Hot Fuzz

Can't talk now... deadline to meet...New Year almost here....AARGHH!

Hot Fuzz (2007)

Sometimes I get the feeling that the trio of Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have been reading my "Things that are awesome and what I want to see in films in the future" diary. The films seem tailor-made to the sort of things I would put into films if I had money, talent and if anyone liked me. In any case, you've got to admire the efforts of what I call "The Holy Trinity", those diary stealing, privacy invading fucks...

"Have you ever wondered why the crime rate in Sandford is so low, yet the accident rate is so high?"

The plot follows Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg)- a top cop in the London Metropolitan Police Service who is relocated to the quiet country town of Sandford, because he's been making his co-workers "look bad". Once there he meets inept Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), son of the Police Inspector Frank Butterman (Jim Broadbent) and huge action movie fan. After Angel arrives, a series of grisly "accidents" happen in the town and Angel seems to be the only one who suspects foul play. Just like "Shaun of the Dead" it's a great story and has some fantastic performances from the main cast. The supporting cast are not to be ignored, however, as they basically act as a "Who's Who" of British stars, including Jim Broadbent, Timothy Dalton and Edward Woodward.

As you know, I loved "Shaun of the Dead", but I kept getting the feeling that I was missing out on a lot of the in-jokes because I'm not really a fan of horror. "Hot Fuzz" rectifies this, being a pastiche of nearly every action film ever made. I was cackling like only a nerd can when little references to films like "Point Break" and "Bad Boys II" were made. I think that the film nails the whole insular, small town mindset that a lot of British towns have. In fact, talking of nerdism- I think the whole parody of the "kiss-off" lines ( i.e. Angel distracts a baddie with a cuddly monkey and then hits him, quipping "Playtime's over!") is brilliant. I mean, just watch any film from Arnie's back catalogue, and you'll find some gems.

"By the power of Greyskull!"

Pegg and Frost continue their persuit for "World's Greatest Double Act" in this film, as they are both great. The thing I like about their on-screen relationship this time is that it is significantly different to "Shaun of the Dead". In this film, Pegg is more the straight man whereas Frost is more loveable as Danny than he was as the foul-mouthed Ed. It's clear Timothy Dalton had a good time making this as he chews every piece of scenery going with great aplomb.

"Hot Fuzz" is similar to "Shaun of the Dead" in the way that I can't really pick out favourite scenes. The shoot-out is incredible and funny, but I'm also a fan of the fight (being careful about spoilers here) in the town. So, in conclusion- if you haven't seen "Hot Fuzz" yet, you should because it's off the fuckin' chain!

Shaun of the Dead

With my self-imposed "50 reviews" deadline looming, I thought I'd round off 2008 with the first two films of the "Blood and Ice Cream" trilogy, "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz". First off, Mr. Of the Dead.

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

I'm so glad "Shaun of the Dead" came out at the time that it did. I remember moaning about the fact that all the films that come from the ol' British Isles were either the clichéd period dramas that we always pump out with no apparent irony, and romantic comedies probably starring Huge Grunt. Whilst this still hasn't been fully resolved, "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz" have gone a long way to rectify this.

"Look, I don't care what the telly says, all right? We *have* to get out of here. If we don't they'll tear us to pieces, and that is really going to exacerbate things for all of us"

The story follows Shaun (Simon Pegg), a thirty-something loser whose life is going nowhere. His girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) breaks up with him because of this, leaving Shaun heartbroken and depressed. After a heavy night of drinking with his best friend Ed (Nick Frost), Shaun returns home to the news that there's a zombie invasion going on. The story is brilliant. I love the fact that the huge zombie invasion happens in the background of Shaun's life. I've got to commend the fact that the cause of the zombification is not explained. Thank God there are films out there that let us decide for ourselves what the answers are, rather than spelling it out like we've all got jagged shrapnel embedded in our brains. My idea? Penguins with jetpacks decide enough is enough and wage biological warfare on us pesky humans.

I can't really fault "Shaun of the Dead" on anything. The actors are all great, especially the double act of Pegg and Frost- surely one of the best comedy duos in a long, long time. It's very funny, surprisingly touching in places and has enough classic zombie blood 'n' guts to keep even the most twisted of gore fans happy. I mean, a lot of the film consists of homage and parody, but it's very cleverly done. You don't get the feeling that it relying on other films' ideas to carry it along. It's got a clear sense of story and doesn't lose sight of it even when the zombified shit hits the fan.

"Who died and made you fucking king of the zombies?"

In terms of favourite scenes, I love the "Don't Stop Me Now" scene (I'm sure you know the scene I'm talking about) and the record flinging scene. Actually, to have "favourite scenes" seems like a bit of a disservice to the rest of the film. It's fantastic and there's a "oh, I like this bit" moment in pretty much every scene. If that isn't a recommendation, I don't know what is.

The Simpsons Movie

As I desperately race to get 50 reviews by the end of 2008, I've been frantically searching for suitable things to review. What better than the first big-screen adventure of everyone's favourite yellow family? Well, probably a lot of things, but it was the only film I had to hand.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Like most people my age, I grew up watching "The Simpsons" on T.V. As I got older, I started getting more of the jokes and appreciating it more. What I'm trying to say is that "The Simpsons" has had a large effect on me for many years now. So, on paper I'm the movie writers' worst enemy- the hardened Simpsons fan who's seen it all and can quote it all. Did the film win me over? Find out the answer to the lamest cliffhanger ever, after the next paragraph!

"Homer: Don't you just love being with someone who's recklessly impulsive?
Marge : Actually, it's aged me terribly."

The story basically follows Homer's (Dan Castellaneta) accidental pollution of Lake Springfield, which leads to the city of Springfield being declared toxic and encased in a giant dome. The Simpson family are forced to become fugitives after the townspeople discover that Homer is the one to blame. The plot is at least functional, although I'm not a big fan of the whole dome idea. In fact, I'm not really a fan of the story. It's OK, but after the time it took to bring the Simpsons to the big screen and drafts this feckin' film had (158!) I expected it to be the new Jesus in animated form. My main problem with the whole thing is the villain. For some reason, they used a new character called Russ Cargill, voiced by Albert Brooks. Why not Mr. Burns? He's such a great character and one of my favourites. He's done dastardly things such as blocking out the Sun in the series, so why is he apparently incapable of encapsulating the city in a giant dome? When it comes down to it, Russ Cargill isn't a funny character.

The film raises a lot of questions too. Why did they make the Arnold Schwarzenegger parody character, Rainer Wolfcastle, actually Arnold Schwarzenegger? Why did people think the Spider-Pig thing was so hysterically funny? Why has Lisa's (Yeardley Smith) new love interest got the worst "Oirish" accent I have ever heard? Why are the making some jokes a bit ruder (Homer giving double middle fingers) and then making others more child-friendly? ("He's not Spider-Pig anymore, he's Harry Plopper"- I'm sorry, but if you are over 10 and laugh at that, you're an idiot) When it comes down to it, I don't think "The Simpsons" works as a film. It feels a bit overstretched, considering it's around 4 times as long as your average episode.

"Homer: Homer do good?
Bart: Actually, you've doomed us all. Again."

All of the above are minor things, really. Okay, I've just said I don't like the story, the villain and that I don't think it works as a film-but all those grievances go away when you're laughing this much. It's very, very funny and so much better than most of the crap out there, posing as "comedies". The only reason I seem to be quite harsh to it is that I love "The Simpsons" and you always hurt the ones you love most- especially if you've been drinking. These days, episodes of "The Simpsons" are hit-and-miss, but the movie is like a longer good episode. I love the fact that Green Day and especially Tom Hanks lend their voices to proceedings too. As I've said, "The Simpsons Movie" is funny, satirical and intelligent. Word of warning though- does contain animated wang.

Shoot 'Em Up

After the depressing experience of reliving the "what ifs" and the "could have beens" of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy, I felt that I needed something a bit off the wall. Well, you can't get much more off the wall than the Clive Owen starring "Shoot 'Em Up".

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

Being clever is a dangerous thing in the movie business. If you put a product out there that's steeped in irony and post-modernism, chances are the 'tards out there will take it at face value and believe that was the message you wanted to convey. Case in point-"Shoot 'Em Up".

"My God! Do we really suck or this guy really that good?"

The plot follows the mysterious Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) who inadvertently ends up with a baby in his care. Thing is, there seem to be quite a few people who want the child dead, especially "businessman" Hertz (Paul Giamatti). Along the way, Smith recruits prostitute D.Q. (Monica Bellucci) to help him care for the baby. Yes, the plot is naff- but in a film like this, the plot is shoved aside for set pieces and loud noises. I would normally complain about this, but the difference is that "Shoot 'Em Up" is well aware of what it is doing and carries on shamelessly. "Refreshing" doesn't cover it. The three lead actors are fine. They seem to get the odd tone of the film and play to it, especially Paul Giamatti-who spends 80% of the film gleefully snarling, like a dog with peanut butter stuck to the roof of its mouth.

Before we go further, let's analyse the title. It's not called "The Death Zone","Time to Kill 2" or anything shite like that. It's called "Shoot 'Em Up"- a clear indication of the kind of meta-level this film is on. This isn't the sort of film with quotable dialogue or amazing twists. It's a John Woo film (hard)boiled down to the basic elements.

The action is superb. Every sequence is designed to give you a chuckle one minute and a surprise the next. Nearly all of which are set to music like Motorhead's "Ace of Spades" and Wolfmother's "The Joker and the Thief". It's completely nuts, but at the same time extremely likeable. Plus, it has a gunfight in nearly every scenario possible. There's a gunfight in a warehouse, during a car chase and in a bathroom. Doesn't sound that groundbreaking? Well, what if I was to tell you there's a shoot-out during a birth, a shoot-out in mid-air and even one during a sex scene?

I have two main problems with this flick. As it's quite a small film, budgetry restraints are quite evident here and there. The ideas are great, but I got the feeling that sometimes the director just didn't have enough scratch to fully realise his blood-soaked vision. The second is a problem that most video games suffer- repetition. You might think it a bit odd for me to suddenly start talking about gaming, but that's what "Shoot 'Em Up" is. It's the film equivalent of a bloodthirsty video game. I mean "Shoot 'Em Up" is even a genre of game! As I was saying, repetition is a problem. I loved Smith killing a man with a carrot the first time I saw it because it was fresh, funny and fucked up in equal measures. By the second and third times I wanted to see something new- strangulation by a grapefruit, perhaps?

"Aren't guns just fucking great, Hammerson?"

"Shoot 'Em Up" is an unashamedly fun film. What I love about it is that it's the sort of film readers of "Nuts" and "Loaded" will think is amazing, blissfully unaware that it's mocking them the entire time.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Third "Pirates..." review. Prepare accordingly.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Now, if you ask the average film fan to rank the "Pirates..." films, they will most likely rank them in the descending order of:
"Curse of the Black Pearl",
"At World's End"
and then
"Dead Man's Chest".
However, I'm not an average person (or so my belt sizes keep telling me). I think "Dead Man's Chest" is the superior of the sequels. I'll tell you more in a minute.

"The song has already been sung! The brethren court is called!"

The plot is a continuation of the ridiculous number of character threads from "Dead Man's Chest". Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) is now executing anyone and everyone remotely associated with pirates. Due to this, a defiant song is sung to summon the nine pirate Lords to order. Thing is, Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is dead and failed to appoint a new Lord before the Kraken munched on his face. So, Will (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth (Keira Knightley), Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris) and the Black Pearl crew, led by Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) go on a mission to rescue Jack from Davy Jones' Locker. Beckett also has the heart of Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and now can control Jones and the crew of the Flying Dutchman. He does so and is using Jones to wipe out pirate ships.

Unfortunately, "At World's End" started off at a disadvantage because it had to carry on and end all the characters' stories satisfactorily. Thing is, "Dead Man's Chest" was so ridiculously complicated, "At World's End" had very little chance of doing this. Also, I'm sure there was another insufferable prick studio exec shouting "bigger and better!" whenever he wasn't snorting cocaine from a hooker's navel. I knew the film was going to be on the faecal side of things when the damn thing opened up on a mass hanging. Nice one, Disney- good to know you're still catering for the kiddies (!) Actually, it takes it one step further by showing a small child getting the ol' rope neckwear. I know these things happened, but since we glossed over all the raping and pillaging that real pirates did, I figured the hanging thing would be left out. I realise that Jack Sparrow was nearly hanged in "Curse of the Black Pearl", but the key word is "nearly". He escaped with the help of Will and all was fine and dandy. Here, there are no miraculous escapes but a shot of the feet of lifeless bodies. I'm not against violence by any stretch of the imagination.What annoys me is there are plenty of films out there showing violence and people dying. In contrast, there are hardly any kid-friendly films out there that aren't animated, and of the ones that aren't- 90% of those are pure monkey bollocks. If I'm in a bloodthirsty mood, I'll stick on "Rambo" and the like. However, it would be nice to have the family-friendly live action trilogy that seemed to be promised to us in the first one.

I came to the realisation that this film actually makes me angry. It's clearly had all the money in the World spent on it and it still manages to be unintelligible and boring. Yes, that's right- I said boring. Sure, there's the feckin' epic sea battle in a whirlpool at the end, but that's about all that's noteworthy. One of the film's biggest mistakes is not re-introducing Jack sooner. He is the lifeblood of the series and when he's not on screen we have to put up with Keira Knightley's wobbly acting and Orlando Bloom's consistently shite acting. When Jack finally does show up, there's about ten Jacks all crewing the stationary Black Pearl. It's not as entertaining as the film wants you to think it is. To be honest, it seems to me that the whole Davy Jones' Locker bit is just an excuse to show off some (admittedly impressive) effects.

I remember when I heard that Keith Richards was going to be in one of the sequels. I thought it was a funny idea. However, seeing it isn't as great as I thought it'd be- something which seems to be the theme of this film. Don't even get me started on that Calypso/Davy Jones thing. Why the flying fuck did they feel the need to have Tia Dalma grow 60 feet tall and then explode into thousands of crabs? I don't care what you, IMDB or anyone says. IT. DOESN'T. MAKE. ANY. SENSE. Plus, this film is even longer than "Dead Man's Chest", if you can believe that.

Since my bile ducts are starting to hurt, I'll tell you the one thing or rather one scene that I like. It's Beckett's death scene when he slowly walks through his ship whilst everything blows the fuck up around him. I actually liked the character of Beckett as he was a booable (not a word, but should be) villain. The scene is not only a great send off to the character, but a triumph of special effects. Destruction has never looked so damn good. In fact, the effects are probably the only good thing in the film. I suppose if you treated it as a very long tech demo, it would work.

"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."

In summary, there are a few good things in "At World's End" but they are sparsely sprinkled throughout the harsh runtime. Overall though, this film is dense- in every sense of the word.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

So, it's time to review the second of the "Pirates..." films. Er, not much more to say really. You look lovely today, by the way.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Why is it that film franchises insist on going darker for the sequel? "Star Wars" did it, "Indiana Jones" did it, as did "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. I'm actually getting a bit tired of it. I'm all for exploring a familiar concept in a new way, but there are other ways to do it.

"No, no! More wood! Big fire! I am chief! Want big fire!"

The plot is a continuation of the developments in "Curse of the Black Pearl". Will (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth (Keira Knightley) are due to be married and Jack (Johnny Depp) is once again captain of the Black Pearl. However, Will and Elizabeth's wedding is interrupted by new villain in town, Lord Beckett (Tom Hollander) who arrests them for aiding and abetting a known pirate. They are sentenced to death if Will doesn't help Beckett get Jack's compass from him. The story is way, way too convoluted for its own good. The first one had a simple premise- damsel in distress, needs saving, they do so, there's a happy ending and drinks all around. Here, it's hard to keep up with who's double-crossing who and every character's motivation and back story. Thing is, we have a lot of new characters (such as Will's father, Davy Jones, Tia Dalma etc) as well as pretty much every single character from the first one.It's like a freakin' Dickens novel with all the quality removed. It's a shame to see good characters from the original, such as Norrington (Jack Davenport), wasted and given lacklustre lines. I like the idea of having continuity between films, but did we really need the dog with keys in its mouth in this film?

The other curse that plagues sequels is the phrase "bigger and better". Studio execs get the idea that they need to up the ante in the second one and ignore the actual things that made it popular in the first place. "Dead Man's Chest" is a textbook example of this- mostly abandoning all the humour and family-friendliness of the first one and replacing it with more explosions and fighting. This film is definitely bigger, with an unforgiving 150 minute runtime, but certainly not better.

Despite having a lot of problems, there is also a lot to like about "Dead Man's Chest", I think Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) is fantastic villain and the CGI used to bring him to life is nothing short of incredible and nigh-on photoreal. The crew of the Flying Dutchman are very well designed too, with all sorts of weird 'n' wonderful fish/man hybrids on display. In terms of good scenes, there's the highly impressive Kraken attacks and there's my personal favourite, the three-way sword fight between Jack, Norrington and Will. It's superbly choreographed and brilliantly fun. Having the fight continue on a rollaway water wheel is a stroke of genius too. However, even in this great scene there are some irritations. Firstly, when the fight starts on the beach, Elizabeth is incredibly annoying, shrieking about pirates and fighting like there was a danger of somebody giving a flying fuck. I also hate the bit where Pintel and Ragetti (the pirate henchmen from the original) have to explain why the three men are fighting over the chest. If you have to dedicate time to characters explaining why other characters are acting as they are during a fight sequence, you've got big problems.

"Life is cruel. Why should the afterlife be any different?"

What all of this boils down to is that "Dead Man's Chest" isn't a patch on "Curse of the Black Pearl". It somehow lost its sense of fun in its criminally long runtime. It's a good film, but after the very decent first one I expected more. Much like Jack Sparrow, the film doesn't seem to know what it wants.

Pirates of the Caribbean:The Curse of the Black Pearl

As it's Boxing Day and I have nothing better to do, I decided to go for a stroll in Pirate country and review the "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy over the next few days. So, let's start at square one, shall we?

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

There are many things that baffle me about the movie business. Questions like "Why do people think Tim Burton is a versatile director?" and "Why doesn't Brendan Fraser seem to age?" (Jesus, this blog has been pretty Fraser-heavy of late, hasn't it?) consistently plague me. One of the biggest questions in my mind is "How the living hell did Disney make a multi-million dollar franchise using a theme park ride as its inspiration?" It honestly bewilders me. I mean, I've seen fantastic novels adapted for the screen and die on their arse, but making a successful, not to mention good, film from an old (and fairly underwhelming) Disney World ride is beyond me.

"Welcome to the Caribbean, love"

The plot follows blacksmith and swordmaker Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and his love for Governor Swann's (Jonathan Pryce) daughter, Elizabeth (Keira Knightley). After a while, the crew of the legendary and feared Black Pearl, led by Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) pillage Port Royal and kidnap Elizabeth. It's up to Will and imprisoned, eccentric pirate *Captain* Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) to save her. Throw into the mix Commodore Norrington (Jack Davenport) and you've got yourself a good old-fashioned swashbuckling tale on your hands. As stories go, you can't get more classic than this. Yes, it's the whole "damsel in distress" thing, but with a few key differences. Firstly, Elizabeth isn't the swooning maiden who can't do anything for herself. She's pretty tough and resourceful- shockingly still a rarity these days. Secondly, our hero, Will ,is a bit useless. Sure, he can swordfight and the like, but he doesn't do much else.

I can't possibly review this film without mentioning Johnny Depp's outstanding performance as Jack Sparrow. He's brilliant and steals every single scene he's in. There's not much point in carrying on describing him because chances are you know who he is, watched the film a hojillion times and have written slash fiction about him paired with Edward Cullen from "Twilight". Unless you're a guy- in which case you've been practising your Jack Sparrow impression to get those oddly sexy, geeky girls to like you because you've heard they do the weird stuff in the bedroom.I'm guessing here, but I'd be damned surprised if I was completely wrong.

Before I continue about how good this film is, let's get the bad stuff out of the way. Why is Orlando Bloom in this film? The guy really can't act to save his life. Don't get me wrong- I like him, but I get the feeling they should have cast someone better. Jesus, even a weasel in a wig could have done better than ol' Orly. He really is the new Keanu Reeves. He just seems to be in pain everytime he has to deliver a line. Most excruciating moment? Got to be the "Goodbye...Elizabeth" line. I honestly have to look away for that part. It's embarrassing. I'm sure the Bloom fans among you will retort with "Well, you couldn't do any better" and you'll be right. I wouldn't be able to do better. Then again- I'm not a paid, professional actor. I do realise that by this logic, I've said that a weasel in a wig could out-act me. Try not to think about it too much.

Story-wise, I have a problem with Barbossa's crew. Why are they considered so bad, when all they want to do is lift a curse and become human again? Okay, they kill a bunch of people in Port Royal-but that's about it. They're not trying to take over the World or anything-they want to become mortal, eat and drink. Doesn't seem that bastardly to me, in fact-it seems downright reasonable.

I suppose my only other qualm is with one line. "Just one line?!" I hear you cry. "Why bother mentioning it? Surely that is below even your standard of nit-pickery?" Well, nothing is below my standard of nit-pickery. If something annoys me, no matter how minute, you can bet your last Rolo that I'll kick up a fuss. Why? Well, be it a clunky line or even a slightly-off musical cue, it all adds up to something that takes me out of the movie experience. Maybe my standards are too high or something (they're not). Plus, as I said before, I am nit-picking here. So, what's the offending line? Well, it's Elizabeth's line of "You like pain? Try wearing a corset!". It's a horrible, horrible line. I'm guessing one of the writers' girlfriends pitched it and he begrudgingly put it in because if he did, she promised she'd do the weird stuff in the bedroom. Well, I hope you're happy Mr. Writer.... she's cheating on you, by the way.

" I think we've all arrived at a very special place. Spiritually, ecumenically... grammatically"

Nano nit-pickery aside, the rest of the film is great. The action is brilliant and the special effects are genuinely special. I love the moonlight sequence where the pirates reveal their true forms. Just the right amount of scary to be interesting, but not enough to scar the wee bairns watching. Actually nearly all the scenes are good, be it the huge action sequences (my favourite being the climactic showdown between Jack and Barbossa- superbly done) or the quieter, dialogue driven scenes (the beach scene with Jack and Elizabeth is genius). It's very funny too, with some endlessly quotable lines, mostly delivered by the Cap'n himself. I could go on, but let me just leave you with this- it's simply a fantastic family film.

Wall-E

Christmas is a time for eating and drinking too much, arguing with your family and watching films, most probably done by Disney. It's tradition. This leads me on messily to "Wall-E", the latest collaboration between Disney and Pixar.

Wall-E (2008)

Y'know, I still get a few weird looks when I say I like Disney films. I don't like all of them, but there are a few exceptional ones that go beyond the genre of "children's film" and cross over into the "good film" club. I think films like "Aladdin", "The Lion King" and all the Pixar flicks (with the possible exception of "Cars") are brilliant films. "Wall-E" can safely join that list. It's brilliant and one of my top films of 2008. Why? I'll tell you after the inevitable plot summary/general overview paragraph...

"Too much garbage in your face? There's plenty of space out in space! BnL Starliners leaving each day. We'll clean up the mess while you're away."

The story follows Wall-E, a small waste collecting unit and the last active robot on Earth. After compacting waste for 700 years he suddenly finds that he's not alone as newer, flashier robot EVE arrives. Wall-E inadvertently finds himself on a journey through space, with the future of mankind in his metallic hands. It's a great story. I can't believe that the filmmakers managed to not only put a credible love story between two robots up on screen, but that they made us care about the characters too. I found myself actually emotionally invested in the characters, which is a great achievement for any film, let alone a computer-generated children's one.

I think the main reason "Wall-E" works is Wall-E himself. He's a fantastic comedic creation with some endearing quirks and who can say more with one tilt of his eyes or one nervous clutching of his hands than most animated characters ever could. Who would have thought that a robot who collects things and is obsessed with the musical "Hello, Dolly!" would be so loveable? I mean, I'm a 22 year old man with the emotional availability of the Terminator and I still wanted to reach into the screen and give the little guy a hug. I think Ben Burtt's involvement (the man who invented all the iconic sounds in "Star Wars") cannot be ignored. As the "voice" of both Wall-E and EVE, he manages to convey the most complex of ideas with the simplest of sounds. Outstanding.

Wall-E generates some brilliant moments too. The scenes where he interacts with things like a fire extinguisher and a bra are a joy to watch. I loved the little bit where Wall-E frets over whether to place his newly found spork with his spoon or fork collection. It's tiny touches like this that really add to the character. As with most Disney films, "Wall-E" has an underlying message throughout. This one is about caring for the environment. It's a bit preachy in places, but it's delivered with enough charm to be acceptable.

"Foreign contaminant!"

There is so much to like about "Wall-E"- it's visually stunning, funny and endearing. Simply put, if you don't like "Wall-E" you have no soul.

Bedazzled

During the Christmas holidays, my viewing habits skyrocket and I end up watching all sorts of films that I wouldn't normally. Case in point, "Bedazzled"

Bedazzled (2000)

I've just realised that this is the second Brendan Fraser film review in a row. But don't worry- "Bedazzled" is better than "The Mummy: Vomiting Yaks Ahoy!". Onto the review...

"Oh shit, I'm a Columbian drug lord!"

"Bedazzled" is a remake of the 1967 Peter Cook/Dudley Moore film of the same name. Having never seen the original, I can't really comment on how faithful this retread is. However, if I had to guess, my answer would be "not at all". The plot follows Elliot Richards (Brendan Fraser), a doormat tech support geek with no apparent social skill. He admires his co-worker Alison (Frances O'Connor) from afar and would do anything to be with her. His wish is answered by The Devil (Elizabeth Hurley) who will grant him seven wishes in exchange for his soul. The story itself isn't bad. There are some great ideas on display here. I love all the different versions of Elliot in the wishes- very well done. Brendan Fraser proves that he has a natural knack for comedy and I don't know why he isn't in more as he is a great comedy character actor and has good comic timing. Liz Hurley is pretty one-dimensional as The Devil, but when she's as sexy as this- who the Hell cares? Good God, if the Devil looked like that I'd sell my soul faster than you could say "schoolgirl outfit".

I couldn't help but enjoy "Bedazzled". Yes, it was predictable and as deep as a papercut from a Post-It note, but still- it had some nice gags and didn't suffer from any pacing issues. I suppose if anything it's like a mix between "Groundhog Day"(which makes sense as both films are directed by Harold "Egon from Ghostbusters" Ramis) and the schoolyard "Corrupted Wish game" (i.e. You wish for a lifetime's supply of cheese, but you are lactose intolerant). I actually giggled quite a bit when Elliot wishes he was more sensitive and ends up as an insufferable wimp, weeping at sunset and breaking out into improvised sonnets about Alison's hair.

The ending is a bit of a cop out, to be honest. I was all ready to applaud the film for having Elliot not hook up with Alison at the end, as it seemed like a brave thing to do. However, Elliot goes home to find that his new neighbour looks exactly like Alison and is into all the nerdy stuff he is. Oh dear. Plus, we see a new side to Elliot when he stands up to his co-workers. This doesn't really make sense however, because Elliot didn't really learn a lesson from all the wishing. It made sense when Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day" changed due to the fact that we saw why, whereas Elliot's new found chutzpah seems to come from nowhere.

"I'm telling you, the Devil gypped me for a HAMBURGER!"

Still, "Bedazzled" is enjoyable enough and is much sharper than you may first give it credit for.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

The judgemental bastards among you may think I've been slacking off lately, but I haven't. Computer trouble has struck again and I can't use my beloved desktop. Long story short, it's new review time.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

I've always quite liked "The Mummy" films. To me, they were a sort of "Indiana Jones" replacement franchise showing the type of mythical adventures Dr. Jones used to get up to. Whilst they didn't have the quality the Indy trilogy did, they matched it in both theme and scope. Funnily enough, both the Indy and Mummy films got a new installment for summer 2008. With "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" being a crushing disappointment, could the pretender to the fantasy action crown finally boot the aged Indy from his throne made of my broken dreams? (That sounded a lot less Emo in my head) Well, as it transpires, no- not really.

"I hate mummies. They never play fair!"

The basic plot is that the O'Connells, Rick (Brendan Fraser) and Evelyn (Maria Bello, replacing Rachel Weisz) have retired from the mummy fighting business and are trying to live a quiet life at home. Their son Alex (Luke Ford) has grown up and is following in his parents' footsteps by digging up ancient evil and being surprised when it bites him in the arse. Now the O'Connells have to stop the evil Dragon Emperor (Jet Li) from enslaving the world. I didn't really buy the whole Chinese mummy thing. I know they existed, but when I hear the word "mummy" I expect something to do with Egypt. Having said that, I quite liked the idea of the Terracotta army coming to life. My main problem with the plot is the fact that it's purely there to stitch the action sequences together. In "The Mummy" we had a strong sense of story, whereas here it's pretty weak. I liked Brendan Fraser and Maria Bello as the O'Connells. There has been quite harsh criticism thrown Bello's way, saying that Weisz was much better in the role. To be honest, I think it's down to slapdash writing rather than poor acting on Bello's part. She's perfectly fine as Evey-just not given much to do beyond saying things in a plummy British accent and being a doting mother and wife. I think that if Weisz had reprised her role, this would have been more apparent.

As it went on, I found that "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" was raising a few question in my mind. Why is Alex now American when he was British in "The Mummy Returns"? Why isn't the Emperor scary at all? I mean, Imhotep was something to be feared in the first film. In this one, the Emperor is about as scary as runny cheese- even shapeshifting into a creature resembling something from popular children's book "Where The Wild Things Are". Talking of creatures, why are there Yeti in this film? In fact, why do we have a scene where the Yeti kick a soldier over an archway American football field goal style- and celebrate by punching the air and such? Why is there a vomiting yak in this film? And so on...

The ending is odd too. We have Jonathan (John Hannah) jetting off to Peru saying that at least there are no mummies to be found there. As the taxi drives away we are presented with on screen text saying that soon after mummies were found in Peru. The letters W, T and F do not cover it. To be honest, it just feels lazy rather than funny. Couldn't they be arsed to film someone reading a paper with a Peruvian mummy headline? I'd have much rather had some effort put in here than field goal celebrating Yeti.

"Die you mummy bastards! Die!"

There are some nice ideas and some decent action sequences to enjoy-even if the chase through the streets of Shanghai screams "Temple of Doom" so loudly it eclipses the biggest of explosions. But maybe I'm being too harsh- it's a fun enough ride while it lasts. It's no "Indiana Jones" film, but at least it can appeal to a similar family audience. Mind you, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" didn't have to resort to a motion-sick yak for its laughs-just a Nazi saluting monkey.

Cloverfield

I decided that I've been seeing too many films lately which keep the camera still and I can tell what's going on. Allow me to rectify this with a review of "Cloverfield"- the shaky monster movie.

Cloverfield (2008)

"Cloverfield" is what I like to call a "gimmick film". It's the same as any film with the 3D suffix or anything with Adam Sandler. I usually hate films where the camera moves so much you can't see what's going on. Michael Bay and Paul Greengrass are the prime offenders of this. I mean, what's the point of choreographing an elaborate fight sequence if it's just going to end up a disorientating blur on screen? I remember watching a behind the scenes thing on "The Bourne Ultimatum" and saw them filming a fight scene. The feckin' cameraman was shaking the thing from side to side as if a massive poisonous spider was on the lens. It was ridiculous! Anyway, "Cloverfield".

"Okay, just to be clear here, our options are: die here, die in the tunnels, or die in the streets. That pretty much it?"

"Cloverfield" is told through the viewpoints of a small group of New Yorkers. We have the character of Hud (T.J. Miller) acting as the cameraman and therefore our eyes, as he follows Rob (Michael Stahl-David), Beth (Odette Yustman), Marlena (Lizzy Caplan), Jason (Mike Vogel) and Lilly (Jessica Lucas) on a fear-frought journey through a panicking New York City. We start off with a video of Rob filming long time friend Beth as they wake up from the night before (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more...). I'm pretty sure if I had just slept with someone I had admired from afar for a long time, I wouldn't stick a camera in their face just as they woke up and realised what a horrible mistake they'd made. Maybe that's why I'm still single- I don't film women that much. Anyway- we cut to a leaving do for Rob as he's going to Japan to live and work. Hud gets saddled with the camera and we get the normal dramatic crap before shit starts going off. We see a huge explosion from far away and suddenly fireballs start raining down. Rob is now determined to see if Beth is OK and so embarks on a dumb mission to go across town and save her.

Once the gang start moving through the city, "Cloverfield" really kicks off. We get teasing glimpses of the monster and the destruction it has wrought. I still get a kick of seeing the headless Statue of Liberty- it's a great image and a worthy successor to The White House getting blown up in "Independence Day". It's hard to miss the allusions to terrorism and 9/11 this film makes. The scene where they are engulfed in a huge cloud of dust and take refuge in the local deli is a direct rip from real life when one of 9/11 survivor's video showed the same thing. I normally dislike political agendas in films- especially American politics because it doesn't concern me as much as our politics. However, I can make an exception in the case of "Cloverfield", because it's a monster movie at heart. Let's not forget that possibly the greatest monster movie ever- the original "Godzilla" was a way for the Japanese to express their fears and tension over nuclear action.

It's hard to review "Cloverfield" as it doesn't really count as a film in my book. It's more of an experience. I've heard people say how scary the film is. Let me just say this- there is a difference between "jumpy" and "scary". Jumpy is when you're in a world of your own and someone taps you on the shoulder. Scary is having a gun shoved in your face. It's ridiculously easy to make people jump when watching a film anyway. You just have the music build and build then stop, have a false relief moment and then hit 'em with an unpleasant occurance and a stab of music. Scary stuff is much harder to do and I respect it when it's done well. "Cloverfield" does actually build up some genuine fear when we can't see what's going on and the constant threat of the monster is there. However, all this is lost when we see the monster's face, in close-up no less, staring directly at the camera. Goddamn it- when will filmmakers learn that less is more? Christ, I'm sick of films building up tension and then abandoning all subtlety and finesse for the sake of spelling it out for the 'tards out there who get angry when they are forced to use their minds.

"Do you guys remember a couple of years ago when that guy was lighting homeless people on fire in the subways?"

All in all, "Cloverfield" is a good film. What I like about it is the fact it feels like a filmic experiment, almost like an interactive ride. It's definitely something you should check out on the biggest screen/sound system possible, because it all adds to the experience.

Wanted

God help me, I love action films. I know that in many peoples' eyes this doesn't make me a good critic. It doesn't really matter what I say back because they can't hear the reply due to their heads being firmly stuck up their own arses. So- "Wanted", then.

Wanted (2008)

After the success of the "X-Men" films, the "Spider-Man" films and the like in the early 2000s, Hollywood has been clawing at any potentially profitable comic book franchises. Thing is, with all the famous and semi-famous characters, such as the Hulk and Daredevil respectively, being snapped up already, the filmmakers are going to increasingly obscure titles in an effort to bring them to the silver screen. "Wanted" is one of those films.

"Do you make sweaters... or do you kill people?"

The plot of "Wanted" is loosely based on the comic book series of the same name. The main character is Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy), a self confessed loser who works in a dead-end office job for his bitch of a boss. His girlfriend is cheating on him with his best friend and he is on anti-anxiety medication for his frequent panic attacks. Things change when he meets Fox (Angelina Jolie)- a member of an organisation of assassins called "The Fraternity", headed by Sloan (Morgan Freeman). James McAvoy really surprised me in this film. I always thought that he was just floppy-haired period drama fodder- purely there to be eye candy for mums and daughters as they sit around munching chocolate. He proved he was a good actor in "Atonement" and in "Wanted" he shows that he's a great fish out of water action hero- the sort of hero Nic Cage used to play before he started believing he was the next Arnie and wearing silly rugs on his head. Angelina Jolie is great as the suitably named Fox, even if a little too thin and pulling an angry cat face at least half of the runtime. Morgan Freeman is well...Morgan Freeman, which isn't a bad thing and we at least get to hear him curse, which I would argue is worth watching the film for alone.

In broad terms,"Wanted" is a mixture of "The Matrix" and "Fight Club" and to a lesser extent "Minority Report" and "Shoot 'Em Up". You may think that with a long list of similar films like that "Wanted" may play out as just another rip-off type flick, incorporating good elements from better films into it. This is true to a certain extent, but even films like the "Indiana Jones" saga borrow from things like American Saturday morning serials. Whilst I'm not comparing "Wanted" to the "Indiana Jones" films, it's worth keeping in mind.

I should hate "Wanted". It's a brainless film with more emphasis on style than substance. However, it is ridiculously entertaining. Watching it, I could pinpoint where the pretentious critics and audiences made up their minds about this film. The scene in question being the bit where Fox is driving a car with her feet, sprawled out on the bonnet, shooting at a pursuing car. To be honest though, I loved it. Sure, I knew after that point it wasn't as smart as "Fight Club" but who the hell cares? I think it's very easy to forget that films are there to basically entertain. All this stuff about the human condition and political agendas is secondary as far as I'm concerned. Plus, the film has a great sense of humour about itself, which is a sure-fire way to get into ol' Benjamin J's good books.

"...But as it stands, the way you behave - I feel I can speak for the entire office when I tell you... go fuck yourself."

I don't understand the singling out of the "Loom of Fate" revelation. Sure, it's not exactly believable but I thought we'd left our cynical hats on the floor when we were told that bullets could be curved? Anyway, there is a lot to like about "Wanted". The action alone is inventive enough to warrant a look. I'm not lying when I say that the derailed train sequence is one of the freshest and most original action scenes in a film in recent history. I love the opening few scenes too with Wesley's scumbag best friend making him buy the condoms he's going to use with Wesley's girlfriend. The retribution scene where Wesley finally has enough of his boss is brilliantly done too- with this shot where Barry finally gets what he deserves at the mercy of an ergonomic keyboard, possibly being one of my favourite shots ever.

Yes, "Wanted" isn't exactly the smartest film ever made. However, when stupidity as as entertaining as this, I couldn't care less.

Die Hard 4.0

As an impoverished student, my film choices and thus my film reviews are rather limited in scope. I could review everything in my collection but I tend to only buy good films and so the reviews aren't exactly entertaining to read. I could borrow films from friends, but this has one inherent problem- say I sharpen my critical claws on Average Film IV: The Boredening's face, the lender of the film sees the review on this site and takes it as an e-kick to the balls- it's just not good to piss off the people who inexplicably like you. Anyway, all this has pushed me to review the one last black sheep in my collection, "Die Hard 4.0"

Die Hard 4.0 (2007)

Before the actual review, let me just refresh your memory on why the American PG-13 rating is the bane of my fucking existence. The PG-13 certificate is pretty much the equivalent of a 12A rating here (which I also hate with a tooth-grinding passion) and is basically the jackpot certificate for the greedy movie-making bastards out there. Pre- 2007 if you were to tell me that they would make a "Die Hard" film with most of the violence and swearing cut out I would have lamped you one and run off crying to my room to watch the the original "Die Hard" on a loop for a couple of days. Honestly.

"You just killed a helicopter with a car!"

The story follows veteran cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) as he gets involved in a cyber-terrorist plot to fuck up something-or-other, masterminded by expert hacker Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant). McClane ends up unofficially recruiting hacker Matt Farrell (Justin Long) to help him stop this new threat to American freedom. Oh yes, it's one of those "My Country 'Tis of Thee", Stars and Stripes waving, apple pie munching films where the hero's actions enable the rest of the country to get on with their everyday lives. I'm honestly sick of all the so-called American patriotism on the screen these days. I'm not anti-American by any means, but is patriotism really all about shouting your love for the country as loud as you can and rolling out the ol' Star-Spangled Banner in between blowing shit up and breathing? I mean, I'd say I'm a British patriot, but I don't feel the need to have the Union Jack waving outside my house or watch films where the British hero saves the World just in time for tea and crumpets.

"Die Hard 4.0" (as it was called over here, rather than the retch-worthy "Live Free or Die Hard") is a brilliant example of studio pressure. If anything, it's more Die Hard 0.5 than 4.0. It seems pretty watered down. It's a damn shame as the preceding trilogy is unapologetically sweary and bloody. So, before I decend into more bashing- is there anything to like about this film?

The answer is "Yeah, sure." John McClane is simply a fantastic character. He's just the average "wrong place, wrong time" guy whose appearance in 1988 spawned a plethora of rip-offs. Even though he's been muted a bit in this film we still get flashes of the old McClane, which is always nice to see. I actually quite liked Justin Long's character of Matt Farrell as he has a few good lines and generally comes across as a nervy, likable guy. Bonus points for having Kevin Smith appear- I love that man. The action is pretty inventive too. The blacked out tunnel and lift shaft scenes being the stand-outs. However, as good as those scenes are- you get the feeling that if they were slightly more adult and violent they would have been improved infinitely.

"Damn hamster!"

Thing is, I know swearing and violence does not a good movie make. However, they are integral to the "Die Hard" series. I mean, John McClane's catchphrase is "Yippie-Kay-Yay, Motherfucker!" for example. In fact, talking about that- our hero doesn't even get to say the line properly because of studio restraints. What he ends up saying has the offending word covered over by a gunshot. It's just another kick in the balls for fans of the series. However, there is an unrated version of the film available on DVD which has all the swearing re-instated as well as a few more violent bits. It actually feels more like a "Die Hard" film rather than just another action film. So, if you simply have to see it/own it get that version.

"Die Hard 4.0" is an O.K. film. I mean, it has some good points (John McClane doing stuff) and bad points (that jet sequence was utterly retarded) in equal measures. If they'd released the Unrated cut theatrically I'd be giving it a much better score, but instead "Die Hard 4.0" gets an average 3 (.0)

The Dark Knight

Right, it's time for me to review the feel-bad hit of the Summer. How does the Caped Crusader's latest adventure stack up? Let's find out...

The Dark Knight (2008)

"Batman Begins" was the re-start the Batman franchise needed. However, I always wondered where they would go from there. OK, they fixed the mistakes made in 1989's "Batman" and they've made it grittier and more realistic, but now what? Where was this new direction going? Was it just a matter of time before the Batsuits with nipples made an appearance again? Well, in "The Dark Knight" I have my answers- and they're feckin' fantastic ones at that.

"Wanna know how I got these scars?"

It's a year on from the events of "Batman Begins" and Gotham's criminal underworld is running scared from the shadow of Batman (Christian Bale) . The city also has a new district attorney-Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) who vows to clean up the streets, aided by Bruce Wayne's old flame, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Katie Holmes). However, the arrival of a mysterious and sadistic criminal simply called "The Joker" (Heath Ledger) starts a wave of terror and choas which Batman must put an end to. It's a great story and far more intelligent than you'd expect from a superhero movie.

It's no secret that the stand-out performance in this film is Heath Ledger's Joker. I never really liked Jack Nicholson's take on the character in the original. He was just playing himself with some wacky cartoony quirks. To be honest, this is what you get when you cast someone purely on the grounds that they're famous and have a memorable smile. Hence why I surprised when the news of Heath Ledger's casting broke. Sure, the guy's a great actor- but would he have a faithful spin on the character? As it turns out, yes. The Joker is a joy to watch. He's psychotic, funny and scary all at the same time. The scene that outlines how successful "The Dark Knight" is at somehow making the ridiculous seem totally plausible is the interrogation scene between the Joker and Batman. In any lesser film, it would have been an unintentionally funny scene involving a guy in a rubber bat suit talking tough to a clown. In this film, it's a superbly written, disturbing scene where the Joker just laughs as Batman mercilessly beats him to the ground. The thing I love about the Joker is that he's a self-confessed agent of chaos, who arrives, turns everything on its head and leaves. He's not in it for the money, he "just wants to watch the World burn" as Alfred (Michael Caine) eloquently puts it. Throughout the film, the Joker is likened to a dog and I think this is very apt. Dogs are impulsive. They don't really think- they just do. Let's not forget also that dogs can be vicious.

Whilst the Joker is causing chaos, the character of Harvey Dent - "Gotham's White Knight" is being dragged down. He has a slow tragic fall and becomes the character of Two-Face, a man who relies on a coin flip to determine decisions- in his book, the only fair way to tell right from wrong. Whilst I love the Joker, I think Two Face is a brilliant villain too. You understand his motivation and you empathise with him. He's not out for World domination, he's out for revenge against fate and chance, which makes for a much more interesting and believable character. I hope the "Spider-Man 4" people are taking notes because this is how you do a multiple villain scenario.

The action is genuinely jaw-dropping, with the tunnel sequence culminating in an 18-wheeler truck getting flipped being my favourite. I also love the following scene where the Joker is walking down the street, muttering and machine-gunning random civilian cars-insanity at its most entertaining. Plus, if it was not illegal or frowned upon I would make the Batpod (i.e. this thing) my wife. It's the perfect Batman vehicle, my only gripe being that the Tumbler (i.e. this thing) had to be sacrificed for it. Ah well.

The supporting cast of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman are all great and still eclipse Bale's Wayne/Batman performance, although by not nearly the same amount as Aaron Eckhart and Heath Ledger do.

As for the nit-picks, there are a few problems I have with "The Dark Knight". When I heard the news that Katie Holmes was to be replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, I was pleased. Gyllenhaal's a much better actress and arguably more attractive than the former "Dawson's Creek" star. Thing is, she's pretty much wasted in the film and not given enough to work with. She's meant to be the emotional core of the film, giving Bruce something to work for, but she ends up as just another character rather than a meaningful one. Let's just get this out of the way, I quite liked Bale's Batman voice in "Batman Begins" as it made sense to disguise his voice into a much scarier, gruffer tone. However, in "The Dark Knight" it goes a bit too far and I found myself wishing he could just take a break and suck on a Strepsil.

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

So that's "The Dark Knight"-a fantastic film with some amazing performances. However, don't consider all this as a recommendation to see it, consider it a condemnation of the fact you haven't seen it yet. I can't give this film anything less than a Bat-tastic:

Back to the Future

You'll never believe this. I was standing on the toilet, hanging a clock when I slipped and hit my head on the sink. When I came to I realised I hadn't reviewed any of the "Back to the Future" films. Great Scott!

Back to the Future (1985)

It's really hard reviewing the films you love. It's very tempting to just say "It's all good" and move on. However, I like to think I'm better than that (although I'm open to the fact that I may be wrong) and so I'll try to explain why I think "Back to the Future" is so damn good.

"Wait a minute, Doc. Ah... Are you telling me that you built a time machine... out of a DeLorean?"

The plot follows time-travelling teenager Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) who accidently goes back to 1955 in a time machine which his friend Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) invented. Things start to go wrong as Marty inadvertently screws up his parents' first meeting and so his very existence is threatened. To me, it's a pitch-perfect escapist story chock-full of comedy, romance, peril, action and everything in between. "Back to the Future" shows that if your story is strong enough, it can outlast anything, even the fashion disasters of the '80s. Michael J. Fox is fantastic as Marty- he is effortlessly cool (well, for an '80s kid). Lloyd is brilliant too, not only putting in the best performance of his career, but also giving us one of the greatest movie scientists ever. Every time I watch this film, I'm always reminded of how strong the supporting cast is with Crispin Glover, Lea Thompson and especially Thomas F. Wilson giving us some really memorable characters. Biff Tannen has got to be one of the all-time biggest twatbags ever, but somehow he's likeable too.

The friendship between Doc and Marty, although we never get the back story, feels very real. On paper it seems odd and possibly very creepy, but somehow as the film goes on, I bought the fact that they are great friends totally without the word "grooming" crossing my modern, cynical mind. As you probably know by now, I appreciate films not treating me like a drooling retard and actually allowing some imagination and thought- this film does this and more, giving the deceptively simple plot enough twists and turns to keep us entertained. "Back to the Future" is one of those rare films that doesn't lull or lose focus of the story. It's pacy enough so the audience doesn't get bored, but spends enough time on the characters for them to feel well-rounded and to make us genuinely care about them. The time travel element is used to its full potential too, with clever nods to both fifties and eighties culture.

As for favourite scenes, there are too many to choose from. The scene where Marty wakes up in 1955 to his doting teenage mother is brilliantly written and funny. I get the feeling that if in different hands, the scene wouldn't have played out as nearly as well and possibly have had a horrible Oedipal situation on its hands. The skateboard sequence with Biff and his cronies is genius too, with the bit where Marty evades the car and Biff and co. crash into the manure truck never failing to raise a smile from me. The "Johnny B. Goode" sequence is also excellent, with Marty practically inventing Rock 'n' Roll before its time at the Enchantment Under The Sea dance. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. The score is worth mentioning also as Alan Silvestri out-Williamses John Williams with a very memorable and epic main theme.

"If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit."

To be honest, I could fan-wank about this film for days. To me, it's about as close to perfection as a film can get. This is why I've cooked up a new rating for it and other classics of it's ilk. Basically, the five gold star rating is given to films which are exceptional and are just that bit better than other excellent films. So, I award "Back to the Future" the first five gold rating in the history of this site purely because I don't think I could ever get tired of it.

Juno

I'm not all guns and explosions, y'know. Sometimes I just feel like chilling out, lounging on a chair and affecting a pipe for some reason. Strange then that the titular character from "Juno" likes to do the same thing...

Juno (2007)

I was close to giving up on "Juno", I really was. The first ten/fifteen minutes did nothing to endear themselves to me. It was screaming "For the love of God, like me!" so loud it was insufferable. It was like a drunken party girl feverishly snogging your face off, just so she'll forget she has daddy issues for a brief moment. OK, maybe that's a bit too obscure- but what I'm trying to say is that the film was trying so hard to get me to empathise with the characters it actually got a bit distracting. Hang on, I'll tell you more after the obligatory plot summary and general actor comments...

"Yeah, I'm a legend. You know, they call me the cautionary whale."

The story is about Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page), a 16 year old girl who suddenly faces an unplanned pregnancy due to a "bored" night with her not-boyfriend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). After realising she can't go through with an abortion, she decides to give the baby to a childless couple (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner). The story actually surprised me, which says a lot considering I'm hardly ever surprised by films anymore. Ellen Page is really good as Juno. She handles the possible problems with the character (i.e. treating the whole teenage pregnancy thing too lightly) with tremendous skill and surprising heart. I thought Michael Cera was great too, even though he was playing an only slightly deeper version of his character from "Superbad".

Back to that opening quarter of an hour or so. The thing I didn't like about it was the fact that everything from the overuse of hipper-than-thou indie tracks to the obnoxious dialogue was unbelievably annoying. I get the feeling the film was expecting me to think "Like OMG! Juno is such a free spirit with her sarcasm, hamburger phone and pipe smoking! She is fo' shizz zany- she's sooo like me!" To be honest, I was hit with the "Look! She's so kooky!" hammer so many times I started to feel a little punch-drunk. However, I started to warm to it after that. After the credits rolled I realised that maybe the film wanted me to feel that way and that it was in on the joke with me, which cheered me up no end.

The film played two nice tricks on me. One of them being the one above and the second was to be found in Jason Bateman's character. Throughout the film we are made to side with him- after all, he's a cool guy, he likes horror films and it seems like he's a bit downtrodden by his control-freak wife. Later in the film- we are betrayed, as Juno is, by the revelation that he doesn't believe he's ready for fatherhood. It's rare to see a film do this sort of thing and it's really refreshing to see.

There were some really moving scenes too. The scene where Juno tells her parents (J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney) is very well written and brilliantly acted. It's very warm and gives us an actual insight into the three characters' relationships. I was slightly disappointed when J.K. Simmons didn't instantly sprout a flat-top haircut and moustache and start demanding pictures of Spider-Man, however. The most moving scene though is when Juno is comforted by Paulie in the hospital after giving birth. Gone was the snappy dialogue and gone were the increasingly strange quirks that every character just had to have (Orange Tic-Tacs?) and in their place was left something much more believable and endearing.

"I’m dealing with things way beyond my maturity level."

On paper, I should hate "Juno". It's so indie it hurts, for one. For two, all that post awards buzz and the Oscar win has almost completely overshadowed the film itself. For three, well- it doesn't have any guns and explosions. However, once I waded through all the faux sharp lines and supposedly cool soundtrack I found something I could connect with- a great coming-of-age story with some actual humanity to it.

Batman Begins

In preparation for watching and thusly reviewing "The Dark Knight", I decided to watch 2005's "Batman Begins" and refresh my memory on how the restarted franchise began.

Batman Begins (2005)

I'll go out on a limb and say that comic books are probably the hardest thing to adapt to film due to the fact that they are very visually driven. The second hardest thing to adapt is an origin story due to the fact that if you get it wrong, you will be thrown to the fanboys with no mercy whatsoever. The third hardest adaptable thing to film is probably the story of a likable and happy-go-lucky paedophile. I digress. As I was saying, comic book films have it tough. When you look at Batman purely objectively it's absolutely crackers. It's basically the story of a billionaire who fights crime in a rubber bat suit. It's crazy.

"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."

The film follows Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) who is angst-ridden and traumatised after his parents were gunned down in front of him at a young age. After a few flashbacks, we join adult fake-bearded Bruce as he takes a spiritual jouney to "seek the means to fight injustice, to turn fear against those who prey on the fearful" under the instruction of a man named Ducard (Liam Neeson) and the League of Shadows. It's nice to see a non-cocked up version of Batman's origin for a change (Tim Burton has a lot to answer for...) Anyway, after Bruce refuses to execute a man as his final test of commitment to justice, he returns to Gotham and starts waging his one-man war against crime.

It's taken me a while to realise this, but I don't particularly like Christian Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne. It's not that he's a bad actor or anything, he just doesn't seem to do much with it. At least Keaton had a slightly odd edge to him, making the fantastical notion of a man dressing up like a nocturnal mammal and fighting crime that tiny bit more believable. Mind you, at least Bale's better than Val Kilmer and George Clooney.Plus, he's British (Welsh to be precise) so hoorah for that.

I think one of the reasons that Bale doesn't particularly shine is the fact that he's surrounded by an all-star cast in this film. Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Liam Neeson and Gary Oldman all pull out solid perfomances for this flick. Katie Holmes is surprisingly good too, but I suppose this is because Tom Cruise hadn't sucked out her soul and offered it to Xenu by this point.

There is some fantastic action too. The Tumbler chase is one of the most unique car chases I've seen for a long time and we finally see Batman kicking some arse further than a stiff kick or punch as in previous installments. The camera does seem to have a Bourne-style epileptic fit on occasion, but this can be forgiven due to the fact it mostly behaves itself.

"Now, take this guy: armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card..."

The one thing that lets "Batman Begins" down in my opinion is the lack of a great villain. Before all you Cillian Murphy/Liam Neeson fanpeople start firebombing my room, let me explain. Murphy is intense and very creepy as Dr.Crane, however all his carefully controlled malevolence goes out the window as soon as he puts the Scarecrow mask on and starts chucking poisonous gas into people's faces. He also abandons all his talk about the mind and inexplicably starts making bad puns ("You need to lighten up"- before setting ol' Batsy on fire) We don't really get a conclusion to his story either, he just gets tasered in the face and rides off into the night screaming. I know he's in "The Dark Knight", albeit very briefly, but personally I'd have a liked a bit of closure. As for Neeson, well- he's okay I guess, but apart from the whole "mentor gone bad" thing he doesn't do much.

So, "Batman Begins" is a really enjoyable film. Fantastic cast, brilliant action sequences and some genuinely interesting characters. It succeeds in explaining Batman's story correctly and is damn entertaining to boot.

Mission: Impossible III

So, I start off a new month by reviewing a sequel without reviewing the preceding ones first. "*Gasp!* What will he ever do next?" I hear you cry- well, maybe try to get one of those "life" things everyone is talking about...

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

It's all too easy to rip on Tom Cruise these days and truth be told, I don't think he deserves it. Sure, that whole Scientology thing is a bit weird, but he's genuinely a good actor. So, I vow not to mention his religion, his height or anything else demeaning to him for the rest of this review.

"You hung me out of a plane. You can tell a lot about a person's character by how they treat people they don't have to treat well."

The story follows agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) who has settled down and got engaged in the process to Julia (Michelle Monaghan). He is called back into action when it unfolds that his protégé Lindsey (Keri Russell) has been kidnapped and is being held by weapons dealer and all-round twatbag Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Yep- it's the old "I'm getting too old for this shit" story that only occurs with film sequelage (Yes, I made up that word).

There is a lot to like about "Mission: Impossible III". As I've said before- a film is nothing without a good villain. Well, Owen Davian is a good villain. He's cold, intelligent and calculating- something oft missing from boomfests. I think most of this is down to the combination of J.J."I'm responsible for Lost" Abrams' directing and Philip Seymour Hoffman's skill. Ironically, because Davian is a such a strong character, it highlights the blandness of the character of Ethan Hunt. He's just one of those boring, all-American, supposed badasses travelling worldwide, fucking stuff up just so Americans are free to eat their own body weight on a daily basis.

The action sequences are also of note as many of them are impressive. The bridge sequence, for example, is extremely well done. It's a shame then that the main letdown of the film is the fairly average cast (with the exception of Simon Pegg) and the story isn't anything new. I knew after the first ten minutes that some kind of double-cross/twist was inevitable as the fucking tide. The one thing I do like about the story is the MacGuffin (i.e. the thing that drives the plot) is never actually explained. We get a name (the Rabbit's Foot), some brief glances of it and a speculative guess by Simon Pegg's character, but that's about it. It's a smart move as the convention these days is to explain everything so the audience don't have to strain their apparently feeble minds guessing.

"I'll die unless you kill me!"

"Mission: Impossible III" is alright. That's it. It's definitely the best of the "Mission: Impossible" series, what with the first one being way too complicated for its own good and the second one directed by John Woo, who was seemingly on crack at the time. Thing is, in this post-Bourne and Craig Bond world, I want more from my spy thrillers these days. Let's just hope that the L.Ron worshipping midget can pull a slicker film out of the bag for the inevitable fourth installment.

...What?


...Oh, goddamn it!