Films I have seen since but too lazy to give detailed reviews for

Shutter Island

The unthinkable has just happened. Martin Scorsese has delivered a sub par film. Despite being visually striking, stylistic and filled with chilling moments this film ultimately suffers due to a plodding, meandering screenplay and a somewhat obvious plot twist.

3 Stars


Greenzone

Damon and Greengrass deliver another lean, fast paced thriller just like the Bourne films tapping into common public belief (This time concerning WMD) of corruption in high places and just like the Bourne films it uses the interesting plot devise where the protagonists and antagonists are on the same side. A film that explores the gray areas.

4 Stars

Invictus

Another strong film from director Clint Eastwood featuring stellar performances and sweeping cinematography.

4 Stars

Up In The Air



This film contains an sharp script and strong characterisation whilst exploring the fine balance between long term commitment and living life to the full. A film with no clear moral by the time the credits role, which allows viewers to interpret it in their own way.




4 Stars (This is beginning to get boring, yet another 4 star film)

Avatar


Although it contains overly blatant subtext and frequent cliches, Avatar succeed greatly at transforming you to such a richly detailed world of beauty and danger. The film feels like a journey, one where you truly forget that you are essentially watching CGI characters.


Everyone in the world apart from me has managed to miss the point of the film, its tell the story of a paraplegic ex-marine who through technological advances has been given another chance to prosper in life, who soon starts to question who he really is. It is essentially a ressurection story and more than just another 'good visuals/weak story' film.


4 Stars


Paranormal Activity


Although essentially a domesticated version of The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity ultimately succeeds greater due to the viewers familiarity with the setting and the naturally paranoia that thing do go bump in the night. Impressive despite not being my cup of tea.


4 Stars

Fantastic Mr Fox

If you are reading this then you may have noticed that the Autumn has kicked in and the inevitable has happened, the trees are losing their leaves, the nights are drawing in and fantasy novel adaptations are being released at multiplexes worldwide. The latest in a wave of books to film adaptations is the Roald Dahl classic Fantastic Mr Fox, the question is whether Wes Anderson is capable of doing the source material justice!

Well the answer to that is yes and no. There are several things in this film that work and others that don’t resulting in a rather lukewarm hour and a half that doesn’t match up to other Dahl adaptations such as The Witches and Charlie and the chocolate factory (both versions). If there is a vital element missing from this film is that it just doesn’t capture the whole Roald Dahl atmosphere instead resorting to an overly contemporary manner in which the animal characters spend a little too much time bantering over minor things and using modern youth slang much in the style of a feel good drama/comedy giving it a sense of forced commercialism.

Another thing that doesn’t quite work was that most of the characters speak in American accents animals and humans alike and use American terminology despite the film having a British aesthetic and the three farmers all having British accent. Was this a deliberate clash of cultures or a genuine mistake on the film makers part. I genuinely can’t tell. Also worth mentioning is that George Clooney provides the voice of Mr Fox but it is blatantly George Clooney.

However there were certain plot elements that appealed to me, such as Mr Fox’s son Ash coping with life as an under achieving underdog who feels over shadowed by his too perfect cousin. Another interesting twist on this film version was by having the three farmers Boggis, Bunce and Bean take the whole ‘catch the fox’ thing way too far by deploying their entire work force to catch the fox and even having a news crew cover the event on television. Also note worthy was the film’s impressive visuals and animation style which use various interesting techniques.

If this film appeals to you then I suggest viewing it for solid entertainment, just don’t expect fireworks.

3 STARS

About two thirds of the way through this film a woman who I don’t think was all there got up and turned to me and Aaron and asked us what the time was, “9.45” Aaron replied, then she slowly left, struggled to find the exit then eventually left. For the next ten minutes I was giggling.

Inglourious Basterds

Last night I decided to venture down to my local movie house to catch the latest from the always entertaining Quentin Tarantino. My thought like many other viewers concerning Tarantino is that his first two films, Reserviour Dogs and Pulp Fiction are undisputed masterpieces and that any later work by him doesn’t measure up but is decent none the less. Inglourious Basterds continues this trend.

The film follows two main story threads, firstly there is the story of Shosanna Dreyfuss (Melanie Laurent), hell bend on getting revenge on the Nazis for the murder of her family and secondly there is the story of the Basterds, a group of American soldiers lead by Lt Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), hell bend on getting revenge on the Nazis for the shear hell of it. Gradually these two story intertwine with one another leading the way to a hugely spectacular and brilliantly edited climax (which is much in debt to the prom scene in Brian DePalma’s Carrie) in which a cinema full of Nazi’s is burnt down and even features Adolf Hitler himself being shot repeatedly in the face and then shot repeatedly some more until his face is in pieces.

Rest assured Tarantino doesn’t skimp on his trademark violence, in fact this is probably his most violent yet. We get to see Nazi symbols carved into people’s face with knives, fists being shoved down throats, people wincing majorly at gun wounds and even Nazis being scalped right down to the brain. This is true ultra violence that may make even the most hardened viewer cringe.

There is no denying it, this film portrays the Nazi as caricature villains. However Tarantino also find room to create sympathy for Nazis. One scene has Eli Roth beating a Nazi to death in a flamboyant manner with a baseball bat whilst another Nazi watches in horror knowing that he will die next. We also feel Nazi sympathy for German war hero Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl) who must forever live with the Nazi Stigma.

From a performance point of view the cast here is pretty strong. Brad Pitt and Eli Roth play their roles with the perfect balance of malice and humour although throughout the film there is no stand out performance. Tarantino once again recycles music from his favourite artists and effectively incorporates them into this film. One musical moment that stuck out was at the beginning in which a farmer is hiding Jews under his floorboards and a Nazi General comes to question him, then after a while he realises they are hidden under the floor. At this point the intense music starts up and a squad of Nazi troops come in with guns blazing and annihilate the Jews.

However despite all that was good about this film there was one major issue I had with it, which is as follows: In previous Tarantino film one of the impressive aspects was the chemistry between the actors as they discuss various aspect of culture (remember the quarter pounder with cheese). This was always a highlight however in this film they devote too much time to having formal conversation or discuss pompous French cinema and they also natter on for far too long. I feel that Tarantino is just retreading old ground albeit in a different genre, I also feel he is running out of things for his characters to discuss. This therefore make it one of the weaker entries in the Tarantino cannon.

None the less I would recommend Inglourious Basterds for all it has to offer and if you’re a fan of Tarantino’s work then it is a great way to kill 2 hours. Light years behind Reseviour Dogs and Pulp Fiction, not as good as Death Proof or Kill Bill and about as good as Jackie Brown.

4 STARS

Moon

The third and final film I went to see whilst in The States was Moon. The problem was however that when I went to see it I was absolutely knackered and drowsy whilst watching it due to all the great stuff I had done over the days leading up to it so therefore I failed to fully take it in. I remember very little about the film’s plot so it best you don’t take my views on this film seriously. None the less I must review every single film I see at the cinema no matter what.

So what can I say? The cinematography was impressive, it was beautifully shot and well directed, had some good ideas and plenty of intrigue. It felt a bit cliché like I had seen everything already in 2001: A Space Oddysey, Alien and Sunshine. However it was good to see a film released in summer that had brain.

I get the impression that science fiction may well be making a comeback with this film as well as James Cameron’s Avatar and Chris Nolan’s Inception. Fingers crossed.

That’s all I can say in my shortest review ever. It seemed pretty good so I’ll give it a good grade and I must remember to watch it properly when it comes out on DVD.

4 STARS

Up

For the past 5 weeks I have had the good fortune to be in America. From New York to Chicago, onto Los Angeles and back to New York. It was absolutely amazing and the best time I’ve had in my life however it was also exhausting. Fortunately I was able to find down time with my visits to the cinemas of time square. I took this opportunity to see Pixar’s latest, Up, a film not yet released here in the UK, so this was a perfect chance to see it before anyone else back home.

The film start out with a moving montage that tells the story of Carl Frederickson has he experiences all the peaks and troths that one must face throughout life. Following this the bulk of the film focuses on Carl as an elderly man forced to relocated from his own home to and old people’s home. Carl doesn’t like this and ties balloons to his house and flies off on a journey to fulfil his dreams of living in South America. However 8 yr old Russell accidently stows away on board his house and so begins the adventure.

Thankfully I can say that Pixar have yet again produced a well written, funny, heart warming tale that all audiences can enjoy. I think one of the key themes to this film is the strained relationship between Carl and Russell. Carl, who never had a son or daughter and is mourning the loss of his wife just wants to get away from everything. Russell on the other hand never had a father figure but sees it in Carl but has trouble being like by him due to his rather flamboyant nature.

A key theme in this film is age and how certain age groups are frowned upon in the modern society. Like Gran Torino earlier this year the film deals with how old age pensioners are looked down on by the rest of society and are assumed to be hopeless.

The humour in this film is also impressive, particularly the scenes involving talking dogs (dogs with collars that translate what they are thinking into word). These scenes account for many of the films belly laugh. One such incident involves a dog which is supposed to be sinister and evil but speaks in a very camp voice due to a malfunctioning voice translator.

Worth noting however is that this is the first Pixar film to be presented in 3D and unlike Bolt which I saw earlier this year the 3D adds a considerable dimension to the animation. The animation happens to absolutely stunning whether in 3D or not.

Overall Up is an impressive film. See it when it is released in the UK.

4 STARS

Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince

Throughout this decade that only some refer to as the ‘noughties’ we have watch the hugely popular Harry Potter film series grow and mature along with the films young cast themselves. Now here we have the 6th and penultimate film (not taking into account that the 7th book shall be two films) and it seems like things have come a long way.

That’s right, it seems like hardly any time ago that we watched an 11 year old Harry first walk through the gates of Hogwarts and now here we are at the final stretch of the saga and walking into considerable darker territory, a tale of murder and betrayal one would not necessarily associate with a franchise were the fan base are predominantly children (or adults who grew up with the franchise).

Rest assured when I say this is the most adult of all the Potter films I really mean it. There is a sense of constant threat that runs through the film where as a viewer you get the sense that the wizarding world has truly hit hard time. This is largely thanks to David Yates confident and dynamic direction where he creates a wholly immersive world where our lead characters can operate in.

The acting here is also the best in the series so far. The lead trio have amazing chemistry as well as some of the supporting child cast. Alan Rickman, Michael Gambon and Jim Broadbent as professor Horace Slughorn also have plenty to work with. Best of all however is that Draco Malfoy has been given an expanded role, especially good considering for the past two films Malfoy has done next to nothing. Also good to see is how he has drastically changed as a character, he has become more conflicted under the pressure of his task in hand whereas in the earlier films he was the typical school bully/spoilt brat.

One thing that came to my attention when watching this film however was that it was somewhat of a statement of substance abuse, which is a common theme one might associate with youths. There are numerous example of this e.g when Harry finds the potions book belonging to the half blood prince he keeps using it to enhance his performance in class even if it does end up causing him to ultimately go overboard. This is a strong reflection on people who use performance enhancing steroids. Another scene has him taking a good luck potion and then acting ‘high’ for the next ten or so minutes of the film. Other scenes include Ron Weasley foaming at the moth after taking a lethal combination of potions and Dumbledore being forced to drink an entire basin of lethal fluid.

This brings me to the climax of the film, skip this paragraph to avoid spoiler. The death of Dumbledore is mostly handled well. The scene that stood out for me was where his corpse is lying on the grounds of Hogwarts and the students and staff are all crowded around him raising their wands out of respect. The only issue I had was that the betrayal of Snape is so undercooked. In the book the betrayal aspect is treated as a major incident. Unfortunately here it is assumed everyone has read the book and there is no need to re-establish it for those who haven’t.

Overall I feel that the makers of the Potter film franchise have delivered another decent blockbuster. One that fall only slightly short of The Prisoner Of Azkaban and The Goblet Of Fire. All I can say now is Bring On The Deathly Hallows.

4 STARS

Public Enemies

Phew! What a relief! Here we are midway through summer blockbuster season, we’ve been treated to a series of third rate franchise cash ins, overloaded with CGI, watched Transformers gross enough to fix the world wide economy and worse of all this blog has recently making me look like a nerdy fan boy. Now finally after a string of disappointment (not Star Trek that was awesome) we are finally treated to a thrilling taut crime drama.

Director Michael Mann, the guy who brought us the awesome ‘Heat’ back in 1995 returns with this, the real life story of 1930’s gangster John Dillinger (Johnny Deep) and how he travelled across the United States on a wild crime spree robbing banks. It is also the story of how the FBI set up a fine team of operatives led by special agent Melvis Purvis (Christian Bale) to hunt down Dillinger and his associates.

Naturally we are treated to a series of suspense filled and wholly satisfying series of confrontations, each gun fight as pleasing as the last. This is one thing that Michael Mann achieves with great panache using gritty style cinematography, perfectly paced editing and effective use of sound much like he did in Heat.

This film is a masterstroke in fine directing techniques (although some might debate that) very few film can achieve the sense of sustained menace that Mann achieves when on top form. This is demonstrated in a number of sequences throughout, whether it is Dillinger’s escape from Indiana State Prison or the ensuing scene in which Dillinger and his associates are sat in a packed movie house when a news real suddenly appears onscreen with a ‘Wanted: John Dillinger Public Enemy No 1’ in big letters. It is at this point that Dillinger shuddered with fear yet at the same time manages to maintain his posture. Suddenly a light on the ceiling switches on and the audience are informed “He may be sitting in this very theatre! Look to your left! Look to your Right!” The audience follow these instruction and it is only by the grace of god that Dillinger is sat between two associates and no public member notices. The lights go off, the news reel resumes and the panic is over. This is possibly one of the finest moments and any crime drama ever made.

Mann has also successfully captures the 1930’s era in which the film is set with an impressive attention to perfect detail you’ll be hard pressed to find any inaccuracy to how this decade is portrayed in screen. Ironically Mann has managed to make this film feel modern and found the perfect balance between this era and the 30’s era similar to what Roman Polanski done with Chinatown in 1975 whereas most other period set films have a sense of nostalgic haze to them. One way Mann achieves this is through the use of High Def digital camera as opposed to traditional celluloid and create a film that is visually stunning as much as it is suspenseful. Take note that this film is also very dark in terms of cinematography very much akin to The Godfather.

This film also boasts several impressive performances. Johnny Depp delivers a mostly charismatic Dillinger and creates a character who the audience can sympathise with every time he gets into danger. In all honesty Depp is perhaps not as strong as he could have been and is considerably better in other roles he has played throughout his hugely successful career. Perhaps more interesting is the support character Melvin Purvis (who was the real life inspiration of many fictional detectives) played by Bale. Despite learning little about Purvis’ own life Bale succeed in creating a fully human role injecting the character with a conflicted nature and sense of guilt and responsibility for all the blood that has been spilt and the savage nature of his job. One scene has him and an associate going into a hospital and forcing a wounded screaming gang member to talk yet with the look on his face that his job is barbaric.

The rest of the cast perform well too, including Marion Cottilard as Billie Frechette, Dillinger’s love interest, Billy Crudup as a believable J Edgar Hoover and Stephen Graham as a Joe Pesci like Baby Face Nelson.

There is one issue with the film however, at times, especially in the first half the script lacks focus and is often drowned out by the films technical ingenuity. This lead to the film being somewhat un engaging from time to time and prevents the it from being the stone cold classic it could have been.

Overall However Public Enemies is a wholly satisfying experience and a refreshing departure from the typical summer movie. If you enjoy taut, suspenseful crime thrillers then this is a must for you. This film will however split opinions of serious film buff as to whether its genius or piss poor, but I guess its down to matter of opinion.

4 STARS

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen

The Following is a brief review of Transformers through the eyes of a Michael Bay fan:

Dude! Transformers was fucking awesome man! It was like proper action packed. If you liked the first then you'll love the second even more. There are more fucking huge robots this time round and its also fucking hilarious. The bit where the mum character gets high on campus was awesome. Go see it its proper immense! 5 STARS

Now for the real review:

You may remember 10 years ago the fever pitch of anticipation that awaited The Phantom Menace. The advertising campaign, the merchandise, the legions of fans (myself included) awaiting day by day to see the finished product. Then as it was released the response of fans, critics and casual cinemagoers goers alike ended up being somewhat lukewarm. Of the many issues people had with it there was one that stuck out more than the rest; Jar Jar Binks. A comedic creation so unbelievably stupid who was put there purely for comic relief.

Now you may wonder why I am mentioning The Phantom Menace in a Transformers review. Well its simply because we are once again treated to a character equally stupid as Jar Jar Binks. Twice in fact, twin transformers who spend most of the film tagging along with our main heroes purely for the purpose of cheap gags. It doesn't stop there either we are also treated to a moronic mini robot who transforms into a remote control car, an aged transformer who whines about the modern generation of transformers and many more.

The human cast are equally guilty of this, in fact probably about two thirds of the cast are portrayed as bumbling morons for no particular reason. This leads to a string of really corny gags such as Sam Whitwicky's (Shia Labouef) college room mate running out of a public toilet in a museum with his pants down asking for more toilet paper purely as a distraction. Another moment has Sam's mother on his college campus getting high on weed and humiliating her son. John Tutturo is also a lost cause. Rest assured people the action scenes play second fiddle to the corny gags.

Despite some impressive action set piece there is little in the way of plot. The film has Sam and his hot girlfriend Mikela (Megan Fox) travelling to Egypt to recover a 'Matirx of leadership' in order to save Optimus Prime whilst at the same time Megatron is ressurected and sets about trying to get the films other villain The Fallen to return for whatever reason. This brings me to another problem with the film, The Fallen is meant to be the title character and the focus is supposed to be on him getting vengence yet he ends up playing such an insignificant role and is a completely unmenacing villain. In fact many of the robots whether good or bad barely get anything to do, Autobots Ironhide and Ratchet from the first film merely get a fleeting glimpse. Oh and what the fuck was the deal in Sam going to robo-heaven and being sent back down to Earth?

People may defend this film with such quotes as "Well its just good fun, its hardly trying to be shakespeare is it?" Fair point, however there have been other films that are pure escapist entertainment such as Raiders of The Lost Ark and Star Trek and they havent ended up being shit like this film. Others will say "Its good for what it is!" To those people I say "No its not! Its not! ITS NOT!" It truly is a great shame that 3 out of 4 films I've seen recently have been bollocks, the others being Wolverine and Terminator 4.

This film does boast several action set pieces however even this aspect fails to impress due to the fact that it is intercut with more gags than a Roger Moore Bond film. Even high quality CGI can't possible save this $200 million train wreck.

So There you have it, my most hostile review yet! Sorry to all the Transformers fans. Word has it however that Michael Bay is considering packing this franchise in and letting someone else direct the next installment because apparently he is fed up of being constantly slagged off, gee I wonder why that is. Lets hope they get a proper director in for the next one, James Cameron would be an awesome choice, fingers crossed!

Transformers 2 is nothing more than a hot steaming turd of a film, a blip on a radar of tacky shit films, albiet one that will gross a fortune. This 'product' truly fails as a film. It represent every vile about Hollywood. SHIT! Right that me done griping, I'm now off to watch Batman and Robin and The Clone Wars back to back.

1 STARS

Terminator Salvation

When it was first announced that a Terminator 4 was in the works I wondered why? Do we really need another one? The previous one felt unnessacary, how long can they possibly milk a cash cow for? I then discovered that it would actually be the first in a planned ‘new trilogy’ of terminator films, oh dear I thought. Then it was announced that Christian Bale would be playing the lead character John Conner, which then led me to wonder why after starring as the best Bruce Wayne/Batman he felt the need to take on another franchise role (I later discovered that he reluctantly accepted). Worse of all was the news that McG (yes that’s his name) the man who directed the god awful Charlie’s Angels movie would be de-facing this franchise. I predicted a disaster, yet I had to see it, after all it is Terminator!

After watching the film last night at my local multiplex, I can sadly inform you that my suspicion have been justified. Set in 2018 the film tell the story of Conner (Bale) leading the human resistance in the war against the machines. Stuff blows up and then the film end. However there is another element that is introduced. The film start out in a death row detention cell in 2003 just prior to judgement day where convicted murderer Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) is about to be executed when he is given a second chance of life if he signs his body away to medical science. He then awakes in 2018 without a clue of where he is or what is going on. Eventually he discovers that he is half human/ half machine (yes I just gave away the plot twist just like the trailer does). This proves to be quite an interesting idea and Worthington plays it fairly well although ultimately it proves to be unnessacary and distracts us from the more pivotal characters John Conner and Kyle Reese.

Acting wise the script offers the cast very little to work with. Dialogue consists of such lines like ‘Fire!’ ‘Run!’ and various tactical jargen. Christian Bale is the biggest victim of this, his John Conner is left with virtually nothing of any importance to do and his performance is just plain flat. I’ve always thought he does a good job in any role he plays (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, American Psycho, The Prestige, Empire of the Sun, etc) but here he is just short changed. One cringe worthy moment has him quote the classic Arnie phrase “I’ll be back!” albeit in a completely different manner. I can sympathise with his much publicised on set outburst.

I think what made this film so weak was the script. It has very little emphasise on character, the plot isn’t going anywhere, it felt pointless and was merely just an excuse to show lots of explosions. In other words you might as well have sat and watch a mate play a computer game. Another problem was McG’s inability as a director to tell a story well.

It wasn’t a complete dead loss however. Some of the battle scenes have a real war like feel to them, one thing McG did do well. Anton Yelchin does a sufficient job as a teenage Kyle Reese and Arnie sort of makes a brief appearance at the end of the film.

Overall this film felt thoroughly pointless and can never be regarded in the same manner as any of the other terminator films, which is a shame really.

2 STARS

Star Trek

After the disappointment of X-men Origins: Wolverine Ijust had to return to the cinema and see another film to make up for it. Upon reading enthusiastic reviews I felt Star Trek directed by Lost’s J.J.Abrams might fit the bill. However before I tell you my thoughts on the film I shall enlighten you with the general plot.

The film opens with the birth of James T Kirk (Chris Pine) and the death of his father aboard the USS Kalvin at the hands of the villainous Nero (Eric Bana). We then witness the upbringing of both Kirk and Spock as they enlist in starfleet and train their way onto the Enterprise led by Captain Pike. However upon their maiden voyage they discover that they have walked into a trap as they witness the planet Vulcan under attack. After Pike is captured by Nero and the other Romulans, the Enterprise is left captainless leaving it up to Kirk and Spock to decide on the next course of action. The story develops onwards leading its way up to a suitable spectacular climax. So what did I think of it?

Overall I am wholly satisfied with this film. It is a genuinely exciting thrill ride that truly defines what one might want from a summer blockbuster. This is a refreshing change from previous Trek film (which I enjoyed) and the first time the franchise has elevated itself to a fast paced action adventure. If you only get one film per year that blows you away in terms of action and excitement then this is it.

This is a bold new move for the franchise and not just in terms of action but in terms of direction style as well. J J Abrams has deployed a very modern handheld camera approach very similar to many films of the modern day, a trend very common with directors such as Paul Greengrass. This also applies to the sweeping panoramas of the various backdrops depicted throughout.

Another thing worth noting is the abundance of CGI but rest assured this is CGI done the way it should be making the audience really feel as if they too are part of the adventure, in fact every single establishing shot of the Enterprise is just as sweeping and epic as the last making you as a viewer truly appreciate it for the juggernaut it is.

This film is also a succuss from a casting point of view. Despite initial scepticism from some fans and critics alike Chris Pine has proven that he is capable of filling William Shatner’s boots whilst never trying to imitate him, in fact he brings his own edge to it, portraying Kirk as a reckless, arrogant youngster. Zachary Quinto is pitch perfect as Spock expressing his conflicted inner vulcan/human emotions well whilst also proving to have good chemistry with Pine's Kirk. The story of how they turn from rivals to friends is at the basic core of this story.

Another successful character is Karl Urban as Leonard 'Bones' McCoy portraying the crankiness that DeForest Kelley brought to the role some 40 years earlier. The other regular characters are on top form as well in a script that gives everyone something to do; Uhura features in a love triangle between Kirk and Spock, Chekov proves himself a genius, Sulu becomes action packed and Simon Pegg's Scotty provides the comic relief. In fact the script allows each cast member to play their roles like they are beginners at Starfleet, slipping up on their first day on duty. There is even a moment when the Enterprise fails to go into warp speed as a result of Sulu forgetting to push a particular switch.

The film also boast a number of impressive set piece, one such sequence involves Kirk, Sulu and a crew member in a red shirt (no guesses who dies) fighting atop a planet destroying super weapon whilst the Enterprise faces off against a Romulan warship, an extensive sequence of set pieces that goes on for 20 minutes and never lets up. It is through action sequences like these that Star Trek really hits its stride. Sequences like this, as well as the film’s sense of fast paced adventure make it more akin to the original Star Wars instead on Star Trek.

In fact if one wanted they could pick out similarities between this film and the original Star Wars; farm boy gets caught up on space adventure, there is a bar room brawl, planet gets blown up, main spaceship turns up at the last minute to save the day, oh and there is a snow monster about half way through similar to the wampa monster in The Empire Strikes Back. But rest assured this film is merely borrowing ideas to tell a good story rather than just copying ideas.

Overall this film has proven itself superior to your average Star Trek adventure and I would rank it higher than the superb The Wrath of Khan. Abrams has truly re-invented the franchise whilst jettisoning none of its original charm. I definitely recommend viewing this film. Would it be wrong of me to give this 5 stars?......ah what the hell!


5 STARS

Leonard Nemoy appears by the way. Live Long and Prosper!

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Tonight I went to see X-Men Origins: Wolverine, a spin off to the X-Men film trilogy telling the story about how everyone’s favourite mutant came to be. The film starts out with Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and his half brother Sabertooth/Victor Creed (Liev Scherieber) fighting in various wars over the past 200 years (they don’t age). Eventually they meet General William Stryker played by Danny Huston (Brian Cox in X2) who puts together an army of mutants, various things blow up, Logan and Victor become enemies and eventually Logan becomes the beast that is Wolverine. More things blow up and then the film ends.

This is basically a standard, dull action flick designed purely with the function of telling viewers how the character they had come to know and love became the way he is. The script is hugely un engaging and left me at the point in which I just wanted to leave. The acting is poor and the gags are cheesy, one of which involves Logan in a boxer ring with an obese mutant known as Blob. This scene was incredibly cheesy with cliché fat man gags designed towards the thick demographic.

Being a fan of the X-Men films I was rather disappointed with this film and I would defy anyone who would compare it to X2, a film which I still rank as a brilliant action flick. In all honesty it doesn’t feel at all like an X-Men film. It is more akin to yet another Rambo sequel and has the integrity of a direct to DVD Steven Segal film.

The only pleasure I got out of it was from watching the rather impressive 3 way fight atop a cooling tower between Wolverine, Sabertooth and Deadpool and also from the occasional cameo appearances of various other characters from the X-Men films.

Overall X-Men Origins: Wolverine was largely displeasing. Don’t bother. I have nothing else to say.

2 STARS

Watchmen

Tonight I went to see Watchmen, the film adaptation of Alan Moore’s hugely acclaimed graphic novel (which I’m yet to read). I went in unsure of what to expect due to very mixed reviews. Some critics thought it was superb, others hated it. What follows is my most awkward review of this blog thus far.

Set in an alternative 1985 where super heroes haves been outlawed the film starts out with The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) being thrown to his death, followed by a rather fascinating title sequence, which sets up the basis for the story. Following this we are then introduced to the film’s main heroes Rorschach, Silk Spectre, Night Owl, Ozymandias and the all powerful DR. Manhattan.

The film is essential two things, first it is a film noir murder mystery with the outlawed Rorschach, who believes that someone is targeting costumed freaks. He spends the film searching for clues to uncover who the villain behind the murder is. Secondly it is the story of our heroes coping with essentially being a group of has-beens who now have no place in the world. We are also treated to a series of flashbacks revolving round the previous generation of heroes.

So what did I think of it? Well to be honest despite succeeding in some places the film really didn’t live up its potential and as writer Alan Moore claims it was rather ‘unfilmable’.
First things first; the plot. The plot had potential to be truly interesting and although it introduces a few interesting ideas (e.g a superheroes true place in society) it is largely incoherent and to be frankly honest all over the shop. The films structure is largely a mess (a la Quantum of Solace) and therefore fails to pull you into the story. Eventually we are lead to the films climax, which despite having an interesting subtext to it is executed in a very sloppy manner making the first 2 hours make even less sense whilst also over dosing on CGI. Leaving the viewer somewhat unfulfilled.

In terms of directing Zack Synder is essential an over active fan boy adapting his favourite comic. Like in his previous film 300 he completely over indulges on pointless slow motion, random musical decisions and over glamorised violence, making the action sequences less exciting. He is also being far too faithful to the comic book, so as to not disappoint the small amount of fan boys who have actually read the comic. This is the same mistake he made with 300 and the same mistake Chris Columbus made when he directed the first two Harry Potter films, desperate to fit in as much of the source material as humanly possible.

The film would have worked better had it been more loosely based around the novel as opposed to replicating it frame for frame. In fact maybe if instead of setting it in the 80’s it could have been adapted into a post 9/11 crime epic similar to what Chris Nolan did for the new Batman films.

The film does have it good points however. The cinematography here is absolutely stunning and some of the issues and ideas explored in this film make it a lot more interesting.

Character wise this film has a lot going for it, the character of Night Owl works well because he is portrayed as the every man of the film and the romantic subplot between him and Silk Spectre is fully convincing. Rorschach is also enjoyable to watch, he is portrayed as a chandler-esque film noir detective albeit one with a grudge against the harsh, ran down world that he protects.

The most interesting character however is Dr. Manhattan, the only hero in the film who appears to have genuine super powers. He is a man who has no understanding of human compassion and often questions their importance in the universe. It is not till the end of the film the he looks into Silk Spectre’s mind that he finally understands human compasion. Worth taking note is his superbly executed origin story, which is told in a flashback.

So there is my verdict on Watcmen, largely disappointing but with a hand full of good ideas that just about manage to keep it afloat. Not terrible but could have been so much better. The Phantom Menace of 2009.

Pseudo-intellectuals will love it and the sound track is impressive.

3 STARS

Gran Torino

Tonight I chose to see Gran Torino, a social commentary film written, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood in what will apparently be his acting swansong.

The film starts out with the now widowed Walt (Clint Eastwood) living at home by himself in what has become a rough Korean neighbourhood, full of crime, violence and gang culture much to Walt’s dismay as he once served in Vietnam and has had a racist stigma ever since. After Walt inadvertently save Thao, his young Korean next door neighbour from a gang of thugs he is crowned a reluctant neighbourhood hero. He soon develops an understanding for other cultures and start to teach Thao how to be a man eventually befriending him and letting him drive his 1972 Gran Torino (a car that represent an era long gone, an era when Eastwood was younger).

The thing that most appealed to me about this film was the opportunity to see Clint Eastwood acting again, this time now as a very old man and long since his heyday. Overall Eastwood nails the role, portraying Walt as a bitter, twisted, cynical, old misanthropist. A man who frowns upon the modern society, especially his good for nothing grand children and the ethnic gang culture that now plagues a once pleasant neighbourhood. Another thing notable about Clint's performance is how he manages to generates sympathy for the elderly showing how they are viewed by the younger generations as utterly dependant.

With Eastwood’s character the film successfully explore the issue of how war veterans perceive the ran down society they fought for, how they will always have to live with what they’ve been through and how they will never have a full understanding of other cultures due to this.

One thing worth pointing out is the abundance of racial slurs uttered largely by Eastwood Himself throughout. In the 2 hour running time he manages to offend blacks, Jews, Christians and most of all Chinese people. However this film succeed at making each and every slur slightly funny therefore causing no offence to any viewers. It is through the audiences understanding of Eastwood’s character that the film achieves this.

This film shares similarities with American History X (1998). Both films deal with racial intolerance and the effect that is has on society and like America History X this film end on a rather bleak note, which in all honesty may by quite shocking to an audience (in a good way).

I would highly recommend Gran Torino to someone looking to watch a film with more meaning to it, especially since the next few months will be filled with shoddy, pointless franchise cash ins (terminator 4 anyone?). Enjoy it whilst you can, this film is just like the radio advert says “It’s like Dirty Harry never went away”.

4 STARS

Bolt

For my next film this year I decided to go for something more light hearted and simple. I therefore chose Bolt. The computer animated film about a dog (John Travolta) who truly believes that he has super powers not realising all along that his life revolves around a simple television show and that he has no such powers. After Bolt accidently ends up in the real world and on the other side of America he teams up with a cat called ‘Mittens’ and a hamster called ‘Rhino’ to journey from New York to Hollywood to re-unite Bolt with his owner (Miley Cyrus).

When you boil this film down it is essentially a road movie in which along the way Bolt truly discovers his real self. One interesting thing about this film is that it applies a very interesting concept similar to that of 1998’s The Truman Show in which the main protagonist believes in a false reality, much to the amusement of many of the supporting character.

Overall this film is your typical animated adventure for children. It uses similar narrative techniques to such Pixar classic as Toy Story and Finding Nemo. However it never lives up to their ingenuity or freshness and the humour is also rather cliché (although at my viewing there was a middle aged woman in hysterics).

In all honesty the only reason I chose to watch this was because it is presented in 3D and I had never seen a 3D film before. This was quite an interesting way to watch the film, especially during more dynamic camera shots. However this particular film didn’t offer much extra for 3D viewers, in fact some of the most impressive shots featured in the trailers. The only other alternative was My Bloody Valentine but there was no hope in hell I was going to watch a cheap tacky teen horror out of choice.

Although I like the idea of 3D I fell that the films shown using it are more akin to fair ground attractions. One hopes however that George Lucas will finally get round to re-releasing his Star Wars saga in 3D (without pointless tinkering please George).

Overall Bolt was yet another solid example of animated cinema, one with a few interesting ideas.

3 STARS

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

Last night I went to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I wasn’t sure what to expect from it due to mostly mixed but slightly edging towards positive reviews and a rather solid 71% on rottentomatoes.com. On one hand I was turned off by the soppy aspect of it and the fact that is was rather ‘conveniently’ released during award season like a worm on a hook. On the other hand I was interested because it is directed by David Fincher the man who brought us such masterpieces as the taut, intense Se7en and the mind boggling Fight Club.

The film start out at the end of the 1st world war in which Benjamin (Brad Pitt) is neglected at birth by his father due to the fact that he is born with the physical features of an 80 year old man. The film then tell the story through his life as he grows up but gradually begins to look younger. He soon meets Daisy (Cate Blanchett) of whom they fall in love with each other. All this is told in flashback from the present day as Blanchett lies on her death bed somewhere in her 80’s whilst her daughter reads through Benjamin’s dairy.

Performance wise this film is just as good as any other film I’ve seen this year so far. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are both powerhouses portraying various different age groups perfectly, although as an old lady Blanchett is very incoherent. The film is also quite strong from a directing point of view, Fincher has proven himself capable of pulling off drama films, although his forte will always be masculine orientated thrillers.

This film has the ability to strike a chord with even the most hardened viewers pulling right at their heart strings and delivering a numerous amount of touching moments. Also notable is that the theme of death occurs on so many occasions.

Although I enjoyed this film I did feel it to be relatively flawed and quite plodding during some segments. For a period drama film there is a bit too much CGI blowing the illusion at times and making it feel all too synthetic (No thats not me having a pop at the special effects used to age Brad Pitt, that aspect of the CGI was seamless). I also felt it was trying too hard to be a so called ‘prestigious’ film. One scene involving Blanchett by a water fountain in a red dress trying to allure Pitt felt far to Bergmanesque for my liking that I nearly lost interest. It also felt a little... uh.. mushy wushy right down the piano music score. Is this the Titanic of 2009?

Overall I largely enjoyed this film, I felt it had a lot going for it in the drama stakes despite being a bit .....uh whats a 'politically correct' word for pompous?

This film was very moving It would be wrong for me to give this less than four stars. Overall I am very satisfied with my cinema going experience this year although there is now a part of me who wants to see something crap just so I have an excuse to write a negative review. Hotel for Dogs anyone?

4 STARS

(P.S. Do not cast Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton in the same film together, they look too much alike, it confuses the viewer, it’s unfair on them. It’s like when Michael Douglas and Martin Sheen were both cast in Wall Street. Just Don’t Do It!)

Frost/Nixon

The next film I decided to see was Frost/Nixon, a political thriller based on the real life 1977 interviews between David Frost and Richard Nixon concerning the Watergate scandal.

This film feature two lead performances, Michael Sheen as David Frost and Frank Langella as Richard ‘Millhouse’ Nixon. Both these men plays their real life subject to near perfection, Sheen (who also played Tony Blair in 2006’s The Queen) dots every I and crosses every T when it comes Frost’s little mannerism, voice and body language whilst Langella portrays stress and nervous tension appropriately.

A lot of attention has been lavished upon Langella for his portrayal but rest assured if there is one performance better than the other it is in fact Sheen. As a viewer I was really caught up in his story of pursuing an ideal and making it big. Also knowing that he is risking so much (as he did in real life) I was caught up in the tension of the situation every time a problem occurred.

There is a slight fictional aspect to this film however in which it implies that David Frost is an underdog, whereas in real life he had achieved a fair bit more and was reknown for helping the Monty Python crew lauch their career. A man who they even referenced in several sketches (python fans may notice Eric Idle's portrayal as a TV reporter in the infamous Hell's Grannies' sketch strikingly similar to Frost).

This film is not just a political thriller/biopic it is also a quest for one man to achieve a goal and face the obstacle along the way. It is also a duel between two titans both determined to outdo one another. This is where the film really strikes a chord with certain viewers. Basically this is The Lord of the rings or Star Wars, in political form, with use of words rather than swords or light sabers ....and based on real events.

There are a few minor problems, the film is slightly plodding at times, some of the humour is a little laboured (Nixon’s perspiration) and Ron Howard doesn’t bring a great deal amount to the directing front.

Overall I highly recommend this film. An interesting underdog story with a strong ensemble cast.

4 STARS

The Wrestler

The second film I saw this year proved to be just as delightful as the first. For those of you who haven’t seen The Wrestler I strongly recommend it.

The film tells the story of Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson, an aging wrestler who was once a huge success but now spend his years fighting in minor wrestling league to make end meet. After Randy suffers a heart attack he is told that he can no longer wrestle causing him to work in a supermarket for spare cash whilst at the same time trying to win the love of his once neglected daughter.

I think I can well and truly say that Mickey Rourke owns this film bringing a very human character to the screen. We can truly sympathise with a tortured soul who has lost everything important to him (partially through his own errors) and is remorseful and want it back. One particular powerful aspect of the story was of Rourke’s attempt to make amends with his daughter, the ultimate outcome leaving him truly remorseful.

I feel that this role strongly mirrors Rourke in real life a man who in his own words ‘fucked his career up’.

Worth noting also is Darren Aronovsky’s gritty directing style with its off-the-wall throwaway dialogue and documentary style camera work. One scene particularly impressive is a post match scene where Rourke and an opponent are tending to their wounds whilst we the audience are treated to flashbacks displaying how they got those said wounds. This is proper cringe worthy material.

The masterstroke for me however was the end scene involving Rourke in a comeback wrestling match. However this is different to your average wrestling/boxing match scene as it involves the lead character having a heart condition preventing his ability to fight. As a viewer I was absolutely caught up in the drama and suspense knowing that he may well die in this fight. Suddenly the screen fades to black, cue the end credits. The reason for this is that you’re not meant to know whether he survived or not. I felt that this was the perfect way to end the film because it left a sense of ambiguity.

Some people didn’t understand this and therefore immediately claimed they didn’t like the film as a result. As fellow film student Matt Waters said “some people just don’t get things.”
I personally loved this film. It was depressing in the best sense. I do like Rocky (the first one) but for me this is quite simply better.

5 STARS

Slumdog Millionaire

Okay so here we have it, the first film I saw at the cinema this year and I must say what a phenomenal start this has been to a year of film.

The film tells the story of Jamal (Dev Patel) a former childhood begger from the slums of Mumbai who enters the Indian version of ‘Who wants to be a millionaire’ in the hope of winner the big prize. However after reaching 10 million rupees, Jamal is suspected of cheating and is taken into custody (after all how can a slumdog succeed further on a game show where doctors, scientists and various other professionals fail). He is tortured and forced to tell his life story, this then leads us to a series of flashbacks of how he learn’t this knowledge.

One of the thing that impressed me the most was Danny Boyles’ direction, delivering his finest film since 1996’s Trainspotting (which I loved). He has truly captured a sense of scope making Mumbai feels like a character in its own right and as always has given us characters that we can truly relate to in one way or another. Worth noting is the way the film is beautifully shot with use of panoramic visions and swooping camera angles.

As an audience we can sympathise with Jamal’s quest to be with the one he loves as well as his strained relations with his brother. For me one particular performance that stood out was the game show host (who’s name I don’t know). As opposed to Britain’s Chris Tarrant (who I feel is just a little too family friendly and a little too ITV for my liking), this game show host is far more cheeky making fun of Jamal harsh background. Also worth noting is how snide and conniving he becomes when the cameras stop rolling.

If I was to categorize this film I would describe it as ‘feel good’ cinema, however what’s impressive is how for most of the film we witness very dark and shocking moments (such as people being burn’t alive) yet you still feel a warm glow by the time the credits role.
Overall I feel the ever prominent Danny Boyle has turned out one of the finest underdog rags to riches story I have personally seen. Brilliantly executed and put together. (word of warning: leave the cinema the moment the credits roll or you’ll be ‘treated’ to a bollywood song and dance number).

5 STARS