The Popcorn Bucket

Shame

2012-02-12T15:46:00.002Z

Been a bit busy recently, so haven't updated in a while. I saw the Steve McQueen (not that one) film Shame a few weeks ago and will now let you all know what I thought about it. Since it's predominantly about sex, I'll try to ease up on the childish jokes, but I can't promise anything.

Shame (2012)

I'm going to blow my reviewing wad early by starting off with the admission that I didn't like Shame. It's a grim, angsty bit of filmmaking that feels its really meaningful, but actually comes across as a student film with a much higher budget complete with predictable depressing ending. I realise that calling a film everyone's having a massive intellectual wank over "pretentious" may make me look bad by comparison, but sod it. I'd much rather watch something dumb but fun like The A-Team than this rusty bucket of spunk.

"We're not bad people. We just come from a bad place."

Shame is the story of Brandon (Michael Fassbender) a 30-something man living in New York. Brandon suffers from sexual addiction and is finding it harder and harder (fnarr, fnarr) to keep it from bleeding into his professional and social life. Things change for Brandon when his wayward sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) comes to stay, forcing Brandon to come to terms with how he's living his life. I like the overall idea of Shame. Off the top of my head, I can't remember many films dealing with sex addiction and this certainly seems like the most realistic portrayal of it. Both Fassbender and Mulligan give really strong performances, although I think Mulligan has been better elsewhere (cough Drive cough). Fassbender's Brandon reminded me of Oldman's George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, where you know despite the cool exterior, there's some serious emotional juice bubbling just beneath the surface. The film is well shot and there are some really interesting flourishes here and there, including one shot where Brandon is frantically binning all his nudie mags and DVDs and we get fast, flickering shots of naked flesh, ending on an arsehole (not a dig at Fass, that's actually what happens). It's like a pornographic version of the Marvel Studios logo and is my new forum avatar on several Christian websites.

I get what Shame is doing. I just don't find it that compelling or interesting. The opening 10 minutes, with Fass strutting naked around his modern, threadbare apartment and eye-fucking the shit out of a girl on the subway reminded me of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. In fact, the opening 20 minutes could easily be the start of a serial killer film, right down to Brandon's cold, removed way of ghosting through life and seeming alone, even when in a room full of people. The film perks up a bit when Sissy comes to town and inadvertently holds up a mirror to Brandon's life. Is he as damaged and needy as she is? I didn't care. I didn't feel sorry for either of them. I really liked a bit near the end where Brandon seemingly gives up trying to fight his addiction and becomes an unapologetic poonhound, but I found this to be funny, rather than tragic.

There's one scene that outlined Shame for me. It takes place in a swanky bar where Brandon and his boss are watching Sissy perform. She sings an excruciatingly slow version of New York, New York and everyone agrees it was brilliant. Mulligan has a nice voice, but I can't stand those long, drawn-out jazz renditions of popular songs. I know some people solely want to fill their ears with that stuff and consider it a purer, stripped-down form of music, but I need something with a little bit of oomph to it- and it's the same with film. I don't mind character studies or ruminations on the human condition, but don't give me this sort of toss and tell me it's "deep".

"You come in here and you're a weight on me. Do you understand me? You're a burden."

Shame is a study of addiction with delusions of being more significant than it is. It's a long, grim slice of artistic nonsense that forgets to make you care for the characters. If this is your sort of film, fine. You take it away with you and stroke your chin red raw. I'll be over here, in this corner, having fun.

The Artist

2012-02-04T21:39:00.001Z

So here's Hugo's biggest rival at the Oscars, The Artist. Most of the night will be dedicated to overpaid, undertalented bellends all slapping each other on the back and smiling like they've never slaughtered a sex worker or five in their time. In case you haven't guessed, I don't really like award season. Especially when deserving films like Drive, for instance, are almost completely overlooked in favour of mediocre "racism iz bad" flicks like The Help. The Golden Globes are a joke, the Oscars are a sham, but I quite like the BAFTAs. Anyway- here's a film that actually deserves the praise lauded upon it.

The Artist (2011)

Much like Hugo, The Artist's presentation could easily dismissed as a "gimmick". Some of the criticism levelled at this film has been concerning the fact that there's not much depth to the film and the black and white visuals, title cards and swingin' soundtrack are just ways of hiding this fact. These people are obviously great, big swaggering cretins. The Artist is a pastiche of storytelling in the silent era. Most films were simple love stories, because the medium was just starting to find its feet and fuck, it's what people wanted to see. It's the reason romantic comedies are still about to this very day.

"..."

The Artist tells the story of silent movie star George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) who literally bumps into Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) outside a movie premiere and due to his showing off and propensity for posing accidentally sets her on the path to superstardom. Meanwhile, the movie-making business is changing and people are demanding "talkies" over his more traditional output, a notion which Valentin scoffs at and Miller is more than happy to step up to, filling the megastar-shaped hole left by him. So, as I said in the first paragraph, it's basically a simple love story. Having said that, there are enough caveats and interesting twists and turns to stop the film from being entirely predictable. I thought both Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo were fantastic in their roles. Both have the silent acting styles down to a tee and are take plenty of opportunities to mug and exaggerate facial expressions. Also, James "That'll do, pig" Cromwell and John "brings the ruckus" Goodman make appearances. Oh, and Valentin's dog, who steals every scene he's in.

I really had fun watching The Artist. The novelty of watching a silent film didn't wear off and came across as downright charming. The only downside to this being that you can hear the old biddy three rows back rustling her sodding sweet wrappers with startling clarity. There were times where I forgot I was watching a silent film as I was caught up in the melodrama of it all. It's important to note that The Artist isn't the first film to do the retrospective silent thing, as Mel Brooks did it about 40 years ago with Silent Movie. It could be argued that Brooks did a lot more with the gimmick than The Artist does. However, that's really beside the point.

There's one really talked about scene where Valentin has a nightmare sequence in which sound invades his life for the first time and he finds himself unable to speak. At first I rolled my eyes because I assumed the film was going to pull a Pleasantville with sound instead of colour, and have sound slowly become the norm. Thankfully, it doesn't come to that and the sequence is remarkably well done. The film is also genuinely funny and had me smiling throughout most of the runtime. Well, at the bits that were appropriate, anyway. I found the film to be quite moving too (Fuck you, War Horse) with Valentin's fall from grace really striking a chord with me.

"..."

The Artist is really a unique experience. It may be a cynical callback to the infancy of Hollywood, but it really didn't seem like it to me. It's a sharply observed tribute to the silent era which managed to both charm and move me in a way very few films do. Yes, a deep love of cinema or an appreciation for stars like Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd may help, but it's a classic melodrama that entertained the living hell out of me. Plus, the ending is amazing. Go and see it whilst you still can at the cinema, it's one of the best films to see with an audience (well, unless you live in Liverpool)

Hugo

2012-02-03T02:02:00.000Z

With the Oscar nominations announced, I was made aware that I hadn't even seen the two frontrunners, Hugo and The Artist. So, I organised a trip to the nearest place with a pulse and a multiplex and remedied the embarrassing situation I found myself in.

Hugo (2011)

The Academy are a funny old bunch, aren't they? To me, they seem like a typical elderly man character in a bad sitcom. For instance, they frequently show how out-of-touch they are, overlooking culturally important flicks in favour of schmaltzy toss. Also, they seem to forget things only to remember them much later, such as Scorsese's Oscar for The Departed and Gary Oldman's "oh, fucking finally!" type nomination this year. Coupled with The Artist, a more cynical man than I would point out that both these films are just pandering to the Academy, knowing full-well that the voters fucking love films that boil down to talking about how bloody brilliant films are and how movie-making is, like, really important, yeah? However, I'm not that cynical and am happy to say Hugo and The Artist both won me over with their charm and general rocking of the shit.

"I'd imagine the whole world was one big machine. Machines never come with any extra parts, you know. They always come with the exact amount they need. So I figured, if the entire world was one big machine, I couldn't be an extra part. I had to be here for some reason."

Asa Butterfield plays the titular Hugo, an orphan boy who secretly lives in the walls of a bustling Parisian train station, constantly having to duck and avoid Inspector Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen) who would like nothing better than to send our grubby hero off to the orphanage. Things change when Hugo meets Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), an adventurous bookworm who is in possession of an unusual key that may unlock the secret to Hugo's prized possession- a broken automaton left by his father. I hate to sound like I've read the official namby-pamby PR blurb for Hugo, but it actually is a magical, fun-filled, family film. I'm sorry, I can't think of anything more fitting than that. It doesn't talk down to its kiddie audience and actually deals with some pretty adult stuff. The performances are all great, with Asa Butterfield doing his wide-eyed best as Hugo. Chloë Moretz aka the foul mouthed Hit-Girl from Kick-Ass, is charming as Isabelle, also nailing the British accent that everyone in 1930s Paris seems to have. Sir Ben Kingsley is predictably good, but the surprise for me was Sacha Baron Cohen. After initially dismissing his character as childish slapstick giggle fodder, I was taken aback at how much I warmed to his friendlier take on the Child Catcher.

Hugo is a love letter to cinema. It's a tribute to the early innovators of the art and in particular, the work of Georges Méliès. This is done tastefully and isn't the frantic, uncoordinated suckjob I expected all of this "love of cinema" stuff to be. I got the feeling Scorsese has genuine admiration for these pioneers and it permeates the film. However, as enthralling as I found all of this to be, the thought occurred that all of this may be a bit too boring for some kids. There are no "comedy" CGI creatures that run into walls or fart, for instance. There's also a nightmare sequence where Hugo turns into the metal faced automaton which may disturb the wussier kids in the audience. Still though, what the hell do I know? Haven't been a kid for a long time and don't plan on becoming a parent any time soon.

So, the 3D. The fucking 3D. I hate to say it, but it was good. Before I start telling you about how well Scorsese handled the technology and the like, I want to make it clear. Hugo has still not sold me on 3D. It's still an overpriced gimmick that I cannot wait to see the back of. Having said that, this is the best 3D integration I've seen. The opening shot is of a snowy Paris, with snowflakes falling before your eyes and the film continues impressing from there. That's not to say it's in your face the entire time. Like the best 3D, you sort of forget you're watching one until the next thing gets all up in your grill. Whilst added dimensionality usually adds something between "fuck" and "all", I get the feeling Hugo might not be quite as much fun without all the whizz-bang 3D when it comes to DVD. Time will tell on that one.

"If you've ever wondered where your dreams come from, you look around. This is where they're made."

I left Hugo with a big smile on my face. It's an immensely enjoyable family film that manages to be a fun kiddie flick and a film fan's wet dream at the same time. It's genuinely affecting at points too, which has made me think I was too soft on War Horse and all its forced sentimentality. I hope Hugo is the start of a smarter breed of kids films and that studios realise that 3D can be used to great effect when a) you have a great director in charge or b) when it suits the mood of the film. I realise I may as well wish for fucking wings, considering Ice Age 4 and Madagascar 3 are farting into your local multiplex soon, but I can dream, can't I?

Haywire

2012-01-27T02:44:00.000Z

In true Popcorn Bucket fashion, the film world is buzzing about awards and y'know- films that actually matter and I toddled off to see an action film with lots of punching, kicking and the occasional sexy chokehold.

Haywire (2012)

You can just never predict what Steven Soderbergh is going to do next. From gritty biopics like the Che films to the crowd-pleasing frippery of the Ocean's trilogy, the guy chops and changes track more often than a particularly indecisive iPod Shuffle. So, fresh from last year's disease epic Contagion, Soderbergh has chosen to helm an action film made to showcase MMA star Gina Carano's arse-kicking abilities and backing her up with an impressive cast list of famous faces. Like him or not, you can't criticise the man for being a one trick pony.

"You shouldn't think of her as being a woman. That would be your first mistake."

Haywire centres on Mallory Kane (Gina Carano, best described as a lantern-jawed, cage-fighting version of Rebecca Black), a black ops agent who is betrayed by her organisation. Kane then goes rogue in order to track down the people responsible. That is really about it. I'll forgive you for yawning. The plot is as uninspired as they come.It's something we've seen a hundred times before and done better elsewhere. I get the feeling that the plot isn't the point of the film however. This is basically a B movie (well, that specific kind of recent Hollywood B movie that imitates everything but the tiny budget) and as such, some schlock is to be expected. It's almost a parody of the genre, but doesn't quite tip the balance. I was really impressed with Gina Carano though. Considering this is her first film, she's great. Granted, she's playing a nigh-on emotionless unstoppable badass, but she definitely has a screen presence. As I said above, the supporting cast is terrific, especially Michael Fassbender and Ewan McGregor. Also human gerund Channing Tatum is here, lending his muscular blandness and strangely smooth face to proceedings.

Sod the plot though, action is why (disappointingly few) people are sitting down to watch this. I must say, the action's great. Stevey Sodas strips current Hollywood fight conventions back down to the wire. There is no shaky-cam bullshit, no up-tempo music and no wire-fu. All you hear during the brutal fights are grunts and dull thuds. Each hit sounds like a heftily swung baseball bat hitting a sack of wet steaks. It's refreshing to actually see the impressive choreography rather than try and make it out from frenetic editing and spastic camerawork. Carano's fight with Fassbender in a Dublin hotel room is especially well done. There's also a rooftop chase, which aims for realism, rather than hyper-excitement. The film can be quite minimalist at times, which can be very effective. There's a scene where Mallory is walking down a Dublin street, expecting danger to come from any angle. The camera tracks her for a good 3/4 minutes, just walking on the pavement, with all the sounds of city life around her. This ain't your typical action affair.

Whilst the plot can be forgiven to an extent, the rest of the film didn't quite hang together for me. I really wanted to love this film, but there were too many things getting in the way. For one, I found the score to be truly obnoxious, with David Holmes, the man behind the slick Oceans' soundtracks, basically doing the same jazzy, cool schtick with added annoying blaring brass bits. It's repetitive and doesn't sit well with the movie at all. The film can really drag too, with characters endlessly spouting expository dialogue to pad out the weak-as-fuck plot.

"You can tell me right now why you sold me out- or you can tell me in ten minutes when I have my hands around your throat"

In Mallory Kane, we finally have a proper female equal to Jason Bourne. Screw Angelina Jolie's Salt or even Saoirse Ronan's Hanna, Kane is the real deal. Haywire is a mixed bag. As an audition tape for Carano's action chops, it works fantastically well. As a film, it falters, despite a stylish presentation and bloody decent fighting. Hopefully Carano will get the vehicle she's crying out for soon.

War Horse

2012-01-17T20:47:00.001Z

Yup, a review of a current film you won't struggle to find showings of. This means you can consider this consumer advice if you wanted to. I could actually save you money. Well, unless I end up giving this film a rather schizophrenic review and award it an average three stars or summat.

War Horse (2012)

If the insane amount of marketing is to be believed, Spielberg is "back and better than ever" and War Horse promises to jerk more tears than a (insert thing that jerks a lot of tears in a semi-comedic situation). The glowing reviews also seemed to confirm that yes, this is a film that harkens back to the good ol' days of moviemaking and moved captive audiences to floods of tears. Maybe my X79 Emotion Simulator Chip is loose, but I sat down and two and a half hours later I stood up again, no more moved than when I went in. I was baffled to see people, their faces shining with fresh sad juice walking past me, pulling those weird faces that people do when they're embarrassed about crying and trying to laugh it off by exaggerating things like dabbing their eyes. Once again, the emotional disconnect between the general public and myself grows ever deeper.

"Gentlemen, it is an honour to ride beside you. Make the Kaiser rue the day he crossed swords with us. Let every man do himself, his King, his country, and his fallen comrades proud. Be brave."

Set in Dartmoor in 1914, War Horse is the story of a bond between farmer's boy Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) and Joey the horse. After his drunken father (Peter Mullan) sells the horse to the British Army to pay the rent on his struggling farm, the heartbroken Albert vows to find Joey again, no matter what. The story is that horse story i.e. a child/teenager forms an unlikely bond with an unruly horse and the pair soon reach a mutual understanding. Which is fine, I guess. A bit girly though. Good thing we have a socking great war in the middle though, for us barrel-chested lads. What sets War Horse apart from other "horsey" films is that we see the different perspectives of war through Joey's ever-changing owners. For instance, in one scene we have a grandfather and granddaughter taking care of the horse and in another we see Joey being put to work as a literal war horse, lugging a massive cannon up a muddy hill for Ze Germans. The film is almost episodic and plays like a parallel universe Tarantino film, where characters exchange loving looks and sentimentality instead of f-words and bullets. Obviously the acting is up to scratch- newcomer Jeremy Irvine impressed the fuck out of me, whereas seasoned actors like Peter Mullan, Emily Watson and David Thewlis all gave an air of class to proceedings.

Before I start working the ribs, let me just say, I didn't hate War Horse. It's impressive filmmaking. The fine acting on display, the golden cinematography and the unapologetically melodramatic John Williams score all add up to a fantastically well made film. There are elements I loved, it's just the plot didn't really work for me. Having said that, there's a sequence in No Man's Land which was brilliant and moving, without being mawkish. I also love that War Horse has a response to Rise of the Planet of the Apes' "Gorilla Vs. Helicopter" awesomeness. New for 2012, it's "Horse Vs. Tank"! The war sequences are effective and surprisingly harrowing considering we never see any bloodshed on screen. I also liked the fact that the film keeps the Devon setting, despite the downside that everyone in the first half hour talks like Samwise fucking Gamgee.

I'm not made of stone. I have cried at films before and I'm only semi-ashamed to say that the last film I remember crying at was Wall-E. My final line in the first paragraph about "the emotional disconnect" between Joe Public and I may read like a smug bellend typing down unjustified reason #7002 on why he thinks he's better than everyone else. I assure you, this is not the case. There's nothing better than having a collective audience response in a film, be it laughing at the same bits or even applauding at the end. I like feeling like part of a group. Thing is, War Horse was too obvious to illicit tears from me, if that makes sense. There were no surprise emotional gut-punches or sudden tragic turns. Yeah, the horse goes through some hardship, but it didn't make me bawl like a bitch. I empathised, sure, but that's where it stopped.

"I could love you no less, but I could hate you more."

War Horse is good, but I felt it took too long to tell a simple, rather hackneyed story. Despite doing a good job giving Joey a personality, I just wasn't invested enough to have a lump in my throat at any point. It's a masterclass in the technical side of making films, it just left me feeling underwhelmed after reports of people sobbing out their spleens in preview screenings. I was going to make a joke about much rather seeing a film called War Whores, but they effectively did that and it wasn't much fun either.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

2012-01-12T17:13:00.001Z

Back with my first post of 2012. May as well start the year as I mean to go on, which means I have a pile of films to talk about like anyone wants to hear another nerd's justification for why he doesn't go out and meet someone nice.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

2012 has an abundance of films I'd put off my own grandmother's funeral to see. 2011 didn't. There were films that interested me, but nothing that made me leap off my seat and start scratching at the door like a dog wanting to go walkies. The only film that came close was David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Why? Well, I liked the Swedish original, my perpetual man-crush Daniel Craig stars and it's directed by David Fincher, a man who could direct a film called Ben Browne Loves Scrotum and I would still be clamouring for a ticket on opening day.

"You will be investigating thieves, misers, bullies, the most detestable collection of people you will ever meet – my family."

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is based on the first novel in the best-selling Millennium trilogy (original title Män som hatar kvinnor- i.e. Men Who Hate Women) by Steig Larsson. In it, we follow disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) as he is drafted in by retired industrialist Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to solve a 40 year old case of the murder of his great-niece. Blomkvist soon finds himself way over his head and hires a research assistant in the form of prickly, motorbiking, Goth, master hacker Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) to help with the case. If you haven't read or seen this story before, there are enough twists and turns on the standard murder mystery formula to keep you guessing. The main strength of the film is the crime solving double act of Blomkvist and Salander, a chalk and cheese pairing that simply works. Daniel Craig is Daniel Craig, but you get the feeling he was hired due to his starpower and the fact that he's the current Bond- a point I'll come back to in a bit. Rooney Mara is undoubtedly the talking point in this film. She manages to nail both the damaged vulnerability and simmering rage elements that make the character work. This is a star-making turn for her and I look forward to seeing her in plenty of films in the near future. Of the supporting cast, Christopher Plummer gives a surprising performance as the frail Henrik Vanger and Stellan Skarsgård uses his big, friendly face to his advantage as Martin Vanger.

You may be asking what the point is in remaking a film that's barely three years old and was perfectly fine to begin with. It's a good point, but there's more to this than simply remaking it to be all American-like. For starters, there's a big debate on whether this film is a remake at all, although some of the shots and performances certainly indicate the production team have at least seen the 2009 film. If you were planning on avoiding this one on the principle that it's an American retelling of a successful foreign film (like The Grudge or The Ring) I implore you not to. A lot of effort has been made to make it true to the original story. The only real difference is that everyone speaks English and the film has bigger name actors. The Swedish locales and everything that made the first one a breath of fresh air (thank Christ this wasn't reworked to be set in Los Angeles or New York) are kept. It's important to remember the original films were made for TV and as such could benefit from a cinematic upgrade, especially handled by David Fincher.

I'm a bit of a meathead when it comes whats I likes. I found 2009's Dragon Tattoo, starring the traffic-stoppingly beautiful Noomi Rapace, to be a very entertaining, if tough, watch. I'm not sure whether it was the sheer number of characters mentioned (the Vanger family and their relationships to each other are central to the plot) or what, but I wasn't completely taken in by it. Fincher's version is more streamlined that the 2009 one, with Steven Zaillian's screenplay chopping and changing certain characters to make the film flow better. I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or not, although I understood the intricacies of the plot more in this 'un. The film is still very similar to the 2009 one but with a different feeling to it. It's certainly better shot and made. There's even a trippy Bond-like title sequence (which you can see here), which whilst awesome, is slightly at odds with the quiet menace of the rest of the film. By the way, if the makers of that don't get the call to do the Skyfall opening titles, I will be shocked.

Actually, talking of Bond, I feel we are meant to take Craig's 007 persona into account in his role as Blomkvist in one way, but disregard it in another. The character of Blomkvist is a womaniser, something that's not really explored in the Fincher film, but we take it as read, because, hey- the dude's James Bond. On the other hand, Blomkvist isn't meant to be accustomed to the danger he finds himself in and is, in a way, the male damsel (mansel?) in distress, which is obviously very un-Bondlike. I have no problem separating characters from actors, it's just that Craig's Blomkvist is a bit of a blank slate, which makes it easy to project onto. Sure, lots of things happen to him, but I'm not sure I could write a quick paragraph outlining his character. I could write a whole sodding book about Mara's Salander though. Whilst I think both Mara and Rapace play the role well, I think Mara has the slight edge. Rapace played her as someone you just wouldn't mess with, whereas Mara's vulnerability is a bit more apparent, which makes it easier to understand why people try and take advantage of her.

"Rape, torture, fire, animals, religion. Am I missing anything?"

Most of the good in the film is also the good in the 2009 version. There's some genuinely disturbing scenes, a fantastic retribution scene which is so unpleasant, yet air-punchingly cathartic it'll be etched on your brain like a sloppily done tattoo. As with previous incarnations, when the mystery starts unravelling, it's all bloody compelling. Still, if you've yet to experience the Millennium trilogy in any of its forms, now's the time. I've got big hopes for the already announced sequel. It's not the most necessary remake/reinterpretation/whatever, but I enjoyed it for what it was- a populist, pulp murder-mystery made by a team of talented filmmakers at the top of their game. Which version is better? I'm not going to get into that argument now, but each have their merits. Recommended.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

2011-12-30T01:47:00.000Z

'nother new film, 'nother new review. It's a slight change from the norm as I went to go and see this at the nearest IMAX cinema. It's the first proper feature film I've seen on one of those honking great screens and I must admit, it was pretty damn impressive. It's not more "immersive" though in the same way 3D isn't. I will concede that certain shots do have a considerable wow factor to them though. What I didn't like was the IMAX adverts beforehand, telling you how fucking special it all is. There's even some pseudo-scientific "calibration" bit, booming things like "Readying 12,000 watt digital speakers" and "Preparing audience for maximum enjoyment" like it was Space Mountain or something. At that moment, in a cinema in the fucking freezing Cardiff Bay, where a mishandled Coke cup had resulted in a sticky, wet sock-shaped dose of reality, this crap had no place.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Quick! Name a spy series. If this question was asked in the street and not under a feckin' poster for the latest Mission: Impossible, you'd probably name the Bond films. After that? Probably Bourne. Chances are the Mission: Impossible franchise would be pretty low down the list, despite having three previous films, each helmed by prolific directors and all starring perpetual A-lister Tom Cruise. Now, since I can't be arsed to write full reviews for the previous entries (for now) here's a quick rundown, so you know what to think when asked about them:

Mission: Impossible (1996)- A bit too convoluted for its own good. Betrayal a major theme. Has that super-famous scene where TC is lowered in like a Thunderbirds puppet with half its strings snagged on a nail. Entertaining enough. Tom Cruise runs away from: water in that bit where he blows up a fish tank

M:I -2 (2002) - Fun, but completely fucking ridiculous. Really decent action beats. Tom Cruise has distractingly long hair. Tom Cruise runs away from: a decent barber and doves in slllooooww moootioon.

Mission: Impossible III (2006) - Same notes as for M: I-2 except slightly less ridiculous, obeys most of the laws of physics this time round and Cruise has had a haircut. Philip Seymour Hoffman steals scenes.Tom Cruise runs away from: a massive bridge explosion, slamming him into a car.

"That's it. Next time, I get to seduce the rich guy."

After being framed for a bombing of the Kremlin, IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his team of Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg), Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and the mysterious Brandt (Jeremy Renner) are disavowed and IMF are shut down. However, the team learn of some stolen nuclear weapons codes by a man named Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist) and so have to race to stop him causing nuclear war, all without the safety net of backup. Whilst I liked the fact that the IMF team had to work without creature comforts like the masks etc (although they do still have rather a lot of impossibly cool spy shit) the plot was as hackneyed as they come. Countless films, books and games have covered the Russian nuclear war angle and I wish they'd have had a stronger, more original story to pad out the fun team dynamic and the action set pieces. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise, Paula Patton was pretty good, Simon Pegg is funny, but nowhere near as funny as the film thinks he is and Jeremy Renner made me glad he's playing Hawkeye in The Avengers. It was also weird to see Blomkvist from the Millennium trilogy playing a bad guy.

Plot isn't exactly the M:I series' strength, but I liked the ambiguity of the Rabbit's Foot MacGuffin in the third film. This was all too laid out from the beginning, with no real intrigue. Plus, Hendricks' motivation is fuzzy. There's a video of him giving a speech explaining that nuclear war would level the playing field for the human race, but it seems a hell of a step to go from pie-in-the-sky, philosophical musing to actually stealing nuclear codes. I found myself only really paying attention when the team travelled to a location I'd seen in the trailers, and therefore knowing some shit was about to go down. The film opens strongly with a prison breakout that manages to kick things off nicely. The Kremlin infiltration scene is very well done and reminded me why I liked this series in the first place. It's slicker than your average spy fest. There's a great bit involving Pegg, Cruise, a massive screen, a camera and an iPad to watch out for too.

Of the numerous money scenes, the clear stand out is Ethan's scaling of the Burj Kalifa tower in Dubai aka the tallest building in the world. This scene in particular is where the IMAX shone, with the bigger screen giving a real sense of scale to the scene and giving me a real sense of vertigo. It's one of 2011's best action sequences and amazingly tense. The film also scores some originality points for being the first film (to my knowledge) to have a scrap in one of those futuristic automated car parks.

As for my famous nit-picking, I only have one real complaint. This film might as well have been called iMission: Impossible. I haven't seen this many Apple logos since last September's Pretentious Wanker convention. The mucky fingerprints of Apple product placement are all over this one. Almost the full range of Apple products are on display, with the aforementioned iPad, everyone having iPhones (although Ethan can apparently answer a call on one without needing to touch the screen at all), Benji having a Macbook and the film even ending with Ethan plugging in his iPod. This isn't the worst offender for product placement by a long shot, but as I stared at the illuminated 6 foot logo on the back of Benji's laptop (massive screen remember), I caught myself wondering exactly how much money changed hands for it to be there, rather than how our loveable team of rogues were going to avert nuclear disaster.

"This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds."

Anyway, Ghost Protocol is a perfectly fine popcorn flick. It hasn't got as much heart as the third one, but it's got a fun team dynamic and some real standout action scenes. It's reinvigorated the franchise and if rumours are to be believed, Paramount are already fast-tracking a Mission: Impossible V. See it in IMAX if you can too. Oh, and since I've now finished this review, let me summarise it like I did the others:

Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol (2011) - Fun, if lacking a decent plot. Dubai sequence truly amazing. Needs funnier Pegg lines. Tom Cruise runs away from: an exploding Kremlin and a sandstorm.

Puss In Boots

2011-12-28T22:30:00.000Z

It's that awkward week between Christmas and New Year where the holiday season isn't quite over yet, but the end is in sight. It's also a week where parents cart their wretched spawn off to the cinema to keep 'em sedated for a bit, and with today's hessian prices, it's cheaper than drowning them in a sack. Speaking of which- Puss in Boots!

Puss in Boots (2011)

After driving the Shrek films into the ground with the godawful Shrek the Third and the slightly less awful, but still shite Shrek Forever After, Dreamworks Animation decided they haven't squeezed enough out of the topsy-turvy fairytale idea and decided to do a full film based on one of the series' most popular characters. Like everyone else, I like Puss.What I didn't like was the idea of a decent supporting character, with his appeal on the wane anyway thanks to the aforementioned celluloid warcrimes, being made into just another boring cash-in vehicle. However, this film has proved one thing to me. If you put time and actual effort into even the laziest of ideas, it is possible to make it good. Also, if the reviews have taught me anything, it's that people are being paid to write cat puns so simplistic and shit that not even a Christmas cracker would have the audacity to include as a "joke".

"Fear me, if you dare!"

Puss in Boots is a prequel to the character's appearance in Shrek 2. We see the heroic Puss (voiced by Antonio Banderas) caught up in a plan, led by ex-childhood friend Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis) and the mysterious Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek), to steal some magic beans from the oafish, pig-raising married couple Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sudaris). The story isn't exactly amazing, but it's a good enough framework to support the rest of the film. Antonio Banderas is genuinely funny as Puss and the rest of the voice work is of your standard Hollywood animation high quality.

So, like it or not, the focus in on Puss and thankfully his charm doesn't wear off. If you love cats (and since you're reading this on the Internet, statistically you fucking love them) there's a lot here for you. What I liked about the film though is the fact that they didn't solely rely on "LOL, he's a cat!!1" jokes. Yeah, he orders milk and chases spots of light, but they're few and far enough between to actually be endearing rather than annoying. Plus, if you don't at least "aww" a little bit when you see Puss as a kitten, you're made of stronger stuff than I. Part of me wanted to leap up from my seat and hug the screen, sobbing. However, fear of being vilified for such a bizarre act in a screen containing my mother, my grandmother and about 30 kids and their parents kept me firmly in place. Since Puss in Boots is from the Shrek canon, there are a couple of adult aimed jokes- the most obvious one being a guard itemising Puss' belongings and finding a vial of catnip, to which Puss sheepishly replies "It's for my glaucoma". Unusually for this type of film there are very few pop culture references, which is like a breath of fresh air.

I saw the film in eye-massaging 2D and nothing was lost. Like in Kung Fu Panda 2, I could tell it was made to appeal to glasses-wearing saps, due to the choice of camera angles during chase sequences, but it really doesn't matter how many bloody dimensions you see it in. The set-pieces are great, including a fantastic bit with a beanstalk and an exciting carriage chase with Jack and Jill. What I liked most though was the fact that the whole "blending of fairytales" seems somewhat fresher this time and the characters are well-rounded. The character of Humpty Dumpty for instance, is extremely well done (no pun intended). His arc is believable and yes, surprisingly moving too. That's right- I found myself sympathising with a cartoon egg. I'm prepared to accept the consequences of what that bold statement will bring.

"You are not as good as they say you are, Miss Softpaws. You're better."

I was surprised by how much Puss in Boots entertained me. Maybe it was the mental adjustment of expectations beforehand, but y'know what? It's fun. It's colourful, it's genuinely funny at times and it has a real charm that I wasn't expecting from a spin-off to a series that has already whored itself out for three sequels, a musical and countless other pieces of tie-in crap. Whilst I know in my heart that Dreamworks have franchise plans up the wazoo for Puss, it doesn't stop this film from being good. It's a fun family film that features lots of dancing cats. You know you want to see it.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

2011-12-24T17:52:00.000Z

After avoiding the cinema for a while, only the promise of more Holmes fun could convince me to pay £2 for a small bottle of Coke. The game's afoot!

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

So yeah, after the highly enjoyable, if flawed first film I was pumped for the sequel. Especially since it transpired that Holmes' arch-nemesis, Moriarty, was going to appear. If you can't be arsed to read that easily clickable link I put in the first sentence, one of my main problems with 2009's instalment was the fact it had quite a generic villain in the form of Mark Strong's Lord Blackwood. Now we've got Professor Moriarty, evil genius and Holmes equal. Fuck yes.

"If we can stop him, we shall prevent the collapse of Western civilisation. No pressure."

So, after investigating seemingly unconnected murders and bombings, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) believes mathematics genius Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) to be behind it all. He intercepts a note meant for gypsy girl Sim (Noomi Rapace) and with her in tow unfolds the true extent of Moriarty's diabolical plans. Meanwhile, Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) is still trying to get married to Mary (Kelly Reilly) despite Holmes' objections. Put simply, this is what the franchise needed. Whilst the story veers away from the occult theme of the first, we get a proper globe-trotting adventure this time round. RDJ and Law still have the chemistry that made their Holmes and Watson dynamic work so well back in 2009. I also liked the fact that Kelly Reilly got more to work with this time round. Of the newcomers, I found the idea of Stephen Fry as "Sherly"'s brother, Mycroft to be funnier than he actually is in the film. It's perfect casting- don't get me wrong and he is actually funny, it's just I could have done with seeing more of him (in terms of character, not nudity- there's plenty of that). The gorgeous Noomi Rapace, previously known for her role as Lisbeth Salander in the original Swedish version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (and its sequels) is rather wasted here in the thankless role of Sim. No problem with her acting chops though and it was fantastic to see her in her first English speaking role. Predictably, the standout here is Jared Harris' Moriarty- a genius as evil as he is bearded. This is Batman/Joker territory here where the villain is as entertaining to watch as the hero is. He's fucking fantastic.

I must admit, I didn't like the opening bits of A Game of Shadows. Whilst the opening action scenes were great and it was good to see Rachel McAdams' Irene Adler again, when the bread-and-butter Holmes/Watson interplay started it struck me as a bit too forced and contrived. I often find this in sequels such as in the other Downey Jr. super-sequel, Iron Man 2. With that film, I felt that because the audience now expected certain behaviour from Tony Stark, it was written with that in mind, if that makes sense. What I'm saying is, I often find the "wackiness" factor is significantly upped in sequels, sometimes to the point where the fan-favourite character becomes a cartoon of themselves. Luckily (to get back on point) this ebbed away after a while and the banter fell back into familiar, funny form.

I was really impressed with the action beats. We still have the super-slo-mo Holmes fighting, but there are twists on the formula. It's certainly more action packed that its predecessor. All the action is awesome without exception. My personal favourites being a fantastic scrap with a would-be assassin and a forest sequence that truly amazed me. Also, the not-quite fight sequence between Holmes and Moriarty is incredible. It's powerful stuff, make no mistake. I'm genuinely finding it difficult remembering the last film I had so much fun watching.

As you've probably gathered, Moriarty is the boy. Every scene he and Holmes have is a battle of wits and one-upmanship. There's mutual respect which makes the scenes all the more interesting. There's a brilliant spoken game of chess (it'll make sense when you see it) that had me grinning like a buttcrack enthusiast at a builder's convention. Whilst simultaneously being on the edge of my seat. Thank Christ cinemas are dark. I can't even imagine how unsettling that would look to a bystander.

Serious spoilery stuff now, people. So skip to the end if you haven't seen it yet. (Invisotexted, highlight to read). I was quite disappointed by Irene Adler not lasting that long. I know it's so we see how callous and evil Moriarty is, but I wanted her to stick around for a bit. As for the chess/waterfall bit. Fucking hell. Having only a passing knowledge of Holmes, as soon as I saw there was a waterfall, I guessed this might be the actual end. It isn't but I almost wish it was. Since it looked like that's where the film was going, I was all ready to applaud the film. No, I didn't want Holmes dead, but it would have been a completely unforgettable ending. I would love a sequel to this, but I'm always in favour of leaving people wanting more. From that point of view, I felt the ending was a slight cop-out. So, I still feel torn about it.

"Your clock is ticking."

So yeah. I had a blast with Game of Shadows. It's louder and more confident than the first and finally pits Holmes against a worthy adversary who almost steals the show entirely. If you liked the first, you're in safe hands. Even if you didn't like the first, you may be surprised by this one. Highly recommended.

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi

2011-12-22T23:01:00.000Z

Yup, I finally get to remove this Star Wars shaped monkey off my back and finish the saga. As Vader himself once said in A New Hope : "The circle is now complete. Now fuckin' die you bearded tosser."

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

I've got a proper love/hate thing going on with Jedi. One the one hand, it has some of the trilogy's best scenes, on the other it's clear that this was where things started to become less focused on telling a kick-arse story and more on how many new merchandising opportunities could be introduced. It's also the film that's suffered the worst additions, be they from the Special Edition or the recent Blu-ray tinkerings.

"I see you have constructed a new lightsaber. Your skills are complete. Indeed you are powerful as the Emperor has foreseen."

Anyway, Han Solo (Harrison Ford) is still frozen. Luke (Mark Hamill) is still not a Jedi and Leia (Carrie Fisher) has gone to rescue Han from the clutches of gangster slug-thing Jabba the Hutt (Susan Boyle). Meanwhile, the Empire are in the process of building a new Death Star and the Rebels led by Solo and Lando (Billy Dee Williams) plan to attack before their weapons are functional. The story's a decent end to the Star Wars trilogy, it's just a shame it had to involve Ewoks.

So, where to begin? Well, the first hour of Jedi rocks the shit. We go from Jabba's Palace to an old school monster smackdown with a Rancor and then we're whisked off on Jabba's sail barge to a sequence taking place in the desert over the Pit of Sarlaac- a fantastic creature that eats men whole and digests them slowly over 1000 years. From there we've got Luke saying his goodbyes to Yoda, the great speeder bike chase through the forest of Endor and then...we hit a brick wall in the form of Wicket W. Warrick (Warrick Davies) a cuddly space teddy bear. Nothing against Davies at all, but the Ewoks are shit. Yeah, it's predictable that I was going to pick on the Ewoks, but they stop me enjoying the film. Despite the baffling Blu add-ons and the crusty anus of a musical number "Jedi Rocks" (which reported cost Lucas a cool $1 million to add to the film back in '97), it's classic Star Wars. It's clear the Ewoks were added to appeal solely to kids. Lucas knew the sweet dollars were from gullible parents who would buy their screaming sprogs any old bit of fuzz to shut them up. This is when Lucas turned. He's more cash machine now than man.

The Blu-ray changes here are unforgivable. It's like a middle finger from Lucas that we had to pay for the privilege to receive. When I heard the rumours of the Blu-ray changes, I dismissed them as a joke. After all the addition of "blinking Ewoks" and "a larger door to Jabba's Palace" sounded like just the sort of thing Lucas was infamous for, but just out there enough to be unrealistic. However, it was all true. All of it. Even the shit that didn't make sense and just raises further questions. That door for instance- wouldn't have noticed it before. Now the perspective's fucked and it looks as fake as hell. Why is he doing this to us?

The worst change though is in the climactic scene with Vader, Luke and the Emperor. Palpatine is frying Luke with Force lightning and Luke tries to appeal to his father beneath the machinery.Vader looks from his dying son to the Emperor, who has a look of pure hatred on his face. We sense the conflict in Vader, despite his face being covered. Suddenly, Vader picks up the Emperor and heaves him over a railing to his doom, redeeming himself and saving his son in the process. It was one of my all time favourite Star Wars moments. I hate to sound like a whinging fanboy here, but Lucas ruined it for me. For some fucking bananas reason he decides to echo one of Vader's lowest points (excluding this debacle) and having him shout "Noo!" a bunch of times. This is proof to me that either Lucas doesn't understand his own creation or he hates his fans. I'm not sure which one is worse.

I didn't want to finish my Jedi review on a sour note though. The film is mostly great. It's the weakest of the three, but still a lot of fun. As I said, it contains some of my favourite trilogy scenes. The speeder bike chase is great, the all out space battle is awesome too. My favourite of all though is Luke's showdown with Vader. It's pitch perfect and Luke's slow realisation that the Emperor is turning him into a Vader replacement is so fantastic I'm genuinely having to fight the urge to stop typing these words, stick the film on and skip to that bit.

"And now, young Skywalker... you will die."

Star Wars has meant and still means a considerable amount to me. As a kid, it opened my mind to fantastical planets, aliens and adventure, as well as inspiring me to strive to be as heroic as Luke is. As an adult, it shows me that great films can remain so, despite outdated effects and corny ideals. As a fan, I've learned that I'm done with George Lucas, who continually disappoints all but his completely feckless fans by trying his best to sully what little good there is left in the Star Wars name. The film's still good despite the inherent Ewok problems and the added nonsense, I just wish it was left alone for me to enjoy.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back

2011-12-15T20:52:00.000Z

2011's pretty much over and I've still got shit to write. Better get some actual work done. Let's get this whole Star Wars thing knocked on the head, shall we?

Star Wars : Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

A New Hope is good (well, fantastic actually), but of the "proper" Star Wars flicks, Empire is my favourite. Why? Well, ignoring the deeper story and numerous feckin' terrific scenes, it all boils down to the fact that The Empire Strikes Back does everything a sequel should. It takes the well-established characters of the source material and expands on not only them, but the universe they inhabit. Most sequels can manage only one of these two elements, but what truly makes a sequel special in my book is doing both those things in a way that seems organic to the original. I'll come back to that in a minute, once I've typed out a pointless plot summary.

"The Force is with you, young Skywalker, but you are not a Jedi yet."

So, after blowing seven shades of intergalactic shit out of the Death Star at the end of A New Hope, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) has become a bone-fide rebel hero and has been made Lieutenant Commander for his troubles. However, after getting a visit from the ghostly Obi-Wan (Alec Guinness) Luke travels to the swamp planet of Dagobah to meet with a Master Yoda and continue his Jedi training. Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) end up travelling to a city in the clouds, Bespin, to meet with Han's old friend Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams). All the while, the presumably very dizzy Darth Vader has become obsessed with finding Skywalker and the possibility of turning the young Jedi to the Dark Side. The plot is darker and more complex than A New Hope's and it works well. It's hard to imagine the "big twist" being a surprise, but it's still a rightfully classic moment. The actors are all great and major new addition Billy Dee Williams adds some effortless and much needed cool to the Star Wars universe.

As an example of what the hell I was talking about in the first paragraph, I'm going to (some would say unfairly) compare Empire with the second Pirates of the Caribbean film, Dead Man's Chest. Both films were made to capitalise on a surprise hit film, both go for a "darker" tone than the first one and both have a soppy lead character and a much more entertaining cooler-than-thou character in tow. Now, was it just me, or did the Captain Jack in Dead Man's Chest seem like a pale photocopy of his full strength Curse of the Black Pearl form? Well, no, it isn't just me. I know that. I just wrote that so you as the reader feel there's a semi-interactive element to all this dogmatic opinion-yelling. He is a pale photocopy of himself. It isn't up for debate. It's what happens when writers actively try and make a character act like themselves rather than focusing on what makes sense for the character. Han Solo is the antithesis of all this. After becoming BFF's with Luke in the first film and helping him destroy the Death Star, this Solo really feels like the same Han we grew to know in A New Hope but with some of the corners sanded slightly. Most of this is due to his burgeoning relationship with Leia. This love story is handled extremely well and is not contrived in the slightest. It feels real. She resists him for a long time, he can't put aside his alpha male swaggering to tell her how he feels and the pair share a stolen kiss in the Millennium Falcon. It's so much better than the standard movie hookups we're still expected to buy into these days. He chucks acid into the head honcho's face, saves the day and then she decides that yeah, he's worth a tumble in the hay and then they kiss, credits roll and I fashion a shiv out of what I found down the back of the sofa and stab myself in the thigh.

Empire arguably set the precedent for having a "darker" sequel. It certainly ends on a rather sombre note, with Han frozen and Luke's wanking plans thrown all out of whack thanks to his new robotic hand. It also has one of my favourite scenes ever, where Luke faces off against Vader for the first time, culminating in that scene. I'm also pleased that the Yoda training sequences hold up, despite my cynicism and ability to spot puppets having increased tenfold since childhood. I'll tell you the one thing that blew my mind more than the Vader father thing when I originally saw it- the fact that the Jedi Master Yoda is a short, old green thing with big ears (his species has never been named and even the mighty Google can only hazard a guess). This revelation spoke volumes to me about the ways of the Jedi and the mysticism of the Force. As Yoda himself said: "Size matters not", something which my really-small-for-my-age child self took to heart. This is part of the reason why the whole midichlorian bullshit in Phantom Menace is so fucking infuriating.

What I really like about Empire is that it really delivers on the "war" part of Star Wars. A New Hope can act as a stand-alone experience. The Empire gets their collective arses handed to them and despite Darth Vader conveniently not dying, the story's all done and dusted. Empire smartly decides to just have the destruction of the Death Star as a minor setback and shows you the extent of the Empire's reach. Christ, the Rebel Alliance can't even go on a short skiing trip without some fucking huge plodding machines showing up. I love the design of the AT-ATs too. They are truly iconic creations and one of the first things I think of when I hear the words "Star Wars" and filter through the top level of seething hate for recent Star Wars films and changes. Oh yeah, this is kind of a Blu-ray review as well, isn't it? Well luckily, they didn't change too much in Empire. Certain effects have been altered or modified, but nothing that dragged me out of the film kicking and screaming. The most heinous changes are in Return of the Jedi, but we'll get to that soon, dearies.

"Do or do not, there is no try."

So, The Empire Strikes Back is amazing. I could type reams about certain scenes and why the whole thing meant and still means so much to me. I've typed enough now. Bye bye.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

2011-11-23T00:26:00.001Z

Shut up. My reviews of Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are incoming. I'd finished my Empire one and booted it up to find I'd lost about half of it. Instead of trying vainly to recreate my genius, I thought I'd better type down my thoughts on the newest Twilight and then fill in my Empire review with all-new genius.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 (2011)

I would say that I've been quite fair to the Twilight films. Critics have been sharpening their claws since the first one came out and savaging it gives them a big ol' smug grin on their faces and a small ol' bulge in their corduroy trousers. That's not to say the films haven't been deserving of a critical mauling, I just don't like the notion that someone is actually proud of coming up with shit puns like "Breaking Yawn".

"No measure of time with you will be long enough. But we'll start with forever."

Breaking Dawn starts with what most Twihards have been waiting for- the long-hyped marriage of Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson). After the wedding and inevitable wedding night, Bella discovers she's pregnant. Trouble is, no-one knows what with as a human/vampire hybrid has not been encountered before. Things get worse when the unborn whatever starts physically hurting Bella and pretty soon, becoming a real threat on her life. Also Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) is in this film. Breaking Dawn's story is actually batshit insane, but at least it does more than the treading water that Eclipse did. All three leads are the best they've ever been, but still fall short of, y'know, acting. The dialogue is better too, but they are still guffaws to be had at some of the straight-faced mentalism on display. This is encapsulated when Bella, who has been walking around her own wedding barely cracking a smile, says to Edward: "Why can't you see how perfectly happy I am?". Cue big giggles from the audience.

It's odd then, that a film series known for awful dialogue, unintentional campness, wooden performances and enthusiasm for naked male torsos is tackling such a prickly issue such as abortion. There are entire sites dedicated to author Stephenie Meyer's hidden Mormon agenda and the general lack of feminism in the books and films, but personally Breaking Dawn has been the only film that I feel was trying to make a serious point. It doesn't succeed and as a result, shows how fucking shallow the films are, but I felt this film was actively trying to well, brainwash, for lack of a better word, its captive teen female audience. It left me with a rather nasty taste in my mouth. I don't think I'm reading too much into this either. The film ain't subtle at the best of times. Also, for a film supposedly all about romance, I've never encountered something so loveless. The Bella/Edward love story has never convinced, but by Christ is this frigid. Our power couple finally consummate their "love", but it's not the passionate roll in the hay that has been built up for three films. We don't see anything. Just lots of kissing. I wasn't expecting full penetrative vampire sex in a 12A, but considering what they got away with later in the film, it is surprising. Instead we cut to a scene that wouldn't look out of place in an Austin Powers film- their four poster bed destroyed and feathers fluttering down. Vamp boy got some skills, apparently. However, after seeing some bruises on Bella, Edward doesn't want to touch his new bride again and the couple instead have sweaty, passionate games of chess instead. It's all very disquieting. Also explain to me how a guy with no blood can get it up.

But fear not, those unintentional guffaws are still present. Not a minute in we have Jacob receiving his wedding invitation, ripping off his shirt and flouncing off into the forest. There's also what will soon be referred to as the "talking wolves" scene which is downright terrible. The special effects are still shite, with the wolves still crappily done and Edward's whooshing about not being any more convincing that the low-fi effects in the first film. These films are massive now and the budget for this one was $110 million. Why the fuck can't they afford decent effects? Sure, special effects do not a good film make, but when the characters, story and dialogue makes you want to shit yourself in protest, the effects seem all the more important. Some of this is damn embarrassing.

Breaking Dawn does manage to do a couple of things right. These are spoilers for anyone silly enough to ignore my warnings, so just skip to the end if you don't want to find out what happens. The pregnancy is well handled. It's creepy as shit watching Bella get more and more emaciated and her belly gets gradually more swollen and bruised. The birth scene is surprisingly disturbing too, especially for a "tween" film. As usual I thought Jacob was the only likeable character and my dislike for Bella grows with each film as she treats him so poorly. The "imprint" scene is nice though. The film is well shot too, with some really nice cinematography. However, these fleeting positives don't make up for the shitty film. It's like giving your dead grandmother a makeover. You can slap as much lipstick and blusher as you like on the poor cow, it's never going to disguise the rotten core.

"It's crushing you, from the inside out."

I agree with bequiffed critic Mark Kermode, who stated that critics in general are softer on movies (like the Star Wars films) embraced by fanboys than they are with movies embraced by fangirls. Despite being a massive fanboy, I'm not afraid to like the Twilight films. I enjoyed New Moon and wouldn't have to be held at gunpoint to see it again. I can't shake the feeling that the films have stopped trying. They pointlessly split the last book into two films because Summit Entertainment decided they liked money a hell of a lot more than brevity. It's been an interesting experiment, but thank God it's almost over.

Contagion

2011-11-13T16:01:00.000Z

A dose of the fairly new before I metaphorically slap you back to the '80s with my review of ONE OF THE GREATEST FILMS EVER MADE. Here's my review of a film that will undoubtedly be at the forefront of my mind next time I feel a bit under the weather.

Contagion (2011)

With all the scaremongering that modern news networks do, it's a safe bet that there's going to be another health scare pretty soon. Health scares invoke that special kind of fear because they are an invisible, inhuman threat. That serial killer on the loose? Scary, but you can attribute human qualities to him, he's got a name and a human face (plus several more in his rucksack). It's the same when you look at other types of monsters, like the greedy bankers that plunged the world into a spiral of debt and despair. They've got faces, if only to frame their smug, unapologetic, shit-eating grins. What I'm getting at is that personally, I find the threat of a global pandemic to be terrifying and way more frightening that bloody ghosts (hello, Paranormal Activity), killers (erm, Scream 4, I guess) or any other such shite. Real life is scarier than fiction and a lot of effort has gone into making this film as realistic as possible.

"It's a bad day to be a Rhesus monkey."

So, the story of Contagion is a simple one. There's a killer virus, called MEV-1, affecting the entire world and people are dropping like flies. We see how different countries, organisations and people deal with the global crisis, including everyone from the eye of the storm in the Center (sic) for Disease Control aka the CDC, run by Dr. Cheever (Laurence Fishburne) down to suburban family man Mitch Emhoff (Matt Damon) who's just trying to protect his daughter. Any plot summary of Contagion makes it sound a bit schlocky and not dissimilar to the rubbish 1995 film Outbreak, which starred Dustin Hoffman and Marcel, Ross' monkey in Friends. It's much better than that claptrap, however. I really liked how it presented a (probably) realistic version of how society would fall apart in the wake of massive fatality rates and widespread panic. There are a lot of famous names in this and all do a good job with the possible exception of Jude Law, who seems to be doing an awful (apparently Aussie) accent and wearing a comedy set of crooked teeth. Jude Law's usually the worst thing in anything he's in anyway, so no worries.

It's tough to discuss Contagion without spoiling some things. I'll do my best to dance around what I consider to be the worst spoilers, but if you want to go into Contagion without any prior knowledge whatsoever, close this review and go and do your taxes or something. For the rest of you dangerous, sexy people, I will say Contagion can be pretty damn disturbing. There's one scene where a character is being autopsied, which will stick with me for a while. Again, without specific spoilers, let's just say it's nice to see a film where the names on the poster don't necessarily dictate who will be left standing at the end. Despite not liking the fact that Jude Law is in it, I thought his character, Alan Krumwiede, was a interesting one. He's a freelance blogger who picks up on the story before the major news networks do and as a result gets a lot of people visiting his site and hanging on his every word. His lack of journalistic morality coupled with his massive audience really confuse the public and make things ten times worse. The only substory I felt fell a little flat was Dr. Orantes' (Marion Cotilliard). It was okay, but I felt it didn't really add anything to the story as a whole. It was almost like they couldn't believe they managed to snag Cotilliard, realised the part was a little too skimpy for an Oscar winner and so went back to the script and hastily added some "emotional" things to react to.

Right, I'm going to talk about the ending, so if you haven't seen the film yet, skip on down to the awesome concluding paragraph. The ending has been a pretty controversial one. Many critics felt it was a misstep after a very slick and well put-together film. I thought it was great. It's clever, thought-provoking and outlined the terrifyingly random sequence of events that could produce the next bubonic plague. Whilst a bit saccharine, I also liked the conclusion to Emhoff's ordeal and found myself with a lump in my throat.

"Blogging is not writing. It's just graffiti with punctuation."

So yeah. Contagion isn't a fun watch. It's a slow, meticulous, bleak film containing some famous faces doing what they do best. It's certainly one of the most interesting films I've seen for a while. I'd also like to take this opportunity to say what a clever title Contagion is, as both senses are on display here. It's an intelligent take on the Outbreak formula and that very fact alone makes it worth seeing. It's grim, but also fuckin' sick (in all senses of the word).

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope

2011-11-09T15:18:00.001Z

With this review, I'm two thirds of the way home. It occurred to me that I (and probably many others like me) have not seen the original cut of any of the original trilogy. Lucas and his team of spineless, submissive boffins have been tinkering with the films practically since they were released. So, I'm reviewing the versions on the recently released Blu-ray boxset. As with nearly all of these changes, they stick out like a housebrick in your morning cornflakes, so I'll set aside a paragraph to comment on any changes that improve, or more likely, denigrate the film. Anyway, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

It has been scientifically proven that one cannot say anything new about Star Wars. It's got to the point where even commenting on the fact that you can't say anything new about Star Wars is passé. It had a huge impact on science fiction, blockbusters and special effects, the tremors of which can still be felt today. It's very difficult to review Star Wars with fresh eyes. This trilogy was an intrinsic part of my childhood, probably the first films I loved and re-watched over and over again. Fret not though. This shall not be a chin-stroking retrospective nor an awkward, indulgent fanwank. This is just what I think.

"Your father's lightsaber. This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster; an elegant weapon for a more civilized age."

Simple farmboy Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) is trapped working for his aunt and uncle on the desert planet of Tatooine. However, this changes when he comes into possession of two robots, named R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) and C3PO (Anthony Daniels), who lead him to a mysterious old man named Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness). Along the way, Luke and Obi-Wan encounter roguish smuggler Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and his right-hand Wookiee, Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew). The group end up going on an adventure to save a princess (Carrie Fisher) from the clutches of the evil Empire and their intimidating employee, Darth Vader. The story is as classic as they come. Typing that synopsis made me realise that it actually sounds a bit lame, but in practice it's cinematic gold. The actors are all fine, but Harrison Ford is the standout. This is a star-making turn and you can see why the guy is still working in Hollywood today. The dialogue at times is shoddy as fuck, with Lucas famously being told by Ford: "George, you can type this shit, but you sure as hell can't say it!"

A New Hope blends so many elements together it's a wonder it works at all. The film shares DNA with a vast array of things, from old samurai movies and World War II dogfights to Saturday morning serials like Flash Gordon. To me, the backbone that holds all these elements together is the strong characterisation. You actually care for these characters. You empathise with Luke, being stuck on his rock of a home planet when his friends have moved on. The film is brave enough to have you dislike certain characters initially. Hell, I don't particularly like Luke in this film, at least for the first half. He's a bit of a whiny ponce with a silly haircut. Luckily, he does become likeable. Even fan-favourite Han Solo comes across as a bit of a douche the first time we meet him. We see he's got a dark side to him when he shoots the bounty hunter Greedo in the Cantina.

Speaking of which, those changes. I don't know why Lucas is doing this. Some of the computer tinkering is to fix stuff you wouldn't even notice was there. For instance, some time ago, Lucas actually paid someone or a team of someones to CGI the Death Star crews badges onto the correct side of their uniforms. Some of the most out of place stuff though is in Mos Eisley, where added CGI creatures are pasted into the frame. There's even an awkward non-comedy bit with two robots that is so fucking unnecessary, it hurts my brain. There's even added nonsense in the Blu-ray release where some rocks have been CGI'd in front of R2 when he's hiding in the canyon. Check out the original here, and the new version here. Who is that bothered by rocks? It doesn't make any sense. I can understand updating certain effects (sort of) but this needless altering is incomprehensible. Especially considering the fact that all this stuff drags me out of the film.

The funny thing about Star Wars is that its so ingrained in our collective memories, we have sort of forgotten it is a slightly hokey '70s sci-fi that has had its formula imitated, expanded upon and bettered by films since. After a lengthy discussion with one of my friends about Star Wars, we concluded if we ever had kids (not together, that'd be weird) we'd make sure they saw the original Star Wars trilogy first, before something like the Lord of the Rings films. Kids just wouldn't be as blown away with lightsabers and the Death Star exploding if they'd seen the epic battle of Helm's Deep or a fully-fledged CGI character like Gollum. However, there are some things about Star Wars that will always have an impact like the classic story, the characters and the amazing John Williams score. I still get chills during the final Death Star assault when Luke hears Obi-Wan's voice, the Force theme swells and he switches off his targeting computer.

"Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope."

Practically every frame of A New Hope is iconic. It's unfortunate that practically every comedy TV show or film still feels the need to reference it to this day. However, all the shite Big Bang Theory jokes in the world cannot dull the original brilliance of the first Star Wars film. It's the rarest of things to me- a childhood favourite that still holds up now. It's a fantastic film, I just hope that in a decades' time when we all have on demand films projected onto the inside of our eyelids, Lucas won't have replaced Han Solo with a Gungan or decided that the Cantina scene needed another musical number.

I have to give it my rarely seen rating of the yellow five stars i.e. a personal favourite to which giving the normal red five stars seemed like an insult.

In Time

2011-11-02T02:15:00.002Z

I know. A New Hope is next. Just need a bit more time to type down some points about it that aren't utterly trite. Anyway, I've actually managed to see a brand spanking new film, rather than a two-week old, everyone-who-was-going-to-see-it-already-has one.

In Time (2011)

I hate to say it, but In Time actually does seem rather timely. For a film about holding up a mirror to the gulf between rich and poor to be released whilst the #OccupyWallStreet movement is still going on is a stroke of luck that the filmmakers couldn't have possibly have planned for. Having said that if they did plan it and all this 99% stuff turns out to be an elaborate viral marketing stunt for In Time, my faith in humanity will sink to an all-time low.

"You can't hide 100 years in the ghetto."

It's sometime in the future and everyone stops ageing at 25. However, people are born with digital timers in their forearms that counts down their lives. Time really is money, so people like blue collar workin' man Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) have to graft hard to get another few days on the clock and have the privilege of living for that little bit longer. When Will is gifted over a century by a suicidal man, he endeavours not to waste the man's time and change his destiny. The concept here is awesome. Not only is it a fantastically easy and effective way to create tension, but it also make a valid, if heavy-handed, point about the class divides. I've read a lot of criticism about Justin Timberlake, but I thought he was solid as the lead. I don't have a problem with the guy. I think he was good in The Social Network and he's decent here. I can't help but feel it might be his N*Sync roots that people may be objecting to. Amanda Seyfried was okay, but didn't impress me nearly as much as she did in Chloe. I thought Cillian Murphy was wasted as Timekeeper Raymond Leon. The guy's a fantastic presence, but was rather ineffectual here, the problems just coming down to lazy characterisation. Alex Pettyfer makes a surprise appearance as a scumbag thief, but doesn't really do anything more than add some variety to his acting C.V.

So yeah, that concept. It's a terrifying thought to have to run down to your last hour or two just to pay the gas bill. It's chilling that "timing out" is so common that people are just used to seeing corpses lying in the street. There's one genuinely affecting scene where Will and Sylvia talk about feeling the timer start when they turned 25. It's really interesting to see that fast pace that people in the ghetto move compared to the lax, luxurious pace the rich and powerful do. It's certainly effective in making you wish for some kind of fiery retribution on the 1% who have centuries to play with. The time as currency idea does lead to infrequent confusing lines of dialogue however, such as when a prostitute propositions Leon: "I'll give you ten minutes for an hour."

The film is written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who some of you may know as the writer (and occasional director) of films like Gattaca, The Truman Show and Lord of War. Now, apart from the Niccol connection, what else do these films have in common? Yep, they're as subtle as a tiger in a hen house. They all have DAMN SERIOUS MESSAGES to convey, but are always in-your-face and border on the preachy. That's not to say that the messages aren't important- in fact I wish more films would talk about overpopulation and the like, I'm just saying that sometimes I feel he'd be happier doing angry PowerPoint presentations instead of making populist entertainment.

The film is good 'n angry for the first half, but then slowly starts to unravel before coming to a shuddering, uninspired end (much like my style of lovemaking*). It goes for a rather overdone Bonnie and Clyde/Robin Hood strand that doesn't particularly work. I actually felt my heart sink a bit when they first decided to rob a "time bank". I'd been really enjoying it up until that point and to go for the "rob from the rich" angle seemed a real step down. Also, the fact that you can steal someone's time just by gripping their wrist is ridiculous. They have the technology to implant accurate LED timers into someone's arm, but there's no safeguard? Not even something as high-tech as a fucking bracelet? Weird. Apparently, you can rob a bank simply by driving a massive truck into it. Good to know.

"You put enough time in the wrong hands, you upset the system."

In Time is pretty good. The concept is great and the points the film is so eager to hammer home couldn't be more relevant if it tried. It's a shame that the film's wheels start to fall off once the pair decide to embark on a life of crime. Handled well, this could have been the perfect, angsty, cinematic time capsule for the right now. As it stands, it's a slightly better than average movie with some great ideas and wasted potential.

*I know I've made this hee-larious joke before, but I couldn't resist making it again. If it helps, think of it as an homage to my now fuckin' classic Drive review.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn

2011-10-30T14:04:00.002Z

Since revisiting and analysing the Star Wars prequels genuinely annoyed me, I needed a break from the old and crap. Thankfully, I ended up seeing the new CGI Tintin film and breathed a sigh of relief big enough to extinguish all those recently re-lit rage fires. Whilst you ponder on that awkwardly worded metaphor, I'll get on with the reviewin'

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011)

Tintin could have been very bad. The geniuses among you will be able to extrapolate from that that my opinion is of the opposite, but hear me the fuck out. Anyway, it could have been bad. It's a big budget adaptation of the world renowned and universally acclaimed Tintin comics that could have easily skimped on the series' inherent style, humour and charm (although some would argue it has). Plus, it's motion-captured animation- the same art style that brought us the fucking creepy, uncanny valley dwelling avatars in films like The Polar Express. It could have been just another feature-length cash-in on a name with brand awareness already, saving the studio millions on advertising and having the bonus of having an already established fanbase. Luckily, it isn't any of those things. It's fuppin' brilliant.

"If Sakharine gets to that ship before us, it's over!"

After purchasing a much sought-after model of a ship, bequiffed reporter Tintin (Jamie Bell) and his faithful dog Snowy are unwittingly sent off on a treasure hunting adventure, meeting drunkard, down-and-out Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) along the way. From what I can gather, the film is an amalgamation of three of the Tintin stories: The Crab with the Golden Claws, The Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's Treasure. I think it works well. It's a sprawling, old-fashioned adventure film with a great sense of fun about it. The animation is superb and thankfully dodges the disturbing factor that mo-cap animation had been previously infamous for. It strikes the right balance between cartoony and realistic. The voice/motion cast are terrific. Jamie Bell was really good as the earnest Tintin and Andy Serkis (now the fucking emperor of motion capture work) is amazing as Captain Haddock. I liked Daniel Craig as Sakharine and thought having Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as the bumbling Thomson and Thompson was a masterstroke.

The film starts off impressively with a Catch Me If You Can style animated intro that really gets you into the spirit of things. It's nice to hear a John Williams score but it just seems like Williams is working from a hastily scribbled note from Spielbeard saying "European and whimsical". Anyway, the main body of the film is great. It's a real globe-trotting adventure with Indiana Jones undertones (I was going to say Indiana underJones, but was concerned I may get half an email condemning me for drinking and reviewing). It's a family friendly affair, but it thankfully doesn't shy away from guns and a bit of violence. I would say the film actually retains the true spirit of the original Hergé stories, but takes some liberties of its own. The main one being the wise decision to not have Snowy talk. However, being mute does not mean Snowy is inexpressive. He steals most of the scenes he's in, be it dragging a huge bone he somehow found in the Sahara desert whilst Haddock is sobering up to interacting with a playful guard dog. Snowy feels like an essential part of the heroic team. The action set-pieces are all fantastic. The standout for me was the Morocco chase which was insanely entertaining.

A couple of things stopped the film short of true greatness for me. One was the constant pratfalling of Captain Haddock, which was fine up to a point, but it is a real bugbear of mine- even in "family" films. Still, the kids in the cinema found it funny, so maybe I'm just a miserable bastard. The fact it was in 3D was a shame too. My eyes ached at the start but eventually settled down. Most of the time, I forgot I was wearing the stupid specs, which seems to be the mark of good 3D and typifies what a waste of fucking time the whole thing is. The film went on for slightly too long and I wasn't a huge fan of the climactic crane fight. I get what they were trying to do, but I wasn't as involved as I had been with the previous set-pieces.

"How's your thirst for adventure, Captain?"

The Adventure of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn to give it its full, rather awkward title, is very good. The animation is amazing, the characters are great and it's a lot of old-fashioned, Boy's Own fun. I found it all to be quite charming, which is a rarity. I want a sequel yesterday Mr Jackson and Spielberg, get on it!

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

2011-10-28T21:35:00.004+01:00

Once again I return to the three films that made "prequel" a dirty word. I must say, it is genuinely a relief to get them done. However, it's a very characteristic short-lived victory as I'm already seeing the problems ahead of reviewing not only some personal childhood staples, but films that have been torn apart, analysed from all possible angles and discussed for decades. It's going to be tougher than I initially thought. I have a bad feeling about this.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

After being twice bitten and disregarding the sensible shyness that should have kicked in after The Phantom Menace, people still flocked to see Revenge of the Sith. The film had a lot to answer for, having to convince people that the prequels weren't a waste of time and money, but also had to neatly tie this new trilogy in with the original trilogy. We (and by we I mean Star Wars nerds) knew that this film was the one where Anakin turned to the Dark Side and become everyone's favourite asthmatic Sith lord. We'd seen some pretty shitty preceding nonsense, but this was the pay off. We'd seen Anakin lose his mother, get all up in some sandpeople's business and now here was the birth of pop culture's most iconic characters. And LUCAS FUCKED IT UP.

"I'm going there to end this war. Wait for me until I return. Things will be different, I promise. Please wait for me."

God, I can't be arsed to type a synopsis. Summat about war. All the actor comments in my previous reviews still ring true anyway. Now, Revenge of the Sith is not nearly as bad as Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones. It has some good moments, but once again, there are too many baffling missteps to elevate the overall quality. The film goes for a "dark" tone. Certainly, there's a lot more death and despair in this one, which beats cheering children and hooting Gungan bellends any day. It's poorly done though, with the crucial lack of characterisation evident when you suddenly realise you don't give a shit. Tragedy only works if you care for the characters. Even though Lucas had two films to chart the fall of Skywalker it still feels rushed. Anakin bends to Palpatine's will laughably quickly after Palpy vaguely implies that he could save people from dying.

Revenge of the Sith is frustrating. I do actually like it and its my most re-watched of the prequels, but it's a like that comes with many different caveats and qualifiers. Tonally it's all over the place. For instance, in the opening scene, we go from Anakin slicing off Dooku's hands and decapitating him, to R2 dicking about with security droids. It's really odd. The film also flits from boring dialogue to impressive special effects driven action. The dialogue, whilst tedious and functional, for the most part is better this time, with the exception of one scene which made me want to curl up and cringe myself to death. Here are les mots diabolique:

Anakin: You are so beautiful.

Padme: It's only because I'm so in love.

Anakin: No. It's because I'm so in love with you.

Padme: So love has blinded you?

Anakin: That's not exactly what I meant.

Padme: But it's probably true.

The delivery makes it even worse. Plus, the weird lighting and make-up on Padmé in this bit makes Natalie Portman, a usually fucking gorgeous woman, look like this. I normally wouldn't mind, but the dialogue draws specific attention to it. Also there's the aformentioned birth of Vader fuck-up. You know the scene. You know how it makes you feel.

As for the good things, I like the set-pieces. Having said that, I'm not a fan of the overlong final fight between Anakin and Obi-Wan. It tries to be too epic and falls flat. Duel of the Fates in Phantom Menace had the right balance. In Sith, it just drags after a while and as a result does the unthinkable- it makes lightsaber combat boring. I like the scenes where Anakin is Vader in all but the suit. Marching through the Jedi temple with an army of clone troopers behind is undeniably cool. Plus, there's a fucking dark scene where one of the worst child actors in the world says: "Master Skywalker, there are too many of them. What are we going to do?" and is answered by the harsh ignition of Vader's lightsaber. It's nasty, but at least it had some bite to it, unlike the majority of scenes in the prequels. I'm not saying more child murder would have improved the films (and that's certainly not a notion I want quoted out of context) I'm just saying that at least the scene elicits a reaction from me.

"Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is."

So, yeah. Revenge of the Sith is the best of the prequels, but still not a very good film. As I said in my Phantom Menace review, the real tragedy is the missed opportunity here. These could have been great films. I'm inclined to blame Lucas for the most part, surrounding himself with yes men and not employing anyone with balls enough to tell him Jar Jar was fucking stupid and to go and have a shave. There will always be the original films, but that's not the point. What could have been will always be the worse part. George Lucas didn't "rape my childhood", as some of the more melodramatic fans have said, but he definitely made the Star Wars universe glow a little less brightly for me.

Real Steel

2011-10-26T12:51:00.002+01:00

Sorry, sorry. Meant to review this a week ago, but laziness and Arkham City got in the way. New review though. Be grateful.

Real Steel (2011)

Hugh Jackman in a film about boxing robots. On its own, that sentence is a pitch for a film that nobody this side of asylum walls would go and see. Being the cool and dangerous internet vigilante that I am, I'm here to tell you that Real Steel is better than the laughable concept and why you should check it out providing you have a) a childlike mind capable of not processing family films through a filter of hate, bile and cynicism or b) not seen Rocky for a while and wondered what it would be like crossed with Transformers.

"His name is Atom. Get him a fight."

The film is set in 2020 where robot boxing is king. It tells the story of ex-boxer and failing fight promoter Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman), who suddenly finds himself lumbered with his estranged son Max (Dakota Goya) and struggling to pay the bills. He owes a lot of people money, the least dangerous of which is his long suffering friend/boss/love interest Bailey (Evangeline Lilly). However, when father and son salvage a scrapped sparring bot by the name of Atom, the pair decide to train Atom in an effort to ease Charlie's financial troubles and as a result, start growing closer together. I normally hate those poster whores who write things like the above "Rocky...crossed with Transformers" line just for a spot on the DVD cover. Thing is, that description is almost totally accurate. It is Rocky with robots i.e. an underdog from the streets gets a shot at the big time. Fair enough, that seems to be the plot for every boxing movie, but the Stallone parallels are strong. Jack Human is fine, playing the role that he normally does when he's not got adamantium claws. Surprisingly, the lead kid, Dakota Goya (seen only briefly as the young Thor in... well, Thor) didn't annoy me. Yes, he had the same smart-arse precocious kid lines that adults insist on writing for children, but he was pretty damn good. It was nice to see Evangeline Lilly outside of anticlimactic television shows too. She's alright here. 'Nuff said.

I know when what I'm watching a good family film when I wish I was 10 again so I could have my mind blown by it. If I were 10, I probably wouldn't have seen Rocky and therefore would have been surprised by the whole thing. Plus, it's robots beating seven bells out of each other AND you can tell which one is which AND there are no illusions of being "grown up" AND it's not directed by Michael Bay. All the fighters are very well-designed with their own unique quirks. My favourite was Metro, a Frankenstein's monster of a robot with a massive sledgehammer for a hand. Put simply, the robots work. The fights are all impressively shot and choreographed and the climactic fight actually feels like (I was going to say "a climax" here, but it ain't that good) an epic finale.

"I'm either coming with you, or you're fishing for your keys in the sewer."

What doesn't work is the fairly laboured father/son bonding storyline. It's alright, but it does get bogged down with cheese and saccharine over-sentimentality. This is excusable to a certain extent as the seemingly bulletproof excuse of "it's for kids" rears its smug, punchable face, but even taking that into account, it still lays it on a little too thick. There's some truly obnoxious product placement on display here, with Microsoft's optimistic hopes that their Bing search engine will still exist in 2020 somehow making the concept of fighting robots less ludicrous. Having said that, it doesn't spoil the overall sense of fun and still makes this an easy recommendation for a family film. If you're an angry loner like me, you may still find things to enjoy about Real Steel. It's fucking ridiculous, but it's an inoffensive slice of fantasy fun. Stick that on your cover, Dreamworks!

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones

2011-10-16T16:21:00.000+01:00

Time for my thoughts on the second film in George Lucas' "Look at all the cool shit computers can do" trilogy. Thank Christ it gets better soon. I'm not sure how long my wrists would have stayed intact if it didn't.

Star Wars: Episode II- Attack of the Clones (2002)

Having been re-disappointed by Episode I, it was surprisingly tough to go back to Attack of the Clones with my reviewing eyes in. I know it isn't good and you know it isn't good. This is like therapy to me. If I tap out my review of this, I means I don't have to think about it analytically ever again. I can just watch for the pretty colours when I'm feeling particularly spaced out. To return briefly to The Phantom Menace, have you seen the recently released poster for the unfortunately-still-happening 3D re-release? Not only is it a lazy, shitty bit of design but I love the fact that the only two entertaining things about it are front row, centre. There's not a Gungan to be seen. That's marketing for you.

"I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth."

Attack of the Clones is set 10 years after The Phantom Menace. After there is an assassination attempt on Senator Amidala (Natalie Portman), Jedis Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and the now grown up Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) are called in to protect her. After it emerges that the Republic is in danger, Obi-Wan investigates the possibility of a clone army whilst Anakin and Padmé travel to Naboo and fall in love, not knowing their relationship is doomed. The plot is a big ol' jar of weaksauce. Again, too many things don't make sense and the love story that dominates the film is atrocious. All the actors are fine, even Hayden Christensen, who attracted a lot of criticism as "Mannequin Skywalker". I think the problem here is the characters, not the actors. This is typified with the casting of Christopher Lee. The man could menace a bowl of cornflakes and yet he leaves no real impact on the film whatsoever.

So yeah. The "love story". I'm not even sure what Lucas thought he was doing. It is completely devoid of feeling and reality. You may think that reality has little or nothing to do with a film that has lightsabers and flying cars, but it really is important. You can be as fantastical as you want, but the audience needs something to ground them and be able to relate to. The romance in Episode II makes the Twilight films look like the greatest love stories ever told. The dialogue is stilted and unnatural throughout the prequels, but is especially bad in this film's love scenes. There's this infamous scene, for instance. Just watch it. Not only does it start with some extremely sexy political discussion, it then moves to embarrassing new lows with forced-as-fuck horseplay. I especially like the bit where Anakin pretends to be seriously injured. That'll get her moist. It's like Lucas just skimmed through "An Idiot's Guide to Mills & Boon: From Bodice-Ripping to Class Divides", copy-pasted half of it into the script and wrote "in motherfucking space" at the end. You know you're in trouble when your film has a romantic scene in front of a fireplace.

Despite the frequent action scenes, the film still manages to be boring. There's one brief moment of fun when Obi-Wan is fighting bounty hunter Jango Fett, but that's about your lot. The Clone War itself is nothing but a tech demo for Industrial Light and Magic's mad computer skillz and you know what? I don't even like Yoda getting his lightsaber out and fighting Dooku. It's retarded. The worst scene for me by far is the "comedy" sequence in the droid factory where C-3PO gets his head knocked off and put onto the body of a battle droid. It's so flinchingly bad I'm genuinely cringing as I write these words. Then there's the scene where Anakin goes mental on the discovery of his mother's body and kills a bunch of sandpeople. In better hands, this could have been a really affecting sequence. In the bearded businessman's hands, it's pretty laughable. Even though I like the line "They're animals, so I slaughtered them like animals!" his little confession to Padmé goes on way too long. It's meant to be a hint at future darkness, but ends up like a psychopath's recollection of his first murder/rape.

"If Master Obi-Wan caught me doing this, he'd be very grumpy."

Contrary to popular opinion, Attack of the Clones is the worst of the prequels in my book. The story doesn't even come close to coherency, the dialogue is fist-bitingly awful and to top it all off, it's dull to boot. It's not even bad in a fun way like The Phantom Menace can be. There are no real redeeming features as far as I'm concerned. It's just another film that doesn't deserve the grandiose John Williams theme at the end.

Red State

2011-10-14T01:43:00.000+01:00

A review of a newish film to break up all the Star Whoring. You should know how this works by now. Attack of t' Clones is up next.

Red State (2011)

Kevin Smith has had a bad run. In 2008, he tried to ape Apatow with Zack and Miri Make A Porno and succeeded in every way bar achieving the massive box office takings those films get. He then decided to direct a film he hadn't written, Cop Out, which didn't bring in the big bucks either and was rightfully panned as lazy, by-the-numbers pigswill. So, Smith decided to return to his indie roots with Red State, buying up the distribution rights himself and taking it across the U.S. and doing one of his famous Q&As afterwards. It's a bold move and one I can't help but be impressed by. Smith has stepped way outside of his comfort zone, written, edited and directed a "horror" film and distributed it in a way not seen before. That's if you live in the exciting US of A. Here it's just farted into cinemas like every other film. Just thought I'd give you some backstory. You're welcome.

"I fear God. You better believe I fear God."

Red State begins with Travis (Michael Angarano) and his two friends Jared (Kyle Gallner) and Billy-Ray (Nicholas Braun) charmingly looking up loose women on a smartphone. After finding an older woman (Melissa Leo) who says she'll take on all three greasy boys at the same time, our "heroes" drive to her trailer where they are slipped Rohypnol and wake up caged and bound in the local church. It is here they see the local fundamentalist congregation, led by the infamous preacher Abin Cooper (Michael Parks), who firmly believes that homosexuals and sexual deviants should be executed in the name of the Lord. Some bad shit goes down and the ATF are called in, led by Joseph Keenan (John Goodman). First off, this ain't the horror film it's been billed as. It's certainly got elements of horror, especially "torture porn" titles like Hostel, but that isn't really the main thrust of it all. In fact, I'm struggling to tell you what it was. It chops and changes genre and tone so often it's actually quite hard to define. Still, the story held my attention and took a few interesting, if occasionally fucking barmy, turns. The actors are decent, with Michael Parks stealing the show and giving an amazing performance as Abin Cooper. John Goodman was good too and I liked Kerry Bishé as the resigned but desperate Cheyenne.

Don't you just fucking hate those wankers that protest gay funerals with placards declaring that "God Hates Fags" and such? Yeah, me too. Red State is all about that kind of extremist fundamentalism. Abin Cooper preaches these horrible morals and reprehensible lessons to his captive (in both senses of the word) audience with all the frustratingly unrelenting confidence and conviction of a complete cunt. These early scenes are by far Red State's strongest, with Cooper's lengthy, well-written monologues to his loving congregation building tension well and paying off with some properly disturbing stuff. It's a shame that the film seemingly gets bored with all this and calls John Goodman in. Goodman brings the ruckus like you read about and the whole film goes all David Koresh, with an armed siege on an extremist religious complex making up the latter part of the film. This doesn't work that well and feels sloppily handled. I wanted a gritty, palpable Michael Mann-style shootout, but was left disappointed. Smith isn't used to directing action and it shows.

I'm not sure what point Red State was trying to make. There's an obvious anti-extremist message here, but there's some shady government business with the ATF agents later that didn't really make any sense. The ending fools you into thinking it's going to go a ludicrous, but undeniably entertaining way but ends up copping out (no pun intended). The teens aren't paid much heed after the film clicks into action mode and plot points just end up going nowhere. Without spoiling too much, there's a plot involving the possible redemption of Cheyenne which ends up being violently discarded. I'm sure this was meant to be shocking, but there's too much of a clusterfuck to actually care about what happens. You can't be shocked if you're not connecting or engaging with what's going on.

"People just do the strangest things when they believe they're entitled. But they do even stranger things when they just plain believe."

Red State is a strange beast. It's a massive departure from what you'd expect the creator of Clerks to come up with, but it feels more like an experiment than a fully-fledged movie. If I wasn't familiar with the director's work, I think I'd be considerably less impressed. There are some awesome ideas here and it's almost worth watching for Parks' performance alone. It's an interesting if bleak watch, but too many things are mishandled for it to be anything other than a bit of a curio.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace

2011-10-06T23:23:00.001+01:00

I've reviewed quite a few things since this blog's inception. I've written about cinematic awesomeness, silver-screen mediocrity and some filmic abominations. I've covered sequels, trilogies and more recently, anthologies. One thing I have not done before is an entire saga. I knew this day would come. I've decided to review all six Star Wars films* in episodic order, rather than chronological. At least that way, this foolish undertaking has a ~~happy ending~~ ~~satisfying conclusion~~ (is there anyway to write that without sounding like a seedy massage parlour perk?)

Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace (1999)

Very rarely does a series encapsulate both what I love and hate about films this perfectly. The original trilogy has its flaws (which I will discuss in great detail when we get there) but they're still great films. The prequel trilogy, not so much. I have a small confession. I actually liked The Phantom Menace when it came out. Then again, I was 12 and didn't really know what a good film was. Thanks to the depressing, constant mortal march to the grave we all have to endure, I'm older, fatter and have a better idea of what constitutes a good film. This certainly isn't it.

"The boy is dangerous. They all sense it, why can't you?"

The "plot" is as follows: there is some sort of blockade around the planet of Naboo and the galactic senate have sent in two Jedi Knights- Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and a young Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) to negotiate. However, a plan to invade Naboo soon becomes apparent and it's up to the two Jedi, a young boy who is unusually strong with the Force (Jake Lloyd), a fourteen year old queen (Natalie Portman) and some floppy eared, rabbit/frog thing called Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) to save the day. It may seem like I'm being intentionally vague to mock the film, but I'm not. That is genuinely the best I can do to describe the basic story. Sure, I could describe specific scenes, but as for a plot outline, I'm fucked. The story gets bogged down in pseudo-political bullshit from the off, peppering phrases like "trade dispute" throughout. As a kid, I assumed all this political talk was too smart for me and I'd learn about it when I was older. Well,it still doesn't make any fucking sense. Both Neeson and McGregor do well with their crappy lines, but the main target for my ShitCannon 9000 is Jake Lloyd. Now, I don't want to make a habit of picking on ickle child actors (ahem), but by shiny MechaChrist is Lloyd awful in this. Practically every intonation is wrong, not to mention fleas-under-the-foreskin irritating. One would think Ahmed Best would also come under fire here, but from what I can gather, he's just doing exactly what he's been instructed to do. It just doesn't help that what he's been instructed to do is ruin scenes and make the audience embarrassed to the point of physical cringing.

So yeah, 12 years later and it's still tough to imagine how the creator of such a culturally important series of films could misjudge things this much. Jar Jar is an unfunny joysuck. There are awkward "comedy" bits, plot holes that even Paris Hilton's gynaecologist would describe as "gaping" and an overabundance of boring nonsensical political waffle. To top it all off, the mysticism of the Force is royally shafted when it's explained that it's all to do with microscopic lifeforms known as "midichlorians". I always thought the point of the Force was the fact that you could become as attuned to it as you wanted, providing you were dedicated enough. Phantom Menace skullfucks this idea and takes away some of the magic by explaining it.

There are some things I like about Phantom Menace, but they're fleeting. The John Williams score is great throughout, especially during the "Duel of the Fates" three-way smackdown between Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Darth Maul. But alas, no pleasure is pure in the Star Wars prequels and the awesome fight is intercut with Natalie Portman and her gang of forgettables shooting ineffectual droids, Jar Jar and the Gungans battling an entire droid army (complete with plenty of Jar Jar shenanigans) and Jake Lloyd being fucking annoying in a space battle. The podrace is also decent, injecting some much-needed life into the film, but it slightly overstays its welcome.

"Why do I get the feeling that we've picked up another pathetic life form?"

The Phantom Menace is an interesting one. It's not good or even average, but I can't bring myself to fully hate it. I like the smarmy Palpatine starting to get his evil plans in place and I love some of the designs and settings. Especially the rolling Droidekas. It's kind of fun to watch in one way, but that doesn't excuse the lazy plotting , abhorrent characters and crappy dialogue. The hardest thing to swallow even now, over a decade later, is what a massive missed opportunity this is. Lucas could have told a great story, but instead decided to shift as many toys as he could, writing in characters and situations purely for merchandising reasons.

*Technically there have been 7 Star Wars theatrical releases, my review of the seventh, The Clone Wars, can be found here.

Drive

2011-10-02T16:49:00.000+01:00

After my frankly embarrassing September output. I vow to you, imaginary fans, that October will be a much fuller month. Got new films, some odd but hopefully interesting choices and an another entire franchise to review for starters. Hold on to your butts, it's going to get paragraphic up in this bitch.

Drive (2011)

After causing a bit of a stir at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year and picking up the Best Director award for Nicolas Winding Refn, Drive fell off my radar for a bit. Now it's back dead centre, pinging away like a bad simile alarm would if tasked with analysing this very paragraph.

"If I drive for you, you give me a time and a place. I give you a five-minute window, anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours no matter what. I don't sit in while you're running it down; I don't carry a gun... I drive."

It's very difficult to describe the plot of Drive without making it sound like a bad Jason Statham vehicle (although that's kind of the point), but I'll do my best. Ryan Gosling plays a man referred to only as "Driver", a stuntman by day who makes extra money on the side by moonlighting as a getaway driver for hire. Driver lives a rather solitary life, with only his mentor and veteran mechanic Shannon (Bryan Cranston) to really confide in. All of this changes when Driver meets neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son Benicio (Kaden Leos) and finds them involved in some bad stuff and in need of protection. The film is purposefully playing around with action conventions and it ends up like an arthouse version of something like The Transporter. It works extremely well. Gosling is a fucking revelation as the lead, lending a semi-autistic edge to the tight-lipped hero. I love the fact Bryan Cranston makes an appearance and having not seen the reportedly excellent Breaking Bad, found it a genuine thrill to see Malcolm's dad, Hal, from Malcolm in the Middle play a scummy but still wholly likeable character. Carey Mulligan gives a really effective turn as Irene, having now got the whole palpable innocence and vulnerability thing down to a weaponised state. The surprise for me was Albert Brooks, normally known for his comedy roles and, more recently, his voice work in animations ranging from The Simpsons to Finding Nemo, playing a real nasty bastard in this. He steals many of the scenes he's in and is a genuinely charismatic villain. Also Ron Perlman. Just Ron Perlman. Nothing more needs to be said.

From the off, you can tell that both Drive and Refn are children of the 1980's. From the hot pink Vice City fonted credits to the hero's naff silver and gold scorpion jacket, Drive wants you to recall some of the dumb but fun films of the decade that style forgot. The first half of the the film is intentionally reminiscent of these cinematic curios and lulls you into a false sense of parody-cushioned security before whipping the rug out from under you and stomping your face in. Something about the synth soundtrack complete with nail-on-the-head lyrics and the burgeoning cheesy, but actually rather touching, relationship between Driver and Irene just makes you completely unprepared for the truly shocking violence contained in the latter part of the film. My snorts of derision at the sun-drenched romantic scenes soon caught in the back of my throat as I winced at some of the surprising and gorier moments. This strange but effective mix is typified in the soon-to-be infamous elevator scene. Crucially, the film doesn't linger on the horrific stuff. Much like my style of lovemaking, it's quick and brutal.

It's a rarity that the lead character is this compelling. After initially coming off as a bit of a douche what with his silly jacket and toothpick in the corner of his mouth, Driver turns out to be a fully fleshed-out sympathetic character. He's kind-hearted, but also undeniably a bit of a psychopath. He rarely says more than a couple of sentences to people unless he's talking about cartoons with Benicio or threatening strip-joint owners with a hammer. The strip club scene in particular has stuck with me and not for reasons of boobage. It's the vacant, seen-it-all-before look the strippers have on their faces whilst all of the interrogation was going on that gets me. Quite chilling.

"My partner is a belligerent asshole with his back up against a wall, and now, so am I."

I thought Drive was amazing. It's a punch to the face with a fist made of ice. It's not an arthouse pastiche of ridiculous action films nor is it a action film made to appeal to the edu-crowd. Drive is its own strange powerful beast and my film of the year (so far).

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

2011-09-29T16:25:00.000+01:00

Very late to this one, but will tippity-tap my thoughts down anyway with all my characteristic exclusion of cinematic analysis and worthy point making very much intact. So, let's look at Tinker! Tailor! Soldier! Spy!: the 3D multi-million dollar musical currently taking the box office by storm.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (hereby referred to as TTSS for simplicity's sake) is one of those films you just know is going to be of a certain calibre. It's got an impressive cast list, boasting the some of the best thespians Britain has to offer and is based on the well-known and super respectable John Le Carré novel about grimy Cold War dealings, betrayal and intrigue. It's sort of like The Expendables for readers of The Daily Telegraph.

"We have a rotten apple, Jim."

The film is set in the middle of Cold War-era Britain. After a supposed covert mission goes awry, British intelligence head honcho Control (John Hurt) and his right-hand man, George Smiley (Gary Oldman) are sacked. However, when rumblings of a Soviet mole start becoming louder, the higher-ups bring back Smiley to track down the traitor in his old organisation where no-one can be trusted and everyone is a suspect. The plot demands full audience attention. This isn't one of those films you can nip out for a quick piss and come back having not missed anything important. Whilst it takes a while to get going, the film is tense and compelling for the most part. There are many twists and turns, but it all ultimately settles down to a satisfying conclusion. The cast are the main strength here, mixing seasoned veterans such as Oldman and Hurt with younger, almost household name actors such as Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch. The cast is superb without exception. Even the secondary players such as Kathy Burke and Roger "Trigger" Lloyd-Pack leave a lasting impression in their limited screen time. Oldman turns in a reserved performance, very rarely raising his voice and always seeming detached from his surroundings.

TTSS is initially a tough watch. Whilst everything from the era-accurate details to the aforementioned awesomeness of the acting is dead-on, I found myself not getting in to it for the first 20 minutes or so. The pace is purposefully slow and methodical, but I found myself focusing on the set dressing and cinematography more than I was on who the characters were. Now this could be the attention-reducing effects of all those mindless blockbusters and violent video games finally catching up with me, but I couldn't really grasp who was doing what and why. One could argue this was the point, but I'm not convinced. Once the film picks up the pace, certain character elements start to fall into place and I got a better sense of the characters. Once this happened, things understandably got more interesting and thankfully this self-styled "Cold War thriller" started to actually thrill.

There were a couple of plot highlights for me, but I'd rather not spoil them as the film's got that whole "web of intrigue" thing goin' on. I will say I especially enjoyed Tom Hardy's performance as Ricki Tarr and I thought Mark Strong was fantastic as Jim Prideaux. Cough, cough birdonfire cough.

"For twenty-five years we've been the only thing standing between Moscow and the Third World War!"

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a strange one. I ended up really enjoying it, but I had one or two niggles with it that a lot of the gushing reviews (note to self: "gushing reviews" would make a great name for an adult movie review site) didn't mention. The film crams in a hell of a lot of plot into its 127 minutes and as such, the film can feel like a dense, impenetrable mass. Having no prior knowledge of the characters, I found it hard to follow in places, something which was not helped by the massive cast of recognisable faces and the multiple flashbacks for each character. Mood is something the film does extremely well, with director Tomas Alfredson giving us a bleak and grim take on '70s Britain. In summary, it's a fantastically well-made film, with some top drawer performances and some great moody cinematography. All the glowing reviews had me expecting this film to truly blow me away, but I walked away merely entertained. I get the feeling I'll need to see it again to really make up my mind about it. As a knee-jerk reaction though, it'll have to be this for now:

Fright Night

2011-09-09T22:14:00.000+01:00

This blog could (and has) been accused of many things. Extra-terrestrial bias is the latest in the worryingly long list of problems people have with my scrawlings. Looking back, my August output does read like the chapter headings in a filthy conspiracy theorist's equally filthy notebook, so here's some vampire shite instead. Also, it's The Popcorn Bucket's third anniversary. Hooray for that and indeed, me.

Fright Night (2011)

Straight off the bat, let me just say a couple of things that may or may not change your opinion on the rest of my review. Firstly, I haven't seen the original 1985 film. From what I can gather with minimal Internet research, it's a fairly schlocky light horror/comedy film with the exact premise this one has. Personally, I only know it from the fact that the VHS cover used to scare me when I was a kid. Secondly, if you're a newcomer to this hateful little slice of the 'Net, you should know that horror and I don't exactly get on. With most "scary" films, I find my eyes are rolling too much to focus on the fact that Nubile Teen #3 just got her throat ripped out by a bloody fog monster or other somesuch nonsense. Therefore, I tend to approach a film that proudly wears its "'80s horror remake" badge alongside its neon "I'm in 3D Muthafuckers!" one with the same enthusiasm as I would a proffered toenail and pre-cum panini.

"He's not brooding, or lovesick, he's the fucking shark from Jaws."

Teenaged Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) has had a recent reversal of fortune. He's dumped his geek friends, including bespectacled dork Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and is now going out with a hot, popular girl Amy (Imogen Poots) and enjoying all the perks that come with it. All of this starts to change when Jerry (Colin Farrell) moves into the neighbourhood and Brewster's suspicions start to grow that not only are vampires real, he may be living next door to one. Out of desperation, Charley turns to Vegas occult showman Peter Vincent (David Tennant) to help with this unusual, but frightening turn of events. The film plays the whole "vampire living next door" thing with the tongue-in-cheek irreverence one would expect from such a daft premise. Overall, the story was alright but it had a slightly parodic edge to it which I liked. The cast are fine. Yelchin proves to be a likeable, if not relatable, lead. Poots isn't given much more to do than look pretty and Mintz-Plasse is doing his McLovin routine, which he has down to a fine art. The main talking points though will be Farrell and Tennant. I thought Farrell was great, clearly having fun as the predatory Jerry. I liked Tennant, but just wished he was given better jokes and had done something more than giving a Russell Brand-esque performance where there are no real punchlines outside of swearing.

There are a couple of things that caught me off-guard in this film. Maybe it's because we've all become used to pussy sparkling vampires, but this incarnation has significantly more bite (excuse the pun, I can't think of a better way to describe it). Jerry is a fucking vicious creature and is responsible for most of the unsettling moments. I also liked the fact that the film didn't waste time setting up its own take on the vampire tropes. It assumes you know all the classic preventions and ways of dispatching the bloodsuckers and just gets on with it. I can respect that. The way the film is shot is surprisingly decent too. Way better than one would expect for a horror remake. There's a claustrophobic 360 degree shot in a car that stood out to me, although it loses some points considering it was augmented with CGI. The one in Children of Men was all practical and was much more effective. The film manages to be visually interesting and not hindered by being in 3D, which is an achievement.

So, the million-dollar question: it is scary? Well, not really. There are a few jump scares and the the film makes use of the completely unnecessary "third dimension" by having blood spatter occasionally. This isn't a hardcore pants-shitter, but I was slightly disappointed by the distinct lack of "fright". I was also really put off by the first 15 mins of the film. The dialogue was so fucking contrived and unnatural I felt like getting up from my seat and storming out, slapping any people who seemed to be enjoying it as I passed. Luckily for me and my currently unsullied police record, the film got better. Whilst I wasn't scared by it, I still enjoyed it. Tennant and Farrell certainly make proceedings more entertaining and I felt the film lift when one or both of them were on-screen. The ending is a bit poor and has a perfect example of a Deus ex machina if ever I saw one. Without giving too much away, I liked the grim direction certain things were heading and to have it all magically resolve itself was a let-down.

"Don't do anything I wouldn't do, and... that doesn't leave much. Well... basically, Sushi and mini golf."

So yeah, despite being a horror, a horror remake and being in fuckmothering 3D, Fright Night won me over. It's not bad at all and way better than I was expecting it to be. Most of the issues I had with dialogue and plot were balanced out by the lead performances. It's fun enough, but is hardly going to feature on my list of "Favouritest Films Evaarrrr".

Alien: Resurrection

2011-08-23T03:40:00.003+01:00

Here's my review of the last "proper" Alien film. Watching the series back, I was reminded of how much I liked the first two and even found certain things to enjoy in the last two. It's cemented my fandom of the Alien series. Thing is, where do I go after this? There is only pain to come with the AVP films but I'm a completionist, so I may just have to hunt them down anyway. Oh, and also review the Predator films. You can just fucking tell I'm unemployed, can't you?

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

From a financial standpoint, the answer is obvious, but from an artistic stance the question "Why?" overpowers anything Alien: Resurrection brings to the party. This film did not need to exist. Fair enough, Alien 3 was a bit of a damp squib to go out on, but still- all the important shit happened. Ripley died. That was it- nothing more needed to be said. It was a downer, but the Alien films have never been all sunshine and rainbows. Was this meant to kick off a whole new bunch of films? If so, how? I suppose it's darkly coincidental Resurrection was actually the death knell for the franchise, but hey, I'm in danger of coming across as a chin-stroking ponce, so let's review this mother!

"Hey, son, I'll give ya my authorization code. It's E-A-T, M-E."

So, it's 200 years after the events of Alien 3 and we rejoin Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) after she recovers from her apparently mild case of death by fucking hot molten lead. However, this Ripley is a clone, made by scientists who show no regard for morals and/or ethics and who have also been breeding and experimenting on the Alien species. A ragtag bunch of sort-of space pirates, including the hulking Johner (Ron Perlman) and the impish Call (Winona Ryder) arrive just in time for the alien experimentation to predictably blow up in everyone's faces. Now it's up to Ripley 8 and the crew to stop the hungry, hungry Aliens from arriving on Earth. The plot's enjoyable until the third act and has a much better story focus than Alien 3. Sigourney Weaver's decent, but her being in it feels like fan service. Having said that, it is interesting to see her not be the out-and-out goodie we've come to know her as and play with an new, morally ambiguous element not present in the previous installments. Ron Perlman is here to gruffly say one-liners and look like he's carved from a particularly pissed-off cliff face, which he does admirably. I'm not sure about Winona Ryder's inclusion. She's perfectly alright and, as the film charmingly puts it, "severely fuckable" but I just don't think there was much need for her unique brand of wide-eyed Disney-esque empathy. This is an Alien film after all. Quick mention of Brad Dourif as Dr. Gediman, if only for the (thankfully) screen separated Alien kiss scene.

Resurrection certainly looks like an Alien film. The film goes back with the classic dark, grimy spaceships and it works. Whilst Alien 3 was a nice departure (at least in regards to setting) it's good to see Resurrection return to the series hallmarks. Whilst I'm not sure about another Alien redesign and certainly not a fan of the eggs getting a make-over, the Alien effects are the best in the series and still hold up fairly well today. It's great to see them properly in motion, rather than having to rely on quick shots so as not to give away the fact that it's a tall man with thin arms in a rubber suit. The underwater scene is especially impressive in this respect.

Crucially, Resurrection doesn't feel like an Alien film. Part of the reason is Joss Whedon's sub-par script, crowbarring in some of his trademark snarky, snappy dialogue into a series that isn't exactly known for comic relief. I love the guy, but this isn't his best work. The choice of director is an odd one too, with French quirkmaster Jean-Pierre Jeunet taking the helm. Much like Ryder, these talents are great, but not a fit for the Alien mythos, at least in my awesome opinion.

As faggy as this sounds, the Alien films to me have always been about the side-by-side evolution of Ripley and the Aliens. Whereas Ripley's changes were all internal and emotional, the Aliens' were all external and physiological. Having a Ripley clone relearn who she is stops all this dead which is a real shame. There's a flash of the old Ripley when ~~she's naked in that sack thing at the beginning and you can totally see some nip action~~ she stumbles across all her failed clone attempts, but it's not enough. The third act is really quite poor and whilst I get what they tried to do, it's just ridiculous. Without being too spoileriffic- it's the fucking eyes that get me. Just way too silly. Even for a film about slimy, two-mouthed, acid-blooded aliens.

"Ellen Ripley died trying to wipe this species out. For all intents and purposes, she succeeded."

So yeah, Alien: Resurrection. It's OK in the same way Alien 3 was. There are a few good bits/good ideas (I love the scene with the captives held over the eggs, it's bloody creepy) but it's a frustrating experience. It is more entertaining than Alien 3, but doesn't feel as kosher as Fincher's did. It's not terrible, but nowhere near as good as the first two films.

Cowboys & Aliens

2011-08-21T15:31:00.012+01:00

Will finish the Alien series soon but I'm finding it tough to summon the willpower to sit through Resurrection. I know what's coming and I ain't in a hurry to get there. Here's a new film to distract me:

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Of all the releases this summer, Cowboys & Aliens looked the most likely to be a knockabout fun romp. It's got a ridiculous premise, that ridiculous title, the director of insanely enjoyable Iron Man behind it and it had a good trailer, promising big effects and explosions. I often talk about films getting mixed reviews, but the ratings of Cowboys & Aliens are polar opposites. So what's the definitive answer? I'm not quite arrogant enough to dogmatically tell you, however, I can do what I always do and post my thoughts below like they mean something.

"Whether you end up in Heaven or Hell isn't God's plan, it's your own. You just have to remember what it is."

The year is 1873. We open in the outback where a man, bearing a striking resemblance to Daniel Craig, wakes up with a wounded side, a fancy, futuristic bracelet on his wrist and plot-convenient amnesia. He moseys on into the nearest town, Absolution, which is practically run by grizzled, grouchy sonuvvabitch Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). Soon, the amnesiac discovers his name is Jake Lonergan and he's wanted by local law enforcement. Not only that, but Lonergan starts flashing back to being abducted by "demons" (disproving my initial explanation for his injury, strange, gaudy wristwear and memory loss being that he'd attended a Scouse wedding) .The "demons" attack Absolution and abduct a few of the townsfolk, causing Lonergan, Dolarhyde and most of the surviving townspeople including the mysterious Ella (Olivia Wilde) and town bartender Doc (Sam Rockwell) to saddle up and pursue those alien bastards. The story is solid, but not what I was expecting. The film plays everything with a more serious edge than I anticipated. I thought Daniel Craig was decent- although his 'merican accent kept distracting me. Harrison Ford was also good as Dolarhyde. He was mostly playing himself, but the character is surprisingly unsympathetic. I liked Olivia Wilde and Sam Rockwell too, but this paragraph's gone on for way too long.

To be honest, I think that the film's biggest weakness is the title itself. "Cowboys & Aliens" sounds like a parodic title like Snakes on a Plane or Lesbian Vampire Killers. I realise it's based on a comic book series of the same name, but I think the combination of the title coupled with the trailer is selling the film short. The opening 20 minutes or so could have easily been the start of a modern Western. We have the outsider coming into town, we meet the town preacher and bartender along the way and the outsider sorts out a town problem in the form of Paul Dano and his gang (I was actually a bit disappointed with Paul Dano- I wanted him to be a proper baddie, but he turns into his go-to role of a whiny bitch before too long. It's a good trick, I just wish he wouldn't do it in every film I've seen him in.). Then the aliens show up and the film turns into the odd genre mashup that it is. I actually find the concept to be really interesting. I'm sick of aliens invading modern day Earth, blowing up famous landmarks and the like. Cowboys & Aliens both asks and answers the question "What the shit would happen if aliens invaded the Old West?". At the very least you can give it points for originality.

The film's more character driven than I was expecting. It purposefully takes its time with getting to know the inhabitants of Absolution before the extra-terrestrial shite hits the fan. There were a couple of really feckin' obvious signposted subplots early doors that annoyed me slightly. For instance, if you cannot guess what ultimately happens to the character of Doc, after it has been made abundantly clear that he cannot shoot a rifle accurately, you have not seen a piece of populist entertainment for the past 30 years. I thought the effects were good and thankfully used sparingly. The action was also decent, with a huge battle between alien scout ships and horse mounted cowboys being my personal highlight, although I must say some of the early Craig fistfighting was really enjoyable too. The fighting is a lot more visceral than the 12A certificate might suggest. It's not a kids' movie. If they're not scarred by the violence, they'll be bored by the dialogue-heavy slower scenes.

"Demons took your gold. When you get to Hell, you can ask for it back."

I can see why Cowboys & Aliens is dividing opinion. It plays the ludicrous central idea dead-straight and rather po-faced, which I get the feeling may turn off some people. I really enjoyed it for what it was. I got a real kick out of the clash of the genres, was entertained by the leads and was impressed with the action. It's an odd film, but it features my new favourite thing - a dynamite knife. I simply can't think of a better way to say "fuck you" to an alien invader than stabbing them with a knife that will then blow up. Whilst I half wish the film had just simply been a modern Western starring Craig and Ford, I think that Favreau did a damn good job in taking on a strange property and having the nads to play it serious. It definitely won't be for everyone, but it was for me.

Alien 3

2011-08-19T00:53:00.006+01:00

Yup, I'm banging the old retro drum again with Alien 3, disappointingly not called "Alienses!".

Alien 3 (1992)

Where to begin with this one? Whilst loudmouthed fanpeople sweatily debate over which is superior: Scott's original or Cameron's sequel, they generally agree that Alien 3 is where it all went wrong and started a nosedive that the franchise still hasn't managed to pull itself out of (the last film to feature them was the scarily recent and terrifyingly shit Aliens Vs. Predator: Requiem in 2007) So what went wrong? Well, numerous things. They had hired newbie director David Fincher (yes, that one), who was unused to huge studio productions, they started shooting without a completed script and were financially in the red from the very beginning ($7 million had already been spent, with $2 million of that going on sets that were unused) and most importantly, the studio execs were constantly pushing in their cocaine-dusted nostrils in where they weren't wanted, resulting in Fincher walking out before the final edit.

"You're all gonna die. The only question is how you check out. Do you want it on your feet? Or on your fuckin' knees... begging?"

So, after escaping LV-426, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) crash lands onto prison planet Fiorina 'Fury' 161. Things aren't exactly looking up for Ripley as the inhabitants of Fury 161 are all imprisoned for violence in all its flavours, from the Vanilla of standard physical stuff to the horrific Raspberry Ripple of sexual crimes. Ripley soon meets Doctor Clemens (Charles Dance), seemingly the only sane person on the planet. However, things go from bad to worse as it transpires that Ripley has unwittingly brought an alien hitchhiker with her in her pod, which is now picking off prisoners left, right and centre. I actually don't mind the story too much, although it's nowhere near as decent as the well-plotted previous films. Sigourney Weaver is still impressive as Ripley, although she's not given as much depth as in Aliens. I thought Charles Dance was good and I liked Paul McGann as Golic. Charles S. Dutton is also solid as Dillon. Thing is, all of these characters are severely under-developed and not nearly as memorable as any of the people in Alien or Aliens. Most of them are interchangeable blood balloons, ready to be popped by the all-too-willing slavering alien.

Alien 3 is a frustrating mess. There's a good film in here somewhere and if more care and attention had been given to it, it could have been a gem. I was on board with the decision to scale it back after Cameron's noisy, all-out war on the creatures. Fincher goes back to Scott's original and just has the one beast tear-arsing about and murdering folk. It's a smart move as trying to out-epic Aliens would have been tough and unrewarding. I really like the intro sequence, with the 20th Century Fox fanfare segueing directly into the creepy score and the little flashes of a facehugger crawling around in the escape pod. There are a couple of nice little ideas scattered throughout. There's this incredibly famous bit, our first Alien P.O.V. shot, on both ceiling and floor and this fantastically timed F-Bomb, which always gets a laugh from me. The setting is hellish but awesome and I'm a fan of the slight redesign of the alien- the beast being a different colour and having snarling lips due to its surroundings and its original host.

Most of the time though, the film sucks. I imagine the off-screen killing of Hicks and Newt pissed off a lot of fans. Personal beef aside, they're great characters that deserve a better send-off than this. It's also boring at times, something the previous two never suffered from. There are plot holes galore, ranging from where the alien egg came from in the first place, to what happened to Golic. Golic's one of the only interesting characters and to just leave him on a hospital bed gibbering about the "dragon" is unforgivable (this is fixed in the "Assembly" cut of the film, however) Also, for some odd reason about midway through everyone starts saying "fuck" like it's going out of style. I believe it's after Ripley learns that the facility has no weapons and she says "We're fucked". After this, it's wall-to-wall fucks, which gets unintentionally funny, destroying any tension that was accidentally created. I get that they're stressed and such, but it gets ridiculous.

"You've been in my life so long, I can't remember anything else."

Alien 3 just isn't very good. Too many things don't make sense, it gets plodding and tedious where it should be upping the ante and it just feels like its treading water until its unsatisfying conclusion. It batters you over the head with previously subtle series hallmarks such as motherhood and just ends up making you wish they'd drawn a line under Aliens and walked away. The Assembly cut does make more sense out of this mess, but Christ would have I been angry if I'd seen this in cinemas.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

2011-08-15T16:32:00.000+01:00

Another new release before I crash headlong into Fincher's Alien 3. As I said in my Aliens review, I'm doing the theatricals, so it's going to be particularly painful. Anyway: Rise of the Planet of the Apes aka How the Earth Done Got Monkey-Fucked.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

I have one query about Rise of the Planet of the Apes : (Hereby referred to as "Rise..." because the title is ridiculously long and awkward. Even the acronym ROTPOTA is rather inelegant and looks like an anagram clue in a crappy newspaper i.e. 36. Underwhelming nu-metal band (7)) is this one of the only films to be a feature-length spoiler? Fair enough, the twist ending of the original Planet of the Apes is so well known they felt comfortable enough to put it on the DVD cover, but still! It's like having an entire film dedicated to a carpenter making Charles Foster Kane's sled. Thinking about it, I suppose the Star Wars prequels kind of count, but I'd prefer not to think too hard about them for obvious reasons.

"You're trying to control things that are not meant to be controlled."

Will Rodman (James Franco) is working on a cure for Alzheimer's disease. After some apparently failed tests on chimpanzees, the project is scrapped and the test subjects ordered to be destroyed. Rodman ends up saving a baby chimp named Caesar who starts to display remarkable intelligence as he ages. After attacking a neighbour, Caesar is imprisoned with other apes and starts to see the ugly side of humanity. The story's great, somehow making the "primates taking over Earth" thing not only feel plausible, but even getting you to root for the damned dirty apes. It's a scientific breakthrough gone bad. Think Jurassic Park but from the point of view of the dinosaurs. The human characters in this are quite bland (although that may be the point). James Franco is alright, but he's doing his Harry Osborn acting rather than his Aron Ralston (from 127 Hours). Frieda Pinto is good as Rodman's gal, Caroline, but severely underused. It is nice to see her in something after Slumdog Millionaire though. John Lithgow does a surprising turn as Rodman's Alzheimer's addled father. It's an understated portrayal and not something I'd expect from the main guy in 3rd Rock from the Sun. Good to see Brian Cox doin' his thang too.

The main talking point is obviously Caesar, who is brilliantly realised by a combination of CGI and the awesome mo-cap work of Andy Serkis. The evolution of him from brilliant baby to a fully-grown revolutionary is extremely well-handled. There's a fantastic scene where Rodman and Caroline take Caesar for a forest walk and he's barked at by a dog on a lead. Despondent, he slinks back to the car and after some gentle persuasion from Rodman, he asks using sign language whether he is a pet or not. Little touches like this make you completely forget he is a computer creation. He's Gollum 2.0 and I can't think of much higher praise than that. The CGI is astounding too. Yes, there are a couple of bits where things don't look quite right, but most of it is photo-realistic and utterly convincing.

Rise... is so well executed even potentially dumb scenes end up being great moments. When Caesar is imprisoned, we see him slowly plan and plot a revolution. In a lesser film, it could have been laughable- in this, it contains some of the best bits in the film. A prime example is the scene where prime ape abuser Dodge (Tom Felton) utters one of the most famous Heston lines from the original flick. I normally hate franchise references in reboots/prequels (see J.J. Abrams' Star Trek) but my disappointment turned to cinematic joy soon after (intentionally vague, I think it would take away from the bit if I told you what happened).

The film also ends one of the most impressive action set-pieces I've seen in a while (I said the same about the Super 8 train crash, but this trumps it- I was going to say "I've seen since Super 8", but that sounds like a snarky diss) and is now top of my Best Scenes of 2011 list (so far). It took a while to get there, but apes rose and my jaw dropped. Apes taking on armed police on the Golden Gate Bridge? FUCK YES. Instead of the cumbersome title, they should have called this film Gorilla Vs. Helicopter. They would sell twice as many tickets.

"It's a madhouse!"

Let's face it, Rise of the Planet of the Apes was not needed. However, I'm so glad it exists. It's a fantastic blockbuster and my surprise of the year thus far. I can't really think of any real criticism, although I do wonder if San Francisco really does have such a booming primate population. I loved this film, but I'm a self-confessed blockbuster whore. There's a simple test to see if you're going to get anything out of this film: if you don't even get the least bit excited at the phrase "monkey uprising", then stay away. More ape warfare for the rest of us.

Aliens

2011-08-14T02:57:00.009+01:00

Gung-ho sequel time. It only gets worse from here on out. Proper ray of sunshine, ain't I? Also, before I continue, I just wanted to say that I'm reviewing the theatrical versions of these films. The director's cut of Aliens is actually the better version in my book, but I figured I'd stick with what was originally shown in cinemas.

Aliens (1986)

After the financial and critical success of the first film and the easily sequelable (not a word, should be) ending, another Alien film was bound to be made. Imaginatively titled Aliens and helmed by James "supremely overrated" Cameron, it took all the subtlety and atmosphere of the first one and blew it out a goddamn airlock. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. In fact, I welcome it. An attempt to just copy/paste the first one would have really been a mistake and it's good to have Aliens on hand to show people just how to evolve your franchise rather than having studios just churning out the same crap again and again.

"Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events, but we just got our asses kicked pal!"

We catch up with lone survivor (excluding the cat, pedants) of the Nostromo, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) who has been in hypersleep for 57 years. She is picked up by "the company" and made to tell her story of horror and survival. Initially disbelieved, Ripley is made to look like a fool, but is soon reluctantly recruited into the Colonial Marines to return to the planet LV-426, the planet from the first film, to investigate the lack of communication from the colonists there. Plot-wise, the film's solid. I like the fact that we learn more about Ripley in this one. She goes from (admittedly tougher than the usual) horror scream queen in the first, to arse-kicking warrior in this installment. Sigourney Weaver is so damn good as Ripley. You can see why she became such a big star after these performances. Of the badass marines, I like most of them, although I personally find Hicks (Michael Biehn) to be a nice, thick slice of "Who gives a fuck?". Special mentions go to the cigar chomping Sergeant Apone (Al Matthews), the tough as diamond nails Pvt.Vasquez (Jenette Goldstein) and the whiny, but entertaining Pvt. Hudson (Bill Paxton), who gets to say most of my favourite lines from the film. Lance Henriksen is totally likeable as Bishop and I think Paul Reiser turns in a good performance as the appropriately named Burke- although embarrassingly, it seems like he and Weaver had been going to the same barber.

You may have noticed that I didn't mention Newt (Carrie Henn) in the above paragraph. This is because I fucking hate Newt. I understand the character's role in the whole thing (Ripley's daughter is dead and the whole issue of motherhood is prevalent throughout) but Jesus Christ, do I wish Newt a) was played by a better child actor and b) had less shit lines to gurgle from her muddy, Cabbage Patch Kid-esque face. I don't enjoy picking on a child's performance- it doesn't exactly make me feel like a big man, but this is a genuine gripe for me. Most of it is due to the writing. The little exchange at the end between the two really makes me wonder how the lines got into the final script:

"NEWT: Can we sleep all the way home?

RIPLEY: All the way home.

NEWT: Can I dream?

RIPLEY: Yes, honey. I think we both can."

Not only do I find that little bit rage and vomit inducing, but my question is this: what kid speaks like that? I understand that Newt is a pretty smart kid, having survived on her wits alone. However, even taking that into account, there's something so off-puttingly unnatural about Newt's lines. "Can I dream?" sounds like a line from a cheesy movie about a self-aware robot or some such toss.

Anyway- that's my only real problem with Aliens. The stakes are significantly upped and the film is all the better for it. The tagline "This time it's war" isn't lying. Cameron brings the noise and we have all-out battles pitting a steadily declining group of marines against an army of the acid-blooded motherfuckers. I love the way the aliens blend into the environment. If one had their "subtext analysis" hat on (and I did, my "sit back and just enjoy the sodding thing" hat was in the wash) some parallels with the Vietnam war could be drawn. Actually, you don't even need a special hat- Cameron isn't the master of subtlety. If something needs to be stated, you may as well overstate it if you're James Cameron.

There are fantastic sequences throughout. I love the facehugger scene where Ripley and (sigh) Newt are trapped in a room with two of the scurrying bastards. I love Burke's innocent face after he's just turned off the monitor showing a clearly panicked and wildly gesticulating Ripley. Ooh- that curly-haired shit! (by that I mean Burke, by the way). There's also the iconic Powerloader scene, which is just as air-punchingly cathartic as it was when I first saw it. Like the first one, there are little moments to appreciate too. My favourite is the easily missable bit where Apone places his beloved cigar in his mouth milliseconds after waking from hypersleep- it's not even a "bit" as such, but it's a little touch that always makes me smile.

"Get away from her, you bitch!"

So yeah, despite being a complete departure from the things I liked about Alien, Aliens manages to find a level of greatness all of its own. It gets a bit relentless at times, but there's just too much to like. I fucking hate Newt, but other than that, no qualms here.

Super 8

2011-08-13T15:10:00.003+01:00

Taking a break from the Alien films to talk about a new film currently out in cinemas (at least here in the U.K.). Damn you Americans and your prompt release dates! Also don't worry if you haven't seen Supers 1 through 7- there's a "Previously on..." segment at the start. Hohoho... #obviousjoke.

Super 8 (2011)

Whilst attending this year's Amateur Reviewer Douchebag Convention (Or AmRevDoucheCon for short) it was made law that no Super 8 discussion could take place with mentioning Steven Spielberg. It's tough not to- the guy's influence is all over this film, despite only being an executive producer. This is J.J. Abrams' baby- it just wears a cap, has a beard and gets together with George Lucas every now and again to discuss new and exciting ways to commit franchisicide and milk their loyal fans for every penny they have.

"If you speak of this, you and your parents will be killed."

The film takes place in 1979 in the fictional small town of Lillian, Ohio. Whilst making a amateur zombie flick, a group of kids witness and accidentally film a massive train crash. One of the children, Joe (Joel Courtney) sees something escape from the wreckage, but the group are forced to run when the air force show up. Weird shit then starts happening in Lillian, such as car engines going missing, power surges and all the town's dogs spontaneously running away to neighbouring towns. I really enjoyed the story. It was compelling and genuinely intriguing. On the one hand, the film is a growing-up, coming of age film and on the other a big scale, old-style mystery. Glibly, it's like E.T. crossed with Cloverfield with a bit of The Goonies thrown in. We spend a lot of time with the kids, so it's a good thing they're all fantastic actors without exception. I normally get very irritated by precocious Hollywood brats, but these kids are different. Most impressive of all is Elle Fanning's (yes, sister of Dakota) turn as Alice. I liked Joe's dad (Kyle Chandler) too. I kept torturing myself over where I knew him from, finally I realised he's the smug prick actor in Peter Jackson's King Kong remake.

There are certain elements of Super 8 I really don't like. As I mentioned before, it's a 112 minute Spielbeard suckjob and the constant riffs on his 70's/80's work get a bit tiring if you're a film nerd like me. I like Spielberg too, but I don't feel the need to spend millions telling him so. Super 8 is a laser-guided nostalgia missile aimed at the minds of people like me who grew up watching E.T., The Goonies and any other 80's adventure film starring kids i.e nearly all of them. We're deep into stereotype territory here- there's bossy fat one, the wuss, the bland hero, the girl and the er...pyromaniac. I haven't made my mind up whether this film is a genuine love letter to those films or a cynical marketing ploy to remind people of a time when things weren't so shit.

Having said that, the film is damn entertaining. The opening train crash is one of the best sequences in recent memory- it's big, explody and exciting. It doesn't make much sense though- the armoured, multi-carriage military train is derailed by a pick-up truck driven onto the tracks. Not only does the train not smash the complete fuck out of it, the driver survives to tell the kids plot important information! They have a throwaway line about this, but still- it's the little things that matter, as I told my ex-girlfriend... on Opposite Day. Hah! There's another stand-out sequence later on that I won't spoil, but wow. Just wow.

"Stop talking about production value! The Air Force is going to kill us!"

Every paragraph I write about this seems to devolve into a negative, but the film is actually brilliant. It's flawed, but I'm only picking on the things that stop it from going from a great film to a fantastic one. I had a blast. It's fast-paced and actually quite affecting at times. Despite the mawkish go-to plot device of having a dead parent, it's handled well and there's a bit with a locket that left me with a lump in my manly throat. So yeah, the effects are amazing, the story is fun and it has some old-school charm to it. Whilst I was initially reluctant to pay money for what was basically a hastily scribbled note from Abrams to Spielberg saying: "I LIKE U. DO U LIKE ME? YES/NO", Super 8 won me over. It's a lot of fun.

Alien

2011-08-11T00:45:00.003+01:00

It's the middle of blockbuster season, so you know what that means- that's right! : a review of a 33 year old film not currently in cinemas! Hooray! Don't worry, normal service will intermittently resume, focusing on a super number, some monkey planet rising and some crap I haven't decided on yet. Anyway:

Alien (1979)

It's hard to come up with original insights on a genre classic. I've seen Alien and Aliens countless times, less so the two others (the AvP series doesn't count on account of its joyless shittery) and wondered why I haven't ever officially reviewed them. The Alien films have always stood out to me as an interesting franchise. With most film series there is usually an effort at continuity in terms of a common stylistic thread, running through the films. Each entry in the Alien franchise has its own flavour and directorial imprint on it, be it the thoughtful, bleak crappiness of David Fincher's Alien 3 or the balls-to-the-wall meathead action of James Cameron's Aliens. Thanks to the couple of people on Facebook who had nothing better to do than vote for this series, it was made final- I was to enjoy/endure the films again so I could write reviews for y'all to enjoy/endure. So, before I start- here are the "jokes" I'll be avoiding throughout my reviews: 1) any reference and/or pun relating to the super-famous tagline and 2) pointing out the fact that all the aliens look like shiny black dicks (to the person who eventually Googles those last three words and ends up here, I'm sorry to disappoint. But hey- come for the dicks, stay for the reviews!)

"The pit is completely enclosed. And it's full of leathery objects, like eggs or something."

We start with a cargo ship (in SPAAAACE!) called the Nostromo as it picks up a unknown signal from a nearby planet. The crew land and discover a downed alien spacecraft. Blah eggs blah facehugger blah stupid decision to bring Kane (John Hurt) back on board. If you haven't seen Alien, close this review, slap yourself in the face and then order yourself a copy. A film simply cannot be this influential unless it was good to start with. Every time I watch it, I forget how slow it is. That sounds like a dig, but it isn't. The film is a masterclass in pacing. There's no dialogue for a good five minutes or so at the beginning and when the crew awake from hypersleep, it's shot in a really lethargic, dream-like way. Things obviously quicken up later on once the alien starts getting his merk on, but my point remains. I think the Nostromo crew are great too. Sigourney Weaver is brilliant, Ian Holm surprisingly creepy and one-time Bond villain Yaphet Kotto (who dies the most embarrassing death in Bond history) is bad-ass as Parker.

I remember seeing Alien when I was a kid and it giving me nightmares for a while. Now I'm older, the scares are still effective, but have understandably lost some of their trouser-browning power, be it due to advances in special effects or the fact I've seen it a lot. I consider jump scares the lowest form of horror, a cheap move to get the wussier members of the audience to scream and call the film "really super scary 4realz" afterwards. Alien is proof that jump scares don't annoy me nearly as much when the atmosphere is well done. For example, the bit where Dallas (Tom Skerritt) is in the vents and we hear the "blips" getting faster and faster is masterfully done. Also the famous chestburster scene is fantastic- although I have a problem with the way it scurries away. It looks like a dildo on wheels being pulled on a string.

It's not the just the big sequences that impress me. I love the creepy touches, like the facehugger pulsing and tightening its horrific grip on the prone Kane's neck. I like the claustrophic feel of the ship, despite it being massive. The end 20 minutes or so where Ripley is rocking an incinerator is so damn oppressive. We have Mother's constant countdown, alarms, flashing lights, steam and the possibility of the alien being around the next corner to deal with. It's tense stuff. Also, I love the design of the alien and the crashed ship. H.R. Giger- you're a fucked up genius.

"Ash, are you kidding? This thing bled acid. Who knows what it's gonna do when it's dead?"

I don't really have any gripes with Alien. If pushed, I would say the film didn't need another villain in the form of (invisotexted, but God knows why) Ash, but then again, I can't see the film working as well without it. Plus, I really like the character. Some of the effects have aged badly, but that's not the film's fault. As I said though, the chestburster running away always gets a guffaw from me. It's tough to imagine the initial impact Alien must have had or calculate the influence it has had on modern sci-fi, but it still stands up to modern, cynical, horror-hating eyes such as mine. It's a great film, simple as that.

Cars 2

2011-08-02T02:52:00.002+01:00

Too many films to write-up. Still, nobody's got a gun to my head, forcing me to do this- honest. So anyway, here's my review of Pixar's latest.

Cars 2 (2011)

I have a soft spot for the first Cars. It's no masterpiece and certainly not one of Pixar's best, but it's entertaining enough. Then again, I liked the Michael J. Fox starring Doc Hollywood, which has a very similar plot, just with less talking cars. The original Cars still stands as one of the studio's lowest rated films, so I figured this was them trying to make amends. Actually- no. No I didn't. I'm smarter than that. There is only one reason why this film was made. Find out after the plot summary, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.

"I call this move "what I accidentally did to my friend Luigi"

So, the story is as follows. Racecar Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is invited to take part in the World Grand Prix, a three stage race to prove the effectiveness of a new biofuel called Allinol, championed by Miles Axelrod (Eddie Izzard). However, the focus of this film is not on McQueen, but his best friend Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) as he gets caught up in a spy plot involving super-suave British agent Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). The story is as average as you can get. I've seen countless films, T.V. shows and cartoons use the "mistaken identity" spy trope. It's bog standard. Yet, here we are in 2011 and Cars 2 is waving this in our face like it's a new thing. As is the case with these films, the voices are all great. It was nice to hear Michael Caine and Eddie Izzard. I also welcomed the quick cameos from Bruce Campbell and Lewis Hamilton. The quality of the voicework is not the issue here.

So- that shit cliffhanger I left you on a paragraph ago. The reason why this film was made. It's THIS. $10 billion from merchandising?! That's fucking insane. It would be naïve of me to say that merchandising hasn't played a part in most Disney productions. They're a huge conglomerate with many different revenue streams. However, this has got to be the only Pixar production created solely to make money and shift toys. The thing I've always liked and respected about Pixar is that they're an ideas company. They have a big story focus. There is no evidence of this in Cars 2. There is no exciting story to tell, or important issue to touch upon. It's just some hastily cobbled together insipid spy shit to make a quick buck out of those unfortunate enough to have children.

Anyway, despite the devious schemes behind it, I still didn't rate the film. Cars 2 makes the same mistake On Stranger Tides did by having the comic relief take the main role. Thing is, I didn't find Mater funny in the first one. In this one, he's insufferable. Every single redneck utterance made me want to claw at my own face until only sticky muscle and sinew remained. Luckily, Caine was usually about to even this out. I was also slightly bothered that they had cars dying in this one. The one in particular that raised an eyebrow was early on in the film where one of the characters has been crushed into a cube. Damn. That's pretty nasty.

"How did the tow truck do it?"

Is there anything to like in this film, bar the voice talent? Well, yeah. As usual, the computer animation is gorgeous and the global vistas are genuinely impressive, especially the neons of nighttime Tokyo. The opening spy scene with McMissile is quite fun and the Toy Story Hawaiian Vacation short at the beginning is funnier than anything in the film. You may find things to enjoy in this film, but to me, this is the only time Pixar have talked down to their audience. It's a kids' film through and through with none of the usual multi-layering Pixar have become known for. It's a loud, feature-length toy advert, which unfortunately seems to be going around lately.

Black Swan

2011-08-01T21:26:00.005+01:00

I don't do requests often. Not because I think I'm above 'em. I just don't get 'em. So, when the request to finally review Black Swan came in, I pounced on it, like a tramp on a loose fiver blowing down the street. I'm not sure why I haven't reviewed it until now. In fact, many of the 2011 Oscar winners haven't been covered on this blog. I've seen most of them too. Hmm. Anyway, Portman dun wun a purdy statchoo for this'un, so I guess I'd better comment. I realise this is like shouting "Freebird!" two weeks after a concert has ended, but roll with it.

Black Swan (2010)

It may be because I fancy myself as a blockbuster revolutionary/moron (come at me, bro) but I felt Black Swan was daring me to dislike it from the off. Due to its status and quality it felt as if I didn't like it, I would be officially thick. On the surface, it's doing everything it can to pander to Uncle Oscar. It's about ballet, it's starring a famous actress giving a "serious" turn and it's directed by Darren Aronarrow'tatersinyerbarrownofsky, the man behind the not dissimilar The Wrestler and the suicidally depressing Requiem for a Dream. This had "prestige picture" written on the script before the ink was dry on the title.

"I just want to be perfect."

Black Swan is the story of Nina (Natalie Portman), a dedicated ballerina who, whilst technically brilliant, is deemed to lack the passion needed to dance the darker side of the dual lead role of the Swan Queen in her company's production of Swan Lake. She has an overbearing mother (Barbara Hershey) who lives vicariously through her daughter's dancing and a strict director (Vincent Cassel) to contend with. Things change somewhat for Nina when new dancer Lily (Mila Kunis) joins the fray and possesses a natural spark perfectly suited to the role of the Black Swan. Whilst at times very predictable, I must admit I was pretty captivated by the story. It's a nightmarish, twisted version of Swan Lake run through the eyes of someone who's seen Suspiria way too much. As much as this means coming from an amateur critic with too much time on his hands, Portman's performance is worthy of the Oscar. Nina is fragile, but not to the point being spineless. She has a bit of chutzpah about her, just has trouble expressing it because it's almost been entirely squashed out of her by her mum. I thought Vincent Cassel was good too, giving a new definition to the term "smarmy bastard". I wasn't so taken with Mila Kunis. I've never been convinced by her acting-wise and I just don't think she fits here. The emphasis on Lily's "normality" is too much at times, which gave me a weird uncanny feeling. It looks and sounds perfectly normal, there's just that one element that creeped me out.

Subtlety is not this film's strongest point. We're talking first year Media Studies with some of this shite. I hope you get that black can represent evil, whilst white can be used to suggest good, because this film hits you over the head with it again and again. Most of the creepy scenes work well, but a couple take it too far and ruined the tension. There's a scene where Nina is dancing on her own and (invisotext) the lights go out, leads to a standard Hollywood horror mainstay- the "Hello? Is anyone there?" moment. She then discovers Lily being royally screwed by the director, who then turns into the demon Rothbart for a very generic jump scare. In terms of bad things- the bit where the various drawings of Nina come to life was terrible. Reminded me too much of that shit "Fear Her" episode of Doctor Who All in all though, the film is most successful in being generally creepy. I thought some of the body metamorphosis stuff was well done, although owing a lot to The Fly. The third act is where Aronofsky goes mental and the one dance (you'll know it if you've seen it) of the Black Swan is amazing. I was blown away by how well it was done. The music at this point is also fucking awesome.

As with some of the horror moments, I feel the film goes a little too far with the characters, specifically Winona Ryder's aged starlet, Beth. I like Ryder a lot, but this burnt out has-been character has been done too often to make any real impact. I felt the whole subplot involving her needed to be trimmed. But, maybe I'm nit-picking too much. As a psychological horror, it works pretty well. It's one of those films that stays with you days after viewing. I like the fact that the film also doesn't offer any easy answers to what happens. All too often films resolve the questions they ask without any room for interpretation. As for the ballet, I'm aware that the negative aspects of it have been ramped up, but Christ. All that dedication and all those regular injuries don't look like fun.

"The only person standing in your way is you. It's time to let her go. Lose yourself."

Black Swan. It won't be for everyone. It's very well shot and acted. That's a given. The psychological aspect works well and the choreography impressed me. It's not the perfect film that poncy types would have you believe it is and some of the more obvious flaws stopped me from getting fully on board with it. Still- very good. Not that you need me to tell you. It's been out bloody ages.

Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-07-30T16:47:00.005+01:00

Prompt review time. Here are my thoughts on the third and final Marvel movie of 2011: Captain America: The First Avenger. I apologise for the bland, generic opening but I couldn't think of a decent way to kick things off. If you were offended by the cookie-cutter intro there are two things you can do. Firstly- get a fucking life and secondly, let me know your name, address and bank details and I will endeavour to pay five (5) pounds sterling into your account within three working days.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Where would Chris Evans be without comic book adaptations? Apart from a couple of indie, character-driven pieces, the guy's IMDB page reads like a shelf at Forbidden Planet. Of these though, Captain America is undeniably his step-up to the big leagues. I was concerned that the antiquated character of Cap (originally war propaganda, but revived by Stan Lee in the '60s) would be hard to adapt. The man's a walking flag for a country that isn't exactly topping World popularity polls at the moment and whilst risky Marvel property Thor had been done well, I wasn't entirely sure Cap would have the same success. On the other hand, I reminded myself that Marvel have been on a winning streak of late and I shouldn't be so sceptical. I'm pleased to say that Captain America continues that streak and has me looking forward to The Avengers all the more (if that was even possible at this point).

"I asked for an army. All I got is you."

The film takes place during World War II and follows skinny weakling Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), who longs to fight for his country, but is repeatedly turned away because of his health problems and general shrimpiness. However, Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci) sees a spark in Rogers that makes him the perfect candidate for his secret military experiment. With the help of Iron Man's dad, Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) and under the supervision of Col. Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) and Agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), Rogers is transformed into a muscle-bound super-soldier and becomes Captain America. Good thing too, as the leader of specialist Nazi group Hydra, Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) is after a little artifact familiar to the people who saw Thor, which will grant him the power to change the outcome of the war. The plot is decent and cleverly updates the character of Cap without straying too far away from his inked origins. Chris Evans is fantastic as Rogers/Cap adding some believability and vulnerability to what could have been an embarrassing "golly gee whiz!" portrayal. Hayley Atwell was great as the tough, but sensitive Peggy Carter and reminded me a bit of Marion Ravenwood from Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is a great compliment to her. Tommy Lee Jones also does what he's best at- playing a grizzled, authoritarian figure who gets to say all the best lines. Weaving's Red Skull was a slight disappointment, but not because of Weaving himself, who can play solid baddies in his sleep but more down to the writing. I wanted more for the man who brought us Agent Smith.

The thing I loved about the film above everything else was the retro setting and style. It's set in the '40s and has a real Indiana Jones / The Rocketeer feel to it. It's sepia-toned Americana but done so you don't feel like rolling your eyes, vomiting or doing a terrifying combination of both. Whilst we're on the subject (of Americana, not vomit), the character of Captain America isn't as nauseatingly jingoistic as one might expect from the name. He's a morale boosting mascot for the first half or so, encouraging cheering crowds to buy war bonds and such. The name "Captain America" and the ridiculous spandex costume he initially has to wear both make perfect sense in this context. I know I bang on and on about superhero films trying to be brooding and dark like the Nolan Bat films, but I can't think of a better contrast to Batman than Captain America. It's refreshing to see a character this good and morally upstanding without layers of snark or reluctance to sweeten the pill for today's cynical audiences. I expected Chris Evans to give Cap a jokey, sarcastic edge similar to his Human Torch portrayal in the Fantastic Four films, but he plays it straight-faced and earnestly. A decision that really pays off. I also must mention the impressive CGI that went into turning the normally brick shithouse sized Evans into a puny girly-man. People have been saying that his head looks too big for his body, but I can't see it. Genuinely amazing work.

The first half of the film is a hell of a lot of fun. Whilst it takes a long time to get Cap into his ridiculously patriotic gear, it's enjoyable enough to be spending time with skinny ol' Steve. The USO show stuff is great too, with a catchy-as-fuck Menken track called "Star Spangled Man" scoring an insanely entertaining montage. When Rogers finally starts kicking arse, the film's quality wavers slightly. The action is very well done and shot, it starts feeling more generic than it should do after such a strong opening. The hand-to-hand, shield-to-face stuff is brilliant though. Not once did I get tired of Cap hitting people. As I mentioned before, the Red Skull isn't as menacing as I wanted him to be. For a man who is supposedly too evil for the Nazis (think of that!), he doesn't seem to have a coherent evil plan. His target is apparently "everything", which is pretty fucking lazy writing. He has some vague notion to blow up major U.S. cities, but I can't for the life of me remember the details. (Invisotext) He does get a decent climactic scrap with Rogers though. It's a shame that his demise is so unsatisfying. Whilst on the subject of spoilers, I really liked the final conversation between Peggy and Cap- it was really quite sweet. Steve's "...but I have a date." when confronted by Nick Muthafuckin' Fury was suprisingly touching. I think my problem with Red Skull is we don't get to see him do that much. His dialogue is well-written, it's just his actions aren't.

(On the subject of killing Nazis) "I don't want to kill anyone. I just don't like bullies."

So, Captain America: The First Avenger. It's great. On reflection, (I initially thought it was simply on par with Thor), it's the best Marvel movie this year. It has a real boy's own, old-style adventure film to it which bypasses any feeling of superheroic saturation you may feel. I had some minor quibbles with it, but I was too entertained by it all to get hung up on them. As usual, stay after the end credits for an exciting teaser.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

2011-07-24T16:20:00.007+01:00

Yup, here are my late thoughts on the final Potter flick. Then it's back to my review workpile before going to see Captain America. Word of warning- my review is very spoiler-filled. It's very tough to accurately discuss this film without talking frankly.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

You don't need me to tell you how pervasive the Potter franchise has become, 'specially as every other reviewer is using Deathly Hallows Part 2 as an excuse for retrospective bum-gazing on the series as a whole, and pondering about where exactly the Potter films will place in cinematic history. It's hard to overstate the impact the Boy Who Lived has had on popular culture. I don't know about you, but when I sat down to watch Part 2 and realised the decade long Potter saga was at its end, I felt rather (deathly) hollow.

"From this day forth, you put your faith... in me."

In a shocking twist, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 continues directly from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1. Harry (Daniel Radclifffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are still on the hunt for the remaining Horcruxes to weaken Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) enough to stop him once and for all. Voldemort and his army of Death Eaters wage war on the last bastion of good, Hogwarts castle, now run dictatorially by fan favourite Severus Snape (Alan Rickman). If Part 1 was all set-up, Part 2 is all pay off. Thing is, amongst all the truly epic battles and suprisingly bloody character deaths, I felt a sense of disappointment starting to grow.

I haven't read the Deathly Hallows book since it intially came out, so I'm a bit foggy on the details, but I remember it being a lot more satisfying than the film was. It genuinely hurts me to call Part 2 out on these things, but I can't just give it a free pass as many other people seem to be doing. I appreciate it's got to be nigh-on impossible to flesh out every character as much as the fans would like, but Christ, Ron and Hermione are pretty much sidelined here. They're physically there with Harry, but not given too much to do. To me, the series was about the three of them, not just speccy Potter. The much-awaited getting together of Ron and Hermione is rushed and strangely devoid of an "oh, finally!" feeling. Maybe it's because I've always thought that Harry was the least interesting character in the series and the film (understandably) focuses on him battling Voldemort. That's not to say I don't like him. I feel the same about Batman and I love Batman.

So, yes- the big talking point with this film will be Snape. It's good that we finally see Snape's true colours and his reasons for being the way he was, but I feel it was mishandled. His love for Lily is touching, but it certainly didn't make me cry as I had been preparing to. I had a real problem with the "emotional montage tear" power that Snape apparently has. It smacks of corner-cutting to me. They've had two films for one book, there should be enough space to let certain things breathe. I'm fine with stuff being cut and/or altered for film, but the book's emotional gut-punches should not be changed or skimped upon- both of which have happened here, giving a brilliant character a not-so-brilliant send off. It's a running theme as Fred, Tonks and Lupin are all killed off-screen and not really paid much heed apart from some corpse shots to show you they did indeed get fucked up. It says a lot that I was more affected by Dobby's death in Part 1 than I was by any of the departures in Part 2. Also, why the fuck do Voldemort, Bellatrix and Nagini explode into goth confetti when they die? Just have them fall over and lie still, it's fucking lame to have them explode.

"You have your mother's eyes."

The film isn't bad by any stretch, most of it is pretty decent. There's a lot to like. I thought Ralph Fiennes was awesome as Voldemort and as I said, the battles are epic and the whole wizards vs. Death Eaters war is really well done. The Gringotts sequence is great too. The effects are also frickin' fantastic in both senses of the word and the film feels suitably big, but for me the Devil was in the details. You may (and probably do) disagree with me and found it to be a great farewell to the Potter universe. That's totally fine. Personally, I found it to be a decent end, but not the worthy conclusion I wanted it to be. I find the fact that the Potter series has now ended to be infinitely sadder than anything in this film.

Limitless

2011-07-04T20:44:00.187+01:00

After being hugely disappointed by Transformers 3, I wanted to write a review that wasn't so angry. About a film that I actually enjoyed. Luckily, I still had Limitless in my review stockpile and, being the genius that I am, I put two and two together and here we are:

Limitless (2011)

According to the well-known saying, we, the silly little meatbags that we are, only use 10% of our brain. It's a great analogy for the vastness of human potential, a great philosophical jump-off point for what could be done if we could tap into the brain's true power and a completely and utterly wrong fucking statement. From what I understand, we only use about 20% of our brains AT ANY ONE TIME. Those four words make a hell of a difference. Hate to bring my boring mate Science to Limitless' party, but if there truly was a pill that enabled the taker to use 100% of their brain, they'd probably collapse in a heap, drooling and soiling themselves, arms windmilling wildly, whilst frothily ('cos of all the drool- keep up) alternating between telling you about what their drunken Aunt did last Christmas and the directions to the nearest Bureau de Change. Unfortunately, at no point does this happen to Bradley Cooper.

"Your powers are a gift from God or whoever the hell wrote your life script."

Limitless is the story of Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper), a down-and-out writer who takes an experimental drug called NZT, a clear pill that allows him to harness 100% of his brain's power. He becomes more perceptive, more driven and can think way faster and clearer than before. Understandably, Eddie uses it to become richer and more respected, immersing himself in the lucrative business of the stock trading and soon partners with hugely powerful businessman Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro). However, Eddie soon discovers that he isn't the only one aware of the drug and its amazing properties and that there are people out there willing to do anything to get their next fix. I liked the story. The plot kept me interested throughout and whilst silly, it's damn enjoyable. It's your standard "loser turns his life around with magical macguffin but finds it's not all sunshine" plot, but it does well with it. Bradley Cooper impressed me with his ability to actually act, having only seen him in the terrible Hangover movies and the A-Team film. I thought Abbie Cornish was good, but underused and Robert De Niro was fine being De Niro. I love that man.

Despite being all snarky in the opening paragraph, I like the whole concept. You become the perfect version of you. You can recall half memories and glimpsed information like it was nothing. Eddie becomes a true Renaissance man, learning languages and playing the stock market like a pro in a few days. I especially loved the fight scene where Eddie calls upon a childhood viewing of Way of the Dragon, a Muhammad Ali fight and a self-defence video to scrap his way out of trouble. It's innovative and interesting- two "i" words I rarely get to type in regards to action beats. Having said that, there is a chase scene where a good character (spoiler free, bitches) on NZT thinks their way out of a chase with a would-be murderer by using a small child as an offensive weapon. I laughed (as I'm sure the film intended) but it's still ridiculous and rather at odds with the rest of the film.

The thing I like about Limitless is the whole feeling of it. I know that's a vague, possibly twattish thing to say, but I can't think of a better way to describe it. I liked what it was bringing to the table. It's an indie movie writ large. From the impressive, but nauseating opening titles (seriously, that endless zoom effect on the big screen made me feel a bit sick) to the bright, saturated colours used to show Eddie on NZT, it's fun. It reminded me of a more restrained Scott Pilgrim at times, especially when it shows Eddie furiously typing on his laptop, with 3D letters and words falling all around him.

It's a decent thriller too. Whilst things are rosy for a time, Eddie soon discovers the more NZT he takes, the more frequently he blacks out, waking up in strange places with no memory of the preceding events. We understand and feel his need for the drug, but ultimately know that it's bad for him. Hell, we know it's going to lead him down a bad road as the film opens up on Morra, standing atop a penthouse balcony, bad dudes breaking the door down behind him and very few options available to him other than giving the pavement a 40-storey French kiss. Whilst I've seen this kind of thing before, I still found it all to be very compelling.

"A tablet a day and I was limitless..."

Limitless isn't the smartest film out there, but it's definitely one of the more entertaining ones. It made me think twice about writing off Bradley Cooper as just a cheesy grin and a marketable torso and kept me hooked 'til the credits rolled. It's certainly worth a viewing, at the very least for the great central concept. Just try not to think about it too much when you do.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

2011-07-02T13:29:00.002+01:00

Back from a small hiatus with a film that not only has the audacity to be bad, but knock my faith in the general public down to an all-time low. That's not hyperbole either. (Sigh) Here are my thoughts on the new Bayformers flick.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

That's it. The joke's not funny anymore. Game over, man, game over. After really quite rating the first film and disliking the second, I really wanted this installment to be good. I like to think this blog and the Transformers films have ties from the start as 2007's Transformers was the first film I ever reviewed on this site. It was also one of the films that inspired me to stand up (or more accurately, sit down) and rally against those pretentious movie critics and those irritating "Arthouse or GTFO" types that seem to exist purely to make me feel bad for liking fun films. Dark of the Moon was getting a critical drubbing and so I saw an opportunity to stick up for this latest slice of Bayhem and once again wear my swanky "Internet Defender" hat. Thing is- this is indefensible. It's excess in every way apart from the things that make a good film. I hate to add my voice to the crowd, but Dark of the Moon is shit. No colourful metaphors, no logically unsound similies- it's godawful. More venom after the plot summary.

"Bee, there's something else going on here. The moon programme, the cover-ups, the assassinations, it's all led to this..."

Dark of the Moon continues with the war between mankind and the Decepticons, with the humans having help from the Autobots, led by Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen). It transpires that the moon landing was a cover-up to investigate a crashed ship from Cybertron, the Transformer homeworld, and it may hold the present day answer to ending the war. Bland human Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBoeuf) is out of college and struggling to get a job in the real world, needing the money after spending his savings on a blonde RealDoll (Rosie Huntingdon-Whitely) to replace the brunette one he had in the first two films. A visit to the moon yields an unexpected bounty in the form of legendary Autobot Sentinel Prime (Leonard Nimoy). Can he be the answer to stopping the madness? The plot is stupid, but at least coherent enough to follow. Shia LaBoeuf's fairly likeable nerd in the first film has changed into a self-righteous bellend. It's hard to empathise with a character who has a Victoria's Secret model as a girlfriend and whose only real complaint is that he wants to save the world again. Rosie Huntingdon-Whitely is there for the camera to drunkenly leer at and delivers such a flat peformance I started to miss Megan Fox. Johns Turtturo and Malkovich are both slumming it way too much and, just to make things more irritating, Ken Jeong from The Hangover films turns up, doing his Offensive Asian Stereotype schtick to the delight of fucking nobody.

Are these films the most expensive adverts in history? If not, they're certainly close. There are even more robots this time (although thankfully racist fuckspods Skids and Mudflap are absent) and I hated all of them. The only Autobot I like is Bumblebee- a) because he can't talk and b) I liked him in the first film. Optimus Prime is a sanctimonious metallo-cunt this time round and none of the others are characterised enough for you to even remember what they look like, let alone feel anything towards them. The toy shilling is even more transparent this time, with Optimus Prime being the perfect example of this. Every single time he's fighting, he has a new weapon or accessory, making me painfully aware there was a little plastic replica of each look sitting on the shelves of the nearest toystore. It got to the point where I kept imagining little copyright symbols after each name was mentioned: Oh hey, look it's Optimus Prime™ with authentic battle damage! He's trying to use the Matrix of Leadership™ to revive Sentinel Prime™ to fight Megatron™. It got distracting wondering which of the giant robots farting about on screen were actually choking hazards for the under threes.

The point that's brought up over and over again for this film is "well, it's just robots beating seven bells out of each other, blah blah flawed argument blah". I would normally be right with these people, but I can't jump on that particular bandwagon this time. An hour and a half passes before we get to the all-out robot war and up until this point, it's mostly just lazy exposition and lowest common denominator "comedy". It was interesting to note that the same people laughing at the shit jokes in the film were the ones laughing at the trailer for Zookeeper beforehand- i.e. fucking idiots. It was almost painful to sit through Sam's annoying parents embarrassing him for the umpteenth time or have people laughing at Wheelie and the other one from the second film. Fuck people. If they want to gibber like braying tossdonkeys let them do that on their own time, in their own homes, for God's sake don't encourage them.

On the other hand, the effects are impressive (as they'd better be for the ridiculous budget) and the action is well done. Whilst 3D hinders most films in the way they're shot, it actually seems to have helped Michael Bay as he can no longer use his trademark spastic close ups and has to settle for more wide angles and even more slow motion than before. It's bad combating bad. The 3D is alright, but most of the time I forgot I was wearing the glasses because something shit was happening on-screen. The wingsuit bit is the standout sequence though, with the 3D actually augmenting something for a change.

"You are not a soldier. You are a messenger. You've always been a messenger."

So yeah, it's not a good film. It's way too fucking long, it's boring, it's painfully unfunny and it takes too long to actually get to the robots hitting each other. It's pretty violent too, with spines being ripped out and all the robots now having blood-like red oil for some reason- an odd choice considering it's a toy advert. The Transformers series is dead to me. Dark of the Moon is better than Revenge of the Fallen, but not by nearly enough to make it worth a watch.

Green Lantern

2011-06-18T14:21:00.002+01:00

Yup, back in familiar territory now with an unfamiliar superhero. Can't think of anything else to write here. Do me a favour and skip your eyes below to the large film title, would you? Lovely.

Green Lantern (2011)

I knew it. I fucking knew this would happen. Green Lantern gets universally panned by the World, his wife, their dog and its fleas and I actually end up enjoying it. So now I look like either a) a person who wouldn't know a good film if it kneed them in the throat or b) a mental case who might as well be screaming about how all Post Office employees are actually sinister half dragon/half cyborg amalgamations* for all the respect and attention I'm going to get for not tearing Green Lantern a new one. Still, I'm not afraid of my own opinion, so here we go.

"The ring turns thought into reality. The only limits are what you can imagine."

Cocky test pilot Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is given a power ring by a dying alien who crash-lands on Earth. The ring grants Jordan superpowers and he is recruited into the Green Lantern Corps, a group of intergalactic peacekeepers who fight evil wherever it rears its ugly head. When a threat known as Parallax threatens Earth and Oa, the Lantern homeworld, Jordan must come to terms with his new responsibilities and save the day. Also Peter Sarsgaard, Mark Strong and Blake "I'm naked on the Internet" Lively are in it. The plot is pretty hackneyed, although I believe calling Green Lantern a "superhero film" is a bit of a misnomer. It's more of hokey space-opera than anything else. Ryan Reynolds has been attracting a lot of negative attention for his Hal Jordan portrayal, but I think that's more down to the writing than anything else. Reynolds has proven himself a decent actor in films like Buried and as such I can only blame the shallow-as-fuck characterisation for all the hate. Peter Sarsgaard is actually decent as Hector Hammond and is a credible villain, despite looking like the Elephant Man. Mark Strong is Mark Strong with a funny head (and that is a good thing, although he only seems to exist to give speeches) and Blake Lively your standard female love interest. Nothing new here, move along.

It's a shame that in this cynical age comic book adaptations feel the need to be dark and gritty in order to be taken seriously. Not every superhero film has to appeal to adults or the ludicrous late teen market and this film doesn't try to. Green Lantern is at best, ridiculous. The very notion that a ring bestows the power to create anything out of green energy it will have disillusioned teens snarking all the way home to update their Facebook statuses, decrying the film for being too childish and not having a scene where a big-titted assassin casually rips out a man's spinal column, her already skimpy outfit made see-through by the ensuing torrent of blood.* I would have fucking loved Green Lantern as a kid. Plus, I think the fact that the powers are based on will and imagination are a better lesson to teach the young'uns than "get bitten by a radioactive spider" or "expose yourself to space-radiation" or even "get massively rich and then take it upon yourself to stop crime".

One of the big problems is that the film can't decide on a tone. At times is appears straight-faced and others self-deprecating and vaguely parodic. A good example of this weird mix is a helicopter crash sequence. In it, Jordan saves the day and the girl by constructing a Hot Wheels type racetrack to bring the 'copter to a safe stop. After a bit of nerdy friend interaction, he flies to said girl's balcony to check that she's okay and try out the whole superhero persona. She recognises Hal almost immediately, saying that she's seen him naked: did he really think a mask covering his cheekbones would disguise him? It's a nice moment, but pretty out of place with the rest of the film.

"I pledge allegiance to a lantern, given to me by a dying purple alien."

Despite all these glaring flaws, I enjoyed Green Lantern. I thought some of the effects were genuinely impressive, some of the constructs clever and the found the suit to be pretty badass. I think audiences are suffering from superhero fatigue and Green Lantern doesn't do itself any favours by being completely unremarkable. The concept was always going to be a tough sell, hence why this film feels especially committee shaped and why they cast wisecrackin' Ryan Reynolds. It's really not as bad as the critics and fanboys have been saying. It's below average, but fun enough for what it is. I've not read the comics, but I'm sure there are much better stories to tell and now we've got the origin story out of the way maybe the Green Lantern universe can be opened up and explored in more depth. The film is an enjoyable mess and I'm hoping for a sequel to capitalise on some of the unique ideas on display here. There are some damn fine superhero sequels out there, let's hope Green Lantern gets one.

* I am currently looking for funding for both of these film ideas. If interested, contact me via the comments box.

My Name Is Khan

2011-06-16T16:10:00.010+01:00

Well, I guess I asked for this. In the first ever democratic vote to decide what I review inbetween big new releases, a title I didn't even offer as an option wins. Plus-get this- there are no superpowered beings in this film! Or even any (guilt-free, enjoyable) explosions! It's just a guy doing stuff. Rubbish.

My Name Is Khan (2010)

So, yes- a review of a film I would never have thought of had it not been for Facebook and a nagging sibling. I don't usually "get" Bollywood films. I've seen a few, and whilst always impressed with the cinematography, never found them to be properly engaging. This is a shortcoming on my part however, as saying I don't like Bollywood films is like judging a whole bag of Revels on the three coffee ones you tasted. So anyway- My Name Is Khan, which is not (unfortunately) a prequel to the best Star Trek film (other than the reboot). (Man, I love brackets!)

"Good people. Bad people. No other difference."

The story is this: Risvan Khan (played by Bollywood megastar Shah Rukh Khan or SRK to his fans) suffers from Asperger's Syndrome and is detained at San Francisco International Airport after his various tics and behaviours are deemed suspicious by airport security. In the interview room, he declares he intends to meet the President and clearly state to him: "My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist". We then flashback and learn all about Risvan and how exactly he came to be in this predicament. The story is pretty good, keeping my attention 'til the end of its considerable two and a half hour runtime. I thought Shah Rukh Khan was truly brilliant as Risvan, giving us a compelling, semi-realistic (certain aspects of the Asperger's are exaggerated for cinematic purposes) performance. The film wouldn't have been as half as good without him as his performance charms in the good parts and holds the film together in the weaker parts. One named wonder Kajol is also fantastic as love interest Mandira. She's just very, very good. Can't think of anything more to say.

Right, now here's where I get to work the ribs of MNIK, pick up on some problems I had with it and walk away feeling like a big man. The film has a tendency to lay things on too thick, creating a mawkish, unbelievable atmosphere that spoils the overall quality somewhat. It's a shame as often, these unsubtle moments are preceded by decent, affecting scenes. The one specific example I can think of where Risvan is in a church in Georgia, reminiscing about a recently deceased person (don't want to spoil it, being super vague). It's a touching moment as his unfocused eyes start to shimmer with tears as he's remembering the good times. This is then ruined by a kid standing up and singing "We Shall Overcome" before being joined by the whole congregation. This doesn't just come out of nowhere as the song does have some significance to Risvan, but fuck me, is it a mood wrecker. Later on in the film, Risvan becomes a mix between Forrest Gump, Rain Man and Jesus- a direction which didn't gel with me.

9/11 plays a big part in MNIK and it does feel somewhat justified. The film focuses on the treatment of Muslims post-WTC attacks and raises some important points about racial profiling. Trouble is, thanks to the film's leanings towards overdoing and overstating, some of these points are lost in the drama of it all. It's a hard point to explain, but there's a moment where a motel owner chases some punks after they smash his window in a misguided attempt at retribution for the attacks. He runs out, shotgun cocked and starts shouting after them about how there's a difference between him and the extremists and the like. This little rant goes on for a bit too long and it started to feel like the film was lecturing me about the evils of mistreatment. I understand why it's in here, it's just the film can be subtle and effective when it wants to be and this was just an immersion-breaking soapbox mounting.

As I said, the film is effective in parts. An example of this is the romance between Risvan and Mandira. It's funny, believable and done very well. I was charmed by all this and the little comedic touches here and there made me smile like a simpering chick-flick devotee. However, after the nicey-nicey aww! stuff and around the point of a properly sad event, I once again became aware of my testicles and focused my critical eye back on the film. MNIK is a film of two halves- the first, a decent, touching romance and the second, an issues-heavy quest. There's almost an audible crunch as the film changes gears, but it's forgivable. The music is also beautiful and even made me enjoy montages again, something which I assumed ruined forever by that Team America song. The film is also genuinely funny at times, with SRK showing a great sense of comedic timing.

"Yellow, yellow, dirty fellow."

My Name Is Khan is a decent film. It's too heavy with the dramatic dressing (in this analogy, the film's a salad, by the way), often trying to hard to tug at the ol' heartstrings (the analogy's over now) but there's a decent story, two powerful lead performances and some fantastic moments to keep you entertained. It tested my patience with the approach to some of its messages and its feckin' runtime, but all was good by the end.

Kung Fu Panda 2

2011-06-12T23:49:00.005+01:00

There's nothing quite looking at the shite weather outside and deciding that fuck it, you'll go to the cinema, because your readers depend on you and your opinions to safely help them through the often frightening world of cinematic releases. Think of me as a tour guide, showing you the local colour, churches and the like and avoiding that alley where that family got stabbed up. Anyway- Kung Fu Panda 2.

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

Having unapologetically enjoyed the first one, I was ready for the sequel. Yes, I would have preferred if it was just a one-off and they focused their energy and money on something else, but in this day and age where almost everything has to be a bloody franchise, what can you do? You can either get on board, or get out of the way. I chose the former, but somewhat wish I'd chosen the latter. More after the inevitable plot summary.

"I hope this turns out better than your plan to cook rice in your stomach by eating it raw and then drinking boiling water..."

Following on from the first film, Po (Jack Black) is the Dragon Warrior, a fabled kung fu master who will bring balance to the martial art. Along with the Furious Five (Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, Seth Rogen, David Cross and Jackie Chan) and under the supervision of Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), Po must stop a new threat to kung fu, Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) who intends to take over China with his mastery of fireworks and explosives. The plot is okay, although the first one was stronger. I felt that since Po is now a kung fu master, there wouldn't be much to do apart from have him fight. The film gets around this by delving into his backstory and, amongst many other things, explaining just why his Dad is a goose. Thing is, I liked the joke that Po's father was a goose. To me it was a throwaway gag. To explain it takes the charm away. Anyway, it all ties in to Lord Shen having played an integral part in Po's infancy. From Po's point of view, as the tagline for Jaws: The Revenge so aptly put it, this time, it's personal. Jack Black is fine, as are Dustin Hoffman and Gary Oldman (although his character and voice slightly reminded me of Stewie from Family Guy). Angelina Jolie gets a slightly bigger part, but the rest of the five are largely ignored.

The problem I had with this film was the fact that there's a lot more of Po pratfalling- precisely my gripe with the first film. Okay, so it would have been boring if he just kicked ass all the time being just another warrior, I get that. He's always fucking falling over though. It garnered a few giggles from the children ~~I kidnapped and forced to watch films with me in my creepy film den~~ in the audience at the very public cinema I saw it at, but even they stopped laughing after a while. If I had written it (and fuck knows why I wasn't chosen) I would have made Po still amazing at kung fu, but have him be a bit of an over-confident douche about it. You could still have him learn his origins and leave the second half of the film virtually unchanged. Po wasn't the loveable idiot from the first, he was just an idiot. This may sound like too much analysis for a computer animated, marketed up the poo-pipe sequel, but there's a good story in here somewhere and I kept being reminded I was watching a kids' film everytime Po acted like a tit. My point is this: if all this shite wasn't even entertaining the kids, then what the hell was it for?

But hey, that's only me being annoyed that not only has my major whinge about the first not been addressed, but actually made worse. The rest of the film is totally fine. The animation is truly beautiful and some of the flashback sequences amazingly stylised. The writing is sharp and the occasionally funny line or quip would have me smiling away in the dark. As I saw this in 2D, I noticed that all the action sequences were shot in a very specific way, presumably to make them more impressive to the suckers wearing the stupid specs. Everything was shot fairly close up, assumedly to make the 3D more "immersive", but I couldn't help but feel this was hampering the otherwise fun and imaginative chases and fights. I also liked the fact that Po and Tigress seem to be getting a bit closer and it will be interesting to find out if they go where I think they're going to go with this in Kung Fu Panda 3, although I'm not entirely sure I want to see what happens when a panda fucks a tiger and the abomination created out of this unholy union.

The end sequence is brilliant too, fusing some impressive computer wizardry (the boats and hundreds of animals on them lit by lanterns are a sight to behold), with some laughs and big fights. The film really pulls it out of the bag for the final 20 mins and it was around this time I felt that what I was seeing on screen finally lived up to the original film. It's worth mentioning before I get to one of my World famous concluding paragraphs that Guillermo Del Toro was a "creative consultant" on this film, which may explain some of the darker elements in this film- especially the ones concerning Po's backstory.

"How many times do I have to kill the same stinking panda?"

Kung Fu Panda 2 is pretty good. It's not as charming as the first and doesn't deal with anything "deep" like body issues or anything like the first (it opts instead for a vague "inner peace" mantra) but it's entertaining and funny at times. It's fun, but the sequel-bait ending left me with a bit of a nasty taste in my mouth. The shine's already starting to dull with this installment- is there going to be any left for the threequel? Guess we'll find out soon enough.

X-Men: First Class

2011-06-11T00:47:00.002+01:00

So, without any waffling nonsense, here's my review of the new X-Men flick. Snikt! Bamf! Oh wait- they're not in this one. Er...whatever noise Professor X makes. Squeak, probably, if his wheelchair hasn't been cared for properly. That's right, not even a paragraph in and I'm being irreverent about cripples. It can only get better from here.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

Since the Wolverine film was badly recieved by everyone bar a crazy few (ahem), Fox decided to nix the planned X-Men: Origins series and go with a prequel set in the swingin' '60s. Fox are to be commended here as they've actually listened to the whinier fans and not only involved Bryan Singer (director of the widely acclaimed first two films) but also ignored the shit out of the continuity of The Last Stand and Wolverine.

"Who the hell are you?"
"Let's just say I'm Frankenstein's monster and I'm looking for my creator."

The basic story of First Class is thus. 1962. We see a young Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) before they became nemeses, team up with other mutants and a secret government organisation to stop mutant supremacist and mad bastard Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) and his team of superfreaks from plunging the World into nuclear war. The story's solid, giving us a Watchmen-esque parallel history of the 1960's and, more specifically, the Cuban Missile Crisis. As I mentioned, continuity between this film and X-Mens 1& 2 seems of paramount importance with the opening being the same powerful, rain-soaked Holocaust flashback from the first film. The acting's damn good and it really was a masterstroke casting McAvoy and Fassbender. I genuinely couldn't think of any better to fill the shoes of Stewart and McKellen. Fassbender is easily the best thing in this, although I was really impressed with Jennifer Lawrence as a younger Mystique.

For me, the film was always going to be made or broken on exploring Xavier and Magneto's relationship from best friends to mortal enemies. I'm happy to say this is done well in First Class. Xavier is fresh from education with a vision of a mutant utopia and everyone holding hands and singing songs. Magneto is a man of action. He's seen the dirty underbelly of society and has very little time for naive ideology. The seeds for their rivalry are there, but they also make convincing comrades, with one scene involving a huge radar dish (it'll make sense when you see it) being the pinnacle of this.

Whilst the new mutants are a mixed bag ranging from "interesting" to "dire", it's nice to see Fox have been reading my blog and took my suggestion made in my Last Stand review and made Beast a (partly) CGI creation. In any case, the make-up is a hell of a lot better than whatever poor Kelsey Grammer was lumbered with. Shouty Lad, Wingarella and Totally Not Going To Die Black Guy were probably the least involving, but I quite liked Havok (Cyclops' older brother). It's nice to see a true to the comics Emma Frost as well. Also look out for several cameos, that's all I'm saying. I was disappointed when they announced that they weren't going to do a second Origins film focusing on Magneto and instead opted to reboot the franchise. However, it seems like the Magneto film may have already been half-written and was incorporated into this one. This works really well in the earlier parts of the film as we'll have some talky Xavier stuff and then cut to Magneto, in full-on Bond mode, kicking arse and not even caring about the names. I love this incarnation of the character and this love was solidified in a bar scene involving a knife. It was so awesome that the following scene was blurry as I had welled up with joyful tears. Whilst I'm talking about action and stuff, the big sequences are genuinely impressive and surprisingly graphic for a 12A. The big ending actually manages to be epic and involving in a way that so few superhero films manage. It's a really satisfying conclusion.

There are certain things that dragged the film down for me though. I thought the young mutants "codenames" scene was fucking cringeworthy. I realise that at some point we as an audience needed to find out their X-names, but Christ. Let it never be said that I don't hand out constructive criticism though, so here's my idea. Y'know that scene in Reservoir Dogs where Laurence Tierney is gruffly handing out their heist names? Like that. Since their names are pretty unimaginative, it would make sense for a CIA agent to just dish them out and save me rolling my eyes. Also, in the aforementioned amazing end sequence, for some reason, Magneto turns Oirish. Don't believe me? Check this clip out. It's a great performance from ol' Fass, but I found it to be quite distracting. Also, at times the film seems too focused on tying in to the Singer films or foreshadowing future events (Xavier makes a crack about going bald, for instance) and since we now know where Magneto got that iconic helmet from (invisotexted) did he really have to spray it a garish red and purple and have a matching cape? I really wouldn't have minded if they'd tweaked the costume design to be more in-keeping with Fassneto.

"You want society to accept you, but you can't even accept yourself."

Still, X-Men: First Class is a real return to form for the series. I enjoyed the hell out of it. The performances are great, the dialogue is really well-written (apart from a few hiccups) and the action sequences are truly special. If Captain America keeps up this standard, 2011 will be owned by Marvel, despite what certain viridian lamps have to say.

Sucker Punch

2011-06-06T00:40:00.006+01:00

Well, ho-lee shit. Been promising to review Sucker Punch for a while and now I finally get to talk about it in frank and hopefully upsetting terms.

Sucker Punch (2011)

The raison d'être of this very blog has always been about defending blockbusters from the snooty and the pretentious. Respected film critics normally tear "dumb but fun" titles limb from metaphorical limb in favour of recommending a foreign film showing in about 2 cinemas nationwide. Most people live in the mainstream and as such, I set up this blog to separate the blockbustin' wheat from the chaff. I felt that there weren't enough eloquent voices proclaiming that Rib Kicker 7: The Fistening may actually be more enjoyable than Holocaust Winter's Tears. On this blog, I have repeatedly mentioned that I love action films and have enjoyed the work of much maligned directors like Michael Bay and indeed, Sucker Punch's own Zack Snyder. As much as I was prepared to, I can't defend Sucker Punch. It's aggressively shit.

"For those who fight for it, life has a flavour the sheltered will never know."

The film starts with Babydoll (Emily Browning) being taken to a mental asylum after shooting at her bastardly stepfather and accidentally hitting and killing her younger sister instead. Whilst there, she and her fellow inmates hatch an escape plan, the elements of which are shown to us via Babydoll's imagination, taking us to places like a snowy feudal Japan with minigun-toting stone samurai and the muddy trenches of World War II, populated by (and I'm not making this up) clockwork, steam-powered zombie Nazis. The plot plays out like Inception for morons. Whilst this is a lazy comparison, the multitude of layers make it hard to compare to anything else. Despite the many, many problems with this film, the casting isn't one of them. The girls aren't given too much to work with, but do admirably with what they're given. I liked Emily Browning and was pleased to see Vanessa Hudgens break free of her High School Musical shackles. Zack Snyder is clearly the problem here, unused to the boundary-free environment of making an original film as opposed to his usual modus operandi of adapting already successful stories.

So, what's my beef with all this? Well, Sucker Punch makes no fucking sense. I don't care if I seem stupid by saying that and get literally one e-mail telling me I've missed the point entirely and should seriously consider suicide because I'm a thick, thick, thicky faggot. We are meant to accept that Babydoll goes into a fantasy world to escape the horror of her situation. Right, with you so far, SP. So, to combat the fact she's in a mental asylum she imagines that she and her inmates are actually in a burlesque club, performing for sweaty wankers. Er...ok. Then, whilst dancing in said club, she imagines that the gang are actually kick-ass warriors fighting things like Nazis, dragons and conservative dress-sense, all to achieve something like a key or a map. Thing is, all these fantasies are unpleasant. Surely there should be some rainbows or unicorns or some shit? To escape a shitty situation by imagining another shitty situation doesn't make any sense at all. It's like a man finding the charred remains of his beloved pet dog and to escape the despair of it all imagines a scenario where he's gang-raped in prison by three well-hung, not to mention angry, oiled men.

The film is also over-sexualised in a way I only thought possible in Japanese video games about volleyball. Babydoll herself has ickle blonde pigtails and a skirt so short you could see what she'd had for dinner if she bent over. It's also explicitly mentioned that she's 20, presumedly to appease the Nuts magazine demographic already abusing themselves over her, happy to not add an element of paedophilia to their public masturbation rapsheet. I suppose the argument could be that the pin-up look of the girls is some kind of female empowerment, playing with the very concept of the male gaze, but it's doubtful. The film doesn't show enough intelligence elsewhere to make this a viable interpretation. Having said all that, it is nice to see a film with a 90% female cast, with men only popping up occasionally to be act like knobheads.

Still, Sucker Punch is, at its heart, an action film and as such mere contrivances like plot and cleavage visibility shouldn't get in the way of explosions and people getting their shit wrecked. Unfortunately, the film goes for the ridiculous Resident Evil style action sequences, where everything seems to be geared to impressing the thick twats that think Afterlife and films of its ilk are the "best filmz evarrr". Zack Snyder still can't keep his fucking finger off the slo-mo button. The action bits feel like they've been ripped off from better films and then smeared with pus. The imagined quest for a lighter in particular feels like Lord of the Rings with added aeroplanes and assorted toss. The aforementioned clockwork Nazis bit isn't nearly as entertaining as it sounds either. As with the Resi Evil films, this type of action bored me to tears. This was not helped by the fact that for some reason, these sequences are often scored with mediocre cast-recorded covers of popular songs, the most aurally offensive being the opening Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) and the crappy version of Tomorrow Never Knows.

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

If I was 13 again and had taken several bricks to the head, I may have enjoyed Sucker Punch. It's glossy as hell and will impress a fraction of the populace with its visuals alone. Many people have described it as several music videos stitched together and I'm with them on that. It's all just too juvenile with annoying misconceptions of being a lot smarter than it is. The central conceit is flawed and the action just made me wish I was watching something else. It's actively dire.

The Hangover Part II

2011-05-31T17:14:00.001+01:00

I really can't be arsed to review Sucker Punch right now. Will probably write one when I'm done with the new X-Men flick this week. Oh- and Kung Fu Panda 2. What? Shut up.

The Hangover Part II (2011)

If you're looking for a review that can objectively tell you if this film stacks up to the first or not, then you're in the wrong place, bub. I won't go as far as to say I hated The Hangover, but I was definitely baffled by it. I saw trailers for it in the cinema and people laughed. After its release, I was told it was "so fucking funeee, lolz." by people who I'd accidentally started talking to on my rare appearances on nights out. I watched The Hangover and actually found it to be an alienating, joyless experience. The premise was good, but the jokes just weren't there. I didn't crack a smile throughout the 100 minute runtime. This was made worse with the knowledge that people were finding this shite funny. I say in all honesty and without any characteristic hyperbole, The Hangover made me feel comedically broken. However, it made a shiteton of money, so they're back with a sequel. Hoo-fucking-ray.

"All I wanted was a bachelor brunch."

So yeah, if you've seen the first one, you'll know the drill. The "Wolfpack" return as Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married in Thailand. Phil (Bradley Cooper) and beardie-weirdie Alan (Zack Galifianakis) go with to celebrate and the trio, plus newcomer Teddy (Mason Lee) have a few drinks. Cue a flash forward to a Bangkok hotel room where the guys wake up in various states of disrepair, remembering nothing of the night before and missing Teddy. Cue man-child shenanigans as the trio, a monkey and offensive Asian stereotype Mr.Chow (Ken Jeong) from the first one try to piece together their wild night and find Teddy before Stu's wedding. Even typing that summary annoyed me. The plot is the same, but somehow worse. The only thing I liked about the first was the premise, but since that little glimmer of hope has been significantly dulled by time, this film has nothing going for it. The actors are fine, but none made me laugh. I actually like Bradley Cooper and find Zack GfuckyouI'mnottypinghislastnameagain's standup funny, but I found them absolutely mirthless in this film.

The film has been criticised for being an inferior carbon copy of the first and rightly so. There are so many similar scenes to the original, it feels like The Hangover Part II is like an alternate universe's version of the first one- the basic story, the pointless cameos, the stray animal and the naked Chinese man are all here, but just slightly different. The new stuff that the film brings has an odd cruel edge to it. I've read reviews that call the film racist and LGBT unfriendly and that's not the half of it. I won't go into it all here, but damn. Just damn.

Thing is, I could actually forgive the above problems if the film was actually funny. It really isn't. The basic jokes are: vulgar/inappropriate things being said in a casual manner, Alan saying something odd and Stu bitching about things. Those are just about the only flavours of "comedy" we're presented with and they all taste like watery spunk.

"Seriously, what is wrong with you three?"

So, you may ask why I returned to the series if I had my fingers burned by the first. Well, like it or not, The Hangover Part II, despite critical panning is doing amazingly well at the box office. It's significant. That's all there is to it. I would say something twatty and pseudo-pithy like "What happened in Vegas should have stayed in Vegas" or "The Hangover Part II gave me a headache" but I think that would detract from my points. So, I'll just be frank, using plain and simple language. It's shit, the first one was shit and people are shit for not only liking it, but funding more of it. I hope you're happy, you Hangover liking bastards.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

2011-05-20T11:12:00.003+01:00

Yes, it's new review time again and I've done seen a feature about some pirates or summat. So, are you sitting comfortably? Then shut the fuck up and I'll begin...

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

So here we are with the fourth Pirates film, hoping to kickstart a whole new trilogy of swordfighting, big set pieces and general seafaring. After the disappointing sequels, On Stranger Tides looks to right the wrongs those films made, promising a "stripped down" approach to abate those (including myself) who thought that the brilliant Curse of the Black Pearl deserved better. Frankly, they were too convoluted and, for lack of a better word, shit.

"I'm just as bent as ever- hellishly so!"

On Stranger Tides once again follows everybody's favourite pirate, Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) as he learns that an imposter is gathering a crew to search for the Fountain of Youth. However, the fake Cap'n Jack isn't the only one interested in the Fountain, as series regular Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), the Spanish Armada and legendary fearsome pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane) race to get to the best anti-ageing treatment in the world. Along the way, things get more complicated for Sparrow as he runs into old flame Angelica (Penelope Cruz). The plot is fairly decent and certainly less complicated than either Dead Man's Chest or At World's End. At least this time round there's a clear goal which never wavers. The problem I had with it was the lack of urgency. None of the parties interested the Fountain of Youth actually seem to want it that badly. They talk a lot about it, sure- but there's no real race. Everyone's just content to float through the set-piecey bits of the sea at their own pace. Depp's Sparrow routine is still entertaining, although his dialogue is still not as snappy as it orginally was. Geoffrey Rush is still awesome. I liked Barbossa's turn from being a filthy pirate to being a filthy privateer for the King's Navy and that his love of apples hasn't dwindled. Cruz is fine (in all senses of the word) and Ian McShane does a decent job as Blackbeard, although the character isn't really explored well enough.

I really wanted a bad-ass villain this time around. The film does a good job of building Blackbeard up, but he's a bit of a letdown. This may be the point- subverting expectations and all that, but we're dealing with a Disney/Bruckheimer film here, it's not only permissable to have a boo-hiss baddie, it's almost the damn law. Occasionally he'll do something evil with the relaxed attitude of someone making a shopping list, which can be quite chilling, but I expected more. Thank Christ the Will/Elizabeth story is done with, because I'm not sure I could deal with another feature-length lesson in how not to emote from the bland twins. What we've got instead is a rather more compelling romance between missionary Phillip (Sam Claflin) and mermaid Syrena (Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey). There's less of it, but I think it works better than the screen-hogging duo of Bloom and Knightley. Talking of actors, there are quite a few cameos to look out for. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.

Still, it wouldn't be a Pirates film without some digustingly expensive action sequences and there are quite a few here. The chase through Ye Olde London is well done, setting off a steady stream of typical Bruckheimer funded mayhem. There's a good old-fashioned swordfight in a brewery, purposefully similar to Will and Jack's initial dust-up in the first one. This self-referencial scene outlined the problem I had with the sequels and this film. It's the fucking editing. The sword fights are just a succession of quick shots, mostly fairly close up so you have even less of an idea about what's going on. I watched the first one back and was surprised to see that the editing was a lot more subdued. There were times in this film when I had no idea who was who (aside from the brewery bit as I'm sure that's the point). I'm sure the sword stuff is fantastically choreographed too, just allow us to see it next time, for shit's sake. Having said all that, the mermaid sequence in this flick is creepy, brilliant and undoubtably the highlight of the film in action terms. Those fishy bitches mean business.

"If I don't kill a man once in awhile, people forget who I am"

So, On Stranger Tides. It isn't the return to form that it desperately needed, but it's no worse than At World's End. It's on par with Dead Man's Chest, which wasn't terrible. If you do intend to make more Disney (and I think one look at the box office receipts will ensure that you will) go back to what made the first one great. Hire some new writers too, because the original dream team have clearly lost it and have now had three films to redeem themselves and haven't. Now for some observations that I couldn't cleverly weave into the above paragraphs. 3D not needed, saw it in 2D and apart from the occasional pandering shot (swords pointed towards camera) was perfectly fine. The laws of physics are Jack Sparrow's bitch. Gibbs looks like a mutton chopped Dara O'Briain when he's wearing a hat.

Arthur

2011-05-17T23:30:00.001+01:00

Blergh.

Arthur (2011)

Remaking a well thought of '80s comedy that originally starred Dudley Moore is a bad idea. Just ask Harold Ramis about the Bedazzled backlash. Still, since the gulf between the super-rich and the garden variety human has grown significantly wider since then, I suppose a remake does sort of make sense. Er...transitional line into new paragraph.

"We shouldn't get married... we have nothing in common. You love horses. I don't trust them. Their shoes are permanent. Who makes that kind of a commitment to a shoe?"

The film follows Arthur (Russell Brand) an alcoholic, multi-millionaire playboy who embodies the adage "more money than sense". After embarrassing his high-flying estranged mother (Geraldine James) with his drunken antics, Arthur is given an ultimatum- marry strict businesswoman Susan Johnson (Jennifer Garner) and secure the fiscal future of the family company or be financially cut off. Arthur understandably goes for the former option, but things get more complicated when he meets Naomi (Greta Gerwig), a tour guide who he immediately falls for. The rest of the film focuses on Arthur's dilemma- choose a loveless life of luxury or a homely love-filled but cash poor existence? Having seen the original feckin' years ago, I thought the plot was great. It's a classic story merely updated and not changed too much.

Once again Brand is a divisive presence. I like the guy and think he's a decent comic actor, but I know a load of people who think otherwise. I think he charms enough as Arthur to win round some people, but it won't be for everyone. I really liked (and fancied) Greta Gerwig as Naomi, I thought she brought a nice girl-next-door feel to the character. I thought Jennifer Garner was good too, obviously relishing being able to play a bitch after all those recent nicey-nice roles. Clear scene-stealer though is Helen Mirren as Hobson, Arthur's sarcastic nanny who gets all the best lines. Mirren is the fucking don in this film.

The opening of Arthur isn't brilliant. He's strapping on a Batman suit and getting ready to go on a bender in an actual Batmobile. I remember my "lazy pop culture reference" alarm bells going haywire and making me want to leave. I get embarrassed on a film's behalf when they do shit like that these days. However, things really start improving after that. The dialogue got better and snappier, Hobson was introduced and things started being downright entertaining. I initially went to see Arthur because I'd heard it was pretty rubbish and fancied pettily taking it apart on this here blog. However, it won me over. I really don't get the vicious reviews.

I don't often say stuff like this, but I found the romance to be pretty sweet. Whilst Brand and Gerwig don't really have much chemistry, the big romantic gestures Arthur laid on for her and their dates started to charm me. For instance, the couple's first date is so impossibly romantic that even a kitten-stomping bastard like me could recognise that. Arthur's irresponsible boozing was funny and sad at the same time and his AA meeting with Hobson was genuinely touching. It's a funny film too and made me laugh throughout the runtime, which really is a rarity in this "Let's be like the fucking Hangover" comedic lull.

"What was that?"
"That was a French kiss."
"No, The French always surrender. THAT was decidedly German."

Still, I didn't completely turn into a snivelling girly-man. There are problems. As mentioned, the opening is awful, the chemistry between the two leads isn't really there and the film can be too saccharine at times. Naomi's childrens' story in particular was so sickly I wanted to vomit my lungs up with rage. The original's obviously better, but if you give this version a go, you may be surprised. What can I say? I expected it to be shit and was entertained instead- these things happen from time to time.

Rio

2011-05-17T22:38:00.003+01:00

The second review in my four review personal penance- Rio. Haven't got anything else to say.

Rio (2011)

I imagine the ideas meeting after Ice Age 3 came out to be one with an air of sweaty desperation. After realising they needed a money-in-the-bank 3D kiddie spectacular to fill the gap whilst some poor soul is tasked with squeezing another Ice Age film out, I believe that there was a deathly silence at Blue Sky Studios. I envisage about 15 people sat round an extremely shiny table all looking like they've shat themselves and don't want to let on to the others. Suddenly, one of them ventures: "How about Hot Age?" and instead of being laughed at and brutally shanked, they're praised and work immediately goes into refining said prick's idea. That's the amount of thought I believe went into Rio.

"What is natural about getting thrown halfway across the room?"

Rio is the story of Blu (voiced by Jesse Eisenberg) a rare Spix's Macaw who was snatched from the Brazilian rainforest as a chick. He is smuggled to snowy Minnesota where he is found and adopted by book shop owner Linda (Leslie Mann). After 15 years together, things suddenly change when Tulio, a Brazilian ornithologist, tracks Linda and Blu down and tells them that Blu is the last male of his kind and must mate with a female, Jewel (Anne Hathaway), to preserve the species. Thus, the trio head to colourful, exotic Rio in order to save the Spix's Macaw from extinction. The story's alright, I guess. It's making kids aware of certain environmental concerns, which I'm always in favour of. What I don't get is why Scientist Guy couldn't take Jewel to Blu, rather than the other way around. Sure, we wouldn't have a film if this happened, but still- weak sauce. Jesse Eisenberg repeats his Mark Zuckerberg, fast-talking nerd performance and it works well. Anne Hathaway was just the female lead- nothing here to stretch her talents.

Rio is an amazing looking film. The colours, the animation and the rendered Brazilian locales are all stunning. Having seen it in eye-friendly 2D, I couldn't comment on the 3D, but I'm sure it would mostly be a waste of time. Thing is, there's not much else going on here. The character development's weak as shit, with the only interesting character being the villain- Nigel, a vicious Cockatoo (yes, you read that right) voiced by Flight of the Conchords' Jermaine Clement. His song is genuinely funny and a real high point. However, Nigel has a posh British accent so not many points can be given for originality. Will Hollywood just not be happy until every American mistrusts the British? We're not so bad. Some of us are downright decent people, you racist fuckpigs.

Thing is, there's no real love between the computer-generated cartoon lovebirds. They bicker a lot, mainly because Blu can't fly (guess how that turns out) and then suddenly they're in love. It's so flimsy. The excuse "it's a kids' film" doesn't wash with me. Pixar and Dreamworks have both delivered funny, touching films as entertaining and touching for adults as they are for younglings. There is no excuse for a lazy story. Especially if you've had to mortgage your house to pay for you and your family to see it in 3D .

"I'm a feathery freak with a beak / a bird murderer. You think you're badder than me? / I never heard o' ya!"

Rio just seems like a needlessly expensive advert for Brazil. Everything you'd expect to see in a film set in Brazil appears- Ipanima Beach and the Christ the Redeemer statue make an appearance. Obviously, Blu happens to be there during Carnival so everything is a mental mix of glitter, huge floats and skimpy costumes. The film will undoubtably entertain the young'uns. There's a high-energy musical number every 10 minutes or so and as I said, it's very pretty to look at. It's occasionally funny, but most of the time, you'll be waiting for the animated bastards to sod off into the sunset and leave you alone. Still, the countdown for Ice Age 4 begins here!

Hanna

2011-05-17T20:18:00.002+01:00

That's right, kids! It's Four Review Tuesday! Yes, this is the part of the show where I realise I have nothing better to do today than assuage my personal guilt for not updating my blog regularly enough. First up is Hanna, as it is still viewable in your local cinematorium.

Hanna (2011)

I don't really buy into the whole "young assassin" thing any more. It was fine in Léon as it seemed organic, but Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass and now Hanna in er...Hanna seem to be taking it a bit too far. I'm sure that if you trained a toddler how to use firearms and nunchucks as soon as they could hold them up until say, their 12th birthday, you'd have a considerable ass-whuppin' machine on your hands. The thing I have a problem with is the hand-to-hand fighting. No way would a 12 year old be able to take on a fully grown adult thug. These aren't just random never-been-in-a-fight adults. They're trained, paid muscle. No fucking way. Anyway. Too much thinking, not enough reviewing.

"You didn't prepare me for this."

Hanna stars Saoirse Ronan as the eponymous heroine, a teen assassin (fuck off) trained from a young age by her father, former CIA man Erik Heller (Eric Bana). She has had an unsual upbringing, consisting mostly of mystery and intensive combat training in the Finnish wilderness. After some plot spoiler-y stuff happens, Hanna finds herself hunted by a corrupt CIA agent named Marissa Weigler (Cate Blanchett). The easiest comparision to draw to this film is that of the Jason Bourne trilogy, specifically The Bourne Identity. I wanted to do something with the phrase "kiddie Bourne" but my ethics committee advised against it. The details are changed, but a skilled killer being persued across many locations by a government agency whilst all the time finding out about their past? The protagonist could be a fucking dog with three legs and still remind me of the Bourne films. Anyway, the plot isn't bad by any stretch and does keep you interested until the Chemical Brothers scored credits roll. Saoirse Ronan is seriously impressive as Hanna, being able to realistically portray a detached, cold blooded killer with a loveable innocent side. Unfortunately, she sometimes reminded me of great Luna Lovegood from the Harry Potter films, giving a whole new spin to the general grittiness. Her accent was dead on too. Thinking about it, accents are probably one of the major recurring interests in this film. For every great one (Ronan and surprisingly, Eric Bana) there's a not-so-great one (Blanchett's Southern drawl is terrible as is Tom Hollander's stereotypical camp Cherman accent)

Hanna herself is a great character. She's a killer, but also a childhood-less teen. There's a great scene in Morocco where Hanna first comes into contact with modern technology such as television and kettles. Up to this point, we've seen Hanna comfortably navigate government buildings packed with highly-trained agents and traverse great distances on her own. It's a great moment of vulnerability. The film's later attempts to expand upon this are less successful. Hanna meets a fucking annoying British family consisting of a "yummeh mummeh", posh-areas-of-London type matriarch, an easy-going beardy dad and two kids, a teen daughter Sophie and a little boy, Miles. Sophie befriends Hanna and is often used as the comparative "normal" teen and it gets pretty grating. There's a sweet scene involving a bracelet, but the scene where some Spanish boys take the girls out takes a wrong turn at Charm Street and goes down Annoyance Avenue instead. If Hanna'd actually kissed the boy, it would have been fine and touching. As it stands, it seems like a desperate attempt at humour. However (invisotexted movie spoiling talk) the reveal on who or what Hanna is feels like it belongs in another film. You can't have gritty realism one minute and drag out the ol' genetically created super soldier thing the next. It doesn't work.

Blanchett's character, conversely, is weaker than a petrol station coffee. She's incredibly vain and always cleaning her teeth or being concerned with her attire. That's basically her in a nutshell. The usually awesome Tom Hollander as a camp, bleached blonde, tracksuited German doesn't work either. My mate Laurence made a good point, remarking that Hollander and his skinhead cronies reminded him of '70s Bond villains. Nail on the head there- and there's not even a cocked Moore eyebrow to balance things out.

The action scenes are great and not at all what I'd expect from the director of Atonement. The fight choreography is especially good and both Ronan and Bana impress in equal measures. The brief shootout between Marissa and Heller is impressive and genuinely exciting. The locales are gorgeous too, ranging from the beautiful Finnish woods to a creepy-as-shit abandoned theme park. Whoever was the location scout deserves a raise.

"I just missed your heart."

There's just something about Hanna I didn't like. There are some compelling performances and some enjoyable action bits, but there's something that doesn't quite gel. The whole film's a bit off-kilter and can't decide what it wants to be. I initially enjoyed it in the cinema, but looking back the good things started to fade away. It's alright, just not as amazing as all the good reviews led me to believe it would be.

Attack The Block

2011-05-16T11:33:00.005+01:00

I'm caught in limbo at the moment as I want to review films whilst they're still in cinemas, but have a backlog to catch up on too. It's only going to get worse as the new Pirates of the Caribbean is out this week and I will just have to see and review that. Feel sorry for me, oh patient reader. Or tell me to get a fucking life. One of the two.

Attack The Block (2011)

There are two things that I've got to be careful of when reviewing Attack The Block so as not to parrot what every other lazy reviewer has said. I'm hoping by mentioning them, it will show that I'm aware of other reviews and that this one is superior to them in every conceivable way. Firstly, let's get that tired Shaun of the Dead comparison out of the way. Yes, it's a British made, Britain set film concerning fictional (prove me wrong, Universe!) creatures, it takes its cue from seminal horror films and it's got Nick Frost in it. Still, Attack The Block is its own beast and comparing it to that zombie masterstroke is unfair (even though it's right there at the top of the frickin' poster). Two- at no point in this review will I attempt to sound like a hooded London yoof for a cheap laugh. It's damn tempting, but I'd like to think I'm better than that.

"Well done, lads! You’ve discovered a species hitherto unknown to science and you’ve kicked its head in!"

Set in the estates of South London, Attack The Block opens, fairly controversially, with a nurse (Jodie Whittaker) getting mugged by a gang of stereotypical hoodies led by the rather intimidating Moses (John Boyega). However, their knifey-happy-fun time is cut short when an meteorite containing a weird rat/chimp alien crashes into a nearby parked car. The gang naturally decide to chase after it and kill it, triumphantly taking the body to stoner Ron (Nick Frost) for identification. Whilst in his 19th floor flat, the gang notice more meteorites crashing all over the city. Craving alien blood, they decide to get tooled up and head out for a fight. The plot is basically your standard alien invasion narrative transported to the London blocks, which works really well. The overall story may be fairly predictable, but the details have been changed, adding up to a new and fresh feeling experience. The cast are all really good, which is especially impressive considering about half of them are making their film debuts. John Boyega in particular was great as the sullen Moses and handles his character's evolution like a seasoned professional. I also thought the kiddie duo of Probs and Mayhem (Sammy Williams and Michael Ajao) were brilliant and managed to avoid being tooth-gnashingly irritating like most child actors.

Debut director Joe Cornish (he of Adam & Joe fame) clearly loves the medium and Attack The Block is an homage to various 1980's creature features and the work of John Carpenter. Having not grown up with these films and only seen the bare minimum, I got the feeling that I was missing out on a few layers of context throughout, but this is a minor quibble. Even without most of the intertextuality, it's obvious that Cornish has a great directorial style and a real knack for visuals. I loved the design of the aliens and thought that the fact that they had glow-in-the-dark teeth was fucking awesome. I could have done with the aliens being scarier though, as we only really get a few jump-scares and the like to establish the danger the gang is in. If the threat was more palpable it would have added an extra charge to the already exciting action sequences. Having said that, there is a great, tension-filled scene concerning a huge number of them which is done really well.

Hoodies have been demonised for a quite a while now (so much so that a couple of years ago I happened to be wearing a hooded top and some comedienne-in-training came up to me and asked if I'd vandalised any trains lately. I'd like to inform people not in the know that I'm hardly intimidating- there are scarier Furbies out there than me.) and the decision to have them as our gang of heroes is a sound one. I did feel that the film leant towards portraying them as misunderstood a bit too much. I'm sure a lot of them are, but statistically some of them must just be violent little pricks.

Much has been made of the gangs' speech and it is refreshing to hear a more realistic take on how young people talk. Newcomers needn't worry about understanding the odd word as the script does a great job of allowing the audience to understand via context. It's funny, but hearing this sort of slang at the cinema pumping out of the speakers, rather than from some little shites in the audience that won't shut their damn talkholes, reminded me of A Clockwork Orange's Nadsat dialect, which really works in the film's favour. If you are a Londoner however, it may just remind you of a depressing late night trip down the off-licence.

"It's raining Gollums!"

I enjoyed the hell out of Attack The Block. For every flaw it had, there were ten great things to balance it out. It's funny, exciting and it made me genuinely proud that a film as good as this is a British production. I've made this point before, but it's nice to know the admission price is going to the British film industry for a change, instead of an obscene international money pile. So, go and see it rather than downloading it or I'll come to your ends and merk ya.*

*What I think about myself and what I am are two very different things.

Thor

2011-05-10T15:30:00.002+01:00

Still catching up, still got to post my reviews of Arthur, Rio, Sucker Punch and Hanna- but again- Thor's in cinemas at the very moment. You should go and see it if you haven't. Fuck Rio, but especially fuck Sucker Punch.

Thor (2011)

Confession time. I didn't know much about Thor beforehand. I knew the traditional Norse myth but wasn't familiar with the Marvel incarnation, which as it turns out, is basically the same. 2011, despite what D.C. would like you to think with the release of Green Lantern, is the year of Marvel with this, Captain America and X-Men: First Class all out this Summer. Of the three, Thor was the one I had the most reservations about. It seemed like just a live action feature they had to get out of the way to justify his appearance in Joss Whedon's 2012 superhero clusterfuck The Avengers. I'm happy to say I was proved wrong. Thor is a lot of fun. See below for details and attractive people naked.

"He has disobeyed his king... his fate is in his own hands now."

The story goes thusly: Thor, God of Thunder (played by Star Trek's Chris "Tiberius?... That's the worst!" Hemsworth) is banished from glittery, stellar megacity Asgard by his father, the Norse head honcho Odin (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and ends up on Earth, stripped of his powers and his trusty hammer Mjolnir, where he is rightfully dismissed as a babbling mentalist by all apart from cosmic scientist Jane (Natalie Portman) and her team (Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings). Meanwhile, back at Asgard, Thor's snidey little brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) takes advantage of his father's weakened state and seizes control. I thought Chris Hemsworth was great as Thor, spouting some genuinely funny lines and approaching the role with just the right amount of tongue-in-cheek. Tom Hiddleston was excellent as Loki and reminded me a lot of Brad Dourif's turn as Grima Wormtongue in The Lord of the Rings films. I'm also feckin' excited that he's comfirmed to appear in The Avengers. The guy's great and I can't wait to see more of him. Fans of The Wire can also look forward to the sight of Idris Elba in spangly gold disco armour. Character wise, my main gripes were with the two female leads, who, whilst played perfectly well by Portman and Dennings, were underdeveloped. Dennings' character Darcy especially seems to only exist to say unfunny, sarcastic things and appeal to da yout' by mentioning things like Facebook.

The thing I really liked about Thor was the fact it makes no concessions about its comic origins. It's unapologetically fantastical. Everyone talks in deep Shakespearian tones and wears armour that looks like it weighs about the same as a Fiat Punto with heavy shopping in the boot. It's also interesting to note that Thor is a God and has therefore not been bitten by a radioactive Viking or anything like that. Magic, rather than pseudo science is the basis in this flick.

The initially baffling choice of Kenneth Branagh to direct really pays off and no matter how space opera everything gets, Branagh keeps it on the straight and narrow and focuses on the main story of redemption and lesson-learning. That's not to say things don't go boom though. Thor has some really impressive, fun action sequences too. All the nerds who stayed after the credits for Iron Man 2 will recall that SHIELD have custody of the hammer Mjolnir and the stripped down, fists to faces sequence that takes place in the SHIELD compound is really good. There's a nerd bonus in the form of a Hawkeye cameo too. I've said it elsewhere on this blog, but I fucking love how all these films are linking together. OK, Iron Man 2 went overboard with the Avengers foreshadowing, but it was a genuine thrill to see Agent Coulson from the Iron Man films show up. The climactic action on Earth is also amazing- fighting a space Viking robot flamethrower thing powered by magic? FUCK YES.

"Do you want me to take him down or would you rather send in more guys for him to beat up?"

It's nice that in a time when superhero movies feel the need to be dark and gritty to be taken seriously, a slice of escapist fun like Thor can exist. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Drop your cynicism (or should that be "Don't be Asgarded"?) and you might too. Also, as always, stay after the credits- the little post credits scene is really worth staying for.

Water For Elephants

2011-05-05T00:49:00.001+01:00

Got loads of reviews to catch up on, but thought I'd get this one out first whilst it's still fresh in my memory. Don't take the fact that I saw it on release date as an endorsement or anything either.

Water For Elephants (2011)

Before I start, let us just look at the title. Something about it just strikes me oddly. It seems like it should be the ironic title for some poor African refugee's life story, not some guff involving circuses. At the very end of the film the title flashes up again, like we're all meant to have a deeper understanding of it. Well I didn't- it was a throwaway line of dialogue spoken by an extra. Very odd. Anyway, I wasn't exactly counting down the days until I saw Gravy For Dolphins but as I've seen it, I thought I should share my thoughts like I always do.

"I don't know if I picked that circus. But something told me that circus picked me."

Water For Elephants starts with 90 year old Jacob Jankowski (Hal Holbrook) recounting his days in the circus when he looked like, not to mention was as thespianally challenged as, a certain Mr. Robert Pattinson. Jankowski is a failed veterinary surgeon who falls on very hard times and ends up employed by the Benzini Brothers travelling circus, run by ringleader and part-time psychopath August Rosenbluth (Christoph Waltz). Whilst there, Jacob starts getting closer to August's wife and star attraction Marlena (Reese Witherspoon) who delights audiences with her gymnastics, trained horse shows and her ability to break cinderblocks with her massive chin. Also, a special shout-out to Bishop Brennan himself Jim Norton, who does a fine job as Camel- Jacob's hard drinkin' mentor.

The plot is damn familiar. We start with a very Titanic-esque framing device and the deja-vu doesn't let up from there. If you've ever seen a gangster film where the rookie takes a shine to a beautiful girl only to find she belongs to the big boss, you've seen this film. The romance is as standard as this very sentence proclaiming it so. Robert Pattinson hasn't learned to act yet. Lager For Crocodiles was the film that enabled me to work out my big problem with him- he can't frown or smile convincingly. Whenever he frowns, he looks like he's really concentrating on frowning, rather than y'know acting. His frowny face reminded me of the face a baby pulls when it's shitting itself- oddly intense. Reece Witherspoon didn't do much apart from squeeze into glittery costumes. Christoph Waltz was good as August, but his character seemed like a watered down version of Hans Landa to me. Where Landa was quietly malevolent for most of Inglourious Basterds, August is an out-and-out bell-end, leaving us with a caricature of a bad guy and not a believable presence. Still, he's better here than as Chudnofsky in The Green Hornet.

This film is safe, safe, safe. We have preteen poontang magnet Pattinson coupled with Oscar winners Witherspoon and Waltz. It's a bankable cast. Setting aside the lavish circus setting, it's a boring but time-tested and financially viable story of forbidden romance. The film is strangely hollow, with any light-hearted moments (excluding the ones with the genuinely brilliant elephant) strangely empty. There's a bit where Jacob gets has too much to drink and wakes up in a box, in full clown makeup and a dress. Normally this would be a funny moment, but it feels too contrived to garner any joy. The only bit that got a significant reaction from the audience was when Rosie the elephant did a handstand. It's fucking impressive and almost worth the price of admission alone.

"You do right by me, I'll show you a life most suckers can't even dream of."

Pepsi For Lemurs isn't a bad film, but it isn't great either. Although stuff happened, I have found myself properly struggling to think of anything else to write about it. Whilst the ending isn't quite what you expect, there's one bit which is so fucking ridiculous I let out a loud snort of derision audible above the shitstorm happening on-screen. It's the sort of film you buy for your Mum on DVD for Mother's Day 'cos "she likes that Cullen boy and ooh, loves Reece Witherspoon." When it comes down to it, Water For Elephants is perfectly fine for what it is, it's just not very exciting.

Source Code

2011-04-18T23:43:00.003+01:00

I dun seen a new film hur hur hurrr....

Source Code (2011)

Yep, been sitting on this for a few days, but only been well enough to actually type up my thoughts recently. Source Code is by far the least brain-rotting thing in cinemas at the moment (Rio and especially Sucker Punch should have mental health warnings on the posters), so here are my thoughts on why you should see it this Easter instead of a film containing annoying, squawking birds or indeed, Rio.

"It's the same train, but it's different."

Source Code tells the story of U.S. Army Helicopter pilot Capt. Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) as he is drafted for a top secret experiment that enables him to go back to the past (in somebody else's body) for a short amount of time. Stevens is plonked onto a doomed train and told he must prevent the train bomber from blowing up a much nastier and deadlier device in the centre of Chicago. I love the overall idea of Source Code. It's probably best described as a cross between Groundhog Day and Quantum Leap. Gyllenhaal is on his most convincing form since his other time turny flick, Donnie Darko. Michelle Monaghan was a nice surprise, although I haven't seen her in much other than Eagle Eye- and anything's a step up from that wankreel. Both Jeffrey Wright (yay, Felix!) and Vera Farmiga also deserve recognition for their work. They're great.

If you're some kind of embittered cynic who is firmly rooted in reality, Source Code will probably annoy you. Just like all the best sci-fi films, Source Code doesn't let explanation weigh down what makes the central concept fun. The answer to how this amazing time jumping thing is possible is vaguely explained, but who the shit cares when you have Jake "The Chest" Gyllenhaal tear-arsing around trying to find a bomber? The literal race against time is too well done for you to be getting hung up on the preposterous. It says a lot for a film where the only element I found to be too jarring in the temporal-twisty-crikey-kaboom flick was when Stevens uses Microsoft's Bing search engine on his phone rather than just Googling. Ridiculous. Nobody Bings anything.

What I really liked about Source Code was the same thing I liked about director Duncan Jones' previous film Moon- the level of characterisation. Ol' Zowie Bowie knows the way to find the human in the story and I can't imagine Source Code working as well as it does without his involvement. Whilst Stevens isn't the only character we're introduced to like Sam Rockwell in Moon, we do learn a lot about him as the film progresses. Much like Groundhog Day, our hero is the only one who can remember his previous 8 minute stints so we see the changes in his attitude each go-around. It's an effective technique which succeeds in actually making you care about these characters. I understood why Stevens began falling for Christina and believed he cared about her. It's funny, but with a lot of films like this I usually believe that the inevitable and clearly signposted romance is just advanced lust. They haven't had time to get to know each other- they've just been through some stuff and recognise that they find each other attractive. I would love to see the statistics on the relationships formed over the course of an action film. Only about 2% would make it past the first month.

Although I've just talked about the romance, I don't consider that a spoiler. There's an incredibly nerdy game I used to play as a stupid child called "Willkiss". I would look at a film poster, take the lead actor's name and say "will kiss" and then add the lead actress' name. It still works about 90% of the time. It's so shite and obvious now but back then it made me feel like I was a psychic for a few brief brilliant moments. Ahem... Anyway, I am going to talk about the ending and some proper spoilers now. So go and see the film, come back and highlight what comes next. Then send naked pictures of yourself to me (family excluded- I've seen enough scarring things on my computer screen). That ending- (invisotext, muthas) I don't know about you, but I found the ending to be a little too happy. I'm all for positive endings and even wanted one for this film, but the overwhelmingly postive vibe really clashed with the dark tone the third act had established. I half expected dancing CGI animals to pop up. It just didn't seem to be the natural ending. Still I really liked the twist and the happy clappy thing only marred what is still an excellent film very slightly. Also, since I'm under the spoiler-proof cover, I thought Michael Arden's bastardly Derek Frost was fantastic. The scene where Chesty Jake utterly foils him is so damn good and in my opinion, owes that awesomeness to Arden's performance.

"Tell me everything's gonna be okay."

So, Source Code. It's great. The script is sharp, direction great and the actors are all compelling. It's one of the most satisfying thrillers I've seen in ages and definitely warrants a viewing. Go and see, then wish you could travel back in time an hour and a half to watch it again.

The Social Network

2011-04-01T20:56:00.004+01:00

Don't worry. By clicking on my blog you haven't accidentally opened up a wormhole to October last year when this film was new, fresh and exciting. Having only just seen it recently, I figured it was a glaring omission from my ever-growing archive of pointless cinematic opinion shouting and soapbox mounting. So, just in case you haven't seen one of last year's most talked about films, allow me to take your hand and gently guide you from the very same soundproof cave I had been living in until very recently.

The Social Network (2010)

As far as pitches go, "The story of Facebook" is right up there with "The history of Dairylea triangles" on the list of films I'd avoid like a flick-knife wielding superplague. However, with all the glowing reviews, Oscar wins and sheer talent involved, I felt it needed to be checked out. If you were wondering how a film of The Popcorn Bucket would go down, it'd basically be me (a young Orson Welles digitally superimposed onto Jonah Hill's body) sat at my computer for an hour and a half, alternately masturbating and plagiarising huge chunks from funnythingstosayaboutfilms.com. Thanks for asking.

"Eduardo, I'm not talking about a dating site, I'm talking about taking the entire social experience of college and putting it online."

The Social Network is the (mostly) truthful account of the creation of everybody's favourite drain on productivity. We follow Mark Zuckerberg (Jessie Eisenberg) and his friend and co-founder Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) as they stumble upon the idea of Facebook and with the help of Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) turn it from a literal bedroom project to multi-billion dollar company. The film focuses on the several lawsuits filed against Zuckerberg with all the creation and early Havard stuff being told in flashback. The plot is genuinely interesting and is a fascinating insight into one of the grittiest high-profile lawsuits in recent history. Props must be given to Jesse Eisenberg, who I initially dismissed as a poor man's Michael Cera, who gives a great, but strangely robotic turn as Zuckerberg. Andrew Garfield was decent too, making me anticipate his wearing of the Spider-tights next year all the more. Justin Timberlake was also good as the sleazy, easily-punchable Sean Parker, proving that there isn't much the Reverend J.T. can't do. As a whole, the film is extremely well put together with the just feckin' fantastic direction of David Fincher prevalent throughout. The Oscar winning soundtrack by Trent Reznor (he of Nine Inch Nails fame) and Atticus Ross is fantastic and deserves all the shiny awards that have been bestowed upon it. It's way better than it needs to be for this sort of film, but you'll be glad (as I was) it was there.

I have a real liking for courtroom dramas so the way that The Social Network plays out really appealed to me. If you are expecting some A Few Good Men esque grandiose court setting (like I was when I heard about the film) you'll be disappointed, as all the legal stuff takes place in a standard office setting. Writer Aaron Sorkin (famous for the rapid-fire dialogue in The West Wing and coincidentally enough, A Few Good Men) lets the words be the courtroom dressing as a story of greed and betrayal slowly becomes clear. The thing I really liked about The Social Network is that everyone involved is a different flavour of douchebag (with the exception of Saverin, but since the source novel could also be accused of Saverin bias as he was the only one willing to talk to the author, I can assume some of his foibles were obviously omitted). Zuckerberg is portrayed as an awkward prick, knowing more about lines of code than how to maintain relationships. After the opening scene where he and his girlfriend break up whilst talking at 100mph, he gets a bit drunk and posts some hateful thoughts about her and her small breasts on his Livejournal. If there were such a thing as an Irony Vampire (and there isn't, don't be so fucking ridiculous), he could gorge himself silly on the fact that the socially retarded Zuckerberg invented something which has changed the way millions of people interact with each other on a daily basis.

The opening third or so of the film is devoted to Zuckerberg and Saverin's partnership and the initial stages of the website. After Zuckerberg is approached by the jockish Winklevoss twins (confusingly both played by Armie Hammer but also involving actor Josh Pence) to create some Havard exclusive social site, things start to go awry as Zuckerberg initially agrees to code it , but then ignores them whilst working on the insanely popular and controversially similar "The Facebook". All of this eventually leads to the first lawsuit against ol' Zucky. With things between Zuckerberg and Saverin already strained due to the different directions they want to take the site in, all it takes is the flashy Sean Parker to really mess things up. Parker, fresh from his Napster shaped middle finger to the music industry, swoops in and basically says what Zuckerberg wants to hear, which leaves Saverin playing catch-up with his own pet project as the two new bezzie mates start expanding the site. The film then becomes a more familiar tale of back-stabbing which is truly heartbreaking, especially since Saverin seems to be the only one willing to put up with Zuckerberg's shite. I must admit, at times it felt that some characters veered towards stereotypes, will the Winklevoss twins (or "Winklevi" as Zuckerberg calls them) being your standard jock bullies. Sean Parker ends up with the same kind of fate, being easily recognisable as that sleazy douchebag character than permeates American popular culture. Obviously, these people could be like that in real life, but I doubt it. My guess is they were shaken down to their identifiable characteristics to better fit the story.

Whilst having a favourite scene in this sort of film is a bit weird as I feel it should be considered as a whole, I loved the rowing scene (no homo) set to a fantastic version of "In The Hall of the Mountain King". Saverin's realisation (intentionally vague, but you'll know it when it happens) is so well done you can't help but feel gutted for him. The end is also surprisingly moving, although I'm not sure whether it was because I saw myself in Zuckerberg at that point or not. Thankfully, the film doesn't give any flat out opinions on who is right and leaves it up to the viewer to decide.

"You know, you really don't need a forensics team to get to the bottom of this. If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."

The Social Network is brilliant. It's not a perfect film, but it is so well constructed it can't help but entertain. This fact is even more impressive considering the film is basically about a few billionaires squabbling over who came up with the idea of Facebook. If you can't be arsed to read all I've written above and only have an attention span long enough to deal with status updates and the like, what I'm basically saying is:

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

2011-03-18T18:21:00.022Z

Actually been wanting to review this one for a while, but kept forgetting. This ends now.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

"Have you seen Scott Pilgrim yet?", "When are you going to review Scott Pilgrim?", "Just how do you make every single one of your reviews so damn funny?" and so on. When people cotton on to the fact I'm a sad bastard with more reviews under his belt than notches on his bedpost, they tend to ask if I've reviewed certain titles. The one that keeps coming up is Scott Pilgrim. People seem to really care about this film and I felt bad for not catching it in the cinemas. I shouldn't have been so tough on myself as judging from the film's box office, hardly any motherfucker went to go and see it. Still, let us not confuse box office takings with a film's quality (so many people make this mistake).

"Prepare to feel the wrath of the League of the Evil Exes."

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World unsurprisingly tells the story of Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera), a bit of a loser who falls for the literal girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). However, if Scott is to date Ramona he must fight and defeat her seven evil exes (no, I'm not going to list them all here). For those who haven't read the comic, the plot is refreshingly new. It's like an indie romcom crossed with Street Fighter II. For the best part of the film it works too. Michael Cera is that one character he plays over and over again, but there are enough funny lines to make this bearable. I liked Mary Elizabeth Winstead, but I'm not sure if it was because I find her insanely attractive or not. Of the exes, both the cinematic superheroes made me laugh (Chris Evans and Brandon Routh), with Evans' Lucas Lee particularly cracking me up with his ridiculous voice. Scene-stealer extraordinaire though was Keiran Culkin's Wallace Wells- Scott's roommate who possesses the amazing ability to text at the speed of light, even whilst unconscious.

After the brilliant 8-bit Universal logo, the opening 15 mins of Scott Pilgrim annoyed me. It was like the opening of Juno with jumpcuts and added visual quirks. Much like that other Cera starrer, I felt it was trying way too hard to be liked. Still, I persevered and the film started to improve leaps and bounds. I began to find some of the visuals funny and started to enjoy it. Things really get a kick up the arse when Ramona's first evil ex, Matthew Patel (Satya Bhabha), shows up and we get a Bollywood-inspired fight between him and Scott. The choreography is brilliant, but points would be awarded here anyway for Patel's inspired "demon hipster chicks". For a film that has so much fighting in it, the fight sequences are all unique and inventive. All credit goes to Edgar Wright and the fight choreographers who ensured that things are kept fresh.

I respect the film for having its hero actually be a bit of a douche. The way Scott treats his Chinese girlfriend Knives Chau (played fantastically by Ellen Wong) is nothing short of dickish. You truly empathise with Knives and urge her to find someone better than Prick Pilgrim. The comic book Scott is also a bit of a knob, so it's not purely down to Cera's perpetually awkward, squeaky-voiced portrayal.

Funny that I should follow my Paul review with this one, as it allows me to look smart by proving my own point. As I said in that 7 paragraph joygasm: "You just can't be niche when you're dealing with 8 digit budgets." Scott Pilgrim is proof of this. It's a niche title packaged for mainstream audiences. For all the lines that could have been in any comedy, such as the sardonic Kim line: "Scott, if your life had a face I would punch it.", there are ten or so references (or should that be "Links"?) to things like the Legend of Zelda games that Joe Q. Seatfiller is going to miss out on. Sure, the film works without getting every geek reference, but I feel it alienated a big part of the mainstream audience the film was (wrongly) marketed to. I understood and appreciated most of, if not all the little nods, but I'm just one man with a misspent childhood. Your average filmgoer didn't spend most of the '90s staring at colourful moving pixels. They're not going to be used to the idea of defeated enemies exploding into coins and the like. Even if they are, it's not going to have the resonance that it does with people like me.

"When I'm around you, I kind of feel like I'm on drugs. Not that I do drugs. Unless you do drugs, in which case I do them all the time. All of them."

Thing is, I really like Scott Pilgrim vs the World. It's a lot of fun. As I said, the fights are great, the dialogue mostly decent and it has held up to repeat viewings in the way that so few films these days do. The film is destined for cult success on DVD/Blu-ray and I really heartily recommend you pick it up. It will divide opinion like a specially designed laserknife, but those who like it will like it hard. Those who aren't fans can go elsewhere for their jollies. As one of my wise friends said: "How can you not like a film with the Vegan Police in it?".

Paul

2011-03-12T17:05:00.004Z

I'd mention my long-ish absence from this blog, but you bastards probably didn't even notice I was gone. Well, I was. However, I've decided I should write some more reviews lest my writing become stale and unimaginative. So let's have a look at Paul, you...er...bastards.

Paul (2011)

Those walking into Paul expecting another Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz are going to be disappointed. Just thought I'd get that out of the way. For starters, it's not the third film in the "Blood and Ice Cream" trilogy as it's written by Pegg and Frost rather than Pegg and Edgar Wright. Secondly, whilst there's plenty of nerdery in Paul, it's definitely more mainstream and accessible than either Shaun or Fuzz.

"Three tits. Awesome."

The basic story goes thusly: two British nerds, illustrator Graeme Willy (Simon Pegg) and "the writer" Clive Gollings (Nick Frost) are trekking across the USA in an RV. After making a pilgrimage to Comic-Con, the pair start visiting UFO hotspots. Along the way, they bump into an actual alien named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen) who needs help with a matter of life and death. The duo then become a trio as they try and help Paul duck his persuers led by a leader known as "The Big Guy" and their right-hand man Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman). The plot is familiar, but not overly so. I can't think of the last road movie to have an alien in a starring role. We've seen that the duo of Pegg and Frost simply works countless times now, so their interplay and chemistry doesn't really score any points any more. I was pleasantly surprised as how well Paul was realised, with Seth Rogen putting in a decent comedic performance and being brought to life with some genuinely impressive CGI. I liked Kristen Wiig's "God bothering cyclops" too. The supporting cast are a mish-mash of other big name comedians you've seen in fucking everything. Jason Bateman, Bill Hader, Joe LaTruglio and Jane Lynch all make an appearance. Although I like them, I really am getting sick of them being in every Universal comedy going.

I did find Paul to be quite funny. The dialogue is usually snappy and there are some choice one-liners to keep you chuckling after you walk out of the cinema. If a comedy makes you laugh more than a handful of times, it can be judged a success in my book. However, this humour is a lot more "standard" than that found in Pegg and Frost's back catalogue. It's disappointing to sit there and feel like there's something missing. The jokes aren't bad or anything, they just don't feel that new. I suspect the reason for this standardisation is the fact that Paul cost over 5 times what Shaun of the Dead did. You just can't be niche when you're dealing with 8 digit budgets.

There are some decent ideas in the film though. As one of those pesky athiests you read so much about, I really appreciated Ruth's change in religious standpoint after meeting Paul. After getting a feel of the film's broader (American) audience pleasing tone, I was genuinely surprised to see a character not only have a crisis of faith, but to lose all religious sensibilities completely. I also loved the idea that Paul is not only responsible for some of pop culture's biggest hits such as E.T. and the X-Files, but the reason why we think of aliens as little green/grey creatures with big heads.

Having commented on the lack of niche appeal let me appear go back on myself by pointing out that there are a lot of pop culture references. Since the geeks inherited the Earth several years ago (there was a flyer and everything) I don't count film references as niche any more. If standard cookie-cutter, crowd pleasing, money-in-the-bank snorecoms like The Other Guys can mention the Death Star without people being left scratching their heads, then it's not niche. It's just another standard joke type that Hollywood will run into the ground. That mini-rant may clue you in on my other big problem with Paul- it spends way too much time sucking off George Lucas and Steven Speilberg. I don't mind homages if they're done well, come from a place of genuine admiration and are used sparingly, nor do I mind the appreciation of Spielbeard and Luca$. What I do mind is the constant tips of the hat to their work. Paul contains so many nods and winks to Star Wars that if it was a person I'd be scared they were having some kind of seizure. There are obvious ones, such as Graeme's Empire Strikes Back T-Shirt, but the film goes several steps further, having musical cues, lines of dialogue and famous shots all from that damned trilogy. I love Star Wars, but even I thought it was too much.

"There is an alien in our kitchenette making bagels and coffee."

Paul is pretty good, but don't be expecting more endlessly quotable lines and dark humour from the Pegg/Frost combo. It's entertaining and really funny at times, but I expected more from it to be honest. That whole Star Wars thing I mentioned above really took me out of the film, but the non mega-nerds amongst you may not have the same problem with it that I did. It's worth a watch, but it's not an essential viewing.

The Green Hornet

2011-01-20T00:25:00.004Z

I figured I might as well strike whilst the iron's hot and review a film that has only just come out. I figured since The Green Hornet has had the shit marketed out of it (seriously, I can't turn around without seeing billboards, trailers, TV spots and the like) I figured I'd check it out. Also, it's a big budget action/comedy concerning superheroes so I won't have to exactly stretch myself creatively for the actual review. Let's roll, Kato!

The Green Hornet (2011)

Are they ever going to run out of superheroes to adapt for the big screen? Whilst they existed before (Superman, Batman and some oddball ones like Blade and The Crow), the 2000s really stepped this up and we've now had a good, solid decade of superpowers, nefarious villains and impractical costumes. My question is this- is there going to be a point where studio execs go to the superhero archives and find that all the good ones are gone and the ones left are either too obscure to adapt or too shit to even care about? Having said that, The Green Hornet isn't exactly a superhero per se, but he definitely belongs in the Batman/Iron Man camp- i.e. in lieu of using their wealth to help in the form of buying new hospital wings and the like, they turn themselves into technology-aided superbadasses. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's the most selfish way to help people ever.

"I want the head of The Green Hornet and I want it tonight!"

After newspaper mogul James Reid (Tom Wilkinson) unexpectedly dies, his son, partying layabout Britt (Seth Rogen) inherits his father's wealth and estate. After being introduced to human Swiss Army knife Kato (Jay Chou), the pair get drunk and decide to fight crime using Kato's mechanical skills and kung fu mastery as well as Britt's money and newspaper connections to hype The Green Hornet. However, for every hero (or pair of heroes) there must be a villain- and this picture's baddie is the forgettably named Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz) a drug baron who seems preoccupied with his image and being feared. To complicate things, Britt also hires a new secretary, Lenore Case (Cameron Diaz) who captures the attention of both Britt and Kato. The plot is alright, but it has its problems. Chudnofsky is a weak villain, which is a shame considering that I enjoyed the pairing of Britt and Kato. It's doubly a shame as Chudnofsky is played by the brilliant Christoph Waltz, whose performance as Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds is so ingrained in my brain I have to stop myself from saying "That's a bingo!" at the most inopportune moments. As I said, I thought the pairing of Rogen and Jay Chou works well. Sure, Chou struggles with any line over a certain number of syllables, but Kato's not exactly known for his ability to soliloquise anyway. Rogen is just Rogen really, so your general impression of the film will be heavily swayed by how you feel about that. Cameron Diaz is underused and seems to be purely into the film to give The Green Hornet to feed him information and give him the (green) horn(et).

Here's where my quest to become a respected film critic stumbles slightly. I really enjoyed The Green Hornet. It's tough to be certain in your convictions when paid, professional writers are slating whatever it is that you liked. Still, this blog ain't about them- it's about me. I found the film to be pretty funny at times- something which I wasn't expecting since I find most Hollywood comedies as funny as a housebrick enema. Even though my higher brain function told me not to, I still laughed a shameful amount at the inclusion of Gangsta's Paradise.The action is also really quite good, with some genuine ingenuity to be found between all the explosions and slow-motion shots. However, that whole "blowing up the speed camera" gag, proudly displayed in the trailer? C'mon- I know Johnny English isn't a masterpiece, but some people have seen it. To rip it off so blatantly is an odd move. Director Michel Gondry doesn't get to leave his own brand of weirdness on the film, but the occasional shot reminds that there is a more creative director behind this very polished "motion picture event". The splitscreen showing the rise in gang activity in response to The Green Hornet's actions is the first thing that comes to mind. Oh, before I forget- fuck the 3D.

Chudnofsky is definitely the main problem with this film. He's not funny and the efforts to make him self-conscious smack of "needing to give him a thing" when it came down to the writing stage. Had it been handled better, maybe the change to Bloodnofsky could have actually made sense, rather than appearing like a lazy way to up the stakes in the third act. To use Waltz in this way is just a waste of talent. He can play charismatic villains, this we know. So why the flying fuck is he boring and unfunny in this film?

"I thought we were both badassess the other night. I kicked that guy in the face, like, three times remember? I kicked him in the face!"

Here's where I have to be as objective as I can be. I have a high tolerance for action/superhero films and will still totally be on board with the fact that Powersman has to get the Gragnathor to defeat the evil Zardex long after most people have got up and left, muttering that Powersman II: Mr. Zardex Goes to Washington is too generic and unrealistic. I love these types of films. I'm also aware that not everyone shares my enthusiasm for them either, so I figured I would just say what I liked/disliked and leave it at that- y'know, like a fucking film reviewer or something. The banter between Rogen and Chou is better than I expected, which is a good thing as the film relies quite heavily on that to keep the story ticking along at a good pace. As I said, the action is fun too, with the unique "Kato-vision" adding a fresh twist on standard fight choreography. So, go and see The Green Hornet and feed back to me. It'd be interesting to find out whether I'm alone in this one or not. Anyway, as much as I'd like to give it a four, I know in my brain that just ain't right.

Tron: Legacy

2011-01-16T17:30:00.000Z

It's already been an interesting start to the year for me, but try as I might, I can't just watch a film without letting everyone know what I thought of it. So, I'm back here again, tippity-tapping my views down on my own slice of the 'net. Anyway, I done seen some films so, let's Tron it up.

Tron: Legacy (2010)

Now, I don't know if you've seen the original Tron. If you have, I'm sure you'll agree that despite its fun concept, it has aged badly. Of course it has- it's an 80's film which pioneered the use of computer graphics, I'd be very worried if it hadn't. Still- it has a cult following (a phrase which instantly makes me think of sweaty nerds refusing to accept that whatever they like is shit) and after a very well-received Comic Con mock-up trailer, Tron: Legacy was born.

"The Grid. A digital frontier. I tried to picture clusters of information as they moved through the computer. What did they look like? Ships, motorcycles? Were the circuits like freeways? I kept dreaming of a world I thought I'd never see. And then, one day..."

The basic story goes thusly: Cyber Jesus Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) has disappeared leaving his son, Sam an orphan. After 20 years, the now adult and conventionally attractive Sam (Garrett Hedlund) goes looking for his missing father after familar face Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) receives a mysterious page from Flynn Snr. Whilst snooping around, Sam gets sucked into The Grid, a dangerous computer world, which not only reunites him with his father and his new warrior sidekick Quorra (Olivia Wilde), but introduces him to a Fascistic, younger version of Kev named Clu (also Jeff Bridges) who wants to take over the computer world or some such bollocks. Now, by the very nature of being a sequel, the plot won't feel fresh, but that aside, this path still seems very well-trodden indeed. I kept thinking of Jumanji and various other kids' films I've damaged my brain with over the years. Of course, this isn't bad- but it doesn't win any points for originality. Jeff Bridges was pretty good as Kevin Flynn, although a bit too much effort went into making Flynn sound like The Dude from The Big Lebowski, what with ending almost every sciencey-babbly sentence with the word "man". Garrett Hedlund is just a hairstyle and a marketable face and could have easily been played by any other actor like Chris Pine. I'm sure if you put a cow carcass in a cool-looking glowy suit, you'd have a similar portrayal, perhaps with less so-called badass lines before an action sequence kicks off. Olivia Wilde is the distractingly pretty equivalent of Hedlund, really, spending most of her screentime draped over/on things.

Tron: Legacy is quite a frustrating film. After the decent stylistic choice to not have the entire film in 3D (the dimensional shite starts when Sam enters The Grid) I was on board with what it seemed to be bringing to the table. The film didn't seem to be in a hurry to get to The Grid and had a proper (albeit simplistic) story focus. The digi-shite hits the fan after the first couple of action sequences. The film seems to blow its load way too soon, with all the genuinely fun stuff happening soon after Sam's arrival. After seeing the proper trailer, I was most excited for the updated lightcycle action. Whilst it was fun, it was too short to actually get into. I was expecting some kind of epic fight halfway through the film, but was let down by over-eagerness on the film's part. The Disc Wars part was fun too. Well, the parts I saw. The combination of the spastic camerawork as well as the 3D made it quite hard to tell who was who. When Sam first fights a program, the fact that they're wearing very similar suits made it tough to get what exactly was going on. Yes, it was cool when they started fighting on the ceiling, but it doesn't make up for the fact that the sequence was badly shot and edited by some slack-jawed wanker.

I'm tempted to just tear apart how Clu was executed, but I can't. Yes, he looks weird, yes he's clearly a CGI creation, but the fact is human beings are very, very good at recognising our own. If there's something amiss, we'll find it, which is why kids at school always pick on the tall or short or fat or ugly. The de-ageing of Bridges is undeniably impressive, but it isn't going to fool anyone. The sooner I accepted that, the sooner I started to enjoy Bridges' performance as Clu. The one major problem I had was the fact that there's a long train journey about three quarters of the way through that just seems to be there to explain some needless plot addition (think The Fifth Element). Firstly, to escape The Grid is meant to be difficult, so why the shit is there a dedicated train service? Secondly, the sheer volume of dialogue at this point is punishing. Instead of drip-feeding us plot-relevant information throughout, the film uses this time to infodump all of the things we need to know (plus several things we don't), with the result that I simply didn't care.

Now for the good points. I chose to get most of my whinging out in one block and end on something fairly positive, because Tron really doesn't deserve the hate it has garnered from some corners of the Internet. The film's visuals are genuinely stunning. I loved the look of The Grid and its inhabitants-everything looked either very chic, very flashy and just damn cool, even though the ol' orange/blue look still somehow finds its way in. The use of 3D is almost justifiable here- which is probably the most I'm going to be impressed by 3D. The soundtrack, by Gallic robots Daft Punk, is fantastic too- mixing orchestral sounds and electronica like it ain't no thang. I liked Michael Sheen's Castor- a kind of whitewashed David Bowie character with echoes of The Riddler, even though he's barely in it. The inevitable love stuff between Sam and Quorra is actually subtlely done and not once does the film decide to have them passionately neck each other or anything. In a film where recognising stuff from other films is a problem, I'm glad I didn't have "standard lacklustre love story" to add to the list.

"Change the scheme! Alter the mood! Electrify the boys and girls if you'd be so kind."

As I said, Tron: Legacy doesn't warrant the e-bashing it has got. It is definitely an imbalanced film, with too much of the fun action weighted towards the start of the film (I know there is a climactic Lightjet dogfight, but I wasn't really that impressed by it), but it's really not bad. I definitely enjoyed parts of it, which was made all the better by the visuals. I suppose though, it is quite an average film in a very shiny wrapper (where have I heard that before?) and therefore I must score it as such:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

2010-11-26T01:59:00.005Z

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

2010-11-18T17:17:00.003Z

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

2010-10-31T17:31:00.002Z

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.