The Artist

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

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

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

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

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

'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

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.