I Hate How Fake Hollywood Is...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 Review

2011-07-14T10:26:00.000-07:00

Fourteen years ago, JK Rowling released the first book in the saga of boy wizard Harry Potter. Six more novels, three spin-off books, fifteen billion dollars-plus of merchandise, a successful film franchise and a theme park later, the final milestone in the chronicles of Harry Potter is here. As the marketing campaign for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 will be quick to remind you: It All Ends.

Has a film ever had such a weight of anticipation laid upon its shoulders? Much like those laid upon Harry himself in this final chapter, the expectations on this concluding segment are almost insurmountable. As the culmination of years and years of build-up, backstory and character development it’s fair to say – this is one of the biggest cinema blockbuster events in history.

Watching the final Harry Potter film, it seems the producers have assessed the magnitude of this closing chapter and understood the importance of getting it right, before setting it all aside and simply making the most spectacular finale they possibly can. Just as each new film in the series has brought a different genre to the fore (from mystery, to thriller, to political drama and road movie) Deathly Hallows Part 2 is an all-out fantasy war film, with all that entails – notably many casualties.

As the second half of the adaptation of the final book, Deathly Hallows Part 2 picks up directly where Part 1 left off. Harry, Ron and Hermione have ditched Hogwarts, now under the tyrannous rule of Professor Snape, and have gone in search of the seven Horcruxes – fragments of the evil Lord Voldemort’s soul hidden in various objects. All must be destroyed if He Who Shall Not Be Named is to be defeated. However, what these particular objects are and where they’re hidden is unknown. Meanwhile Voldemort’s army is amassing, ready to seize Hogwarts in a full-on battle that will inevitably lead to the final showdown between the Dark Lord and the Boy Who Lived. If that wasn’t enough, Harry’s also keeping his eyes peeled for the three mythical Deathly Hallows, said to render the owner ‘Master of Death’. Are the Hallows real? And if so, how can Harry possibly find them?

If the majority of that previous paragraph left you feeling like a Muggle lost in the middle of Diagon Alley, then you’d better brush up on your Potter-lore before apparating your way into the cinema. By this point, it’s assumed that you’re either in or you’re out – even for those who might have forgotten a few of the finer details of Deathly Hallows Part 1, a catch-up DVD session is recommended. Part 2 wastes none of its running time in re-acquainting the audience with the wizarding world before heading straight from a muted few minutes of reflection at Shell Cottage to a magnificent break-in at Gringotts bank.

In terms of spectacle, Deathly Hallows Part 2 delivers all of the action beats that audiences have been waiting for. Since Order of the Phoenix, the promise of no-holds-barred wizard duelling has been teased, and when the Battle of Hogwarts comes around it is genuinely stunning. The special effects are absolutely magnificent. As spells are cast back and forth, the universe feels real, inclusive and natural, whilst still being visually striking. The battle is on an absolutely epic scale with Giants, Acromantula and Dementors also entering the fray. Also brilliant is the sequence in Bellatrix Lestrange’s Gringotts vault, where every valuable object touched immediately explodes into multiple identical copies of itself.

However, all of the flashy style would mean nothing if the characters weren’t ones you root for desperately – this is, after all, no Transformers 3. Over the course of the series, the relationship built between the audience and these now iconic characters is such that the sense of finality in Death Hallows Part 2 brings an emotional load to Harry Potter like no other instalment before it. You’ll marvel as you finally see Mrs McGonagall finally display her considerable magical talents, cheer as Mrs Weasley gets her Ripley-in-Aliens moment, and no doubt you’ll shed a tear as a few well-loved faces meet an unfortunate end. The sequence which at last clarifies Snape’s allegiances, one of the stand-out moments of the books, is beautiful here and without doubt the most tear-jerking few minutes of the entire saga. Alan Rickman’s performance is superlative as ever, and this swansong of his character is simply magnificent. When the climactic showdown between Harry and Voldemort comes around, it doesn’t disappoint, and that’s due as much to the emotional build-up as the waving of wands.

Inevitably, moments from the book are missed out, and in order to find a through line in Rowling’s lengthy tome the narrative predominantly follows Harry. You wouldn’t say this about many other Potter films, but at times there’s a feeling that Deathly Hallows Part 2 could have been a little longer, and the battle might have benefitted slightly from taking more time to show the duelling between other wizards in Hogwarts rather than mainly following the titular character. The plot also at times suffers from having too many MacGuffins, and ironically the Hallows themselves are sidelined in the wider scheme of searching for, and destroying, the Horcruxes.

Like the book it’s adapted from, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 isn’t perfect. However, it is a rousing, thrilling and emotional farewell to a generational icon and without a doubt one of the very best films in the series. Over the past four films, director David Yates has successfully concluded a magnificent fantasy epic that lives up to, without surpassing, JK Rowling’s novels. The final scene, an opinion-splitter which actually works much better on film, provides closure on this integral part of the childhoods of many; for those who grew up with the series, the tale of Harry Potter is over and is ready to be passed onto a new generation. Throughout the eight films, the Harry Potter series will crucially be remembered as one which never forgot about thing in particular: the sheer joyous, childlike wonder and spectacle of magic.

Entertainment Value: 4/5
Genre Value: 4.5/5
Style: 4/5
Overall Rating: 4/5

Thor Review

2011-05-10T03:28:00.000-07:00

With audiences already well acquainted with Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, Marvel Studios bring two more characters from their roster of iconic heroes to the big screen this Summer, all whilst counting down the time until the release of their gargantuan super-powered team-up epic The Avengers next year. Whilst the release of Captain America: The First Avenger is still a few weeks away, the potentially difficult Thor marks the first true blockbuster of the Summer.

Of all the projects under Marvel Studios so far, Thor could easily have gone very wrong. Audiences are now completely desensitised to the standard ‘scientific-experiment-gone-wrong’ origin story of the majority of superheroes, and science-fiction in comic book films is commonplace. Thus, asking viewers to accept a decidedly geekier hero (Iron Man has a weaponised robotic suit, whereas Thor has a magical hammer called Mjolnir), with a setting rooted in Norse mythology alongside the aforementioned previously established heroes is a very different matter indeed. Luckily, Thor is a surging jolt of entertainment that may well rank as the Studio’s best effort yet.

In the realm of Asgard, King Odin (Anthony Hopkins) readies his first-born son Thor (Chris Hemsworth) to ascend to the throne, ahead of jealous younger brother Loki. When a security breach from ancient adversaries the Frost Giants halts the ceremony midway through, a rash and impulsive Thor retaliates, leading to his banishment from Asgard to present day Earth, where he finds an ally in scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman).

A particularly brave and inspired decision from Marvel was the choice of Kenneth Branagh to direct – the story, taking in sibling rivalry, betrayal and throne-envy, is aptly Shakespearean, and Branagh devotes enough time on character development to ensure that when the numerous action scenes arrive, which they most certainly do, you’ll genuinely care about the outcome. Luckily, he also knows how to direct a battle sequence or two – they are incredibly exciting, with an interesting variation on the same old superpowers we’re used to seeing. A particular highlight comes early on in a pulse-pounding fight between Thor and several Frost Giants.

Most impressively though, Branagh maintains a perfect tone throughout. Thor takes itself seriously when it needs to - you’ll invest in the characters, marvel at the breathtaking action sequences and be drawn into some of the weightier plot points. Yet its tongue is firmly in cheek when it wants to be, and the whole thing is tremendous fun. With several moments of well-judged laugh-out-loud humour, often courtesy of Sif and the Warriors Three, Thor is a film aware of its own potential silliness, and so never lets the grandiose scale of Asgard become laughably portentous.

In terms of scale, Thor feels huge - in the Marvel universe, it doesn’t get much more epic than Asgard and the Nine Realms, and the gorgeous art direction provides a truly otherworldly feel to proceedings.

In the lead role, newcomer Chris Hemsworth is extremely impressive, displaying not only gigantic biceps but decent acting chops, excellent comic timing and considerable charm that should see his Hollywood profile skyrocket. Portman takes it easy after her intense, jaw-dropping role in Black Swan, while Kat Dennings still proves to be an extremely watchable screen presence. Hopkins brings gravitas to the paternal Odin, whilst Idris Elba proves internet forum naysayers wrong as “Guardian of Worlds” Heimdall.

Those looking for tidbits and nods to Captain America and The Avengers will be glad to note the presence of SHIELD and brief appearance of Hawkeye, and, as ever with comic book films, be sure to catch the post-credits sequence.

In almost every way (except the poor 3D conversion, don’t bother), Thor is a triumph. It’s a loving adaptation of the comics, surprisingly accessible to mainstream audiences whilst also catering to the geek crowd. It looks fantastic, the action is exhilarating, and it has a funny and charming lead performance from Hemsworth. Yes, some may argue that Thor is merely a stepping stone to a much larger forthcoming cinematic event, but even if that is the case, it’s so damn entertaining that you won’t care while you’re watching it.

Entertainment Value: 4.5/5

Genre Value: 4/5

Style: 3.5/5

Overall Rating: 4/5

Multi-Perplexed

2011-03-28T07:31:00.000-07:00

For many cinemagoers, they’re the bane of seeing a film on the big screen. Noisy popcorn bags, twitchy-fingered teens texting and tweeting, screaming kids, over-priced food, and, particularly in recent months, THOSE terrible Orange ads.

Yes, visiting your local multiplex can be an experience that’s often more traumatic than cinematic. Whether it’s a case of a disruptive audience, unhelpful staff, or projection errors, the majority of my recent visits to the local multiplex have been riddled with unfortunate incidents.

Take, for instance, the time I saw Tarantino’s exceptional Inglourious Basterds at my local Showcase – during the first five minutes of the terrifically tense opening scene the projector was set to the wrong aspect ratio. Not only did every character look as stick-thin as Victoria Beckham, but the subtitles were cropped off at the bottom. When the staff finally realised, no apology was made and the film was not restarted. Since then, subsequent trips to that particular establishment have included dodgy sound and rattling air conditioning which rendered the screening an almost unbearable arctic fortress.

In trying to cut down costs, there often seems to be a bare minimum amount of staff on the premises, with no proper projectionists and no-one keeping an eye on screenings to make sure everything’s running smoothly. That said, in the current economic climate, it’s understandable to try and keep outgoing costs low, but is it really worth it at the expense of your customer’s satisfaction?

Worrying also is the increasing price of cinema ticket, which has risen to a standard cost of about £7 outside London. It’s all very well when you can get a £5 student ticket, but once that luxury’s gone, it’s going to be ridiculously expensive to go and see the latest releases, particularly if they’re only released in money-grabbing 3D.

Unsatisfactory multiplex experiences are not always the cinema’s fault however. More often than not, the worst part of visiting your big local chain is the rest of the audience. Sometimes it can be moderately amusing - case in point, my trip to see 127 Hours. As a large group of chavs settled on the row behind me, I immediately thought: these guys are going to be problematic. It was a few minutes before one of them turned to the others and asked “What is this film again?”

This, ladies and gentlemen, boggled my mind. Has the cinema really become just a place to hang out that happens to have moving colours and shapes projected onto a screen in the background? It increasingly feels that way. As the conversation continued, during which one of the group claimed that their dad’s best mate “literally has the word ‘dick’ tattooed on his forehead!”, another explained that they’d come to see “127 Hours! It’s about this dude who has to cut his arm off!” A bare-bones description, perhaps, but a somewhat humorously accurate one all the same.

Luckily, this encounter was during the fifteen minutes-plus of adverts that seems to precede every big release nowadays. What I really can’t stand is talking while the film is actually on. That, and getting your phone out, are the real big no-nos of cinema etiquette. Maybe if we all followed Mark Kermode’s Wittertainment Moviegoers Code of Conduct , the local multiplex would be a better place to be for us all.

For all that’s bad about multiplexes however, they’re a necessary evil. Don’t blame the local Empire for showing Big Momma’s House 3 instead of something actually, y’know, good – blame your peers for paying to see Big Momma’s House 1 and 2 in the first place. I’m sure many cinema chains wish they could show interesting, thought-provoking films as opposed to the same old recycled tat. And whilst independent and arthouse cinemas such as Newcastle’s wonderful Tynside Cinema offer generally a much better quality of service, where else are you going to be able to see The First Avenger: Captain America, or Cowboys and Aliens or the latest guilty-pleasure Jason Statham vehicle when the time comes than at your multiplex? They may not offer the most preferable cinema experience, but, let’s face it: the audience and the industry would be pretty stuffed without them.

Drive Angry 3D Review

2011-03-27T10:48:00.000-07:00

The chance to watch Nicolas Cage donning yet another bizarrely terrible wig is one that cinemagoers shouldn’t pass up lightly. When you see that he’ll be co-starring with yet another toupee in a film called Drive Angry, presented in 3D? Well, to say no would be foolish.

First things first – Drive Angry 3D was obviously never going to be, and never aimed to be, an Oscar winner. But if there’s one thing in particular you can take from the film, it’s that it takes a trashy, silly, frankly ridiculous idea and takes it to every trashy, silly and frankly ridiculous conclusion you could wish for. The key to its moderate success is in this self-consciousness which acts as an ultimatum to the audience: go along for the ride, or stay well away.

Cage plays John Milton (yes, really), a dead man who has inexplicably escaped from Hell in order to avenge the death of his daughter and save the life of his baby granddaughter, who has been kidnapped for sacrificial purposes by a Satanist cult. In 3D. Along the way, Milton picks up a walking pair of gratuitously tiny hotpants (Amber Heard), and is pursued by the mysterious Accountant, a scene-stealing William Fichtner.

For what it is, Drive Angry is surprisingly good. Directed by Patrick Lussier, also behind fun horror My Bloody Valentine 3D, the film is a welcome blast of tongue-in-cheek excess after Oscar season. There’s everything you’d expect from a grindhouse project – little-to-no character development, copious nudity, gore and violence, as well as frequent knowing nods to the audience. Fichtner devours the scenery, while Heard is feisty and always watchable.

Cage’s performance is downright bizarre, which perhaps may just be the perfect thing for a film this mad. Whether he’s standing round mechanically, staring blankly at fires, drinking beer from a skull, or spewing out dialogue in monotone, it’s another chance to see how weird Cage can be at times. It’s also kind of entrancing – you literally have no idea what he’s going to do next.

If you enjoyed the likes of Machete and Planet Terror, there’s a decent chance that there’s at least something you’ll enjoy in Drive Angry 3D, with the eye-gouging nature of the 3D effects being particularly appropriate for the exploitative nature of the genre. If this is your sort of thing, it’ll be one of the most fun cinema experiences you’ve had in ages, otherwise avoid.

Verdict:

Drive Angry 3D is as crazy, unnatural and improbable as Cage’s wig, but it’s also loads of fun. There’s a scene featuring Cage having sex with a woman during a gunfight – cigar in mouth, gun in one hand, bottle of JD in the other. If that sounds like insane genius to you, see it.

Entertainment Value: 3.5/5

Genre Value: 4/5

Style: 2/5

Overall Rating: 3.5/5

The Fighter Review

2011-02-20T07:18:00.000-08:00

As the Oscar season gets well under way, the nominations are overdue a sports movie. Triumph over adversity, crowd-pleasing finales and the chance for an actor to physically transform themselves are often lapped up by voters, and there's a strong chance The Fighter could perform well come the end of February.

In the sports genre, the main problem can be that clichés are pretty much unavoidable. Most of the available narrative paths, even the moderately unconventional ones, have been trodden many times. With The Fighter, chances are you'll know where it's headed.

Yet that doesn't mean it isn't an enjoyable journey getting there. The film centres around the true story of boxer Micky Ward who tries to boost his career just as his crack-smoking brother Dicky, also a boxer, falls further into addiction and further away from his former glory days. With an expansive and controlling family, Micky may be forced to abandon his dependant brother to succeed.

The Fighter is dominated by a series of brilliant performances. Much has been made of Christian Bale's depiction of Dicky, and he is genuinely astonishing. Having lost considerable weight from his bulked-up Batman physique, Bale is simultaneously gaunt yet wide-eyed, funny and goofy, but also deeply saddening. As he slides evermore into his destructive addiction, the waste of Dicky's potential is deeply felt. It's an extremely physical role, and a complete departure from Bale's previous roles.

Amy Adams plays it tough and feisty as Micky's barmaid girlfriend, who opposes his hilariously defensive and devoted sisters, whilst Melissa Leo is excellent as Micky's mother and manager, convinced that being completely dedicated to family is a professional managerial style.

However, Mark Wahlberg is also fantastic as the calm, focused and weary eye of the surrounding tumultuous storm, completely grounding the film when it's in danger of focusing on too many larger-than-life characters. His Micky grants viewers a relatable pathway into the unfolding drama.

The boxing sequences, mostly in the film's second half, are gritty and realistic, well-choreographed and genuinely exciting. Wahlberg excels physically in these scenes, and adds emotion and humanity to the spectacle.

While The Fighter is full of excellent performances and is well made and interesting, it's difficult to become particularly involved in it. You'll sympathise with the characters, you'll marvel at Bale's exceptional performance, and enjoy the visceral fights, but it's not as heart-wrenching or moving as you might expect it to be, never making the leap from being simply a great film to a modern classic.

The Fighter doesn't offer much particularly new, but it is a great example of the boxing sub-genre. The final fight comes off as slightly underwhelming, but it's a solid and enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours, with excellent acting and a fun soundtrack.

Entertainment Value: 4/5
Genre Value: 4/5
Style: 4.5/5
Overall Rating: 4/5

Brighton Rock Review

2011-02-20T07:15:00.000-08:00

After an acclaimed turn in the Ian Curtis biopic Control, Sam Riley leads an all-star British cast in a remake of the classic Brit-noir Brighton Rock as the iconic Pinkie, a violent young man struggling to make a name for himself in Brighton's criminal underworld.

When complications arise in a murder Pinkie carries out, he is forced to gain the sympathy of innocent bystander Rose, who holds circumstantial evidence of the crime.

Based upon Graham Greene's classic novel, Rowan Joffe's new adaptation shifts the drama from the 1930s to the context of the 60s mods and rockers conflict. While this accounts for an exciting central set piece, the decision seems somewhat superficial, not particularly adding much in terms of plot or themes.

The mods' and rockers' rivalry deserves better treatment, which would seem out of place within Brighton Rock's narrative.

However, Joffe's version begins promisingly – an ominous soundtrack, gloomy lighting and gorgeous cinematography set a menacing mood and the convoluted series of events that results in Pinkie and Rose's unlikely pairing is well orchestrated.

The problems arise in a flabby mid-section. Posters for the film boast of performances from Helen Mirren and John Hurt, yet Mirren's work as Ida, Rose's boss who is determined to get to the bottom of Pinkie's crime, feels disappointingly lazy and bland. Hurt has little to do except sit around and look concerned at the state of Brighton's crumbling society.

The biggest trouble with Brighton Rock is in the central relationship between Pinkie and Rose. The performances are excellent – Riley is brooding, with an undercurrent of fear and sadness, and Andrea Riseborough is absolutely brilliant as Rose, the troubled, beating heart of a film in desperate need of one.

However the script never gives the audience a reason to believe in the budding almost-romance between the pair. Pinkie is, frankly, a thoroughly unlikeable character, and it becomes difficult not to question quite why Rose remains so devoted to him.

The best antiheroes give you a reason to root for them even though you know you shouldn't really, but Joffe's screenplay never allows for this.

That said, Brighton Rock is worth a viewing. The film recovers slightly in its final act, with a dark and involving conclusion. It also looks beautiful – even though the 60s setting doesn't really work, the costumes and sets are fantastically realised, and the sweeping cinematography is striking. But there is always an annoying sense that Brighton Rock should be better than it actually is, and it's a feeling that's even harder to shake once you've left the cinema.

Entertainment Value: 2.5/5
Genre Value: 3/5
Style: 3.5/5
Overall Rating: 3/5

Black Swan Review

2011-01-22T11:06:00.001-08:00

After the absolute knock-out that was The Wrestler, director Darren Aronofsky returns, having eschewed the violent but achingly sad story of Randy "The Ram" for the high pressure and dramatic intensity of ballet with Black Swan.

Natalie Portman is Nina, a ballerina who dreams of one day dancing the Swan Queen in Swan Lake. She certainly has the skill and precision to play the White Swan, but lacks the roughness and tenacity to portray the character's evil side, the Black Swan. When she is cast in the part, Nina is forced to discover her own inner "Black Swan", driven to, and possibly beyond, the brink of her sanity.

The first hour of Black Swan is excellent – highly atmospheric from the off, with a majestic, heart-pounding opening scene that immediately pulls the audience into the film's dark core. Portman is very impressive, completely believable throughout Nina's personal disintegration, with her initial composure and timidity heightening the character's dramatic fall, piling on the tension. The score is terrifically atmospheric, full of sorrow, foreboding and malice.

While the first two-thirds are certainly extremely well made and performed, it's during the closing 30 minutes that Black Swan ignites with a surge of blazing intensity, becoming an absolute tour-de-force of emotion, eye-popping visuals and sweaty-palmed panic as the genre shifts from drama-thriller to full-blown psychological horror.

Black Swan is completely relentless, with strong elements of Cronenbergian body-horror – it sometimes seems like The Fly with ballet dancers.

However, like the ballet itself, there is an assured epic sweep, a high sense of grandeur – Black Swan is a completely sensory experience, melodramatic and overblown. That's a compliment.

Visually, Black Swan is absolutely jaw-dropping, from the costumes and sets of Swan Lake to the choppy editing in a pulse-pounding club scene, which, while totally jarring at first, incidentally becomes one of the standout moments. Aronofsky's trademark use of handheld cameras gives a visceral intimacy to the ballet sequences.

Despite looking at a completely different form of physical performance, strong thematic parallels can be seen between Black Swan and The Wrestler, particularly the fear of becoming obsolete and the bodily risks undertaken by performers. At times the dual imagery of the White and Black Swans is laid on a tad too thickly – mirrors are ever-present, becoming increasingly fragmented as Nina's psyche does, while images of swans, Rorschach blotches and doppelgangers abound, at times a little too obviously.

However, this is a sole and slight criticism of a genuinely astonishing film. Vincent Cassel and Mila Kunis turn in strong performances, but this is Portman's show. The roaring power of Black Swan's denouement will leave audiences breathless, terrified and ultimately speechless, with a spine-chilling, heart-stopping conclusion that lingers long in the memory. Black Swan is a highly deserving awards contender that needs to be seen in the cinema, and offers as much to the horror crowd as it does to ballet fans.

Entertainment Value: 5/5
Genre Value: 5/5
Style: 4.5/5
Overall Rating: 5/5

Tamara Drewe Review

2010-09-07T16:33:00.001-07:00

Look at the posters for Stephen Frears’ latest release Tamara Drewe, and you’d be forgiven for thinking that it looked like an air-headed Bridget Jones-esque British comedy, perhaps funny but shallow and cheesy.

Hopefully this won’t put people off what is actually a much darker, satisfying and well-rounded film than first appears.

Frears has an excellent track record in his genre-hopping, consistently high quality career, winning over audiences and critics with the likes of High Fidelity and The Queen. Here, he takes on Posy Simmonds’ graphic novel of the same name, based loosely upon Hardy’s Far From the Madding Crowd, telling the story of the titular journalist who returns to her childhood home in the picturesque Dorset countryside, and becomes the epicentre of an increasingly twisting series of affairs and betrayals.

Tamara Drewe is a darker-than-expected treat, with a wonderfully mischievous tone. The characters are bewildered pawns manipulated over the plot, and the generally satirical comedy mocks pretentious authors and vacuous rock stars. It’s all extremely British.

It’s extremely satisfying to sit back and watch as the characters become evermore entangled as the plot moves further and further into farce. Overhanging all proceedings creeps a slightly uncomfortable feeling that soon everything will go horribly wrong.

Frears treads the line between comedy and drama finely, and whilst at times Tamara Drewe is very funny (mixing big laughs and a few smirks and giggles), it is also very affecting due to some fantastic performances. Tamsin Greig is absolutely brilliant as the put-upon housewife who creates her own idyllic countryside writer’s retreat but is constantly battered down by her husband’s (Roger Allam) infidelity and smarmy ego. Allam is excellent as the supremely vile Nick, while Bill Camp brings considerable heart in his well-judged, understated role as an American scholar with self esteem issues.

Also highly notable are Jessica Barden and Charlotte Christie as the two roguish schoolgirls who, through the sheer boredom of living in the dull, sleepy village Ewedown end up scheming and causing trouble that begins innocently enough, but snowballs to a dangerous level. Barden is truly hilarious – audiences may recognise her as a former cast member of Corrie, and her counterpart Christie, a complete newcomer, is also extremely funny.

All these supporting characters mean that, strangely enough, it is Arterton’s lead role that occasionally feels underdeveloped. Tamara’s motivations are difficult to uncover, and that’s partly the point – as a woman she has reinvented herself, but she suffers an identity crisis as a result. However, there is rarely any alone time with the character for the audience to get into her head, though Arterton does a great job with what she’s given in a much more interesting role than those she played in Price of Persia and Clash of the Titans.

Tamara Drewe is a smart, sophisiticated and genuinely funny British film that deserves your seven quid, and even holds up on repeat viewings. Don’t expect it to be overly frothy - embrace its moments of darkness and enjoy.

Entertainment Value: 4/5
Genre Value: 4/5
Style: 4/5
Overall Rating: 4/5

Knight and Day Review

2010-08-04T11:01:00.000-07:00

Summer blockbuster action-comedy Knight and Day brings with it the opportunity to reassure yourself that megastar Tom Cruise hasn’t yet gone completely off the rails. Sure, he looks a tad wild-eyed here or there, but his manic energy mainly serves in favour of his character, the mysterious Roy Miller.

The script sees Miller on the run from an imposing government agency, unwittingly involving Cameron Diaz’s June Havens in a convoluted plot of espionage, nerds and lots of ‘Stuff Blowing Up’.

The audience’s indecision over whether Roy is totally crazy or just a misunderstood good guy is a curious case of life imitating art. Or vice versa. It’s hard to tell which.

Either way, it’s great to see Cruise having fun again after the disappointing Nazi-thriller Valkyrie and his downright bizarre and somewhat cringeworthy cameo in Tropic Thunder.

His roguish, knowing smile complements the screenplay’s sharp one-liners and excessive nature of the increasingly over-the-top destruction. The performance goes some way to save Cruise’s downward spiral and reminds everyone why he’s such a star in the first place.

Diaz does her standard ‘kooky’ act as a bright, yet ditzy girl-next-door type, with a superior knowledge about cars and engines thanks to her father. Whilst it’s a clunky aspect of the character, it’s nice that she’s not a totally clueless blonde, and she gets to do her fair share of the action set-pieces.

Whilst Diaz has done this sort of thing many times before, she’s very likeable and easy to watch in an act that she’s become well adjusted to over the years.

The action sequences are well orchestrated and great fun to watch, though are sometimes marred by poor CGI, particularly in a sequence involving a herd of bulls. However, many of the practical effects could put a grin on even the stoniest of faces such as Roy leaping and clinging onto the bonnet of a car June is driving. A desert island scene is as thrilling as it is loud, with lots of ‘Stuff Blowing Up’. Each set piece is grounded by Diaz’s likability and Cruise’s star power.

Whilst the action is enjoyable and exciting, the plot suffers considerably. It’s fairly all over the place, with an under-whelming McGuffin and little sense of danger. Whilst this isn’t the most important aspect of film, with the action and stars being top billing, some intelligence and coherence wouldn’t have gone amiss. The film title also makes absolutely no sense, and is never alluded to in the script.

There’s also the problem of a plot device in which characters are drugged, and we see clips through their eyes as they wake up momentarily during intense action sequences. The first time used, it’s quite funny, but the more frequently it occurs, you begin to feel like you’re missing out on some of the more exciting scenes of mayhem.

In all, it doesn’t matter that Knight and Day’s idea of being a spy is to cause as much wreckage as possible. It’s loud, noisy fun, and whilst nothing special, it does ‘Stuff Blowing Up’ very well in stunning locations, and it’s refreshing to have a blockbuster during the Summer that isn’t a sequel, remake or comic book adaptation.

Entertainment Value: 3/5
Genre Value: 3.5/5
Style: 2.5/5
Overall Rating: 3/5

The A-Team Review

2010-07-22T09:57:00.000-07:00

During one of the central action set-pieces in the movie update of 80’s action TV show The A-Team, there is a scenario in which, through an increasingly ridiculous chain of events, a tank complete with parachutes crashes through the sky towards Earth, machine guns rattling and rocket launcher booming as they fire against an enemy plane.
“Are they trying to shoot down the other drone?”, asks one character.
“No, they’re trying to fly that tank”, comes the reply.

If you think that sounds intensely silly, then you would most probably be right. If you think that sounds rubbish, then you’re probably better off leaving The A-Team unwatched and going and seeing Inception again.

While the characters, the theme tune and the catch-phrases from the A-Team are all undoubtedly iconic, I must confess that I am too young to remember the original show myself, and so for this review I am forced to focus mainly upon the film itself.

From the offset, the tone and aim of the A-Team is made very clear. It is here to entertain you, make you grin, laugh, and wonder if it will get any more outlandish. As Bradley Cooper’s Faceman says to his leader,
“This is beyond nuts, boss!”
“It gets better”, responds Liam Neeson’s Hannibal.

The camaraderie and snappy back-and-forth remarks between the characters is both fun and witty, each personality played well and knowingly by the cast.

When it comes to the action though, which is suitably over the top, there is much less of a tongue-in-cheek vibe. This is a legitimate action film, and is often genuinely exciting, just set in a world where nothing is seen as being ‘too ridiculous’.

The script retains the character identities of the original team, such as B.A’s fear of flying, Face’s womanising ways and Hannibal’s pride of his men.

Sharlto Copley in particular, who was fantastic in last summer’s brilliant sci-fi District 9, is great fun as Howlin’ Mad Murdock. Quinton Jackson’s B.A retains his catchphrases and character traits, but sadly isn’t given much to do or much time to develop, but Bradley Cooper is obviously having a ball and Neeson admirably enters into the spirit of the whole thing.

While it’s all thoroughly enjoyable and ridiculous, the movie isn’t without its problems. For such a simple film, the plot is needlessly convoluted, and it can be hard to keep up with who is betraying who. These betrayals are never big twists, begging the question as to why they’re there at all. The A-Team is at its most enjoyable in its opening hour, when it’s at its most straight-forward, particularly in a great pre-credits sequence.

Another problem is the CGI. Special effects are ever-improving, with most of Avatar being almost photo-realistic, but lots of its usage in the A-Team is obvious and sometimes takes you out of the moment when you should be just sitting and enjoying the carnage. It also means that at times there’s little tension. If the audience doesn’t believe that actions onscreen are actually happening, its easy to find yourself thinking that the characters are never really in any danger.

However, this shouldn’t stop people from going to see it. The A-Team is ridiculous, over the top, but surprisingly enjoyable, and it makes absolutely no apologies for that. At its most fun, it’s hard to argue as Hannibal claims that “overkill is under-rated”. With a disengaged brain, its very entertaining. But anyone going expecting substance? I pity the fool.

Entertainment Value: 3.5/5
Genre Value: 3.5/5
Style: 2.5/5
Overall: 3/5

The Rebound Review

2010-07-13T11:10:00.000-07:00

Last year, a film called (500) Days of Summer found its way onto cinema screens. It was a refreshing, honest, stylistic take on the romantic comedy genre, both innovative and modern.

Now comes The Rebound, a new rom-com starring Catherine Zeta Jones. The Rebound likes to think it is refreshing and honest. It sees itself as modern, as being something different in the rom-com market. But it isn’t. It’s a confused, lazy and unfunny mess.

It’s telling of the so-called ‘comedy’ that the funniest thing about the film is the irony of Catherine Zeta Jones dating somebody who is actually 20 years younger than her.

Sandy is a 40-something stay-at-home mother living in the suburbs of New York. When she realises her husband is cheating on her, she promptly ups and leaves, taking the children with her. Setting herself up in the Big City, she quickly gets a decent job at a sports news station and an apartment (what, no recession?), complete with a cute guy in his 20s who works in the coffee shop below. Said cute guy, Aram, ends up babysitting for Sandy’s kids, and then...
Well, you can guess what happens from there.

Catherine Zeta Jones is serviceable enough in her role, though she is fairly bland throughout. However, Justin Bartha, playing Aram, is dreadfully one-note, with all his lines delivered in the same monotonous drawl. His part could have been played to similar effect by a robot, or Spock. No emotion necessary.

Then there’s the problem of the jokes. Simply put, The Rebound just isn’t very funny. There are a couple of smiles and the odd chuckle, but nothing close enough to constitute a laugh.

The film veers wildly in tone, with several moments of averagely-done serious drama, punctuated by odd gross-out gags. Most of the jokes are completely random, deriving neither from plot or character, and seemingly tacked on. Those that are character driven aren’t funny, including a cringe-worthy scene in a Women’s Center. A woman beating up a man dressed as a sumo-wrestler? Not particularly amusing. The worst part is that, in context, this could have been a genuinely dramatic and emotional moment.

Halfway through, the jokes run out, and the film becomes more of a straight middle-of-the-road drama. And whilst that means it’s a slight improvement on what’s come before, it’s too little too late.

The ending of the film also presents a problem, with the very last seconds contradicting the 15 minutes which precede it. With events moving back to a more realistic area in this section, though providing none of the emotional heft that it thinks it does, the final shots return to the fantastical romantic ideal that it seemed to have left behind, which just left me thinking: what was the point?

To watch a truly modern and innovative romance, do yourself a favour and spend your £7 on a copy of (500) Days of Summer or Once instead of this mess.

Entertainment Value: 2/5
Genre Value: 2/5
Style: 1.5/5
Overall Rating: 2/5

The Karate Kid (2010) Review

2010-07-12T10:45:00.000-07:00

The latest film to get the Hollywood re-make treatment is 80s classic The Karate Kid. Here the story remains the same; bullied kid finds a mentor in a strange old Asian man, learns karate and faces his tormenters in a martial arts tournament. But now, Ralph Macchio’s Daniel-San is Jaden (son of Will) Smith’s Shao-Dre, Pat Morita’s Mr. Miyagi is Jackie Chan’s Mr. Han, and California has been substituted for Beijing. Oh, and it’s not Karate anymore. It’s Kung Fu.

As the opening credits roll, with hip-hop beats blaring from the speakers, it’s clear that this is most definitely an update for a modern audience. I doubted whether a remake of the original would work two decades later - after all, it is very much a film of its time, with its fun, but cheesy and over-the-top appeal. Add to that the hair, the fashion and the music, and it’s difficult to imagine the film being set at any other time than 80s America.

However, the new version triumphs in truly retaining the spirit and charm of its predecessor. The relocation to China works surprisingly well, and serves to distinguish the film, giving it a different identity to the original. The city of Beijing, though being a typically tourists-eye view (characters visit the Great Wall of China, the Forbidden City), is represented as being culturally diverse, and the scenery is often absolutely stunning.

Jaden Smith makes for an excellent Dre, clearly inheriting the acting skills and charm of his father. He retains believability as the kid forced to move from his home, friends and comfortable surroundings to a new life in China. His physicality is also extremely impressive - he has clearly worked hard for the role, performing many of his own stunts. When you see him balancing on poles whilst doing the splits, or high-kicking, or sweeping legs, that’s really him. Jacket on, jacket off, indeed.

Surprisingly excellent also is Jackie Chan as Dre’s unlikely mentor, Mr. Han. After a few years of taking roles in children’s comedies, its nice to see Chan back doing some martial arts work in one particularly thrilling sequence, protecting Dre from the group of youths intent on making his life a misery. Yet it is in his acting that Chan really impresses, portraying the sadness of Mr. Han’s past whilst still making him a fun and motivational character.

Parents should be advised that the darkness of this back-story may be distressing for younger children, as could some of the fights, which are surprisingly fierce at times.

As in the original, the film climaxes in a genuinely exciting Kung Fu tournament, with some well-choreographed action and a dramatically satisfying conclusion.

Running at almost two and a half hours, The Karate Kid needs to lose twenty minutes. Though the film never drags, a touch more editing would have resulted in a tighter and more sprightly finishing product. Some of the character introductions are fairly clunky, and the story is generally pretty predictable.

Despite this, the new Karate Kid succeeds because it knows what it is - a drama, with some comedic moments and cool fights. It’s a well known story, simply told, and is different enough to the original to retain a sense of identity but without doing it a disservice. It doesn’t condescend, nor does it think too highly of itself, but, crucially, it does entertain.

Entertainment Value: 4/5
Genre Value: 4/5
Style: 3/5
Overall Rating: 3.5/5

Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D Review

2008-07-12T15:56:00.000-07:00

Following in the footsteps of "Beowulf 3D" comes "Journey...", a family caper presented in Digital Real D, the first live action movie to be presented in the format. Starring Brendan Fraser as almost exactly the same character he played in The Mummy films (shabby, likable loser, quick to quip, made to mug) the film follows a relatively simple plot - cousin and uncle go on adventure, following clues and ideas from their long lost father/brother's ideas about Jules Verne's 1864 novel "A Journey to the Center of the Earth". It soon becomes apparent that perhaps Verne's book may be rooted in fact. With it's ideas about family values and balancing of humour, action and fantasy, it's a standard family adventure which is likely to enthrall those under 12, and nicely entertain those older teens and adults who will inevitably be dragged along.

First off, let's make something clear - there's no point in seeing this in 2D. That would be like watching Transformers on a tiny, tiny screen, or listening to metal with the sound turn way down - this film was MADE to be 3D. Also, there isn't really anything special at all about the film except for the 3D effects, and I feel that in 2D it would be, not exactly boring, but flat. In short, the 3D was incredible. Whilst regular films are a picture of what's going on, in 3D it's more like a window into the film, giving everything depth - however, thing's can also come out of that window. From the start, the audience is poked in the eye with the antennae of a bug, has toothpaste spat into their faces, and a yo-yo thrust into their faces. It's all brilliantly entertaining, leading to many instances when I found myself grinning from ear to ear in the most mundane of situations. It's these shots which would definitely feel out of place in the normal showings, and simultaneously make the 3D special. Also, whilst these "made for 3D" shots were great, they were not the moments that impressed me most. I found instead that the special format worked best for landscapes - a simple aerial shot of a mountain range was truly breathtaking, the crystal clarity of the special Real D glasses elevating the view from something relatively ordinary into something worthy of a genuine gasp. Similarly many of the views in the caves are great, the occasional stalagmite to the face receiving "oohs" from the audience.

The film itself is nothing special at all, really. Played out like King Kong for kids (erm... without the giant gorilla...), the magical land at the center of the Earth resembles a less threatening version of Skull Island, with razor-toothed fish, deadly plants and the odd T-Rex ambling about. And it's not just the setting that the film steals from other (better) films - a mine cart rollercoaster sequence? Temple of Doom. T-Rex running around? Jurassic Park. The estranged relationship between family members? War of the Worlds. Oh - and all of those happen to be Spielberg films. And this film is very much Spielberg-lite; perfect for those who aren't too fussy about what adventure they want to see, and are just bothered about being entertained. So, whilst the scenes aren't as good as they are in their "original" forms, they are still highly entertaining, especially in 3D. There are also a few moments of comedy (though a couple towards the end were unintentional), some visual jokes working brilliantly, contributing well to the film's family adventure feel.

Whilst there's nothing particularly wrong with the film, there always feels like there's something missing, scenes that should be totally thrilling merely making me sit back and enjoy. This could be due to the fact that I felt that I had seen it all before, though I'm sure that anyone under the age of 12 would think it's the best film ever. In conclusion, it's a diverting film merged to some amazing 3D effects, that will enthrall younger viewers and entertain any older teens and adults. If you've never seen anything in 3D before, it's definitely worth going - and don't expect any rubbishy green and red glasses. Here in the 21st century, 3D is almost a perfected art...

Entertainment Value: 3.5/5
Genre Value: 3/5
Style: 4/5
Overall Rating: 3.5/5

The Spiderwick Chronicles Review

2008-07-01T10:05:00.000-07:00

A new entry in the "DVD" category is kid's fantasy/action/horror "The Spiderwick Chronicles". When a single-parent family moves into a dead relative's house in the woods, the children find a book with a big warning on it saying "DO NOT OPEN". Before you can say abracadabra, goblins, trolls and other beasties are fighting their way into the house to capture the book, due to the many secrets and information contained within it...

This is a surprisingly good addition to the genre, which is quickly becoming tired with lacklustre efforts such as Eragon and the like. Better than Narnia without reaching the magic of the Potters, it's perfect for those over-eight's looking for a new fantasy series based on children's books. More enjoyable than Narnia, its homely feel (the kids rarely leave the house) is more intimate than the isolating scale of other genre entries, and whilst the CGI is not terrible, the occasionally dodgy creatures have a ropey charm.

Comparable to Jumanji, the story offers more scares than Potter and Narnia, the story turning into a home-invasion horror for kids. Intense scenes may prove too much for younger kids to handle, and the big baddie is pretty scary. Most of the acting is pretty good too, especially Freddie Highmore in a dual role as identical twins Jared and Simon. Seth Rogen competently voices his character, who offers most of the film's comic relief as the children's snouted, goblin-y sidekick Hogsqueal.

So, for those with slightly older kids and an hour and a half to spare (a decent running time - the film feels no need to have a bloated length), this is a good way to entertain all of the family. Whilst it may not have the sparkle and magic of Potter, it has an exciting narrative that'll be sure to entertain those of all ages.

Entertainment Value: 3.5/5
Genre Value: 4/5
Style: 2/5
Overall Rating: 3/5

The Mist Review

2008-06-30T14:29:00.000-07:00

There has been a rather good trend recently of horror films actually turning out to be pretty good - [.REC], The Orphanage, The Descent (OK, that one's a little older). Could it be that producing companies/distributors have realised that everyone hates those 15-rated 80's horror remakes? Let's hope so, because if films like The Mist keep coming out, I may well have to turn my attention back to the genre...

To keep it simple, The Mist is one of the best horror films I've ever seen. Whilst it may not reach the intensity of, say, "The Descent", or the filmic brilliance of "Alien", when it comes to serving up some insane scares with a great storyline and believable characters, The Mist knocks 'em dead. The story is easy to follow - bad storm, natural/supernatural mist closes in, people trapped in convenience store fight for their lives - and it's nice to see a film that manages to balance characterisation with lots of scary action really well. Of course, with Frank Darabont directing, this was never going to be yet another recycled horror debacle.

The monsters, all CGI (which is limited due to the budget - though you'll hardly care), are truly horrific. Following very closely, according to Alex, the descriptions of the creatures in Stephen King's novella, they provide many of the non-human scares, and amiably so. From giant spiders who shoot acidic webs (in an excellent, terrifically tense scene in a chemist's) to toothed tentacles belonging to an unseen 'thing' which rip off flesh disturbingly easily, we are shown enough to be scared, whilst giving the feeling that what we see is not even the worst of what is out there. The film follows a style similar to that of War of the Worlds, as we follow only one father's story of trying to protect his son, meaning that we never are shown everything, in keeping with the novella's occasional ambiguity. Also, it's nice to have something truly monstrous in a horror film - none of those silly malformed psycho-killers a la Jigsaw or Leatherface.

Not all of the horror is built up through the creatures, with tension being amped up in the film's true message. The development of the characters trapped in the shop is fantastic, slowly building up tension as attemps to escape the mist inevitably end tragically. It is also here that we encounter the film's greatest asset - Marcia Gay Harden (teehee!) - a religious nutjob, whose theories and speculations of imminent apocalypse at first seems crazy, but soons develops a following. She is truly creepy, her monologues always sending a shiver down the spine.

As with many King adaptations, whilst there are many conclusions, we are left to interpret alot for ourselves, making the viewing of the film more personal to whoever watches it. We are all able to read into it how much or how litte we want - those looking for intelligence, chills and meaning in a horror film will get it, and those who want to see a scary monster film about unnatural (?) fog will get exactly that. The whole thing leads up to a gut-wrenching final scene that may be too downbeat and shocking for some, but I personally loved - finally a Hollywood horror movie grows some serious balls. What happens is, in every way, the true meaning of horror. I implore you to see The Mist. It is brilliant.

Genre Value: 4/5
Entertainment Value: 4/5
Style: 4/5
Overall Rating: 4/5

The Mist is released nationwide in cinemas on Friday July 4th

Diary of the Dead Review

2008-06-09T13:41:00.000-07:00

This is the first of a new category on "I Hate How Fake Hollywood Is..." of films that have recently come out or are soon to be released onto DVD.

Diary of the Dead is George A Romero's attempt at a cam-corder zombie movie. Being the daddy of zombie film directors, it seems that, whilst an innovative concept (despite it being pipped to the post by Cloverfield and [.REC]), Romero appears to be trying to get up with the times and get down with the kids. Before I go ahead and semi-rip into this film, it must be said that I used to LOVE zombie films before I got bored of the horror genre, and still have a like of them now.

Because I used to think zombies were the best thing ever in the entire world, I decided to watch Diary of the Dead, hoping it would live up to the recent [.REC], a frenetic exercise in pant-wetting film making. It had mixed reviews, but the documentary style intrigued me, as I was inevitably caught in the Cloverfield/camcorder movie pre-release hype. Some of Romero's fans have said that the style doesn't work, or that it was annoying, but the truth is that the style, which, like in Cloverfield and [.REC] brings a sense of immediacy to the film, is not actually the problem.

Romero's films have always been satirical of the various issues he felt needed to be addressed in society. In "Dawn...", there was his criticism of our materialistic nature, and in "Land..." he addressed Bush's America. Here in "Diary..." is Romero's view that the media is lying to us all, and it never gives the full picture, and that we're actually zombies to the media, and that we rely on it too much, and that blah-de-blah-de-blah. This would've worked well if it was a subtext that you could read into if you were interested, but the way it is tackled is downright preachy, to the effect that the audience feel's like its in a lecture instead of watching a zombie film. And it's not like anyone would argue if they were told that the media is biased. In feeling the need to tell us this, the script is riddled with terrible lines, which aren't delivered well by the sub-par cast, for instance Debra handing a camera to Jason in disgust, saying "Take this - it's too easy to use", or, in a ridiculous voiceover "The media were lying to us... trying to make it seem like everything was gonna be alright". It completely detracted from my enjoyment of the film, and always made me feel taken out of the story (which gets boring in it's linear "drive/stop off/kill zombies - rinse, repeat" style).

This isn't the only thing wrong with the film either. The characters are decidedly weak, and I never really cared about any of them. A couple seriously grated after a while, and the cameraman is decidedly annoying. When his friends ask why the hell he's filming everyone dying instead of actually helping, the audience can't help but readily agree with them, leading to many scenes where you wish you could slap him across the face and tell him that he's the one that needs to wake up - not us. Similarly, the group's stereotypical British teacher is infuriating. Talking drunkenly in one of the worst accents I've ever heard, I wanted this guy to die from the start. Not a great thing in a horror movie, really. Everything that furthers his stereotype, for example, when given a choice of weapons, he takes an archaic bow and arrow, cos, y'know he's an old stuffy Briddish guy, just made me hate him more and more. The only one I actually liked was the Amish guy, providing some well needed comedy to the film. He occasionally made me laugh out loud (the bit where he introduces himself is hilarious), and he provides one of the best zombie moments. Most of the other characters are so bland that they don't really bear writing about here.

All of this is a shame, because when it comes down to the zombie stuff, Romero is still the king. Whilst [.REC] gave us a fair few panic attacks when it came to running away from the 'infected', "Diary..." has some inspired ideas. I don't want to ruin much, but a hospital scene with a defibrillator and a zombie + acid = WOW moment show that he reigns supreme when it comes to thinking up awesome stuff to throw at the undead.

So basically, if you're a zombie fan, watch it for the variety of great moments. If you don't want to be lectured to at great length about the media, then you're best to avoid this one. But if you persevere, watch out for the zombie clown...

Genre Value: 2.5/5
Entertainment Value: 2/5
Style: 2/5
Overall Rating: 2/5

Diary of the Dead will be released on 1 and 2-Disc DVD on June 30th

Iron Man Review

2008-05-12T11:59:00.000-07:00

And so we come to summer blockbuster season, an extravaganza of CGI-fuelled cinematic entertainment, a time to reflect on not how painstaking, but simply how AWESOME all these movies are that are coming out. Occasionally it's nice to get something like Batman Begins which will be filmically excellent as well as AWESOME, but let's face it - that doesn't really matter if you're being truly entertained. With last year being good but not living up to expectations, Iron Man is an AWESOME way to let any problems go and just be entertained for a couple of hours.

I can't remember a comic book movie ever being so much of a joy to watch. Sure, the Spidey films are ace, but there are always all of those serious bits where Peter chooses to mope over MJ, or things start to go wrong. X3 was bogged down in unnecessary death, and Fantastic Four is just generally much less than fantastic. Which is why I was delighted when I saw Iron Man - from start to finish, it's an absolute blast. The opening sequence is funny, exciting, and within 5 minutes had already made me jump. We're introduced to Tony Stark, billionaire playboy from the start, and from then on it doesn't let up.

Often the problem with comic franchise starters is that they suffer from "back story" syndrome. I'm happy to say that Iron Man does not suffer from this - partly because it at least offers a little bit of variety. It grows evermore wearisome when, as an audience, we are subjected to every possible scientific-experiment-gone-wrong scenario, and with Tony Stark not actually having super powers, it's nice to see a bit more variation upon the birth of a hero. Whilst not being overly political (oh, come on! It's a Marvel comic movie!), it's also nice to see a little bit of a modern "terrorism" twist. It's never explored on a deep level, but if you were expecting it to, you've gone to the wrong film, and should thus go home and rent Syriana or The Kingdom on DVD. Either way terrorism is always going to provide more of a threat than an evil black alien symbiote from outer-space.

One of the main reasons why the film does succeed so well is that Downey Jr. is so perfectly cast as Tony Stark. At the start, he's smarmy enough for you to like and admire him (and for you to feel a little bad about it), meaning that his escape from the terrorist cave is bound to put a big grin on any face. His personal reform is believable enough, whilst never getting too boring with serious monologues and overly talky bits. As soon as the bad boy's back, he's straight into his lab to start creating a super-AWESOME robotic suit which he can wear to fight crime, and destroy all the weapons that his captors have obtained, and plan to use. The idea of Stark's weapons being used against him is another nice touch in a narrative which is slightly smarter in comparison to, for example, the obviousness of X3 and Spider-Man 3, and the flat-out-we'll-tell-you-from-the-start awfulness in Fantastic Four. But i did only say slightly. He's also very funny - his comic timing is perfection, and the conversations with his animatronic helpers raises even more than a simple smile, leading into full laugh out loud territory. Whenever the action stops, there's always a joke or comment which makes you laugh or smile, meaning that the entertainment levels never hint at dropping.

It's obvious from the start that Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane is the big bad guy. His distressingly bald head (seriously - I can't believe that this is the same guy as The Dude...) might as well have EVIL tattooed on it in bold capitals. However, he turns in a fun performance, with enough sneer to boo at as a villain, and also a pretty good motive. Doctor Doom could learn some serious lessons from Stane in what's actually worth fighting for. Gwyneth Paltrow is decent enough, but, through no fault of her own, she doesn't actually have that much to do at all. Her small-scale romance with Stark is sweet enough, but isn't going to get any mums teary, and it doesn't really offer the same idea of vulnerability to the hero that MJ did to Peter Parker.

The action in the movie absolutely rules - it's AWESOME. The escape from the cave? AWESOME! The first flight in the Suit Mk II? Super-AWESOME! The military jet pursuit? AWESOME! Taking on the bad guys? AWESOME! In case I give anything away I'll stop there - but trust me, all the action scenes are incredibly enjoyable. It's entertainment in it's purest form - it makes you grin from ear to ear, before you realise this and try to hide it from those rather respectable members of society sitting either side of you (but who are probably too busy grinning themselves to realise).

In being so AWESOME, it's a shame that, filmically, it isn't as well made as some other comic adaptations. Batman Begins really set the bar at an incredible height, which Iron Man can't reach. The cinematography is pretty uninspired, with very few interesting shot types or techniques. However, as blockbuster cinema, this succeeds in so many ways. The CGI is basically perfect - the best I've seen since Transformers; a million miles away from the fairly terrible dark seekers in I Am Legend. I can't stress how entertaining this film is. Dismiss it as a bog-standard franchise starter at your peril...

...it's AWESOME.

Genre Value: 4.5/5
Entertainment Value: 4.5/5
Style: 2.5/5
Overall Rating: 4/5

[.REC] Review

2008-04-09T08:32:00.000-07:00

Yup, it's time for another "found footage"-style movie. Well, it's already been about 3 weeks since the last one... Cloverfield was truly awesome - one of the best cinema experiences in recent years, and properly lived up to the hype. I never saw Diary of the Dead, which was unluckily pipped at the post by said monster movie to be the first "FF" movie of the year.

And now [.REC] comes along. Unfortunately, over here and in America it's always going to be seen as "that other handi-cam movie" - yet this was out in Spain last year. It has a brilliantly simple premise; late night TV presenter Angela and her camera-man Pedro are doing an article upon firefighters, they meet some firemen, and get called out to a building where there seems to have been a spot of bother... soon, they're trapped under quarantine, with talks of a virus outbreak.

I've seen a fair few zombie movies, from fun-but-trashy Resident Evil to the impressive 28 Days Later, but none have quite instilled terror into me the way that [.REC] did - simply put, it's terrifying. The format works well, and it's a nice touch to see characters telling Pedro to stop filming, giving an authenticity to the style. There's a decent build up throughout, with tension being amped and amped until... about 45 minutes in, everything explodes into action - running, screaming, shouting, blood, zombies, the whole shebang. By the way, that's all before the lights in the building stop working... At only 72 minutes long, it's an incredibly undiluted experience. There's no chance for filler, no time for a breather once it gets going, and this works heavily in it's favour. All action is decidedly frenzied and realistic, the camera getting shakier the more scared Pedro gets. It's all very authentic.The final 15 minutes or so of the film are real edge-of-your-seat, fist-in-mouth, hide-behind-the-cushion, ending with a horrific final shot that will linger in the memory for days to come.

There are a couple of weaknesses - the middle section of getting to know the people in the flat occasionally gets tiresome, and because the audience already knows that it's a zombie movie, the shouting of "what's going on?!" also begins to grate slightly.

But these are minor niggles in one of the best horror's I've seen, and certainly one of the scariest. Make sure you catch it this week (it's only on limited release) before the Americans go and balls it all up with the remake "Quarantine" due out later this year...

Genre Value: 4.5/5
Entertainment Value: 3.5/5
Style: 4/5
Overall Rating: 4/5

I Am Legend Review

2008-01-29T10:18:00.000-08:00

So, I've been quite late with this one. It's been out since boxing day, yet I only got around to finally seeing it last Saturday. The trailer was scary, intriguing, and ultimately promised a lot. All those shots of a deserted New York, the survival aspect in Smith's daily routine in contrast to the horrific howls and intense bursts of actions in the trailer's latter section...

...so it's fair to say that I had really high hopes. It's definitely fair to say that I very much liked it, without being knocked out by it. But one of this film's qualities is that it gets the balance right. It takes itself quite seriously, but, hell, the end of the world is a pretty serious subject matter. It has a little bit of depth to it, but not so much as to distract itself from the fact that, at it's heart, it's a Will Smith thriller/action/horror mainstream blockbuster. Luckily it knows this, meaning that, tonally, the film hit the nail on the head.

The film opens strongly, a decent hunting sequence setting the scene and introducing us to Dr Robert Neville. The deserted streets provide intrigue [what happened? why?], with intermittant flashbacks giving snippets of information at opportune moments. We see Neville on his daily routine - "buying" DVDs, gathering corn, driving through the streets - and are given a true sense of how lonely this man must feel. The fact that the audience can feel for him after seeing him alone for about 2 days [with the wiping out of humanity happening three years ago] just goes to show how effective I Am Legend is at setting up its premise.

It must be said that Will Smith gives an extremely good performance, pretty much carrying the whole film single handedly. His sane-enough-to-feel-sorry-for, but mad-enough-to-be-a-little-bit-scared-of Doctor is one of the reasons why the film overall works well. His sense of longing and desperation to connect with someone other than his dog is utterly believable, and is a nice chance from his usual fast-talkin' black dude [as seen in 'I, Robot', 'Independance Day' and 'Men in Black' to name but a few]. And that's not to say there isn't humour - a Shrek-quoting scene brought a smile to my face [and a feeling of shame, as I felt myself quoting along with it in my head], and just the fact that he is Will Smith means that there are a couple of lighthearted moments. Given how many sci-fi films Smith has been in, this could have simply been a re-tread of his old performances.

The cinematography is also brilliant, especially for such a mainstream movie. Aerial shots of New York increase the feeling of isolation, and it's nice to see that these sort of movies can also be made quite stylistically.

Which is why it's such a shame about the CGI. Whilst far from being terrible, it wouldn't have hurt to use actors for the night crawlers, and it seems like it was done for the hell of it. Just because CG is available, sometimes it works best when used sparingly. The crawlers themselves are reasonably scary, fleeting glimpses in the first half giving us something to fear and look forward to in the latter stages. Some have criticised the science for the fact that a virus can turn humans into super-human vampire-esque creatures - but, hey, this is in a world where we've cured cancer; and was it ever going to be the most realistic movie ever made? A couple of other niggles that didn't really work were the Bob Marley references [a nice idea, but seemed a bit tagged-on], and the ending feels slightly rushed, and squanders some of the tension built up in the first half by over-using the crawlers.

However, this is still a very entertaining film. It's jumpy, dramatic and exciting. It successfully combines blockbuster movie-making with clever cinematography, and isn't afraid to ask questions, the most prominent of which is: if Smith is the last person truly alive, and is capturing and killing the crawlers in the day, who is the real monster?

Genre Value: 3.5/5
Entertainment Value: 4/5
Style: 4/5
Overall Rating: 3.5/5

No Country For Old Men Review

2008-01-23T11:11:00.000-08:00

I have something that I must confess. I have never, or at least had never seen a Coen Brothers film before. I blame this partly due to the fact that I cannot buy 18 DVDs or get into 18-rated films, and have thus been unable to purchase such desirables as Fargo and The Big Lebowski, though they are currently high on my list.

On Saturday, I took the plunge, and, parents in tow, we went to see No Country For Old Men, all those 5-Star reviews buzzing around my head. How could a this film be? There are so many things I have to say about this film that I'm going to make it obvious, rather than skilfully blend everything together in various paragraphs.

Firstly, the cinematography is outstanding. The direction is absolutely brilliant, shots that could have been dull and uninspiring are made all the more direct by placing the audience on the bonnet of cars, or using long shots to give an unsettling sense of the deserted wilderness that surrounds our 'hero'. The lack of music throughout further gives the view of isolation, and is highly effective in many of the more tense scenes: the audience can hear every creak and groan in every floor board, every whistle in the wind, every *ptung!* from Chigurgh's deranged silenced shotgun.

Secondly, the story is utterly compelling. We follow Llewelyn, as he hunts in the desert and stumbles across the bloody aftermath of a drug deal. Finding a case with $2 000 000 cash, but is subsequently followed by the psychopathic "clean-up" guy, who will stop at nothing to Llewelyn and get that cash. Following the horrific events portrayed is old sheriff Bell, played brilliantly by Tommy Lee Jones, unable to catch up with this "new" form of evil. As a thriller, it is brilliantly executed, and reportedly very close to the source novel by Cormack McCarthy, with many scenes causing the audience to gasp and hold their breath, waiting for the terrifying inevitability. One such scene is that in the motel, suffocating tension soaking the audience.

All of the performances are brilliant:

Josh Brolin is arrogant, vulnerable, and has questionable morals
Javier Bardem looks unbreakable and unpredictable
Tommy Lee Jones looks suitably tired and baffled

I found myself genuinely sorry for Llewelyn's wife, an innocent bystander caught in an awful mess through no fault of her own. Everyone does what their character is supposed to do, but far surpassing the urge to simply cruise.

No Country is also one of those films where for days after, you simply can't stop thinking about it. The final monologue has so much meaning and depth that I was staggered by the effect of it - an effect which I can't go into here, without giving away massive spoilers. I also loved the way that the audience is deceived; though he may not seem to be, Sheriff Bell is the main, most important chacrater here, the titular "old man". If you haven't already seen it, it's worthwhile to concentrate on his scenes to obtain the true meaning of the film, making it all the more special.

There are many questions asked by this film: Is this a new form of evil? Or has evil simply stayed the same, with Bell just becoming older and more tired? Is Anton [Javier Bardem] responsible for those deaths, or should he blame fate? There's just so much to think about. Much has been said about the "unsatisfying" ending, but those who concentrated found it an integral part of the story, and whilst those who prefer more conventional thrillers might see it as a cop-out, it has deeper meanings. And besides, this movie isn't conventional. It's so much more special than that. There's more I'd like to say about No Country, but I rather not ruin it for you. Needless to say, it is brilliant. Go and see it now, and be prepared to be blown away harder than any of Chigurgh's victims.

Entertainment Value: 4/5
Genre Value: 4/5
Style: 5/5
Overall rating: 4.5/5

We're Back

2008-01-23T10:22:00.000-08:00

Whether you demanded it or not, we're back after a notable absence [due mainly to Christmas plans, exams, and pure laziness]. We've freshened the look, and will be posting new reviews and bits and pieces soon. We hope you like what we've done.
Ben

Aimhigher '07: Chase Me Bot

2007-12-10T14:12:00.000-08:00

This is the result from our media course in October! :D
Took a day to write, two to film and another to edit; enjoy ;)
Oh, and one to piss around with bells! :D

Planet Terror Review

2007-11-24T16:13:00.000-08:00

And, finally, it arrives. The second half of the Grindhouse extravaganza has finally arrived in the UK, with low marketing amd little hype. No wonder it did badly in the 'States. The fact that it did is a real shame, as the film is a real blast. When combined with Tarantino's Death Proof, it could be a fun, indulgent, glorious event to be treasured. Let's just hope for a full Grindhouse DVD.

One of the disappointments in the split was the question of the fake trailers - which film would they accompany? And would they all make it? Sadly, the answer is no. Whilst "Machete" makes it unscathed, the others will be probably be forever lost to UK audiences unless they find their way onto one of the DVDs. And when the trailers are as good as this, it's a shame that they don't feature. Whilst maintaining the tone of Grindhouse, it manages to complete the aims in 2 and a half minutes. With the incredible line "They just f*cked with the wrong Mexican!", it's no wonder it's been rumoured as maybe being made for a Grindhouse 2 - though obviously no plans have been finalised [and quite probably won't be, due to the fact that Grindhouse was, technically, a flop]. Basically, it's lovingly made and well executed, a perfect way to ease the audience into the full-on feel of Planet Terror.

Back to the movie - Planet Terror [a.k.a Grindhouse Part 2] is gross. It splats, it gurgles, it pops and oozes and drips. The first ten minutes include bio-chemical zombies, ball cutting and Bruce Willis, and it doesn't let up. Tension is, to be honest, fairly low, but luckily it isn't the desired effect from Rodriguez. The cheesy music and grainy look of the film is much more "grindhouse" than Death Proof [missing reels, corny soundtrack] and the tongue-in-cheek tone of the film is more leaning towards gross-out comedy shlock than downright terror. This keeps proceedings funny, sharp and always enjoyable, and means the film is more like the olden days, when posters promised more than the movies could provide.

Whilst this may sound like a criticism, it really isn't. Planet Terror never tries to be more than it knows it is and wants to be. It gives sly reference to the war on terror, without focusing on it, and knows that its concept is laughable. The icky bits are suitably slimy, the weird bits suitably weird, leaving us satisfied, if not blown away, by the outcome. I mean, how many films do you get to see where Tarantino's balls drip [yes, drip] off? And Sayid from Lost holding a big jar of balls?

This movie likes balls, and it's sure got some. It moves at a rollocking pace, Rodriguez amping up the action and laughs as the time whizzes by. The action is always fun, especially the final shoot-out [yes, with a gun-leg from Rose McGowan], and the characters hit exactly the right tone. Whilst the performances aren't always mind-blowing, they more than serve their purpose, especially Freddie Rodriguez as the insanely cool El Wray, who seems to be able to do things because he is El Wray. There are many parts like this, but Planet Terror feels no need to explain and justify its reasons.

One of the movie's main attraction is its balls-out attitude, summed up when Rose McGowan emerges with a gun attached to the stub of her leg. She looks incredible, simply cool in the way that a hot chick with sunglasses and a gun-leg is. The fact that it's willing to base the whole movie leading up to the this scene shows its daring and inventive feel. The finale does not disappoint, with a very satisfying ending, yet keeping with the tone of the previous hour and a half.

The direction isn't really anything special, Rodriguez focusing more on the feel and look of the movie than using interesting shot types. To say that it wouldn't fit the genre would be true, but Rodriguez need not worry - most people going to see this aren't going to nit-pick about the good-but-nothing-special direction rather than focus on what this movie's really about.

And what is this movie about? Is it a subtle comment on our fears of nuclear bio-weapons? Is it an intimate view of small-town america? Or is it just a dumb excuse for slime, monsters and stupidity? Well, it's none of these. Planet Terror is all about having a good time, with comedy, splatter and action combining to a very entertaining, if not earth-shattering, movie, that can be accurately summed up [in tone and subject] by the line "I'm gonna eat your brains and gain your knowledge"...

So, who's up for a full DVD with both movies and trailers?

Genre Value: 4/5
Entertainment Value: 4/5
Style: 3.5/5
Overall Rating: 4/5

1-18-Oh, Wait... Is That It? - Recent News and Personal Views

2007-11-01T11:02:00.000-07:00

The SUPER-SECRET-MEGA-EXCITING title for JJ Abrams "Untitled" 1-18-08 has possibly been announced. The team behind the movie announced that a new trailer for the movie was to appear at the beginning of Beowulf, released in America on Nov 16th, and would reveal the movie's title and give some glimpses of the creature(s) that everyone was running away from in the first extremely effective trailer [for me, one of the best teasers for years]. The viral marketing for the film has been phenomenal - excellent trailer, everything kept under wraps, brilliant posters and many title rumours have cranked up the hype-factor, and now somebody's said they've seen it.

*CONTAINS SPOILERS FROM NOW ON*

Devin Faraci from movie-site chud.com has seen a trailer for the movie labelled "Trailer #1, V.17" - and therefore it may not be exactly what Beowulf viewers see. Devin describes "Army guys running up a street, firing into the air. Tanks come up behind them, firing. Rockets launch up.We see the big monster briefly passing between two buildings. I couldn't make it out at all, but it appeared to be HUGE." Supposedly there will be little monsters and a big monster, lots of choppy editing and hand held cameras, though the trailer mainly shows more panicky Americans yelling for help. For the full description, visit THIS SITE.

At the end of the trailer, the title for the movie is revealed. There is a chance that this is a marker to be changed for the actual screenings but the movie title is...
...CLOVERFIELD
[Highlight text to read]

Yup, that's it. It's what we suspected all along - OK title, too much build up. Slightly disappointed. I was hoping for something really awesome, and totally out of the blue. Hell, at least it's not Monstrous though...

*SPOILERS END HERE*

In more news, there's more viral marketing from the Dark Knight guys. A new website, rorysdeathkiss.com, has brought forth another Halloween-based task, and is whetting appetites all over the web for the movie. Let's hope the end result is worth the wait and endless clues.

New releases this week - I'm most excited about 30 Days Of Night, which has been hailed as one of the best vampire movies in ages, and as a big fan of Night Watch with its more original take on the genre, I'm looking forward to seeing how this compares.

In even more movie news, a new picture has caused a divide in fans of two sets of movies. Of course I'm talking about Alien vs. Predator: Requim's "Predalien" hybrid. Personally, I'm impressed - there's not much more you can do with a Predator/Xenomorph hybrid except stick some dreadlocks on it and make it look like a Xenomorph but more badass - and this is exactly what they've done.

So, no complaints from me, and, as a mystery even to myself, I am really looking forward to this movie, despite the pretty bad first film. From interviews etc, it sounds like these guys really know what they're doing. They're using suits instead of CGI, and have talked about the tone of the film being very different to Paul WS Anderson's movie.

So, I think that's it. There are so many movies to look forward to over the next 6 months. And with marketing strategies pushed into overdrive, let's hope they don't disappoint...

Why I Love Jurassic Park

2007-10-19T08:23:00.000-07:00

One of my favourite films of all time is Jurassic Park. It's there on my list, at number four. There are many reasons why I love Jurassic Park, but first we need to set the scene.

The first time I ever saw JP, I was about 6 or 7 years old. I was terrified. Absolutely terrified. Well, when you think about it, this a film where creatures we can't begin to imagine go on the rampage, running riot and chomping on the occasional human [be they on the toilet or not] on a beautiful island where everything that can go wrong, does go wrong. Hell, the opening scene is a velociraptor in a box killing an innocent man! How could I not be terrified? However, it stuck with me. It's such a magical film, that whenever it's on TV, I always, without fail, sit down to watch it, and every time it's still as tense, exhilirating and incredible as it was that first day, many years ago as I sat on the sofa, cushion clamped to my chest.

Jurassic Park is incredibly iconic. It was the first real 100% success with CGI, beating even modern films in its realism. It's also got so many memorable scenes. Theres the bit when they're talking about the raptors in the desert, the bit where they fly over the island [to one of the best soundtracks ever written], the bit when they see the egg hatch, the bit where they look at the Triceratops poo, the bit where the T-Rex comes, the bit where the T-Rex is by the window, the bit where the T-Rex eats the man on the loo, the bit where the car is in the trees, the bit where there's the stampede, the bit in the kitchen with the raptors, the bit where the raptors face off against the T-Rex... Chances are if you've seen this film, even only once, you'll remember one of those parts. And those are only the ones that immediately spring to mind.

One reason why Spielberg got it so right is that dinosaurs are cool. Inexplicably, awesomely cool. As a kid, I'd never seen anything like it. The creatures on the screen are so powerful, it's impossible not to be in awe of them. I'll always remember the scene when Jeff Goldblum and his wife see the Brachiosaur, their first dino experience, in a large herd. The grass is green, the sun is shining - it's a magical moment for cinema, one that'll stay with me for the rest of my life. The T-Rex is incredible, a thundering, towering beast, hungry for anything crossing it's path. The Velociraptors are incredibly smart, providing possibly the most tense scene in the film as they sneak around the kitchen looking for two cowering children...

The score is incredible, an absolute joy. The soaring strings playing as the team fly to the island is breathtaking, fully encompassing the majesty and horror of the secrets lying within the trees... It's my favourite musical score of all time, and unless you haven't heard it, you'll probably know why.

Whilst partly being a comment upon society today, talking about chaos theory, and man's battle with science causing more harm than good, it's also an unashamed blockbuster. There's mountains of excitement - all the T-Rex scenes, the stampede and the raptors in the kitchen currently spring to mind. The film's exhilirating in a way that running amongst a tide of great CGI lizards would be in real life would be. The scientific reasoning behind the dinosaurs is not so far-fetched, thus maing the plot a lot more believable than it could've been. Even the slightly declining standards of the [actually reasonably good] sequels can't dampen the spirit or legacy of this mammoth movie.

The characters in the movie are brilliant - the development is such that, straight away, you have an idea of their role in the film, but not in a way that makes it too predictable. You know that Richard Attenbrough's going to be lovable, despite his flaws. You know that Jeff Goldblum and Sam Neil will stick around 'til the end. You know Wayne Knight will meet a sticky end... But this only makes it more satisfying when it does eventually happen.

So, to conclude, this is an amazing film. Not only a technological marvel, but incredible entertainment on a massive scale that will capture the imagination of many generations to come. Those who haven't seen it will start watching their glasses of water for tremors, while those who have will be able to escape in the best way - via a huge adrenaline rush and MASSIVE DINOSAURS.

The Skeleton Key Review

2007-10-12T15:53:00.000-07:00

So, after a long absence, I now begin a new feature, reviewing films which are reasonably new, but not not in cinemas or just out on DVD. Today's review is of 2005 hoodoo-horror-thriller movie The Skeleton Key.

The Skeleton Key begins, quite aptly, with a man apparently being bored to death. This is a most likely unintenional but retrospectively clever touch by the director/writing team, as the first hour or so of the film is incredibly dull. In fact, if it weren't for that chilling, disturbing ending, the film would most likely have been long forgotten to the realm of lost, crap horror films by now - and I only finished watching it ten minutes ago. The conventions are all here - creepy house, flickering lights, scary door, mysterious objects - making what could be a very different, stand-out movie sink into depths of mundanity and banality. It's a miracle my eyes stayed open long enough to get to the surprisingly satisfying climax. I simply let the hoodoo/black magic/haunted house plot wash over me, occasionally absorbing details I thought might be important.

In terms of scares, its all random jolts, creaky doors, and red herrings. How terrifying. It doesn't really warrant many brain-cells or a large attention span, so those willing to stick with the movie are those most likely to be impressed by a slightly more intelligent and satisfying climax than usual.

But as I said earlier, the reveal is much more satisfying than usual, and is genuinely spine tingling. It leaves the audience feeling uneasy, which is why I'm currently watching Eurotrip before going to bed. The thought of what actually happens to the characters is quite sickening, and the overcoming of expectations leave you feeling shocked. Don't let anyone ruin it for you. It's one of those films where it exists purely for that horrifying twist [like Saw]. Without it, it's a 1.5/5.

With it, it's a comfortable 3/5.

Genre Value: 3.5/5
Entertainment Value: 2/5
Style: 2/5
Overall Rating: 3/5

Ain’t looking good for Britain…

2007-09-22T04:47:00.000-07:00

Ever since the dawn of time (e.g, 1900), film-makers have been fascinated with the future and what lies ahead for mankind. Some seem to have pinned the metaphorical tail straight on the donkey of time, with Metropolis (1925) predicting the rise of momentous monorails and everyday flying machines; through to The Matrix (1999) who predicted our love of little blue pills. Boing.

Some of the more unforgettable science fiction movies have been created by our own British novelists: Mary Shelly, Victor Hugo, and John Wyndham. Not forgetting George Orwell and H G Wells; the very creators of British sci-fi, who are still churning out Hollywood hits such as War of The Worlds and Animal Farm. Maybe these two film giants should not be placed on the same scale, but WoTW will hopefully soon discover their mistake of believing weeds are so much cooler than pigs. Have they ever been to Yorkshire?

Let’s focus on H G Wells, a personal favourite of mine. Having read The Time Machine, and seen the movie (not counting the more recent one, but who honestly does?), anyone can see they jazzed up the original though-provoking book into an action-packed testicle fest with daring rescue missions, cannibal scenes and lava pits. I enjoyed both versions of the story, but I still wonder why they turned a cowardly scientist (let’s call him Shaggy), into a hunky liberator for the future, (let’s call him Alex). It’s quite creepy to think that even though this film was created in 1960, they added the threat of nuclear war, during the year of 1966. This kind of plot isn’t unheard of; A Clockwork Orange, 1984 and Brave New World are but a few more examples of Britain’s grim future, yet they’re all set in our past.

As I mentioned before, WoTW has become a huge hit over the last few years thanks to great actors, effects, music and directed by the legendary sci-fi guy himself; Spielberg. Although many changes were made, one of the more major ones was to shift the location from London to New York. They’re similar I guess, in that they’re both in charge, the people are large and not much else. What I really liked about the original WoTW, was the fact that I could share the protagonist’s journey through Britain and recognise certain accents or landmarks I’ve seen myself. Well that, and the hilariously appalling crash scene at the finale. Wanna know what really exterminated the alien menace? Morgan Freeman and his penguin horde.

Speaking of hordes, America has had more than it’s fair share of apocalypses. They can keep their fancy Terminators, and we’ll stick to our Triffids, thanks very much. A handful of futuristic American dystopias such as I, Robot and A Scanner Darkly are the brainchildren of writer Philip K. Dick. Although they are staged and located around the US, they all seem to stem from the typical British sci-fi themes: corrupt government, hallucinogenic drugs and the use of needless and new technologies. Sounds like a day at the races for the States, but still has it’s roots buried in the little Empire that is the United Kingdom. I should probably stop digging on at them so much, as without their superior budgets and resources, superstar films such as Blade Runner, Logan’s Run and The Running Man would never have been created! And where would that leave us? Very unfit I guess….

Another gruesome end that Britain may inevitably face thanks to cinema is the threat of zombies, and all the merriment that surrounds them. 28 Days Later was perhaps the most profound British zombie movie, causing quite a stir in horror-circles for containing themes that remained unused until now. The zombies are quite alive in this film, but having ingested the Rage virus, they are drawn into a blood-thirsty and ultraviolent unconsciousness, where memories and reasonable thought are lost completely. To be true, it’s not the first appearance of such a style, but never has it been applied so delicately. Even the director, Danny Boyle identified “John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffids as the original inspiration for the story”. Cillian Murphy and Christopher Eccleston, both renowned British actors, are to be found amongst the credits, playing their roles superbly and realistically. With the introduction of 28 Weeks Later, and the planned 28 Months Later (2009), one cannot feel disappointed at the film industry for failing to realise once again, LEAVE THE FRIGGING SEQUALS OUT OF IT.

One of the most recent British classics and, in my eyes, one of the greatest but disturbing dystopias ever created for our tiny island. Children of Men blew me away when I first saw it, and not because of the amazing action towards the end, or the stylistic directing, or the brilliant acting on all accounts. It was the scarily realistic plot that won it over on me. The idea that all immigrants were to be placed in a Nazi-themed concentration camp, and treated like an inferior species until they rose up and took on the country by force, scared the shit out of me, as I could see it happening before my own eyes. It really felt as if we were heading for such a bleak future, where all over superpowers have fallen to war or poverty, teenagers violently rule the streets and racism is rife once again. It’s hard not to see the similarities between this future and a past that we encounted only a few decades ago. This is a must-see for anyone that I know, and that I don’t, and I can guarantee that if you aren’t worried about this possibility, then you’re in the wrong country mate.

Soon to be heading our way is an American style “last man on earth” wasteland movie, starring New York (peopleless) and Will Smith (topless). The idea branches from earlier movies on this genre, but with the twist that he’s not alone in the city, and that diseased mutants are hiding and waiting to unleash an ugly and brutal revenge. To be honest, I’m pretty excited about I Am Legend, and although I could be wrong about this film, I’d still like to go see. There are also tales of a similar tale coming out in 2009 aptly named Doomsday, written and directed by Neil Marshall, starring Malcolm McDowell, who excellently played Alex in A Clockwork Orange 40 years earlier. If this kind of story really interests you so, give Stephen King’s Novel The Stand a checkout, a long story of fear and hope in a post-apocalyptic America, fuelled by religion and warfare. Definitely one to keep away from the kids…

And so, I put it to all you out there, that we British have a great knack for a certain genre; the post-apocalyptic, fascist governed, drug controlled, zombie ridden, deceptive dystopias that we so love. And to think I was worried about the lack of llama farms…

Run, Fat Boy, Run Review

2007-09-18T10:46:00.000-07:00

Run, Fat Boy, Run has caused some friction in the I Hate How Fake Hollywood Is... camp. Initial reviews haven’t been consistent; Empire gave it 3 stars (which sounds fine until you compare it to the 4’s it gave to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, Pegg’s previous gems) but it faired reasonably well on Rotten Tomatoes and they’ve split us slightly. Ben, low on cinema going funds with many possibly better opportunities on which to spend his pennies deemed it something he’d wait for the DVD of. Fair enough, but I’m not that patient and so with a freshly paid allowance I decided I’d give it a shot and so did Alex (although I bagsied reviewing privileges before hand.) So a motley crew was gathered together, and we were cinema bound! Get on with the review I hear you shout, well, fine…here it is.

I was pleasantly surprised…the film I saw wasn’t nearly as bad as the one described in its reviews, but then I suppose they could have mixed the reels up. The gags weren’t predictable (as Empire had described them) and Pegg easily led the film, backed up by a whole host of excellent comedic actors playing some great characters. Run, Fat Boy, Run had a couple of pretty successful and handsome big brothers to try and live up to (despite not being part of the Ice Cream Trilogy, it’s always going to be compared to Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) and it did very well with style and ease.

The plot goes that Pegg’s character leaves his pregnant girlfriend at the altar (basically because he’s scared shitless, but there’s an excellent cameo by a ginger hair piece in the early movie) which leads to him falling into a life of slobbish disregard for himself. He then finds out about the new man in her life and sees competition he’s never had before. And thus the duel begins, the outcome you’ll have to find out by getting your butt to the cinema, but lets just say our anti-hero is helped along the way by the Irish cousin of aforementioned girlfriend and his over weight, spatula wielding, moped riding landlord. While Whit (who I have cunningly renamed ‘the Twit’) needs the help of no one, not that there’d be any space in the room, his ego is already lounging on every available surface.

I think Simon Pegg deserves an award simply for being filmed in the most appalling pair of lycra shorts cinema has ever seen, seriously - new category at the Baftas. His slob was made likeable and realistic (with the help of a fat suit), you can’t help but for him to beat the living monkeys out of Twit or whatever his name was. He made up for the lack of Nick Frost by taking advantage of good chemistry with the rest of the cast, particularly Dylan Moran (his Irish friend, a regular collaborator with Pegg) and Harish Patel (his slightly unhinged landlord.)
Moran was brilliant as the Irish best friend/cousin (seemingly part of the most multi-cultural family in all of filmdom) who was something of a scene stealer, involved in a seedy gambling group, chain smoking and inclined towards worryingly incestuous comments.
The American ‘perfect’ guy, Whit, who turns out to be an utter bastard (oh, come on. We all saw it coming) is played by Hank ‘voices most of the minor characters in the Simpsons’ Azaria. Previously I’d only ever seen him act, act in Friends and then a Julia Roberts movie where he ponces around in Speedos and talks in a funny accent – so I wasn’t sure how he’d fare against his cast makes. I’m happy to say I under estimated him, he plays an excellent bastard.

Thandie Newton, who most people will recognise from Crash and possibly the Pursuit of Happyness, I sadly recognised from her brief stint in ER – but no more should be said about it. Her character was probably the one with the least ‘funny potential’ written into the script, but she played Libby well, to the extent that you didn’t immediately label her as the one put in to bump up the serious factor. She had quirks rather than obvious funniness and I think that stopped the film from being a little too sickly in the laugh department.

It has to be said the old ones were still the best. The profanity spewing little old lady, the inappropriately disgusting expulsion of bodily fluids (from a highly unlikely place – you’ve seen it in the trailer, but the entire scene is just so much better), the Asian landlord who came up with an excellent metaphor that made me chuckle long after the rest of the audience had stopped (its about toothpaste, look out for it) and the kid spewing profanities - not that this film bases itself on comedic swearing.

David Schwimmer should be very proud of this film, he’s doing something quite brave by switching from acting – a career for which he is so well known and this may help him lose the ‘Ross from Friends’ tagline that voice work in animated films was never going to touch. It is most definitely the best of his directing efforts thus far and I look forward to seeing more of like this in the future.

The general consensus from my fellow cinema goers was that it was ‘dead good’ – and these people are taking English, worrying isn’t it? But yeah, it seemed to go down better than expected, even if they did only have sweet popcorn at the schnack stand, which put something of a dampener on the opening. And this wasn’t deemed to be ‘too boyish’ by the owners of two X chromosomes as Hot Fuzz was (something I, a couple of shiny X’s completely disagree with by the way, Hot Fuzz was brilliant.) I warn ye, this isn’t one for the squeamish…or those with a nudity phobia but it’s most definitely worth the price of a cinema ticket.

Genre Value: 4/5
Entertainment Value: 4/5
Style: 3.5/5
Overall Rating: 4/5

Death Proof Review

2007-09-17T12:23:00.000-07:00

Ah, Grindhouse. The UK's biggest disappointment of this calendar year, hyped by critics, ignored by idiots. Sorry, Americans. The dream-team of Tarantino and Rodriguez, working together but seperately... how could someone ignore one of the most exciting movie prospects of the past couple of years, all due to a not-particularly-bum-numbing 3 hours? If people can sit through three Rings films, surely they can have a blast watching Grindhouse?

When I found out that Girndhouse was to be split for the UK, I was furious. Surely, I thought to myself, this defeats the whole point of the Grindhouse experience, the entire essence of the film's creation? Why ruin it for us, just because the Americans didn't "get" it? Not only was it loved by critics, but lots of people who did go and see it, loved it. The news came that Tarantino was going to extend Death Proof with footage he wanted in the film originally, before deciding it was too long. I was worried - would this be half the film I was expecting?

The answer is no. The long and short of it is, Death Proof is absolutely brilliant. From the opening shot, once again showcasing Tarantino's foot fetish, to the fantastic close, the film is always incredibly entertaining. At times it's exciting, at times it's sexy, and, as ever with QT, it's effortlessly cool. The whole film is incredibly well directed, deliciously authentic and decidedly witty. It's standard Tarantino dialogue, but that still means it a huge cut above the average, Tracie Thoms especially benefitting from some hilarious comic timing. Some people do not realise that a slight plot and simple plot are not the same thing. Death Proof is definitely the latter, an interesting premise gloriously realised and not over-complicating itself for the sake of it. Kurt Russell is especially good as deranged killer Stuntman Mike, all slashed face and malicious grin. But he's also surprisingly charming, even when it's part of a facade to lull his victims into a false sense of security. To be honest, half the time you can't really blame them.

As previously stated, it's magnificently well made. QT, sometimes praised more for his writing, is such a talented directed that only the blind couldn't see how competently he's made this. Despite the 2-Hour running time [which, to be honest, is mostly talking], there's always something interesting to look at, be it the shots themselves or the various blips, crackles and missing frames used. It's all done to stunning effect - it's so captivating you can't help but feel transported to a different time. I particularly enjoyed the short monochrome section at the start of the film's second half, and the opening warning about it being rated 'R'. One horrific scene, approximately an hour in, is replayed from so many different angles that you feel slightly disorientated from watching it [in a good way].

The film is very much in two halves - two sets of victims, two different cities, two opposing outcomes. In the first we meet minimal big stars, not counting the extended cameos from QT himself and his splatter-buddy Eli Roth, and it's all about the build-up. Some people have complained that there is no build-up, but it's so subtly done that they most likely didn't realise. Each scenario always feels like it's leading somewhere, making it all the more watchable. In the second half, the big names come into play, with a fabulous array of colours illuminating the less-scratchy-flickery screen.

Rosario Dawson is excellent as usual, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is left slightly trailing, but it's Zoe Bell [Uma Thurman's stunt double in Kill Bill] that deserves the big mention. Playing herself, she's a great character, and does all of her own [amazing] stunts. The finale is taut and exciting, a real-edge-of-your-seat unpredictable chase before reaching its crowd-pleasing destination. QT's made his own sub-genre by mashing others together [grindhouse, serial killer, stalker, thriller, action] - stalk 'n' smash to hugely entertaining effect.

There are one or two small negatives to that large amount of positives. For starters, it's by no means the "slasher movie at 200 MPH" that Tarantino initially promised. It starts reasonably slowly, like all of QT's films, before steadily gaining more and more digits on its speed-o-meter. Also, the film is really great, but Quentin hasn't really moved on much. I guess he has his own style, but it's not wildly different to what he's done before. He's even re-used the "feature presentation" retro starter that he's used before.

But these are only very slight downers in what is otherwise genuinely one of the best films of the year. It's so well made with so much passion, lots of [interesting and amusing] talk mixed with some of the best car chases I've ever seen. Usually, there isn't somebody on the bonnet... it's so striking you can't ignore it, and it's all the better for its OTT factor. It feels so genuine that now I'm more annoyed about the split than ever before. Bring on Planet Terror.

Now.

Genre Value: 4.5/5
Entertainment Value: 4.5/5
Style: 4.5/5
Overall Rating: 4.5/5

I Don't Want My Mummy

2007-09-12T09:23:00.001-07:00

Whilst this year was officially the "year of the threequel", one franchise managed to escape, delaying itself by another 12 months or so - luckily for us.

The original remake of The Mummy was an entertaining, ghoulish thrill ride, all sand-whipping CGI, walking dead egyptians and killer beatles. It was genuinely scary [well, I was only 8...], guiltily using any plot device at its disposal, be it mummies, plagues or wartime rivalry, but always managing to chundle along pleasantly enough.

The sequel - with it's oh so original title The Mummy Returns - is one of the worst films I've ever seen. It tried so hard to exceed its predecessor that it left out what was so enjoyable about it. The Rock sucked. The CGI went backwards, and it was frankly ridiculous. The plot rambled, the action was disengaging and yet it still spawned a spin-off, The Scorpion King - another failure in my eyes.

So it shall come as no surprise that the Mummy 3 does not have a lot going for it. Director Stephen Sommers took a break from the series to direct the abysmal Van Helsing, and even he hasn't bothered returning to the franchise that made his name. Neither has Rachel Weisz, who has since moved on to bigger and better things. Also did I mention that it's called The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor? Having read a simple plot outline, I found myself reading the words "shape-shifting entity", "curse" and "wizard". Oh dear.

I'll let you make your own mind up, but you can be sure I won't be reviewing this one. Unless we start an "awful films" section. Which I might well do.

In other movie news, Indy 4 gets a title! Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is released on 22nd May 2008. Awesome!

Just Joking

2007-09-07T06:48:00.000-07:00

Is anyone else getting incredibly excited about the Batman Begins sequel - The Dark Knight [due for release next year]? Every new picture released gets me even more excited. If you've seen any, you'll know why.

At the end of the [incredible] Batman Begins, the Joker is hinted at as the next villain to be used. When a casting call went out and Heath Ledger was eventually chosen for the role, I was wary, unable to picture him as a real bad guy after seeing him in A Knight's Tale and 10 Things I Hate About You. My faith has been comfortably restored and surpassed.

Does that not just scare the crap out of you?! The Joker looks seriously twisted, and like a real villain [something I feel Begins rather lacked - sure there was a crime gang, but Scarecrow wasn't featured much...]. Ledger's described his character as an "anarchic, junkie Joker".

Not only does the villain look amazing/terrifying, but other highlights of the re-boot have been improved, such as the Batmobile - there's now a bat bike [awesome!] and the suit has been re-designed [thankfully without nipples] to be harder, tougher and stronger.

I guess I'll have to wait for the film to be released to see if it'll be better than Begins. May can't come soon enough...

Shock Shock Horror Horror

2007-09-05T10:58:00.000-07:00

I'm hoping to write a lot more on this blog in the future, just about anything film related, really. I shall soon be watching Blades of Glory [the Will Ferrell ice-skating comedy] and may well be reviewing that, and am looking at starting a new "classic reviews" section, reviewing, you guessed it, classic films. Ellie is mid-Airplane! review, so watch out for that soon.

Today I will be adding my two cents to the 1408 debate [handily rhyming]. Many people have said to me to go and see it, but the truth is that shlock horror no longer interests me. If you spoke to me a year a go, I would've gushed about House of Wax and Final Destination, but not today. No sir-ee. One day I realised that most horror movies are complete wastes of time. Scares are often manufactured through creaky doors and dark rooms until they are no longer scary - just uninteresting and uniform. I laughed out loud [lolled?] at the similarity between these two posters, from the same team of producers/writers or whatever.

This a perfect example of the point I'm trying to make. All horror movies seem to have the same themes, stories and conventions [I know this is obvious, but look at negatively]. Not only are these two posters exactly the same, but Apartment 1303 looks as if it shared a writer with 1408. I'm looking for originality in horror, something thats actually scary, not some crazed japanese ghost or haunted house. If you want something genuinely scary, look for The Descent or Severance. The premise of each is disturbingly possible - well, maybe not the Descent's creatures, but the shocking beginning and primal fears involved are - and is much better for it. Don't let Severance's "horror-comedy" tag fool you - the horror vastly outweighs the comedy, and it is honestly terrifying. Hell, even the first Saw film is worth a watch - if only for that stunning twist. Looks past the pretty awful dialogue and the declining sequels [Saw III belongs in the sick and twisted bargain bin] and there is an exciting, intelligent thriller [not really horror - trust me on that] with more brains than gore. And if anyone tries to tell you that Hostel is good, there's obviously something wrong with them.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, most horror films are shite.

The Prodigal Son Returns

2007-09-04T08:50:00.000-07:00

After what was, let's face it, a rather long and unnecessary absence, I've returned to my old film blog. Summer's come and gone, and, when you think about it, it was slightly disappointing for movies. There were some great new franchise starters [Transformers, The Simpsons Movie], some entertaining/exciting sequels [Pirates, Spider-Man, Bourne Ultimatum, Harry Potter], but also some real crap. Fantastic Four, Rush Hour and Shrek all came out with cash in hand, but with significantly dwindling reviews and feedback, and didn't live up to any anticipation/hype set around them. Nowadays, just slapping some people and FX on a screen does not a good movie make. The people behind these movies obviously didn't get the memo. It was a real shame, especially for Shrek The Third, which became the very thing it was trying to be different from, and was the big red cross in the previously enchanting, daring and hilarious record.

But now it's time to look on at the rest of the year. The Golden Compass is released towards the end of the year, and is undoubtedly going to be the christmas movie. But I don't want to have to think forward that far yet. In the next couple of weeks, I'm certainly looking forward to Disturbia and Superbad, both of which did very well at the American box office and have been given surprisingly positive reviews. It appears Judd Apatow is the flavour of the month. Ratatouille, the next Pixar movie, also looks brilliant. After Cars, it looks like a definite return to form, and is a contender for Oscar nominations.

This week I've been keeping my eye on Kevin Smith. Anyone that knows me is likely to have heard me quote his movies at some point, and this week he's finished the script for his forthcoming "horror" movie, Red State. He has two projects planned - a comedy [Zack and Miri Make a Porno] and Red State, which he says is a "horror movie, but not a traditional horror movie". I can't wait for it - Smith claims that it's completely different from anything he's done before. Here are some quotes that I've picked up, of people describing the script:
"It's so bleak"
"it's a helluva provocative script"
Maybe not "snootchie bootchies" then...

But that's definitely one to watch out for. My thoughts about the plotline are thus: maybe about politics, giving power to the wrong people, and the world/economy going down the drain as a result. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. It's no secret that I love Kevin Smith, so you can expect lots of updates from me.

I guess that's all for today.

Summershort

2007-08-31T01:40:00.001-07:00

A quick summary of all the fun, fab, or flaky films i saw on my travels! :3
And I apologise for the lack of paragraphs, humour or reason I may give in my reviews!

Zodiac

This is maybe the best film I watched this whole summer! Watched this in Amsterdam with Dutch subtitles; and it's a great way to learn funny words in funnier languages. I've always loved Jake Gylllllennhaalll and although I think he's a great character in this, I just didn't find him as interesting as the others. Robert Downey Jr is brilliant casted as a slightly eccentric journelist with all of Downey's natural confidence and suave attitude mixed in. The story was pretty lengthy, but not once did I think that whilst watching it! It kept me riveted to my seat until the ending credits! As I said before, this was the personal holidy favourite for me, and by all means the most disturbing...

Blades of Glory

Another great piece to add to Ferrell's already impressive comedy arsenal; and for me, this was possibly his greatest yet. Probably because I watched it with my mum on the plane, and it's one of those films to watch with family or friends. Otherwise, you may not find the urge to laugh your way through it! Although i'm not too keen on John Heder, as most of his career has just been one long drawn out character, he works so brilliantly with Ferrell and pulls off a great piece of comedic cinema. To re-iterate, I loved this movie and will be one for me to see again soon!

Freedom Writers

Personally, I enjoyed this more than I thought I would. Based on a true story, this movie includes romance, comedy, violence, drugs and tears; and basically aims for everyone with a heart. So you might wanna avoid this, Grinch. Not too much to delve into for this one folks, but it was a good one to see with family. You really end up loving the characters, learning more about America's history with racism, and you get to see Imelda Staunton (Delores Umbridge in HP5) be another grouchy, yet cuddly, teacher! Worth a view, even if just for the great true story and ace real characters.

The Invasion

As a modernised recap of the Body Snatcher genre, The Invasion was pretty limited with it's plot but with solid acting from Craig and Kidman, I was pretty impressed with the overall style of filming. Possibly letdown by the unnecessary and dull action sequence towards the end but still scary, funny and sophisticated enough to be quite the underdog thriller of the year. Both arty and mainstream, it was a surprisingly good film to see; especially as I'd heard nothing from it back in the UK!

The Perfect Score

"The Breakfast Club meets Ocean's Eleven". Slow your horses Washington Post, did we see the same movie? I reckoned it was one of the better and smarter teen comedies I've seen in my time, but if it weren't for one character out of a highly recognisable cast, I would have been thoroughly dissapointed. Leonardo Nam, an Korean-Argintinian that's lived in Sydney his whole life, is hilarious as "the loser" Roy. Final thoughts: It held my attention, and captured a whole cross-section of interesting teenagers, but still not enough to save the silly plot and lifeless acting.

No Reservations

To sum this up, it's just your average (more) rom- (than) com...but with great taste!
Not because it's thats exciting or detailed, but becacuse it revolves around 2 chefs and their love of food over each other. The real attraction of this film for me was the cast! Aaron Eckhaart as a light and witty italtian cook, who loves dancing to opera in his kitchen! Catherine Zeta Jones plays a woman who lives her life by the cookbook, and when *something terrible* happens, she's left in charge of her niece...and has no clue what to do.
Saving the best till last, the cute paegent goer from Little Miss Sunshine, Abigail Breslin, plays the niece who loves bears, hates fancy food and seems intent of creating a new family. Annoyingly, she was used as little as possible and seemed to be a lurking background character behind the other two. Not really worth much of a look-in, unless you love your food or rising child stars, but where we saw it? That's got a whole section dedicated to it's own....

Reel Pizza Cinerama

It has now become my dream to open a place like this...
It's a small 3 screened cinema in a tiny New England village, but unlike anything i've ever seen before. No cinema seats in sight, just an army of leather, cotton and any other materials you've ever seen on a sofa. You sacrifice your cupholders for a three piece suite of paridise. Did i mention they include scatter cushions?! Not only that, you can order popcorn, nachos, chips, hotdogs, beers and milkshakes from the entrance! And there's only one thing more exciting that the movie.... the bingo board. Once you've ordered your pizza, you just relax and wait for your number to flash up on a giant bingo board! Nothing can beat that surely?
Maybe the fact that the lobby is also a local art gallery, for both young and old to display their works! This amazing place has treasured me with great memories, and I hope that I'll get to return before long. Thanks for reading guys!

http://www.reelpizza.net/ - Awesome!
http://www.reelpizza.net/fasq.php - Phwoarsome!

It's Friday Again

2007-08-17T04:05:00.000-07:00

Once again, it's the start of the weekend which, of course, means more new releases at the cinema.
Summer is winding to a close, with the last of the real big blockbusters released today. The Bourne Ultimatum concludes the amnesiac-spy trilogy based on Robert Ludlum's bestselling books. Once again starring Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, it's been highly praised, receiving mainly 4 and 5 star reviews. It's today's biggest release, just above the Bratz: The Movie. I widely consider the "movie" franchise [Scary Movie, Date Movie, Epic Movie] to be the absolute scum of the movie world. In my mind, Bratz is set to join them. Just the trailer on the TV was enough to make me reach for the nearest copy of Little Miss Sunshine and tell myself that it was all going to be OK. Frankly, it looks dire, and unless you're a five year old girl [or the parent of a five year old girl] there is no reason [at all] to see this movie, unless it is as a form of punishment.

Other releases today are New Zealand indie flick Eagle Vs. Shark, children's fantasty Mee-Shee: The Water Giant, and the re-release of Scorsese's Raging Bull.

The Simpsons Movie Review

2007-08-10T02:47:00.000-07:00

There have been more eagerly anticipated films this summer, and there have been more thrilling blockbusters, but I doubt there were trailers more appetising or unexpected! The last couple of seasons of The Simpsons have been entertaining at best and I doubt there can be much done to muster material as funny as it should be; which is why I'm so glad they conjured up a couple of new ideas and packed in quite a few one-liners for the movie. With a superb start and a satisfying ending, you won’t be too disappointed with their efforts. I know for certain that my 7 year old cousin loved it more than I did, as I had to put up with him flicking straws into my face during the trailers, but once he was watching, it was hard to distract him from the screen.

When I left the cinema, I felt that I was left questioning the PG certificate they had settled on. There's certaintly more than a pinch of sex, nudity and swearing in this family cartoon, but fans will probably be delighted that they're wiling to go the extra mile for the movie. Still, I can guarantee there will be moments when you think "can they really do that?!", but if you're like me, you could be enjoying yourself too much to care! There also seems to be a fair use of 3D effects on rather mundane objects such as cars and houses which I think seems a slight waste, when we’re so used to the regular 2D animation. But when it’s used on missiles and other explosive features, it gives a new modern edge to this cartoon classic.

This particular story follows the family as they try and save Springfield from some unlikely villains and try to keep their family together in the face of peril. Marge plays the ever cautious and level headed mother, Lisa will stop at nothing to clean up the pollution of Springfield, Bart has father issues turns to Flanders for guidance, Maggie returns as the unsung hero whilst Homer literally 'hogs' the spotlight for the majority of the film and the script seems to follow his tale more than any others. No one, except the family, gets much of a look in and this takes away from the overall varied and sometimes absurd scenes of the TV show.

As with most films, this one has it’s share of mistakes and pitfalls. Although the story is intriguing and exciting, you can’t help think that you’ve seen it somewhere before. They do use quite a common plot to base the story around, making it both familiar and slightly dry. It also does seem to slow towards the end half with a quaint happy ending, nothing more but surely nothing less. ‘Empire’ seems to have taken a pretty critical view of the feature, slating it as the “biggest waste of the summer.” Their opinion, or certaintly not that of the reviewer, is not shared by me and I have to agree that you might not be rolling around on the cinema floor, or even laughing out loud more than once; but why are we treating this as any different to the television show? As a movie, I fear this would not even be recognised without all the show’s previous achievements. As an episode, I feel that it’s top notch, and still thoroughly enjoyable, without as many sidesplitting gags as we’re used to.

To bring this show to a close, I’d say that if you were to see just one 2D cartoon movie this year (which is most likely, given the amount of 3D rubbish churned out so far) then make this top of your list. You’ll feel comfortable in watching your favourite characters as usual, but with the extra thrill of the big screen. With minimal guest stars but brief appearances from Green Day and others, I was slightly disappointed by the lack of celebrity endorsement but it was hardly a big issue.Needless to say, don’t expect the greatest film of the summer, but if you enjoy watching on the small screen then be sure to give this a heads up.

Genre Value: 3.5/5
Entertainment Value: 4.5/5
Style: 4/5
Overall Rating: 4/5

Transformers Review

2007-07-29T11:25:00.001-07:00

This summer has seen many a blockbuster come and go: Spider-Man 3, Pirates 3, Ocean's 13, Shrek 3, Harry Potter 5, Die Hard 4.0... Let's go through them:
Spider-Man 3 will go down as being "the third one that wasn't as good as the second"
Pirates 3 will be "the one that was better than the second, but didn't live up to the first"
Ocean's 13 will be 'remembered' as "the threequel most easily forgotten"

I could go on and on. But I won't.

What is certain, is that people will remember Transformers. It's 2007's biggest and best blockbuster, with all you could ever want in a movie based on a Hasbro toy. It's the ultimate popcorn flick, only requiring a disengaged brain and a pair of eyeballs to take in the plot, action and thrills. The incredibly simple premise is summed up in a plot-by-numbers voice-over, neatly giving enough information to intrigue and excite, but without any real depth.

Our hero, played by the instantly likable Shia LaBoeuf, is Sam Whitwicky - just your average teenager. Like most young adults, he wants a car, pines over hottie Mikeala [Megan Fox], and has awkward talks with his parents. The movie's surprisingly large amount of comedic moments usually come from Sam, as he tries to hide the fact that his car is, in fact, an alien space robot. He isn't particularly interested in his family history, and what he knows about his explorer Grandfather, he uses to sell various things he left behind to raise money for his car fund. One of these objects is a pair of glasses, which holds the key to the whereabouts of the AllSpark, a life-giving cube. This is where the giant transforming robots come in. The Decepticons [bad robots] want the cube to turn every electronic gadget into a Transformer to make an army. The Autobots [good robots] want the cube to stop the Decepticons from getting it. Unfortunately, the Decepticons are already on Earth, whilst the Autobots are still floating through space...

The film's thrilling opening sequence shows a desert attack in which we most definitely lose. It is cleverly done, showing glimpses of the Transformer, but not showing you exactly what is going on. It's just one of many jaw-dropping action sequences, which, luckily, come thick and fast, though not in a way that you begin to feel bored or uninterested. Other favourites include a night-time battle between Decepticon Barricade and Autobot Bumblebee [Sam's car]. This is the first time we see the Transformers in full, and it's incredibly impressive - the sound of metal grinding upon metal has never been so invigorating, and you can't help but find yourself grinning.

The film itself is heavily endorsed - as much as action comedy as an advert for Nokia, Camaros, iPods and Macs, X-Box 360s, Mountain Dew and, more controversially, the army. The list goes on and on. Most scenes involve either choppers or soldiers, with heroes nobly fighting for the freedom of the world.

One of the reasons why the films works so well is in the fact that the Transformers themselves are real characters - they're all different, from trigger-happy Ironhide to dignified do-gooder Optimus Prime, each Transformer has its own personality. It's rare when, in a film, you can connect with a load of giant CGI robots, but small touches help us to like them. My favourite is Bumblebee's tendancy to use the radio to help Sam win over Mikaela, playing appropriate music whenever he sees her. It's these moments, as well as the incredible action sequences which will be remembered far into the future. It's genuinely touching to see the bond between teen and machine, and Sam's devotion to Bumblebee's cause. This is no doubt one of Spielberg's [who Executive Produced] touches, and he did a good job at reigning in Bay slightly. There are also some surprisingly nice shot types used, which I didn't particularly expect from Bay.

This leads us on to the smackdowns. There are so many. And they are oh so painstakingly good. I spent most of the film with my hand over my mouth, my eyes wide, thinking to myself "this is so cool". From the opening desert decimation, to the Barricade/Bumblebee battle, to the Optimus Prime vs. Megatron finale to name but a few, the action is captivating, engrossing, and simply amazing. The CGI is absolutely flawless - the best I've ever seen; the Transformers are works of art, especially Megatron, who often transforms into a jet whilst in mid-air. I can guarantee that, over the course of the summer, the amount of quality action in Transformers will not be beaten. Each Transformer consists of thousand of tiny moving parts, and watching them transform [even when they aren't fighting] is mind blowing. It just goes to show how far CGI has come, a memo obviously missed by the Harry Potter team when animating Hagrid's half-brother Grawp.

Many people have complained that the robots-search-for-cube story is stupid and dumb, but when we look at our culture and society, it isn't so far removed. When Bush was convinced that middle eastern countries were hiding WMDs, we invaded to try and find them so that they don't have them. Is this not what the Transformers were doing all along? Luckily, Transformers doesn't take itself too seriously - it knows how preposterous it is, and instead of taking itself into the realms of deep silliness, it just carries on knowingly, without straying too far away from what the fanboys want. The comedy and action are balanced perfectly, and it is always thoroughly entertaining.

So, to sum up, you won't see a better blockbuster all summer. With Spielberg and Bay working together, they've made a hugely enjoyable action movie with well-rounded characters, incredible CGI and a huge metal heart for every metal fist. Comparisons have been made with Spielberg's masterpiece Jurassic Park [one of my favourite films ever]. It turns out they are perfectly justified...

Genre Value: 5/5
Entertainment Value: 4.5/5
Style: 3/5
Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Please Welcome Our New Member...

2007-07-27T12:11:00.000-07:00

A new member has joined the "I Hate How Fake Hollywood Is..." team! Please welcome our new writer Ellie! Expect some posts from her soon!

Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix Review

2007-07-27T05:56:00.000-07:00

Many surprises and treats await the audience of the new Harry Potter film. The main surprise is that Daniel Radcliffe can really act. No, really. Our moody hero no longer looks as if he's constantly being slapped in the face, and conveys real emotions, injecting an actual character into his previous shell. Emma Watson is no longer the most talented of the young'uns, and even Rupert Grint has caught up. His Ron has changed significantly since the last outing, due to the fact that he gains real genuine laughs from his portrayal as the ultimate teenager [sarcastic, witty, a bit grumpy] instead of just gurning at appropriate times. The adult performances continue to impress, especially Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman, whose relationship with Harry is incredibly convincing, and has evolved significantly since the Prisoner of Azkaban. Evanna Lynch is perfectly cast as Luna Lovegood, just on the likeable side of creepy, and Imelda Staunton is captivating as Mrs Umbridge. She's a pink, fluffy, nightmare, seemingly light hearted but really a total b*tch.

The opening of the film is suitably thrilling, as our world and the magic world begins to collide with a Dementor attack in the park. It's a very well directed scene that sets the tone for the rest of the movie. The first four films/books in the series mark the first half of the series. From five onwards is where the darkness really begins. I know everybody says the books are "darker" and "edgier", but they really are from here on in. With Voldemort back for real, there's real threat round every corner [though the Ministry of Magic refuses to believe it], and a series of disappearances is the real sign that he's back. Though the Goblet of Fire had its darker moments, it was intersperced with moments of comedy and lots of action. Whilst that film was very good, by including all the action, it left no room for character development and was subsequently exciting yet lacking emotion. Order of the Phoenix is almost the opposite. With the book waffling on, with too much detail in the smallest matters, it works much better as a film. The characters have much more room to breathe, and the whole movie feels much more rounded and like a film rather than a series of action sequences with Harry Potter in them.

When Umbridge starts to take over, we see real frustration from our heroic threesome at the mounting restricitions [shown to good effect in some of the films few comedic scenes] and boundaries set by the Ministry. It is surprisingly liberating when the students begin to fight back, and gives real excitement at the thought of teenage rebellion against the establishment.

For all its talk and character development, the end of the film explodes in a tense, exciting scene in the Ministry of Magic's Department of Mysteries. The set is fantastic, especially the golden fountain, and the prophecy room, and it has a sense of real danger about it. It's good to see some of Harry's friends aside from Ron and Hermione helping him against the Dark Lord, as it also helps to show how all Wizards and Witches must unite to defeat evil. It makes up for the lack of action in the films mid-section.

However, the film is not perfect. Helena Bonham Carter is desperately underused, and during the climatic battle there are opportunities that are disappointingly not taken [most notably Ron being attacked by the flying brains, and looking at the various rooms inside the Department of Mysteries]. Also, the incredibly important talk at the end of the book ["It is time I told you everything..."] is cut down to its bare bones.

These points aside, the Order Of The Phoenix is the best of the Potter films. With action, characters, great performances and a real sense of threat, it works much better than the book. Some might say it's boring, or that its too dark, but they're not looking for the right things, and neglect the fact that the book contains little action and is pretty dark itself. Just go out and lose yourself. Then wait in anticipation of the Half-Blood Prince...

Genre Value: 4/5
Entertainment Value: 4/5
Style: 3.5/5
Overall Rating: 4/5

Yellow Fellows...

2007-07-25T10:09:00.000-07:00

Simpsons Movie reviews are surfacing around the internet - and they're positive! www.totalfilm.com gives it 4/5, as does times online. All clips and trailers have been hilarious, so to me there was a good vibe from the start. The Simpsons Movie is released on Friday, with various preview showings tomorrow. Please keep voting on the Simpsons poll, and thanks to anyone who has voted so far!

You can expect a review of Harry Potter and the Order And The Phoenix by Saturday, if not Friday!

Lolz To Tha Pollz

2007-07-24T06:50:00.000-07:00

I know the title joke is just so seriously lame, but I couldn't resist. I've added a new poll feature which I will aim to update and change every week. This week I'm asking you whether you think the Simpsons Movie [released Friday, with previews on Thursday] will be any good or not. Yes, it's your time to yell at me and my stupid opinions, so go ahead. Enjoy.

Lolz To Tha Holz

2007-07-23T09:23:00.000-07:00

I've just got back from two weeks in France [and am soon to go away again to Germany for two more], during which much has happened in the movie world.
Potter fever has reached boiling point, with the release of the Order of the Phoenix movie [which I will hopefully see this week and review for you] and the 7th and final book, the Deathly Hallows, all within just over one week.
The film has recieved overall positive, but mixed reviews. Once again "darker" and "edgier" [words which have become immensely overused when describing the latter books/films in the series], it's one of my least favourite books. It's the one where Harry becomes, basically, a bit of a dick. He never ceases yelling or shouting, and it's purpose is mainly to set up the last two books, despite it ridiculous length.

There are, however, many bits which I am looking forward to seeing in the film, such as the climatic battle at the end, and the dementor attack in Privet Drive. It looks, from the trailers, like it could be the best film yet, an opinion which quite a few reviews have already expressed.

Talking of reviews, I have a new ratings system. Films, as well as being given an overall rating, will be marked through "genre value" [i.e. is a comedy funny, is a horror scary, is an action film exciting? No thought towards if it is well made, if it is trashy, if it's high class etc. aka Does the film serve its purpose?], "entertainment value" [a mark purely for how entertaining a film is, be it trashy, high class etc] and "style" [is it well directed? Has it been well thought out? is it classy?]. I am in the process of adding the new ratings to the old reviews, and all future reviews will take this form.

Released this week are the Blockbuster juggernauts Transformers and the very long awaited Simpsons Movie, and anticipation is getting higher and higher. I hope to see at least one before I go to Germany on Monday. If I do, I'll be sure to review. There are lots of Transformers reviews on the internet, as it is already on release in America, and I have read one review of the Simpsons Movie, which can be found on http://www.timesonline.co.uk/. Transformers looks amazing, with serious talent on display - action king Michael Bay directing, movie king Steven Spielberg executive producing, and Even Steven's star Shia LaBoeuf in the leading role. Preview screenings and reviews seem positive so far, but most of us will have to wait until Friday to see it for ourselves.

Anyway, that's all for today folks!
Stay Tuned.

Even More Friday Releases

2007-06-29T09:55:00.000-07:00

The big mainstream releases this week includes yet another second sequel in Shrek The Third. Reviews have been a lot less positive than those for the other Shrek films, and it appears that the franchise is starting to run out of steam. Things don't bode well for the next two sequels which have already been announced. Also released today is Eli Roth's torture porn sequel Hostel: Part II. The first one was a load of tat - incredibly shallow, boring, and just plain awful, and this one doesn't look much better.

Other Releases:
The Flying Scotsman
Shutter

Yippie Ki-Yay...

2007-06-25T08:11:00.001-07:00

Good news for Die Hard fans - Die Hard 4.0 has been given a 15, as, according to the BBFC, it contains "one use of strong language". Yes - this means that Bruce Willis WILL be saying "Yippie Ki-Yay Motherf*cker!". Thank god for that... I had my money on it being a disappointingly weedy 12A...

Transformers has been given 12A [expected] and Evan Almighty [poorly reviewed in the US] has been given a PG [also expected].
More news as I hear it...

A Bit Late, But...

2007-06-24T07:30:00.000-07:00

Yes, Friday has been and gone, but I've been busy. There aren't many releases this weekend, with only two on general release. Captivity is the latest in the "gorno" genre, and looks suitably horrifying [in both senses of the word]. Lucky You is a poker drama, which frankly looks a bit boring and stale. In the foreign corner, La Vie En Rose is a French Biopic of singer Edith Piaf, and has been very well reviewed generally, and PTU is a thriller set on the streets of Hong Kong.

So, not much this week. However, next Friday sees the release of Shrek The Third, with previews at selected cinemas showing at various times this week.

On Release Today

2007-06-15T02:57:00.000-07:00

Yes, it's time for more Friday releases. Pictures on main release this week are:

Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer

I'm confused about this movie. The first trailer was great, and it looked very promising. But someway between there and now I lost all confidence for this film - I don't know why; it just didn't look very good. Suddenly I'm a bit more interested. It seems kinda cool to have a superhero movie with no dark undertones or political themes. Just a simple bash-em' up with super powers. It's probably going to break all scientific laws with its logic, but no-one can deny that the Silver Surfer himself looks incredible. All screen shots of him are just mind-blowing. I'll review when [or if] I see it...

Vacancy

I kinda like this movie's premise - couple in a motel, watch horror videos, realise they arein the room in which movies are set etc. It sounds like a pretty good B-Movie story, but with pretty much every teen horror/thriller, no matter what the story is like, they are never any good. I probably won't be going to see this at the cinema as it feels like it'd be a waste of time and money - if you've seen one, you've seen 'em all.

Grow Your Own

I don't know too much about this, apart from it's a British comedy set in the world of gardening. Reviews haven't been fantastic, but might be worth a watch if you're into brit-coms.

Tell No-One

I also don't really know much about this either. It's a French thriller which has been very well reviewed, and received a fantastic reception in France earlier in the year.

Those are the main releases this week. For more, visit more movie sites - there's loads of links on the right of the page.

The "Definitely Not Fantastic, But Better Than The First" Four...

2007-06-13T05:17:00.000-07:00

Friday sees the release of Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer, which I'm sure we're all hoping will be much better than the first. With character introductions firmly out of the way, now it's time for some ACTION. Some reviews are out now - Empire Online, Total Film and BBC Movies all have them up - and the reactions are reasonbly positive. 3 star ratings seem to sum up the film, which promises fans the Silver Surfer and planet-munching Galactus.

In other news, gore fans will be happy that some of the most hyped horror/thrillers of the year have been rated as 18. Hostel: Part Two surely can't be much worse than the first, which was a pointless exercise in providing gore, dark "humour" and unjustified amounts of T'n'A. Face it - there was no story, and it wasn't the "sick f*cked up movie" that Roth claimed it would be. Tarantino's Death Proof has also been [unsurprisingly] given an 18 certificate. It seems that the only positive for Grindhouse being split [grrrrr...] is that Death Proof has been extended - everyone has said that they think it's a better film for it. Finally, Captivity, who have had posters banned in America for being so disturbing has also been given an 18 for "strong violence, torture and grisly images". Sounds lovely.

That's today's update - keep coming back for more!

A Quick [Stop] Update

2007-06-08T10:45:00.001-07:00

Kevin Smith fans are currently awaiting horror movie Red State, his next project, but here's a little update about his project for after that. Titled "Zack and Miri Make A Porno", Smith's returning to comedy, and he says it's "dirty, with nudity". He's hoping to cast Rosario Dawson in the lead part, but she hasn't read the script yet...

On Release Today

2007-06-08T02:14:00.000-07:00

Friday means movie releases, and this week sees the return of the heist-caper franchise with Ocean's Thirteen. The general concencus - much better than the second, not as good as the original, but still very enjoyable. Amongst other releases are the sequel to 2005's family road movie Are We There Yet? - this time with the very original name Are We Done Yet? Frankly, it looks rubbish. Billy Elliot's Jamie Bell is back in The Chumscrubber, an indie drama about troubled teenagers, and John Boorman's satirical The Tiger's Tail is also released. For those who love documentaries, Taking Liberties is being hailed as the British Bowling For Columbine - definitely one to watch. Black Gold is a documentary about the coffee-trade.
Other Releases:

The City Of Violence (Jjakpae)
Not Here To Be Loved

STOP MAKING SEQUELS!

2007-06-07T08:35:00.000-07:00

This is my first proper rant on the blog, but I'm just getting so fed up. Dreamworks have announced that there will be a fourth Shrek movie released in 2010, and a fifth in 2013. Yes, I did say fifth. This has made me so angry - the first Shrek was brilliantly satirical of Disney, and was perfect for literally all ages. The sequel was very entertaining, very funny, and focused more on general movie spoofs instead of just Disney. The third - in my opinion - looks a bit poor. They've taken a great idea and run with it. But runners can lose steam very easily. It now seems that they're just going through the motions - I can even imagine the boardroom meeting now:

"OK, so Shrek was great - and made a heap of cash. Lets make more!"
"But, how many should we make?"
"Well, families like it... hmmm... 3?"
"3?! Is that it? I was thinking 5..."
"OK, so 5 Shrek movies - whats gonna happen in them?"
" 1 - Shrek meets Fiona"
"So far so good"
"2 - Shrek marries Fiona"
"Yeah, that's the way sequels usually go..."
"3 - Shrek has babies with Fiona"
"So far so HILARIOUS"
"4 - Shrek is a grandad"
"Dude, that's freakin' AWESOME! Nothing could be more hilarious. What about 5?"
"I'm kinda running out of ideas here... I GOT IT. PREQUEL."
"Genius - total genius!"

It makes me so angry that they're cashing in on the success - but, hey that's the way business goes. The thing is, I swear movies were supposed to be mainly for entertainment. Slapping out sequel after sequel means that the magic of the original is lost. Many people this year have complained that all the "part threes" have been big disappointments - what are parts 4, 5 and 6 going to be like?
Sony have announced three more Spider-Man films, they hinted towards a fourth Pirates film at the end of At World's End, and doubtless there'll be Transformers sequels. It's just being taken too far. There's not enough originality in film making anymore. Three cheers for QT and Robert Rodriguez, trying something different with Grindhouse - of course the Americans all went to see other films instead. Well, I hope you're happy. Now the UK won't get to see Grindhouse in its full 3-hour trashy glory. Here's to originality, and the oh-so clever public.

Welcome Arrival

2007-06-06T09:35:00.000-07:00

A surprise hit in America at the moment is the new Judd Apatow [40 Year Old Virgin] film Knocked Up - a comedy about a lowly slacker who impregnates a woman out of his league during a drunken one night stand. The film was fantastically reviewed, and on Rotten Tomatoes is currently not only the top rated comedy but the top rated film of the year so far. Knocked Up has been hailed by some critics as an instant comedy classic, and is said to be a lot more laugh-out-loud funny in comparison to the 40 Year Old Virgin's more refined sense of humour.
The film will be *ahem* due for release [terrible pun intended] in the UK on 24th of August. Expect it to be the summer's biggest comedy hit [depending on what Evan Almighty, reportedly the most expensive comedy ever made, is like].

Adding To The BBFC Post...

2007-06-06T02:20:00.000-07:00

...the new Harry Potter film [which looks awesome] has been rated 12A - the books definitely get darker and darker, so that seemed kind of inevitable with the last one also being a 12A. Expect Potter-mania to hit the UK in July, with the last book and the new film both released within the same week.

BBFC Ratings

2007-06-05T12:34:00.000-07:00

Only a quick update - some of the year's bigger movies have been rated by the BBFC. Ocean's 13 has been given a PG, and Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer has also been given a PG.
Some Ocean's 13 reviews are out now on Empire Online, Total Film and BBC Movies all have reviews. The overall opinion seems to be that this is definitely better than Ocean's 12, and is a good, entertaining flick. However, there are some negative opinions flying around. Currently, Rotten Tomatoes's average is 69%, and IMDB's user rating is 7.2/10

Also, If you're a Kevin Smith fan, it's worth subscribing to his Podcast, which he runs with his producer Scott Mosier, called Smodcast. It can be found on iTunes and on Quick Stop Entertainment. WARNING - This podcast is not for the faint hearted. There is a LOT of strong language, and lots of talk about sex, drugs and stuff. But it is very funny.

Youtube #2: Dutch Chatshow Mayhem

2007-05-30T09:07:00.000-07:00

I'm really sorry that this doesn't have that much to do with movies, but this is just so amazingly funny :D The conversation is about how that guy had his testicles removed accidentally. Here are some translated quotes ;) Enjoy

"I noticed my voice had changed slightly..."
"Try talking on the phone like this!"
"As a wife, I cannot fondle his testicles anymore"
"Think what it'd be like for a dog, not to have testicles to lick anymore!"

Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End Review

2007-05-26T08:44:00.000-07:00

First of all, answer these questions to yourself.

1) Do you like Pirates, and the general pirate craze?

2) Did you like Dead Man's Chest?

If the answer to both of those is yes, then you'll definitely at least enjoy At World's End. If any of the answers were no, then you'd best steer clear of this.

I really enjoyed this film. Sure, it's not going to win any awards for the best film ever [maybe the most commercially successful?], but if you just go with its crazy logic and over-complicated plot, then you're likely to have a pretty good time. It's better than the second, partly because it always feels like it's heading to some sort of destination - what with the pirate lords being brought together for a final showdown with the East India Trading Co. - no matter how long it has to be, or how convoluted the plot becomes.

At World's End works best when viewed as "Dead Man's Chest Pt. 2", because that's what it essentially is. After Jack's fate at the end of the last film, lots of this one is spent bringing him back. including a wonderfully trippy sequence of Jack inside Davy Jones' Locker, some amazing CGI landscapes and mythology a-plenty. There were many more minor characters in Dead Man's Chest which, if they had been cut out, would have made that film flow more easily, and would have made it shorter. However, many of these characters have real purpose in this film, giving a better appreciation for the slightly less-enjoyable second installment [which I actually really liked].

The plot of this film, for the most part, is a twisted, sloppy mess. It starts off simply, but soon there are so many betrayals and double crossings that you find yourself concentrating so hard that you can't remember each character's objective and need for Davy's heart. By the end, this doesn't really matter, as things even out more, and there's less back-stabbing. There are some real character developments [especially towards the end], and [whilst being very long] feels more rounded as a whole. It is much more serious than the second, with only Captain Jack and Monkey Jack to lighten the sombre mood. It also has one of the most hideously misjudged openings for a [supposedly] family film - if I were you, I'd leave the kids behind. In parts it is surprisingly violent for a 12A, giving the impression that either the BBFC have gone soft, or Disney asked for a lower rating to attract a bigger audience.

Orlando Bloom is much better in this film - his character is a lot more likeable, after all his whining and moaning in Dead Man's Chest, and Keira Knightley's character is given a much more impressive part this time around. But it's Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow and Geoffrey Rush's wonderfully unhinged Barbossa who really steal the show.

We learn a lot more about Davy Jones' past, and the mythology of the Pirates world in this film, which makes the films seem a lot more involving. Davy Jones looks fantastic once again - it's amazing what is capable using CGI these days. Not often do barnacled evil sea captains with a squiddy face/beard look this alive.

The whole film leads up to an incredible, hugely enjoyable climatic battle, which sees the pirates facing off against the East India Trading Co. and Davy Jones. It's a very exciting, involving sequence, which tops many other scenes from recent blockbusters. I was actually surprised at how much I liked this film and how much I loved the final showdown. I'm not going to ruin it - but make sure you see it!

So, to conclude, this film is better than Dead Man's Chest [which will seem better when you've seen this film], but not as good as the original. To me, it never felt as long as its 168 minutes, and it works surprisingly well. It's not the best film ever made, and it isn't going to be loved by everyone, but, hell, I went out and genuinely enjoyed this film. But, make sure you see the second one again before you go to see this!

Genre Value: 4/5
Entertainment Value: 3.5/5
Style: 2.5/5
Overall Rating: 3.5/5

More Pirates Reviews

2007-05-23T09:17:00.000-07:00

With only one more day until its release, the Pirates reviews are now coming out thick and fast. More links below. Currently, the Rotten Tomatoes percentage is a disappointing 33% but I'm sure that'll perk up - there's only six reviews on there at the moment... However it is worthy to note that the "users" rating is currently 84% - maybe this is more of an audience film than a critics film. IMDB's user rating so far is 86%, and the review there at the moment is really positive. I guess we'll just have to go and see for ourselves!
Other Reviews:
BBC Movies
Total Film

In other news - Robert Rodriguez is directing a re-make of saucy flick Barbarella...

Early Pirates Reviews

2007-05-22T08:45:00.000-07:00

With just two days to go [to Alex's birthday and Pirates Of The Carribean: At World's End's release date] reviews are starting to seep out onto the internet - most of them seem to be 3 or 4 stars out of five, so better than the second but not as good as the first. From the sound of things, the plot's set to be pretty convoluted, so try not to fall asleep in the cinema. I'm posting up a couple of links of the reviews I've found, but it's best [if you want to find an overall average] to frequently visit Rotten Tomatoes and find what that gives it. For people who don't know - Rotten Tomatoes collects all reviews together and gives a percentage of good reviews. Any percentage over 60 is classed as "fresh".

Empire Review
Times Online
Ain't It Cool News
The Mirror
Cinema Blend
SA Movie Magazine

These are all the ones I can find at the moment. When I've seen the film I'll write my own review. But for the next couple of days, these will have to do. And so, the countdown begins...

Spider-Man 3 Review

2007-05-21T10:10:00.000-07:00

Here comes blockbuster season. The big guns are being pulled out, and Spider-Man is the first to fire. Luckily, most fans won't be disappointed.

The great thing about the Spider-Man films was that, apart from the amazing action scenes and intense storylines, there was always a human drama bubbling underneath. M.J provided a solid love-interest for Peter, and Harry's jealousy story-line was suitably engrossing, with the "will-he-won't-he" friendship with Pete. This is kept in the third installment, thought not quite as smoothly as in the other films.

Peter feels now that he is really in love with M.J, and, with his secrets now revealed, plans to propose to her. This is all very well, but as soon as he comes under the influence of a strange parasitic alien symbiote, he falls out of love a bit quickly, leading us to believe that it was never there in the first place. However, as the story develops, it somehow manages to hang together, with so many sub-plots that it seemed doomed to fail. This is not the case, with our first introductions being to Harry's friend Gwen-Stacy [who is, in my opinion, quite under-used, and doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose aside from making Eddie Brock jealous] and new villain Sandman.

Sandman is one of Raimi's favourite villains, and it seems appropriate for him to be in this film [which looks likely to be Raimi's last Spider-Man movie]. He is played really well by Thomas Haden-Church, with real heart and emotion. He sums his character up perfectly with "I'm not a bad person, I just have bad luck". When he finally gets his superpowers [in an impressive yet illogical sequence], he's incredible. Initially we feel sorry for him - he can hardly stand, and keeps drifting away. It's a powerful moment in the film when the accident occurs [spoiler-free - I promise!] and Marko tries to move in tides of swirling sand. The special effects for his character are fantastic - my personal favourite is during the train fight, when our hero smashes Sandman's face against a carriage, and his head dissolves into sand. Effects have come a long way since the Mummy - and it shows.

Harry Osborn has a bigger part in this film. He knows Spider-Man's true identity, and he still won't let his father's death go. This seemed a bit dragged out, maybe only because the audience knows that it wasn't Spider-Man's fault. His "accident" after the new film's first fight [a speedy, blurry effects mash-up which, to be honest, is rather hard to see] seems a bit too convenient, but it hangs with the rest of the plot. As the story moves on, there's a real development in his character, especially towards the end in the explosive, exciting finale.

This finally brings us to the fan favourite - Venom. Ever since the first picture of Spider-Man in his black suit, everybody knew [despite the cast's secrecy] that Venom had to be involved somehow. The only question was of the gooey symbiote's origin. Were the director and script writer daring enough to follow the comics down the "space alien" route, or were they going to continue with the whole "experiment gone wrong" story? Luckily [I presume as a fan-pleaser] they followed the comics. If they'd chosen the experiment gone wrong, it would have been too repetitive, what with Green Goblin, Doc Ock and Sandman all having gone through that. Topher Grace is an excellent actor, and he's great here as Parker's rival at the Daily Bugle, and his eventual nemesis, Venom. When Venom fully emerges, he looks fantastic. However, that's when he's fully emerged. This takes a long time, and whilst it's great that he's included, he isn't used that much. You don't see him in his full form very often, but I guess that's a price to pay for not wanting to further the run-time.

My only other complaint is that Peter's dark side is lighter than most people's light side. He struts down the street in a semi-cringey-semi-funny scene that spoofs Saturday Night Fever, but aside from that not much else happens, apart from making M.J jealous. He is a bit of a jerk though, as he becomes more arrogant and rude.

There is also a hilarious cameo from Bruce Campbell [Raimi's old chum from the Evil Dead films] as a hapless waiter. It's these moments that will linger as well as the fight scenes, and they make Spider-Man 3 rise above most other comic book movies.

Whilst it sometimes feels as if it might fall apart, Spider-Man 3 is a great film, expertly directed, and is a really entertaining ride. It's not as good as Spider-Man 2, but with the very high standard that set, it would have been hard to beat it. Well worth watching, and a great addition to the franchise.

Genre Value: 4/5
Entertainment Value: 4/5
Style: 3/5
Overall Rating - 4/5

Movies Released on my Birthday: 24th May

2007-05-21T10:09:00.000-07:00

Braveheart - 1995
Spy Hard - 1996
Jurassic Park: The Lost World - 1997
Mission Impossible 2 - 2000
Enough - 2002
Insomnia - 2002
Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron - 2002
An Inconviniet Truth - 2006
Stagedoor - 2006
Pirates of The Caribbean: At World's End - 2007

Yahoo nooch! My birthday rawks when it comes to movies :D
Try yours today: http://www.movie-source.com/year.asp?year=1995
It goes from 2005 to 2011

Youtube #1: Worst Movies Ever

2007-05-21T09:37:00.000-07:00

I found this using my awesome BestOfYoutube podcast sucscription ;) Well worth subscribing to, if just for this hilarious video... still movies related... I promise. If not, guaranteed your money back.
*Not a real guarantee, side effects may include loss of hair and/or genitals* :D

Blockbuster Season

2007-05-21T09:13:00.000-07:00

It's almost here, people! Yes, blockbuster season has arrived, with Spider-Man 3 smashing all sorts of records, and the new Pirates film due out on Thursday. Whilst not reviewed as well as the other films, Spider-Man 3 has done phenomenally well, breaking the record for biggest opening weekend. Last year, Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest exceeded all expectations in becoming the third most successful film of all time, taking in over $1 billion and still rising with DVD sales. At World's End is hotly tipped to beat that, but at a whopping 2 hours 50 minute running time, will it detract from its audience? I say no - the popularity of the franchise so far is overwhelming, and with Pirate-mania spreading over so many countries, I doubt the running time will matter too much. Other films to look forward to this summer include: Transformers, Shrek The Third, Live Free or Die Hard, Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix, The Simpsons Movie and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

It sure is gonna be one hell of a year for movie-goers.