This is so the casual observer will think that I've actually taken the time to write a suitable preamble. But I haven't. I must be a genius.

Gran Torino (2009)

I just like seeing Clint Eastwood. From the Dollars trilogy to Million Dollar Baby, I just find the man a pleasure to watch. He's not the best actor in the world, but he definitely has an old-school presence about him- a quality which (arguably) a lot of modern actors do not possess.

"Oh-I've got one. A Mexican, a Jew, and a colored guy go into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, "Get the fuck out of here!."

Cantankerous grumbler and war veteran Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) yearns for the America of yesteryear. His wife passed away, he's patronised by his family and his neighbourhood is predominately populated by Asian families. However, when his beloved mint condition 1972 Gran Torino is almost stolen, Walt is slowly forced to build an uneasy friendship with his Asian neighbours. The story is really good, with Walt's evolution from stay-at-home bigot to actually rather friendly bigot, both believable and charming. Clint Eastwood is pretty decent as Kowalski, playing him more along the lines of "Dirty" Harry Callahan than anything else. Sure, Eastwood is a bit of a one-trick pony when it comes to acting, but when the trick's as enjoyable as this, I don't mind. His performance veered into almost self-parodic territory at times, but is eventually all sorted out by the time the credits roll.

Gran Torino is a great watch marred slightly by a thick layer of cheese. It's very easy to say something is "cheesy" and move on like that description somehow suffices, so I'll try to explain what I mean as best I can. Gran Torino seemed to take itself very seriously from the way everything is presented. I was on board with the film when it seemed like Eastwood was giving Kowalski a comedic edge, be it growling like a dog or his slow, burning rage at the infantilising being dished out by his son and his daughter-in-law, resulting in this brilliant face. It was refreshing when Kowalski was unleashing his substantial knowledge of racially insensitive words and phrases. By the end, all or nearly all of Kowalski's traits have been eradicated in favour of the more socially acceptable end of the characteristics spectrum, which I found to be a shame. It's always the way in Hollywood films- rude, social outcast reluctantly is befriended by an outsider and slowly learns that he's been wrong all along, changes his ways and becomes a better person. The basic plot similarities between this and Disney/Pixar's Up are quite striking.

Although the film focuses on Walt's interactions with Thao (Bee Vang), I thought that the relationship between Kowalski and Sue (Ahney Her) was the strongest thing in the film. It's realistic without being mundane and charming without being twee. The scene where Walt protects Sue from some local thugs and then drives her home, for instance, is brilliantly done and well-written. It's no coincidence that I found Sue's story arc to be the most emotionally affecting of all the characters. Although the scenes with Thao were good, some of them were almost overwritten to the point of the two trading soliloquys rather than just two normal people talking.

"But you, you just let her walk out right out with the Three Stooges. And you know why? 'Cause you're a big fat pussy. Well, I gotta go. Good day, pussycake."

As I said, Gran Torino is a fine film. I just wish I hadn't guessed the end 20 minutes before it ended. At its best, it's a decent flick about acceptance 'n that. At its worst, it's an Eastwood vanity project with a sappy moral centre. It's worth a watch, but don't be shocked if your eyes start rolling uncontrollably towards the end.

The Book of Eli

Another film, another review. I just don't seem to put any effort into these preambles any more do I?

The Book of Eli (2010)

I'm sure the soul-crushing loneliness would set in after the first few hours, but sometimes I really would like the world to become a desolate, post-apocalyptic wasteland. Think about it- no queues, no chavs, no shitty Lloyd Webber musical poncefest on the T.V.- nothing. I'm not sure I'd be morally able to stave some poor bastard's head in with a rock just for some fresh water and his dog food stockpile, but I could give it a shot.

"People had more than they needed. We had no idea what was precious and what wasn't. We threw away things people kill each other now."

The Book of Eli is set 30 years after "The Flash"- an apocalyptic event that has changed civilisation forever. We follow the eponymous Eli (Denzel Washington) as he makes his way across the U.S. with a rare and much sought-after book. After hearing of this book, small town boss and shitbag extraordinaire, Carnegie (Gary Oldman) persues Eli in an effort to get his grubby little mitts on it. The story's alright, but not exactly taser-to-the-bollocks exciting. It's pretty much a Western that doesn't pretend black people don't exist. I liked Denzel Washington as Eli and it was good to see Gary Oldman play the baddie again after his friendly stints in the Batman and Harry Potter films. Mila Kunis bugged me, as I just knew she'd end up as Eli's talkative sidekick. Nothing wrong with her as an actress though, just her role as Solara. Oh- and there's an unusually subdued Tom Waits in there too.

The world presented in The Book of Eli is well thought out and decently presented. The wasteland setting is strangely beautiful (although very reminiscent of the video game Fallout 3) and the ideas about money and law are original. I loved the idea of KFC wet wipes being used as currency due to the unavailability of soap. The action scenes are solid too, with some decent knife fights and an amazingly shot shootout in and outside of a house. It's refreshing to be actually able to see fight choreography rather than the "zoomed in spastic camera" way of shooting action that seems to be the default after the Bourne films.

So, if the story's passable, the acting's good and there's some decent action to be found in it, why are there two measly stars at the bottom of this review? Well, it's the one permeating aspect that runs throughout The Book of Eli- religion. You'd have to be pretty thick not to guess which book Eli holds so dear to his heart. In the last 20 minutes, (after some nonsensical twists) the film turns into a boring sermon, preaching and patronising your face off under the loose guise of populist entertainment. It's fucking depressing to know that even a nuclear apocalypse won't stop the Bible bashers. As a result, the film as a whole smacked of religious propaganda rather than an entertaining film with spiritual elements. The film even hints that it was the lack of religion that caused everything to be toasted to a nuclear crisp, which genuinely angered me. Also, (Invisotexted) if The Book of Solara or some such shite gets made as the ending seems to promise, I will go on a kill-crazy rampage at Warner Bros. HQ with the jagged lid of a baked bean tin, slashing hither and thither before thanking them for The Dark Knight and turning it on myself. Or not bother seeing it. It's 50/50.

"I need that book, I want that book. I want you to stay, but if you make me have to choose, I'll kill you and take that book"

So, The Book of Eli then. It's alright but any good ideas displayed were dampened by the grotty, piss-soaked blanket that is Christianity. It just wasn't the film I wanted it to be after the strong opening. Disappointing.