Film Reviews And Views

The Big Year - Dir. David Frankel

2011-12-20T07:32:00.000-08:00

In Birding terms a ‘Big Year’ is: “to see who can see or hear the largest number of species of birds within a single calendar year and within a specific geographical area.” So, what do you achieve if you finish at the top of the list on December 31st? Money? Adulation? Endorsements? Not really, but more of a self-satisfying inner air-punch knowing that you, and you alone, are currently the greatest birder in North America. Director David Frankel, the man behind ‘The Devil Wears Prada’ and ‘Marley and Me,’ takes an interesting premise, but unfortunately he does nothing with it. Instead he creates a ‘safe bet,’ a film which is guaranteed to entertain during the brief moments which do contain some semblance of excitement and humour, whilst also refraining from being offensive in any manner whatsoever, but this results in a film which will fails to suitably engage a mass audience for its one hour and forty minutes running time.

‘The Big Year’ follows a poor, young, yet aspirational birder in Brad Harris (Jack Black), who also serves as the films narrator, and a retired former-CEO named Stu Preissler (Steve Martin) who wants to leave his world of work behind him once and for all (he’s attempted retirement before) and actually enjoy the finer points in life for once. Brad lives with his parents after his previous marriage failed and despite his financial insecurity and his father’s reluctance, he places everything he has into making a Big Year. While Stu, supported by his wife Edith (JoBeth Williams), just wants to experience birding for what it is. Despite an insurmountable mountain of wealth at his fingertips, he instead opts to drive, pillage and work toward his birding conquest by himself and along the way he meets the determined Brad as they strike a friendship up over their common love for the feathery creatures.

Alongside their story, there is also Kenny Bostick (Owen Wilson) who holds the Big Year record, once a contractor, he decided to turn his efforts toward his childhood hobby of bird watching, and his hard-work eventually paid off as he became the most recognised birder in the world, but this wasn’t without consequence. Fast forward a few years later and now Bostick is attempting to settle down with his new wife Jessica (Rosamund Pike), but when January 1st rolls around again he can’t shake the fact that somebody may be attempting to break his record and he sets out once again to complete yet another Big Year and in the process he places yet another marriage on the slippery black rocks of potential divorce-hood as he must carefully navigate a tight-rope between his hobby and his future.

The picture opens with on-screen titles stating that this is a true story, except for the fact that all the facts have been changed in this adaptation of Mark Obmascik’s book, a relatively subtle and mild-mannered joke which sets the tone for the rest of the movie, the key word here being: mild. ‘The Big Year’ contains an established cast, a well-developed script, and an experienced director at the helm, but it consistently fails to grab the audience’s attention, instead opting for the precariously easy route of birding puns and slapstick gags instead. For the birding enthusiasts among us, the constant quick-witted use of bird names in various puns and humorous jokes is no doubt going to tickle a few feathers, but to uninitiated it becomes a painfully slow descent into somebody else’s hobby and somebody else’s dream scenario.

While, the characters themselves all seem to develop at a pace, it is the script, despite being neat, concise and thorough it lacks anything of vigour. The characters, despite being slightly more than one-dimensional caricatures, have very predictable and tired journeys, whilst Bostick also comes across as somewhat of a red herring. For one moment he comes across as the brash, arrogant antagonist of the piece, whilst the next he is the honourable birder who wants to do nothing less than recreate the blissful childhood joy he had when he was a child growing up around many winged creatures. This could have been bird-watching’s quirky equivalent to Christopher Guest’s ‘Best in Show,’ yet it is more of an example of how filmmaking, no matter how competent, can still refrain from fully engaging with an audience by simply refusing to take any chances whatsoever, especially when it is attempting to bring a mass audience into such an original and individual recreational activity.

In Time - Dir. Andrew Niccol

2011-12-20T04:00:00.000-08:00

According to statistics from the United Nations, there are now seven billion people inhabiting this planet and with this figure the issue of overpopulation is once again reignited. Andrew Niccol’s latest feature explores this concept of a dystopian future where the population is curbed by the time you are allowed to live for, and while it is a simple, yet innovative concept, it doesn’t quite live up to expectations. ‘In Time’ is the typical cinematic case of having a really interesting and promising concept, but being unable to capitalize on any of its potential, leading to a disjointed plot and a poorly paced narrative which ends up simply recycling the same old sequences again and again.

It is sometime into the future where time has replaced currency as the fruitful commodity of civilisation. Once every human being reaches the ripe old age of twenty-five years old, a clock begins on their arm which counts down the time until their death. Death can be postponed and time added to any civilian’s clock through the completion of work and other related day-to-day tasks within society. But with the cost of living continually rising, time starts to become an increasingly valuable commodity which thrives with the rich and desecrates upon the poor. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is just another patron of the ghetto; he lives his life from day-to-day with his bodyclock constantly teetering on the edge of expulsion, but after a chance meeting with a seemingly immortal wealthy socialite Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer), Salas is given the opportunity to experience the other side of the divide. Prosperity, bodyguards, and luxury await him in New Greenwich, a place where immortality is no longer a myth, but with his new found life comes new and dangerous obstacles for him to overcome.

Salas’s narration opens the picture by announcing that there isn’t enough time for him to explain why society is time-centric and biased heavily towards the wealthy, and initially this doesn’t provide any distraction from the narrative. But once the third act begins, plot holes begin to originate due to the lack of information being relayed to the audience. With a constant lack of engaging material to keep the audience hooked on the plot, the film becomes somewhat stale and formulaic. Also, instead of intertwining the plot with a deep-seated moral and financial message aimed primarily at those who are at the centre of the current economic recession, Niccol’s script fails to dutifully act upon the message it wishes to convey and stops short. This is no more evident than in the final concluding sequences of the picture, which contain some ambiguous socio-political sentiments regarding the nature and solidarity of the human race when it comes to change, difference and revolution. Despite gearing up to make a resounding point during its conclusion, ‘In Time’ instead decides to take the safe, Hollywood and financially friendly studio route instead.

Following on from its constant lack of engaging material, the nature of ‘In Time’s’ formulaic plot creates a repetitive sequence of events which becomes very old, very quickly. Once Salas has teamed up with a rebellious, yet incredibly wealthy socialite Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), they attempt to repair their imbalanced society through a crime spree. Coming off as a futuristic Bonnie and Clyde, bank-robbing, hold-ups and Robin Hood-esque deliveries of time to people who are less fortunate becomes their mission. However, while this aspect initially provides moments of exhilarating action, the repetition of each sequence, almost down to a tee, quickly takes away from its impending impact. Essentially for the entire second act, and the beginning of the third, Salas and Weis relatively easily break into banks, steal time, distribute the time among the poor, and then hide in a downtrodden motel where they don’t expect to be found, until the street-smart Time Detective Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) deduces where they are and initiates an attack upon their location.

This repetition becomes increasingly tedious as the remaining running time of the film dwindles by, resulting in a rushed and poorly crafted final act in which each character’s own stories are tied up quickly to give the appearance of some form of a conclusion as the final credits roll. Unfortunately ‘In Time’ has a very interesting premise, but Niccol’s failure to create an engaging narrative beyond the first act leads to a film which ends up regurgitating the same sequences over and over again as the characters motivations become devalued in the face of lacklustre set-pieces.

Real Steel - Dir. Shawn Levy

2011-11-10T09:47:00.000-08:00

Shawn Levy has made a name for himself as a director who likes to converge upon and exploit the family-friendly cinema market for everything it is worth. His recent outings include the two successful ‘Night at the Museum’ films and the Steve Carrell driven ‘Date Night,’ and with his latest effort ‘Real Steel’ he carries on this trend of bringing a large-scale, blockbusting picture to the big-screen that appeals to both children and parents alike. As expected with a film involving fighting robotic androids, it’s an over-the-top, CGI-laden action-fest that never attempts to be anything else which somewhat works in its clichéd favour.

It’s the year 2020 and human boxing no longer exists due to human beings insatiable taste for increasingly violent blood sports reaching new, unbridled heights. When society wouldn’t sanction anything more violent and deadly, the World Robot Boxing league was created to satisfy man’s urge for destruction. Here huge, metallic robots battle each other in front of hundreds and thousands of spectators to determine which man, woman or child has created the ultimate, well, killing machine. Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is a former pro-Boxer and full-time loser, his arrogance and stubbornness is a constant contributing factor towards his failure in life to provide for himself and his friend Bailey (Evangeline Lilly). But when his ex-girlfriend dies and he is left with custody of his eleven year old son Max (Dakota Goyo), he must not only juggle his job as a poor man’s robotic boxing coach, but also a young, animated child who understands that the man before him is only his father by blood and nothing more.

Cheesy dialogue, energetic action sequences and exaggerated emotions prosper in ‘Real Steel,’ because Shawn Levy has decided that this film does not need to be taken seriously by any members of the paying audience watching in a nearby theatre or home cinema. Hugh Jackman and Dakota Goyo play overstated characters whose emotions are literal thrown at the viewer. When they’re feeling a bout of sadness, arms flail, voices rise and tears flow. In no way do the characters react to the subtle nuances that govern everyday life, but instead, they perform to an overstated level, because everything in this film is placed into entertainment overdrive. The robots are huge, meandering objects of destruction, and the underground arenas are stereotypically on the ‘bad part of town’ (except for a Zoo, of all places). While the script perfectly encapsulates the desperate, stereotypical situation this father-son duo find themselves in both financially and emotionally, as their relationship slowly develops throughout the course of the film. Essentially all three elements combine in their own tawdry way to create something which can easily be described as; harmless, brainless fun.

This film is a case of; if you drop your cinematic guard and allow yourself to be sucker punched, you’ll probably come away happy. If an audience member goes into ‘Real Steel’ with high expectations, he or she should come away feeling mildly disappointed, however if the audience member in question goes into the theatre with low expectations, there is no doubt that they would come away feeling somewhat satisfied. This doesn’t necessarily mean that every scene contains engaging entertainment, but the majority do, including the final act, in which even the terribly tacky product-placement can’t ruin a predictable, yet enjoyable conclusion.

The Adventures of Tintin - Dir. Steven Spielberg

2011-11-10T08:24:00.000-08:00

Recently Steven Spielberg has been one busy man, not only has he been producing numerous television and film properties over the past year or so, but he has also been juggling two directorial properties. While ‘War Horse’ isn’t due to be released for another month, his latest offering, ‘The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn,’ is based on the classic, best-selling comic books created by the Belgian artist Georges Remi (who was also known under the pen name Herge). The comics follow a young Belgian reporter named Tintin and his dog Snowy as they go about their days solving mysteries and getting into various misadventures along the way. Directed by Spielberg, produced by Peter Jackson and written by the British trio of Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish and Steven Moffat, it marks a new turn in Spielberg’s cinematic journey as he ditches live action for motion capture, and while the film takes full advantage of the technology at hand to create lavish environments, the story itself is too disorientating to hold an adult audiences attention for its one hour and forty minutes running time.

Tintin (Jamie Bell) along with his faithful dog Snowy, is enjoying his day meandering around a local market when he finds an intricately designed model ship called the Unicorn available for sale by a somewhat anxious merchant. Once in Tintin’s possession, the ship sets off a sequence of events which sees the young reporter come up against the mysterious Ivanovich Sakharine (Daniel Craig), befriend the alcohol loving Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), and help the bumbling Interpol agents Thomson and Thompson (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) in their many endeavours, as he attempts to unravel the mystery behind the legend of the Unicorn and the secret cargo stowed away by the ships fabled Captain Sir Francis Haddock. Action, adventure, explosions, and bumbling detectives follow as Tintin races throughout the world to solve the mystery of the Unicorn.

It is a phrase which is thrown around a lot when evaluating films within the action-adventure genre, but ‘The Adventures of Tintin’ is literally a non-stop thrill ride. But, while this phrase would usually be attributed to the praise of a motion picture, in the context of this film, it becomes a part of the criticism. From the beautifully crafted opening titles to the closing scene, there isn’t a moment which goes by in which something isn’t being blown up, jumped on, ridden or used as a makeshift weapon. It is as if Spielberg doesn’t trust the primarily young audience members to actually engage with the film when a lavish action set-piece isn’t taking place, and because of this, the audience is presented with a film which becomes disorientating due to its constant fast and frenetic pace. Also, due to the narratives exhilarating pace, the film requires that many of the large set-pieces take place one after the over, thereby once again detracting heavily away from their overall impact on the viewer.

Aside from the fast-paced nature of the motion-picture however, the performance capture works well, as the computer generated backgrounds, locations and scenery are a startling indicator of how far technology regarding motion capture and three-dimensional imagery has come in the last decade. When it comes to the characters themselves however, while the motion capture allows for startling facial detail, it cannot replicate the emotional disparity of real human beings. The script written by three of the most promising British filmmakers at the moment contains a multitude of in-jokes, friendly humour and an attempt at characterisation. But again due to the pace of the film, this aspect falls flat due to the central narrative stream taking precedence over everything else on-screen throughout its running time.

‘The Adventures of Tintin’ is a family-friendly, fast-paced, loose, action-adventure film that will no doubt be lauded by children across the land. It is essentially Spielberg doing what Spielberg does best: entertaining the public. But unlike the ‘Indiana Jones’ series and ‘E.T,’ among many of his other films, ‘Tintin’ is unable to cross generational boundaries to become a film for all the ages. While children will appreciate the non-stop, in-your-face action sequences which are constantly loud, bright and full of computer-generated destruction, older cinema-goers will no doubt become tired of the repetitive series of events. With a ‘Tintin’ sequel and even a trilogy potentially on the cards for the future, it would have been nice if Spielberg had attempted to scale back the action sequences for further plot and character development, rather than throwing every available device at the viewer hoping that something would eventually stick. While this approach may work with young children viewing the picture, it will almost certainly pass most adults by.

Paranormal Activity 3 - Dir. Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman

2011-10-26T05:55:00.000-07:00

Since 2009, the ‘Paranormal Activity’ series has eclipsed the ‘Saw’ franchise in topping both the domestic and worldwide box office gross during the weeks leading up to and proceeding the Halloween weekend. A combined worldwide gross of just over $370 million dollars from the two previous outings made a third film inevitable, and despite the on-screen decade changing to encompass a prequel, the basic voyeuristic concept stays exactly the same. In their first fictional feature-length debut, ‘Catfish’ directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman take over the reins of the popular franchise and while they infuse their own directorial sensibilities upon the project, it ultimately fails to both engage and frighten the audience to any satisfying, bowel-movement inducing degree.

The year is 1988 and Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) are two seemingly normal sisters who are looked after by their mother Julie (Lauren Bittner) and their step-father Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith). After numerous things go bump in the night, Dennis decides to set video cameras up at various locations throughout their home including their own marital bedroom, the young girl’s room and the downstairs living area. As the day and nights go by, videographer Dennis along with help from his technologically savvy friend Randy (Dustin Ingram), begin to notice that all is not what it seems within the household and that a malevolent being may be specifically targeting members of his family. What takes place next comprises of loud noises, unexplained moving objects and another edition to the paranormal franchise in which the audience slowly experiences a family’s descent into madness as they try to both understand and overcome their experiences at hand.

The third film in the ‘Paranormal Activity’ series isn’t a terrible film by any standards, but it does fail exponentially in two key areas. First of all, the third film of the scare-inducing trilogy offers up absolutely nothing that is new or innovative in any way, shape or form. The closest Joost and Schulman come in attempting to conjure up a bit of ingenuity is in the use of a mounted camcorder on top of a rotating axis, yet this device is severely underused and instead they opt more for the use of on and off-screen diegetic sound effects. While the narrative itself starts to become interesting as it slowly opens a revealing door of uncertainty to the viewer, potentially exposing what may be behind over two decades of terror in the lives of these two young women. But it instead opts to cut ties during the final act leaving many questions unanswered leading to underwhelming end to the potentially exciting exploration of the mythology behind over two decades of paranormal activity.

Secondly, if audience members have seen the first two films then they will well versed in how the series approach scaring the paying members of a theatre senseless. The scene shifts from hand-held filming to a stationary shot during the night as the members of the family sleep, before an extended period, usually between thirty seconds and a minute, of absolutely nothing happening is utilized to emphasize the vulnerability of the characters, and then the ‘scare’ happens. Whether it is a banging door or screeching off-screen diegetic sounds, or some form of unexplained paranormal phenomenon such as levitation, after the first two films this predictability becomes ingrained within the viewer and it is easy to simply evade the scare because you can adequately predict when it is going to come. Aside from two sequences in which Joost and Schulman change the record so-to-speak and provide two very well crafted scenes, the majority of ‘Paranormal Activity 3’ reuses the exact same format as the previous two films and therefore becomes stale, and most often than not, predictable.

Joost and Schulman have essentially created a re-hash of the first two films, except with young children replacing the older, more mature leading characters of the previous instalments. Both young girls give exceptional performances considering the majority of the film hinges upon their interaction with the world around them, and the film itself is competently composed, even if the two decade old tapes do look like they have been meticulously preserved in a state of perpetual perfection. But, it is first and foremost a film within the prosperous horror genre, and ‘Paranormal Activity 3’ fails on a fundamental level to provide any substance, any originality, or any scares that manage to eclipse the terror of previous two films and add a new level of horror to the already spine-chilling series.

Texas Killing Fields - Dir. Ami Mann

2011-10-17T04:14:00.000-07:00

Originally scheduled for the director Danny Boyle in 2008, but when the British-born filmmaker abandoned the project a year later, based on the murders of young women in a Texan oil field known to the locals as the ‘Killing Field,’ Ami Canaan Mann, the daughter of the acclaimed director Michael, took over the directorial helm of the Sam Worthington vehicle the ‘Texas Killing Fields’. Mann’s feature-film debut is a flat, slow police procedural drama that fails to utilize the acting talent at hand and instead relies entirely upon a stale script. ‘Texas Killing Fields’ would make for a barely competent television drama, but as a theatrical release, it falls incredibly short of being engaging entertainment for the big-screen.

Detective Mike Souder (Sam Worthington) is a local Texan police officer who believes extensively in only working on cases in his own town’s jurisdiction, while his partner Detective Brian Heigh (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) is a former New York City police officer who can’t but help others in their time of need. Whether it is a young girl named Anne (Chloe Moretz) who resides with an abusive family, or Det. Souder’s former wife Detective Pam Stall (Jessica Chastain), who polices a nearby community in which a Texan oil field known as the killing fields is situated. When Pam requests the help of Heigh in the recent disappearance and murder of women within the confines of the killing fields, he reluctantly obliges, despite the objections of his partner due to their own case against two low-life pimps who are systematically kidnapping and forcing teenage girls into a life of prostitution. What follows, is two differing journeys as both men attempt to bring the guilty to justice through their own, loose methods.

Sam Worthington’s Detective Souder is a brash, uncompromising individual who rarely comforts, but always intimidates, even when he is simply taking a statement from a young, teenage victim. It is briefly suggested that this distance and animosity originates from a rough upbringing, but it is never explored in any suitable detail, and Souder instantly comes across as an unlikeable character that is unable to redeem the glaring flaws in his personality by the conclusion of the picture. The same can also be said for Jeffrey Dean Morgan’s performance as a likeable and hard-working detective, despite a good performance from Morgan, he is entirely clichéd in his traits and comes across as a one-dimensional cardboard cut-out. The only encouraging performance of the piece comes from the surprisingly mature Chloe Moretz, who at only fourteen years of age has already established herself as young, up and coming actress.

Aside from the acting and the lack of characterisation, the other glaring flaw of ‘Texas Killing Fields’ is the complex narrative at the heart of the picture, while Souder is investigating Rule (Jason Clarke) and Levon (Jon Eyez) over the kidnapping and forced prostitution of runaway teenage girls, Heigh is helping Detective Stall investigate the killing fields, and the story of a neglected teenager in Little Anne is also thrown in their for good measure. With so many different narrative streams taking place all at once it is easy to become confused about what is exactly taking place on-screen, who is being interviewed and what criminal case they are actually discussing or investigating. On more than one occasion the editing compliments this confusion by cutting needlessly to a scene or character unrelated to the previous sequence without any standing or context. This constant juxtaposition between cases also ceases any emotional connection to any of the characters or their plights.

Ami Mann had the potential, the actors and the setting to create a film which would transcend the typical crime-thriller picture and instead impose another strong character piece with an engaging narrative upon this cinematic year, however instead she has come away with an almost amateur looking motion picture which does nothing to compliment the genre. While the Louisianan outback masquerades beautifully for the desolate Texan fields, the rest of the film is quite horrible to observe, it is a boring, slow, predictable, one-dimensional crime-thriller that should have never been commissioned for theatrical distribution.

Red State - Dir. Kevin Smith

2011-10-14T03:35:00.000-07:00

Trailers and television spots concerning ‘Red State’ in the United Kingdom have constantly emphasized the fact that Quentin Tarantino “f**king loves this movie.” While that may be true, Kevin Smith’s latest film has proved to be a film which teeters on the see-saw of opinion: critics and writers alike either love it or hate it. But this is not only the problem with the finished product, but the film itself, it is a mix-match of contributing elements, some that work; the performance of Michael Parks and John Goodman, and others that don’t; the lack of depth in the script and the sudden transition in the narrative from an exploration of the most extreme Christian fundamentalism to an all-out fire-fight within the blink of an eye.

Jarod (Kyle Gallner), Billy-Ray (Nicholas Braun) and Travis (Michael Angarano) are three typical Middle American high-school students with only two things on their mind; sex and alcohol. When an opportunity arises for the young men to use an internet website to rendezvous with an older woman named Sara (Melissa Leo) they jump at the prospect and head straight for her trailer thirty miles away in a small town called Cooper’s Dell. However, they choose the wrong woman to mess with, after passing out due to being drugged on the floor of her trailer they find themselves imprisoned within the Five Points Church, a fundamentalist Christian group whose leader is the psychopathic Abin Cooper (Michael Parks). Abin Cooper, who also happens to be the father of Sara, is the leader of a small, yet faithful congregation who believe that God’s word is scripture and it is there right in this world to enforce it, but before they able to enforce their extreme religious rights upon the world, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agent Joseph Keenan (John Goodman) becomes involved as a fire-fight breaks out at the Church’s compound.

Smith’s latest outing, which is his first in the horror genre, fails because it starts rumbling but is unable to keep going the political and social commentary rolling towards an appropriate conclusion. The central theme of the film concerns the fundamentalist evangelical Christians who wish to literally wipe the sinners off the face of the Earth as they believe they themselves are doing God’s work. Their work, their protesting and their stubborn, dismissive manner is representative of the Westboro Baptist Church, who are briefly mentioned in passing both verbally and visually, but what starts out as a quite brave condemnation and examination of a group of human beings generally avoided in feature films, instead, descends quickly into a comment on the handling of events depicted in the feature by authoritarian bodies in the United States and the methods they employ. If Smith had spent more time examining the relationships and the conflicts of the small, troubling convent of seemingly mild-mannered, everyday individuals, then maybe his final mediation on the nature of evil and hatred within human beings would have had more impact than the somewhat dull and underwhelming conclusion that he instead tacks on the end of his film.

While it may initially feel like a far-cry away from Kevin Smith’s more acknowledged offerings, such as the critically acclaimed ‘Clerks’ and the films that became a part of his View Askewniverse, the lack of any depth within the script, especially during the first thirty minutes, does it at times make the audience think back to Smith’s more light-hearted contributions. Jarod, Billy-Ray and Travis are presented as three, typical teenage boys, they swear profusely, they talk about sex constantly and they enjoy drugs and alcohol and that is it. They’re supposed to be representative of today’s corrupted teenage generation and their strive for sex and alcohol through reaches of the internet, but Smith portrays such an extreme characterisation of the young men that, even when they come face-to-face with the religious fundamentalists, only a microscopic amount of empathy manages to seep through towards the audience. Yet, the film is saved by two key performances by the veteran actors Michael Parks and John Goodman.

Aside from the young men, Smith does manage to convey the dialogue for both the fundamental preacher Abin Cooper and the ageing ATF Agent Keenan perfectly. The subordinate nature of bureaucracy is rarely seen in motion pictures, especially those conveying an elaborate, action-orientated set-piece such as a fire-fight, but Smith manages to relay the situation on-screen through Goodman in a dark and incredibly dry tone. Keenan is an ‘old school’ agent, he has been there, done that and got the blood-stained t-shirt in the process, but the audience is able to observe the crisis of conscience he has with every decision the high command makes, he wants to stay no, but years of service has rendered him into somewhat of a tired, bureaucratic drone. While Parks manages to take influence from all the religiously fanatical leaders from the last thirty years and he combines the traits from their maniacal lives to create a character that on the outside exudes charisma and influence, but is deep down inside nothing more than a psychopath.

Respect and admiration should be administered towards Kevin Smith for this attempt at trying something new, instead of settling back into a genre in which he has enjoyed continued success; he has instead thrown his hat into the ring and decided to explore differing cinematic tastes to those he is used to probing. While some performances work and the basic principles of the film hold up, nothing is examined in enough depth to truly place the audience in a tantalising and endearing position of thought-provoking spectators becoming involved in a new and varied Kevin Smith experience.

Tyrannosaur - Dir. Paddy Considine

2011-10-11T03:50:00.000-07:00

Recently Hollywood and the various film industries across the globe have seen an upsurge in the amount of on-screen performers who are taking a break from acting in front of the camera to instead take control from behind it. Paddy Considine, the star of ‘This is England’ and ‘Dead Man’s Shoes,’ is now a member of this increasingly growing club with his first feature-film debut ‘Tyrannosaur’. Written and Directed by Considine, this is an uncompromising debut film from the former photographer, which examines the destructive effects of violence and aggressive behaviour on the lives of two different individuals who are drawn together through their developing friendship.

Joseph (Peter Mullan) is a lonely, cynical, and belligerent working class man. He spends his days drinking alone in the Pub and gambling in the local bookmakers where his only friends reside. Violent and abusive outbursts govern his existence thereby creating a solitary creature who acts on instinct rather than reasoning. However, Joseph’s life changes when he meets and befriends Hannah (Olivia Colman), a local Christian woman who is constantly being verbally and physically abused by her sadistic husband James (Eddie Marsan). Both tortured souls, they find solace in each other’s lives and develop a friendship which transcends their misgivings.

‘Tyrannosaur’ is an uncompromising, and at times, difficult film to watch as the characters’ lives are laid bare for the whole audience to observe. Joseph responds to problematic situations through the use of his fists, while Hannah simply acts out of fear and denial. Both Peter Mullan and Olivia Colman give fantastic performances; Mullan is initially a brutish, vagrant looking male who can’t naturally become entwined in society, but as the film develops, empathy begins to grow for a man who accepts his short-comings and the fact that he may never be able to overcome them. With humanity arising slowly from his dishevelled face through his relationship with the young, neighbourhood boy Sam (Samuel Bottomley).

While Colman’s striking performance, which is far-cry away from her role on the hit British comedy series ‘Peep Show,’ shows a woman who is conflicted in all manner of her beliefs. Her religious beliefs give her the naivety to believe that her husband can change, while her heart knows that he will only stop hurting her when her beatings become fatal. This is most notable in the scene where James breaks down in tears at her feet after striking out at Hannah, as she cradles his head he constantly professes his love for her repeating the phrase “it won’t happen again, you know it won’t happen again.” Hannah constantly reaffirms his worries saying that she does love him, but as she lowers his head, the camera observes her changing emotions as the audience is shown that Hannah is clearly not a woman in love with James, but instead she is simply afraid of him.

Considine’s first directorial effort is certainly a competent effort, he never attempts to direct the audience’s attention too far from the script or the two central performances at hand, but this itself is the film’s primary flaw. While it is captivating and emotionally unsettling, it is also a narrative which is not uncommon in modern British cinema (or known to some as ‘miserable British cinema’), and it portrays the same judgements and ideals as many of its predecessors did before without providing anything new to the sub-genre at hand, especially in the culmination of the sub-plot involving the young boy Sam and his neglectful mother and boyfriend.

Despite its unoriginality in the narrative’s conclusive mediation, the film still manages to evoke a strong emotional response from the viewer through its combination of horrifying visuals and fragile performances from the two lead British actors, as Paddy Considine begins his feature film journey with a solid and respectable character portrait of two broken individuals.

Abduction - Dir. John Singleton

2011-10-08T04:31:00.001-07:00

Two decades ago John Singleton wrote and directed the Oscar nominated ‘Boys n the Hood,’ and a mere six years after his last feature was released, he has returned with what can only described as a terribly generic action thriller. ‘Abduction’ brings together deplorable acting, a terrible script and an unoriginal idea which is executed poorly. Viewing this film is the cinematic equivalent of watching a car crash in slow-motion, the audience observes the disaster and devastation unfold on-screen, but the only way for them to avoid this horrifying event is to simply vacate their theatre seat and approach the box office for a welcome refund on the admission price of their ticket.

Nathan Harper (Taylor Lautner) is your typical teenage boy, but when he is paired with his long-time crush Karen (Lily Collins) on a sociology project, his life begins to unravel as they find his picture on a missing children’s website. Nathan and Karen are left to fend for themselves as they find themselves in the cross-hairs of a major Eastern European criminal, whilst they must also decide whether or not to trust the CIA operative Frank Burton (Alfred Molina) who insists that he is there to help the young couple. What follows is an hour and a half of action sequences involving a teenage boy who not only manages to outsmart many experienced villains, but also the Central Intelligence Agency.

Generic, conventionalised, and unoriginal, are just a few words to describe the narrative of ‘Abduction,’ it’s incredibly surprising that Shawn Christensen’s script was sold to Lionsgate for an estimated one million dollars due to its preposterous and unintentionally hilarious nature. One particularly terrible scene takes place just after Nathan’s ‘parents’ (Jason Isaacs, Maria Bello) have been murdered, as an injured henchman tells the young couple; “I’m not going to die here…there’s a bomb in the oven.” Seconds later, they reach the oven which contains the stereotypical bomb with visible timer before the house is blown into smithereens. While this is just one of many examples, to give Mr Christensen his dues, it is not always the script that sends the film into an infinite hallway of absurdity. Lautner’s performance also readily helps this aspect along.

The young ‘Twilight’ star has so far unfortunately only developed two facial expressions, one which displays his tight-lipped macho bravado and the other is a wide-eyed smile. This is most evident in the scene briefly after they have avoided the bomb in the oven as CIA operative Frank Burton contacts the young man. Asking how he is feeling after he has just watched his parents being murdered, his expression doesn’t change as he nonchalantly mentions that he is ok. Expressions, emotions and acting in general seem to have been excluded from Singleton’s reasoning during the direction of this film, because even the experienced Alfred Molina, Maria Bello, and Sigourney Weaver are shown to be seemingly ‘phoning-in’ performances as they no doubt realised what kind of production they had unfortunately become a part of.

‘Abduction’ should be a film which is written about and praised alongside the likes of ‘Airplane!’ and ‘Young Frankenstein,’ because it is the perfect spoof of the action-thriller genre, encompassing every single cliché together with a laughable script and incredibly dubious acting, yet the sad thing is, this film is not a parody, but it is instead entirely serious motion picture. John Singleton’s latest offering does leave the audience pondering one of life’s most difficult questions however: why was this film commissioned for theatrical distribution?

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy - Dir. Alfredson

2011-09-17T04:32:00.000-07:00

Forty-six year old Swedish director Tomas Alfredson came to prominence three years ago when he directed the film adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel 'Let The Right One In'. After the initial success of the vampiric romantic drama, Alfredson became attached to an international adaptation of John le Carre's espionage-novel 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy'. Based on aspects of le Carre's (also known as David Cornwell) experiences during his time as a member of the British Intelligence service sectors MI5 and MI6 during the 1950s and 1960s, Alfredson creates a fine, absorbing picture which engrosses from beginning to end.

Control (John Hurt), the leader of an unknown sector of the British Intelligence service, is ousted along with his long-standing companion George Smiley (Gary Oldman) due to a botched operation in Budapest, Hungary which saw the officer Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) murdered in public. Control was under the impression that there was a mole among the top ranking members of the service, referred to as the Circus by the other top ranking members due to its location in Cambridge Circus, London, and Smiley is drawn out of retirement to pinpoint the culpritafter Control passes away. Alongside the young Intelligence officer Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley has four primary candidates to focus his investigation upon; they are the last remaining members of the Circus, Bill Haydon (Colin Firth), Percy Alleline (Toby Jones), Roy Bland (Ciaran Hinds) and Toby Esterhase (David Dencik).

Utilizing an all-star, established cast, Alfredson allows the film to unfold at an almost flawless pace. Every sequence contains a small snippet of information which allows the viewer to conduct their own investigation alongside that of Smiley's. While the narrative is also driven along by strong performances from the primarily male cast, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Toby Jones, Ciaran Hinds, David Dencik, Stephen Graham and Kathy Burke all give strong, commanding performances. While the true artists of the piece are Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays the young, and somewhat naive intelligent officer assigned to assist Smiley. John Hurt as the aging, instinct-driven leader of the British service, and Tom Hardy, who is Ricki Tarr the dirty cleaner for British intelligence's most fowl operations. Their performances go above and beyond in their supporting roles, and at times eclipse Gary Oldman's subdued portrayal of a man drawn back into the murky world of corruption, betrayal and treasure.

Alongside the narrative and its cast, one of the more surprising aspects of the film, is Alfredson, Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema and Editor Dino Jonsater's use of stylistic nuances that further enhance the viewing experience. Lingering close-up shots of seemingly insignificant objects and shallow focus shots constantly evoke the nature of mystery and intrigue which surrounds such clandestine organisations. Alfredson never rushes any moment, instead he allows for the audience to become accustomed to their surroundings and appreciate their beauty. Wide angle shots and long lenses are used for interior and exterior locations, showcasing the breakdowns of their interiors, while close-up shots are used to examine objects and characters in their most frail states. During the opening sequence involving Prideaux's botched secret mission, a simple concoction of jump cuts and lingering static shots concentrating upon various characters within the vicinity creates a sense of the tension, suspense and vulnerability of the situation and this is how Alfredson constantly keeps the audience engrossed. By providing those observing the action on screen with just enough information that they themselves become entwined within Smiley's investigation as he moves forward.

Once the credits and a dedication to the films screenwriter Bridget O'Connor who passed away last year finish, the viewer is left with an overriding sense of satisfaction. Smiley's world is a far cry away from the glitz and glamour that the espionage genre has become accustomed to. There are no martinis in sight, but only reel upon reel of bureaucratic wrangling, childish bickering and greed-induced deal-making, where it seems everybody is working for themselves and their reputation rather than the nation's government that is employing them. Since its premiere at the 68th Venice International Film Festival 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' has been touted as an Oscar contender and it is easy to understand why, Tomas Alfredson has taken a solid source novel, utilized an established cast and infused the final concoction with elements from his own visual repertoire to create a wonderfully crafted film that does the original BBC televised series justice.

Apollo 18 - Dir. Gonzalo López-Gallego

2011-09-06T02:29:00.000-07:00

Filmmakers will utilize any appropriate marketing tool to get audiences into cinemas and since the success of the ‘Blair Witch Project’ and most recently ‘Paranormal Activity,’ the found-footage sub-genre has achieved somewhat of a renaissance. They are cheaply made, require no big names to populate the cast and they work upon exploiting a basic human fear; you could be watching reality, therefore this could be happening in a woods/home/factory near you at this very moment in time. ‘Apollo 18,’ directed by Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego and produced by Timur Bekmambetov, is the newest addition to this sub-genre by taking this concept into space and working alongside the well-known conspiracy theories that have surfaced since the first manned mission to the moon in July, 1969. However, where others have recently succeeded, this film fails to even get out of the launch pad. Despite its interesting concept, it is slow, formulaic and not particularly scary.

In 1972, NASA sent the supposed final manned mission to the moon in Apollo 17, or that’s what they wanted you to think. Cancelling the Apollo missions 18, 19, and 20 under the guise of budgetary and scheduling constraints, the Apollo 18 mission actually went ahead under the guidance of the Department of Defence. Astronauts Ben Anderson (Warren Christie), Nate Walker (Lloyd Owen) and John Grey (Ryan Robbins) are sent to the moon to install what they believe to be a missile defence system that will further protect against a surprise Russian attack in the midst of the Cold War. However, after just a few short hours on the moon things start to go wrong, the astronauts begin to notice that something is attempting to disrupt their mission and what follows is the documentation of the disturbances by the three men as they attempt to figure out what is happening and if the ground control team knew of the dangers in the darkened crevices of the moon before they were sent up there.

‘Apollo 18’ fails exponentially in one key area, which continually ruins the film for the proceeding eighty-odd minutes after it has begun. Using the fictional ploy and backstory about a WikiLeaks-esque website publishing eighty-four hours of found footage and then condensing this footage into an eighty-six minute film which reveals all about what really happens on the surface of the moon. The on-screen prologue acknowledges that the footage was released in 2011, but it visually it would be more representative of 1981. Even amateur filmmakers nowadays can become professional editors from the comfort of their own homes due to the boom in video-editing software, but ‘Apollo 18’ instead is disjointed and annoying. Littered with black-outs, film which seems to have aged perfectly and others that seem to barely able to contain an image, and the occasional overt cinematic technique that seems substantially out of place in the grand scheme of the film. Potential tension and suspense is constantly overshadowed with the emphasis on fast and pointless editing showcasing the desolate landscape rather than the creatures that are attacking the team. Alongside the technical aspects of the film, the narrative itself is also guilty of underperforming, with it just dawdling along with very little happening in between short spurts of action and suspense.

The plot opens itself up with various different avenue’s to explore with the inclusion of objects and characters that are found beyond their space shuttle, however the majority of the action is confined to the safe and secure living confines of the astronauts. The great unknown that is the surface of the moon is constantly underused until the characters are forced out of their living quarters, and still then the action is few and far between. One positive acknowledgement however is the performance by Warren Christie, as the lone astronaut who understands initially that something is not right and that he and his colleagues may simply be small, disposable pieces in a larger, conspiracy laden plan. But the solid performance from one character in the grand scheme of the entire project can’t elevate the film from its deflated narrative, mediocre direction and poorly chosen technical compositions. With the conclusion of the film and the projection of the credits there is still no pay-off for the audience, the being(s) which terrorise the astronauts are left unexplored and a few meagre lines of text explain what happened to the three men according to the sacred word of the United States Government. However this does allow for the credits to be exhibited in the same vein as the rest of the feature, as a vastly underwhelming piece.

Kill List - Dir. Ben Wheatley

2011-09-03T04:22:00.000-07:00

Routine plagues everybody’s lives, they awake, they rise, they work, they play, but when a British film comes along that not only plays into the mould of the predictability of the crime genre, but also substantially subverts it, it is certainly worth a viewing. ‘Kill List,’ director Ben Wheatley’s second feature length picture, creates a refreshing addition to a genre which has by all accounts become somewhat stale. It draws you in with conflicting characters and beautiful visuals before turning the over-exposed theme of the repentant assassin on its head and sprinkling in a few new and exciting additions that are sure to create discussion and debate between cinema-goers and critics alike.

Jay (Neil Maskell) is a father to the young Sam (Harry Simpson) and a husband to the beautiful Shel (MyAnna Buring), but their familial relationships are less than perfect. After returning from Iraq where he was a part of a security consult he has since taken up the role of local assassin with his best friend Gal (Michael Smiley). They appear professional and act indifferent, to them killing another human being is just another job. Instead of sitting in an office for nine hours, they find financial solace in placing a bullet between another person’s eyes; it’s business. But when a mysterious client (Struan Rodger) offers the men another ‘hit list’ to complete, the contract sets off a chain of events which shatters the lives of everybody involved, subsequently leading to a horrifyingly brutal final act conclusion.

To describe ‘Kill List’ as an outright horror would be doing a massive disservice to the film. It begins as a taught familial drama focusing on the strained marriage between Jay and Shel as financial problems plague the couple, before it slowly descends down the path of British crime thrillers and horror reminiscent of the Hammer films of the sixties and seventies. The constantly transforming narrative is followed by the brilliant performances from Neil Maskell and Michael Smiley, they act like brothers, constantly fighting, arguing and then successfully making up over a beer or two, but when their job is the main order of business, they become cold, calculated and unpredictable. Especially Jay who has an emotional connection to the majority of villains they dispatch through his wife and his child which takes an insurmountable toll on his emotional and physical stability as the days drag on, and the contract killings keep coming.

Stylistically Laurie Rose’s intimate, close-quarters cinematography, Robin Hill’s disjointed editing and Jim Williams unsettling score all work together to represent the sporadic and disturbing portrait of two men who strive to appear as normal human beings in society, but actually reflect the abhorrent horror that many believe can only take place in dingy basements and downtrodden apartments. The graphic acts of violence perpetrated by the two men are lingered upon by the camera as the audience is slowly drawn into their jobs, and their lives beyond family and friends. While the camera most often than not utilizes close-up shots coupled with Williams score bringing the audience to the forefront of the emotional pain involved, Jay after all, first and foremost is a male in the patriarchal role who is struggling to provide for his family.

‘Kill List’ isn’t a nicely packaged film full to the brim with concrete conclusions and flawless narrative developments, but it is a film which provokes thought and discussion over the little things in life. Violence, life, family, money, employment, depravity, Ben Wheatley’s film manages to encapsulate them all whilst also providing a narrative which is guaranteed to captivate.

The Skin I Live In - Dir. Pedro Almodovar

2011-08-25T04:15:00.001-07:00

Pedro Almodovar is not a conventional filmmaker by any means. His films openly explore subjects many acclaimed directors fear to tread and absorb in their whole entire careers, but what is always guaranteed with Almodovar is a sense of wonderment and the unexpected, and ‘The Skin I Live In’ (‘La piel que habito’) is no different. Based briefly on Thierry Jonquet’s 2003 novel ‘Mygale,’ Almodovar’s latest film is a delightful and refreshing combination of multiple genres including drama, thriller and body horror. It’s shockingly sincere, beautifully horrifying and has an appeal that will keep the audiences eyes locked towards the events on-screen until the final credits roll.

Dr Robert Lesgard (Antonio Banderas) is a renowned surgeon who is attempting to achieve a breakthrough in bio-medical sciences by creating a synthetic skin through transgenisis. Classified as a horrific mutation by some, and acknowledged by Robert as an innovation, his experiments come at a price. His human test subject is a beautiful woman named Vera (Elena Anaya) who is contained within his home, and cared for by his head servant Marilia (Marisa Paredes). Vera is not like other women, she wears a skin-coloured suit made out of fabric instead of clothes, she is constantly watched by Robert and Marilia, and she never leaves her room, which only Robert himself holds the key too. What follows is a startling journey of discovery as the narrative unravels a story of disturbing past, present and future events; transforming the lives of all those involved.

Beginning in Toldeo in 2012, Almodovar utilizes a constantly underused and underappreciated device in the nonlinear narrative. He provides the audience with one perception of each character before returning in flashback during the second act to six years previously where further events are explained and through this, the audience’s initial observations of the characters become undermined and drastically altered. He then digresses between past and present at will building a comprehensive picture of each character involved as the story develops revealing some startling and disturbing discoveries. This decision to structure the film in this way, also adequately supplements Almodovar’s need to explore his key themes including sexual identity, and the nature of the moral of ethics of the human soul after it has been literally stripped bare.

Coupled with the beautiful cinematography from Almodovar’s long-time collaborator Jose Luis Alcaine and an original and complimentary score by Alberto Iglesias, ‘The Skin I Live In’ also becomes an example of technically proficient filmmaking which works alongside the performances of the likes of Banderas and Anaya, as well as the slickly written script which keeps the audience on their toes until the final curtain has been dropped. Pedro Almodovar is undoubtedly one of the most successful auteurs of the last few decades, and with ‘The Skin I Live In’ he shows that he can almost touch upon a new genre, in the form of body horror genre-hybrid, whilst also retaining all the previous elements, themes and techniques which have made his films the deep-seated critically successful films that they are.

The Inbetweeners Movie - Dir. Ben Palmer

2011-08-17T09:26:00.001-07:00

The critically acclaimed E4 comedy series returns for its final swansong in the form of an hour and a half film which contains among other things, sun, sex, booze, sea, booze, and, er, well sex. It is essentially an extended episode, instead of rolling this out as a summer or Christmas special under differing circumstances, writers Damon Beesley and Iain Morris who were the primary writers on the television series, have shrewdly decidedly to capitalize on the series’ short fame and enter the cinematic market instead. Will’s (Simon Bird) narration returns as does the crude jokes and the toilet humour, but isn’t that what made the ‘Inbetweeners’ so hilariously funny? It’s a silly, contains a formulaic plot, and stereotypical characters, but what really makes the four boys work, is there childish banter, and sexual optimism that reminds us all of what it was like to be eighteen again.

The last time we saw them on the small-screen, they were finishing up a bonding trip into the woods as each one of them were on a knife edge deciding what they would do for the rest of their lives; university, or the meat-counter at ASDA with a potential promotion up to the check-out in the works? But before they must decide what to do for the rest of their lives (also known as the next five years) they have six weeks to think it over and take the obligatory ‘lads holiday’ which is an old, wise British tradition for any male who reaches the age of eighteen. The tradition consists of the boys going abroad to a country, which in this case is Malia, with plenty of sun, sea, sand, and bars, and seeing how much tolerance their body has to the effects of copious amounts of alcohol, before attempting to see if this makes them any more (or less) attractive to the fellow British revellers. Premise, nice, simple, and set, and the narrative pretty many rolls it’s self out from here.

Again the stars of the show are the characters, with Will’s offbeat precocious nature a nice alternative to the foul-mouthed tirades of Jay (James Buckley) which have seemingly got more and more crude as the television show has gone on. Neil (Blake Harrison) on the other hand acts as welcome relief, always guaranteeing to make a laugh out of any innocuous comment he makes, which is especially helpful during the scenes involving the continued romance between Simon (Joe Thomas) and Carly (Emily Head) as it is one of those aspects they should have left to die gracefully with the television series as it seemingly drags on and on with little in the way of a rewarding conclusion. While, Allison (Laura Haddock), provides the romantic interest for Will, and their scenes are somewhat touching as they both seem fish-out-of-water in this world of drinking for twenty hours, eating for two and sleeping for five minutes.

It will almost certainly come away empty handed when the awards season comes sweeping around in Britain, and it might not very favourable with the print and online critics, but it isn’t half bad as it never tries to be anything more than an feature-length episode. The jokes are still there, Jay’s miraculous lies crop up every now and again, a few old and new faces make welcome cameo’s and the boys still get caught up in many embarrassing situations, the majority of which involve the involuntarily showcasing of their genitals. If you look beyond the unoriginal narrative, the one-dimensional primary protagonists, the stereotypical love interests, and the unsophisticated jokes, you will probably enjoy this film for what it is.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Dir. Michael Bay

2011-07-01T05:10:00.001-07:00

Collectively the two previous live-action ‘Transformers’ instalments have grossed over $1.5 billion dollars worldwide between themselves in a little more than two years, so it was always inevitable that Bay and Paramount would re-team for a third film to round out the robotic trilogy. However, just like its previous cinematic instalment, ‘Transformers: Dark of the Moon’ is a poorly crafted, overlong, robot-infested-mess which is populated continuously with cheaply written dialogue and over-the-top acting.

In 1961, John F Kennedy tells the American public that they will endeavour to put a man on the moon before the end of the century, but what the American public isn’t told is that the space-race has been commissioned to reach a Cybertronian craft that has become stranded on the dark side of the moon. However, nothing is never simple as it seems, as Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is once again drawn away from his post-graduate job-hunting and attractive British girlfriend Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) and is placed slap-bang in the middle of the reoccurring war between the Autobot protagonists, commanded by Optimus Prime, who must once again stop the villainous Megatron and his Decepticon partners from destroying planet Earth.

At two-and-a-half hours in length, ‘Dark of the Moon’ is just a long, tedious film to watch, which is primarily down to the films incredibly disjointed plot. For the first two acts of the film, Bay continuously jumps between the romantic-comedy and action-adventure sub-genres, before deciding to simply settle on an all-out extended action sequence, which then culminates in a third act which contains nothing more than exploding robots and extended scenic destruction. In between the constant on-screen destruction important plot-points are information is seemingly thrown at the audience hoping to create anything that can be seemingly considered a workable and engaging plot. Despite having a potentially workable premise in using the moon landing of 1969 to establish a link between the extra-terrestrial robots and humanity, it is instead reworked into a complex plot involving years of conspiracies that are never fully explored nor investigated.

Alongside the disorganized plot, Bay once again attempts to place considerable emphasis upon the actions and choices of humanity, rather than the Transformers themselves. For example, in during the beginning of the final climatic fight sequence, Sam is about to save his girlfriend himself from a dangerous, metal-laden fortress, however as Epps (Tyrese Gibson) is unable to follow due to the impending doom that lies ahead he instead offers the pesky young adult a hand-gun, just in-case he encounters any large and sophisticated robotic killing machines. This is the conclusion of a sequence which shows all the former soldiers coming together out of retirement to help Sam and the human race, before they decide that the situation is ultimately too dangerous for them. All the while the Autobots are eventually introduced back into the situation with yet another preposterous explanation that just further cements films lack of structure. This focus upon humanity isn’t helped either by the stale acting and cheesy script which despite newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whiteley attempting to work beyond stereotype she is unable to do, as the script clearly has her labelled as nothing more than ‘Sam’s attractive love-interest’.

Once again Michael Bay has attempted to circumvent the simple rules of filmmaking by filling his third Transformers film up to the brim with energetic action-sequences and detailed computer generated imagery hoping to cover the fact that it contains a convoluted and difficult plot, sub-par acting and terrible dialogue. ‘Dark of the Moon’ would work perfectly if the final climatic fight sequence was released as a stand-alone short film examining the effects of modern-day technology on film-making, but as a two-and-a-half-hour feature film, the third film in the Transformers franchise misses the boat (once again) completely.

Green Lantern - Dir. Martin Campbell

2011-06-20T03:49:00.001-07:00

“In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight…” Unless you’re a comic-book aficionado, it’s unlikely that you’ll be able to finish the Green Lantern oath off through simple guesswork, but Martin Campbell’s film is structured in such way to appeal to both comic-fans and comic-newbies alike. The cinematic adaptation of the DC comic-book Green Lantern follows a member of the Green Lantern Corps, everyman Hal Jordan goes from being a test-pilot, to a universal peace-keeper, while having to juggle the conventional girl in between. It is a fun and easy-to-enjoy comic-book movie, neither Campbell nor Reynolds take the film too seriously and it will no doubt be appreciated well by children across the globe, but it’s fun, free loving spirit can’t save the film from having an absolutely dire script an un-even pacing during the second-act which in turn drags the comic-to-film property from decent fanfare to adequate beginnings.

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is a first-rate test-pilot who never seems to be able to live up to not only his own potential, but others expectations of him as well. Battling the various demons associated with his past, he coasts through life and his job to the displeasure of many including his female co-pilot Carol Ferris (Blake Lively), and that is until the Green Lantern member Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison) crash-lands on Earth and chooses Hal as his successor. Abin Sur is a member of an inter-galactic peacekeeping authority called the Green Lantern Corps, with over 3,600 members, the group promises to protect all life-forms in the entire universe(s) against evil, and now Hal Jordan has been chosen as humanity’s first member. Armed with a ring, a green lantern, and almost infinite power which is driven through the strength of its participants will-power, Hal must join the Green Lantern Corps and prove himself as he battles the parasitic-entity Parallax which feeds on its opponents fear.

Despite obtaining some criticism from writers and critics about ‘Green Lanterns’ lavish and brightly coloured CGI and non-CGI sets, it does allow the film to set this planet apart from the other worlds in which other comic-books envision. Oa, where the Green Lantern Corps central base of operations is situated, is a brightly lit utopia fuelled through the will-power of thousands. It looks beautiful, as the computer generated imagery really sets the city a part from other recently envisioned comic-book realms. While the characters themselves, Sinestro (Mark Strong), Killerwog (Michael Clarke Duncan) and the Guardians of the Universe also establish themselves within the comic book universe with their unique and vibrant appearances, allowing them to drive the film’s plot along where needed, but their characters are incredibly underused, which is most likely a product of the fact that a ‘Green Lantern’ sequel is no doubt being lined up ASAP, but it is also a big drain on the film’s impact. While the CGI aliens and action heavy plot does its part to create a pretty-easy-going-popcorn-flick, the human characters and the film’s script do not.

Despite ‘Green Lanterns’ running time being a mere one hour and forty-five minutes due to the boring and drawn-out second act of the film it seems like the film lasts a lot longer in reality. While it is a Green Lantern/Hal Jordan-centric film, very little time is spent even trying to intersperse a small amount of characterisation into the human characters of the piece. Senator Hammond (Tim Robbins), Dr. Waller (Amanda Bassett) and even the film’s Earth-trapped antagonist, science teacher Henry Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard), are barely allowed any time to present and develop their own motives or thoughts. This isn’t helped by the film’s exceptionally clichéd and poorly written script which fails to not only add further depth to related characters, but it also fails to provide Reynolds with enough humorous sequences to drive his comic-book persona. While ‘Green Lantern’ does work on some levels, it also fails on others, and while the film is very easy-going and enjoyable comic-book adaptation, it is also severely restricted by its slow-moving, poorly written middle segment which is then undermined further its frenetic conclusion.

Point Blank - Dir. Fred Cavaye

2011-06-11T06:22:00.000-07:00

In 2008, Fred Cavaye’s directorial debut ‘Anything for Her,’ was both critically and commercially successful to the point that it was instantly bought up by an American production company and released within two years in 2010 under the title ‘The Next Three Days’. This year he returns with another crime-thriller, ‘Point Blank’ (‘A Bout Portant’), a fast-paced, chase-centric, Besson-esque film, which had the potential to add something new to the genre, but instead fell into the same-old, safe trap of regurgitating the old, rather than attempting something new.

Samuel Pierret (Gilles Lellouche) is happily married to his wife Nadia (Elena Anaya) who is seven and a half months pregnant, while he works in a Paris hospital and within a matter of weeks he will take his nurses exam. However, when he saves a mystery patients life (Roschdy Zem) for a brief moment he is seen as a hero until it is revealed that the patient is a wanted criminal, and Samuel’s life begins to fall apart as he told he must break the unconscious prisoner out of hospital or he will never see his wife again. With his pregnant wife kidnapped, he is framed for various crimes he did not commit and he must fight both sides of the law as he flees through Paris with only one thought on his mind; the safety of his wife and unborn child. ‘Point Blank’ is a relatively generic crime-thriller which spans a modest eighty-four minutes. The action sequences are fast, fluid and uncompromising just like the antagonists of the piece. While the main protagonist in the nurse Samuel and his hostage, the criminal gangster Sartet, play their roles perfectly, but where the film falls flat is in its failure to reward their effort.

Little attempt is made to place any depth into the various characters employed in the story, we know the basic motivations behind the main protagonists and antagonists, but nothing else is revealed beyond that. They simply become, despite the actors efforts to place some characterisation in place, caricatures of the stereotypical roles used in the majority of distinctly average crime-thrillers that are released today. Also this is a fault in tandem with the film’s running time, eighty-four minutes in length doesn’t provide enough screen-time for the audience to become accustomed, recognised and relatable to the characters on-screen nor does it allow enough time for the narrative to slowly unravel itself. Instead during the final act various motives and side-stories are bounded about with diminutive conviction and this detracts away from an already non-existent central plot. Cavaye’s second feature-length film is a competent effort that simply lacks any innovation or speciality; instead it falls into the same old trap of relying on generic conventions that make it an average crime-thriller at best.

Senna - Dir. Asif Kapadia

2011-06-04T05:04:00.000-07:00

Seventeen years after the passing of one of the greatest Formula 1 racing drivers of all time a documentary has been released that examines his ten-year career in the sport. Directed by Asif Kapadia (‘Far North,’ ‘The Warrior’) and produced by Universal and Working Title, ‘Senna’ shows the audience the untapped potential and brilliance of the Formula 1 driver Ayrton Senna, while also examining the rise of this shy, young Brazillian boy; from go-karting circuits to a televisual audience of millions. ‘Senna’ is as moving and touching, as it is interesting and captivating.

Born Ayrton Senna da Silva to wealthy middle-class parents in the Santana district of Sao Paulo, he always had a dream of becoming a racing driver and began by driving in the Karting World Championships until he was approached to join Formula 3 for the 1983 season and then Formula 1 for the following season. From his first controversial podium finish in the Monaco in Grand Prix in 1984, two things were born; an intense rivalry with the future French Formula 1 champion (and soon to be team-mate) Alain Prost and a desire to race, dominate and win which would see Senna not only claim three World Championships, but also lose his own life on the track.

Where Kapadia’s ‘Senna’ documentary works is in its ability to appeal to wide array of audience members. For the fans of the Formula 1 racing there is a copious amount of footage documenting select races and the events taking place around his career. Rather than use cutaway segments to show various celebrities and sports men and women discuss their memories and recollections of Senna, Kapadia instead utilises a voice-over to accompany the archive images on-screen. By allowing the voice-over of the various people associated with Senna (most notable this consists of McLaren’s team principal Ron Dennis, his mother, father and sister, F1 team Doctor Sid Watkins, and Brazilian commentator Reginaldo Leme) to supplement the footage, it both preserves he power of the on-screen image and provides the audience with additional information regarding the situation or event that is being presented.

While for the casual viewer who may only know of Ayrton Senna in passing, there is the psychological unravelling of a man trapped in a boy’s body. Senna is shown not to be ignorant of the politics of Formula 1, but simply uninterested, he was always that middle-class boy from Brazil who only wanted to race, win and repeat. There is also an interesting inclusion of footage of Senna as a modern hero of the Brazilian people, he’s shown as the racing driver who transcended the social and political problems of a nation on the edge of poverty and economic instability and provided them with ray of light and joy that was unfortunately extinguished on the 1st of May 1994. ‘Senna’ is a brilliant and moving examination of a rising sporting star caught up in the whirlwind of politics, rivalries and stardom, when all he wanted to do was race and win by any means necessary, not for the adulation of millions, but his love for sport so close to his heart.

X-Men: First Class - Dir. Matthew Vaughn

2011-06-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

Beginning with a crime-thriller and a fantasy film on his directorial résumé, it is safe to say that Matthew Vaughn may have already found his niche genre in the superhero field despite only directing four films in seven years. His first super-hero project, ‘Kick Ass,’ opened in 2010 to solid critical acclaim and a finalized gross of three times the film’s ordinary $30 million dollar budget. And after only two years, Vaughn returns with ‘X-Men: First Class,’ an origins story to accompany the Bryan Singer/Brett Ratner X-Men trilogy released between 2000 and 2006. It’s intelligent, enthralling, well-acted, stylishly directed, and most importantly by focusing heavily upon the relationship between the two central protagonists, it does not feel like a conventional super-hero film. Just as his previous outing with ‘Kick-Ass’ turned the super-hero from super-human being to normal, high school teenager.

Set within the political context of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 1960’s, Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) is an up-and-coming Professor whose life is drastically altered when he is introduced to the other members of society who also share the same mutant gene as himself that supplies them with super-human abilities and traits. After stumbling upon the shape-shifting Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) within his mansion, the telepathic Xavier then encounters Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), the son of Jewish parents who were murdered during the holocaust by the narcissistic former Nazi scientist, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon). Erik, who can manipulate all metal objects around himself, wants retribution and nothing more from Sebastian who is now a successful and evil underground figurehead who commands a team of mutants (Azazel, Emma Frost and Riptide) to do his bidding for him. But, once his plan for world domination is revealed, they find that it far exceeds the constraints of humanity, and Xavier, Erik and a rag-tag band of young, hide-away mutants (Havok, Beast, Darwin, Angel and Banshee) who were discovered by Charles, must combine their powers in one last attempt to stop Shaw from destroying the planet and humanity as a whole.

Instantly where ‘X-Men: First Class’ works is in regards to its two central characters; Charles Xavier played by an incredibly affluently sounding James McAvoy and a rage-fuelled Erik Lehnsherr played by a stern-faced Michael Fassbender. Their instant on-screen chemistry provides the drive and ammunition for the plot to carry itself forward. Both characters have differing ideologies and their constant clashes due to this aspect allow the script to be brought to life. Instead of simply infusing their relationship with formulaic violent clashes, Vaughn has instead opted for more articulated verbal battles between the two characters regarding their stance within the society they are now becoming a part of. Xavier is an intellectual being who believes that humans will eventually be accepted within society as equals alongside humans, while Lenhsherr believes that mutants will always be hunted and unable to live peacefully side-by-side with the human race, his evidence for this resides in the anti-Semitism and hatred he received at the hands of the Nazi party during the holocaust. This heavy-set contradiction in ideologies allows their relationship to be imbued with pessimism, while they may be shown as friends and fighting together initially, fans of the comic books and films in general know this does eventually turn into a bitter rivalry and it’s this development which drives the plot forward.

Aside from the script, it would also be rude to not praise the action-sequences which take place within the confines of the 1960’s X-Men universe. With a modest running time at two hours and ten minutes, there are more than a few well-choreographed action sequences that would adequately satisfy any of comic-book-to-film aficionado’s wishing to see this film. Each character’s power or ability is at some point represented in a destructive or defensive capacity, taking full advantage of the fact that while many super-hero movies tend to concentrate on the aesthetic nature of the artillery characters can be seen to withstand from governmental agencies or blindsided human opponents, here it is shown and constantly emphasized that human reaction would be futile due to the overwhelming power the mutants possess. These scenes also allow the less important characters to show their physical presence on-screen. For example, during the climactic fight sequence at the conclusion of the film, every mutant character that is identified to the audience is finally shown using their abilities to full capacity, most notably the henchmen of Shaw and the rag-tag team of Xavier and Lehnsherr. This therefore accounts slightly for the lack of depth that has been attempted in these secondary characters due to the time and story constraints.

While it is a very good and accessible comic-book/super-hero movie, ‘X-Men’ does also contain two central flaws. The first is superseded in a way by the strength of both McAvoy and Fassbenders performances, as Kevin Bacon is constantly overshadowed as the one-dimensional antagonist of the piece. His plot to ultimately destroy humanity becomes second fiddle to the ever intricate complex relationship between Xavier and Lehnsherr, and his appearance seems too modelled upon that of a James Bond villain. He has the slick hair, the beautiful women and the villainous underground Club to boot, but Bacon unfortunately doesn’t have the charisma to be accepted as a worthy opponent to the protagonists. The other flaw has to do with a minor aspect of the production itself, as the non-diegetic music, most notably during the action sequences, begins to diminish in its impact as the film carries on, leading to it eventually becoming the generic, genre-related fanfare associated with the conventional comic-book films.

‘X-Men: First Class,’ is not your typical comic-book movie, it may contain certain elements associated with the comic-book genre, but by placing a heavy emphasis upon the strength of the plot and the script at the film’s core instead of the action-set-pieces taking place, Vaughn has intended, and succeeded, in transcending the stereotypical conventions of the genre and has created a film which will appeal to a wide range of audience members.

Blitz - Dir. Elliott Lester

2011-05-31T05:44:00.001-07:00

For the second time in eight months, Irish novelist Ken Bruen has seen another one of his hard-boiled crime stories adapted to the big-screen. While 'London Boulevard' contained a down-on-his-luck gangster attempting to go straight, 'Blitz' instead contains a more cinematic anti-hero, as Jason Statham plays a Sergeant who dismisses everyone, plays by nobodies rules and breaks every law under the sun while consuming large quantities of alcohol. It's disjointed, unintentionally hilarious, and more akin to a cinematic parody of the hit television series 'Life on Mars' than a serious British crime-thriller.

Detective Sergeant Tom Brant (Jason Statham) is a police officer with old school procedures and methods; he rules the streets with his fists rather than his head or his badge. But once a serial cop-killer (Aiden Gillen) calling himself the 'Blitz' starts roaming the streets of London, he must partner with acting Detective Inspector Porter Nash (Paddy Considine) to try and apprehend the culprit before the deranged psychopath seriously injures or even kills any more members of the London Police force. Alongside the main narrative stream, there is also a sub-plot involving a young WPC (Zawe Ashton) who must constantly battle her own personal demons.

The combination of a stale, almost laughable script and the rough, one-dimensional lead actor in Jason Statham instantly renders 'Blitz' as a sub-par crime-thriller. Brant is portrayed as a sexist, prehistoric homophobe who prefers to take witness statements in the Pub as he drinks a pint of beer while dismissing any concerns the witness has about his or her statements. Statham adds absolutely nothing to the character except the fact that he is willing to seriously injure or kill any possible (innocent) suspects without a second thought. His lack of emotion, constant drinking and persistent expression of repressed rage become incredibly old after ten minutes. However, if taken accidentally as a comedy, his hilarious one-liners do provide endless (and unintentional) comedic relief. When asked by a witness he is interviewing if he is taking down his statement, Brant casually removes his pint of beer from his lips before articulating the phrase, "does it look like I carry a pencil?" in a condescending manner. Police work at its finest, indeed.

Paddy Considine and Aiden Gillen do attempt to work beyond their restrictive character profiles, but within the confines of the film and its script, their characters aren't given enough creative freedom to truly provide any emotive acting. Gillen's motive behind his rampage of violence is never fully explored, nor is the initial homosexuality of Considine's character. While it is somewhat refreshing to see a homosexual character on-screen in a position of power where he is still seen as overcoming the prejudice exerted by his peers, he starts by flaunting mannerisms that many would find both stereotypical and offensive to many homosexual males. But once this is eventually toned down, his character, his sexuality, and his motives are allowed to be somewhat expressed and he becomes the one solid character in a sea of stereotypes.

Aside from the lack of depth in character, script or main plot, where the film also fails on an incredibly basic level is in the form of a sub-plot which simply provides no conclusion or relief alongside the presiding storyline. The audience is introduced to a young, up-and-coming female Police Officer called Elizabeth Falls who is shown to have had problems with drugs in the past, but the sub-plot simply ends there. During the final act the spectators are waiting for closure offers no explanation or conclusion to a character, yet the film expects the audience to form an emotional bond with the character and her plight.

If you replaced Jason Statham and his poorly crafted one-liners (including one in which he responds to a female police officer's quip in jest that she is surprised he can even navigate his microwave due to his technophobia with "women are there to use the microwave, and do the typing too") and removed the open-ended sub-plot then 'Blitz' would work perfectly as a made for television hour-long crime-drama. However as a theatrical release, this film is nothing more than a Jason Statham action-vehicle which masquerades as an inferior police thriller.

The Hangover Part 2 - Dir. Todd Phillips

2011-05-26T07:23:00.000-07:00

Same cast. Same setup. Different location. Todd Phillips returns to the directorial chair to helm the sequel to the 2009 comedy hit ‘The Hangover’. After grossing over $450m worldwide from a modest $35m budget, it was inevitable that the boys would be back for another forgettable (for them anyway…) outing. While it doesn’t reach the same joke per minute ratio as the original film did, it does provide enough laughs to keep the audience occupied through the one hour and forty minute running time. However if monkey related humour is not your cup of tea, then the first half of the film will no doubt drag a little for you.

Stu (Ed Helms) has finally found the right woman to marry in Lauren (Jamie Chung), and they head-off to Thailand to get married. As Stu sadly still cannot truly recollect the horrors of their Las Vegas night-out, he opts for a traditional and safe, pre-Wedding brunch instead of an bachelor party. However, yet again things do not go to plan for the ‘Wolfpack’ as Stu, Alan (Zack Galifianakis), and Phil (Bradley Cooper) must attempt to retrace from the previous night’s escapade to find Lauren’s younger brother Teddy (Mason Lee) who joined the boys on their night-out. As the déjà vu sets in, they move from character to character, including the resurrection of high-pitched Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), and from place to place to try and piece together the forgotten night’s carnage before it is too late. A few famous faces are thrown in for good measure, but their roles do not need to be spoiled here as they are merely cannon fodder aimed at extending the plot for just a few more minutes allowing for an extra sequence to be casually included here and there.

With nothing literally changing aside from the location a few minor plot points (e.g. Stu’s, rather than Doug’s wedding), ‘The Hangover Part 2’ relies solely on the strength of its script and the jokes it will throw at the audience. Phillips, Armstrong and Mazin essentially centre the humour around three key areas; the changing of the character’s normal appearances, the differences and constraints between Western and Asian customs and the actual personality and action of the characters, most notably Alan. Galifianakis is at the centre of the majority of comedic moments, however it is not always what says, but unusually what he does, that creates the laugh-out-loud elements. His little mannerisms and unabashedly reactions both verbal and physical to relatively simply questions are both squirming-ly embarrassing and funny at the same. While both Stu and Phil play second fiddle to Alan’s constant ability to make the wrong comment at the wrong time, but in an entirely innocent, and somewhat childish way. He keeps the film ticking over, especially during the first half of the film’s narrative and during the moments in which shock value tends to creep into the script intending to both cause shock and amusement, yet it tends to create neither.

‘The Hangover Part 2’ is the first film, but set in a different city with a couple more extreme characters and sequences thrown in for good measure. The script is heavily set on propelling shock value over verbal humour, but when the script does eventually kick in during the second half of the film, it provides plenty of hilarious moments that seem to arrive just a little too late. However, it must be noted, that as the narration has been replicated almost plot-point for plot-point it is still worth staying till the very end to view one visual joke that does work perfectly in sync with a movie. It may feel like déjà vu, but photos sometimes tell the whole story (and then some…).

Julia's Eyes - Dir. Guillem Morales

2011-05-24T03:02:00.000-07:00

Guillem Morales’s film ‘Los ojos de Julia’ (English translation: ‘Julia’s Eyes’) is another recent Spanish import from the production desk of Guillermo Del Toro which manages to adequately combine an engaging plot with many well-orchestrated visual sequences.

Julia (Belen Rueda) is devastated when she finds out that her sister twin Sara (also played by Rueda) has committed suicide, apparently due to her inability to cope with her recent blindness which is part of a genetic disease that will effect both sisters throughout their lifetimes. Sensing something is wrong and with her sight slowly fading, Julia alongside her husband Isaac (Lluis Homar) sets out to investigate her lingering suspicions surrounding her sister’s death. Including an apparent boyfriend that nobody can ever recall seeing nor can they describe him and the myriad of characters which she encounteres throughout her existence. As Julia’s sight begins to slowly fade, she must attempt to unravel the mystery behind her sister’s death.

Where Morales makes ‘Julia’s Eyes’ work is in the combination of subtle close-up shots, atmospheric lighting and the alternating use of diegetic and non-diegetic sound, he and cinematographer Oscar Faura literally place the viewer within the confines of central protagonist. Instead of simply utilizing the age-old, and overcooked mainstream cinematic method of providing a false scare, followed by heightened non-diegetic sound, they as an alternative, allow the emphasis of the situation to be drawn from Julia’s surroundings. Close-up, and medium-close-up shots of insignificant objects, and segments of wall, become ever more important as Julia’s eyesight begins to slowly fade. While the avoidance of recording any distinguishing facial features of many male characters, especially during the second and third acts of the film, not only instils a sense of mystery in the title, but also again represents Julia’s impending loss of sight. By primarily using the visual aesthetics to communicate to the audience the tone and atmosphere of the piece, Morales extends the engagement of the picture to further audiences by not necessarily providing a scare with every scene, but by consistently keeping the tension up at a high level.

The film isn’t without flaw however; the story is cluttered with many sequences essentially repeating aspects of the story that have already been stated for the viewer and this unfortunately adds a further ten minutes to the running time of the picture. While the actors Belen Rueda and Lluis Homar provide strong emotional performances throughout, the majority of the remaining cast members attempt nothing to step outside of their stereotypical roles, nor is any screen-time provided for them with any depth beyond their scope as a one-time narrative pusher. Everybody else becomes somewhat of a pawn in Julia’s mystery and while there are some potentially interesting characters around her, they are never fully developed to the extent where they can make an impact on the film’s overall narrative. ‘Julia’s Eyes’ is yet another above-average addition to the Spanish horror/thriller genre, which despite being slightly overlong, contains a solid story with many convoluted and inter-connected twists keeping the third act engrossing until the end credit sequence begins.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - Dir. Rob Marshall

2011-05-19T04:28:00.000-07:00

‘Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides’ should effectively be renamed ‘The Captain Jack Sparrow Show’ as the fourth film in the always popular pirate franchise is nothing more than a two-hour vehicle for Johnny Depp to show off all his talent and charm, which eventually wears thin after the first hour of the film. Aside from the world on Depp’s shoulders, the plot is disjointed and the rest of the crew are mere puppets to Depp’s act.

While the first three films were concerned with the antagonist Davy Jones and Sparrow’s one ship the Black Pearl, ‘On Stranger Tides’ is a more straight-forward, linear action-adventure film with Captain Jack Sparrow becoming involuntarily part of the heinous pirate Blackbeard’s (Ian McShane) sailing staff to help them find the mythical ‘fountain of youth’. Also on the ship is the empowered primary commander Angelica, who is the First Mate in charge of the Queen Anne’s Revenge, while a few other characters from the previous films make their presence noted in the form of Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), Joshamee Gibbs (Kevin McNally), Lieutenant Groves (Greg Ellis), Lieutenant Gillette (Damian O’Hare) and Captain Teague (Keith Richards).

The plot resonates throughout the film in a very stereotypical manner, Jack Sparrow makes a wise-cracking joke, this results in a chase or fight sequence, which is then promptly ended before the journey continues and the same sequence is repeated over and over again in a slightly different location. Until the final ten minutes of the film, nothing new is not attempted nor is nothing old expanded upon, Rob Marshall has certainly taken the safe route of throwing together a recognisable, albeit fragmented, formula and hoping the audience will jump on board for over two hours. For the fans of the film franchise this will most likely work, to ordinary cinema patrons; boredom ahoy!

Another flaw is in the form of introducing the missionary Philip Swift (Sam Claflin), unlike the previous three instalments in which Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightly) provide the crux of the film’s morality and principles, in ‘Stranger Tides’ there is no character in the primary cast who can accomplish this, so Swift’s story and subsequent relationship seems to have been hastily thrust into the plot with no regards for how undeniably boring and tedious it actually is. He therefore attempts to also add a bit of humility and humanity among the blood-thirsty pirates and the psychopathic Blackbeard, but with his little screen time and over-acting this is never accomplished and the promising English actor becomes nothing more than a kind religious zealot with a muscular abdomen.

Despite Depp’s persistent and continual screen time, he does still provide adequate comedic relief, his best wisecracks seem to appear at the very moment when the plot and story seem to be slowing down, but neither the script, direction or rest of the cast and crew do anything else to keep this fourth film from being anything less than a cinematic sinking ship. It will no doubt quite easily gross it’s estimated two-hundred million dollar budget back within the next four weeks, and subsequently facilitate a fifth film in the franchise, but ‘On Stranger Tides’ is definitely the weakest effort in the ‘Pirates’ series so far.

We Are What We Are - Dir. Jorge Michel Grau

2010-12-02T04:54:00.000-08:00

‘We Are What We Are’ (Somos Lo Que Hay) has been acknowledged by many as the ‘first Mexican cannibal film,’ and whether or not this statement is true, ‘WAWWA’ isn’t by any means a typical cannibal film. If anything, this film is more like a socio-political examination of the current run-down Mexican slums, with the story of a family of cannibals lightly sprinkled on top to allow engagement of behalf of the audience. While the socio-political examination and subsequent criticism of Mexican society is executed well, the story itself falters and could have done with a stronger, more focused script.

Beginning with the death of the family’s patriarchal father (Humberto Yanez), who stumbles drudgingly through a modern shopping centre before collapsing in a dead heap in broad daylight. Instantly, director Jorge Michel Grau provides the audience with the issue of class divide in modern Mexico. As he lays on the concrete motionless, prospective middle-class shoppers casually avoid who they believe to be a dying or dead homeless man, before the cleaning crew of the shopping centre are called in to remove the body. The lack of respect, and humanity with which the public treats the dying father, alludes to the fact that Mexico is attempting to raise its public image both domestically, and internationally, and to do this, the lower classes must not be seen nor heard. The following scenes establish not only the family dynamic, but the sub-plot of the corruption in the Mexican police force. During the autopsy of the father, the pathologist reveals the family’s dark secret; that they are cannibals (through finding a whole finger in his stomach), while the Police, initially uninterested in case, and now believe that this could be their big break financially. “Break this case and we will meet the President.” The Police and authority throughout are portrayed as corrupt, lifeless soles that do their jobs for the acclaim, and celebratory status, rather than to curtail social dis-order in the Mexican slums. Crimes between the lower classes seem to be a free-for-all for justice, unless the social rewards are substantial enough to garner a response from the middle-class authoritarians. Essentially Grau provides the visual metaphor of the lower-classes ‘eating’ each other (through the representation of the family), and succeeding in doing a job that those who live beyond their means, do not wish to engage with. However when the classes collide, with the cities, the countries, reputation at stake, the authority must strike down with a powerful fist, to preserve a reputation suitable for wealthy locals and tourists alike.

Back in the family’s household, with the father presumed dead by their daughter Sabina (Paulina Gaitan), and with their mother becoming increasingly withdrawn (Carmen Beato), it is left to the older brother Alfredo (Francisco Barreiro) to take over the patriarchal role of the family, while also keeping his hot-headed, psychopathic younger brother Julian (Alan Chavez) in line. His first business as the new head of the house-hold is to find a suitable woman for the family’s cannibalistic rituals. Instead of concerning himself with the use of shock-tactics and horror clichés, Grau focuses more on the destruction of the nuclear family and how each member of the family becomes increasingly unstable as more and more responsibilities and lumped upon them. Alfredo fails to become a hunter like his father and feels effeminate; the mother becomes distraught and erratic as she attempts to overcome the news of her husband’s death, while Sabina, as the young, female of the family, rapidly descends inwards as she is forced almost instantly into the nature of adulthood.

The performances by all the members of the family, and the supporting cast of prostitutes and policemen, are somewhat disturbingly beautiful. In the slums of the city, they must day by day, year by year, drag themselves up and attempt to create a living in the world of the prostitutes or a meal on which to survive in the world of the family themselves. While the direction, and cinematography by Santiago Sanchez, creates this perfect divide which is simply roads away between the slum-dwelling lower-class, and the youthful, nightclub enjoying middle-class patrons. However, this film does harbour one large indiscriminate flaw which casts a dark shadow over the whole film in general; the lack of depth and development in the script. It deals suitably with relaying the corruption, and the class divide within developing Mexican cities, but when the script comes to the family itself, it fails to ignite any truly engaging aspect of the story. We know little of the family’s history, nor if it has any ambitions for future, aside from surviving. While certain characters could do with substantial improvements to their characterisations, such as probing the sub-plots involving Alfredo’s sexuality, and Julian’s uncontrollable teenage rage, or fundamentally providing any information beyond the very little we know about the ‘ritual’ being committed daily (?) by the family. ‘We Are What We Are’ is an adequate family-drama, with a hint of horror, and an underlying sub-plot of socio-political change within such a developing country. It may not be the best foreign film of the year, but one which certainly deserves a viewing.

London Boulevard - Dir. William Monahan

2010-11-27T04:52:00.000-08:00

You can guarantee if there’s one area of the current employment sector which continually flouts the rules of a recession, it’s the underworld London East End gangster. William Monahan’s (screenplays for ‘The Departed’ and ‘Body of Lies’) directorial debut is an adaptation of Ken Bruen’s 2001 novel ‘London Boulevard’ about a criminal who after being released from prison, attempts to go ‘straight,’ but despite his attempts, he can never truly escape his violent past. It’s not a perfect film by any means, but capable direction, and solid performances from a primarily solid British and Irish cast, create a competent directorial debut for Monahan.

Mitchell (Colin Farrell) has just been released from Pentonville after a three year sentence for assault, when he exits the prison he is picked up by long-time partner in crime, and local enforcer, Billy (Ben Chaplin), who takes Mitchell to a party in his honour. Every East End drug dealing gangster is there to shake the hand of one of the most feared men in London, but all Mitchell wants is to get a job, and avoid being restricted to a sixteen by eight cell again. He manages to convince a beautiful, reclusive actress (Keira Knightly) and her pot-smoking-hippy-esque-father-figure Jordan (David Thewlis) to hire him as a handyman around their paparazzi infested estate. But when the leading figure in the London underworld, Mr Gant (Ray Winstone) comes looking to place Mitchell high up in his crime organization, he must find a way to refuse the advances of such a dangerous man, while also protecting those closest to him.

For the first ten-to-fifteen minutes of the film, Colin Farrell’s forced middle-class cockney accent takes centre stage, but once he settles into the role, his performance takes limelight as a sociopathic criminal with somewhat of a heart. His brash use of violence, and utter respect and protection of friends, family and confidants, provides a conflict within Mitchell that he constantly battles throughout the film. The only thing he knows what to do is enforce, and if he was a true gangster he would “kill everyone and take everything they had,” but at the same time, the last thing he wants in his life is to return to that desolate hole known as prison. Aside from Farrell, both David Thewlis and Ben Chaplin give great performances as the hippy, wannabe actor and scared, low-level gangster respectively. While Anne Friel also plays the thieving, stubborn, childish sister of Mitchell’s very well. Yet while Ray Winstone never puts a foot wrong, his role as the Underworld Godfather has become rather predictable and uninteresting, especially since every other word out of his Landan mouth is either f**k or c**t (or a combination of both). Monahan really missed a trick, by failing to provide Winstone’s character with any further depth.

Also beside the main story as Mitchell battles his growing love for the reclusive actress and the life of a straight man alongside that of his violent past, and potential gangster future, is the sub-plot of Mitchell’s old homeless friend Joe (Alan Williams) who is killed ruthlessly by a couple of youths and Mitchell’s subsequent attempts to find out who is responsible. While it is an adequate underlying story to accompany the main narrative, neither Monahan’s direction nor his screenplay seem to follow it to any decisive conclusion. It seems if anything, if this sub-plot is simply included to allow the subversion of the ending and provide a twist or surprise ending, which the film itself certainly does not need. ‘London Boulevard’ is a proficient first effort for Monahan, and while the film contains flaws, which you expect from a first-time director plying his trade, it is also an engaging gangster drama which is smartly written, and incredibly well-acted by many of the great British and Irish actors at the moment.

Unstoppable - Dir. Tony Scott

2010-11-27T04:50:00.000-08:00

Tony Scott returns to the big screen with his fourth film in five years, and just like the previous three, 'Unstoppable' fits the mould as mediocre-fanfare that will casually keep your attention focused on-screen for an hour and a half. Frank (Denel Washington) is the twenty-eight year old railroad veteran who is placed together with newcomer Will (Chris Pine) for a day working on the tracks. However this is no ordinary day, after fellow railroad worker Dewey (Ethan Suplee) accidentally sends a train out on the main tracks unmanned, it is left to the master and his potential prodigy to overcome their differences and attempt to stop the train before it kills thousands in Stanton, Pennsylvania.

The film's premise is as silly as it sounds, but most importantly, it's just not that entertaining in general. It's only saving grace is the relationship between the veteran actor, and always reliable Denzel Washington and the relative new Star Trek prince, Chris Pine. The dialogue between these two characters is quick witted, funny, awkward, and incredibly natural, and their developing rapport keeps the film ticking over. Aside from Washington and Pine, Scott once again resorts to over-paced editing and desperately quick cuts, which make the film, feel more like a music video, than a motion picture. While the action itself, at the centre of the narrative, is constantly undermined by Scott's need to juxtapose the action of the train itself, with current live news reports from the outlets around the country which thoroughly detracts away from the audiences enjoyment of the film, as it removes any notion of surprise, or revelation as we constantly know where the train is heading, and when it will arrive at that location.

In 'Unstoppable,' everything is laid bare by Tony Scott in regards to the story, so the audience can refocus its attention towards the action shown on-screen, which is not only degrading to the spectators, but also a surprisingly backward step for a director who has yet to break the mould of mediocrity in more than eleven years. Despite attempts to create tension, suspense and an action-orientated picture, Scott instead has succeeded in creating a dull pseudo-documentary in a sense, on how the locomotive is still a powerful beast, that needs man's full attention.

Due Date - Dir. Todd Phillips

2010-11-06T06:12:00.000-07:00

With his most recent film, the 2010 movie ‘Due Date,’ director Todd Phillips (‘Road Trip,’ ‘Hangover’) has decided to take a different approach to cultivating his comedic talents into ninety-minutes after ten unbridled years of success. Instead of the witty and often hilarious one-liners constantly lighting the audience’s smiles and occasionally unsettling their stomachs, he has now instead provided the audience with the dark, underground aspect of the comedy film. While it is undoubtedly incredibly hilarious at times, the offensive remarks thrown between the characters do at times expand into the realm of dark and uncomfortable comedy, and too many, this dialogue will no doubt be acknowledged as being disturbing rather than awkwardly funny. ‘The Hangover,’ this is not.

The story follows the highly-strung Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) as he meets and subsequently gets stranded with the eccentric wannabe actor Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis). With Peter needing desperately to get from Atlanta, Georgia back to Los Angeles as soon as possible for the birth of his first child, he must place his trust into the hands of Ethan. With no money, no identification, and the realisation that every time Peter enters a domestic airport, he will be searched in the most sacred of man areas, what follow is today’s generations ‘Planes, Trains and Automobiles’. As mentioned before however, this is not a John Hughes film by any standards.

Peter is an angry, aggressive, ignorant, and ill-tempered middle-class businessman, who has little regard for others and their problems. When he can’t settle an argument or situation using rationality, he instantly resorts to verbal, and sometimes, physical abuse. While Ethan is a vulnerable, well-intentioned human being, who unfortunately has many obnoxious qualities which would quite easily send the average person into a fit of insanity in mere moments. And it is through this relationship, where the film initially falters, before excelling in the final third of the film. For the first half of the film, the loathsome qualities of both men and their ability to kill the occasional emotional moment of connection with an often disconcerting flash of awkward humour, constantly keeps the audience at arm’s length with regards to allowing them to empathise and connect with the characters and their situations. But this isolation, begins to break-down as we begin to learn that both men, are simply that; men, under the most stressful of situations and that while they may have initially resented each other to the point, they have both their underlying reasons why they both constantly end back up in other’s company.

Aside from the relationship between the two men, there is little else that the film tries to introduce to stir up the narrative of the film. The secondary characters such as Darryl (Jamie Foxx) as Peter’s best-friend, and Heidi (Juliette Lewis) as a Craiglists drug-dealer, become slight restrictions in the boys road trip from coast-to-coast, but provide little else aside from momentary comic relief. ‘Due Date’ is a valiant effort in the contrasting character road-trip genre, but it just lacks any invigoration or invention that Phillip’s previous outings provided for the audience. And by attempting to introduce prolonged scenes of disturbingly awkward comedic sequences that most often than not end in the audience squirming at what they have heard, rather than laughing at what was said or done, Phillips will have isolated his the loyal contingent of comedy fans who just want to break-away from the serious nature of life, rather than become engaged within it during the confines of a theatre visit.

Mr. Nice - Dir. Bernard Rose

2010-10-09T05:21:00.000-07:00

Taking a break away from filming Snuff movies and Leo Tolstoy adaptations, Bernard Rose’s newest project tells the story of the famed British drug smuggler Dennis Howard Marks. Born in the idyllic Welsh valleys and going from an A-Grade student to A-Star drug smuggler, Howard Marks became one of the most notorious criminals in Britain after the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act was ratified by Parliament and Edward Heath’s conservative Government declared a ‘war on drugs’ in British culture. Rhys Ifans is Marks, while Chloe Sevigny plays his trusting wife Judy, while a crew of predominately famous British and Irish actors fill the rest of the inclusive roles including David Thewlis, Andrew Tiernan, Omid Djalili, Jamie Harris, and Ken Russell. And despite this array of acting talent on show, the film continually falls due to the lack of engagement either by the characters or the unrealistic situations by which they are involved within.

Rose’s screenplay is based upon Marks autobiography, thus going into this film, dramatization of the events after the fact are expected. Beginning in a small Welsh school and eventually ascending to the heights of Oxford University, Marks (Ifans) is shown to be an intelligent, hard-working youngster who wishes to rise beyond the working-class lifestyle that many had imposed upon themselves without action in the 1950’s and 60’s. However, once he starts to become friends with the free-loving, upper-class, dope smoking students in his dormitory, he starts to experience an alternative perception to not only reality, but financial success; import the drugs to the masses, and thy shall prosper. After graduating Oxford University, and attempting to go into a straight, legal job, Marks eventually gets drawn into the world of international hashish smuggling, and from here on in travels the world trafficking drugs to help his wife Judy (Chloe Sevigny) and their daughters a better life.

Despite initially seeming to be a character study of a bright, Welsh boy who has found success outside of the law, ‘Mr. Nice’ steadily develops into an argument for the pro-legalization of marijuana. Marks takes the name of a steady businessman whose name is “pronounced like the French town Nice, but spelt N-I-C-E,” he continually asserts that he himself has “never taken hard drugs,” while all the scenes involving hashish and cannabis smoking show no harm or violence, and those he involved himself with in dope smoking rings in University all now have attained for themselves respectable middle-class jobs. The police are shown to incompetent buffoons at times choosing to go after Marks rather than the ‘real criminals,’ and finally, and most importantly, the after effects of drug taking is never fully considered, only once does a character attempt to ask if smoking hashish is harmful to one’s mental and physical state and then he is instantly shot down before even given anything that resembles an acceptable answer. While the legalization of any narcotic in either Britain or the United States is always a contestable subject, it would have been a lot more interesting (and maybe even persuasive to the right audience), if Rose had attempted to build upon this area and create a solid basis of argument, rather than simply showing that ‘drugs = peace and love’.

Aside from the fact that ‘Mr. Nice’ is a sub-par pro-legalization film, it does contain many elements of humour, drama and emotion, especially during the first and final acts of the film which tie up the journey Howard Marks takes across the world, from hashish farms in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to inside the walls of a German prison. The chase sequences involving Marks and the various police organisations across the globe are surprising repetitive and incredibly monotonous, however the sequences beyond his life as a drug trafficker, i.e. the relationship with Judy, his friends, and eventually his children, somewhat humanizes Marks and shows that beyond every criminals working life, is a loving element, and for Marks this was his family. While the concrete acting of the various secondary actor and actresses provide continual comic relief to subsidise this ‘serious’ aspect of Marks’s life, especially Jim McCann (David Thewlis), the ranting, raving, sex-obsessed Provisional Irish Republican Army member who helps Marks bring the hashish in through Ireland for a hefty sum of money.

‘Mr. Nice’ is a far-cry away from Bernard Rose’s recent films, and his cult horror classic ‘Candyman,’ and it is still many a cinematic mile away from being classed as perfect film, but it’s at times a humorous British film that attempts to use British talent is sometimes overlooked at their fingertips. Its budget restrictions are clear to see with the combination of new and stock footage, and it stumbles during the most important, middle segment of the film as repetition takes control over the narrative, and it offers nothing new, revolutionary or ideologically important to the cause of the legalization of marijuana, but it does engage at times, and the brilliant, yet traumatic final twenty minutes of the film adequately sum up a man’s life, who is most probably one of the most intelligent drug smugglers to have ever lived.

Buried - Dir. Rodrigo Cortes

2010-10-02T06:36:00.000-07:00

It’d be somewhat of a travesty if Ryan Reynolds does not get acknowledged during the awards season for his brilliant and heart-rending portrayal of a father who wakes up and finds that he himself has been buried alive. Going into ‘Buried,’ the less the audience knows about the plot details of the film, the more it will enhance their enjoyment of the proceeding ninety minutes of cinematic screen time. Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) is a truck driver in Iraq who wakes up to find that he is buried alive. Who, why, where, and when, are all questions that are systematically explained throughout the course of the film. But, while the audience’s attention may hinge at times on the development of the narrative, it is the inventiveness of Cortes and the heart-felt performance by Reynolds that keeps the tension and the suspense of the film at a constant high throughout providing one of the best thrillers to see a theatrical release in years.

Cortes takes the minimalist, one-room concept to new heights as he provides only the confines of a basic coffin for the setting of a film. Continually providing diverse camera angles to explore the tiny locational hotspot, while differentiating from close-up to medium shots, allows the audience to be drawn into Conroy’s horrifying situation and encounter each obstacle with the character himself. The lighting of the setting is also meticulously used to create mood and experience, Conroy is trapped within six panels of wood, and natural light is nowhere to be seen, so his use of artificial light is key his changing emotions and the narrative itself. And changing emotions is an understatement; Anger, sadness, surprise, fear, contempt, aggression, and submission, all develop and explode from under the surface of Conroy as he attempts to challenge one of man’s greatest mysteries; understanding the unknown. Reynolds gives quite possibly the performance of his career as he literally providing one-man-cinematic show, while his passionately explosive show-piece alongside the beautifully simplistic cinematography, editing and lighting create a film that keeps audiences on the edge of their seat for its entire duration.

‘Buried’ is an ambitious project, pulled off by an enthusiastic director which breathes a little life into the mystery thriller genre in general. Cortes and Reynolds essentially provide a two-man show that would eclipse most big-budget thrillers by simply sticking to an effective script, concept and performance. It does have its technological flaws, but if you can look past those ever-so-slightly unrealistic aspects, then ‘Buried’ is an incredibly enjoyable suspense-fuelled ride beyond the grave.

Devil - Dir. John Erick and Drew Dowdle

2010-09-17T09:05:00.001-07:00

“My dear brethren…the loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you that he does not exist!” Charles Pierre Baudelaire (1864). Directed by Drew and John Erick Dowdle, and based on a story by the ever mysterious M. Night Shyamalan, ‘Devil’ consists of a traditional story containing a battle between good and evil, set within the confines of an office towers elevator in contemporary Philadelphia. Five strangers are trapped in an elevator together, and one of them may, or may not, be the devil (a being which is the personification of all evil). It is an interesting, and new take upon the premise that the devil may be “walking among us,” and while it is competently filmed and at times dutifully suspenseful, it lacks the intelligence and the inventiveness to the keep an audience hooked for the full eighty minutes of its running time.

Five strangers, consisting of a soldier (Logan Marshall-Green), a temp security guard (Bokeem Woodbine), a cocky mattress salesman (Geoffrey Arend), a young woman (Bojana Novakovic), and a pensioner (Jenny O’Hara) are all seemingly innocuous people who enter an elevator together in the ‘333’ office building. They are all there for different reasons, but when the elevator refuses to respond to basic maintenance and the patrons of the suspended steel box start to become agitated and aggressive, they must try to deduce to whom is to blame for the violence that is surrounding them. While outside the elevator, Detective Bowden (Chris Messina) and his partner Markowitz (Joshua Peace) alongside the tower’s security guards Ramirez (Jacob Vargas) and Lustig (Matt Craven), must also try to figure out what is happening inside the small, enclosed space, is it an aggressive attack by one of the strangers who has something to hide, or are there supernatural forces at work, gaining pleasure from torturing five apparently innocent citizens.

The film begins with a voice-over narration which details the story of the devil, and how he would purportedly occasionally take the place of a living being to torment those around him. A somewhat redundant touch, as the film itself gradually rolls out the story as the minutes tick by. From then on in, after a brief sequence involving a suicide, the characters board the elevator. Nothing is known about why they are in the building, what occupation (if any) they hold, and most importantly the audience does not know their names. They are essentially faceless beings until gradually the audience is fed bits and pieces of information to try and guess the identity of the perpetrator, played out in the same vein as any other mystery thriller. What separates this film apart from the rest however is the duelling storylines taking place between the strangers in the elevator and the Detective investigating ‘their’ (?) potential crimes.

Simultaneously the audience is able to follow the two detectives as they impartially try to understand what is happening in the elevator and who (if anybody) is perpetrating the crimes inside, while the characters inside the elevator increasingly become subjective towards each other. While most importantly, neither side can influence the other, creating a constant atmosphere of tension throughout the film as you wait to see whether the investigation will conclude successfully or whether the investigation will be halted due to the lack of live witnesses involved. Aside, from this however, the rest of the film involving secondary characters, seems to feel out of place, and slow the general pace of the film down, while also detracting away from the mysterious atmosphere of what is happening both in the security booth and in the elevator. While the acting by Bowden, Marshall-Green and Bojana Novakovic manage to keep the film on a professional level and stop it from failing on a most basic level (if a film is primarily set in one enclosed location, then the actors involved need to be able to portray to audience their different, and various contrasting emotions competently enough over a short space of time).

‘Devil’ is an adeptly made film from a story by one of the most notorious filmmakers currently operating at the moment in M. Night Shyamalan (due to his recent ‘critical’ failings). While it doesn’t contain a final-act twist of ‘Sixth Sense’ proportions that will completely revive the horror-mystery-thriller genre for years to come, it is also an enjoyable film that isn’t completely predictable within the first five minutes of screen-time if you can look past its visual flaws.

The Expendables - Dir. Sylvester Stallone

2010-08-13T09:59:00.000-07:00

Throw together five of the biggest action stars in Hollywood history, garnish with a little of the new breed, and serve up with a glass of freedom ($82 million refreshing gulps of freedom to be precise) and you have a film which harks back to the days of the 1980’s action genre, where films were more concerned with the amount of explosives used and excessive body-count, rather than the story and the rest of those ‘boring things.’ Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) is the leader of the ‘Expendables,’ a group of mercenaries who take the jobs others wouldn’t even dare considering; over-throwing a dictatorship, and battling Somalian pirates is simply part of their nine-to-five routine. Alongside Ross is Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), an expert with anything that contains a blade, Yin Yang (Jet Li) a martial arts specialist, Hail Caesar (Terry Crews) a heavy-weapons professional, Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren) a Swedish sniper and Toll Road (Randy Couture) the team’s demolitions expert. With Tool (Mickey Rourke), providing the jobs, arms and tattoos as a former member of the Expendables with his own demons in mind.

When the mysterious Mr Church (Bruce Willis) offers the dangerous job of overthrowing the island of Vilena’s evil dictator General Garza (David Zayas) and removing his American partner (Eric Roberts) and his henchmen in the process (Steve Austin, Gary Daniels), Ross’s former partner Trench (Schwarzenegger) stands aside to allow the Expendables to take on the almost suicidal mission. This in itself, is probably the films greatest scene with many cultural references to all three major movie stars careers and personal life’s being thrown abound (“he just loves playing in the jungle, right?” quips Schwarzenegger to Stallone). Once Ross takes the job, what follows is an explosive-driven finale which sees the Expendables attempt the impossible as they send five men on to the island to battle the General’s cantankerous army of hundreds (or maybe even thousands...) against the American invasion.

‘The Expendables’ is essentially an 80’s action movie. It contains the action stars of past present doing what they do/did best (Stallone attempts a flying armbar, Couture finds the perfect way to apply a bone-crunching kimura, and Steve Austin is characteristically inhuman), a typically weak and clichéd script that does contain a few cheesy gems among the stereotypical macho hype, and plenty (lots, and lots, and lots) of outbursts of aggressive, explosive violence from your typical machete decapitation to the more complex hand-held-semi-automatic-rocket-launcher-weapon-thing. The producers and Stallone have also chosen to employ two editors which is an uninspired choice, as the film constantly switches between the fast, freestyle, hand-held Bourne style of Paul Greengrass (in which very little can be seen or understood), to the normal ‘stand back and admire’ method of the static camera. While the use of close-ups are in full swing, as to capture the lack of emotion in a film of this magnitude, the audience want to see body-parts flying every which way Sunday, rather than the leathery skin of a old, and hard-working Sylvester Stallone.

This film isn’t perfect, nor is it a terrible film which contains more testosterone than sense. It is worth watching alone, just for the scene involving the ‘big three’ which is its saving grace. Aside from that however, it is typical action-orientated fan-fare. Remove the stars and you could have simply renamed this ‘Rambo 4.5’ as it contains the same limb-splintering, unrealistic, yet somewhat invigorating blood-shed that, that Stallone vehicle contained.

Gainsbourg - Dir. Joann Sfar

2010-08-06T09:09:00.000-07:00

Lucien ‘Serge Gainsbourg’ Ginsburg. Artist. Writer. Performer. Alcoholic. Smoker. Rebel. Womanizer. Genius? Joann Sfar’s film documents the sporadic lifestyle of the famous French artist Serge Gainsbourg (Eric Elmosnino), whose life contained no boundaries, no objects off limit, and continually tested the patience of those huddled together around him. Beginning with a young Gainsbourg developing his taste for painting aspiring models in Nazi-Occupied France as a mere teenager, the film thereupon concentrates primarily upon his relationships with various beautiful women and his life choices in regards to his ever-changing occupation over his sixty-year-life-span.

What makes this film work so well as a biopic is the truly ingenious performances by both Kacey Mottet Klein (Young Gainsbourg) and Eric Elmosnino (Adult Gainsbourg) who both somewhat beautifully represent such a tragic figure throughout his whole on-screen lifetime. Kacey portrays Gainsbourg as a boy who is maturing faster than those other children around him, so far so, that he explains to one of the schoolchildren the reason that he is good at drawing pubic hairs is because he has had an up-close and personal experience with them before. While he is also shown to be a lonely child, an outcast as Jewish child growing up in Nazi-Occupied France, and thus he develops an affable ‘imaginary friend’ to keep himself company. Born as small, soft head that watches over young Gainsbourg as he sleeps in the woods to avoid the Nazi soldiers, his only friend soon becomes his worst enemy as he matures into a complicated man. His once pleasant ‘imaginary friend’ is now a grotesque being with a large nose, long-thin fingers and an affection for cigarettes and bullying Gainsbourg. He continually berates insults, prods and engages Serge, providing the viewpoint that he himself was his harshest critic, and a critic he could not simply dismiss without entire control over his life.

Aside from the performances, the way Sfar allows the films narrative to flow in a temporal manner with no mention of time, or calendar dates, further draws the audience in to Gainsbourg’s contrived world. The only way to tell when an event shifts forward in his lifetime, is through his own physical deterioration from old age which is heavily dictated by his excessive abuse of alcohol and tobacco. But as Gainsbourg becomes older, his sexual conquests stay the same age; from Elisabeth (Deborah Grall), to Jane (the late Lucy Gordon), and to an affair with the insatiable Brigitte Bardot (Laetitia Casta), before he eventually settles down with Bambou (Mylene Jampanoi), who would be his final partner. These are all young, vulnerable women who Gainsbourg exploits for his own sexual misgivings, and once they become too old, or too boring, he discards them like a child throwing away an old toy to badger his parents for a new, more expensive model.

Joann Sfar beautifully flowing biopic paints Serge Gainsbourg as a shallow, misogynistic, grumpy old man, who once had dreams of becoming famous for doing anything, but once those dreams were realised, greed and narcissism triumphed over his once forgotten ambitions. Utilizing his gift for writing, artistry and music Gainsbourg chose the route of controversy and scandal over that of happiness and family, which is exemplified in his response to the media after he had a heart attack. When the reporters asked what he will be doing now after such a dangerous and life threatening operation, Gainsbourg calmly asserted to those in attendance that he will “continue to smoke many more cigarettes and drink much more alcohol.”

Inception - Dir. Christopher Nolan

2010-07-16T11:11:00.001-07:00

Visually mesmerizing and narratively enthralling, Christopher Nolan’s stop-gap project before he commits to the third film in his Batman saga is a non-stop thrill ride which delivers on all levels; consciously and sub-consciously. Like everybody else in the real world, Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) has a full-time job except, unlike the rest of society, his job transcends realities. His work involves extracting confidential and sensitive information from client’s minds as they wander in an artificial dream-like state. To attempt this intricate process, they require an ‘architect’ who will construct the dream world in which the client’s subconscious is drawn into, before extracting the information from them. As Cobb mentions however, this process can essentially degenerate into ‘theft’ as clients may subconsciously place their secrets inside a bank or safe, which the team will have to crack to explore and exploit.

After a job goes askew, Cobb is hired by the shady businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) to perform an almost impossible, and incredibly complex act; Inception. Instead of extracting an idea or information, inception requires the planting of an idea into the subconscious mind of the client, thereby influencing any potential future decisions they may make, e.g. implanting into the mind of a client the suggestion that they should release an inferior product in the future to allow a rival competitor to prosper. Cobb assembles together a well-respected and able team of experts willing to commit to the act of inception, including the forger Eames (Tom Hardy), who has the ability to assume any identity in the dream world, the architect Adriadne (Ellen Page) who is young student constructing the world in which they will tread, the chemist Yusuf (Dileep Rao) who is providing the substances that will allow them to stay under in the dream world for an extended period of time, and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who is the team’s ‘point man’ and Cobb’s highly regarded second in command.

Despite its hundred and sixty million dollar budget which is most prominent in the film’s stunning visuals, the real endearing aspect of ‘Inception’ is the brilliant story which Nolan allows to slowly unravel throughout the two hours and twenty minutes of run time. Constantly keeping the tension at appropriate heights, while also allowing the story to develop showcasing various twists and tales, Nolan’s screenplay is the intricate competent which truly makes the film work on various inter-connecting levels. From mystery-thriller, to science fiction and a hefty dose of drama, as the story unfolds, the visuals dazzle, and the characters themselves continue to grow, develop and prosper in this artificial environment.

On the surface ‘Inception’ is a heist movie in really simple, generic terms, but under the surface it contains underlying themes of love, loss, grief and the inability to forget those we used to, and still do love. Despite constantly being surrounded by dangerous situations in both realities, Cobb’s real danger comes in the form of his memories and in particular those of his wife (Marion Cotillard). While the other members of his team seem to perform their actions for the thrill of the event and the payment on delivery, Cobb is instead restricted by outside factors which keep him constrained within his transcending prison of never-ending certainty, and this (in?)sanity is projected to the audience in a typically emotional and brilliant Leonardo DiCaprio performance. Aside from DiCaprio, the always radiant Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives yet another proficient acting performance he can be proud of. Yet, despite the array of talent on show including DiCaprio and Sir Michael Caine, no doubt for the next few months the name trickling out of the Casting Department’s on both sides of the Atlantic will be that of the gentlemanly Tom Hardy. From obscurity to the A-List in a matter of years, not bad for the London man who only got his leading role a mere eighteen months ago.

But the real question here is; Can Christopher Nolan do no wrong? With ‘Inception’ comes the directors seventh feature film, and with this his sixth film to open to startling critical acclaim, and as many will agree, rightly so. Nolan has created a fantastically imaginative world where nobody is even safe, even when their bodies shut down and decide to roam the depths of the human subconscious. His story draws you in, while the gravity-defying action and unstable personalities of the characters keep you deeply rooted in your seat for a well-spent two hours and twenty minutes of pure, leisurely cinematic enjoyment.

The Karate Kid - Dir. Harald Zwart

2010-07-15T08:33:00.001-07:00

In today’s Cinematic world of constant lifeless reimagining’s and underachieving sequels, it is refreshing to see for once, a well-made, proficient remake which still manages to restrain the positive values and engaging nature of the original. Harald Zwart’s ‘The Karate Kid’ brings the original film into the twenty-first century by using one the most recognised contemporary Asian actors of the last thirty years, and a rising star who is currently heavily overshadowed by his father, and allowing them both to flourish in a respectable and worthy remake. While the only substantial and somewhat controversial difference between the two films is the fact that despite being named ‘The Karate Kid’ in the majority of Western countries, the location of the film and the actual martial art displayed both descend from Chinese culture, unlike the martial art of Karate which is a descendent of Japanese culture. Yet, it must be noted that this ‘cultural controversy’ does not detract away from the true nature of the film.

Xiao (Little) Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) and his mother Sherry (Taraji Henson) decide to get away from things in Detroit and start a new life, with a new culture, in Beijing, China. Once they land in the Middle Kingdom, Dre attempts to settle in by making friends with the local children, and while there he notices the young violinist Mei Ying (Wenwen Han). But his hormones fluttering is not his only problem, as the local bully Cheng (Zhenwei Wang) notices his affection for Mei Ying and humiliates Dre by using his superior Kung Fu skills to hurt the young boy. After he undertakes various beatings, Dre is eventually helped by the mysterious maintenance man of his building in Mr Han (Jackie Chan), who demonstrates his superior Kung Fu skills to a mesmerized Dre. After this, the film’s plot almost mimics the original 1984 ‘Karate Kid’ film to the tee with both man and boy becoming ever closer in the three months Dre has to train before he battles the sadistic bully Cheng at an upcoming Kung Fu tournament.

While on the surface, the film concentrates upon the use of martial arts to contain, and defeat those who attempt to bully and hurt Dre, its underlying theme is of perseverance as both Dre and Han must fight through the past to create their own futures. Dre is young boy in a foreign land, unable to understand, or become truly part of society, while Han is tormented by the mistakes of his past, however through their father-son surrogate relationship; both are able to battle their inner demons head-on. And it is the actors performances which bring this motion picture truly too life. Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan take centre stage in this remake, and both deliver fantastic performances, especially Chan, who portrays the traumatised maintenance man who is scarred beneath the surface, perfectly. While despite a strong act from young Jaden, he is slightly hampered by the fact that his character is only twelve-years old, rendering the majority of the pre-puberty romantic scenes between himself and Mei Ying meaningless despite their emotive beauty.

Alongside the acting, the cinematography of the film at times borders on breathtaking as director Harald Zwart, Editor Joel Negron and Cinematographer Roger Pratt take their time to appreciate the splendour of the Chinese landscape and communicate this cultural veracity to the audience. The sequences filmed on the Wudang Mountain exemplify this beauty as the frame is constantly filled with sights and sounds, no doubt foreign to the Western audience watching, as the camera casually glides above to capture the scenery. This beauty is however lost in the last twenty minutes of the film as it moves forth into the tournament stage, the soft, classical music is exchanged for exuberant rock and roll and the editing mirrors that of a American music video; a noticeable blip, on an almost magnificently shot film.

What constantly drives the film forward, aside from its technical aspects, is the fact that the Sensei/Mentor (Father/Son) relationship between Dre and Mr Han works so perfectly. The scenes they share together will make you laugh, cry, smile, frown, and ultimately feel all warm and fuzzy inside, while the scenes of eye-opening martial arts provides an element of excitement to somewhat balance out the dramatic nature of the film. Whether you enjoyed the original ‘Karate Kid’ film or not, I would still recommend this film to audiences of all ages who appreciate more than heavy explosions and repetitive action sequences.

Predators - Dir. Nimrod Antal

2010-07-14T16:31:00.000-07:00

Before you go to see ‘Predators,’ one thing you must remember is that in this reconstructed universe, the awful ‘Alien vs Predator’ films and the equally as bemusing ‘Predator 2’ (set in downtown Los Angeles of all places) does not exist. Producer Robert Rodriguez and director Nimrod Antal (‘Kontroll’, ‘Vacancy’) have decided to cut out the below-par spin-offs and sequel and give the original 1987 film a commendable follow-on, which fans of the original will no doubt enjoy. Yet, the irony comes in the form that despite Antal attempting to provide depth to the series, it only serves to detract from the films actual purpose – to show the visual representation of humans and alien beings taking part in explosive action sequences.

All of a sudden there was a light, as eight human beings land in the middle of a game preserve, disorientated, annoyed and becoming increasingly agitated, they soon find that their day’s going to get just that little bit more stressful as they realise that they’re the hunted, not the hunters. And those committed to the act of hunting the hunted, are an evolved race of aliens simply known as the Predators, whose primary abilities revolve around their advanced alien technology providing dangerously vicious weapons and heavily protective armour, essentially rendering them as almost perfect killing machines. But this isn’t nearly two hours of watching humans being stalked before their spinal cordz becomes part of a trophy exhibit, as those chosen to be part of this game are all hardened killers and criminals. The mysterious Royce, played by a brilliant Adrian Brody, is a US Special Forces soldier who takes centre stage as the no-nonsense taking, cliché-speaking loner who only has one goal; to get away from their current location. While IDF sniper Isabelle (Alice Braga) is the yin to Royce’s yang, as she constantly refuses to put her morals and ethics aside when it comes to the tough decisions, creating a stage of tension outside the confines of the confrontation with the alien beings. Alongside Royce is an Russian soldier (Oleg Taktarov), a Mexican enforcer (Danny Trejo), a US Death Row inmate (Walton Gobbins), a RUF officer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali), a Yakuza member (Louis Changchien), and the seemingly odd-one-out in an American doctor called Edwin (Topher Grace).

While ‘Predators’ is beautifully shot by cinematographer Gyula Pados, and contains a well-written script filled to the rim with plenty of grin-silently-to-yourself-one-liners, it’s fatal flaw is reminiscent in the fact that Antal is torn between creating a film in the same sci-fi action-packed vein as the original ‘Predator’ film, and one that contains the visual flair and character development which is more apt to film that may act as the beginning to a trilogy or further motion pictures. Because of this, instead of concentrating upon the actual battle between the two sets of predators, the film is more concerned with developing a back-story and plot which just isn’t visible nor is it viable. The screen time of the actual alien beings pales in comparison to sequences of the eight hardened criminals trudging through overgrown shrubbery as they constantly try to gain their bearings, and this detracts away from the giddy, enjoyable nature of the original film. Aside from this however as mentioned, the performances are on-form, the is script short, but sharp and witty, and the shooting and subsequent editing create a competent and worthy sequel to the John McTiernan’s 1987 original ‘Predator’ film.

Kick-Ass - Dir. Matthew Vaughn

2010-03-23T19:17:00.001-07:00

Matthew Vaughn’s (Layer Cake) latest film is an insane concoction of action, comedy, romance and drama under one big superhero-genre roof. Based on Mark Millar’s comic of the same name, ‘Kick-Ass’ follows Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), your typical male teenager, who follows through on every boy, child and grown man’s dream of becoming a superhero (despite the fact that unlike most modern-day superhero’s, Dave has not one extraordinary power or ability what-so-ever). Throw into the mix a Father-Daughter vigilante team, a love-interest, a wannabe superhero with an ulterior motive and a crime boss antagonist, and you have a pretty god-damn fun film worth two hours of your time.

Dave and his friends (Clark Duke, Evan Peters) are nobodies. They are the emblematic high-school students who waltz through their school hallways day-after-day, week-after-week, undetected by those at the peak of the social hierarchy including the attractive Katie (Lyndsy Fonseca). Bored of simply keeping a tissue conglomerate in business, Dave decides to take up the challenge of showing everybody that anybody with a costume can be a ‘superhero’ and thus his crime-fighting alter-ego of Kick-Ass is born. However Dave isn’t the only costume-crusader cruising the streets as Big Daddy and Hit-Girl team (Nicolas Cage, Chloe Moretz) together, as any modern father and daughter would, by fighting the bloody fight with their own purpose in mind. The main focus of their combined anger is resident crime boss Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong) who will stop at nothing to make sure his merchandise reaches the streets. While Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) also eventually joins in the fun, piggy-backing of Kick-Ass’s success.

The true genius of Vaughn and Goldman’s adaptation from page-to-screen is that they manage to brilliantly combine elements of pure violent action, touching emotional relationships and moments of comedy to break the ice between brains being scattered and tears being shed. The on-screen violence is brutal, unflinching and in your face, like a shotgun blast to your temple. From stabbings to the odd, inadvertent, accidental suicide, each action sequence is perfectly orchestrated to create maximum enjoyment. While true moments of tender, emotional realisations and witty teenage banter counter-act the vicious nature of this film, which is as disturbing as it poignant at times, especially when you’re transitioning from a brutal beating, to an awkward father-son moment within minutes. It all adds to ‘Kick-Ass’s’ quirky, little charm however.

Despite attempting to be a ‘superhero’ by night, by day Dave is still a normal teenager searching for his true identity, and of course, that elusive first girlfriend. Aaron Johnson plays this part perfectly, to the extent in which we should all be able to find a side of Dave to identify with (we were all young once...). Whilst despite competent performances from the veterans; Mark Strong and Nicolas Cage, the true gem of this piece is Chloe Moretz, the young girl who plays the hit-girl beyond her own age to a beautifully tragic tee. Hit-Girl is a ballsy, yet brilliant character who shows the audience that young girls on the big-screen don’t simply need to be emotional vessels or tragic victims (this could potentially lead to the rise of the aggressive, twelve year old protagonists!), but they can be as dangerous as the adults that hope to protect them.

Probing the depths of the superhero genre in which many fear to tread, ‘Kick-Ass’ is something different which works pretty darn well. It’s a violent superhero film, with a lot of heart and many hilarious moments.

Exit Through The Gift Shop - Dir. Banksy?

2010-03-05T17:48:00.000-08:00

An experience will ultimately become a diluted memory, unless the experience itself is documented in image or film, in which case it will last forever (or until it is deleted/destroyed...). ‘Exit Through The Gift Shop’ is a brilliant examination of the underground street art culture, and a poignant look at man’s obsession with a culture he is increasingly drawn into throughout his life.

Thierry Guetta (pronounced Te-ree), is a French immigrant living Los Angeles with his loving wife and children and a good honest job, but there is one object he will never leave the house without; his video camera. Guetta has been enticed into the everyday cinema verité movement of simply recording any, and everything that goes on in his life. From playing with his children, to his ultimate attraction of following other street artists around and documenting their work, Guetta loves to watch, document and admire from behind the lens. Guetta eventually earns the trust and respect of various artists around the globe including the elusive Banksy, his cousin Space Invader and Shepard Fairey, and provides the audience with an up close and personal view of a culture (or industry) which has been projected into the limelight over the past five years.

Narrated by Rhys Ifans, ‘Exit’ has been acknowledged as not having a registered director, instead it is a smoothly edited combination of Guetta’s extensive and various filmed sequences from over the years (the film shows his EXTENSIVE physical collection of tapes from more than decade of filmmaking) and interviews with various leading figures in the industry. For example Banksy is interviewed at length over his involvement with Guetta and comes across as a very down-to-earth, humble and at times, incredibly funny person. While everybody, including Guetta, are extremely brazen and don’t hold back when speaking about each other, their profession or how the street art culture has developed over time into a somewhat monopolistic environment (which can be viewed by the fact that the rich and famous turned out in droves for Banksy’s first exhibition in the United States).

This isn’t a film about ‘graffiti’ though, as some may simply see it as on the surface, aside from the exploration of a fast growing community it is also a deep, scary and heart-warming look at Thierry Guetta’s life over a decade onwards as he constantly leaves behind his family and his job to follow various artists around the globe. Mentally unstable, or one of the greatest French minds of the last twenty years, nobody is quite sure what Thierry Guetta (also known as Mr Brainwash) is, but what everybody does acknowledge is that he is a man with a passion and while he may not follow the same ideology as everybody else, his heart is still in the right place. ‘Exit Through The Gift Shop’ is a fascinating documentary focusing on a rising culture that many people may not have much knowledge about, except for knowing the name of the elusive, and as I have mentioned, surprisingly hilarious Banksy.

Shutter Island - Dir. Martin Scorsese

2010-02-25T05:49:00.001-08:00

Martin Scorsese – the man, the myth, the filmmaking legend – returns to the big screen with ‘Shutter Island’, his fifth feature film in ten years. Reuniting himself with his on-screen son Leonardo DiCaprio for a psychological thriller based upon Dennis Lehane’s 2003 novel of the same name which follows US Marshall Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) as they are sent to investigate the disappearance of a patient on Shutter Island, home to the Ashecliffe Hospital for the Criminally Insane. Scorsese and Robert Richardson (two-time Academy Award Winning Cinematographer) are, as usual, in fine form building the solemn atmosphere one brick at a time; however it is the story and the acting of the films ensemble which restrict this film from being yet another masterpiece.

The year is 1954. US Marshalls Teddy Daniels and Chuck Aule are sent together to the mysterious Shutter Island, home of the Ashecliffe Hospital for the Criminally Insane which houses the most deadly and unstable patients the world has to offer. There to track down the escaped patient Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer) who has, somewhat impossibly, vanished without a trace Daniels and Chuck start to become entangled in the web of lies and the mystery surrounding the real nature and purpose of Ashecliffe. With their investigation being constantly blockaded and restricted by the Hospital’s Chief Psychiatrist Dr John Cawley (Ben Kingsley), Senior Psychiatrist Dr Naehring (Max von Sydow) and the Deputy Warden (John Carroll Lynch), it seems that the patients aren’t the only dangerous people within the electrified walls of this secretive Institution.

Directing his first psychological thriller in nearly twenty years, Scorsese shows that he still knows how to keep the audience on the edge of their seats, while covering their eyes, and cowering slowly. The tense, creepy, bleak visual atmosphere is what keeps ‘Shutter Island’s’ narrative continually ticking over. From the location of the Wards, to the darkness of the hallways, every scene after the early establishing sequences is littered and fraught with deepening suspense and fear, reminiscent of a certain Scorsese film released in 1991. If the characters, criminals and location don’t convince you that Ashecliffe is a place where you would never wish to be, then the dark, menacing and incredibly desolate visual aesthetics should, especially that of Ward C. The housing complex of the most dangerous criminals on the island, which is comparable to that of an Old London dungeon, with no lights, windows or colour of any kind, the criminals are left to rot in their own self-depreciating darkness and despair.

Despite the brilliant atmosphere which Scorsese and his cinematographer Richardson cook-up, the films narrative lacks the essence of a Scorsese film and a Lehane novel. At times the extended sequences seem to be dragging the film out, for the sake of dragging it out rather than extending our knowledge of the on-screen surroundings. While DiCaprio is continually on-screen for almost two hours, and during this time his performance starts to wear thin. Which is a consequence of the fact that despite the subtle and quite well refined performances by Ruffalo, Kingsley, Lynch, Levine and Williams, nobody steps forth and offers DiCaprio a supporting hand and because of this, by the end of the film it seems as if he utilizing every last acting bone in his body to complete the film.

It’s pretty much safe to say that Martin Scorsese has not done a ‘bad film’ – subjective phrase - in decades (even if some will debate that he has not created a ‘bad’ film in his entire career, or others that his whole career has been a proliferation Hollywood and the notion of selling-out), and with this film, this principle again applies to his career. While it has its flaws, and is clearly not up to the cinematic value of ‘Taxi Driver’ or ‘Raging Bull’, ‘Shutter Island’ has its own visual essence that resonates throughout two hours, providing the audience –who wish to engage – with a thrilling ride down psychological lane.

Solomon Kane - Dir. Michael J. Bassett

2010-02-24T07:21:00.000-08:00

Michael Bassett’s film ‘Solomon Kane’ (based on the character of the same name created by Robert E. Howard) is a disappointing Fantasy Action-Adventure film, that despite having a few scenes of genius falls flat with its awkward pacing, poor characterisation and general dullness. Solomon Kane (James Purefoy) is a mercenary of Queen Elizabeth’s army fighting in Africa, where he comes face-to-face with the Devil’s Reaper – a demon who collects the Devil’s debts i.e. souls – refusing to go to hell just yet, he evades the Reaper and starts a new life in an English monastery. With this new life, Solomon has left-behind his culture of violence and bloodshed and instead now embraces the values of peace and non-values. But once he is expelled from the monastery due to the fear of the Devil’s Reaper returning, he must travel back to his home in Devon and along the way he befriends a travelling family of puritans heading to the New World. On their journey through the British counties, the family is attacked, and their daughter Meredith (Rachel Hurd-Wood) is abducted by the evil sorcerer Malachi’s army, which is lead on the front lines by the mysterious Masked Rider. Now a man of peace, Solomon must go back to his former life as a man of unrepentant violence and destruction to save Meredith.

Despite having great source material to work from, and build upon to create potentially an exciting and enduring medieval action-adventure film, the film fails in three key areas. The pacing of this film is terrible, which may have a lot to do with its incredibly short run time of only one hour and forty minutes (and this is most likely a consequence of the fact that they wish to turn this film into a trilogy). Constantly jumping between of drama and self-characterisation to that of action and muddy bloodshed, somewhat kills the excitement of the action sequences. Instead of keeping the audience on the edge of their seats frothing with the eagle-eyed anticipation, the film instead feels incredibly subdued and, this follows on the next piece of criticism, dull. Despite being touted as an ‘action-adventure’ film or in some circles an ‘action-epic’, ‘Solomon Kane’ is almost most certainly not. The action is mundane and dull, and is generally finished before you have the chance to admire the beauty of a decapitation. Finally, aside from Solomon himself, there is very little characterisation within this film. For example we know little and because of this, care little, about the young woman that Soloman sets out on his journey to save. And I imagine again the filmmaker would refer this criticism to the fact that there is most likely going to be a second film which will hopefully touch upon these aspects that this film surely missed.

It isn’t an entirely terrible film however. James Purefoy is gives a fantastic performance as Solomon, the mercenary who must decide whether or not to fall back on his conscience or his blade, and how his decisions will impact not just upon himself, but those around him as well. While respect, admiration, and acknowledgement must also go to Bassett and his crew as well, for creating vivid locations that beautifully reflects the period in which they are filming. At times, it is hard not to get carried away with admiring the beauty of the locations, shot composition and mise-en-scene at show here. Which certainly shows that a lot of time and effort has been placed into this film, unfortunately however that is not to say the same for the story and characters at hand. ‘Solomon Kane’ certainly had the potential to be something more than simply an ‘action-epic,’ however it seems that once again the lack of any real depth in the story and characters has resulted in Michael Bassett creating nothing more than a one-dimensional look at swordplay during the Medieval period.

A Single Man - Dir. Tom Ford

2010-02-24T05:57:00.001-08:00

If you didn’t know that director Tom Ford was a fashion designer, you probably would have guessed his former occupation while watching his feature-film directorial debut in ‘A Single Man’. At times the style and cinematography are oh-so reminiscent of those French perfume television advertisements which make little sense to anybody outside the fashion oeuvre. However Colin Firth isn’t here to push a bottle of Chanel into the audience’s faces, instead he puts forth a magnificent performance as a man trapped in the past who believes that the future holds nothing for him to live for after the death of his lover. While the direction is competent and at times stylistically quite beautiful, it is the performance of Colin Firth which brings alive this adaptation of Christopher Isherwood’s 1964 novel of the same name.

“Just get through the goddamn day.” Situated in Southern California, a month after the Cuban Missile Crisis in November 1962, George (Colin Firth) is a man on the brink of suicide. After the death of his lover Jim (Matthew Goode) in a car accident eight months ago, George fails to acknowledge that there is any meaning in life. Constantly dwelling on the grief of the past and never wanting to touch upon the uncertain future, ‘A Single Man’ follows George throughout a day in suburban California as he travels from his day job as University Professor to the home of his close-friend Charley (Julianne Moore), before meeting one his students Kenny (Nicholas Hoult) who seems to understand George for who he is.

When you take onboard a project in which the main brunt of the narrative is focused around the inner workings, the inner-psychological nature, of a man battling the issues of grief, repetition, loneliness and nihilism, you need a strong leading actor or actress in which to convey the character at hand, and Colin Firth does this perfectly. Without his beautiful, enigmatic performance as George, the man caught in an unsustainable past, this film wouldn’t necessarily fall flat, but it would require a heavy amount of restoration to its narrative. Firth sustains a quite minimalist story for over one-hour and thirty minutes and never lets up. While Nicholas Hoult, Matthew Goode and Julianne Moore provide the perfect backing ensemble, however it would have been interesting to have been able to see further character development within Moore’s character Charley and how her and George’s life crossed paths in the past.

With that said, it must also mentioned that despite Firth’s performance, director Tom Ford, cinematographer Eduard Grau and Art Director Ian Phillips provide much of the stylistic visual spectacle by simply choosing to linger on George’s pain. While the contemporary shooting locations and angles can at times become tiresome, the true genius is in Ford, Grau and Phillip’s ability to simply linger on George’s pain. In the scene in which George is deciding how comfortable to he wishes to be while committing suicide, juggling between the idea of merely laying on the bed or becoming engulfed by a sleeping bag, the camera silently loiters catching every uncomfortable moment and emotion drawing the audience further into the life of a man with no nothing to live for. While the sets and locations themselves are impeccable put together and create a brilliant aesthetic backdrop to Firth’s musings as George.

Delicate, stylish, and at times disturbingly funny, ‘A Single Man’ is a stimulating exploration of a character’s psyche and how we can all never let the notion of grief go, no matter how hard we try to leave it behind. Driven by Colin Firth, with an all-star cast behind him, Tom Ford should be incredibly delighted with how his first feature-film has turned out.

Looking For Eric - Dir. Ken Loach

2010-02-06T05:25:00.001-08:00

He was a King to millions of Red Army followers, including postman Eric Bishop (Steve Evets). His wife has left him, his step-sons don’t respect him and he’s losing touch with his eldest daughter, desperate and depressed Eric turns to the only person he believes he can trust; French superstar and Manchester legend Eric Cantona (playing himself). Lighting up a spliff in the darkest corner of his bedroom, Eric turns to the footballing-philosopher as he hopes to get his life back on track, just as Cantona did after returning from a four-month ban for kung-fu kicking a hooligan during a match at Selhurst Park.

‘Looking For Eric’ sees Ken Loach go back to doing what he does best creating charming, heart-warming and at times, incredibly funny, film-making. Eric is a man on the brink, he can’t control his children nor does he have the confidence to approach his ex-wife Lily (Stephanie Bishop). His closest friends aren’t much help either. Despite working with him in the post-room for years, they all mean well, but there attempts at cheering up Eric generally lead to hilarious situations rather than uplifting sentiment. However this film is not a comedy, it is a socio-drama that concentrates upon one character, Eric, as he reaches the brink of self-destruction, but through those around him (despite how unhelpful they are at times) he manages to build himself back up into the man he always wanted to be. While the real genius of this film is in the beautifully shot sequences involving Eric and Eric (Cantona) as they try to find solutions to his problems. Eric Cantona is not simply an idol or a footballer to Eric the Postman in this film he is a lot more than that, Cantona is his saviour in the form of an understanding intelligent human being, and this relationship drives the film delightfully until the final scene and its inspirational climax.

If you’re put off by notion of a footballer being in relatively large role in a feature film, reserve your judgement for after you have seen this film. Ken Loach hits a hat-trick of successes with ‘Looking For Eric’ as the story, acting and direction all combine to create one of the best dramas of 2009. In the immortal words of Mr Cantona himself; "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." And no, I still don’t know what (or who) Eric Cantona was referring to when he made that statement...

The House of the Devil - Dir. Ti West

2010-02-02T17:25:00.001-08:00

Ti West, the 29 year old filmmaker from Delaware, might not be a name you are familiar with -with regards to the horror genre of filmmaking - but if his future projects are anywhere near as good as his third directorial feature film ‘The House of the Devil’, then you will no doubt be hearing his name mentioned heavily in the next couple of years. West has so-far spent his time primarily creating cheap, B-Movie-esque horror films, however with ‘House of the Devil’ he changed his tactic and decided rather than ridiculing or satirizing the genre, to instead pay homage to it; in particular the haunted house/slasher subgenre. And the result is an eerie, well-shot, competently edited, suspense-fuelled ride back into the horror films of the 1970’s and 1980’s.

College student Samantha Hughes (Jocelin Donahue) is the archetypal female lead at the centre of the ritualistic story. Trying to gather enough money together so she may move out of her dorm, which she occupies with her room-mate Megan (Greta Gerwig), she reluctantly applies for a local babysitter gig. The prospect of watching television all night, while occasionally checking on a child and ultimately getting paid cash-in-hand appeals to her financial stricken nature straight away, however she has no idea what the mysterious Mr (Tom Noonan) and Mrs (Mary Woronov) Ulman have in store for the naive young student.

Filmed on 16mm stock to give the film that washed retro stylistic feel, ‘Devil’ is a technical back-into-the-past cinematic winner. Once the Hammer-esque titles follow the opening scene-setting sequence, you are instantly aware of the timeframe in which the film takes place. The mise-en scene, music and location provide the blank canvas, while West’s filmic strokes bring the piece to life. Professionally edited by the director himself with cinematography by the Eliot Rockett, both combine to create seamlessly evolving scenes and heavy suspense from the mildest situations.

Before we are even introduced to Mr Ulman, the sequence involving Samantha phoning the Ulman residence and applying for the job of babysitter on campus is so perfectly shot that the hairs stand up on the back of your neck simply from the sound of a phone ringing and a mysterious male voice on the other end. While the transition during the climax of the film challenges everything that has gone before, by hitting the audience continually with flashing, vibrant images of horrific situations that we try find to focus upon and understand initially, but then regret that decision once we know what is being shown.

To be entirely critical, the climax of the film also supplies the films largest failure in respect to the use of on-screen violence, blood and gore. In context of the whole film, the various uses of aesthetics (light, space) and technical know-how create the films intense atmosphere and terrifying nature. However with the excessive violence in the films concluding scenes, it goes past simply being shockingly terrifying, instead into the realm of shockingly violent. Not the effect I imagine Ti West was aiming for. The violent scenes themselves should not have been removed, but simply toned down.

Ti West’s ‘The House of the Devil’ is a refreshing addition to what has become a stale genre of film in recent years. The brilliant homage, respecting those that went before during horror’s contemporary hay-day, shows that not all film-makers are simply looking to copy, repeat and exploit, but admire, showcase and support the genre they have grown up with. If you want a meticulously, frightening trip down memory lane, rent or buy this film and you will not be disappointed.

Edge of Darkness - Dir. Martin Campbell

2010-01-31T06:12:00.000-08:00

Twenty five years ago New Zealander Martin Campbell (Goldeneye, Casino Royale) directed six episodes of a Television series for the BBC, this series was the highly acclaimed British drama ‘Edge of Darkness’ which followed a father as he unravelled the various conspiracies surrounding the death of his daughter. While this week sees the release of the film adaptation of the British drama, fittingly directed again by Campbell. However, instead of Bob Peck fighting back, we have Mel Gibson in his first leading role since the extraterrestrial film ‘Signs’ was released a mere eight years ago.

Thomas Craven (Gibson) is a Boston homicide detective who is sent to the edge of darkness (so to speak) when his daughter Emma (Bojana Novakovic) is shot and killed in front of him. Refusing to sit back and let his colleagues handle the ‘officer involved’ crime, Craven takes it upon himself to find out if he was the target and if not, who would want to silence his daughter and why. This journey leads Craven into the murky waters of corporate and governmental cover-ups and the lengths some capitalist money-makers will go to, to keep certain infractions out of the public sphere.

Gibson gives a typically solid performance as the grieving, empty father who will stop at nothing to find out why his daughter died and who was the perpetrator(s). He continually overshadows the rest of the supporting cast including Ray Winstone as the mysterious ‘corporate fixer’ Jedburgh. While Martin Campbell’s direction is as competent as usual, continually unafraid to linger over Gibson’s character as he is dragged into the emotional depths of the situation at hand. However despite being capably filmed and well acted, the film suffers from one serious, unequivocal problem that detracts heavily on the overall enjoyment of the film at hand, which is the fact that the narrative structure is poorly constructed during the middle segment of the film.

The original television series was spread among six fifty-minute episodes allowing plenty of time for the various themes, issues and conspiracies to be explored. However this feature adaptation instead is a mere two hours in length and during this time the audience are continually bombarded with new information, characters and events that are not fully identified or explained resulting in both confusion and a strong sense of disappointment. As ‘Edge of Darkness’ reaches the hour mark we are introduced to various characters that are involved in the conspiracy (partially, visibly or simply by connection) that are never explained, nor is there enough exploration of the potentially more important characters who are only involved for their own means, which would have led to a significantly more interesting climax.

Despite this flaw, ‘Edge of Darkness’ does succeed heavily in one aspect, it will inspire you to search for and dig out the old television series starring Bob Peck and view the issues beyond those that were touched upon in this film in further depth. However, aside from another engaging Gibson performance, the lack of explanation is a severely detrimental factor on the overall nature of the film. Instead of leaving the cinema discussing this thought-provoking, dramatic conspiracy thriller, you will most likely leave asking “who was he, and what was his purpose.”

The Road - Dir. John Hillcoat

2010-01-24T06:10:00.001-08:00

In the post-apocalyptic wasteland of America, a Man (Viggo Mortensen) and his Boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) travel the road hoping to avoid the ‘bad’ people, and ultimately stay alive as along as humanly possible. Based on Cormac McCarthy’s (Blood Meridian, No Country For Old Men) 2006 acclaimed novel ‘The Road’, the film is more about how we and our loved ones cope after a devastating event as much as it is about survival in the harshest environments left on Earth. John Hillcoat treats McCarthy’s original novel with the upmost respect and admiration. Almost never deviating from the original story, to create an almost perfect adaptation from page-to-screen, the film itself will certainly leave an impression upon you.

There was a flash, and then civilization collapsed. Whether it was nuclear war, global warming or something entirely different, neither the film nor the novel actually confirms what was happened. Many have speculated that the event in question may have been a global nuclear war; however in the context of the story, what almost destroyed all civilization on Earth, is irrelevant. Instead the story spends its time looking at the aftermath. The Boy is born into a post-apocalyptic life where he may never know the wonders that went before him. The Man’s Wife becomes a painful distant memory of how only those strong in the mind survive such atrocities. And the Man himself takes on the various jobs from being an educator and carer to the most important job of most adults lives: a parent.

This is where ‘The Road’ decides to spend its time, looking, admiring, scrutinizing and acknowledging the relationship between father (Man) and son (Boy). The most important aspect of any parent’s life is the wellbeing of their child. While the Man must strive to keep his son healthy, fed and ultimately alive, he must also induct him into the world of adulthood at the earliest possible time. The Man acknowledges that he won’t be around forever, and that he must provide his Boy with all the help he can offer, to allow him to continue to survive, live and prosper for an the longest period of time after his own inevitably passing. And this father and son relationship is exemplified beautifully by both Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee, who both give fantastic performances that keep the film ticking over until the heart-wrenching climax.

Despite only being thirteen years of age at the time of filming, Kodi Smit-McPhee at times eclipses Mortensen’s on-screen performance and shows that just like his character, that he is mature beyond his age. When his father offers him a can of Coca-Cola (possibly one of the very few left in existence), the Boy is hesitant to gulp it down quickly and selfishly like most dehydrated children would. Instead he offers the drink to his father, who is clearly ill, and this shows the audience that he has already started on his transition to the responsibilities of adulthood. While this ‘ascension’, also creates a personal crisis within Mortensen’s character. He understands that his Boy must more self-sufficient as he will not be alive forever, however at the same time he wishes, as any parent would, for his son keep some of the childhood innocence and in a sense, the protection of a father.

Aside from the astounding central performances, the direction of Hillcoat, cinematography of Javier Aguirresarobe and the editing of Jon Gregory combine together to create the post-apocalyptic wasteland in which the Man and his Boy walk among daily. This bleak landscape is coated in ash, darkness and destruction to draw the audience into an environment where everything is dying. And this is accompanied by the fact we are never shown the world before the ‘apocalyptic event’ or during, we are only ever introduced to the outside world in the aftermath, after all there is no point dwelling on the past. Beautifully shot, carefully adapted and brilliantly acted, ‘The Road’ should certainly be on the edge of the cinematic community’s lips come the awards season.

All About Steve - Dir. Phil Traill

2010-01-15T09:48:00.000-08:00

‘All About Steve’ is pretty-much your typical, one dimensional romantic-comedy, except instead of the man chasing the woman (or vice versa), you have Sandra Bullock playing an insane, cameraman-obsessed stalker. Mary Horowitz (Sandra Bullock) is a peculiar and hyperactive woman who spends her days constructing crossword puzzles for the local newspaper, which also serves as her job. But after just one blind-date with Steve (Bradley Cooper), the CCN cameraman who doesn’t have time for dating, Mary accepts that Steve must be her soul-mate and she decides to follow him and his job across the country to be with the man of her dreams.

Despite a cast consisting of Bradley Cooper, Thomas Haden Church and Ken Jeong, ‘All About Steve’ does not contain one funny or humorous moment what-so-ever. If anything, it is quite sad to see such a cast of established and upcoming talent involved in, what can only be described as a, a car-crash film. From the early scene in which a sex-starved Mary struggles to have desperate sex with Steve to the pointless and uncoordinated ending, this film is poorly written, barely competently directed and completely meaningless. How this film can even be placed within the comedy genre is a mystery in itself.

Apparently the director, Phil Traill, originally wanted Julia Roberts to play the role of Mary, but she was unwilling to take a pay cut. Congratulations Julia, you’ve missed a bullet there. If you want to watch a nice romantic-comedy starring Sandra Bullock across from an attractive and significantly younger male lead then rent ‘The Proposal’ instead. Unless you wish to torture your other half, in which case; watch this film.

Youth in Revolt - Dir. Miguel Arteta

2010-01-10T06:16:00.000-08:00

Nick Twisp (Michael Cera) is sixteen years old, his parents are separated, his closest friend his having a midlife crisis over thirty years too early and all he can think about is the fact that he hasn’t lost his virginity yet. He is almost the common replica of the stereotypical teenage boy, except for the fact that he enjoys the films of Fellini and Godard. Everything changes however for Nick when a brief, chance move from his lonely hometown of Oakland to a religious mobile trailer park in the small city of Ukiah brings him face to face with Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday) – who is unequivocally the love of his life. But when his family moves back to Oakland, Nick must invent a supplementary ‘bad-boy’ persona within himself named Francois (he has a moustache, and enjoys the occasional smoke), who would be willing to cause the mayhem Nick wouldn’t. Francois’s central objective is to get Nick kicked out of his dysfunctional home in Oakland, which he shares with his emotionally fragile mother (Jean Smart), and reunited with Sheeni, with the intention of living happily ever after (while also losing his virginity).

‘Youth in Revolt’, is another hip, quirky comedy in which Michael Cera is given centre-stage in which to showcase abilities, however, he must tread cautiously in the future as he is dangerously close to becoming typecast (Superbad, Juno) as the desolate, yet intellectual teenage boy just looking to release his sexual burden. Cera and Doubleday carry the film along nicely, and provide some very humorous on-screen chemistry, especially during the sequences involving very awkward circumstances – i.e. when Nick is asked to place a small amount of sun cream on Sheeni’s back during a trip to the beach. Portia Doubleday in particular shines as unknown actress thrust into the supporting actress slot alongside Michael Cera. She works with a particular grace, and maturity that makes her performance at times overshadow that of the experience Cera.

While aside from these two characters, Arteta’s film also has an extensive A-list cast on show who take a backseat to the main story and occasionally chime in during the various convoluted sub-plots on show. Steve Buscemi is Nick’s jobless father George Twisp, Zack Galifianakis is Nick’s mothers first boyfriend Jerry who should never be let out around the Navy, and Ray Liotta plays Officer Wescott, a fascist policeman who also starts dating Nick’s mother and becomes somewhat responsible for Nick’s downfall. Fred Willard (Mr Ferguson), Justin Long (Paul Saunders) and M. Emmet Walsh (Mr Saunders) also make an appearance in the extensive cast. Despite this list containing the ‘whose who’ of Hollywood Boulevard, I was surprised to see that certain narrative arcs were ignored. For instance, if the relationship between Nick and his father was expanded upon, it would have provided further substance to the film and the characters themselves. Though, unfortunately we are left filling in the majority of the gaps ourselves.

Miguel Arteta has created a very funny and witty film in ‘Youth in Revolt,’ that despite having its flaws and areas in which it could have improved upon, ultimately prevails as another competent coming-of-age teen-flick that is centred around the holiest of teenage sanctities: sexual intercourse. The amusing remarks, awkward sexual situations, and hardcore French supplementary personas are all there creating another comfortable vehicle for Cera, to drive to a French Boarding School.

Antichrist - Dir. Lars von Trier

2010-01-09T05:35:00.001-08:00

Lars von Trier’s most recent release ‘Antichrist’ was collared with notoriety before it was even released theatrically, during its premiere screening at the Cannes Film Festival it was reported that allegedly three or four film critics fainted at the graphic scenes of sex and mutilation. So was it worth it? Has the Danish Dogme King made another ‘anti-masterpiece’? Well, the answer isn’t quite as simple as saying that ‘Antichrist’ was a good film or a bad film; it’s an incredibly complex creation that will certainly divide viewers of cinema alike.

Willem Dafoe is He and Charlotte Gainsbourg is She. During the opening prologue we are shown the sequence which sends both characters in differentiating spirals of grief, the sequence in question is the accidental death of their young child. The scene is spectacularly shot in black and white and slow-motion, with a haunting classical score accompanying the scene. As He and She make passionate love in bathroom, there child climbs out of his crib and accidentally falls to his death out of the buildings top floor window. He then decides to take She to a cabin in the woods, after the funeral, which He believes is her greatest fear, and the central aspect that is fuelling her catatonic state of grief and her inability to put the sadness of the death of their child behind them.

From here on in we are taken on a cinematic journey through four different chapters in the films structure. Staring with ‘Grief’, we then go follow through to ‘Pain’ and ‘Despair’, before culminating with the final chapter of the ‘Three Beggars’ and the inevitable and beautifully shot Epilogue. The basic themes encountered within these are gynocide, sadness, guilt and the provocation of the audience through extreme graphic sequences of on-screen mutilation and violence (Including the now notorious female genital maiming sequence and the act of bloody and violent masturbation of an incapacitated male).

While completely losing himself at times in a sea of arrogance and self-consciousness, Von Trier’s ‘Anti-Christ’ does have its moments of beautiful, yet bleak tranquilly. After all, if you take away the controversial sequences of violence and talking animals, the central theme of the film is simply the sadness, grief and inability to cope with the loss of a loved one and how male and female counterparts may handle the situation differently in their own ways.

Coupled with some striking cinematography, this film is more of an experience than anything else. I don’t actually fully understand everything that Von Trier is trying to explore within this world, but I can certainly admire it.

Law Abiding Citizen - Dir. Felix Gary Gray

2010-01-09T04:53:00.000-08:00

‘Law Abiding Citizen’ is your typical and quite lacklustre American vigilante thriller. Clyde (Gerard Butler) avenges the death of his wife and daughter ten years after they were killed by home invaders. By using every little technological gizmo available in the twenty-first century to exact his retribution among those he believes have wronged him and his family in the most brutal and satisfying fashion. While Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) is the hot-shot lawyer who first tried Clyde’s family’s killers and is now paying the price for making a deal with one of the men to turn on his partner and send him to death row.

Despite plenty of inventive mind-numbing violence on show, this film suffers from two major drawbacks in my opinion which restrict ‘Law Abiding Citizen’ from simply being an enjoyable action-thriller and instead turns F. Gary Gray’s latest film into nothing more than just another throwaway film. The first is the repetitive nature of the film’s structure which eventually follows the increasingly boring narrative route of a dubious moral confrontation between Clyde (Butler) and Nick (Jamie Foxx), followed by an elaborate death sequence. Before the two men meet again and have another moral and ethical tussle and start the cycle over, and over, and over, and over again with nothing in-between. Instead of enjoying the film for what it is, a popcorn-flick, you are instead constantly questioning the motives of the characters and what the central point/theme of the film is trying to communicate to the audience.

Secondly, despite having both Jamie Foxx and Gerard Butler in prominent roles and a backroom cast containing the likes of Gregory Itzin, Bruce McGill and Sarah Lowell there isn’t one dominant character in the film. Both Butler and Foxx put forward barely adequate performances which allow the audience just a brief insight into the minds of the morally ambiguous Clyde and the strict judicial employee Nick. This insufficient characterisation also detracts heavily on the already ridiculous ending, not because we don’t expect it, but that we don’t understand it. When the lights go up in the cinema, you will be left questioning the whole moral dilemma the film has placed forth and in essence, what was the ACTUAL message of the film itself. Believe me it isn’t as clear cut as it seems considering the scenes that have gone before. It must also be noted however that Kurt Wimmer’s script does not act favourably toward the actors or actresses either. Most of the scenes which contain potential between Butler and Foxx simply end on a profanity and a simple yes or no answer. Not exactly Oscar winning material.

With a gleaming Hollywood cast of Jamie Foxx, Bruce McGill and the safe-grossing Gerard Butler, ‘Law Abiding Citizen’ certainly had potential to be something more than just another ‘revenge/retribution picture’, but unfortunately a poor script, a terrible plot and awkward pacing make this film one to miss this year.

Big Fan - Dir. Robert Siegel

2010-01-08T06:07:00.001-08:00

Simplicity is a rare commodity in today’s fast moving, conglomerate world, but for Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt) there’s only one thing that matters in his life. Everything else is irrelevant in comparison and it isn’t his wife, or his child, or his family in general; it is the American Football team the New York Giants. As the self-proclaimed ‘biggest Giants fan ever’ Paul lives, breathes, shouts, screams, and sleeps everything about the team. He even situates a poster featuring his favourite player Quantrell Bishop (Jonathan Hamm), the Giants quarterback, above his single-bed. But when an opportunity arises to meet Quantrell, the player mistakes Paul for a stalker and violently strikes out causing his instant hospitalisation. Once released he has to come to terms with the fact that his simple, linear life is now starting to crash around him, like a fumble in the final moments of the Super Bowl, as his family, the media and the team all want a piece of the Giants ‘Big Fan’.

Written and directed by Robert Siegel on a minimal budget, ‘Big Fan’ is a surprising independent gem that attains the majority of its prowess from an outstanding offensive performance by Patton Oswalt as the man who lives for the Giants. His support is monumental as he travels week in and week out to merely sit in the car-park outside Meadowlands Stadium and watch the game on a portable TV with his right-hand fan Sal (Kevin Corrigan). While he spends his job as a parking attendant writing up witty remarks to use on the Sports Dogs nightly call-in Sports show – of which one participant called Philadelphia Phil becomes Paul’s nemesis over-time. There banter over the airwaves becomes one of the biggest driving forces of Paul’s life while he isn’t thinking about the next game. But after the assault takes place, his loyalty, and in turn his life starts to become torn apart. His family want him to turn the event in an opportunity to sue the player; the local authorities want him to press charges against quarterback, while the team are on a losing streak as Quantrell has been suspended while the investigation is on-going. All the while, all Paul wants is to support the team and nothing more. He doesn’t have the greed and the ambition that others do. To him the Giants are his life-support machine, and if you take those away he would flat-line in an instant.

While Oswalt’s performance is mesmerising, Robert Siegel’s writing and direction must also be commended. His script is honest and straight-to-the-point, he captures it captures all the awkward events of Paul’s life perfectly, including the argument between the brothers on the toilet. While he uses the space of the world around him perfectly to capture Paul’s subtle isolated life brilliantly and at the same time Siegel also uses the, sometimes overtly exaggerated, close-up shot to portray the characters emotions within this one man’s own perfect universe. ‘Big Fan’ is low budget, high impact film that thrives off a gleaming central performance by Patton Oswalt, and is definitely one of the best independent films of the last couple of years

Dogging: A Love Story - Dir. Simon Ellis

2010-01-08T05:45:00.001-08:00

Dogging is as British as Earl Grey tea and frozen football pitches on windy January afternoon, and it is definitely an interesting subject in which to base a film upon. In case you are wondering, Wikipedia defines the sexual act of ‘dogging’ as;”engaging in sexual act/s in a semi-public place (typically a secluded car park in a car) and then watching others doing so.” This sexual act (or acts) is the pretext for the loose romantic plot behind Simon Ellis’s first feature-film in which four people’s lives and relationships revolve around the act of dogging.

Dan (Luke Treadaway) is an aspiring, unemployed journalist who is hoping to set the media world alight by writing an article on the act of dogging and what people attain from the activity. Being unemployed, he sleeps on his best friend’s Rob’s (Richard Riddell) couch. Rob is a man’s man, his job as an estate agent is only worthwhile to him as it allows him to meet and exploit plenty of mature, divorced women looking for a new abode. The film’s core storyline revolves around Dan’s deteriorating relationship with his girlfriend of four years Tanya (Sammy Dobson) and the unlikely relationship he strikes up with Laura (Kate Heppell), a young, curious and naive new member of the local dogging community. Continually the characters motives change within the film and we are given no indication or explanation why this happens, constantly keeping the audience at arm’s-length rather than drawing them further into the characters lives.

Ellis’s film, to be fair, does have its fair few moments of cheap humour, which almost entirely occur while the characters are involved on an excursion to a local car-park. Dan’s first adventure out within the world of the ‘doggers’ will certainly bring forth a few chuckles. But its main setback is that the central theme of relationships is incredibly shallow and only barely scraps the surface of what would have made for an interesting story. The combination of using both first (Dan) and third person perspectives (unknown owner of a night-vision camera who’s identity is later revealed) in the film also seems to be somewhat redundant and adds nothing but a few extra minutes to the running-time of the film.

‘Dogging: A Love Story’ had an interesting, and experimental premise that potentially could have made for very fun and engaging film, however it falls flat with a thin story and one-dimensional characters.

Up In The Air - Dir. Jason Reitman

2010-01-05T05:41:00.001-08:00

In a world where everybody is looking to hook up and ‘not die alone’, Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) and his flyaway fling Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga) are the exception to this life-long rule. However when Bingham must show the young and naive Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick) how his no-strings philosophy on life has improved his relationship with his job at CTC – we hire, you fire – he begins a journey which takes him - the man who has flown endlessly almost everywhere - into unknown airspace. Oh and then there’s the business of reaching a select number of air-miles... Jason Reitman’s (Thank You For Not Smoking, Juno) ‘Up In The Air’ takes a long-hard look at a life which thrives on loneliness and how this affects the relationships around him. It’s mildly amusing, touching at times, and a definite Awards contender thanks to the fantastic performances from the three main lead characters.

Ryan Bingham has worked for years at CTC, a company which makes its money straight from the mouth of corporate greed. When a company management official hasn’t got the spine to release an employee, they draft in CTC who send over somebody that can. But they do simply more than tell the employee that they have ten minutes to vacate the property, they attempt to ferry them across to a new avenue in the most fragile moment of their lives. (Beautifully appropriate, considering the recent devastating economic recession throughout the world and the rise in unemployment). Bingham lives for, and in, the air. He travels city-to-city firing employees while also hoping to give them a nudge down the right path. The only human connection he develops is with Alex, a fellow flight-hopper, who is the female equivalent of Bingham. She’s strong, sexual woman who has plenty of air-miles. Yet, his idyllic life is put under the microscope when he must show the young, vivacious and ruthless CTC member Natalie Keener how to live your life constantly on the move. Curiously, and with a hint of pity Natalie asks Bingham as they walk through to the airport security station; “Don’t you ever get lonely?” To which he replies, “Lonely? I’m surrounded by people everywhere I go.”

George Clooney’s central performance as Ryan Bingham, the man who lives his life avoiding commitment as a philosophy, is simply sublime. He lives his life on a schedule, just like the airlines he flies with, and this schedule leaves no time for others. Bingham is a man who is afraid of commitment and by flying for almost three-hundred and twenty days every year this allows himself to leave as little time as possible for social interaction. Social interaction, friendships, mortgages and even marriage are just another pointless blockade for this man who believes that the best way to live the ride of life itself is by carrying around an empty backpack – as this cannot weigh you down. Following Clooney, both Anna Kendrick (Natalie) and Vera Farmiga (Alex) both give equally engrossing performances as the two strongest female influences in this lonely high flyer’s life. Alex is Ryan’s match and the closest thing he has to a potential ‘love-interest’ – not that he believes in the notion of love. While Natalie becomes Bingham’s closest connection to humanity, despite putting up a strong front, she is built like the majority of other human beings; with a soft, sticky, fragile centre.

Coupled with the great on-screen performances, Reitman also hits the right note with both his direction and his adapted screenplay (which he began writing in 2002) of Walter Kirn’s original novel. Reitman employs the combination quick cuts and close-up shots of the menial aspects of Bingham’s life, such as the movement from his apartment to the check-in desk at the airport. These activities may be appreciated by those that have never flown before, or have only done so a few times before, but for a man that has clocked up 350,000 air-miles in the previous year; they are nothing but a minor inconvenience to a man who loathes an establishment without a queue for priority members. While the adapted screenplay script provides a concentrated balance of amusing comedic moments, and clever, entertaining drama which in turn creates a very enjoyable film. Quirky, funny, emotional, and thought-provoking dramas certainly seem to be Jason Reitman’s forte at this moment in time.

Carriers - Dir. Alex and David Pastor

2009-12-18T06:34:00.001-08:00

The key, unequivocal problem with the Pastor Brothers film ‘Carriers’ is that it just doesn’t go anywhere: it begins, eighty minutes go by, and then the credits roll. The narrative just trudges along from start to finish without further challenging the audience or without placing further emphasis on the dramatic choices at hand. Which is disappointing as this film had a lot of unearthed potential that would have certainly set it apart from simply being ‘just another zombie/pandemic’ film. Instead, it is unfortunately, just another viral pandemic flick.

Brian (Chris Pine), his brother Danny (Lou Pucci) and their two female friends Bobby (Piper Perabo) and Kate (Emily VanCamp) are your four typical just-out-of-college kids who are on the road to nowhere, literally. After a viral outbreak incapacitates almost the entire population of the United States and potentially the world, they decide to hit the road and hopefully find somewhere to stay or somebody to engage with who is free of the virus.

‘Carriers’ would be more aptly placed in the drama genre than the horror or thriller section of the local video store as nothing as note actually takes place in regards to the latter genres. There are maybe two or three scenes ranging from two to three minutes in length which contain some suspenseful elements, however the rest of the film is rather conventional. Even regarding the lack of blood and onscreen violence, after all, the central onscreen element is the deteriorating relationships between the characters.

When the teens encounter Frank (Christopher Meloni) and his infected, young daughter Jodie (Kiernan Shipka) in the middle of a desolate stretch of road just waiting for somebody to “lend them some fuel,” the first of a few moralistic situations are shoved towards the audience. Would you leave them? Would you help them? The crux of ‘Carriers’ is based around one simple principle; don’t help anybody infected, not matter how young or how vulnerable they are and YOU will stay alive. And it’s how the characters engage with these various situations which they encounter along their journey, and this manages to breathe a little life into this heavily deflated film.

Chris Pine, pre Star Trek, gives a brilliant performance as the brother who has had the emotional consciousness beaten out of him throughout the pandemic to the point the where the survival of himself and his younger brother is the only objective. While Lou Pucci, who portrays Brian’s younger brother Danny, also pulls out an equally inspiring performance as the younger brother who is constantly fighting with his conscience with regards to the tough decisions that Brian has to make.

If Alex and David Pastor were given the opportunity to go back and shoot around thirty-to-forty minutes worth of extra footage, then ‘Carriers’ would have the potential to be a very good film. Instead, however, we are left with a film so short in length that once we have just connected and engaged with the characters and their desperate situations the credits begin to roll and the lights come up leaving you feeling incredibly empty inside and asking one brief question; “Is that it?”

Avatar - Dir. James Cameron

2009-12-17T14:44:00.001-08:00

‘Avatar’ is an action-packed, pulse-pounding, visually astounding, multi-million dollar blockbuster that assaults every available human sense violently for two hours and thirty minutes leaving the audience with a grin the size of Pandora on their faces. You have probably seen incarnations of the story, heard the B-Movie-esque terrible dialogue and experienced the structure of ‘Avatar’ numerous times before. But the real beauty, the real of heart of this film lies in the wonderful world of Pandora that James Cameron has created.

In 2154, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) a paraplegic ex-marine is sent to take his brothers place in the Avatar program on a planet named Pandora. Pandora is home to the Na’vi, a sentient alien race that is currently living upon the largest unobtainium (1kg is worth over $20 million) deposit within travelling distance to Earth. The Avatar program, run by Dr Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) and financed by the Resources Development Administration, is focused around producing and controlling genetically engineered human-Na’vi hybrids.

These human-Na’vi hybrid characters, controlled by the human surrogate’s consciousness, allow the humans to enter the Na’vi’s community and engage, teach and learn from the race. With the sole intention of the RDA being to remove the Na’vi from their home through diplomacy so they may obtain the unobtainium with minimal causalities as the complete annihilation of a race “does not play well with the media.” However, old-school Military Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) simply wants to go in quick and with an iron fist. As Jake starts to become more and more attached to the Na’vi community, his loyalties become increasingly torn between that of his initial objectives and his adopted race, including his alien love-interest Neytiri (Zoe Saldana).

The narrative, structure and human characters are recycled components from the various hundreds, if not thousands, of Sci-Fi Action films made previous to ‘Avatar’. From the slow-developing inter-galactic relationship between Jake and Neytiri, to the stereotypical ‘hard-ass’ Marine leader Colonel Quaritch (he’s Sgt Hartman’s second cousin) and climaxing with a predictable, yet comfortable conclusion. You will have seen and experienced it all before, including the terrible script which contains many cringe-worthy one-liners. However, technically Cameron has created a very proficient film overall. He paces the film perfectly and continually drives the narrative forward with some concise editing, while the cinematography and special effects, well, they truly bring forth the world of Pandora and immerse the audience within.

From the first scene in which Jake’s Na’vi avatar is let loose in the forest under the midnight sky, to the final beautiful concluding scene, the stunning landscape of Pandora is what creates, combines and blends together the mythical nature of James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’. Every scene, every animal, every organism, is crafted in huge detail and depth to create an astonishing world of beauty that you just can’t help but sit back and admire. And this allows you to forget about the fact that the story is thin and clichéd or that the majority of the characters are two-dimensional pieces of computer wizardry and simply enjoy what can only be called; a filmmaking spectacle. Cameron hasn’t created anything revolutionary here, but with the technology he has created and bestowed upon the cinematic community, it will certainly help along the three-dimensional train, and hopefully win over those who think 3D is nothing more than a cheap gimmick.

Dead Man Running - Dir. Alex De Rakoff

2009-11-18T08:19:00.001-08:00

‘Dead Man Running’ sees the cinematic Cockney wide boys Tamer Hassan and Danny Dyer join together for yet another jolly boys outing on the big screen. Except this time instead of playing raging football hooligans destroying East London one shop window at a time, they are instead pushed into the world of the British Gangster flick. Which sounds like potential entertainment, but it really isn’t. It’ll help you fill an hour and thirty minutes of free time, but you won’t be rushing to see it again at the Cinema, or out to buy the DVD, or see to it on pay-television...

The opening scene of the film shows that the recession has had far and wide reaching consequences across the economic board as the underworld boss Mr Thigo (Curtis ‘50’ Jackson) decides to draw in every penny from all the outstanding loans he is currently owed. While Nick (Hassan) is the unfortunate customer who is going to be made an example of by Thigo to make sure everybody pays up promptly and without hassle – Barclays Banking this is not. Nick is given twenty-four hours to acquire the hundred grand he owes Thigo otherwise he and his mother (Brenda Blethyn) will be sleeping with the fishes. Cue a frantic race across London with his business partner and working-class friend Bing (Danny Dyer) in tow as they attempt various different activities while trying to raise the debt and stay alive.

Hassan and Dyer play the typical characters you have seen them time and time again, and it is now becoming a little annoying as well as entirely predictable and boring. Nick is a former ‘hardman’ who was a resident at Her Majesty’s service before taking the legal and law-abiding route so he could care for his family. While Bing is his right-hand man who is willing to do almost anything to help Nick obtain the £100,000 that he owes. Yet there is one gleaming performance in this stiff, wooden cast which is that of veteran British actress Brenda Blethyn who plays Nick’s caring, soft, yet incredibly versatile mother who provides not only the biggest laugh of the film, but also the tensest scene as we uncover a secret she has kept buried under her blanket.

I was never expecting a brilliant film from Alex De Rakoff’s British crime flick ‘Dead Man Running’, but I was expecting more considering the decent cast it contains. It fails to harbour the primarily British cast’s potential and instead delivers a predictable narrative coupled with a terribly clichéd script. The biggest problem however is the fact that despite being evenly and well paced, the film has nothing which will keep an audience’s attention for longer than five minutes.

Harry Brown - Dir. Daniel Barber

2009-11-02T17:06:00.001-08:00

Daniel Barber’s first directorial feature is a shocking, brutal and thought-provoking affair in which Michael Caine decides to ignore retirement and chooses instead to purge his run-down, Central London estate of the young, criminal minds that plague it. Barber provides an impressive and surprisingly mature directorial debut in which he presents the issues of Britain’s broken youth, the ineffective nature of the Police in hard-to-control areas and the rise of gang culture, all of which are subjects that have been at the forefront of the social climate over the last few years. Whether you agree with the view Barber presents, or not, ‘Harry Brown’ will certainly leave you thinking about more than the recession in the current climate.

Harry Brown (Michael Caine) is a decorated ex-Serviceman who every day watches the world unfold from his flat in a downtrodden London estate. He observes the increasingly senseless violence committed by the young gang members of the estate and the open-handed nature of the drug dealers without any action being taken towards those who are constantly flouting the law in his community. However when his wife passes away, and his best-friend Leonard (David Bradley) is killed after confronting the young men who spend each day terrorising him to the point of retribution, Brown decides with nothing left to live for, to take the law into his own hands and delivers some excessively violent – Charles Bronson style - vigilante revenge.

Opening with a startlingly realistic scene in which a couple of gang members harass and ultimately shoot a young woman without provocation in a local park before riding away and falling prey to an oncoming truck, sets the sombre tone of ‘Harry Brown’ before we even reach the opening credits. The opening scene also strikes a social chord, as it is shot in low-resolution and in first-person giving the impression that it has been taken straight from one of the gang member’s phones, an act which is becoming more common within the gang culture in the UK. From here on in, the tone of the film stays bleak with Barber’s direction and Ruhe’s cinematography turning the London streets into a desolate, darkened wasteland where only the brave dare go out at night.

The real catch as always however, is one Sir Michael Caine, who turns in yet another breath-taking emotional performance as the ‘pensioner’ who decides to take the law into his own hands. He provides the performance of a broken down man whose loneliness simply fuels his uncompromising violence against the criminals who plague his estate. While Emily Mortimer and Ben Drew also pull out strong performances from their closets. Mortimer plays Detective Frampton a rising up and coming woman in the Metropolitan Police force who chose to work on Brown’s estate as she wishes to change it for the better without subverting the law, and Drew as Noel, a sadistic killer with no respect for those around him who will happily inflict ruthless cruelty upon those who cross his path.

While ‘Harry Brown’ is a competent picture, its formulaic narrative structure takes somewhat of a chink out of its armour. Despite some wonderfully shot and tense sequences during the last twenty minutes of the film, the ending of the film is nothing new and simply regurgitates everything we have seen before in the one-man-vigilante films of before. But, I still thoroughly enjoyed the film, the violence was exhilarating, the performances from Caine and Bradley were sentimental and the direction was gritty and representative of today’s modern muddled up world.

Paranormal Activity - Dir. Oren Peli

2009-10-30T08:22:00.001-07:00

Oren Peli’s ‘Paranormal Activity’ isn’t a brilliant film by any standards, nor is it groundbreaking, but considering it was made for only fifteen-thousand dollars and it has now grossed over thirty-five million dollars in the US before it has even been released worldwide definitely shows that it has appeal and the subject matter to tap into the general public’s imagination – the issue of unseen paranormal activity that we have all apparently experienced at some time or another, but never been able to conclusively prove that it wasn’t simply the ice-maker! While ‘PA’ also taps into the sub-conscious fear of that our homes are our fortresses, however in Peli’s film, the home is anything, but a safe haven. Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micah (Micah Sloat) are your typical young, suburban couple, however Katie believes that there is a paranormal presence praying on herself or the house in which she and her fiancée are staying, so Micah does what any young-buck would do in this technological age in which we live; we sets up a cheap video-camera in the bedroom and hopes to capture the ghoulish goings-on during the night – and it certainly isn’t the dishwasher that’s on the fritz!

At around eighty-odd-minutes in length the film follows a simple three-part narrative structure. The first third of the film is focused around introducing Micah and Katie to the audience as they discuss what could be going bump in the night and their general lives, work, friends, etc. We also see the conflict in personalities from the beginning as well, as Micah is somewhat of a sceptic, he is always making fun of Katie and the presence which is clearly taking a toll on her life, while Katie outwardly accepts that there is some form of paranormal activity around her or her house and wishes to get rid, or banish it as soon as possible. From there on as each night passes, the second part of the structure focuses around Micah and the various small unexplained noises and movements that were captured on camera, slowly dispelling his scepticism and fuelling Katie’s increasing paranoia, before the final third of the film completely puts to rest any scepticism Micah has and sends Katie into a detrimental spiral of fear and instability, concluding the film with a brilliantly terrifying bang!

The use of Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat work perfectly, as the unknown, inexperienced actors that provide somewhat of a refreshing realistic quality to the low-budget flick. While the use of on and off-screen diegetic sound and movement, especially while the characters are sleeping, creates the perfect atmosphere for the unexplained goings-on in the suburban homestead. We can see everything that is happening, every small sound, or every slight movement, however while the audience can rest behind the protection of the movie screen, there is no such barrier for Katie and Micah which constantly raises and the suspense, tension and fear-factor throughout the film. Peli and his small crew, show how much you can simply evolve forth the narrative from such minimal and surprisingly fear-inducing events, such as slamming doors shut and banging loudly on various walls.

‘Paranormal Activity’ is one of those rare films that will still stay with you hours after you have already left the cinema. It sets up the bases – character development, captured unexplained activity, and the history of said such activity – before finally winding back the bat and knocking the audience of the park with a well-shot, emphatic and truly frightening ending.

12 Rounds - Dir. Renny Harlin

2009-10-30T06:50:00.001-07:00

Going in to watch ’12 Rounds’, John Cena’s latest action-orientated vehicle for those who enjoy fast cars and large explosions, my expectation wasn’t exactly high – if anything it was smack-down (see what I did there...) against the floor, but when I left the cinema I was confused beyond belief. How could a film not even get within touching distance of my lowest expectations? Well; you take two parts poor director, one-part wrestler-turned-actor, a sprinkling of a ridiculous plot and a bake for one and a half hours with one incredibly dreadful script.

The basic premise is that Danny Fisher (John Cena) is your normal-on-the-beat wrestler turned police officer who manages to apprehend one of the most dangerous international arms-dealers Miles Jackson (Aiden Gillen) by luck, however during the arrest Miles girlfriend walks in-front of a bus, or a truck, or something and gets splattered all over the road. Move forward to a year later, and John Danny Fisher is now a Detective and so is his stereotypical black partner Hank Carver (Brian White), who must now battle the crazy Irish-criminal psychopath Miles who has broken out of a Correctional Facility somehow and has kidnapped Fisher’s wife Molly (Ashley Scott). With his house in tatters, his friendly neighbourhood Plumber in six million bits and his pride at stake, Fisher must ‘play’ twelve rounds (i.e. one round centres around stopping a cable-car which has lost control and is hurtling slowly towards some generally ignorant people who refuse to slowly get out of the way) against the insane criminal to get his wife back and presumably, live happily ever after.

Like I said, I didn’t have high-expectations going in to this film, but it is really terrible, I mean really terrible. The plot is boring, the explosions are tame and the action stale, which is incredibly important and key to the success of the film when you attempt to make a no-brain action-flick. Every character seems to be been picked straight out of ‘Clichéd Movie Characters #101’ including the hilarious, yet cringe-worthy FBI Agent Ray Santiago (Gonzalo Menendez) who first tries to ‘stop’ Fisher, before putting their conflict aside to help him in the battle against the evil one-man-criminal band. Even the final chapter of the film in which you find out Miles real motive and are treated to the most insanely idiotic action-set-piece ever conceived is insulting to your intelligence, yet, to be fair the last line of the film is guaranteed to have you leaving the cinema in a fit of laughter.

It has probably been said before, and I expect it will be said again; John Cena, you should really leave the acting career at home and stick to wrestling, for the sake of wrestling and film fans alike.

Saw VI - Dir. Kevin Greutert

2009-10-25T08:33:00.000-07:00

To give Kevin Greutert's 'Saw 6' it's dues, it is a lot more coherent structurally than the previous two instalments, however that does not salvage it being yet another typically below par addition to the seemingly never-ending Saw franchise. Detective Hoffman is back after squashing Detective Strahm out of the equation in the previous 'Saw' film, and he now finds a potentially new obstacle to his destiny in the form of John Kramer's wife Jill Tuck. While Hoffman is contending with Jill and his FBI colleagues closing closer and closer everyday on his web of lies, a new game of death, destruction and plenty of inventive gore starts again with an insurance firm and its workers.

Now I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Nothing is new, nothing is inventive, and nothing is engaging about this film. While I have already admitted that it is seemingly more coherent structurally than the previous two films as it concerns itself with focusing on a linear narrative rather than flashbacks and memory segments, the acting is still incredibly stale and cringe worthy, the characters again appear cardboard cut-outs with no development or motivation applied to anybody's personality within the filmic world (just imagine they're killing everybody because they are bored...) and the films lacks any tension or suspense what-so-ever. Instead of maybe becoming engrossed in the moralistic-will-they-won't-they death sequences I found myself willing the characters to die quickly and end this abomination as soon as possible!

The worst part for me was the typical open-ending (which I won't spoil) that guarantees that next Halloween will be, unfortunately, another time for Saw again. Oh the joy. It is a terrible film, but then again I wasn't exactly expecting a masterpiece from the sixth film in the Saw film franchise, but I was hoping that Mr Greutert would have a little self-respect and finally put the film in its ideal resting place; the Cinematic grave.

Public Enemies - Dir. Michael Mann

2009-10-25T08:29:00.000-07:00

John Herbert Dillinger is still one of the most recognisable names that emerged from the ‘Public Enemy Era’ during the Great Depression in early 1930’s America. Some say he was a dangerous criminal, a sociopath who lived to simply kill and rob. Others admire his Robin Hood-esque quality of taking from the capitalist institutions during a period of economic crisis. Michael Mann paints Dillinger (Johnny Depp) in his latest action-blockbuster ‘Public Enemies’ as a man with pride, self-respect and principles – he “never leaves a man behind” – but adds little more to that characterisation and that is the principle fault with a very enjoyable film.

The film starts in 1933 as the audience are thrown straight into action typical Michael Mann style, as John Dillinger and his gang orchestrate an elaborate plan to break-out their remaining gang members still held up in prison. Following the break-out and a resulting shoot-out in which Dillinger’s mentor Walter Dietrich (James Russo) is killed, we are shown the other side of the law as FBI Agent Melvin Pervis (Christian Bale) hunts down famous Depression-era criminal Pretty Boy Floyd (Channing Tatum). The film then primarily revolves around Agent Pervis’s pursuit of the elusive bank robber and romantic. Minor plot points pertaining to the time period are covered briefly in-between including an incredibly strong performance from Billy Crudup as the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, who is constantly fighting for further recognition of the Bureau’s activities and power within the American system of law and justice.

Depp, as always, brings to life the character he is playing as he uses the little characterisation he has been given to turn Dillinger into a womanizer, a man with principles, but at the same time a human being who doesn’t mind spilling blood for the greater good – the bigger picture. However, the substantial effort Depp places into the role of Dillinger cannot salvage it from the little depth Mann chooses to explore in Dillinger and the surrounding cast, which can be attributed primarily to the fact that with so many different characters involved in the minor side-stories in the film there simply isn’t enough time for Mann to expose the main characters in depth. Yet, despite this major flaw in the film, Mann still manages to bring his exciting, and startlingly realistic action-set-pieces to life.

When the Dillinger clan is cornered in a cabin in the woods by the rabid law-enforcement officers looking for Mr Public-Enemy Number One, a brilliantly shot shoot-out takes place between the two sides of the law in which every window pane of glass broken and every empty shell-casing disposed of is startling photographed in such beautiful realism that it places there and removes you from simply being a impartial audience member to one of men holding a tommy-gun and firing aimlessly for your life. As we have come to get used to, Mann takes advantage of his skill for shooting violent-action oriented scenes, whether it is a shoot-out, a murder or the many bank robberies that we see Dillinger commit, and brings the audience closer to the action happening just in front of them. Aside from the cinematography a solid soundtrack, including Otis Taylor’s brilliant Ten Million Slaves, seems to compliment the 1930’s depression-era almost perfectly and is guaranteed to get you tapping your foot to the beat.

Mann’s ‘Public Enemies’ is a competent crime-drama that contains just enough exciting set-pieces and charm to win over most audiences for the two hours it is on-screen, but it is by no means a flawless piece of cinema. The lack of characterisation is a serious flaw in Mann’s well-layered film, while the fact that the film also plays around with history and has certain important events occurring before they actually did also takes away from the historical accurate nature of the film.

Trick 'R Treat - Dir. Michael Dougherty

2009-10-23T09:36:00.000-07:00

Why, oh why did Warner Brothers put Michael Dougherty’s brilliant Halloween-horror-anthology 'Trick ‘R Treat' back over two years and then only release it on DVD? Talk about digging a 10-foot hole and realising you can’t get out, before accidentally releasing the pins out of the four grenades strapped around your waist and then shooting yourself in your, soon to be in a million-bits, foot with a double-barrel shotgun. Yes Warner Brothers, you made one HELL of a fatal mistake by not releasing this film sooner!

Despite the film’s minuscule running time of around eighty-minutes, opening with a brief scene in which we are introduced to the dangers of blowing a jack-o-lantern out before the end of the night, we are treated to four scary Halloween stories; a school Principle (Dylan Baker) who has a killer after-school activity; a teenager dressed as Little Red Riding Hood (Anna Paquin) who is stalked through the woods; a group of school-kids who find a local urban legend as all too real; and a irritable, grumpy old hermit (Brian Cox) who finds that some trick ‘r treaters want more than just candy. Oh and there’s Sam, a mysterious character who wears a burlap pumpkin mask and mysteriously turns up at one point during every story, and I will tell you now that under that mask isn’t the face of a warm, cuddly bunny rabbit, unfortunately...

Each story is infused with energetic performances from all the lead cast members, while instances of suspense followed by a brief splattering of dark-humour send your emotions on a hugely enjoyable rollercoaster; you’ll be cowering one minute and laughing out loud the next! However the real splendour and genius in Dougherty’s film is in the beautifully shot and composed sequences, shot by cinematographer Glen MacPherson, which bring alive the tradition of Halloween that we all remember from being a child. We don’t remember Halloween being a time about serial killer’s with an agenda, or people being mutilated for no apparent reason, but the traditions, the costumes, the customs, the legends, asking for candy and sweets, being told to watch out for the ‘bogeyman’ by your parents, and generally walking the streets dressed as something else, something horrible, something ghoulish on the one night of the year where you could literally be anybody or anything else. With the only visible flaw in my opinion being the incredibly short run-time, just as you’ve strapped yourself in and are thoroughly enjoying the ride, it ends abruptly and leaves you wanting more, much more.

It’s fun, it’s exciting, it’s suspenseful, it’s scary and it is the perfect movie to watch on a dark, cold and windy all Hallows Eve night, unlike the common repetitive Hollywood-ised drudgery such as 'Saw 6'.

Transformers 2: Revenge Of The Fallen - Dir. Michael Bay

2009-06-20T05:10:00.000-07:00

Michael Bay’s first ‘Transformers’ film gave the audience an entertaining blow of knock-out proportions and I (like many others) left the cinema with a childish grin from ear-to-ear after watching two and a half hours of robots beating seven bells of scrap metal out of each other, however the sequel ‘Revenge of the Fallen’ felt like nothing more than a soft jab into the abdomen. I didn’t particularly enjoy it, I found it tedious, incredibly boring at times, and apart from one or two sequences, the action felt very stale and was concerned more about how each explosion could out-do each other for the extended destruction of our dear planet.

So I will start by addressing what made the first film so enjoyable for me; the god-damn action! With the colossal budget and the build-up of how this was going to be ‘bigger’ and ultimately ‘better’, I was expecting a computer generated onslaught of pure, unadulterated robot-o et robot-o brutality, but sadly only found two scenes out of the whole two hours and thirty minutes running time that matched the first film for childish squealing and prolonged smiling of excitement. One came an hour into the film as Optimus Prime battled his way spectacularly through a forest of evil Decepticon Robots at a vicious pace, while the second scene was at the very end of the film as Bumblebee had a very short, yet enjoyable tussle with Rampage. Aside from these two; battle, fight, action (what-ever you wish to call them) sequences, Michael Bay seemed to be more concerned with how he could create larger and louder explosions with every rocket being fired, or bomb being dropped. The perfect example is in the drawn out final sequence in which we are continually blocked from seeing the actual robotic destruction take place as the screen fills with copious amounts of dust, smoke and sand due to the amount of explosives being thrown around! With the entertainment value slightly eroded for myself, I found little joy in the rest of the film.

From viewing just the first thirty minutes of ‘Fallen’ I noticed Michael Bay seems to have somewhat of a penchant for the use of pointless long-angle shots and slow-motion sequences. If you removed all the pointless, unemotional, tedious scenes involving the sour intimate embraces by Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox (which takes the biscuit in one scene as the camera constantly revolves around both parties around forty-three times before eventually ending, not only the most annoying scene of the film, but also my suicide attempt due to boredom) then the film would be considerably shorter and a lot more engaging. This is another problem the film comes up against, a running time at nearly more than two and a half hours, yet it could quite easily have had at least forty minutes of ‘filler’ material trimmed (such as various incredibly unfunny acts involving Judy Witwicky), and some of the cringe-worthy jokes toned down or removed (however, maybe it’s just me, as some of the jokes did get a good reaction from some of the younger members of the audience). Oh and there is that much information thrown at you during the time that the film is on-screen that you’ll be hard pressed to understand everything that is going on, that is if you are actually trying to follow the plot and the history/motives regarding the new characters entwined within the Transformers universe.

I went into ‘Transformers 2: Revenge Of The Fallen’ with quite low expectations, I wasn’t expecting to see a great film, nor was I really expecting to see a good film from the King of the Cinematic Explosions, but I was hoping for one thing; to be entertained with violent robots hacking each other to bits in a blaze of beautiful destructive glory. But this was unfortunately not fulfilled for me. When I saw Michael Bay’s first ‘Transformers’ film I was sat on the edge of my seat throughout as every action sequence made my jaw-drop a few feet, it was something different and something special, however during ‘Fallen’ I found myself for the majority of the film propping my own head up with my palm, trying to keep myself awake...

Doghouse - Dir. Jake West

2009-06-18T05:55:00.000-07:00

Vince (Stephen Graham) is going through the final stages of his divorce and to help him through this period his friends Mikey (Noel Clarke) and Neil (Danny Dyer) decide to take him and a few of the other boys to a remote village outside the humdrum of their London lives to get, in Dyer's own words; 's**tfaced'. However, when they turn up to the incredibly eerie village of Moodley to find flesh-eating, man-hating, cannibalistic women who want to do nothing more than rip out their internal organs and eat them for breakfast, the boys realise they have bitten more than they can chew and must fight their way through a barrage of blood-thirsty women in the most misogynistic way imaginable.

The premise of the film completely reflects the manner in which Jake West approaches this project, with a gleeful nod towards plenty of harmless sexist humour and cheap gory death sequences that are all nice, light-hearted and fun. Neil, Vince and Mikey are all your typical working-class likely lads out to simply flirt with the opposite sex and drink as much as their body-weight, with Danny Dyer in particular needing to place little effort in recreating his Cockney 'laddish' persona (yet again) on the big-screen. While Dave Schaffer's script contains many easy-going humorous gags to keep your attention ticking over while the next axe, gnome or sword heads to try and end the boy's misogynistic ways and eliminate the male chromosome all in one.

'Doghouse' is nowhere near the heights of Pegg/Frost's rom-zom-com-supremo 'Shaun of the Dead', but it isn't the worst film you will see this year. At a short running time of 85 minutes, you'll be cheaply entertained with boys being boys and women being...err, evil, vicious, un-relentless and, well women (just kidding!). This a film you'd probably enjoy seeing more after you've been kicked out the local Pub at closing time and are heading home with your Chicken Jalfrezi in one hand and the DVD in the other.

Awaydays - Dir. Pat Holden

2009-06-18T05:31:00.000-07:00

‘Awaydays’ is not your typical football hooligan film, the sub-culture of football hooliganism in the early years of Thatcher’s Britain is there to set the brooding scene, however it is evocative the homo-erotic relationship between Carty (Nicky Bell) and the eccentric Elvis (Liam Boyle) that takes centre stage and gives Paul Holden’s film slightly more depth than simply being a film about men taking out their boredom in the form of fighting on a Saturday afternoon.

Paul Carty is a suburban male who is drawn towards the ‘The Pack’, a group of thugs who take their excitement from fighting on a Saturday afternoon all across Britain, through these encounters he grows closer and closer with a bohemian working-class character in Elvis. Elvis just wants to move away to Berlin and start a new life around people who understand him, while Carty just wants to find direction in his life after his mother’s death. As they connect through their mutual love of Bowie, the Liverpudlian music scene and Art, they develop an increasingly complex relationship that is bordering on the homoerotic. It is this intricate bond between these two seemingly different, yet very similar and flawed ‘men’ that keeps the film ticking over. If you removed this key component then the film falls a little flat, with Kevin Sampson’s script missing out many explanations to key elements such as why Carty is drawn towards the allure of the ‘The Pack’ in the first place and the death of John. With that said, it is hauntingly shot with a soundtrack that compliments Pat Holden’s sombre directorial style, and even though at times he has a tendency to delve too much into the LSD-induced hallucinogenic state’s of both boys minds, he does it with little expense to the viewer.

If you want a film that doesn’t simply look at the male phenomenon of having a good scrap on a Saturday afternoon because we’re all bored and working class zombies in a capitalist machine (‘Football Factory’, ‘Green Street’) then ‘Awaydays’ is for you, as it offers just that bit more and is akin to something of a ‘football-love-story’.

Drag Me To Hell - Dir. Sam Raimi

2009-05-27T14:54:00.000-07:00

‘Drag Me To Hell’ is a god-damn good film, floating in a sea of horror plagued with sunken Hollywood remakes, and it also gives a revitalising kick to the comedy-horror genre.

Christine (Alison Lohman) is told to make the ‘hard’ decisions in her job at the local bank to seal a promotion, and the weathered old gypsy Mrs Ganush (Lorna Raver) is the unfortunate victim of this selfish act of personal greed and capitalism. But, she gets the last scratch (laugh, ruler, bite...) as she places a Lamia curse upon Christine. In three days she will be dragged into the depths of hell by an unspeakable evil force. What follows is a thrilling, edge-of-your-seat, over-the-top, suspense fuelled ride (reminiscent of Sam Raimi’s early Evil Dead films) through ninety-minutes of scary, disgusting and at times quite humorous (anvil, anybody?) scenes that make ‘DMTH’ an enjoyable and impressive film.

Raimi does what he does best, by allowing the surroundings to come to life – the rattling of doors and windows, the use of shadows – he takes a hold of the age old cinematic device of keeping the vision and display of the Lamia at bay and allowing our minds to fill in the blanks. A perfect example is a scene in which Christine is tripped in her own bedroom by the forces beyond. How can you combat, defeat or avoid something if you don’t know what, where or who it is. The tried-and-tested common horror conventions coupled with the slick editing of Bob Murawski (who virtually creates and sustains the menace of the penultimate scene), a solid central performance of Alison Lohman (who now knows the dangers of refusing a loan extension!) and the knowledgeable direction and experience of Sam Raimi makes ‘Drag Me To Hell’ one of the fair few horror films worth the admittance fee.

This film is nothing new, and nothing different. You will notice the subtle nods and homage’s through the humour and disgusting inventiveness of Raimi to the various films of the same veneer in the 1980’s and the early 1990’s, but what makes this film stand-out is that it ticks all the right boxes in audience expectation. It will make you jump, keep you tense, release a giggle and squirm a little, and most importantly: it is fun.

Fighting - Dir. Dito Montiel

2009-05-18T08:13:00.000-07:00

Dito Montiel's film has been advertised as the 'Rocky of our generation', however I do believe they were referring to the fifth film in the Rocky franchise. Predictable, boring, tedious, lifeless are just a few words I could use to describe this film, but I really only need to use one; terrible.

Shawn MacArthur (Channing Tatum) is your typical working-class boy who is taken under the wing of an ageing con-man named Harvey (Terrence Howard) and given the opportunity to make his American dream come true by participating in various back-room bare-knuckle fights. Oh, and the stereotypical love-interest in the form Zulay (Zulay Henao) is also thrown into the mix. Now, despite this description describing various films from the last few years (never mind the last few decades), it contains three huge, jaw-shattering constraints:

1) Despite being named Fighting, the film ironically contains very little fighting or brawling in regards to its hundred-minute running time. And when we do get to see some face-bruising action, the Director seems to get incredibly giddy with the camera and what we are left with is some Paul Greengrass jerkiness that allows you to observe very little especially when the camera is thrown into the heart of the action.

2) Terrence Howard puts a little effort into his character and drags out a performance worthy of a film better than this, however Channing Tatum does not follow his lead. His stony expression and Brando-style mumbling is just plain annoying and unconvincing, yet he is the lead protagonist at the forefront of the film, and his performance drags the film down considerably.

3) Finally, Munic and Montiel's script has about as much weight as a feather and as punch as a fighter out-cold on the mat. We learn little about the characters until late into the film when there life stories seem to just be thrown around quickly to fill various plot-holes. While, the majority of the dialogue is just clichéd and cringe-worthy, most notably a scene at the end of the film that precedes the final fight sequence, which can only be described as hilariously idiotic.

Fighting is crime against cinema. It is a film which gives the audience absolutely nothing, yet takes from them their hard-earned cash in the form of their admittance fee. The only reason I can think why this film was distributed to theatres instead of being a straight-to-DVD affair, is down to the influence of having a star like Terrence Howard in the picture. Don't waste your time or money on this abomination.

In the Loop - Dir. Armando Iannucci

2009-04-19T18:49:00.001-07:00

One of the best political satirical comedies in years! ‘In The Loop’ is a spin-off (kind-of) of the fantastic British comedy ‘The Thick of It’, and follows Simon Foster (Tom Hollander), a Cabinet Minister who makes a series of unfortunate slip-ups, the first is when he tells an interviewer that he believes war (always referred to as the invasion or the war, but never Iraq or potentially Afghanistan) is “unforeseeable” before telling journalists under pressure that you have to conquer a mountain of conflict on the path of peace. These mistakes place him in the middle of a diplomatic mine-field as both, the anti-war constabulary led by General Miller (James Gandolfini) and the Assistant Secretary of Diplomacy Karen Clark (Mimi Kennedy), and the gung-ho supporter of war Linton Barwick (David Rasche) - so crazy he keeps a live grenade as a paperweight - want Simon as a transatlantic partner to support their cause. Should he put his conscience or his political career first? Oh, and throw in hilariously vicious Senior British Press Office Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) and a bumbling Advisor to the minster (Toby played by Chris Addison) and you have one of the best political satires to come from Britain in years.

What makes the film work so well is the incredibly sharp witty script from a collaboration of writers that keeps the gag-per-minute counter ticking. Every meeting, confrontation political mishap is cradled with joke after joke whether they are subtle references to the cynicism and underhandedness in the current (or foregone) political climate or simply one of Malcolm Tucker’s fantastic rants – “I’m going to tear out your shinbone, split it in two and stab you to f**king death with it” - at ineptitude of everybody around him. Every actor and actress involved give solid performances as the flawed members of the tense political world. While Simon’s central story keeps the film on the ground despite a few diplomatic detours (that are still hilarious, even though they take up little of the running of time).

Armando Iannucci has already proven to the British public that he can create entertainment for the TV-masses and ‘In The Loop’ proves he also has the skills to replicate this on a wider, international, big-screen scale as well. It’s intelligent, it’s offensive, and it’s bleeding funny. See this film!

Crank 2: High Voltage - Dir. Neveldine and Taylor

2009-04-19T18:48:00.000-07:00

Jason Statham returns as the indestructible Chev Chelios, first they poisoned his system and now they have taken his strawberry tart (heart), and he will go to every single violent-induced length to get it back. However, despite the film being incredibly outrageous with plenty of violence, nudity and gratuitous swearing on show, the film lacks any of the charm that the first film threw in your face at a ridiculous speed.

Jason Statham pulls his one-sided acting persona of a man on a revenge-trip out of the bag (mind, he has it down to a tee now...) and the supporting cast has very little in the way of dialogue, except for when they are screaming for mercy or aiming various weapons at Statham. Yet the most interesting aspect for me was the way in which Neveldine and Taylor used various hand-held cameras to get ‘into the heart of the action’, which worked at times and created some incredibly interesting action shots, but was let down by the editing, which to me, made the majority of scenes (combined with the soundtrack) seem nothing more than extended music videos (especially with the constant juxtapositioning of parallel shots side-by-side).

‘Crank – High Voltage’ is the epitome of the ‘no-brained action flick’. It seemed as if the directors had decided to see how far they could go after the trivial success of ‘Crank’ and while the film contains every aspect available to get male testosterone pumping, and that’s all the film does. It’s more outrageous than ‘Crank’, but in no way better than the first film.

The Damned United - Dir. Tom Hooper

2009-03-30T17:16:00.000-07:00

Brian Howard Clough. “The greatest English manager never to manage the English National side.” Whether you agree with that sentiment or not, everybody knows Brian Clough was one of the great personalities of the game. Based around David Pearce’s bestselling novel ‘The Damned United’ (which Johnny Giles called: “fiction based on fact”), the films narrative follows the events preceding and during those fateful 44-days of management from the perspective of Cloughie (played by Michael Sheen).

Sheen turns in, yet another brilliant performance as the arrogant, stubborn, distant, bitter, intelligent, yet highly flawed man who went on to become a legend of British football. From his mannerisms to the way he speaks, Sheen projects the outward personality of Brian Clough through to the audience to a tee. And more importantly he takes the film away from the touchlines of simply being ‘another football film’, and instead creates a human drama about one man’s battle with jealously, bitterness and ambition and how that can destroy everything around you, quicker than Billy Bremner could break your legs. While Morgan’s script keeps up the dry wit and humour, and Hooper’s direction carries the colourful scenery of 1960’s and 1970’s Britain, the film could have spent more time centred around the other players on the pitch, more specifically Clough’s second in-command in Peter Taylor and the Leeds United side of the Revie era. They are shown to be Revie’s surrogate sons and nothing more. With that said however, I found it a hugely enjoyable film that went way beyond the stereotypical association we have football films today and instead created a profile of a man who encompassed everything that was good, bad and all that in between about the beautiful game.

Watchmen - Dir. Zack Snyder

2009-03-11T01:18:00.001-07:00

Decades in movie purgatory. Years in production. Months of anticipation. Zack Snyder’s film adaption of the graphic novel ‘Watchmen’, once deemed ‘unfilmable’ by Terry Gilliam, has finally hit theatres across the globe, and its hit them like a sucker-punch to Alan Moore’s groin. With the most important question at the forefront of proceedings being, not who would be watching the Watchmen, but who would enjoy the Watchmen. Would the source material be sacrificed for a larger potential general audience, or would they be alienated due to the faithfulness of the adaption? I myself would say the latter, to an extent...

Zack Snyder’s biggest achievement of the ‘Watchmen’ project has been his ability to replicate Alan Moore’s source material as close-as-humanly possible. He has shown that while the project was clearly not ‘unfilmable’, it was, and always will be impossible to replicate a motion-picture clone of the graphic novel to an idealised reader’s perception of perfection. However this did not stop Snyder from creating a film as faithful to the novel as we are most likely ever to see. It also did not stop him from alienating the potential move-going public outside of the Watchmen universe. The ‘Watchmen’ set in an alternative 1985, follows a group of second-generation (first generation were called the ‘Minutemen’) vigilante’s who prowl the streets to keep society in order, however after the 1977 Keene Act was passed (it prohibited vigilantism), some members decided to retire and ‘live normal lives’, others built empires upon their fame, while the film’s main protagonist (to an extent) Rorschach has decided to disobey the law and continue his acts of vigilantism against the evils in society. However, the group is drawn back together when one of the members known as ‘The Comedian’ is murdered in cold blood. Is someone or something hunting down the masked-avengers? Or is something more sinister afoot? And so the Watchmen experience begins.

The film conveys a linear narrative which in-turn and in due course examines the backgrounds and motivations behind the ‘main’ characters allowing those with no knowledge of the alternative period in which the novel is set to become acquainted, to an extent (which is down to how much the audience is willing to hand the film and receive back), with the new world in-front of them. That is not to say the film is perfectly paced and layered, at times the action is split between two contrasting events which can send the viewer from solemn conversation to vicious, blood and guts violence in a matter of seconds creating a complex structure which may have certain viewers scratching their heads slightly. However, this is one of those inevitable problems that come with trying to reproduce the source material as naturally as possible.

Even the most stubborn admirer of cinema and the world around the medium must recognize the beautifully stylised scenery of the near-apocalyptic society in which the film is set. Pop-culture references abound, the streets lined with disgust, animosity and the raving magnitude of the conflicting personalities of the Watchmen members. While the sets, props and costumes draw you into a world of awe and astonishment, the brutality of the choreographed violence on-screen almost throws the audience off-balance and takes the viewer even closer into a world they may or may not have been familiar with. With the use of slow-motion in the various critical action sequences, Snyder allows the audience to take in every detail of every punch, of every strike and of every grimace of pain. Even those with the iron-clad stomachs may feel the need to turn and shudder as a meat clever is dropped into the suspecting skull of a local criminal. This is the Watchmen after-all, and they don’t do things by half.

This is an alternative, dystopian future and thus deserves characters with such ominous flaws and attributes that would accompany such a rich, illustrated world. The United States of America and the Soviet Union are at the heights of Cold War tension, with doomsday on an ever gloomy horizon, despite the emergence of the one, true superhero among the ranks of the Watchmen members. Doctor Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a blue, shimmering being of infinite power, who can distort the rules of nature i.e. large-scale teleportation and who also single-handedly, won the United States the war in Vietnam (which allowed Nixon a third term in office). Behind the glistening body of Dr Manhattan, you have Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), a billionaire entrepreneur and self-proclaimed ‘smartest man in the world’, who is one of the few Watchmen members to release their identity after the Keene Act and build an empire upon this image. The sexy ‘Silk Spectre II’ (also known as Laurie Jupiter) is portrayed by Malin Ackerman, the latex-costumed female of the group who took over from her mother who was in the first generation ‘Minutemen’ (Sally Jupiter played by Carla Gugino) and despite her relatively large role in the sub-plot with ‘Nite Owl II/Dan Dreiberg’ (Patrick Wilson), her performance at many times falls flat emotionally and she is weakest character in film full of strong, male performances. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is ‘The Comedian’, a twisted individual murdered at the beginning of the film, a man with a mutated conscience and morals who strives on the ability to get a job done at any cost. While Patrick Wilson as the second ‘Nite Owl’ and Jackie Earle Haley as ‘Rorschach’ give the most vivid performances as two complex characters, one a man fighting to find his identity beyond his persona as a crime-fighting vigilante dressed as an Owl and another without an identity, a hollow-shell of a human being who has lost faith in humanity and the emotions and logical conventions which make us human beings. ‘Rorschach’ is the closest towards a protagonist we are shown in the film and the graphic novel, because in this mutilated society, there are no heroes left.

After watching the ‘Watchmen’ film I was left with a profound sense of enjoyment and satisfaction. Of course this wasn’t perfection in the art film-making, the film had its visible flaws which is inevitable for any film of such a large-scale magnitude, however these were unnoticeable when I was drawn into the story, the lives of the characters on-screen. I had only previously read about the characters and their motivations in the dystopian world in which the Watchmen film is set, but to see them alive in such a visual spectacle, roaming, fighting, embracing, engaging, was nothing short of a joy to watch. And for those that have not read the graphic novel, and have reservations about seeing and ultimately being able to ‘understand’ and take pleasure in Alan Moore’s Watchmen universe in two hours and forty minutes, I say this; just give the film a chance, and I guarantee you will enjoy it in one aspect or another at least, because today a Comedian died...

Slumdog Millionaire - Dir. Danny Boyle

2008-12-26T17:20:00.000-08:00

“If you get the answer wrong Jamal, you lose everything.”

Danny Boyle is back behind the camera with a change of scenery and a story of one slumdog's rise from nothing to something in the blink of an eye on the Hindi version of 'Who Wants To Be Millionaire'. Nobody believes what is happening, not the presenter, nor the police, however as Jamal Malik continues to defy convention by getting question after question right, we are not only watching a potential millionaire in the works, but are also thrown into the distant journey of his past. With one question separating Jamal from an astounding 20 million rupees, one question remains; why is Jamal really on the show?

‘Slumdog Millionaire’ is a story of love, life, family, poverty and ultimately one man’s rise from the foundations of dirt to the creation of gold through life itself. In a world where wealth can be won in an instant, it is only those who strive for the inspiration and delve into their own determined mind that can achieve this, which Jamal is, an underdog. And we all know how much we love to connect-to and adopt an underdog no matter whom, why or where he or she is.

From the first scenes where we see Jamal being tortured in the Police Station as he is held in the same contempt as a common thief to the final suspense fuelled moment, Danny Boyle manages to tug on every heart string available to viewer all at a swift pace. From heart-warming entertaining scenes, such as when Jamal and his brother Salim pretend to be Taj Mahal tour guides to the foreign tourists, we are juggernauted and catapulted into the emotional opposite with Jamal constantly fighting the demons keeping him apart from the only girl that brings to a smile away. It is this constant emotional battle that keeps our eyes open and our mind ticking. Why? Because we simply want to know how Jamal got there and where he is now headed.

Danny Boyle is almost flawless in his melodramatic direction of ‘Slumdog’; he allows the film to build without ever dragging out a section of the film to the point where you wish Jamal would stop ‘reminiscing’. However I mustn’t overlook the other technical and stylistic aspects which allowed this film to flourish, most importantly Anthony Mandle’s beautiful cinematography of the various contrasting lands of India and Chris Dickens smoothly worked editing guarantee that the brilliantly written script from Simon Beaufoy flows effortlessly into creating a wonderful modern fairytale that will by the end make you laugh, smile or cry, or all three.

When I first heard Danny Boyle, the director of Trainspotting, 28 Days Later and Sunshine among others, was attached to direct a Romantic Drama set within the deep confines of Indian culture and society, I laughed. However it’s Boyle who is having the last laugh, as he has created a chilling, yet warm, frightening, yet uplifting film that touches upon pretty much every human emotional response available, but will definitely leave you exiting the cinema with one feeling fresh in your mind and your gut; that you have seen something special.

Waltz With Bashir - Ari Folman (2008)

2008-11-28T07:34:00.000-08:00

It's rare that I usually leave the cinema speechless, before engaging in hours (literally) of discussion with those around me, but 'Waltz With Bashir' is no ordinary film for no ordinary audience. Emotionally enthralling, yet uneasily shocking, 'Bashir' follows director Ari Folman as he visits various friends and foes trying to rekindle the memories he has forgotten of the Israeli-Lebanon War in 1982. Shot in memorizing animated visuals, it is a thought-provoking ride through the rediscovery of one man's forgotten nightmares.

From the opening surrealist shot of twenty-six dogs rabidly racing down the Tel Aviv streets towards the 'dreamers' (Ari's friend) home, to the ending where the animation is sacrificed for a few short minutes to show the real, unaltered horrors of the Sabra and Shatila massacre from news reels and archive footage. Surrealism is constantly mixed with the truth, making you wonder, what did Ari really want to find out and to what end? Is this all he and those remembered, or what there memories would allow them to keep encapsulated.

A frighteningly stark look at a young soldiers life, and how war can effect everybody involved, not just those remembered as a statistic on a board of casualties. As we delve further into his regained memories, we are made to wonder, is this journey exercising his demons, or simply just reigniting them? With the stunning visuals keeping you emotionally at arms length, detracting you from the events, before quickly dragging you back in with a horrifically haunting ending.

'Waltz With Bashir' is compelling, thought-provoking viewing.

Quantum of Solace - Marc Forster (2008)

2008-11-02T12:17:00.000-08:00

The problem with 'Quantum of Solace' was always the expectation the fantastic series re-boot 'Casino Royale' bestowed upon the Bond faction, however if you manage to avoid trying to place both films side-by-side, then you'll enjoy 'QoS' a lot more for what it is, a decent romp of an action-flick that deserves to be in any Bond aficionados collection.

'QoS' continues literally straight on from the end of 'Casino Royale' as Bond is on a mission for vengeance, and we are thrust straight into the action from the very beginning with a stunning car chase, the pace is set. From then on, we follow Bond across the globe as he jumps from country to country trying to find out just what the 'organisation' is and what they're up to while managing to destroy everything in his past(oh and there's a little residing hatred from the death of Vesper).

Daniel Craig and Olga Kurylenko both deliver strong performances as two characters drawn together over the notion of retribution and Mathieu Amalric is surprisingly chilling as the humanised antagonist in a universe usually populated by the slightly exuberant villain. And with a smart script to-boot, one of 'QoS' strongest area's is also it's weakest. While the high octane action is fast, violent and frenetic, it is also incredibly disjointed by Forster's use of quick editing and his inability to judge what shots create thrill-seeking enjoyment and others that just cause confusion in the way that you don't know what you've just seen.

With all being said, I enjoyed 'Quantum of Solace', it was a decent action flick that ticked most of the conceptual boxes on what a Bond film should contain.

Saw 5 - Dir, David Hackl (2008)

2008-10-24T18:25:00.001-07:00

'Saw 5' is one of those films, that after leaving the cinema you eventually recite inevitable phrase of; "why did we go see that?"

What once was a guilty pleasure for me, has quickly turned into a tedious and quite boring chore. The story yet again carries on from the previous film as Hoffman continues his ‘ingenious’ continuation of Jigsaw’s work, while a hotshot agent beats the trap and sets out to hunt him and anyone else who maybe a fan of that or-so loveable character Jigsaw.

Despite being slightly more coherent than the previous two outings, almost half of ‘Saw 5’is told via flashbacks and when there isn’t one, we are simply being plied with buckets full of raspberry syrup and mundane traps which Jigsaw himself would laugh at if he ever saw them. That coupled with acting to rival a plank of wood at the ‘Woodies’, and you’ve got yourself a pretty idiotic hour and thirty minutes that doesn’t shock nor entertain.

What made the ‘Saw’ franchise, most notably the first, most enjoyable for myself was the ingenuity in which Jigsaw operated, however with nothing remotely interesting or enjoyable comes from this film, exact that we can all hope that it finally does now end here!

Jumper - Doug Liman (2008)

2008-03-12T08:37:00.000-07:00

I find a certain sense of irony in that, despite 'Jumper' focusing on the exploits of a boy being able to teleport, the film itself doesn't actually go anywhere and if anything, felt like an overblown 90-minute trailer for a sequel coming to a screen near you (depending on Box Office results of course...).

David Rice (Hayden Christensen), believes he's a normal boy, who get's on with trials and tribulations of modern teenage life in his own manner, until a tragic accident allows him to realise he has the ability to 'teleport' himself anywhere he can visualize in the world. Cue, over-blown, CGI-laden, scenes involving David jumping to various famous spots around the world; most notably enjoying the cool, summer-breeze on top of the pyramids in Egypt. Which are to say, impressive visuals at times.

However beauty doesn't account for everything. From there on we are introduced to Samuel L Jackson (Roland), an important member of the Paladins, a society of members gauged around stopping and killing any and every 'jumper' they come across. However little is released about the on-going 'war' between the Jumpers and the Paladins and leaves many questions open to the viewers ambiguity; mainly when did they start this witch-hunt and most importantly why? While the romantic sub-plot between David and Millie (Rachel Bilson), never really gets moving despite taking up a large part of the film itself, especially since there is more spark and electricity in a plank of wood than their relationship.

And to top the shambolic nature of the narrative (or lack of), a script that had been adapted, changed, marooned and mutilated that many times away from it's original source, that the final result is an incredibly dumb-down script containing a mighty amount cliché’s you except in any film today with a budget primarily focused on visual entertainment.

Jumper, had an interesting premise, and initially promise, however the film lacks any narrative drive, is poorly written and contains very little character development, but what can you except from just over a measly eighty-minutes of film? Jumper is nothing more than an extended trailer, for the inevitable Jumper 2.

No Country For Old Men - Ethan/Joel Coen (2008)

2008-02-24T07:22:00.000-08:00

A brutal eclipse of modern-day crime-thrillers, Ethan and Joel Coens 'No Country For Old Men' paints a disturbingly violent and beautiful image of the developing slippery slope in which society is slowly falling down.

Starting with visually stunning shots of the baron landscape which becomes a staple of the whole film, the Coen's quickly and vividly materialize 'No Country For Old Men' into one of the most tense and suspenseful films of the last ten years. It quickly advances into a vicious chase across Texas as the deviously psychotic hired-hand in Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) attempts to track down Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a back-ward country boy who happened to stumble upon a Mexican drug deal gone bad and help himself to the $2.4million left in the dying hands of the ‘last hombre standing’, which sets into motion a series of unstoppable and deadly events of which gives ageing Sherriff Tom Ed Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) a chance to reflect upon what he's doing and who in today's modern world, he's facing.

From the moment Tommy Lee Jones mutters "I've been a Sherriff of this town for twenty-five years" to his final profound epilogue at the end of the film, the acting throughout is sustained at a very high rate. Javier Bardem in particular, is fantastic as the psychotic, no-nonsense, pure incarnation of evil; hired-hitman Anton Chigurh (however he does have principles in a very funny sort of way...). Every time Bardem is on-screen, his presence radiates throughout the whole film as you know that death is just around corner, while Brolin plays his counter-part to-a-tee, a fearless redneck living out in the desert sands of Texan outback, who is willing to fight Chigurh and the Mexicans to the last-strands of death for the drug money, and is willing to put his wife, the delectable Kelly MacDonald, in the firing line of those around him too.

Roger Deakins beautiful cinematography, of the baron wasteland which all the events of the film are laid out, supports Cormac McCarthy's adapted novel brilliantly. The Coen's decision to adapt the novel, with little-to-no tinkering allowed the full beauty of such a deep and thought-fuelled novel to come to life in only the way in which Ethan and Joel Coen could. In an age of CGI and 'green scenes', it's nice to see such an articulated film that ticks every single box for the basic fundamentals of film-making and in such a thought-provoking way too. 'No Country' throws you in at the moral and ethical deep-end and with no back-story, asks you to make a decision, and it’s the Coens finest film to date.

Juno - Dir. Jason Reitman (2008)

2008-02-04T16:22:00.000-08:00

Jason Reitman's follow-up to 'Thank You For Smoking' is an intelligent, heart-warming, wingnut of a comedy that makes you appreciate the in-your-face and intimate cinematic occasion it lays before you.

Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) finds that boredom only leads to one avenue; sex. And when she ends up pregnant, with the father being close-friend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera), she must dig deep within herself to not only mature over-night, but find adoptive parents for her soon to-be-delivered baby. Following Juno through various stumbling block's in her rocky road of mother-hood, one which see's Juno decide whether or not to get an abortion while her school-friend Su-Chin pickets the clinic outside ("All babies deserve to be borned" she shouts as a one woman army), is awkwardly satisfying and ultimately funny for the on-edge viewer.

Ellen Page is a revelation as the book-smart, quick-tongued teenager facing adversity in the face with her impending pregnancy, and gives a performance that will either have you spilling your guts with laughter, or filling the aisles with tears - or even both. While Michael Cera (Paulie), J.K. Simmons (Mac MacGuff), Olivia Thirlby (Leah) and Jason Bateman (Mark Loring) provide adequate emotional back-up, making you genuinely feel in the heart of all their relationship's with Juno, especially Cera and Simmons. The only weak link, in a very strong chain is Jennifer Gardner as Vanessa Loring, who you never engage with her character till the penultimate scene of the film, when it's too late anyway.

One aspect which contributes drastically to Juno's success, and would be a cardinal sin to overlook, is debutant screenwriter Diablo Cody's script, which is full from the beginning to the end with engaging, entertaining and down-right witty dialogue. She creates Juno, a pretentious, naive teenager who over-time matures into an exciting and nurtured human being, while keeping her traits which we at the same time keeping the hilarious and charming moments ticking over. Despite a conventional ending which follows the genre like salt on chips, it's the chunky and delightful middle that keeps the film running and the audience happy.

Hilarious. Heart-warming. Enjoyable. Engaging. Cute. Interesting. Hip. You'll leave the cinema when it ends with a smile from ear-to-ear knowing you've just seen something special (and it wasn't the attractive young eighteen-year old girl bending down in-front). Now where did I leave my Hamburger phone...?

Aliens Vs. Predator: Requiem - Dir. Brothers Strause (2007)

2008-02-04T14:55:00.000-08:00

Feeling more like 'Alien and Predator vs Typical Teenage America', this life-less action-adventure film involving two past-it Sci-Fi characters is nothing less than a dreadfully clichéd waste-of-money sequel. With a particularly heavy emphasis on the word 'clichéd'.

Instead of a 'hive' (or general nest of alien anarchy) being found by unsuspecting explorers, this time around it is the unlucky residents of Gunnison, Colorado who unfortunately find there lives turned up-side down by an infestation of Aliens and one really, really dedicated Predator who seems to be . The film's only fan, one would assume.

What follows is scene-upon-scene of human slaughtering awfulness, as the typical American Teen Boy (Johnny Lewis), gets smitten with the typical American Teen Girl (Kristen Hager), while the clichéd reformed criminal (Steven Pasquale), helps the inept Sherriff (John Ortiz) who intern ends up getting many, many people killed in a very unsatisfying way...For the viewer that is, as keeping track of what's happening will make you wish, you were there and right in the middle of Alien nest.

With a life-less, unbelievably idiotic script constantly is setting the 'AVP' ship astray ("Everybody's dead. We need guns." - Surely a line, one of many, worthy of a mention), the film's last life-line comes in the form of D-List actors who offer nothing more than laughable acting, something which I expect in 'Asylum' films, but not a 20th Century Fox production.

Finally when the credits rolled, I felt disturbed and violated for the fact that I'd just paid to see this god-awful car-crash of a so-called 'action-adventure film'. If the Brothers Strause removed the life-less acting and replace the stereotypical characters with a crate full of Aliens and Predators and let the blood flow, they may have saved this from being one of the worst films of 2008 already...

The Simpsons - Dir. David Silverman (2007)

2007-07-27T17:09:00.000-07:00

A monumental eighteen years in the making. Eleven talented and critically acclaimed writers at there disposal. A cast of thousands. And 'The Simpsons Movie' lives up to everything it promised. One of the most intelligently-stupid, well-written eighty-seven minutes of animation created in the last decade. From the Tracey Ullman Show to the Big Screen, the 'Simpsons Movie' was definitely worth waiting for.

The plot and story are as simple as ever, allowing the jokes and slapstick-humour too take centre-stage throughout. After Homer becomes romantically involved with a Pig and intentionally pollutes the Springfield River, the small-American town is placed under 'quarantine' and the family is nearly lynched, however they manage to hilariously escape as Homer evades making an 'apology' (inverted comma's are necessary!) and set-up-base in Alaska (the good ol' American city where every resident gets a thousand dollars as the oil companies ravage the land), however it's not long before the family miss their beloved Springfield and must make a decision to return home and attempt to save their hometown or stay daunting-quiet Alaskan mountains. In between all this cra-diddly-azyness, Lisa acquires a boyfriend, Bart befriends Ned Flanders and Maggie seems to show a side which says to me; 'all babies are crazy, cartoon or real'.

What follows is gag-after-brilliantly-written gag, with adulterous and political innuendoes/humour (in the opening scene as a 'Itchy and Scratchy' movie plays a 'Itchy/Hilary 2008' sign can be seen held by one of the 'Itchy supporters') for the older generation and the good ol' slapstick stupidity of Homer for everybody else (including the older generation). Every character seemed to have it's pulls, and apart from the notable mention of the Simpson family themselves, President Schwarzenegger, Cletus (the slackjaw yokel), and the 'big-boobed Indian spiritual guide', among many others backed up that 'crazy-yellow-family' very well. This film is nothing more than good, well-written fun supplemented with brilliant visuals making an episode of the 'Simpsons' on a normal, in-the-home television seem boring, bland and well, so 1999.

While the opening twenty minutes of the film, seemed to worse than one of 'President Schwarzenegger’s' poorly thought-through political decisions, with the script and jokes seemingly floating around everywhere in a dis-combobulated mess. Yet the following hour seems to make up for it, with the awkward nakedness of Bart, and the proclaiming 'I love men' from the ridiculous, yet utterly hilarious Ralph, drawing the biggest laugh and subsequently leading to me nearing a heart attack, as I could not simply stop laughing throughout. A part the sub-plot involving Lisa and her Irish boyfriend, who's did 'is not Bono'. The scenes simply lacked any humour as Lisa was always the smart, intelligent and politically/socially motivated character who simply set up scenes and was used as a catalyst for the main attraction of Bart and Homers ingenious stupidity (always leading to some hilarious slapstick moment).

The effort that has gone into this film is easy to see, eleven writers have worked flat-out to create a script full of laughs, tickles and tales which will last the running time equal to the length of three or four back-to-back Simpsons episodes. It's witty, crazy, ridiculous and down-right utterly hilarious. I honestly, could not stop laughing.

By Jordan

Transformers - Dir. Michael Bay (2007)

2007-07-21T07:01:00.001-07:00

While the acting is lifeless and the script is stale, the real gem in this movie is in Michael Bay's way in which he can magically orchestrate the use of CGI into a visually stunning and mesmerizing spectacle bringing out the small child wriggling inside every adult that goes to see Bay's overblown, massive and hugely lucrative blockbuster 'Transformers'.

'Transformers' is every young boy and young man's dream (or wet dream in some cases) as the film focuses on the generic line of aliens crash landing on Earth and doing battle in the heart of America with the obligatory interference from the US Military and all their gadgets at there disposal. Based on the television series and the popular Hasbro line of toys, 'Transformers' see's the good 'Autobots' and evil 'Decepticons' face off against each other, while Shia LeBeouf (Sam Witwicky), one of the most sought after actors on the Hollywood circuit at the moment, try's to impress local bad-girl Mikaela (Megan Fox) with his beaten-down '76 Chevy Camero which mysteriously changes into a robot during the night to make contact with other UFO's via laser beam.

While Sam stumbles around trying to impress Mikaela, with his Camero not helping playing the right song at the right time with "Baby Come Back by Player" being played as Mikaela leaves the car after it stalls, he is also caught in the middle of the largest robotic battle on Earth, with all the planet's hopes being placed in his small nerdy hands. However the relationship falters, as there is little passion or connection in the relationship between the two seemingly distant characters who seem to have the emotional connection of a recently divorced couple until the final scene, where a minimal connection can be seen and believed between the character's, a good two hours too late.

Meanwhile, in the Middle Eastern country Qatar, American soldiers (Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson) come under attack by an robot which transforms from a Military helicopter into one mean and vicious piece of steel, that destroys anything in it's path while trying to steal 'classified' files from the computers of the United States Department of Defence, leading to the Secretary of Defence John Keller (Jon Voight) calling a press conference and all the available technology and analysts at his fingertips. Like Josh Duhamel (Captain Lennox), Bay fails to bring Voight to life at all, however some may see this as making an even more believable politician in the age of deceit and deception. However the script also leaves little lee-way for the actors themselves, as it's as simple and streamlined as possible, showing that the action takes centre stage over everybody else.

Sam's connection to the robots, is due to discovery one of his ancestors made and piece of his memorabilia he has in his care, which the 'Decepticons' (or evil robots) will need to find the 'All Spark' or the big-energy-cube that would the universe go, with quite a loud bang, kaboom! Sam's '76 Camero is one of the good guys, an 'Autobot' known as Bumblebee who along with the 'Autobot' leader Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen) have taken base on Earth to stop Megatron leader of the 'Decepticons' and his cronies from destroying Earth with a fair bit of opposition in the way.

Unlike Michael Bay's earlier films ('Armageddon'), there's a subtle political undertone running through out this film sometimes making it feel like a George Bush speech circa 2001, with both Russia and China originally being blamed for the attack on the US, providing speculation the Cold War is still alive and the heroic portrayal of the United States Air Force, and their help and patriotic nature in the fight, making it look more like a video for 'Uncle Sam And Iraq 2007' rather than a fight between alien forces and man, something which Bay touches upon in the majority of his films, something tells me he's quite proud to be an America.

Everybody viewing the film knows the actors are just 'extras' in a hugely spectacular and stunning CGI-mad mega-fight between large, intimidating robots in a live-or-die affair to save the fate of the universe and while the acting and script, which were never Michael Bay's strong points detracted from the film, nothing could stop me from grinning from ear to ear like a little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie-jar as the stunning final fight sequence took place and my enjoy-o-meter exploded.

By Jordan

Hostel: Part II - Dir. Eli Roth (2007)

2007-07-21T06:57:00.000-07:00

After Eli Roth's successful 'shock-horror' film 'Hostel', a rolling sequel was inevitable in today's 'franchised' Hollywood, however in 'Hostel 2' all the nastiness and aggression is substituted for out-of-time and disturbingly pathetic 'slapstick comedy-horror' leaving nothing more than a blank canvas splashed with bucket-loads of blood and prosthetic body parts.

Roth's aim with both 'Hostel' and 'Hostel 2' was to push the boundaries of exploitative cinema, however the seemingly one-sided characters and incredibly wooden acting coupled with a repetitive plot and a lingering sense of deja vu that 'didn't I see this film last year and it was called Hostel?'. The sense of deja vu comes from the fact that 'Hostel Part 2' is basically a re-release of 'Part 1', but with three girls (Lauren German, Bijou Phillips, and Heather Matarazzo) as the lead characters as they are in Europe studying art and relaxing. Cue, the trusting, yet deviously psychopathic friend (the beautiful Vera Jordanova) to whisk the girls away to beautiful Slovakia, the gruesome hunting grounds of the cold torturers that await. While the film does intertwine the hunted (Lauren German, Bijou Phillips, and Heather Matarazzo) with the hunters (Richard Burgi, Roger Bart), trying to add a new dimension to the characters and installing a sense of humanity in the soul-less sadists, the little time spent with the characters shows little to the viewer a part from the 'dominator and submissive' approach between the two men.

While Roth's approach to the 'snuff' and 'violent' aspect of the film, most notably the biggest selling point of the 'Hostel' series, I found myself disturbingly...bored, than anything else with Roth trying to force and create shock, which is seen in a seemingly pointless scene which involves the death of a child, the death itself isn't shown, but for a film like Hostel, trying to force viewers to use there imaginations to involve themselves and create an emotional and shocking connection, when the main focal point of the film is to drive home into the retina's the horror, pain and sadist nature of the tortured and torturers. In comparison to many films released this year; e.g. 'Captivity' starring Elisha Cuthbert, the sadomasochistic violence and misogynistic approach compiles and parades nothing new, as 'snuff' or extreme, unbridled violence and suffering is almost mandatory for most 'horror' films wishing to gain an edge above there competitors by exploiting the exploitation of violence. However there was one scene, which would make most men wince, yet that couldn't make up for a lacklustre second effort from Roth.

The rest of the film itself had nothing special about it, a mediocre score added nothing to the suspense or disturbing nature of the film, the 'look' into the 'Hunting Club' itself was short and annoying as it gave little away we already knew and the opening scene itself, seems it was just added by Roth to bump the running time by an extra five minutes. The worst bit of brutality in 'Hostel 2'? The treacherous and severely painful ninety-three minutes running time. Let's just be glad, Eli Roth's agreed not to do a third.

By Jordan

Hot Fuzz - Dir. Edgar Wright (2007)

2007-07-20T04:48:00.001-07:00

With the Critical acclaim the film 'Shaun Of The Dead' arose, the team (consisting of Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Edgar Wright among other countless stars) are back with there new film 'Hot Fuzz'. And this time...they have BIGGER GUNS! 'Shaun Of The Dead' saw British comedy placed back on the Film-o-pedic map with a Zombielicious bang (and a little biting)! And it was going to take a lot for the team behind this Rom-Zom-Com to rival this beautiful piece of British film-making, however with spending countless hours behind the scenes watching 'Bad Boys 2' and 'Point Break' over and over again, Edgar Wright and the boys have done it. 'Hot Fuzz' is a roller-coaster ride of witty jokes, violence and a seasoning of sexual innuendo all rolled into one fantastic film that'll keep you hooked for the whole two hours.

Sergeant Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is a top Cop in the Metropolitan Police Force, err I mean Police Service in the heart of London, however his expertise in every available area ranging from hand-to-hand combat to high-speed pursuits and his perfect arrest figures are making everybody else in the MET look bad! So to curb the embarrassment, the Force ship him off to normal ol' Sandford where nothing out of the ordinary ever happens, however Angel along with his partner PC Danny Butterman (Nick Frost) start to notice that something eerie's going on when everything seems to be a simple, ol' accident! This leads Angel and Butterman down a path of guns, explosions and mind-excessive-Hollywood-style violence till they reach the truth.

The cast is full of famous faces, from Jim Broadbent, to Bill Bailey, to the 'forgotten Bond' Timothy Dalton. And while there's an extensive list of characters, each has there own quirky feature that makes them stand out in a distinctive and varied cast. However it's the witty and hilarious script written by Pegg and Wright that carries this film. There's miniature jokes everywhere that'll take you a second viewing to just notice half of them and the many references to the action genre (from the Bad Boys 2, to Point Break, to Dirty Harry), like 'Shaun Of The Dead' Wright and Pegg have written a script to accommodate for all the characters personalities and in-particular the miss-match partnership of bumbling PC Daniel Butterman and the courageous Sergeant Nicholas Angel.

Hot Fuzz is a non-stop thrill ride of blue and while aggression, and while the jokes may thin out at times due to the two hour running time, you'll be hooked from start to finish with the over-the-top Hollywood style violence mixed with the hilariously addictive humour of Wright, Pegg and Frost. A must see film that'll make you want to scream at the top of your voice every time you see a Police car 'HERE COMES THE FUZZ' before running away like a little girl.

By Jordan

The Departed - Dir. Martin Scorsese (2006)

2007-07-20T04:47:00.000-07:00

The Departed (2006) "You've accused me of being a rat twice now, and if you do it again I swear I'll put a god-damn f*cking bullet in your head no matter who you are." Martin Scorsese is quite possibly the greatest director of the 'crime drama' or 'gangster' films that Hollywood has ever produced. Gangs of New York, Casino and Goodfellas, just to name a few of the excellent films he has directed and 'The Departed' is no different. Superbly written, brilliantly acted and a flowing story that is mesmerising. Typical Scorsese some will say.

Leonardo Di Caprio (Billy Costigan) and Matt Damon (Colin Sullivan), find themselves on the other side of the fence as one infiltrates the Boston State Police and the other the Irish Mafia, but as the discovery of 'rats' within both organisations arises, everybody becomes a suspect, especially those that are guilty. While Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) and Oliver Queenan (Martin Sheen) play the men at war from the different sides of the law.

First off the bat, William Monahan's writing is next to nothing, but brilliance. The slick dialogue combined with Scorsese's stylistic direction makes this film what it is. From the aggressive nature of Detective Dignam (Wahlberg) to the father-like, old-school Police Commissioner Oliver Queenan (Martin Sheen), Monahan has the dialogue down to a tee, while Scorsese's introduction of simple cinematography allows the other techniques to take centre stage. Scorsese uses lightning particularly well in 'Departed', just like in Casino, as the darkness represents the unknown, danger, the aggression, the light shows reality in its bleakest form. Every piece of music in the film, also compliments the film very well such as 'Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb' being played lightly over a scene that contains both sex and adultery.

However the real brilliance is in the cast, Nicholson, Sheen, Di Caprio, Wahlberg, Damon, Baldwin, Winstone and Dalton and nobody let's the film down. Leonardo Di Caprio (William Costigan) is particularly stunning playing a tough-guy gangster that must hide his past or face the darkest of punishments, death. Matt Damon (Colin Sullivan), on the other hand is less convincing than Leonardo Di Caprio, but his performance still doesn't let up, as his role switches quite instantly from the 'collaring-result-delivering protagonist' to the bad-guy mob man on the inside. While Martin Sheen (Queenan) and Mark Wahlberg (Detective Dignam) play there supporting roles, countering-acting 'good-cop bad-cop' exceptionally well. Nicholson (Frank Costello) played the role of the tough-guy gangster quite well, but his character was missing substance and felt a bit two-dimensional, but apart from that, the acting, just like the cast, was superb.

Scorsese is quite simply the master of the Gangster genre and while some may say 'it's been done before' it feels so fresh and new to a period of cinema full of horror, thriller and romantic comedies. If this film does not get nominated for an Oscar, Leonardo Di Caprio should be instead for his best role since 'The Aviator' (which was directed by Martin Scorsese as well.) If you're a Scorsese fan you will love all two hours and thirty-six minutes of this. If your not, you will still very much enjoy it.

By Jordan

Children Of Men - Dir. Alfonso Cuarón (2006)

2007-07-20T04:46:00.002-07:00

I had high hopes going into a screening of this film after seeing the trailer on the television and I wasn't disappointed.

The story is simple, the scenery is beautiful and the direction is executed perfectly.

The whole world has gone infertile and mankind is on the brink of extinction, but one lone pregnant woman holds the key to the world's problem, in her young belly. 'Theo' (Clive Owen) is dragged into the 'mission' by his ex-wife Julianne Moore and must battle enemies from both sides of the fence if 'Kee' (Claire-Hope Ashitey) is to give birth to the first child in 18 years.

Alfonso Cuarón directs this film beautifully, at times it felt as if I was watching the cinematic beauty of nature evolve from heaven to the hellish land of industrialism as every detail, angle and shot was done down to a tee. Instead of opting for a 'Hollywood' stance or trying something new/inventive, Cuarón uses the surroundings and the people he works with instead to the visual beauty of a film which must be an Oscar contender. He also created a beautiful, yet believable futuristic vision of the world marred by immigration problems and more enclosed-topia than utopia.

Clive Owen has given the Oscar selectors a little prod in the back with a magnificent performance in this film, he plays 'Theo', a depressed worker of society who is horrified by the violence he witnesses day and day out, yet his character transforms throughout the film leading to a newer, more refreshed 'Theo' who has taken over from Julianne Moore (Julian) as the lead protagonist in the film. He is also backed up with some superb supporting acting from Julianne Moore (Julian), Michael Caine (Jasper) as the laid-back futuristic 'hippy' of the modern world and Claire-Hope Ashitey (Kee), a young actress who has taken to such a large role with so much professionalism and enthusiasm that you think she'd been acting for years.

The film itself contains a large amount of action and aggression as it shows the repression of immigrants looking for new life in Britain and the way the masses are dealt with reminds the viewer of totalitarian regimes such as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, however the action is portrayed brilliant, at times with just the sound of rapid gun fire in the background to intimidate and give the viewer a sense and perspective of the location in which the characters currently stand. The 'Coup D'Etat' scene shows the masses rising up against the elitist minority and gives the viewer a large sense of satisfaction; however this is culled quite quickly with the bleak and up-close killing taking place of those who are both guilty and innocent.

I went into this film with high expectations and came out wondering what would challenge it for the 'Best Oscar' gong next year. Alfonso Cuaron's directing is hard-hitting, beautiful, bleak and brilliant. Clive Owen steals the show with his emotional rise to the protagonist of the world and the supporting actors just build upon his performance and the film as a whole.

Definitely one of the films of 2006.

By Jordan

The Da Vinci Code - Dir. Ron Howard (2006)

2007-07-20T04:46:00.001-07:00

I'd only read around 1/3 of Dan Brown's the Vinci Code, before going to see this film, however I was sat with people who had read the book and bar one scene when Silas should've used a candlestick instead of a book/religious trophy, the film was very close to the book, but that doesn't mean it'll be a great film. The film is just full of dull "oh my god it's/that/he/she/they..." type moments, but Howard doesn't embrace that. Instead he makes them dull, better Cinematography could've made a lot of the scenes in the film better instead of boring and mind-numbingly boring. Ron Howard (Apollo 13), is a great director that knows how to exploit the audience for the reactions he wants, however this is quite hard when the suspense and tension dies down before the final 'clue' has been given to Langdon.

Tom Hanks (Langdon) and Tattou (Neveu) had no 'chemistry' what-so-ever, whether or not Ron intended to create 'passion' between Tattou and Hanks, who knows, because the scenes between the two characters look like a half-hearted job at romantic sequence with neither actor caring, nothing is there and it's clear as hell. On top of this you had a stale, yet highly amusing performance from Sir Ian McKellen. It felt at times he was lecturing the audience on the history of the times rather than carrying on the story and with the plot already all over the place, this wasn't needed. The only actor which I enjoyed in the film was Paul Bettany as the religious Opus Dei monk Silas. He fit the psychotic, yet lonely role of lost man perfectly. Jean Reno was same ol', same ol' as yet another detective. Nothing new.

The ending of the film dragged on, was hugely predictable and failed in so many ways that it killed my enjoyment of the film and ultimately was an important factor to why I gave it such a mediocre score. The 'key' scenes were impeded by stone-cold acting that didn't help such a predictable and clichéd script. I hadn't even read the book yet at one point I was able to recreate the script before Hanks had even spoken a word. Following on from this, no tension or suspense, it probably will leave many in a confused state of "oh so that was the twist." It was met with a cold silence as it was forwarded to the audience so poorly, Hanks and Tattou didn't connect on any level needed for such an ending and it was something that could've been covered in 10mins and better.

All in all, from somebody that hadn't read the novel all the way through, I thought it was a mediocre film at best. Remove Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, Audrey Tattou, Jean Reno, Sir Ian McKellen and re-shoot the ending, then you'll have a slightly better film. See Brick instead, it's a lot better film that cost nowhere near what Howard spent (and I'm honestly wondering where the $160 million went?).

By Jordan

Munich - Dir. Steven Spielberg (2005)

2007-07-20T04:44:00.000-07:00

"The darkest day in Olympic history, September 5th, 1972." The film is obviously about the '1972 Massacre'. For anybody who hasn't heard about this event, during the 1972 Olympics in Germany, 8 Palestinian 'Black September' members climbed into the Olympic Village before taking hostage, and eventually killing 11 Israeli athletes.

While the film centres more on the Israeli retaliation, where they hired groups to remove individuals thought to have masterminded Munich. Avner (Eric Bana) an Israeli Mossad Officer and four other men (including Daniel Craig and Ciaran Hinds) are hired to travel around Europe and 'take out' Black September members and sympathisers who may have helped plan the attack. Until eventually the hunters become the hunted.

I had mixed views before I was going to see this, because instantly I thought. Spielberg is Jewish, this film centres around Israeli/Palestinian relations, obviously it will be biased in some way or another, but I was dually surprised to find this film not taking any sides to an extreme point, just relaying the hard facts on top of an underlying deep moral message.

The opening sequence is typical Spielberg, a quick violently sequence showing you the horror of Munich and the hell the Israeli's viewed. Setting a harrowing tone for the rest of the film. While the ending is a confusing mixture of the events and a strong emotional period.

Eric Bana was a brilliant choice for the leading role. He projects his emotion into the audience as he struggles with the guilt of murder and the fact he has been turned from a father of a newborn child into a relentless perfectionist killing machine. Ciaran Hinds is also great as the emotionless 'cleaner' until the pressure of the job clearly gets through to him and his true colours are shown.

Credit also has to go to the Scriptwriting team of Tony Kushner and Eric Roth. A slick and thoughtful screenplay which gives the film an extra leg to stand on. While the most notable scenes are the ones involving the assassination attempts as perfectionism is trying to be achieved.

One thing that got to me was the running time. This film runs for around 2hrs 33mins and could've easily been edited to around 2hrs 10mins as some of the scenes add little to the overall story except for boredom and confusion.

This is an intelligent film by an intelligent director that portrays just one 'fight' in a longstanding battle between the Israeli's and Palestinians.

By Jordan

The Business - Dir. Nick Love (2005)

2007-07-20T04:43:00.000-07:00

Nick Love aims to show off the 80's scene where criminals would live there life in peace away from law & order, with them being the kings of there own castles & he does this perfectly.

The plot is simple & the outcome is inevitable, greed, betrayal & violence, but all with a pinch of humour & some great acting thrown in.

Danny Dyer is brilliant as the 'nervous' Frankie, who has been given the chance to start a new life away from all the scum & crime in South London & instead become a resident on the crime-less Costa Del Sol alongside his friend & mentor Charlie.

Charlie also provides a larger than life, arrogant & egotistical character to a tee as well. He's cocky, he's unpredictable, & he's cool. Everything you expect from a East End Gangster living out his days in Spain.

The story itself is very simple & because of that, easy to read into. I admit it's been done before, but Nick Love makes this film stand out by going back into time & re-creating the 80's. The cars, women, huge mobile phones & superb 80's songs are all there. All adding to the surrounding atmosphere of the film.

The film is a must see for any Brits even remotely interested in any films such as Scarface, Football Factory, Casino, Scum & Sexy Beast. The acting is great. The plot simple. The women beautiful. And the South London accents, gritty.

The Business won't be a huge over the Atlantic hit nor will it be a cult classic, but it's one of the best films to come & grace our screens this year. So don't waste your time watching Duke's Of Hazzard, watch the Business instead. A great film.

By Jordan